The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

PDN

eviltwin wrote: »

I've amended that post now PDN, can you respond in kind and remove my warning?

No.

But if you have any questions or comments about moderating please address them via PM rather than inthread.

Thanks

ISAW

F12 wrote: »

So they will now do the right thing, and make sure that the liability to compensation caused by members of their religious institutions is paid in full, as agreed, without delay and without being dragged into discussion with those who are trying to do the right thing?

The liability etc. and payments (which i will remind you in are excess -measured by average payment per person as well as gross figures - of amounts paid in the UK and Australia and the standards required for compensation were much lower than that demanded by the state elsewhere where for example mandatory court appearances and evidence of abuse were required) are not withing the remit of the Vatican but the local diocese or order involved. The Vatican don't decide how much or to whom or decide on criminal action. All the Vatican do is file the case and if necessary.

Will they not rest until all collective liability has been fully paid to those who rightly seek and are due it, and will make sure that the citizens of this country are not unjustly burdened by their onerous debt to the society upon which they perpetrated the most evil and abominable of offences - child rape, brutality and mental torture? In other words, will they do the right and supposedly Christian thing, without any further delay and avoidance?

funny how you dont seem to apply the same standard to bankers and developers? how come you dont demand people not rest until all collective liability has been fully paid to those who rightly seek and are due it, and will make sure that the citizens of this country are not unjustly burdened by their onerous debt to the society upon which they perpetrated the most evil and abominable of offences loaning people money when they knew the price of property was too high and people were living beyond their means.

Expressions of concern and the wringing of hands is of no use to anyone, without backing it up with correct and just remedy to those injured.

I agree - and you have been shown payments already made in are excess -measured by average payment per person as well as gross figures - of amounts paid by the state in the UK and Australia and the standards required for compensation were much lower than that demanded by the state elsewhere where for example mandatory court appearances and evidence of abuse were required. Also the church reacted in advance of the state and acted to a greater degree than non state agencies -including victims groups for example who did not implement mandatory reporting when the church did it a decade ago.

Talk is talk, and action is action, and what we are seeing so far is basically more talk about talk with little action being done to resolve the issues, along with adding further insults to the injured due to the exacerbative seeking of legalistic avenues of avoidance. Is this the way Jesus would have done things? If they don't do the right and just thing, then the outcome proves the point that it's all just talk.

Your position is uninformed.

ratticus

Wow, are you really comparing the rape and abuse of children by those they were taught to trust to the current economic crisis? Shame on you.

ISAW

ratticus wrote: »

Wow, are you really comparing the rape and abuse of children by those they were taught to trust to the current economic crisis? Shame on you.

Yes I am comparing the general principle that if wrong is done and we know who did it that we should react to that wrong. for example finances but if you want to restrict it to only child sexual abuse would you not also be concerned with the abuse of the other 99% plus of abusers in the last fifty years who were not priests? And in the last decade with the 99.99% plus of abusers who are not priests?

Could you also deal with the issues and principles raised instead of attacking the person raising them?

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

would you not also be concerned with the abuse of the other 99% plus of abusers in the last fifty years who were not priests? And in the last decade with the 99.99% plus of abusers who are not priests?

I would indeed be concerned about the non-clerical abusers. However, how many paedophiles have been effectively protected by an institution that controlled moral behaviour?
How many of the non-clerical abusers were allowed to continue their raping of people, children or otherwise, because of a desire to avoid scandal by their superiors?
How many of these institutions carried out their own investigations into abuse and failed to inform the parents of the children?

ratticus

kbannon; thank you, that is exactly my point.

ISAW: I will 'attack' anyone who raises a point I find repugnant, reprehensible and morally and ethically offensive, and your statement ticked all those boxes.
You chose to post some pretty outrageous things and I replied to them.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

I would indeed be concerned about the non-clerical abusers. However, how many paedophiles have been effectively protected by an institution that controlled moral behaviour?

I dont know - you mean by the state e.g. department of education? By sports clubs? By "family" institution that controlled behaviour? i dont know. the vast majority of abusers i would guess?
And the church certainly the Vatican had no pôlicy to protect abusers.
I am aware of some church officials -whether by inaction or by misinformed action (with the knowledge and permission of the family) or by the very rare case of positive intervention - protecting some abusing priests (numbers in the tens at most). I am also aware currently of maybe over 1000 cases per year none of which are priests. assuming historic rates were similar one could assert most abuse came under this category and not under the "anonymous stranger dirty old man waiting in the dark " sterotype

How many of the non-clerical abusers were allowed to continue their raping of people, children or otherwise, because of a desire to avoid scandal by their superiors?

the vast majority I guess since given at their highest levels of clerical abuse one percent of abusers were priests. i cant believe of the other 99% that more than 98% of these were involved in any non church institution.

How many of these institutions carried out their own investigations into abuse and failed to inform the parents of the children?

i dont know. Nobody seems interested in looking at those other 99% plus of abusers. i wonder why?

ISAW

ratticus wrote: »

kbannon; thank you, that is exactly my point.

ISAW: I will 'attack' anyone who raises a point I find repugnant, reprehensible and morally and ethically offensive, and your statement ticked all those boxes.
You chose to post some pretty outrageous things and I replied to them.

1. Calling me morally and ethically offensive is a personal attack and is your opinion. I stated nothing morally or ethically offensive.

2. Attack the argument I make if you wish but dont attack me personally.

ratticus

Of course it is my opinion and my opinion of you is based solely on what I have read here. I think I have made my feelings on your posts very clear so i shall not repeat them.

We are addressing abusers in the Catholic Church specifically because the Catholic Church claims the moral and ethical high ground and in this case failed, very badly, to live up to that claim.

golden lane

ISAW wrote: »

good question.
Have you considered the fact that no bishop actually broke any laws?
which Irish bishop in particular do you think broke a law inb relation to child abuse?
And which law did they break?


by whom? for what?
what actual crime in what state are you alledging the current Pope committed.

By the way even if you could find a crime he might have immunity from prosecution.



So basically your solution to any problem is
1. assume guilt of anyone you might have read about in the tabloid press e.g Jews Muslims Immigrants or Priests.

2. Remove any people suspected of "crimes against the state" from office.

I suppose you believe you and your "Big Brother" are a better moral guide than the people that the vast majority of people in Ireland accept.

i dont think Stalinist show trials that assume guilt achieve anything.



Ah but is your scepticism and your conscience informed?
On what basis do you not trust?
Do you apply the same mistrust to everything else?




And your evidence the Vatican is operating a conspiracy involving child sex abuse is???

the children that have been abused are the evidence..........and as the abusers have used their position in an organisation to cover their crime....and members of that organisation have done so as well.......then they are all guilty to some degree...........you cannot be the leader and not take responsibility..

to assume that the whole organisation is guilty....is a right decision....based on the fact that there are cover ups...........an organisation.....rotten to it's very core......and still, with worldwide evidence of abuse......they are in denial.....

eviltwin

Comparing sex abuse to the economic scandal is not exactly a like for like comparison

Child sex abuse happened to children, as wrong and all as the banks etc were at least they were dealing with adults.

I am a survivor of clerical sex abuse, today has been a sad, but hardly a surprising day. I think a lot of people like me have given up hope of anyone being brought to account over what happened. I find that hard but find it even harder to see people try and defend the actions of the Vatican and the church here in Ireland who time after time refuse to deal with this.

I listen to statements from people like Brady and wonder are they even human? They seem to have absolutely no concept of the damage their actions have caused, worse they hardly seem to care. I am starting to feel the same about the catholic faithful who still go to mass every week and never seem to question anything they are told or challenge the lack of action. I am one of the lucky ones, my abuser only managed to hurt me the one time. Many others had years of this and much worse abuse than me. I can only imagine how they must feel.

ratticus

Originally Posted by ISAW
"good question.
Have you considered the fact that no bishop actually broke any laws?
which Irish bishop in particular do you think broke a law inb relation to child abuse?
And which law did they break?

by whom? for what?
what actual crime in what state are you alledging the current Pope committed.

By the way even if you could find a crime he might have immunity from prosecution."

Do you actually read what you write? The Bishops broke no law so protecting child abusers is ok?
The Pope might be immune from prosecution so therefore he has done no wrong?
You do not need to look to civic laws to know that it is abhorrent to protect child abusers.

ISAW, you defend the indefensible and that to my mind makes you just as bad as the abusers. (Of course this is only my opinion. You will need to make your own peace with yourself and your god.)

eviltwin

You don't need something to be a law in order to know its the right thing to do.

And people say we atheists have no morals......

Show Time

hotmail.com wrote: »

The thread on Cardinal Brady was closed. Censorship yet again by the CC.

Anyway, he said he isn't resigning. He has no credibility.

If someone was selling condoms in the 1970s, he would have contacted the Gardai immediately. He kept the sexual abuse of children a secret.

Shame on him.

The man has no shame.

ISAW

ratticus wrote: »

Of course it is my opinion and my opinion of you is based solely on what I have read here. I think I have made my feelings on your posts very clear so i shall not repeat them.

That is dodging! You made a personal attack. You cant support it but you support the innuendo you made that I have posted some pretty outrageous things which were repugnant, reprehensible and morally and ethically offensive so now you are saying you still believe it but wont repeat it. that in itself is restating the innuendo.

We are addressing abusers in the Catholic Church specifically because the Catholic Church claims the moral and ethical high ground and in this case failed, very badly, to live up to that claim.

No we are not! In this thread we are addressing whether christian clergy are abusers to any degree more than anyone else and whether organisations covered up for them and how Christians should react to the problem of abuse of children.

Specifically we tend to discuss pedophile i.e. sexual abuse of pre pubescent children.

Unlike other fora it isnt so simple as a listing of Catholic Priests from decades ago who abused. We believe in analysing the problem and looking at christian reactions as to what should be done. To that end the roman Catholic church as the largest denomination is considered. Nor do i like to compare non catholic christian clergy to catholic. In any case should we do so the roman church does not come out at a worse level of offence than non Catholics. we are also interested primarily in how victims are supported and helped as well as how the church and society should react to and or prevent such abuse whether clerical or not.

the reason for the thread was the large number of posts relating to child abuse and clerical child abuse in particular all starting new threads.

ISAW

golden lane wrote: »

the children that have been abused are the evidence

Of a Vatican conspiracy. No they are not!

You may as well say the Jews killed in WWII are evidence of Vatican support for Naziism.

..........and as the abusers have used their position in an organisation to cover their crime....

some not ALL have. And most of the abusers who did were not priests.
Although some were. the relevance of this is the church reacted to such event and brought in new policies. Policies which do indeed involve the Vatican. but none of these policies were "cover up" policies.

and members of that organisation have done so as well

Very few. Of over 100,000 bishops or equivalent in the last century I would not think you could name 10 but even if you could name 100 that is 0.1%

.......then they are all guilty to some degree.....

so if ther are 1000 child sex abuse cases in Dublin (one per 10,000) over the last century (and ther are 1000 per( year currently in Ireland and NONE are priests) then dublin is to blame and the people of Dublin?

......you cannot be the leader and not take responsibility..

so the Lord Mayor of Dublin is to blame? Or the commissioner of the Gardai?

to assume that the whole organisation is guilty....is a right decision....based on the fact that there are cover ups.......

what FACT? A minor number of cases were covered up by a tiny percentage of the hierarchy. whenever they did it they always acted alone and didnt consult another bishop to conspire to cover it up.
The worst of the priests were the same four or five constantly referred to who had hundreds of victims; Outside the priesthood they are dwarfed by the number of multiple offenders; No conspiracies of "pedophile rings" existed in the church.

there were in addition over the last 50 years or so maybe dozens of clerical offenders. There were tens of thousands of non clerical.

There was no policy of cover up by the Vatican or any pope. It is not a fact!
On what evidence do you base a so called FACT of widespread cover up ?

....an organisation.....rotten to it's very core......and still, with worldwide evidence of abuse......they are in denial.....

Where is all this abuse happening in the church worldwide in the last decade.

There are over 1000 convicted cases just in Ireland outside the church per year! where are all these clerical abuse cases happening currently in Ireland that you claim the church is denying? how id the Pope rotten and involved in covering up these cases for which you have no evidence?

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

I am starting to feel the same about the catholic faithful who still go to mass every week and never seem to question anything they are told or challenge the lack of action.

Do you feel the same about the people who call the gardaí when they need them? Do you feel the same about the people who go to/send their kids to school every week? Going to mass does not mean people are happy with what has gone on/is going on. How involved are you in your local parish?

Aid62

Just a suggestion

Write to him and tell him what you think!
admin@aracoeli.com

I think the church and it's leaders are hyprocrites, and a disgrace to Christianity
I'm still waiting for a reply to my email. Wonder will I get one?

optogirl

ISAW, you used to make me really angry. Now you make me so so sad. This thread pertains to clerical child abuse. Your non stop spouting of percentages does nothing to take away from the fact that children were raped by priests. Those children who were brave enough to speak up were silenced and the rapists were allowed to continue to rape. If I knew a colleague of mine had raped somebody, I would go through the proper channels to alert management. If I then found that nothing was done I would go to the police and would pursue it until the person was brought to justice . The rape of children is now and was then the most appalling of crimes and for the likes of Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children is, at best, disingenuous.

Brer Fox

One of the Irish ministers, Shatter I think, in response to the BBC programme, said that if the concerns had been brought to the Gardai, action would have been taken. It's fine saying that now in 2012, but we know that the Gardai didn't do their duty back then either. They too did nothing.

ISAW

optogirl wrote: »

ISAW, you used to make me really angry. Now you make me so so sad. This thread pertains to clerical child abuse. Your non stop spouting of percentages does nothing to take away from the fact that children were raped by priests.

Yes and by non priests. About a hundred non priests for every priest. but nobody seems interested in the other hundred.

Those children who were brave enough to speak up were silenced and the rapists were allowed to continue to rape.

none were allowed continue! some of the already small number were moved by misinformed elements of the hierarchy.
there were very few four or five i guess with dozens of victims (some of them over a hundred) but such is also true of non clerical abusers; ther were no "rings" as exist elsewhere.
for the minority of abusers who were moved -again single digit numbers- several bishops or the Vatican didnt sit down and decide to move them. a local bishop acting on his own made the decision.

that situation has changed. New policies mean the Bishop must report it to the Vatican and also follow the local legal requirements.

If I knew a colleague of mine had raped somebody, I would go through the proper channels to alert management. If I then found that nothing was done I would go to the police and would pursue it until the person was brought to justice .

no you wouldn't. Even if you were an adult woman fifty years ago! Various publications have shown the likelihood is that the vast majority of rapes went unreported and still do today. the unreported percentage for children is probably higher.

Far better to implement policies that avoid the possibility of child sexual abuse and i,introduce profiling and vetting of staff. The church did this and did it in advance of other organisations for example One in four

The rape of children is now and was then the most appalling of crimes

I agree. but it seems people are interested only in rape by less than 0.01% of rapists or historically by less than 1% and the other 99.99% of people who rape children are not of interest to them. How come that?

and for the likes of Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children is, at best, disingenuous.

PS thank you Optogirl for you honesty. Im happy you actually read what I write and dont get angry and react to other pêoples hype and try to understand my arguments before you comment.

I think maybe anyone who was not raped can not understand the effect it has on victims. And then maybe some victims react in different ways.

I rarely discuss my beliefs here. i once admitted i had been a victim (of physical abuse by a religious brother) and I was berated for not reporting it or demanding compensation by someone whose main agenda was claiming without evidence that abuse was endemic to priests.

eviltwin

prinz wrote: »

Do you feel the same about the people who call the gardaí when they need them? Do you feel the same about the people who go to/send their kids to school every week? Going to mass does not mean people are happy with what has gone on/is going on. How involved are you in your local parish?

I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist. I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and oops I used a word the mods don't like you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.

prinz

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

They certainly had an idea of what was happening. If you read the reports you'd see cases such as in a convent in Kilkenny I think it was where a Dept. of Education inspector wrote a report of all their genuine fears and concerns. Was it ever acted upon? No. If you read John Cooney's (IIRC the author) biography of John Charles McQuaid you'll notice that two detectives started an investigation into abuse claims decades ago. Want to guess what happened to them? They were split up and sent to opposite ends of the country to check on dog licences. How many lay teachers turned a blind eye at best, and engaged in corporal punishment too?

eviltwin wrote: »

I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist. I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and fcuk you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.

No doubt, and that's understandable, but how do you know then how the massgoer feels, or what they are saying?

Edit: And before I get accused of supporting Brady in any way whatsoever, I'll leave these two posts from March 2010 here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64949769&postcount=28

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64918473&postcount=47

Brer Fox

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

A lot of sex abuse does happen in public schools. It's a massive problem in America. Not sure about Ireland though.

eviltwin

Oh I have no doubt many lay people knew and did nothing, I have equal contempt for them but we're talking about the Church in this thread. If a teacher in my childs school raped a child and was allowed teach my child would be out of there. I'd feel the same anger towards parents who just carried on.

My family still go to mass, two members of my family are in the orders, I have to hear how every sunday half ten mass is full of children. I don't get it, I honestly don't understand it. It feels like no one cares really.

ISAW

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

Yes. In fact ther is at least one Garda convicted as far as i am aware. There were far more non priest abusers in schools than priests. but you find that in the worst "industrial schools" institutions (about five of the fifty or so in the reports) there were a higher proportion of priests. But this was because such institutions were run by religious orders. Industrial schools account for 170,000 children of which ther are about 250 really serious cases. But
http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp
2010 report page 49

Level five most severe - 29
Level four quite severe - 216

this include physical abuse but let us assume about 200 sexual severe.
that is out of 170,000 children.

About four or five million children went through the non Industrial schools system
I would assume the number of victims while less concentrated were much higher among lay people in non priest =teacher dominated schools.

I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist.

no wonder you are ignorant of present policies and statistics then.

I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and fcuk you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.

If that happened to you i hope you did get some redress; i doubt the church called you a dirty liar however or that such abuse happened to you in the last 20 years.

ISAW

eviltwin wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt many lay people knew and did nothing, I have equal contempt for them but we're talking about the Church in this thread. If a teacher in my childs school raped a child and was allowed teach my child would be out of there. I'd feel the same anger towards parents who just carried on.

But that is what happened. Lay teachers also abused. Much more than Priests. Non priests abused - a hundred times more of them.

My family still go to mass, two members of my family are in the orders, I have to hear how every sunday half ten mass is full of children. I don't get it, I honestly don't understand it. It feels like no one cares really.

so you think not going to Mass is a solution to the problem of dozens of abusing priests among tens of thousands of abusers from the seventies eighties and before?

eviltwin

It would send a strong message. As for your 'if it happened' comment I am not going to attempt to convince you. It happened.

ISAW

eviltwin wrote: »

It would send a strong message. As for your 'if it happened' comment I am not going to attempt to convince you. It happened.

Im not asking you to convince me.
Have you reported the priest you claim tried to rape you to the Gardai?

280special

Anyone watching the Stephen Nolan programme on BBC1 at the moment?

When will these arrogent clerical ******s learn that this is a crime that they must be held accountable for??

Anyone else would have been up on "aiding and abetting" charges years ago !