Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 07:59 AM

Once again claims are made of the Catholic church knowingly suppressing evidence of child abuse and allowing self confessed abusers to continue to function in the duties of the church.

On this occasion 4 Archbishops in New Orleans went to great lengths to conceal facts that should have been reported to the relevant authorities.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/20/new-orleans-archdiocese-cover-up-serial-child-molester

The prepetrator of the abuse in still living. Is it not time to bring him to justice?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 05:25 PM

Blessed are the priests who cover their ass. Damned are the clergy who uncovered kids asses.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 05:27 PM

It would be really nice if you could keep your tasteless pseudo-witticisms out of what is a serious topic.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Helen
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 05:41 PM

Take your own advice, Steve.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: gillymor
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 08:30 PM

Very creepy, Don and not at all funny.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 08:30 PM

The second post in this thread is tasteless, pointless and adds nothing to any potential conversation on this topic, which I'll have to return to tomorrow as there's been a Mudcat outage and it's my bedtime. I'm amazed that you appear to be leaping to its defence. And I don't indulge in tasteless pseudo-witticisms. I suggest you go back to bed and try this time to get out of the right side. Alternatively, you ignore me and I'll ignore you. Deal?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 08:31 PM

Obviously not aimed at you, gillymor!

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 08:58 PM

I find it astonishing that 4 archbishops could sweep such information under the carpet and protect the, to my mind, criminal perpetrator of such vile abuse. The archbishops first became aware of this in 1999 when the priest "confessed" to his abuses.

Not only should the priest be made subject to the full weight of the law, but I would suggest the archbishops who allowed him to go unpunished should also be brought to book.

I am also amazed, but sadly not surprised, that a poster here should be so crass and insensitive as to try and make humour from it.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Helen
Date: 20 Jun 23 - 10:59 PM

"And I don't indulge in tasteless pseudo-witticisms." Oh, you mean except for the recent tasteless pseudo-witticisms you made with reference to female genitalia in the last week?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 02:19 AM

Is it a double act, Helen? Don shits on a thread and you defend him? How about you both treat this topic with the gravitas it deserves and leave the silliness in one of Don's daft threads. Purely advice and I shall leave it at that.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Helen
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 02:38 AM

Are you and Steve Shaw a double act?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 03:25 AM

Yes. Now will you please leave any more silliness off this serious thread.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Helen
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 03:50 AM

This is relevant to the topic:

A creepy dirty old man thinking about sex thinking about sex in a normal, everyday environment near other people, including girls and women, just going about their daily business, oblivious to his creepy, dirty thoughts.

Maybe this is not unusual for some (or even most?) men, to think about sex in normal, everyday situations, but to crow about it and make it into a big joke on a public music-related forum, open to all people of all ages. Is that normal and healthy or is it creepy and dirty?

And then to act self righteous about the comments posted by other Mudcat members?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:19 AM

Same post in two threads, link won't open, a complete mystery. In another thread I did rail against the pusillanimous use of euphemisms. Maybe that's it. Who knows.

In my own little world, in the last ten years or so I've known three men round here, separate cases, who skilfully hid their decades-old abuse of children from all of the rest of us. One died a few years ago, a man who played music with us. The other two, both old men now, are now serving very long prison sentences. They were both able to conceal their pasts for many decades largely by becoming pillars of the religious community in my town, assuming a cloak of respect that now seems staggering in retrospect. Whether any of their peers knew about them and kept schtum, I don't know. What I've always found disturbing about sexual abuse of children is how often we hear that the context of the abuse is religion, and, even when so many cases in that context are exposed, how institutional religion either appears not to recognise it or, much worse, tries to cover it up.

I was brought up a Catholic and was taught by priest and brothers. I didn't experience or hear of abuse, though I've seen rumours on the types of social media that I've ditched, not least because of that kind of nastiness. In my opinion, John-Paul II criminally neglected this issue, or was in denial maybe, during his long reign. Yet he's now a saint. Wow.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:20 AM

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Helen
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 04:58 AM

A creepy dirty old man thinking about sex

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:12 AM

Nice slur. Your problem, of course. Creepy, dirty old men are men who act on their inclinations. The vast majority of we men are well in control, thanks. It ill-behoves you to make judgements about someone's whole character because you've read a post that you didn't care for (a post that simply expressed mild disagreement about something in another posters link). This is a grown-ups' website and if it bothers you either stay away or grow up yourself.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:13 AM

Damned apostrophe's going missing...

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:53 AM

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of clerical abuse of children and everythibg to do with trying, and failing, to abuse another member. Now, how about you take your silliness to Don's thread as I suggested and let this important topic be discussed without continuing your long term feud?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 06:14 AM

OK, Dave, will do... Oh, 'ang on, you didn't mean me, did you? ;-)

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:28 AM

I think I summed up the mindset of the archbishops.
As for the damned perpetrators, Jesus will forgive.
I won't.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:30 AM

PS: Steve, please stop talking about my testicles.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 07:41 AM

You clearly have nothing of substance to say. As has been said, this is a serious and important topic, so, if you have nothing to contribute, kindly confine your silliness to your own threads, which are many and varied, and which provide you with all the opportunity you need to peddle your fluff.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 01:21 PM

I'm sure if anyone has an opinion you will give it to them.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Jun 23 - 05:01 PM

Gibberish. I've contributed to this via my experiences at Catholic schools and via my grown-up experiences. Other people have made serious contributions. So far, we haven't had a proper contribution from you, though we have had your usual load of flannel. You are being disrespectful to the original poster and are being generally offensive.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 05:23 AM

I also had a Catholic upbringing and, fortunately, never saw any evidence of abuse by priests. Sadistic teachers is a different matter though!

I suppose like all other walks of life there is good and bad in the priesthood. It is just when priests go wrong it seems more shocking somehow. Having people in high places cover up for them is unforgivable but, again, that has happened elsewhere. Look at Savile and Harris!

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 05:54 AM

While birds of a feather flock together and we judge people by the company they keep I do not think most of us know 3 prominent pedophiles.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:29 AM

Would you care to expand on that please? Let me tell you that the only "company" I kept with any of the three was round a pub table playing tunes in a session with one of them. The other two were no more than distant acquaintances that I knew through other people. Had I known that any of them were paedophiles (in their distant pasts) I wouldn't have gone within a mile of them. Would you like me to judge you through your obsession with with one of the nastiest men on the planet? Sometimes it seems that you can't get close enough to him. Now grow up.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 07:55 AM

"I do not think most of us know 3 prominent pedophiles"

Jimmy Savile
Rolf Harris
Gary Glitter
Jonathan King
Max Clifford
Jeffrey Epstien

All pretty prominent

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 08:29 AM

Last year I learned that someone I knew when I lived in N Wales had spent some time in jail for having 100s of child porn images on his computer. Not a pillar of society but he was someone I think everyone liked and respected in the couple of pubs he used to visit. I used to enjoy a pint and a chat with him. I don’t think anyone would ever have suspected he had this dark secret.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 01:28 PM

Point of pedantry:

> All pretty prominent

.... famous (for other reasons), but not personal acquaintances. Test: would any of them have known you from Adam?

We now return you to your normal discourse.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 23 - 01:58 PM

They may not know me MaJoC but I know them. Which is how the comment was phrased! (Just to be pedantic ;-D )

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Jun 23 - 07:18 PM

Jimmy Saville tops the list but may not be known by many Americans.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Jun 23 - 03:28 AM

My husband often growls at the word paedophile, and says he can't for the life of him understand why a man would want sexual activity with a child. He thinks women here in the developed world are so easy to seduce that it's never necessary to seek pleasure with an innocent and defenceless youngster.
Apparently (according to him) if any man did such a thing in Ivory Coast, his home country, the locals would literally tear him limb from limb and beat him to death.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 01:16 PM

Sadly, Sen, a lot of child abusers were abused themselves. Yes, what they do is totally wrong but it became ingrained in them as children. Tearing them limb from limb may seem just to some but making them well again would be a better option.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 25 Jun 23 - 03:17 PM

Residevidism among child sexual abusers is one of the highest.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 01:16 AM

If a sex offender is an artist, how should we treat his/her artistic works? Should we destroy paintings and sculptures and recordings and sheet music and such? Should we refuse to employ these people or commission them to do works of art?
What's the appropriate way to respond? Is their doing the time for their crime enough?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 09:08 AM

"What's the appropriate way to respond? Is their doing the time for their crime enough?"

The point you seem to miss Joe is that the church knew of these abuses but actively helped to cover them up. They did not report them to the relevant authorities so the abuses could be dealt with, they did not sack the people concerned, they seemingly did not castigate them in any way shape or form.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 10:42 AM

It's a good question, Joe. Sometimes the media, galleries, etc., make the choice for us by withdrawing their efforts from the public gaze. You won't see much of Jim'll Fix It repeats or Rolf Harris's animal programmes any more. Otherwise, I think it's a matter of personal choice and conscience. Richard Wagner, though not a convicted criminal, was a rabid and detestable antisemite. His music is admired by millions, but, for others, it's fatally poisoned by the knowledge of his predilections. I fall into the latter camp and I won't listen to anything by him. I'd even argue that his nastiness and ego bleeds through into his art, contradicting claims that the two aspects, personality and art, are independent of each other. The way we individually react to art is highly subjective and valid and I wouldn't shout at anyone who disagrees. Can paedophiles ever be regarded was having spent their sentence? Not in my book, not least because not only did they abuse children but they also deceived everyone around them via their covering up. The three abusive men I referred to up the thread all deceived their friends and families for decades. They made dozens of people feel foolish for not seeing what they'd done. I suppose that the Christian ethic leaves room for forgiveness. Maybe, but my inclination is simply to cut them dead.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jun 23 - 11:39 AM

What a strange assumption to make, Raggytash. No, Raggytash, I don't miss the point that church administrators covered up the crimes of these sex offenders. I get that. I'm not stupid. They should be prosecuted and punished. But what punishment is appropriate?
But if the offender sculpted a masterpiece, what do we do with it? Blow it up? Am I a horrible person if I've sung "Tie Me Kangaroo Down" with gusto? Must I never sing it again?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 23 - 07:38 AM

Whataboutism at its height Joe.
https://www.salon.com/2017/09/03/caravaggio-the-criminal-the-violent-life-and-crimes-of-an-artistic-genius/

To boycott will always be a personal choice.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 23 - 07:51 AM

I believe I can fly

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Jun 23 - 12:39 PM

Caravaggio was an irascible man given to violent reactions when things weren't going his way and he got involved in brawling on many occasions. The man he allegedly murdered was a gangster, and the circumstances of the killing remain murky. I somehow don't see this in quite the same way as a lifelong predilection to race hate (Wagner) or paedophilia (the several people referred to in this thread). The Italian renaissance composer Gesualdo caught his wife and her lover in flagrante delicto and killed them both whilst they were still in bed. He even went back in to make sure he'd finished the job. The authorities, having inspected the gruesome scene and having considered that Gesualdo had been provoked, found that no crime had been committed (!). He wrote some great music but, as I'm not a massive fan of the music of that era, I thankfully don't have to make a choice...But I do love Caravaggio's paintings...

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 23 - 03:57 PM

I think the quality of a work of art stands on its own, despite the immoral character of its creator. So if a work of art is good, it should be judged on its own merit, even though its creator may be despicable. Even evil minds can create good art.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Jun 23 - 04:41 PM

Not sure, Joe. But we are in decidely subjective territory here.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 23 - 07:18 PM

I don't see destruction as an appropriate response to wrongdoing. Even if a person has committed a crime, I don't think it's a good response to destroy or kill the criminal or what he/she has created. There has to be a better way for a civilized society to respond to crime.

I've been working for jail reform since 2008, and I worked with correctional institutions on the job from 1974-99. I've always had this question - how can we respond to crime in constructive ways?

I've known about the sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church since my seminary days in the 1960s, and I've always pondered about the way to respond to it. At the time, US Catholic bishops treated child molesters as mentally ill, and they spent millions on treatment centers to rehabilitate priests who had molested children. After the centers certified the priests as "rehabilitated," the bishops reassigned the errant priests to new parishes. Obviously, that didn't work.

Since 1983, the National Catholic Reporter newspaper has been reporting child abuse by priests, but bishops have largely dismissed the newspaper as a "liberal rag." I've been a subscriber since the 1960s, so I guess I'm suspect. In response to the Spotlight investigation by the Boston Globe in 2002, US Catholic bishops instituted strict controls on the sexual abuse of children, and offenses dropped dramatically. Actions against abusing priests took place in other countries over the next ten years or so. The trouble was, no criminal prosecution could be made against many of the offenders, because the offenses took place beyond statutes of limitations. Civil lawsuits followed, and increasingly the lawsuits were filed against the churches, since the offenders had little money to pay reparations. Reparations were first thought to be generous when they were in the tens of thousands of dollars, and then it increased to hundreds of thousands, and then to a million bucks per victim.

The trouble is, those payments didn't heal the harm done to the victims. No amount of money and no amount of offender jail time can heal the victims. I do think that stricter controls on priests has helped. But nowadays, men are removed from the priesthood under very weak suspicion, and sometimes I wonder if this is fair.

Sexual abuse of children continues to take place in families, in schools, in youth organizations, and in churches. We haven't found the solution yet. And I don't know what the solution is.

It's really a stupid thing to suggest that anyone would support the molestation of children or the covering up of such a crime. That just doesn't happen. Such crimes are repulsive. Get that, Raggytash?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 29 Jun 23 - 06:26 AM

"It's really a stupid thing to suggest that anyone would support the molestation of children or the covering up of such a crime. That just doesn't happen. Such crimes are repulsive. Get that, Raggytash?"

Did you actually read the article Joe. FOUR archbishops covered up the crimes Joe. Not one, not two but four.

Could I gently point out, this was not meant as an attack on anyone on Mudcat, you seem to take these threads personally and in this case attack the poster.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Jun 23 - 07:52 AM

Joe may be upset with DeSantis's veto regarding justice reform
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ron-desantis-vetoes-popular-criminal-justice-bill-moves-trumps-right-rcna91655

BUT MOST OF ALL...

DeSantis expanded the death penalty to include child rape.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 29 Jun 23 - 10:43 AM

> Reparations were first thought to be generous when they were in the
> tens of thousands of dollars, and then it increased to hundreds of
> thousands, and then to a million bucks per victim.

Historical perspective: There was a similar inflationary effect in libel cases in the English courts. This was directly traceable to the fact that juries set the penalty, plus the detail that only record-breaking penalties were ever reported in the newspapers. Inevitably, sums awarded ratcheted up over time, as said record-breaking penalties were all the jury members in each trial had ever heard of.

In one of the last such cases, the judge explicitly told the jury to not let the massive sums reported in other cases affect their judgement .... but he was effectively ignored, and yet another record settlement was awarded. The law was changed shortly thereafter so that judges awarded the penalties, and this thermal-runaway effect was stopped cold.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 02:42 AM

Raggytash, your remark that I disagree with is this: The point you seem to miss Joe is that the church knew of these abuses but actively helped to cover them up.. I learned of these abuses from the 1960s, and it was clear by the 1980s that at least some bishops were fully aware of abuses and not taking action. And it was clear that by the late 1990s or earlier, Pope John Paul II was aware of abuses and was doing nothing about it. Indeed, John Paul was praising Marcial Maciel, one of the most notorious offenders. And I've said all this before.

So, yeah, it's kinda stupid for you to say that I miss the point.

-Joe Offer-