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
-
-
-
-
ISAW said:
The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.
If an adult willingly takes part in slavery or perversion it may not be illegal but still be immoral. Also, feminists regard prostitution as abuse of women whether they consent to it or not. http://www.feministissues.com/Radical feminism opposes prostitution on the grounds that it degrades women and furthers the power politics of the male gender. Feminists seek to be supportive of sex workers while deploring the work itself as inherently wrong.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.
But they can't remove them either! Once ordained it is forever! If you mean "can they remove them form Temporal office". Yes non clergy can. Indeed non clergy can attain any office in the RCC except Pope. all other temporal offices can be held by laity. A cardinal for example is a temporal office. Also while non clergy cant hold ordinary power in spiritual matters e.g. they can't act as a Bishop non clergy can elect Bishops What do you think "vox populi" means?All power tends to corrupt.
We have been over this. The "They abused children because they were in power positions" is a non runner! In fact none of the abusers were in senior positions. As many as ten maybe people in senior positions who did not abuse did take part in a "coverup" in so far as they moved the offending Cleric ( with the knowledge of the parents). at the time both state authorities and psychological advice was to remove the offender usually to a mental institution. In some rare instances the cleric was allowed to continue in office resulting in more horrific abuse.
In fact if anything you have it wrong way around. Someone who was [already a pedo gravitated to a job which involved children. In 99 times out of 100 this was a teacher swimming instructor policeman etc. In one case in a hundred or less it was a a clerical job. Power didnt cause the pedo Pedophilioa caused them to look for positons of power over children.As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up,
including the papacy.
Where did you read that? It didn't happen everywhere so we don't have a loarge proportion of Bishops but take Dublin. In Dublin ther were four arch bishops and about sixteen ( my guess there are less clergy and currently six bishops you can get the detalis here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/ie.html ) over the last 50 years
Ther were four Archbishops two of which knew. there is no evidence of the other 16 Bisjhops knowing or assenting to any cover up much less the 100 or so other Irish Bishops over the period. We also know that other Archbishops in other Diocese knew about other cases in their own diocese.
There was no central register in Ireland or the Vatican of offenders.
There was no state register in Ireland of offenders clerical or non clerical.
No POPE was involved in making any decisions about clergy in Dublin or aware of what happened there.It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely.
Why? If everybody knew then why were you not out on the streets in the 1970s 80s and 90s with all this? The reports list the people who knew and the numbers of clergy who knew were small. true they made errors in what they did but they were not representative of Church policy.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.
There is no evidence for this pure conjecture!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.
So when it suits you other elements like "numbers of non clergy involved in child abuse" are not part of the same issue and "numbers of Bishops and priests not involved in child abuse or not knowing about it" are not part of the issue but state laws in the UK nothing to do directly with child abuse in Ireland are part of the issue and only clergy are part of the issue?
How can you talk about a level of abuse of clergy is you don't compare it to non clergy.
We have been over all this before and by your own admission you hate the church. It is quite clear you only want to address the victimisation of children in so far as it can be use to damage the Church. You are not interested in the victims of abuse per se but in picking a tiny per centage of abusers so you can try and blame the whole Church for abuse and link the entire hierarchy to the failings of a tiny minority of church officials and an even larger number of non church officials.All elements of the 1%. All still talking about the 1%. All still talking about clerical sex abuse.
No because the "cover up " as you call it extends to non abusers most of which were non clergy as well.
why is clerical abuse and onlythe clerics who responded badly to it and not the non clerics so significant to you? The answer is obvious.I am interested in the other 99%. I expect the authorities to deal with them.
I expect the authorities to deal with the 100% and treat them all equally under the law But you it seems have a special final solution to your clerical problem.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%.
No it isn't and I showed you why. Which you conveniently forgot! Who is covering up now?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.
Encouraging people to debauchery is not abusing them? curious.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.
Vox populi can remove such people from temporal office. It has not happened.
They wqere not in all cases moved to a similar position elsewhere. They were in some cases and that was wrong. The Pope did not decide on such moves.No false premise, and it does follow. Who do you think bears the primary blame for the cover-ups?
What coverups? Do you refer to moving of offenders to positions in which they could re offend? Care to list say ten cases and Ill tell you who I think is responsible or who should share blame whether Bishop, local administration, social worker parents or whatever.The victims? Their parents? The priests who knew? Anyone but the bishops and papacy?
Depends on the case. Bishops didnt know in every case. when they did they acted on professional advice bt they no doubt share blame. I am not aware of the Papacy being involved in moving a priest. Could you enlighten me on these cases?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.
You are just taking a Cliché from a British Baron born into privileged. The double irony is he wrote those words to a Bishop.
in which he stated:I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... My dogma is not the special wickedness of my own spiritual superiors, but the general wickedness of men in authority—of Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, of Mary Stuart and Henry VIII., of Philip II. and Elizabeth, of Cromwell and Louis XIV., James and Charles and William, Bossuet and Ken.No, nothing to do with rules or order. Moral declension. Protecting the perpetrators and enabling them to continue.
So you believe in absolute morals and things being always wrong and this being corrupted i.e. changed from the perfect over time
But was it not you who referred to "modern western" societies having different standards to ancient greece fior example in sexual practice?
So then are you accepting corrupted standards or is it the opposite that modern societies have improved on earlier moral standards due to their power structures? forgive me is i confuse your posts with those of another.
What did you read? Where?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.
I am not arguing that clerical offenders were mre likely to have multiple victims. I have shown that to be statistically accepted. But I would argue that this was because they had more access (e.g. to a whole school or parish) and no convincing statistical argument exists that multiple victims were caused primarily because the cleric was moved.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.
You opinion and it is a decent one but you cant say it is representative.
Did the British and US intelligence cover up the genocial slaughter of Prussians by Stalin's forces in order to maintain them winning the war? Was the Dreyfuss case covered up because he was a Jew? So then political ramifications can result in cover up.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 would. Rather than believe conjecture and media hype and atheists who have an "I hate the church" agenda and did little or nothing for people in the developing world.No, I suggested some of them were. Remember, the bishops were once priests too - if my understanding of Catholic hierarchy is correct.
But the "move them" solution was based on the idea that people could be "cured" of pedophilia. If you are suggesting Bishops one were abusers and then stopped you are suggesting that policy was valid. are you?The covering up of the abuse is part and parcel of the abuse. it is one thing.
But the actual abuse by non clergy is NOT the one thing? LOL
Why is only the one per cent of clerical abuse and the minority of clerics involved in the failed reactions ( and not the majority of non clergy involved in decisions or the successful reactions) of interest to you? Obviouslyt you are not interested in victims bt only in attacking the Church.This may be the only place to discuss other abuse in this particular forum, but it is not the only hread in boards.
Whi is covering up now? You said it before and you were show you were wrong and you tried it again and you were show you are wrong. Now you resort to "I meant in another forum" . I don';t believe you and I believe you are using "weasel words" which you accused others of!
This is the thread for discussion of clerical and non clerical abuse. I am certain if i start a thread on non clerical abuse it will end up being locked and moved here. I have shown you why.I am concerned with improving the church insofar as to ensure they do not get away with raping kids and covering it up again.
You are not concerned in improving the church! you hate the church! You are concerned in scapegoating one per cent of abusers since that suits your agenda of attacking the church. You want to treat your "special group" differently from all the other offenders under the law. If you really care about victims you would care about ALL victims and not just the victims of one per cent of abusers. But tyou want special treatment for them because they are catholic Clergy and you hate the church!I don't care if it withers and dies and I personally believe the world would be a better place without it.
so we should have an atheist society supporting no Church and no god. Like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot? Atheistic Rgimes which slaughtered hundreds of millions! THAT is your agenda.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.
Funny how you don't address that much then is nt it? How is it you attack only the religious ? Not the secular or atheistic abusers? The ones that burned and shot whole families?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.
Of course you are not because that is where you came into this thread and were shown all that was known and the whole history. did t stop you hating Cardinal Brady did it?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,
Rubbish
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65686206&postcount=932WRONG! You are trying to change you claim! You claimed that my posts were off topic for this thread. You didn't claim you were posting only what you wanted you claimed the entire thread was only about clerical abuse. We then entered into a discussion on what your thought the thread was about and you quite clearly stated (having been shown by me that it was not) that it was only about clerical child abuse. It subsequently transpired that you revealed an additional hidden agenda in that you wanted to discuss not only child abuse but how the hierarchy dealt with it!
you initially came in [message 5 ] sayingit is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. ...
Presumably, if there was, there are a fairly large number of church officials guilty of this offence
You came in discussion how Bishops should be charged with crimes!
Later you got cornered on the "this is not only about clerics" by me.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?
Rubbish! You insisted it was only about clerical abuse and you were shown it was not.
Message 903:Most people would say slavery is wrong. Let us assume most world slavery was conducted by white people. Say 99.9 per cent of it. Let us say the public feel slavery is wrong. If you were discussing black people who control the slave trade and I came along and said "but why are you discussing the one per cent what about the 99 per cent who control the other 99 per cent of the trade"? Would you say "but we are discussing only black people who control slavery"? Might people not think you have a problem about black people or do you really believe they would think you are desperately concerned about solving slavery?
and 905
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65593060&postcount=905It was a general point. he didn't say "clerical" child abuse.
It was made in relation to Ratzinger commenting on child abuse.
there is absolutely no way you can claim that Ratzinger above is being accused as having said clerical abuse was OK whereas non clerical wasn't.
It also brings in the medi point from the previous message replied to.
It isn't for you to moderate or decide what is or isn't on topic!
Where I draw your attention to a discussion yu were in which was not "clerical"
And again in 910:I have! It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits! Particularly in a discussion in which anticlericism is central! But if you have a problem about that post a moderator and don't try to moderate the discussion yourself.
And in 921Post about what you are interested in. and we can all see that you already admitted
what you are interested in is who the church hierarchy handled it and not the abuse itself. Why? why as a self confessed atheist are you only interested in church hierarchy? It seems to me that other than just not believing in god your atheism extends into Church bashing.
Furthermore, you also tried to net cop me! You told me what I should be posting on! You tolf me the thread was about clerical abuse. It now seems you yourself ignored your own advice since your main interest isn't the abuse but how the Hierarchy handled the abuse!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.
Dodge!
You are trying to change you claim! You claimed that my posts were off topic for this thread. You didn't claim you were posting only what you wanted you claimed the entire thread was only about clerical abuse. We then entered into a discussion on what your thought the thread was about and you quite clearly stated (having been shown by me that it was not) that it was only about clerical child abuse. It subsequently transpired that you revealed an additional hidden agenda in that you wanted to discuss not only child abuse but how the hierarchy dealt with it!
Then you took a hioatus and when you came bak started into the same fundamentalist beliefs ignoring all the above facts which you have been given ( including a moderators sticky saying non clerical child abuse can be discussed)
Finally you are on the "discuss it in another thread" net cop vibe. You didnt originally claim this and these are weasel words. You clearly staed that you referred to this thread and this group. But in any case I don't want to go to another forum . You go if you want and preach your unsupported atheistic opinions there.
Here we prefer reason and evidence in debate and not opinion.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,
More weasle words. Care to tell me if you were warned not to say I am supporting child abuse? Did you post " I don't believe you are assisting in the cover up of abuse" after such a warning? And what do you mean by "i am not aware of your activities outside boards" ? Do you think I go around outside boards covering up abuse?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?
If you mean do I think it was right for the Church to apologise for any mistakes the Church made then YES. If you mean I am trying to defend child abuse in any way and put the Instution and authoritarianism of the Church first then NO.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.
Run away if you wish. To be fair I wont reply to any more of your posts till after you finish them. I will say a prayer for you.
You can thank God yourself later. 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.
But you really only want to talk about one per cent or less of such people who just happen to be clerics? On and you co incidentally happen to hate the church?
and if there is no crime ( for example in Thailand - forgice me if i have it wrong ) it suddenly becomes ok? Even with teh same child it was not illegal with elsewhere?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.
Well Ill give you and example. Oddly from Gerry springer. It probably was invented but a guy on one show has children urinate and deficate on him with parental consent. the child was not physically touched and there was no law against what he was doing. I think that man ( if the story is true) is seriously disturbed. But he is not a criminal. And ironically I think he needs treatment not punishment. As do the parents and the child. He was also not a cleric by the way in case you ask.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.
when did you become aware? because you didnt say so over a year ago when I mentioned it.Are you saying we should let criminals off because it might be a bit hard to get a conviction?
In the Us they have a thing called "plea bargaining" . You find that is immoral?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.
A non child abuse example Hep C women. compensate them now or leave it drag on in courts and let them die before they get any money?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.
Eh NO! It isn't because such cases are normally in camera. In fact even adult victims usually want no publicity.Are you say that the abusers sould not face criminal charges?
Very good question. I am saying justice should first concentrate on the VICTIMS . And Not one one per cent of them! All the victims! Punishment is only secondary to that.I will try to check that out after my exam.
I will wait.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.
More selective memory
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64980815the above canon applies to CONFESSION. fr Brady was not hearing a confession of the 14 and 15 year old boys as far as i know. If he was then according to the above canon he should not have recorded anything!
Also neither canon 904 or 2368 mention anything which might be akin to "covering up"
The document above dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.
"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.
Finally i have no idea if this is the actual procedure Brady was following.Fanny Cradock wrote: »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.
i.e. non clerical abuse is not out of bounds especially where it relates to analysis of abuse in general.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I am not lyng about it. See the long and detailed savi report http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf Top of page 89.
When you have been shown it is not 5.8 but 1.9 per cent Ministers ( not all of whom might be RC) and you report that as 5.8 per cent of clergy abuse boys then you are lying! THe survey says 1.9 per cent of abusers were Ministers adn NOT 1.9 per cent of Ministers are abusers!
I like what I get is not I get what I like - except you you it seems
Look It was ME who first quoted that survey in this thread. I do not believe you even read it. You looked at one of my references and you cherry picked out what you thought you could sentationalise.
Which is a report based on WHAT?
Based on a phone poll. Not based on actual cases but on a survey of 3000 people.
On page 88 ( the preceeding page)Participants were also asked if the person who perpetrated the
abuse held and position of responsability ...
And WHAT did they find
6 clergy abused boys ( which was 1.9 per cent of the amount of abusers)
you can see it there on page 89
Percent of authority figures abusing boys ( number) girls (Number) percent of overall boys/girls
Babysitter
19.7 (13) 28.2 (20) 4.2 4.6
Religious minister
r 9.1 (6) 8.5 (6) 1.9 1.4
Teacher (religious) 18.2 (12) 0.0 (0) 3.9 0.0
Teacher (non-religious) 6.1 (4) 7.0 (5) 1.3 1.1
Bossb 6.1 (4) 5.6 (4) 1.3 0.9
Coach/instructor 6.1 (4) 2.8 (2) 1.3 0.5
Other authority figures 34.7 (23) 6.0 (34) 7.5 7.6
6 Clergy for boys totalled 1.9 of the population and ADDING on the 12 religious teachers 3.9 per cent you get 5.8
But only 1.9 of that 5.8 is clergy. the rest are teachers. and they excluded reporting this for girls because it would be 1.4% plus ZERO even less than 1.9
But six cases in 300 isn't really a reliable statistical result. Less than four would be more likely from other sources i.e. less than one per cent.Do not forget in 2009 our own ( Irish ) government in its report found child sexual abuse and cover ups in the RCC "endemic".
and you evidence is? any stats to back it up?
You are just like a religious fundamentalist! You are shown all the logical and statistical errors and you keep spouting the same rubbish. either you get new evidence or I will have to complain about you re entering old stuff which has been shown to not be what you claim!And recently the UN committee on torture has ordered our government to launch a statutory investigation on more RCC run institiutions in Ireland.
Again you read something and you make up what you want and read that into the story!As himnextdoor above explained " By effectively 'lying by omission', the Vatican lost credibility in right-thinking minds. That's reasonable, isn't it? At best, the church engaged in protectionism (at the expense of the children) and baulked at exposing its hypocrisy and at worst, the church sponsors paedophilia."
And the retort to that was? you just can't keep quoting a line and not pay attention to where it is debunked.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
ISAW said:
I'm sorry, I don't know what you are talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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.
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.
wolfsbane would you plese leave in a link to my original message so I people can check you are quoting context.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1010
And I would prefer if you put you comments ( the bit in red) on my words outside the quote box.
My post makes clear what are your words and what are mine:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72722092&postcount=1057
If you can clarify what is the problem, I'll be glad to fix it.
Power and secrecy are the source of child abuse in our Modern Western society. If we were in ancient Greece, power and secrecy would not be needed for the man/boy abuse. But we are in our own society, one that rightly criminalises such behaviour, so power and secrecy are required to enable child abuse.As regards you comment that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1055
Quote:
Yes, I should have said I was speaking about our modern western societies. Here it is power and secrecy that enable abuse
If abuse was not about power and secrecy in ancient Greece and yet was still abuse what is the significance of attaching the quality of being a powerful group to abuse if it isnt a defining factor. the only one I can see is to tar a powerful group with being immoral just because they are powerful. i.e. attack the Church on the basis that it is powerful and all powerful groups are immoral. But you already admitted power and secrecy aqre NOT the source of child abuse.
You then change to saying this was only in "Modern Western" society. Do you believe in relative morals an that some time in the future in a society child abuse will be acceptable. The Church position is that it is always wrong.
However, I did not say all powerful and/or secret groups are immoral. Just that being powerful provides the means for abuse, and any powerful organisation needs to take special care its members do not use it for that. Possessing a gun does not make one immoral - but it provides a temptation for those who might want to strike back in anger, or just fire recklessly for fun. Those who own a gun have a duty to ensure that does not happen.
So you can see I'm saying power and secrecy is the danger in Modern Western society, not that child abuse has only become immoral now.
I did not say "they are pedos because they are in power". One may have power and be thoroughly moral. But without power, the paedos would not have survived to run for years. Had they known that once reported they would have been on remand in prison, many would have thought again. But they had power - a powerful church that looked after them when caught.TO take your own words:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...postcount=1055
Quote:
If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?
saee the think is cerical offenders were not operating internet rings like organised modern western pedos. I have discussed this with people from the mental health fraterniuty abroad who oversee such offenders. their opinion is "arrested development". The y view many such offenders as not having emotionally developed and having a childish psyche.
True this may manifest in power in a minority of cases but certainly not in large political power structures which would require adult manipulation. I really don't think you "they are pedos because they are in power" argument is a runner as the causal factor.
As to the basis of their perversion, I agree that problems in their emotional development underlies a lot of it. They may claim it is their natural sexual orientation, but from the ones I've talked with it seems clear that abnormal childhood experiences encouraged abnormal development.
What would they have done about their perverted desires if they had no power? Recognised it for the defect it is and changed their way of thinking; or suppressed it; or kept it to their imagination; or carried it out regardless, and spent most of their life in and out of prison.
Only 10 bishops guilty of cover-up? OK, like only 1 member of the royal family has done drugs today. :pac:Quote:
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?
It didn't have any reason for continuing abuse and it didn't have a policy of covering it up.
Of the ten thousand or so bishops worldwide maybe as many as ten believed ( along with the other non Church elements of society ) that not mentioning it and moving the offender might just make the think go away . One might compare homosexual members of the Aristocracy a century ago or say a member of the Royal family doing drugs today. It might well be hushed up and the "bad elements" removed or paid off or people allowed to get away with it in isolation.
Actions speak louder than words. The RCC today deplores child abuse, and has done so all the time it was covering it up.Quote:
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?
There is no evidence for that. In fact ther is very ancient evidence of the opposite i.e. of church rules deploring child abuse.
No idea. The Borgias, I'm sure. But my quote included the bishops. And I offered it as a possibility, not an assertion.Quote:
2. It sympathised with the perverts, for many of the bishops/papacy had engaged is it themselves?
Not "many". I'm not aware of any popes who were child sexual abusers. There have been 265 popes. excluding anti-popes how many of these do you assert were child sex offenders?
That has to be seen - and the more we see, the less innocent the organisation appears.Quote:
3. Something else?
"Something else" assumes a coverup by the Church worldwide. There wasn't.
*************************************************************************
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 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
himnextdoor wrote: »An excerpt , in English, from that letter:
"All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret."
'Cases of this kind' include child-abuse!
Yes cases of child abuse ( and/or murded) by a cleric were to be dealt with in secret and not made public. this does not mean that the criminal prosecution was to be prevented. If the police take a case of child abuse it also is to be dealt with in secret and not not made public. the case is held "in camera". the "penal procedures" above relate to what the church decides in relation to a cleric. criminal procedures are outside of this.And the second paragraph reads:
"Brady, the archbishop of Armagh and primate of AllIreland, has confirmed to The Sunday Times that he attended a secret canonical tribunal, or internal church hearing, in 1975 at which two of Smyth’s young victims were required to sign an undertaking on oath that they would not discuss what happened with anybody other than an approved priest."
Already dealt with in the thread mentioned. "Secret" i.e. "in camera" court cases are held regularly in Ireland. Brady took the statements of two children. i am not aware if he attended the tribunal. If so he was not a judge he only took statements and filed the report.The penalty for violating such an oath is excommunication. Brendan Smyth might have used the same language to subdue his victims.
Yes . But that does not exclude criminal prosecution. the case was tricky in that it involved a cross border diocese and Catholics would not have trusted the RUC. Likewise the parents didn't want criminal charges laid. No wonder. What charges could be brought? Rape of boys didn't exist. The criminal charges which could be brought had a chance they might not stick and a penalty of months in prison. If the parents were not prepared to prosecute then the whole thing could collapse. All this is in the thread referred to.Apparently, being abused by a priest can get you excommunicated.
Breaking an oath might but I really doubt it. To which canon does this refer?Pontifical secrets and oaths of silence are not allegations; they are standard RC Church procedure and they do nothing for the protection of children, serving, as they do, only to protect the clergy.
You would be wrong there. The whole thing was discussed before. The point about the secret of the confessional not to be discussed by priests under a tribunal is specifically stated if i recall that it was to protect the VICTIM in case that talking about it would prejudiced the case so that the perpetrator could avoid criminal prosecution. Again all in the earlier discussion IIR.I wonder what the psychological impact on abused children who are 'frightened' into not talking about their experiences.
Again IIR the psychological effect of abuse last longer and do more damage e.g. emotional abuse is worse in this sense than physical or sexual abuse.It seems to me that the church regards abused children as 'those pesky kids' and paedophiles are just 'naughty boys'.
It may seem that way to you but you would be wrong about that. What do you expect the Church to do?I have never claimed that the entire clergy is corrupt, it's their system that is corrupt. Good men bound by bad law is as undesirable as corruption.
HOW is the entire system corrupt?I think I understand your meaning. I agree that not enough is being done anywhere regarding child-protection. Is that what you are saying?
I think people are going into a frenzy about it and becoming paranoid. In the park when a child goes out of sight parents are running around like headless chickens. It didnt happen 30 years ago. i have no reason to believe there is a smaller percentage of abusers today. I also feel the above parents have the idea that a man is waiting in the bushes to abduct children. How many children were abducted in Ireland in the last decade? Ten ? twenty? Two? It is always wrong but more children are run over by cars.
In short yes we need procedures to ensure children have a safe and healthy upbringing but we also need to trust some people and not be worked up and sentationalising pedophilia whether clerical or not. In doing so we are falling into the "politically correct" trap.
for example a certain Senator running for the Presidency is currently on the run and being pilloried as promoting child abuse because he is attracted to teenage boys. Also, twenty years ago rape was getting the coverage child abuse now gets. the fickle way the tabloid press moves on to the next "Barbie the Butcher" or " Jack the Ripper" or "Serial Rapist" just shows they don't reflect real values. they reflect a sort of nasty vinvictive streak in us who want to see people punished, who want to attend executions and yell "fry him" when the current is turned on to the electric chair. I would rather a world in which the victims came first and more than that YES I would prefer a society which lessens or wipes out the opportunity or preferable the motivation to victimise.Now that the 'cat is out of the bag', so to speak, the Pope appears to be contrite but is actually still engaged in protectionism.
How so?Did you read the letter? Part 6 is addressed to victims and their families. Part 6. That comes after a history lesson and a little flattery. Very comforting I'm sure.:rolleyes:
And it says?The children should have been number one!
the abuser should have been got to before he was motivated to abuse.He seems naive too; in Part 7 he appeals to hardened criminals to 'give themselves up'.
Yo think he should strap on a red bandana and take them out?Parts 10 and 11 consitute evidence. The Pope acknowledges and criticises the inadequate response to child-abuse and also criticises members of the clergy for failing in their duty.
But this isnt saying the church planned in a corrupt way. Or that senior people colluded.That letter totally lacks substance and in my opinion is nothing more than an act of lip-service.
You cant have it both ways. you cant say the letter is damning and also say it is meaningless.Every authority figure possesses power.
so you believe we should have no authorities. Okayyou are an anarchist. You can still be a christian if you want.It's in their rules; only priests can judge priests; pontifical secret; oaths of silence.
Only the Chruch can judge on ecclesiastical matters i.e. the Supreme court can remove a priest from their office.
and it does not have to be a priest e.g. a Cardinal who is not a priest or a diocesean administrator who is not a priest could be over a tribunal
The tribunal cant put someone in prison only a criminal court can0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Yes cases of child abuse ( and/or murded) by a cleric were to be dealt with in secret and not made public. this does not mean that the criminal prosecution was to be prevented. If the police take a case of child abuse it also is to be dealt with in secret and not not made public. the case is held "in camera". the "penal procedures" above relate to what the church decides in relation to a cleric. criminal procedures are outside of this.
Firstly, I would like to apologise for the tone of my last but one post. I was rude and disrespectful and I am sorry. It was late, I had been drinking and I was angry; I should have waited before I posted.
Also, I applaud you and am grateful that you have stayed engaged with me in spite of my rudeness.
Anyway,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_church_abuse
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims
And:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463780768025678.html
which includes the paragraph:
"Under the previous guidelines, church authorities were required to report any "established" cases of abuse to law-enforcement authorities, unless it was the wish of the victim not to take the case further—a policy that some German lawmakers had criticized for giving the church too much latitude in determining whether abuse cases were valid."
which, you will accept, is problematic; unqualified personnel deciding what is or is not an established case of abuse; could an offer of compensation cause an abuse-victim not to want to take a case further? In the context of child-protection, this seems like an unnecessary 'loop-hole'.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/16/vatican-sex-abuse-guidelines-criticised
Whilst I understand that what you are saying is in regard to established rules and laws, and as such I would agree with you in the sense that the rules of the church have been adhered to, you must surely concede that the opportunity to pervert the course of justice is there.
It seems that the church authorities would prefer to assume that a child who makes an allegation of abuse is lying and that is a dangerous path to take.
Taking your 'in camera' point, suppose a child who had signed an 'oath of silence' were to subsequently report the abuse to the Gardai; should that child expect recriminations for violating the oath and should that child's case be 'thrown out' on a 'breach of contract' basis? If you answer no to both clauses then you demonstate the problem with church law.Already dealt with in the thread mentioned. "Secret" i.e. "in camera" court cases are held regularly in Ireland. Brady took the statements of two children. i am not aware if he attended the tribunal. If so he was not a judge he only took statements and filed the report.
Are you saying that since Brady was 'just following ze orders' he should be exhonorated?Yes . But that does not exclude criminal prosecution. the case was tricky in that it involved a cross border diocese and Catholics would not have trusted the RUC. Likewise the parents didn't want criminal charges laid. No wonder. What charges could be brought? Rape of boys didn't exist. The criminal charges which could be brought had a chance they might not stick and a penalty of months in prison. If the parents were not prepared to prosecute then the whole thing could collapse. All this is in the thread referred to.
It doesn't matter; we are talking about paedophilia which is unacceptable in both states. Arrest warrants could have, and should have, been issued.
Rape of boys didn't exist? It was acceptable until when? Sodomy! Unlawful carnal knowledge! Assault! There are plenty of alternative charges and a few column inches should get an errant priest run out of town minus his religious icon.
But I get what you are saying; there was a social tendency to 'hush' such things up. But those were the days when the church have much more 'clout'. Those days are gone and so are those reasons.
Also, let me mention that there was systematic abuse of children in the thirties by the 'Brothers' and I would not dare to discount the possibility that there could exist today the remnant of a long established club of paedophiles that has used the church as a safe haven. My problem is that church rules seem to offer a modicum of protection to such a club if it does exist. Why take the chance?Breaking an oath might but I really doubt it. To which canon does this refer?
I just read that that was a possible consequence. But as I said before, why should a child be bound by a contract that prevents him or her from going to the guards to report a crime? How does the church's interests weigh against the child's interests in that regard?
I want to be clear, and fair too, my criticisms of clergy abusing children are not confined to the clergy; I think the Gardai and the State have dishonoured themselves just as much as those few errant priests have disgraced the church.
Shame on all their houses.You would be wrong there. The whole thing was discussed before. The point about the secret of the confessional not to be discussed by priests under a tribunal is specifically stated if i recall that it was to protect the VICTIM in case that talking about it would prejudiced the case so that the perpetrator could avoid criminal prosecution. Again all in the earlier discussion IIR.
I think that that is a bit of a cop-out.
How many avoided criminal prosecution because it was not talked about?Again IIR the psychological effect of abuse last longer and do more damage e.g. emotional abuse is worse in this sense than physical or sexual abuse.
Yes, that's right; a darkened room filled with officious-looking men with questions and a little boy.
The term is 'BULLYING'.It may seem that way to you but you would be wrong about that. What do you expect the Church to do?
I expect the church to perform Mass and other theatrical events and to cooperate with the state in dealing with paedophilia.HOW is the entire system corrupt?
Entire?
Just the bits that allow unqualified personnel to deal with traumatised children.I think people are going into a frenzy about it and becoming paranoid. In the park when a child goes out of sight parents are running around like headless chickens. It didnt happen 30 years ago. i have no reason to believe there is a smaller percentage of abusers today. I also feel the above parents have the idea that a man is waiting in the bushes to abduct children. How many children were abducted in Ireland in the last decade? Ten ? twenty? Two? It is always wrong but more children are run over by cars.
Yes, it is unfortunate that band-wagons get jumped on. I happen to know people, fathers of children who dare not participate in bathing their children.
You are right; the media have 'forced' us to look at our children sexually and I don't know about you but I find it disturbing to see a thirteen-year old girl wearing a T-shirt with 'FCUK Guaranteed' written on it. It's a perverse society that can reconcile its attitudes to child sexuality (such as they are) with its actions (such as they are).
But a possible 'peadophile club must be looked into, no?In short yes we need procedures to ensure children have a safe and healthy upbringing but we also need to trust some people and not be worked up and sentationalising pedophilia whether clerical or not. In doing so we are falling into the "politically correct" trap.
I disagree; what we need is to not trust people with our children. Make the rules so as to make trust redundant!for example a certain Senator running for the Presidency is currently on the run and being pilloried as promoting child abuse because he is attracted to teenage boys. Also, twenty years ago rape was getting the coverage child abuse now gets. the fickle way the tabloid press moves on to the next "Barbie the Butcher" or " Jack the Ripper" or "Serial Rapist" just shows they don't reflect real values. they reflect a sort of nasty vinvictive streak in us who want to see people punished, who want to attend executions and yell "fry him" when the current is turned on to the electric chair. I would rather a world in which the victims came first and more than that YES I would prefer a society which lessens or wipes out the opportunity or preferable the motivation to victimise.
I agree with all of that; sensationalism sells.
But eternal vigilance is vital. Somewhere right now a child is suffering for lack of it. And Murdoch doesn't give a sh*te.How so?
In his letter, the Pope portrayed the church as a victim of evil; an evil that can be vanquished if only the people of Ireland would talk to the sky and not eat.
I did not find one place where he said that the policy of the church needed to be adjusted. 'It's all Evil's fault. Pray and fast for all your worth. And repent!'
But he does find words of rebuke for unseen and un-named sinners, 'You know who you are and you're very, very naughty'.
I'm paraphrasing of course but do you really not see how the Pope has seperated himself and the church from paedophile priests without forsaking them. That is protectionism at its best.And it says?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.the abuser should have been got to before he was motivated to abuse.
Ideally yes or, at the earliest opportunity put the case in the hands of the law enforcement people.Yo think he should strap on a red bandana and take them out?
That would be cool though, wouldn't it? I'm sure it would be more effective than praying and fasting.But this isnt saying the church planned in a corrupt way. Or that senior people colluded.
It's not saying they didn't either.
I expect you to come back with 'burden of proof' on this but I would say again that it is dangerous to assume that the child reporting abuse is lying.You cant have it both ways. you cant say the letter is damning and also say it is meaningless.
It is damned by its lack of substance.so you believe we should have no authorities. Okayyou are an anarchist. You can still be a christian if you want.
Not sure how you got that.
To a small child in a darkened corner of the world being subjected to abuse, there is no higher authority than the abuser. Do you really not realise that?Only the Chruch can judge on ecclesiastical matters i.e. the Supreme court can remove a priest from their office.
and it does not have to be a priest e.g. a Cardinal who is not a priest or a diocesean administrator who is not a priest could be over a tribunal
By all means allow the church to have its 'theatre' but it should have no part in state-law or the decision-making process which would/could lead to prosecution.The tribunal cant put someone in prison only a criminal court can
And since paedophiles should go to jail, a tribunal should keep its nose out of any proceedings except in order to enhance protection of children. i.e., to bring paedophiles to justice in the eyes of state-law.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement