The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Irlandese

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, it about the crimes of paedophiles and the disastrous response from the RC hierarchy.

I accept the correction, friend.

Fanny Cradock

Stop calling everybody your "friend" or "dark friend". It's bizarre and I've had quite enough of this foolishness.

Irlandese

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Stop calling everybody your "friend" or "dark friend". It's bizarre and I've had quite enough of this foolishness.

Now that is an interesting re-action.
I am naturally a little curious as to why??
I use the term to remind us all that we are all on a journey and all men and women are our friends. Muslims, socialists, Christians and many others often use other terms such as brother or sister. I can swop to that, if you really insist, but you have to know the gender of the party involved to do so properly. "Friend" is common to both genders.

goat2

Irlandese wrote: »

Now that is an interesting re-action.
I am naturally a little curious as to why??
I use the term to remind us all that we are all on a journey and all men and women are our friends. Muslims, socialists, Christians and many others often use other terms such as brother or sister. I can swop to that, if you really insist, but you have to know the gender of the party involved to do so properly. "Friend" is common to both genders.

thought sante raphael had gone to bed
seems he sleeps with one eye opened

Irlandese

goat2 wrote: »

thought sante raphael had gone to bed
seems he sleeps with one eye opened

Shhhh...Brother,

He may be like a fabled dragon and just waiting to pounce !

Sancte Raphael

*************

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

*********

Interesting. More here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

(Any honest, reasonably intelligent person, can see what game the media is playing. It's smear Benedict XVI at any cost. Throw lots of mud, and just maybe, some might stick. Some mud does stick, in so much as the public, including Catholics, who get most of the news from MSM, not balanced and accurate Catholic blogs and other reliable news sources, begin to turn against the Holy Father. It's a demonic scheme, so very effective.)

Irlandese

Sancte Raphael wrote: »

*************

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

*********

Interesting. More here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

(Any honest, reasonably intelligent person, can see what game the media is playing. It's smear Benedict XVI at any cost. Throw lots of mud, and just maybe, some might stick. Some mud does stick, in so much as the public, including Catholics, who get most of the news from MSM, not balanced and accurate Catholic blogs and other reliable news sources, begin to turn against the Holy Father. It's a demonic scheme, so very effective.)

See Goat ? I told you, Brother !
We may just have to decide to ignore him and then he may really go away with this repetitive and totally unbelievable stuff that, as old Luke Skywalker might say, " comes with the dark side".

I instead really do have to go now, so bid all the brothers and sisters a good night !

goat2

Sancte Raphael wrote: »

*************

The New York Times-- which touched off this feeding frenzy with two error-riddled front-page reports-- seized on the latest "scoop" by AP to say that the 1985 document exemplified:

…the sort of delay that is fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal in the church that has focused on whether the future pope moved quickly enough to remove known pedophiles from the priesthood, despite pleas from American bishops.

Here we have a complete rewriting of history. Earlier in this decade, American newspapers exposed the sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry. Now the Times, which played an active role in exposing that scandal, would have us believe that the American bishops were striving to rid the priesthood of the predators, and the Vatican resisted!

No, what is "fueling a renewed sexual abuse scandal" is a media frenzy. There is a scandal here, indeed, but it's not the scandal you're reading about in the mass media. The scandal is the complete collapse of journalistic standards in the handling of this story.

*********

Interesting. More here: http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

(Any honest, reasonably intelligent person, can see what game the media is playing. It's smear Benedict XVI at any cost. Throw lots of mud, and just maybe, some might stick. Some mud does stick, in so much as the public, including Catholics, who get most of the news from MSM, not balanced and accurate Catholic blogs and other reliable news sources, begin to turn against the Holy Father. It's a demonic scheme, so very effective.)

sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry.

is this not happening now, has it not been happening in the past 50 years and up to today

see you had your forty winks

Sancte Raphael

goat2 wrote: »

sad truth that many American bishops had kept pedophile priests in active ministry.

is this not happening now, has it not been happening in the past 50 years and up to today

see you had your forty winks

I think you missed the point the writer was trying to make. Read it again whilst I eat the orange I've just cut into segments.

Ash.J.Williams

Michael G wrote: »

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.)

The church became corrupt shortly after Christ departed this earth. It is a fact that he is upset at the current goings on.

Seth Brundle

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

The church became corrupt shortly after Christ departed this earth. It is a fact that he is upset at the current goings on.

a fact?

Michael G

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 don't think you can accuse me, or the other posters here who are defending the Church, of trying to excuse or ignore anything that has actually happened. But there can be no doubt that some commentators, including many in the mainstream media, have a wider anti-Catholic agenda. I'm not imputing pure malice; these are people who honestly believe that the world would be better withouth the influence of religion, and they are using this as an opportunity to undermine it. It would be naive to think that everyone in the media just relays facts in a non-selective way, or tries to offers purely objective comment.

scienceoverBS

you dont go to hell when you die, you live it in the here and now.

scienceoverBS

wow thats trippy

wolfsbane

Michael G wrote: »

Thank you for your personal comment to me. But you have come to a point where my view is hard to put in words, though I have to try.

The Church is at one level a secular organisation headed by the Pope, or Josef Ratzinger if you prefer. It is managed, in secular terms, by bishops and their counterparts in the orders of monks and nuns.

But there is another level, which makes the first one completely irrelevant, at which we (or I, if you prefer) believe that the Church is a supernatural and eternal entity that Christ founded, where he is still and always will be the head. We believe that it is and will always be united with him, and that whatever it tells us about supernatural things like faith, it is speaking for him. We believe that even if the secular administrators at one time or another are bad (some Popes were, but not this one, and I don't think most bishops nowadays are bad either), it is still the same Church.

Also, and this is the heart of the matter for Catholics like me though you might not hear it from some of what are known as "liberals", we believe that at each Mass celebrated by a Catholic priest, Christ's passion and death take place again and the priest – in persona Christi, which for our other readers means in the place of Christ – enacts the sacrifice of Christ which saves us all from death.

I don't know what you believe, but for many readers this is probably complete voodoo nonsense. What I have tried to express is why I believe that the Catholic Church is the Church, and why I will stay with it no matter how many members of its senior or middle management end up in jail.

That too is my understanding of traditional Catholic teaching. You are being honest in rejecting the liberal perversions. It's just that I believe you are as mistaken in your way as they are, about Biblical Christianity. It would be off-topic to discuss the meaning of the mass, but the crucial issue you raise in this post is that of whether the RCC is the Church.

How can we hold together a corrupt secular organisation headed by the Pope with the Church is a supernatural and eternal entity that Christ founded, where he is still and always will be the head? The answer is, we can't. The nature and history of the Church is led out for us in Revelation 2-3: here we have individual churches in various states of holiness and corruption. Does Christ promise to remain in them regardless of their conduct? Not at all - He gives them a space to repent and then rejects them if they do not:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

The RCC has been a power-hungry, corrupt organisation for over a millennia and a half. That does not fit with Christ's own promise to the churches. Conclusion: the RCC is not the Church, nor any part of it.

When those in it who love Christ realise this, they will find their chains of obedience to sinful men fall off, and find Christ's yoke truly light.

scienceoverBS

if any member of the rc church was aware of any child in there care being abused and did nothing about it and in some cases assisted in covering up the abusers crimes .are these people just as bad as the act it self, if so why is nothing being done about it, this is an absolute digrace , heres some money now go away and be silent, like a good little boy. i personally what these bstrds named and shamed right up the ladder till there is nobody who was aware of this abuse still frocked. dont think im right fair enough as our faith cant survive unless this is done , swiftly and effectivly

PDN

Look guys, I've had to delete a couple of posts because of some rather silly backseat modding. If you want to discuss how this, or any other thread is being moderated then the procedure is this:

1. PM the moderator concerned.
2. If that doesn't work then PM the Cat Mod
3. If that fails start a thread on Helpdesk (if it refers to a specific incident) or Feedback (if you want to discuss moderation of a forum in general).

I think the Clerical Child Abuse issue is one that deserves serious discussion, and is particularly inappropriate for the kind of petty name calling and winding up that is going on in this thread.

Please try to state your arguments without cursing or swearing.

Avoid trying to wind people up or personalising the debate.

Don't make allegations against individuals that cannot be backed up with reasonable evidence.

Protestants (yes, that means you Wolfsbane) please confine your remarks to this issue of clerical child abuse rather than using this thread as an excuse to vent your theological objections to Roman Catholicism in general.

If we all follow these simple principles then hopefully this thread can continue to discuss an important and emotive issue without having to be locked.

scienceoverBS

i really feel people who suffered this abuse should be aloud to speak out in a fair and just way.instead we get told to sign papers saying we cant.what does that tell all of you answer me that.also i always tought i could have an honest fair debate on boards .ya know without posts being deleted. the only thing i could see in irlanses post was that he refered to you as fanny craddock hardly a deleting offence surley.

Fanny Cradock

scienceoverBS wrote: »

i really feel people who suffered this abuse should be aloud to speak out in a fair and just way.instead we get told to sign papers saying we cant.what does that tell all of you answer me that.also i always tought i could have an honest fair debate on boards .ya know without posts being deleted. the only thing i could see in irlanses post was that he refered to you as fanny craddock hardly a deleting offence surley.

I'm sorry if you don't feel that the 54 pages of comment qualify as being allowed to speak.

There are rules to follow. They have adequately detailed by my fellow mod. Follow them, please.

PDN

scienceoverBS wrote: »

i really feel people who suffered this abuse should be aloud to speak out in a fair and just way.instead we get told to sign papers saying we cant.what does that tell all of you answer me that.also i always tought i could have an honest fair debate on boards .ya know without posts being deleted. the only thing i could see in irlanses post was that he refered to you as fanny craddock hardly a deleting offence surley.

You can have an honest and fair debate on boards.ie

If you want to debate clerical child abuse, you can do it here.

If you want to discuss moderating policy, you can do it on the Feedback or Helpdesk forum.

If the Charter of the Christianity Forum is too restrictive then you can take it to After Hours where the Charter is much more liberal.

Irlandese

PDN wrote: »

You can have an honest and fair debate on boards.ie

If you want to debate clerical child abuse, you can do it here.

If you want to discuss moderating policy, you can do it on the Feedback or Helpdesk forum.

If the Charter of the Christianity Forum is too restrictive then you can take it to After Hours where the Charter is much more liberal.

Our problem is having this thread put in here in the first place.
There seems to be a bias issue here.
I vote we open a new thread somewhere else, probably in agnostics or aetheists or similar

Irlandese

PDN wrote: »

You can have an honest and fair debate on boards.ie

If you want to debate clerical child abuse, you can do it here.

If you want to discuss moderating policy, you can do it on the Feedback or Helpdesk forum.

If the Charter of the Christianity Forum is too restrictive then you can take it to After Hours where the Charter is much more liberal.

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

Irlandese

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm sorry if you don't feel that the 54 pages of comment qualify as being allowed to speak.

There are rules to follow. They have adequately detailed by my fellow mod. Follow them, please.

Come off it, Fanny, we may have been driven to post in christianity
but it does not make us idiots.
we all know where you are coming from on this and why you
are closing down the discussion and deleting selected posts.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

People, friends, lets move this to agnostics, now.
There is no point continuing to try to have an open discussion here.

Irlandese

Irlandese wrote: »

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

Come on people, lets move this discussion to
Religion & Spirituality > Atheism & Agnosticism

Fanny Cradock

And where would I be coming from?

Michael G

wolfsbane wrote: »

I believe you are as mistaken in your way as they are, about Biblical Christianity. It would be off-topic to discuss the meaning of the mass, but the crucial issue you raise in this post is that of whether the RCC is the Church.

How can we hold together a corrupt secular organisation headed by the Pope with the Church is a supernatural and eternal entity that Christ founded, where he is still and always will be the head? The answer is, we can't. The nature and history of the Church is led out for us in Revelation 2-3: here we have individual churches in various states of holiness and corruption. Does Christ promise to remain in them regardless of their conduct? Not at all - He gives them a space to repent and then rejects them if they do not:
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

3 Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth.

The RCC has been a power-hungry, corrupt organisation for over a millennia and a half. That does not fit with Christ's own promise to the churches. Conclusion: the RCC is not the Church, nor any part of it.

When those in it who love Christ realise this, they will find their chains of obedience to sinful men fall off, and find Christ's yoke truly light.

Yes but I don't agree with the idea of a "Biblical Church". When Christ left this world, he left behind a group of people that he had taught both explicitly and implicitly. They had to reflect on what he had taught them implicitly, and develop it under the guidance of his Holy Spirit which he had promised to send them. He told Peter that "on this rock", he would found his church. Then he promised to be with his church until the end.

So the Church has grown and developed, and is where it is. Protestant reformers, and neo-Lutherans since they tried to catch a ride on Vatican II, suggest that the Church was in some way misdirected and that they can
put it back on the right road, but I have seen nothing in their arguments that is convincing or even persuasive. I am still convinced that the Church of Rome is the real thing.

Michael G

Irlandese wrote: »

Come on people, lets move this discussion to
Religion & Spirituality > Atheism & Agnosticism

Away with you, but I won't follow you. Not that I think you don't deserve an answer, but rather that I think you don't want to hear one. The way you talk about us is like this http://www.amazon.com/Introduce-Themselves-Solution-Salvation-Streicher/dp/B000FG0MLQ/ref=pd_sim_b_4. You have not yet said that you want to get rid of us altogether, but you would — wouldn't you?

Seth Brundle

Irlandese wrote: »

we dont want to debate clerical child abuse in the christianity forum, thanks anyway !!

Why? I'm neither Atheist or Agnostic. I'm Roman Catholic - I just don't have faith in the leadership of the RCC.
You are trying to move a discussion about the RCC into a forum which has nothing really to do with the RCC. Do you just find the discussion of child abuse and its subsequent cover ups by members of the RCC to be something that should not be discussed or not discussed when you are around?

Michael G

kbannon wrote: »

I'm Roman Catholic.

Could you say every word of the Creed at Mass and mean it?