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
-
...I said "there hasn't really been an apology, or has there?" which implies I wasn't sure? So....yeah. Whatevs.0
-
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
ISAW said:
Yes, I should have said I was speaking about our modern western societies. Here it is power and secrecy that enable abuse. However, if like in ancient Greece, man/boy sex becomes legal, then secrecy is removed from the equation. Prominent 'liberals' like Alan Ginsberg are pushing for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I'm sure it has been said before in this thread, but just in case:
1. Sexual abuse, and abuse in general, of children comes from power and secrecy. Within families, within institutions, within churches.
Not necessarily. In ancient Greece there were minors - boys - having sex with grown men
It apparently was widely known.We could have orgy societies. Wife swapping and dogging and cottaging going on all over the place. It might not be secret. It would still be abuse.
The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.In fact one can claim prostitution is done in the open in some cities. Is it not then abuse of women? Can someone offer to become a slave and be humiliated and abused and this not be deemed abuse?
Can the members remove pervert priests and bishops? No. Therefore the overwhelming blame for the cover-up lies at the door of the bishops, especially the papacy.Quote:
2. The RCC is rightly criticised for its cover-up of abuses.
the church is its members not parts of its hierarchy. They are only leaders and guides.
All power tends to corrupt. It tempts us to do evil because we know we can get away with it. Specifically, the corruption expressed by the paedophile and sadistic priests and 'religious', and the corruption expressed by their superiors in covering up the offences and enabling them to continue.Quote:
It knows how powerful it is in the lives of its members, so it ought to know how easily that power corrupts
What do you mean by that "power corrupts" ? Corrupts = changes from a unchanging state? What changed? To what specific corruption do you refer?
As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up, including the papacy. It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely. I think it just as likely that some of the bishops had been paedophiles themselves, and so sympathised with the perpetrators and enabled them to continue elsewhere.Quote:
But the RCC put its good name above the safety of its children.
Some of its leaders did. In some cases the Church didn't even know and another authority figure covered up or failed to prosecute because that thought it pointless or better not to.
Really? Figures, please. If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?Quote:
Other churches will have their share of abuse cover-ups, I dare say in proportion to their power and their distorted self-image.
Quite the opposite . Some denominations with less influence have higher levels of abuse.
**************************************************************************
Luke 12: 1 In the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.0 -
Well you know better now don't you? next time you want to post a disparaging remark would you please just do a simple search on it first? It took me less than 30 seconds.
Saucer of milk, table 2, ladies
Apologies for being way too busy to search and instead dashing off what I think is the case. Certainly, any Vatican apology has been underplayed by the media, with the focus being on the screw-ups and the money involved. As a general pleb, this is the impression that's been made.
Thanks for the quote, Plowman! Consider me enlightened, darlings.0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW said:
Here we had MI5 allowing paedophiles to run an boys' home and abuse the boys. (Any other abuse MI5 engaged in is not the subject of this thread). It seems they allowed this to run to blackmail politicians ( must be a big number of them involved in sexual perversion), rather than mere protection of the pervert McGrath.Quote:
In the book Who Framed Colin Wallace? (Who Framed Colin Wallace) by Paul Foot (Macmillan, London 1989), we learn about the Kincora boys' home scandal.
Allegedly:
1. Colin Wallace served in a special Ministry of Defence press unit in Northern Ireland which dealt in "psychological operations."
2. Wallace tried to alert the authorities about what was going on at Kincora.
3. McGrath was working for MI5; the Security Service ignored the plight of the boys at Kincora.
4. In 1973 MI5 set up a propaganda campaign named Clockwork Orange. The purpose of Clockwork Orange was to blackmail and control top political figures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain, including Harold Wilson and Edward Heath.
5. In October 1974, Wallace refused to take any further part in the Clockwork Orange operation. He was sacked and he moved to England.
The husband of a friend and colleague was found dead.
Wallace was accused of murder and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.
On 30 January 1990, UK Armed Forces Minister, Archie Hamilton admitted that several key allegations made by Colin Wallace were true.
Surely if true the State apparatus is actually running prostitution and extortion and blackmail to a worse level than any Church in covering child abuse.
It was a despicable act, but hardly unique in the annals of any state security service. Yet, if it was shown that this happened on a scale like in the RCC, governments would fall and jails would fill with both politicians and government agents.
But what is the comparison with the RCC? What reasons did it have for covering up the abuse and allowing the perpetrators to continue abusing?
1. It thought itself far above all such minor details, thought its people ought to put up with it as a price for a celibate priesthood?
2. It sympathised with the perverts, for many of the bishops/papacy had engaged is it themselves?
3. Something else?
I think (1) is most in keeping with its doctrine of itself.
****************************************************************************
Luke 12: 1 In the meantime, when an innumerable multitude of people had gathered together, so that they trampled one another, He began to say to His disciples first of all, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.0 -
Wow, are you really not getting this? Whataboutery is when you refer to the deeds of someone else to try to deflect from your own actions, or those of the organisation you are talking about. Talking about other elements of the same issue, by the person raising the issue, is not whataboutery.And how about
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65585211&postcount=889
i.e. "Whatabout " the coverup...?
You cant claim it is about abuse and then claim "whatabout" something else.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64934395&postcount=5
All elements of the 1%. All still talking about the 1%. All still talking about clerical sex abuse.You were discussing Brady resigning but YOU brought in other non church matters such as the law of the state (which applies to ALL abusers not only to the one per cent of clerics)
YOU also brought in the Gardaí who are non Church and who have to react to ALL abuses reported whether church or non church. But it seems you only really wanted to discuss the "special case" of the one per cent of Church related clerical abusers.
I am interested in the other 99%. I expect the authorities to deal with them. As I previously mentioned, if you want to discuss the other 99% open a thread about it and perhaps I might join in. I am interested in the 1% and I am discussing here, in a thread about the 1%.Why was that? It now transpires you admit you are are an atheist so it can't be because you are interested in improving the Church. so why is it you are only interested in discussing the one per cent of clerical abusers and you are not at all interested in the other 99 per cent of abusers?
I am not in a hole, nor am I digging deeper. You are, quite clearly an apologist for the catholic church. You can take that comment however you want.No it isn't! Since you siad this in realtion to your claim[ that you were only discussing clerical abuse. You were not discusssing any other matters of the RCC just clerical child abuse. You described the behaviour of the Church ( re clerical abuse) as "despicable" and you linked ME to apologising to that i.e. to making excused for abusers.
Whe you are in a hole don't dig deeper.
You accused me of being an apologist for clerical abusers and I want you to retract that and clarify that I never in any way accepted abuse or trieds to excuse iut.
Can you do that?
So you accuse me of being an apologist for clerical child abuse?
He should be charged with what ever charge is appropriate for the acts he carried out.What do you think an abuser from say 1970 who abused a boy of say eight to ten years of age should be charged with ?
I must admit, I cannot find the source of this. I have read it previously but can't lay my hands on it.Which bishops called the DPP or Gardai and got them to drop charges? Have you any evidence of this happening?
I did not say that. The comment was in relation to compensation and those comments were in response to another posters comments about victims getting money as compensation.So you are suggesting abusers of males from 1970 be charged with rape? How?
Wher is the crime of raping a male in 1970?
In what act will one find it?
I use the term rape as it is the term we now use for some of the behaviour that went on, and clearly when I said "unrape" I was talking about someone that had been raped.
I am not familiar with what statues were in force at the time, but I do know that male rape is a fairly recent offence. Whilst there may not have been an offence of rape, per se, I am pretty sure it was not legal for a man to insert his penis into the anus of a small boy, with or without his consent.
You might find this interesting:Which directives? Have you a source for these?
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/04/17/uk-pope-abuse-cardinal-idUKTRE63G1ST20100417
Additionally, there are sections of the crimen sollicitationis which deals with the procedure that should be followed, as one of the main requirements is secrecy on pain of ex-communication it seems like they did not want the state authorities being notified.
So you are calling my hatred of the church a "wrong" and then putting that on an equal footing with raping kids? Classy.So two wrongs make a right?
MrP0 -
ISAW said:
The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.
Your opinion! People might say cheating on your wife is abusing her and that women having to work as prostitutes is abuse of them as women.Can the members remove pervert priests and bishops? No.
Can a pope. NO! Technically once one is a a Priest/Bishop it can't be removed.
All that can be done is to remove a temnporal office. And non clergy could do that.
Indeed non clergy can be given temporal office e.g. Cardinals.Therefore the overwhelming blame for the cover-up lies at the door of the bishops, especially the papacy.
Non sequitor it does not follow. and false premise anyway.All power tends to corrupt. It tempts us to do evil because we know we can get away with it.
corrupt and evil are different . Law and Chaos are a different scale to good and bad.Specifically, the corruption expressed by the paedophile and sadistic priests and 'religious', and the corruption expressed by their superiors in covering up the offences and enabling them to continue.
corruption as in "changing rules" ? which rules did they change to suit themselves?
Dont forget clergy constituted a handfull of abusers over decades. A bishop might get to hear of one or two in his working life as bishop. That does not make it right but it might explain how they were not thinking about cjhild protection policies at the time. Bombing in Belfast, communism, nuclear testing and other things might have got more coverage.As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up, including the papacy.
You are reading it wrong then! Where did you read that?It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely.
[/qute]
It isnt just possible it is true. You are buying ionto a myth. Ther were thousands of Bishops . Can you name even ten involved in cover ups ( thats 0.1 per cent) ?I think it just as likely that some of the bishops had been paedophiles themselves, and so sympathised with the perpetrators and enabled them to continue elsewhere.
And your evidence is? Of the 10,000 or so Bushops over the last 50 or so years there is not a single case of a pedo but you claim most of them are?Really? Figures, please. If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?
While I admit societies become decadent it was not a case of someone getting get elected/appointed to a job where they have power and then saying "All this power suddenly makes me feel like abusing kids"0 -
ISAW said:
1. It thought itself far above all such minor details, thought its people ought to put up with it as a price for a celibate priesthood?
I agree that maybe they saw themselves as above this world, beyond it. The focus is the next world, is it not, not necessarily this one? I'm unsure as to whether they thought people should put up with it, but maybe they felt they were...entitled, even? Again, this is just my own feeling, and there is no substantiation for this musing beyond that.0 -
This may be of interest...
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Further%20portions.pdf/Files/Further%20portions.pdf
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
I found an interview online with a Belgian priest (Fr Rik Devillè) who, " ... told reporters that he had informed church authorities more than fifteen years ago about sexual abuse allegations against Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Bruges, but no action was taken."
He reccommends the following as a step towards reparation:How are the Belgians reacting? They’re a very Catholic people …
They were, once upon a time. Beginning in the 1970s, the Catholic church has become steadily less democratic and the faithful have distanced themselves from it. It looks to the past, to a power that’s rotting. Progress isn’t talked about anymore, of putting an end to celibacy, for example, or ordaining women priests.
Do you believe that would be a solution for repairing the relationship with the people?
Certainly not by itself. The church must not return to the Middle Ages, but entrust itself in a more concrete manner to the letter of the Gospel, taking care of the poor and the weak, and renouncing the ostentation of earthly power. If not, the only possibility is moving slowly towards its end.
Does anybody think this would be a viable way forward? That this could become a reality?
The full link of the interview is here.0 -
Wow, are you really not getting this? Whataboutery is when you refer to the deeds of someone else to try to deflect from your own actions, or those of the organisation you are talking about. Talking about other elements of the same issue, by the person raising the issue, is not whataboutery.
Claiming you are only discussing clerical abuse and then bringing in cover up of abuse and legal elememts not to do with abuise at all is still discussing only clerical abuse? Go figure.I am interested in the other 99%. I expect the authorities to deal with them. As I previously mentioned, if you want to discuss the other 99% open a thread about it and perhaps I might join in. I am interested in the 1% and I am discussing here, in a thread about the 1%.
You tried this before and you were shown that this is the thread. Then when you had to accept non clerical abuse had to be discussed in this thread you slipped into "what about..." But it seems you don't learn.
You already admitted you were an atheist. You obviously aren't concerned with improving the church. You posted very early on in this thread (post 5 I think) about the legal situation for all abusers and about whether a law could be used against Cardinal Brady.
Brady need I say is NOT an abuser and at the time the abuse happened not a Bishop covering anything up.
this is the thread for discussion ANY abuse clerical or not!
You were shown that you were wrong about your dictat that this thread is only for clerical abuse and non clerical abuse could be discussed elsewhere.
You were shown it could NOT and you quickly SWITCHED to " I do not want to discuss non clerical sex abuse in this thread." not thqat it could not but just that ytou didnt want to.
REaders note: expect the same switch.I am not in a hole, nor am I digging deeper. You are, quite clearly an apologist for the catholic church. You can take that comment however you want.
I take it that you are saying I am assisting in covering up child abuse.
That is what you meant. And you are scared to admit it but if it is not what you meant it is very easy for you to say so. You fail to say you did not mean it.
that is the hole you are digging
Please clarify. do you accept i am not defending abusers?He should be charged with what ever charge is appropriate for the acts he carried out.
Waffle! If you believe an abuser in Ireland from 1970 should be charged for abusing a boy what charge should be brought?
You really don't want to propose anything do you? all you want to do is attack the church hierarchy.I must admit, I cannot find the source of this. I have read it previously but can't lay my hands on it.
Keep digging.
I am not familiar with what statues were in force at the time, but I do know that male rape is a fairly recent offence.
Indeed you do since i brought it up in this thread!Whilst there may not have been an offence of rape, per se, I am pretty sure it was not legal for a man to insert his penis into the anus of a small boy, with or without his consent.
But this is my point. is it worth bring that boy ( now a man who does not want his name in the papers ) into court and spending say 100,000 on legal fees at a chance of a conviction? Or is it not better to give the victim 100,000?
And you might be interested in an RTE programme outlining policy differences between the Congregation for Clergy and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), which in 2001 secured that that all such allegations should be handled by it, not by the other congregation.
http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
Unspeakable CrimesAdditionally, there are sections of the crimen sollicitationis which deals with the procedure that should be followed, as one of the main requirements is secrecy on pain of ex-communication it seems like they did not want the state authorities being notified.
No this is in relation to anyone speaking about it in public might void a further criminal prosecution . I believe it is already answered in this thread.So you are calling my hatred of the church a "wrong" and then putting that on an equal footing with raping kids? Classy.
Where did I do that?0 -
Very helpful! Thanks.This may be of interest...
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Further%20portions.pdf/Files/Further%20portions.pdf
MrP0 -
Asry, the Church will never have women priests, it just can't happen. I'm a woman and a Catholic and I am in total agreement and understanding as to the reasons why a woman cannot be a priest. You should research a bit more, especially about the Eucharist too ...or even run a search here, it has been discussed many times on this very forum.
0 -
This may be of interest...
http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Further%20portions.pdf/Files/Further%20portions.pdf
MrP
Why would it be?
You refer to a 46 page doccument and you cant show any part of it as being relecvant?
This may be of interest
www.bible.com0 -
meow meow.
Just flipping through that justice.ie link there, a lot of things jump out at me. It's easy to peruse, just short paragraphs per page. Even just this, which I found at the beginning:Archbishop Ryan failed to properly investigate complaints, among
others, against Fr McNamee, Fr Maguire, Fr Ioannes*, Fr Jovito*, Fr
Septimus* and Fr Carney. He also ignored the advice given by a psychiatrist
in the case of Fr Moore that he should not be placed in a parish setting. Fr
Moore was subsequently convicted of a serious sexual assault on a young
teenager while working as a parish curate0 -
Asry, the Church will never have women priests, it just can't happen. I'm a woman and a Catholic and I am in total agreement and understanding as to the reasons why a woman cannot be a priest. You should research a bit more, especially about the Eucharist too ...or even run a search here, it has been discussed many times on this very forum.
Oh, I know the reasoning behind it. I get it. The apostles were all men. Therefore Jesus wanted only men to be his priests. I understand that it absolutely will never happen in the RCC at least.0 -
The apostles were all men. Therefore Jesus wanted only men to be his priests.
Flawed logic there surely. None of the apostles were black or asian. You cannot say therefore Jesus only wanted priests who were not black or asian.
There should be no discrimination on grounds of sex, sexual orientation or race.0 -
But the way it is seen is that it's not discrimination against women, it's just that men and women have different jobs to do.
As to which jobs the women are meant to be good at, I have no idea, but I'm going to read John Paul II's MULIERIS DIGNITATEM this evening and see what he has to say.0 -
ISAW said:
Wife-swapping is not cheating on your wife - she is engaged in it. As for women 'having' to work as prostitutes, any interviews I've read showed they choose to do so to avoid boring/low paid jobs, or to fund their drugs habit. Not abuse, but self-abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.
Your opinion! People might say cheating on your wife is abusing her and that women having to work as prostitutes is abuse of them as women.
It is the office we are speaking of - the position of power that enables abuse. The bishops/papacy did not remove them from such positions, but rather quietly moved them to new positions to continue the abuse.Quote:
Can the members remove pervert priests and bishops? No.
Can a pope. NO! Technically once one is a a Priest/Bishop it can't be removed.
All that can be done is to remove a temnporal office. And non clergy could do that.
Indeed non clergy can be given temporal office e.g. Cardinals.
No false premise, and it does follow. Who do you think bears the primary blame for the cover-ups? The victims? Their parents? The priests who knew? Anyone but the bishops and papacy?Quote:
Therefore the overwhelming blame for the cover-up lies at the door of the bishops, especially the papacy.
Non sequitor it does not follow. and false premise anyway.
What a strange thing to say! It is a truism that power tends to corrupt: corrupt in the moral sense, not in a lack of order.Quote:
All power tends to corrupt. It tempts us to do evil because we know we can get away with it.
corrupt and evil are different . Law and Chaos are a different scale to good and bad.
No, nothing to do with rules or order. Moral declension. Protecting the perpetrators and enabling them to continue.Quote:
Specifically, the corruption expressed by the paedophile and sadistic priests and 'religious', and the corruption expressed by their superiors in covering up the offences and enabling them to continue.
corruption as in "changing rules" ? which rules did they change to suit themselves?
Not from what I've read. And each priest did not commit one offence - it was years-long multiple offences. Offences that often continued after the bishop became aware of the original offences.Dont forget clergy constituted a handfull of abusers over decades. A bishop might get to hear of one or two in his working life as bishop.
I grew up with the threat of WW3, and later with the Troubles. I had personal friends maimed and murdered. But I would not have covered-up sexual abuse of those in my care - much less allowed it to continue. It would have been at least as big on my horizon as the other problems around me.That does not make it right but it might explain how they were not thinking about cjhild protection policies at the time. Bombing in Belfast, communism, nuclear testing and other things might have got more coverage.
From priests who sacrificed their careers to protect the victims - like Fr. Tom Doyle.Quote:
As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up, including the papacy.
You are reading it wrong then! Where did you read that?
I seem to recall several in Ireland alone. And many in the USA, Germany, Belgium, Australia - and of course those who knew in Rome. It will be interesting to find out what has been happening in all the other countries of the world.It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely.
It isnt just possible it is true. You are buying ionto a myth. Ther were thousands of Bishops . Can you name even ten involved in cover ups ( thats 0.1 per cent) ?
No, I suggested some of them were. Remember, the bishops were once priests too - if my understanding of Catholic hierarchy is correct.Quote:
I think it just as likely that some of the bishops had been paedophiles themselves, and so sympathised with the perpetrators and enabled them to continue elsewhere.
And your evidence is? Of the 10,000 or so Bushops over the last 50 or so years there is not a single case of a pedo but you claim most of them are?
Quite so. It will tempt each in his own way. Theft, cruelty, vanity, adultery, murder, homosexuality, paedophilia, gluttony, etc. It will give the means for the desires known or unknown to come out.Quote:
Really? Figures, please. If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?
While I admit societies become decadent it was not a case of someone getting get elected/appointed to a job where they have power and then saying "All this power suddenly makes me feel like abusing kids"
*****************************************************************************
2 Chronicles 26:16 But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the LORD his God by entering the temple of the LORD to burn incense on the altar of incense.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh, I know the reasoning behind it. I get it. The apostles were all men. Therefore Jesus wanted only men to be his priests. I understand that it absolutely will never happen in the RCC at least.
I can't speak for the RC defence of male-only priesthood, as I'm not a Catholic and I don't believe there is a separate priesthood in the Church.
But the NT defence of a male-only pastorate is not based on the apostles being male. It is based on the specific commands of the apostles:
1 Timothy 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
*************************************************************************
1 Peter 3:1 Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. 3 Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— 4 rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.0 -
-
Oh, I know the reasoning behind it. I get it. The apostles were all men. Therefore Jesus wanted only men to be his priests. I understand that it absolutely will never happen in the RCC at least.
I think that it is more to do with the church being the 'bride' and only men can be 'grooms'.0 -
The covering up of the abuse is part and parcel of the abuse. it is one thing.Claiming you are only discussing clerical abuse and then bringing in cover up of abuse and legal elememts not to do with abuise at all is still discussing only clerical abuse? Go figure.
This may be the only place to discuss other abuse in this particular forum, but it is not the only hread in boards.You tried this before and you were shown that this is the thread. Then when you had to accept non clerical abuse had to be discussed in this thread you slipped into "what about..." But it seems you don't learn.
I am concerned with improving the church insofar as to ensure they do not get away with raping kids and covering it up again. I don't care if it withers and dies and I personally believe the world would be a better place without it. At the same time I realise that this is not likely in the short to medium term, so I am interested in it being improved in relation to child protection. Much the same as I am interested in local authorities, my children's swimming club, my children's rugby club and my children's schools etc also having policies and procedures that protect the children in their care.You already admitted you were an atheist. You obviously aren't concerned with improving the church. You posted very early on in this thread (post 5 I think) about the legal situation for all abusers and about whether a law could be used against Cardinal Brady.
I am not aware of any allegations of abuse against Brady. Knowing there was abuse and failing to report it to the authorities is tantamount to covering up that abuse.Brady need I say is NOT an abuser and at the time the abuse happened not a Bishop covering anything up.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7464378/Cardinal-Sean-Brady-apologises-for-child-abuse-failures.html
So what? I initially believed that we should not discuss non clerical abuse in a thread entitle Clerical abuse as it would be off topic, additionally, I had no particular interest in discussing non clerical abuse in the thread. So what if someone decides it is ok to talk about it in this thread? I did not think it was appropriate nor did I want to talk about it. If it is subsequently found that it is appropriate that does not change the fact that I don't want to talk about it in this thread. There are other places where a discussion of that nature could take place, I believe I even suggested you open a thread in the humanities board.this is the thread for discussion ANY abuse clerical or not!
You were shown that you were wrong about your dictat that this thread is only for clerical abuse and non clerical abuse could be discussed elsewhere.
See above.You were shown it could NOT and you quickly SWITCHED to " I do not want to discuss non clerical sex abuse in this thread." not thqat it could not but just that ytou didnt want to.
REaders note: expect the same switch.
I don't believe you are assisting in the cover up of abuse, I am not aware of any of your activities outside of boards, posting in a forum about clerical abuse is not taking part in a cover up, IMO. Do you deny your are an apologist for the church?take it that you are saying I am assisting in covering up child abuse.
That is what you meant. And you are scared to admit it but if it is not what you meant it is very easy for you to say so. You fail to say you did not mean it.
that is the hole you are digging
Please clarify. do you accept i am not defending abusers?Waffle! If you believe an abuser in Ireland from 1970 should be charged for abusing a boy what charge should be brought?
You really don't want to propose anything do you? all you want to do is attack the church hierarchy.
I believe that he should be charged with whatever would be appropriate at the time. I do not believe that criminal liability should be retrospective, therefore as male rape was not a crime at the time, they should not be charged with that. I do not know what charges were available at the time, nor do I have the time to research them. I have an exam tomorrow, and I am already wasting too much time on this thread.
My proposal is a simple one, anyone involved in the abuse of children, whether it is the actual abuse, the cover up, failing to carry out their duty (gardai or local authorities, teachers etc) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The fact that I do not know the specific charged that could or should be brought is not relevant to this. I believe people should be criminally liable for their behaviour, if it is criminal.
Should it turn out that there is, or was, not appropriate criminal offence at the time, then i would have to have a rethink. That causes me a conflict as I strongly believe the law, particularly the criminal law, should not be retrospective and this would be in conflict with my desire to see those responsible punished.
Sorry, but this is something you can't take credit for. I was already aware that there was no male rape at the time. When I use the term rape in this thread I am using the current definition of it.Indeed you do since i brought it up in this thread!
Are you saying we should let criminals off because it might be a bit hard to get a conviction? The relevant authorities should make the decision based on all the facts. The likelihood of conviction is one thing that should be considered, as are the feelings of the victims. As most of the offenders seem to have abused multiple victims it does not seem beyond the realm of possibilities that there might be a number that are willing to stand up in court.But this is my point. is it worth bring that boy ( now a man who does not want his name in the papers ) into court and spending say 100,000 on legal fees at a chance of a conviction? Or is it not better to give the victim 100,000?
Additionally, we have the old adage that justice must be seen to be done. This is another consideration when deciding whether or not to take a case.
Are you say that the abusers sould not face criminal charges?
I will try to check that out after my exam.And you might be interested in an RTE programme outlining policy differences between the Congregation for Clergy and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), which in 2001 secured that that all such allegations should be handled by it, not by the other congregation.
http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
Unspeakable Crimes
I am pretty sure it specifically mentions protecting the accused and the church, and make no mention of voiding criminal prosecution. In fact, it makes no mention of any actions outside of internal church proceedings.No this is in relation to anyone speaking about it in public might void a further criminal prosecution . I believe it is already answered in this thread.
When you said "so two wrongs make a right."Where did I do that?
I am going to try really hard not to respond again today, so see you all tomorrow.
MrP0 -
Just to clarify for those folks who asked, I think that there can be reference to sexual abuse outside religious institutions if it is for the purposes of comparing it to abuse within religious institutions.0
-
PASTORAL LETTER
OF THE HOLY FATHER
POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE CATHOLICS OF IRELAND
Worth a read at least!0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »
Word salad.
The power of God cannot protect children but the church cannot admit that. The fact that God and His holy men can oversee and fail to deal with child-abuse demonstrates to me that they are 'batting for the other side'.
Mealy-mouthed words from a man who has put the interests of the priests before the welfare of children should be treated as too little too late.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Word salad.
The power of God cannot protect children but the church cannot admit that. The fact that God and His holy men can oversee and fail to deal with child-abuse demonstrates to me that they are 'batting for the other side'.
Mealy-mouthed words from a man who has put the interests of the priests before the welfare of children should be treated as too little too late.
And you have hard evidence of that!!!?
Why stop at the CC it's evidently rife in other denominations!
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=69380 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »And you have hard evidence of that!!!?
Why stop at the CC it's evidently rife in other denominations!
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6938
Are Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope two different people? Was it not the case that the gardai didn't just turn a blind eye to abuse reports but actually engaged in 'covering them up'? Did not Brian Cowen indicate that the abuse scandal was a matter for canon law and thereby withdrew state-participation in the protection of children who had been/are being abused by members of the clergy? Were not abused children forced to sign contracts that 'gagged' them; were they not prevented from talking about it?
The Vatican has been aware of the abuse problem for decades (if not centuries) and yet failed to act in the interests of children and indeed, the action taken by the highest office in the RCC actually enabled abuse; to protect the church they protected the priests and those priests were provided with 'new blood'.
Anyway, religious people don't require evidence, they have faith. When it suits, of course.
It may be the case that paedophilia is not intrinsic to the RCC but it can be seen that there is an organisation within the church that amounts to a sanctuary for paedophiles. And that is the problem; the Vatican's reluctance to acknowledge the existence of this sanctuary and their resistance to bringing about a satisfactory remedy to the problem. The state's collusion in covering up for the church only compounds the problem.
Who speaks for the children?
I do. And I say those children should have justice. The priests should have justice.
Church/State cooperation in bringing about justice for these disgusting crimes would strengthen the hands of both.
And we'd have another reason to be proud to be Irish.
My previous post was a reply to your reference to an exclusively Catholic document and I do not suggest we "stop at the CC" but we have to start somewhere.0 -
Advertisement
-
himnextdoor wrote: »Are Cardinal Ratzinger and the Pope two different people? Was it not the case that the gardai didn't just turn a blind eye to abuse reports but actually engaged in 'covering them up'? Did not Brian Cowen indicate that the abuse scandal was a matter for canon law and thereby withdrew state-participation in the protection of children who had been/are being abused by members of the clergy? Were not abused children forced to sign contracts that 'gagged' them; were they not prevented from talking about it?
The Vatican has been aware of the abuse problem for decades (if not centuries) and yet failed to act in the interests of children and indeed, the action taken by the highest office in the RCC actually enabled abuse; to protect the church they protected the priests and those priests were provided with 'new blood'.
Anyway, religious people don't require evidence, they have faith. When it suits, of course.
It may be the case that paedophilia is not intrinsic to the RCC but it can be seen that there is an organisation within the church that amounts to a sanctuary for paedophiles. And that is the problem; the Vatican's reluctance to acknowledge the existence of this sanctuary and their resistance to bringing about a satisfactory remedy to the problem. The state's collusion in covering up for the church only compounds the problem.
Who speaks for the children?
I do. And I say those children should have justice. The priests should have justice.
Church/State cooperation in bringing about justice for these disgusting crimes would strenthen the hands of both.
And we'd have another reason to be proud to be Irish.
My previous post was a reply to your reference to an exclusively Catholic document and I do not suggest we "stop at the CC" but we have to start somewhere.
I 'read' what your saying, I'm asking for hard evidence, that corruption is from the bottom up to the Pope! not speculation!!! I'm also the RCC by virtue of being a fully participating member, so you are saying the CC as a whole then is corrupt, or just some of it's members!!
I too hope justice is served!!!0
Advertisement