Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
0
-
Any comments on this?
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
Interesting article formulating possible statistics for the amount of priests that abuse etc. I agree that that percentage is low and in fact the majority of priests are good.
BUT, although I find the minority of priests who abuse disgusting who need to be prosecuted and convicted, I also find the response of some church hierarchy just as appalling.
They deny, refute, cover-up, spin and lie for their actions in the past which facilitated decades of abuse. They accuse the media of attacking them and even when hard evidence is produce they state its being taken out of context.0 -
i have readI think the Roman Catholic Church has the whole story but other have it to different degrees. It wouldn't be in God's nature to withhold Himself from people who did not have the opportunity to accept and join the Catholic Church.
but you are speaking of way back, today is today, and they still have not improved
now that we hear that the pope hid it, means that we have lost any bit of respect we had, i think they did not live by the commandments,
thou not steal is one of these commandments
yet they stole childhoods from people
thou shall not lie
they were good at that0 -
Any comments on this?
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.htmlSecond, 80% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young alter boy or girls of any age. Technically, the vast majority of priest sex offenders are not pedophiles at all but are ephebophiles.
...
Fifth, a high proportion of homosexual priests do not increase the risks of sexual abuse of minors by priests. Sexual orientation does not predict illegal sexual abuse of children and minors in general. Homosexual men are not more likely to engage in illegal sexual behaviors with children and adolescents than heterosexual men.
He seems to contradict himself. But he does make a lot of valid points. He also has a reasoned approach which is sadly lacking in the MSM reports, with their lynch mob mentality.
Anyway, perhaps someone can answer me this: why is it that this abuse scandal is used as a tool by people with an agenda, usually concerning women 'priests' and sexual morality. It strikes me as quite foul to utilise a scandal such as this to further an agenda.
Bear this in mind: the Catholic Church now has the systems and people in place to make sure this doesn't happen again. But the folks still are harping on about changes in sexual morality (making the teachings more lax, obviously would help prevent... sexual abuse? Sorry I don't follow.) and women priests.
Perhaps someone can tell me why holiness, which is a life lived according to the teachings of the RCC (in which sexual abuse is a sin), plus the structures in place which mean that it cannot happen again (or if it does, it will be detected and nipped in the bud asap) is not satisfactory? Is it the case that they want these other things, and so can use this scandal to make demands?
Is it not a case of some people wanting the Church to compromise with the world, and the abuse scandal provides a nice little stick to beat on the Church to demand change?0 -
i have read
but you are speaking of way back, today is today, and they still have not improved
now that we hear that the pope hid it, means that we have lost any bit of respect we had, i think they did not live by the commandments,
thou not steal is one of these commandments
yet they stole childhoods from people
thou shall not lie
they were good at that
Things have improved in many ways. Shortly, new global guidelines will be issued by the Vatican.
Could you find it in your heart to forgive any Church leaders who failed to do what was necessary?
That's not fair. Pope Benedict did all he could when he could to try to improve things. Since becoming Pope he has done many things to improve the situation. As Cardinal and head of CDF he was not all-powerful nor really is he as Pope, since lots of people are actively working against him even now.i have read
but you are speaking of way back, today is today, and they still have not improved
now that we hear that the pope hid it, means that we have lost any bit of respect we had, i think they did not live by the commandments,
thou not steal is one of these commandments
yet they stole childhoods from people
thou shall not lie
they were good at that0 -
Advertisement
-
he should do the right thing now for the sake of the organisationSancte Raphael wrote: »Things have improved in many ways. Shortly, new global guidelines will be issued by the Vatican.
Could you find it in your heart to forgive any Church leaders who failed to do what was necessary?
That's not fair. Pope Benedict did all he could when he could to try to improve things. Since becoming Pope he has done many things to improve the situation. As Cardinal and head of CDF he was not all-powerful nor really is he as Pope, since lots of people are actively working against him even now.
step down0 -
I agree completely. Some priests were vicious perverts and some bishops tried to hide them, not because they were perverts themselves but because they wanted to conceal the scandal. But the Church is still the Church that Christ founded, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. (When I was a child, I thought of the gates of Hell as a kind of bulldozer that might have flattened us all. I did not understand that the gates of Hell were the opposite; something that Christ would flatten instead.)philiporeilly wrote: »Although I find the minority of priests who abuse disgusting who need to be prosecuted and convicted, I also find the response of some church hierarchy just as appalling.
They deny, refute, cover-up, spin and lie for their actions in the past which facilitated decades of abuse. They accuse the media of attacking them and even when hard evidence is produce they state its being taken out of context.0 -
-
wouldnt lose much
might just might gain
The Holy Spirit chose this man to lead the Church. Do you really think we are going to let the NYT hire and fire our head shepherd? I think not.
Now these are some points concerning the latest news story concerning BXVI:
Some bullet points about the California case with which APs and others continue to try to smear Pope Benedict.
- At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
- The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
- It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
- The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
- Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
- There was no cover up.
- If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
- The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.
Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?
To shut him up or to cast into doubt what he has said and what he will say concerning moral issues.
(Courtesy of FrZ: http://wdtprs.com/blog/)0 -
it was a bunch of people who chose mr ratzingerSancte Raphael wrote: »The Holy Spirit chose this man to lead the Church. Do you really think we are going to let the NYT hire and fire our head shepherd? I think not.
Now these are some points concerning the latest news story concerning BXVI:
Some bullet points about the California case with which APs and others continue to try to smear Pope Benedict.
- At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
- The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
- It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
- The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
- Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
- There was no cover up.
- If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
- The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.
Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?
To shut him up or to cast into doubt what he has said and what he will say concerning moral issues.
(Courtesy of FrZ: http://wdtprs.com/blog/)0 -
Advertisement
-
Sweet catfish,Any comments on this?
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
Dear Friend, I suppose this was the sort of red herring we luckily missed yesterday on the letters pages of the times?
When are the various apologists for the RC Church child rapists going to stop trying to pull wool over our eyes with barely disguised spin-doctoring to save the church and deny the truth re the extent of abuse by priests and religious, the facts re the orchestarated cover-ups that are still in force and were designed years ago by Ratty, ( Cardinal Ratzinger) as head of doctrine of the faith or "The Inquisition" if you like.
All this blah blah babble will not confuse us, friend, it only serves to underscore how low these people are happy to go, to defend the indefensible.0 -
Sancte Raphael wrote: »..........Bear this in mind: the Catholic Church now has the systems and people in place to make sure this doesn't happen again........
Have things really changed that much?
Thou shall not question the hierarchy of the church or you must be anti-catholic, have an agenda or be part of a media conspiracy!
People want honesty and transparency. The drip drip revelations cannot be blamed on the media as they are fulfilling their duty yet they are used to draw attention away from the actual facts. Thats what is called spin!0 -
frankly, all of this is shown to be wrong by the growing evidence, including the text of the infamous cover-up policy letter from ratty already quoted on this thread.Sancte Raphael wrote: »The Holy Spirit chose this man to lead the Church. Do you really think we are going to let the NYT hire and fire our head shepherd? I think not.
Now these are some points concerning the latest news story concerning BXVI:
Some bullet points about the California case with which APs and others continue to try to smear Pope Benedict.
- At the time, the CDF did not have competence in the cases of clerical pedophilia.
- The case before the CDF concerned a request by a priest for a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state.
- It was not a punitive case or an appeal about a sanction.
The request was submitted by the priest and not the priest’s diocese of Oakland.
- The CDF didn’t not grant immediate dispensations to men who were not at least 40 years old.
- Once the CDF studied the case and the priest reached 40 years of age, the dispensation was granted.
- There was no cover up.
- If the Diocese of Oakland was pressing the Holy See to dispense this man so quickly, why did that same Diocese of Oakland permit the suspended priest to work as a volunteer with young people? The Holy See had nothing to do with that.
- The AP and now all other MSM outlets who without hesitation or verification pick up the AP’s sloppy work, never bother to do background and ask basic questions about procedures and timing. They fail in the basics of curiosity, much less journalistic professionalism.
Why are they trying to smear Pope Benedict?
To shut him up or to cast into doubt what he has said and what he will say concerning moral issues.
(Courtesy of FrZ: http://wdtprs.com/blog/)
Do you really think you can change reality by repeating nonsense often enough?
That went out with the RC Church for too many years as policy and practice, while they happily covered up and facilitated the rape and perhaps murder of minors at the very same time.
Repeating the same stale PR trick is actually a sick parody of the terrible history that we now know about and thanks to papers like the NY Times, can see in all it's terrible clarity, as with the secret letter from ratty, written in latin and never to be revealed, in the interests of the church, certainly not of the frightened, abused little children, huddled in corners, waiting for the priest to finish playing with their poor bodies and minds.
Shame on anyone who seeks to defend by false and deliberately misleading spin-doctoring and downright lies.
I say it clear, a child is safer with a shark or a lion than with a catholic priest.0 -
philiporeilly wrote: »Have things really changed that much?
Thou shall not question the hierarchy of the church or you must be anti-catholic, have an agenda or be part of a media conspiracy!
People want honesty and transparency. The drip drip revelations cannot be blamed on the media as they are fulfilling their duty yet they are used to draw attention away from the actual facts. Thats what is called spin!
Using the abuse scandal to beat the Church in order to peddle an agenda is a low move. That is my point.0 -
certainly not of the frightened, abused little children, huddled in corners, waiting for the priest to finish playing with their poor bodies and minds.
Shame on anyone who seeks to defend by false and deliberately misleading spin-doctoring and downright lies.
I say it clear, a child is safer with a shark or a lion than with a catholic priest.
Ain't it funny the people crying loudest on behalf of poor little children today would be the first, the first, to introduce abortion into Ireland tomorrow? This isn't about the children, friend.
Re: your lions talk, a lie is a lie no matter how often it is repeated. Friend.
(hint: please stop calling me friend.)0 -
Of course it has not changed.philiporeilly wrote: »Have things really changed that much?
Thou shall not question the hierarchy of the church or you must be anti-catholic, have an agenda or be part of a media conspiracy!
People want honesty and transparency. The drip drip revelations cannot be blamed on the media as they are fulfilling their duty yet they are used to draw attention away from the actual facts. Thats what is called spin!
ratty's formerly secret letter is still official policy.
They still refuse to fire the Irish Bishops who managed the coevr-ups.
ratty still refuses to resign himself, as the chief architect and enforcer, for many years, of the official church cover-up.
The people who come on here telling it differently are spinning a lot of gobblydy gook for whatever reason.
I have to say that that earlier request from michael G to have someone send their complaint to him personally was really spooky. A Walter Mitty or a sad case or a what?
I find it too scary to delve into any more than that.0 -
Dear friend, you are showing your true colours now.Sancte Raphael wrote: »Ain't it funny the people crying loudest on behalf of poor little children today would be the first, the first, to introduce abortion into Ireland tomorrow? This isn't about the children, friend.
Re: your lions talk, a lie is a lie no matter how often it is repeated. Friend.
(hint: please stop calling me friend.)
Remember the famous priest, Father Michael Cleary?
remember his articles in the sunday papers, especially that horrenduous one where he referred to girls coming home from abortions in england as "returned empties"?
Remember then how shocked everyone was at the news that he had been treating his housekeeper as a sex toy and fathering children for years, while preaching against promiscuity and sex outside marraige and abortions?
A lovely example of a priest, eh?
How your post here reminds me so much of him, friend.
What other little daggers have you hiding in your dark closet, my dark, dark friend??0 -
Can you address my point? My point is, this is not about the children, since the loudest voices now in defense of children are the same people who would wheel in abortion tomorrow. They don't care about children, my precious, precious little friend with cherries on top and sprinklies.Dear friend, you are showing your true colours now.
Remember the famous priest, Father Michael Cleary?
remember his articles in the sunday papers, especially that horrenduous one where he referred to girls coming home from abortions in england as "returned empties"?
Remember then how shocked everyone was at the news that he had been treating his housekeeper as a sex toy and fathering children for years, while preaching against promiscuity and sex outside marraige and abortions?
A lovely example of a priest, eh?
How your post here reminds me so much of him, friend.
What other little daggers have you hiding in your dark closet, my dark, dark friend??0 -
Oh yes, dear dark friend, people who write as you do here really hate it when we remember the little children, don't you, friend?Sancte Raphael wrote: »Ain't it funny the people crying loudest on behalf of poor little children today would be the first, the first, to introduce abortion into Ireland tomorrow? This isn't about the children, friend.
Re: your lions talk, a lie is a lie no matter how often it is repeated. Friend.
(hint: please stop calling me friend.)
Of course, to many who write as you do, the accusations from priests and bishops to the effect that the children involved were like little devils, enticing the good priests to break their vows, would be a whole lot more palatable than the sick truth.
No, I prefer to try to remember the little defenceless innocent children, who were raped and terrified by the dark, hulking adults in clerical garb whopreyed on their young minds and bodies and tossed them away like soiled tissues afterwards.
I read again the horror of the priest using his crucifix to violate the young girl in a church and ask myself, " Is there any humanity at all in those who did this or in those who twist and turn here to try to excuse it all with badly contrived spin.
How my stomach is twisting, friend, to read your words here............0 -
Oh yes, dear dark friend, people who write as you do here really hate it when we remember the little children, don't you, friend?
Of course, to many who write as you do, the accusations from priests and bishops to the effect that the children involved were like little devils, enticing the good priests to break their vows, would be a whole lot more palatable than the sick truth.
No, I prefer to try to remember the little defenceless innocent children, who were raped and terrified by the dark, hulking adults in clerical garb whopreyed on their young minds and bodies and tossed them away like soiled tissues afterwards.
I read again the horror of the priest using his crucifix to violate the young girl in a church and ask myself, " Is there any humanity at all in those who did this or in those who twist and turn here to try to excuse it all with badly contrived spin.
How my stomach is twisting, friend, to read your words here............
Dearest Aunt Lucy,
I am not forgetting the little born children, who have grown up with terrible psychological wounds, but I am making the point that for the loudest voices in the media, most of them at least, it is not about the dear children. It is about bad Catholic Church which stops them having fun (it doesn't, actually, it just teaches faith and morals which one is free to accept or reject). God will deal justly with the offenders who have departed this world, fear not.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sancte Raphael wrote: »Using the abuse scandal to beat the Church in order to peddle an agenda is a low move. That is my point.
Spinning this as an attack by the media to draw attention away from the truth is a low move. That is my point.
It's an easy solution to excuse or ignore the simple facts which is what should be discussed in a transparent and open manner. Otherwise things haven't changed at all.0 -
Suing the Body of Christ is, spiritually speaking, not a good road to go down, trust me. And besides, what are they going to do with a wad of money? Money does not heal a soul. The Pope has apologised, Bishops have apologised.we are not speaking of abortion
we are speaking of a very wealthy organisation, which is like a printing machine of money, yet will not compensate the people whose lives they ruined, and still dont want to admit to their sins, mortal sins0 -
Of course it is all about the children, my dark, dark friend.Sancte Raphael wrote: »Can you address my point? My point is, this is not about the children, since the loudest voices now in defense of children are the same people who would wheel in abortion tomorrow. They don't care about children, my precious, precious little friend with cherries on top and sprinklies.
I pity the mind that can turn out the kind of vile bilge that we can read here from your posts. I am frightened by the words.
I am frightened by the glimpse it gives me of the soul.
I am frightened as the words remind me of the eyes of ratzinger on television.
I am frightened as I realise that the church will not change and that as we write here, countless children around the world, right now, are cowering before similar dark figures as they disrobe and prepare to destroy the lives of, yes, little children.
That is what this is all about, protecting children from RC priests and religious.0 -
what faith and morals, moralsSancte Raphael wrote: »Dearest Aunt Lucy,
I am not forgetting the little born children, who have grown up with terrible psychological wounds, but I am making the point that for the loudest voices in the media, most of them at least, it is not about the dear children. It is about bad Catholic Church which stops them having fun (it doesn't, actually, it just teaches faith and morals which one is free to accept or reject). God will deal justly with the offenders who have departed this world, fear not.
what morals had and do they have
god will look after the offenders
hope peter turn them away from the pearly gates0 -
Of course it is all about the children, my dark, dark friend.
I pity the mind that can turn out the kind of vile bilge that we can read here from your posts. I am frightened by the words.
I am frightened by the glimpse it gives me of the soul.
I am frightened as the words remind me of the eyes of ratzinger on television.
I am frightened as I realise that the church will not change and that as we write here, countless children around the world, right now, are cowering before similar dark figures as they disrobe and prepare to destroy the lives of, yes, little children.
That is what this is all about, protecting children from RC priests and religious.
Dear Aunt Lucy,
With respect, that is nonsense. Priests are statistically no more likely to harm youngsters than the general male population. Anyway, I am not going to continue responding to your dark posts. You sleep well now!0 -
what faith and morals, morals
what morals had and do they have
god will look after the offenders
hope peter turn them away from the pearly gates
God does not desire the death of the sinner, any sinner. You should pray for all poor souls at risk of eternal damnation. This is what the Lord desires: that we pray for poor souls.
And in wishing that sinners go to hell, you are wishing the same fate for yourself, for as you judge, so you shall be judged. Pray for the poor victims, pray for the offenders, pray for yourself.0 -
Hi Philip,philiporeilly wrote: »Spinning this as an attack by the media to draw attention away from the truth is a low move. That is my point.
It's an easy solution to excuse or ignore the simple facts which is what should be discussed in a transparent and open manner. Otherwise things haven't changed at all.
I admire your patience and tolerance.
Our friend is not going to debate anything.
His is a darkly closed mind, quite capable of anything to defend the indefensible.
It is a game to him or her, to tease and twist the truth to try to delay the inevitable.
The /his church has no credibility outside the dwindling ranks of the "unwilling to see".
His words betray a spirit of deep anger and quite frightening attitudes and deficits of human decency. Unfortunately, whether we take Fr. Michael Cleary or Cardinal Ratzinger or Cathal daly or whoever as our exemplars, we cannot but be appalled by what the RC Church stands for.
Yes, there are good people in that church, at clericaland lay levels. But they are not in controland they will never bring it to any acceptable level of security for children. Forget sanctity. It has no place in that church. People who stay in it, are thereby giving it the support of their membership, and have a moral obligation to their own souls or anima, to ask whether they can, in all conscience, continue to call themselves that name that gives some semblance of authority to this corrupt organisation, catholics?0 -
-
Sancte Raphael wrote: »God does not desire the death of the sinner, any sinner. You should pray for all poor souls at risk of eternal damnation. This is what the Lord desires: that we pray for poor souls.
And in wishing that sinners go to hell, you are wishing the same fate for yourself, for as you judge, so you shall be judged.
Pray for the poor victims, pray for yourself.
i will do that then0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi Philip, Goat2,Sancte Raphael wrote: »God does not desire the death of the sinner, any sinner. You should pray for all poor souls at risk of eternal damnation. This is what the Lord desires: that we pray for poor souls.
And in wishing that sinners go to hell, you are wishing the same fate for yourself, for as you judge, so you shall be judged. Pray for the poor victims, pray for the offenders, pray for yourself.
This below is from an earlier post by our confused and confusing, but quite frightening dark friend who earlier wrote "We are all sinners, deserving hell, without exception. "
So, I think, nothing to see folks ! we can move along here! nothing to see! etc. etc.0
Advertisement