Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 23 - 04:45 PM

You're guilty when you're found guilty in a court of law. Maybe Black defeated the system by dying. Who knows.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 23 - 04:08 PM

It was a weird case . They found her bicycle - I remember at the time. For a long time there were rumours of suspicions about her father. Later on there were tales of alien abduction.

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

Apologies for misspelling Genette.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jul 23 - 12:23 PM

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-35307535

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 05 Jul 23 - 12:19 PM

The police suspected Robert Black of the murder of Genette Tate, but he died before they were able to press charges. So I suppose, in those circumstances, he remains ‘innocent’ as no court has found him guilty. But….

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Jul 23 - 11:57 AM

I thought they decided Robert Black was responsible for Genette Tate's murder.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jul 23 - 06:09 PM

Agreed, Dave, but unfortunately this is a fertile area for potentially vexatious accusations to be made, for all kinds of reasons. I can see both sides of this argument and I get what Georgiansilver is saying. But sexual abuse, especially but by no means exclusively of children, creates wounds that time can't heal. That's why I agreed with that judge I mentioned who railed against the lawyer who tried to use "historical" as a mitigation. You could hardly use that in the case of an "historical" child murder, could you? In the Westcountry we have the cases of the two teenagers, Jeanette Tate (1983) and Kate Bushell (1997) which have never been solved. You wouldn't call the pursuit of their killers a "witch-hunt," would you?

I simply don't buy "historical" and I especially don't buy it in the case of child abuse by clerics. They may crave the forgiveness of their God, thereby hoping for their place in heaven, but their victims are ruined for life and their perpetrators don't deserve a free pass.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jul 23 - 07:54 AM

If it takes any paedophiles out of action or gives some victims closure on an childhood incident, it is worth every penny.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 04 Jul 23 - 05:53 AM

In my honest opinion, I believe that (in the UK anyway), millions of pounds are being spent on investigating pieces of historic paedophylia. Granted, many people (not just men) have been found guilty of such offences but I believe that the majority of investigations prove fruitless for lack of evidence. There is a Website which deals with and supports such people who have been wrongly convicted because the accusers word has been accepted as truth( the Group is called Safari ) Should we or should we not spend vast amounts of money on what has become a witch-hunt?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 05:51 PM

I'm not sure that it should make any difference that it was fifty or more years ago or five years ago. Many victims of child sexual abuse are living a whole life sentence, Joe. Try telling THEM that, well, he's an old man now so let him be. I don't buy that at all.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 04:11 PM

Raggytash, the article says the 87-yr-old former Christian Brother assaulted five schoolboys almost 50 years ago, 1975-76 and has been sentenced to three years and two months in prison. I suppose there are some who would scream that three years and two months is just a "slap on the wrist," but it could well be a life sentence.
I agree that there must be punishment for the crime, even though it was fifty years ago. And I think this sentence is fair. But with this and every crime, I think we need to explore constructive ways of punishing crime. But no, I don't think that any crime should go unpunished.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 01:18 PM

Well yes that is what I am saying. Sixty years ago being gay was seen as an evil act with villains and victims.

Strangely enough I was going round Monkey World this afternoon. My wife has a mobility scooter, but I with frequent stops was going round under my own steam - I have chronic heart disease - one of my arteries runs into the ventricle rather than the auricle, so my heart never gets enough oxygen. Anyway I made it over to this seat, breathing heavily.
'You better move from here, this seats facing the kids playground' counselled my wife.

Its a good thing of course that we look out for the safety of our children. But contrast that with the days of my childhood. WE lived opposite a sec mod school for girls. When the girls were running round the sports field in their gi-normous knickers - loads of old men were crowded outside the railings watching sporting event.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 11:20 AM

It's not sodomy when you do it to yourself. And stop using the word fascist just because someone demurs from your way of thinking.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 11:17 AM

Well Al, yes people are more diverse that is comfortable. Some are mass murderers. There are the Putins, the Stalins and the Hitlers. Some are wife-beaters. Some drag strangers into parks and up alleyways to rape them. Some groom children in order to exploit them for their own sexual gratification. Some collect or produce thousands of images of children, babies even, undergoing vile abuse. In some areas such as homosexuality, more latterly transgender issues, aspects of human life that are not intended to cause harm or produce victims, we try to move on, the wheels grinding only slowly. As a society we draw red lines with regard to behaviours that harm. Sexual abuse of children is one such area. We don't just stand by and shrug and say that, well, that's people for you. That is simply not good enough.

Joe, the judge in the trial of the 82-year-old I mentioned expressed outrage when the defence lawyer put forward the mitigation that the abuses were "historical," tearing a strip off the fellow for trying to use that to get the sentence reduced. For the victims still living with the damage decades later, he said, the word "historical" was entirely inappropriate. I agreed with that judge.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 11:14 AM

Cranial sodomy back at you Joe, my fascist-friendly fiend.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 07:40 AM

https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2023/0630/1392120-christian-brother-abuse/

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 06:33 AM

Joe, you ask what I would do with these abusers, well here is a start.

Christian Brother Jailed

You may have to scroll down the page.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 01 Jul 23 - 04:12 AM

Well I'm sorry but people are more diverse than is convenient.

Quite why not only our society but every society produces Ted Bundys, Heinrich Himmlers, Jimmy Savilles - Idon't know. But that is my observation.

I do remember that my Dad , an ex CID detective earnestly believed what Dr. Webster (who along with Keith Simpson, Francis Camps and Sydney Smith were the top brains in forensic science in the 1950's) that homosexuality was a dread illness and that anal intercourse would inflict ultimately fatal wounds.

I have seen so much change, in my lifetime. of 'educated opinion' on the subject of sexuality that I don't think its wise to be too sure of anything. Certainly Ru Paul's Drag Race and First Dates including gays as mainstream entertainment, weren't on the horizon when I was born.

I remember the disension caused by a book called Towards a Quaker View of Sex, which called for toleration of gays in the early 1960's . I was front page news and in our little Quaker Meeting House in Spalding, it caused outrage. Although some of the elders were surely gay.

I don't know where we'll be in another 50 years, however I know I wouldn't care to guess.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 10:29 PM

I suppose it's a losing battle, but let me give some of the facts from the Guardian story. The Guardian reporter dressed the story up to give it more impact, and then Raggytash did even more.

The offenses in question took place between 1966 and 1979. The offending priest is now 91 years old, and has been retired since 2002. His offenses became known to the archdiocese in 1999, and they were reported to law enforcement sometime between 1999 and 2002.

I'm not sure what motivates Raggytash, but every few years he feels compelled to start a new thread about the clerical abuse of children. The story is always the same, impassioned outrage about offenses that took place decades earlier. Raggytash expresses outrage that FOUR archbishops "covered up" these offenses. I'm wondering what what it is these bishops did to cover up the offenses, and whether these are present or long-past bishops. The priest retired in 2002, after it was publicly stated that he was reported to have molested children. After that, he was no longer employed by the archdiocese, and probably no longer being observed. I retired from my own job in 1999, and haven't heard from my employer since about 2002 - although I'm still receiving a pension. I imagine it's the same for the priest in this story.

I don't deny the seriousness of the offenses and I find the molestation of children by clergy to be particularly deplorable, but I do want to point out that the offenses took place over 40 years ago, and the priest was removed from ministry over 20 years ago. You can find the facts on this and other cases at bishop-accountability.org.

So, Raggytash, next time you want to make a sensation about clerical abuse of children, why not just find an old thread you've started and post a new message with the word "ditto" in the body of the message? Some of us have been working against the crime of clerical abuse of children since it first was reported in the National Catholic Reporter in 1983. Raggytash, where have you been? Where were you when we were sounding the alarm back in 1983?

And as for Donuel, he's had his head up his ass since 1986, and hasn't seen the light of day since them.

[Yawn]

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 06:43 PM

The Greek culture has a sexual reputation. I did not know about Arab culture. Despite a majority of Americans accepting the freedom of who they are legally allowed to love it does not include sex with kids.
The Supreme Court has sided with a minority against LGBTQ. Even though democracy is broken in the USA right now [gun protection, abortion, student loan abuse, affirmative action-all of which the majority is for] there is no voice for sex with kids. Creating a death sentence for the crime should not be the American way IMO.
cat got your tongue or are the silent unsure or cowards?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 05:31 PM

"I think paedophilia has probably existed in every culture. Its something that exists in human make up. It's part of sexual diversity."

You are a thoughtful man, Al, but I think that this is beyond the pale. The exploitation of children for sexual gratification is extremely damaging to its victims. The (now middle-aged) victims of two of the men I referred to were damaged for life, some unable to form normal relationships. To dismiss that abuse as merely part of sexual diversity simply will not do. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying, of course. Perhaps you'd care to rephrase.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 03:21 PM

I think paedophilia has probably existed in every culture. Its something that exists in human make up. Its part of sexual diversity.

A friend of mine who was in the Friends Ambulance Service in WW2 told me that Arab countries were much more relaxed about children and sex. Grandad might wander in and start playing with a little lads balls - and no one would remark on it. Maybe part of the longlasting trauma is caused by the violence of our reactions.

By the same token, you could I suppose ask for more toleration of sexual sadism which doubtless has been integrated into some society somewhere.
Personally I find the physical abuse that my catholic friends and cousin suffered at the hands of the teaching brothers very upsetting. I know that boys from my cousin's school suffered from recurrent nightmares about the beatings they receved.

Anyway - just some thoughts.

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 01:15 PM

Allow me to butt in just slightly, Joe. It's not so much that you missed the point, but more that you diversified into discussing whether the artistic achievements of abusers should be dismissed out of hand once we learn about the abuses. It IS a valid question ((I tried to respond myself), but it did not directly address the issue that Raggytash raised, to his frustration. Had we been discussing the outrage over the coverups by the archbishops for about fifty or a hundred more posts, the slant you raised might have seemed, er, more valid, that's all. One thing you and I agree on is the despicable non-role of John-Paul II in addressing honestly and promptly the abuses. I can't believe that he was sainted. You know me, the militant ex-Catholic Dawkinsite. But I still feel the outrage over that. You can take the man from the Church (though he might not exactly have dragged his heels) but taking the Church from the man is an entirely other matter...

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 08:55 AM

"So we are all for the death penalty regarding clerical child sex abuse?"

And what precisely is this supposed to mean?

Subject: RE: Clerical Abuse of Children
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Jun 23 - 08:28 AM

So we are all for the death penalty regarding clerical child sex abuse? What about Bishops who aid and abet creepy priests?
Wisdom is needed for the hard questions.
Raggytash is not stupid.

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-

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Donuel
Date: 27 Jun 23 - 07:51 AM

I believe I can fly

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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!