The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Fanny Cradock

hotmail.com wrote: »

Least we know where your loyalties ly. Sickening.

This type of righteously indignant post is really unhelpful. Leave it out, please.

super_furry

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0714/cloyne.html

There are now calls for the Papal Nuncio to be expelled from the country, which would a great decision to my mind. The people of Ireland have finally had enough.

gigino

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0714/cloyne.html

There are now calls for the Papal Nuncio to be expelled from the country, which would a great decision to my mind. The people of Ireland have finally had enough.

Plus we should not be paying to have an embassy in the Vatican. We should withdraw that ambassador / embassy.o

Turkana

super_furry wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0714/cloyne.html

There are now calls for the Papal Nuncio to be expelled from the country, which would a great decision to my mind. The people of Ireland have finally had enough.

Yes, kick him the feck out. But it can't end there. Harder measures must be taken.

toby08

dont let it end there since the rc church are not forthcoming in paying damages (the taxpayer should not pay in cases involving clergy) let CAB take their property

gigino

toby08 wrote: »

dont let it end there since the rc church are not forthcoming in paying damages (the taxpayer should not pay in cases involving clergy) let CAB take their property

Unfortunately because of the collusion between church and state in this rotten country , the taxpayer is paying for most of the damage inflicted by the paedo priests / brothers in the Roman Catholic Church.

gimmebroadband

toby08 wrote: »

dont let it end there since the rc church are not forthcoming in paying damages (the taxpayer should not pay in cases involving clergy) let CAB take their property

Certainly we shouldn't, just like we shouldn't be paying for the mistakes of the Irish Goverment who let the bankers and speculators off scott free, and for which we owe big time to the EU/IMF

Benny_Cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

toby08 wrote: »

dont let it end there since the rc church are not forthcoming in paying damages (the taxpayer should not pay in cases involving clergy) let CAB take their property

Certainly we shouldn't, just like we shouldn't be paying for the mistakes of the Irish Goverment who let the bankers and speculators off scott free, and for which we owe big time to the EU/IMF

You're not holding the church authorities much esteem if you are putting them in the same category as speculators and bankers then!

gimmebroadband

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You're not holding the church authorities much esteem if you are putting them in the same category as speculators and bankers then!

What I'm saying is that the State would be willing to persue the RCC for a few million whilst letting others off with billions! If they go after one, they should go after them all!

Festus

From David Quinn today. Well worth reading if for no other reason than to take a lesson in objectivity.

David Quinn: Where is the media frenzy when the State fails children?

Friday July 15 2011

HOW many people in Ireland know that the clerical abuse scandals peaked in the 1970s and 1980s? How many know that of the several hundred allegations received by the church in the last two years, almost none relate to incidents that happened in the last 10 years?

How many know that a large section of public opinion grossly overestimates the number of child abusers in the priesthood, as a Royal College of Surgeons survey some years ago ascertained?

How many know that Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than comparable groups, which is what 'Newsweek' magazine discovered when it contacted US insurance companies to determine whether they charged a higher risk premium for Catholic priests than for other clergy?

How many know that the Cloyne Report itself acknowledges that the church's child-protection guidelines are better than the State's guidelines? It says that compared with the church's guidelines, the State's are "less precise and more difficult to implement".

It would be safe to bet that only a small proportion of the public could correctly answer the above questions.

The reason for this is that our media have no interest in making the answers known so instead we have a public that believes the phenomenon of child abuse is a particularly and peculiarly Catholic one.

The Irish church has rightly been excoriated over its child-protection failings.

The Vatican is also in the firing line. It is in the firing line because it has never made the Irish church's child-protection policy a part of church, or canon law, thereby making it mandatory, and because it has opposed mandatory reporting of child abuse allegations.

But in these two regards, the State's failures are identical to the Vatican's. The Irish State's child-protection policy, Children First, is only now being given a statutory footing and only now is the State adopting a mandatory reporting policy.

So if the Vatican deserves to be in the firing line, so does the State. But it is not in the firing line to anything like the same extent. Why not?

In fact, the State's failings in the field of child protection are manifold but they have never resulted in anything like the coverage, and therefore in anything like the degree of public outrage, given to the church's failings.

For example, a few years ago the government released a three-volume report dealing with the implementation of Children First.

Of those surveyed for it, only 16pc said the Children First guidelines were working well. Only 27pc said that the guidelines in respect of the handling of abuse allegations received by the State were being properly adhered to.

Most incredibly of all, when asked whether the HSE and the gardai were "acting in accordance with the Children First guidelines", only 13pc said 'Yes'.

This is why child-protection expert Geoffrey Shannon told RTE's 'Morning Ireland' yesterday that the failure to properly implement Children First has been abject, and it is why he accused the HSE of adopting an "a la carte approach" to the guidelines.

Similarly, the new director for child and family services in the country, Gordon Jeyes, said recently that Ireland doesn't have "a proper child-protection system".

But while there has been huge pressure on the church to get its house in order, nothing like the same pressure has been put on the State, even though the State's failure to properly abide by its own guidelines has been abysmal.

Shannon is currently presiding over an investigation into the deaths of 200 children in the last 10 years who were in the care of the State, or who were known to the State's care services.

These deaths, from violence, suicide, drug overdose, from possibly preventable diseases, have received nothing like the publicity the church scandals have received, even though they are still happening.

Shannon's report is due out some time in the autumn. When it comes out, will there be a press conference presided over by government ministers as there was with the Cloyne Report?

Will RTE broadcast the press conference live? Will its programmes feature one inveterate critic of the HSE after another? Will the first 20 minutes of its news at both 6.01 and 9pm deal with the report as was the case on Wednesday when the Cloyne Report was published?

Will there be a 'Prime Time' special? Will RTE commission several emotionally charged, two-part documentaries cataloguing the circumstances in which some of the 200 children died?

Will HSE employees who abjectly failed to protect children have to resign, or at least be named, as has rightly happened in the case of the church? Will the RTE board ask the station why it gives so much coverage to the church's child-protection failings and so little to the State's failings by comparison?

The answer to all these questions is no, because the unpalatable truth is that the only child-protection failures deemed worthy of saturation coverage are the failures of the church.

Irish Independent

source

fedor.2.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

You have some cheek calling my loyalty to the Church Christ founded sickening. Personal attacks on one's belief is unacceptable!!!
I am loyal to the 'teaching' of the Church, not it's 'members', as I'm sure most of the 1 Billion Catholics are!! Even Jesus said do what the teach not what they do (Pharisees).

Christ didnt found the catholic church, get that out of your head

toby08

fedor.2. wrote: »

Christ didnt found the catholic church, get that out of your head

thats very true if he did he would be looking for an escape clause at this stage.

gimmebroadband

fedor.2. wrote: »

Christ didnt found the catholic church, get that out of your head

Yes He did!

Read History!

http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

Festus

fedor.2. wrote: »

Christ didnt found the catholic church, get that out of your head

He founded only One Church.
Starting with St Peter as the first Pope.

If not the Catholic Church then which one did He found?

Feel free to refer to history for support in your response.

Benny_Cake

Festus wrote: »

From David Quinn today. Well worth reading if for no other reason than to take a lesson in objectivity.

Usual victimology from David Quinn -the evil forces of secularism,atheism and the left attacking the defenceless Church.Ignoring the fact that any right thinking Catholic feels just as angry about this, and that there have been several Prime Time episodes about the HSE issue,including a Prime Time Investigates special.Even if that wasn't the case,Matthew 7:5 would seem to apply.

Bob Cratchet

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Usual victimology from David Quinn -the evil forces of secularism,atheism and the left attacking the defenceless Church.Ignoring the fact that any right thinking Catholic feels just as angry about this, and that there have been several Prime Time episodes about the HSE issue,including a Prime Time Investigates special.Even if that wasn't the case,Matthew 7:5 would seem to apply.

One problem the media seem incapable and unwilling to differentiae between the innocent people in the Church and the guilty. The guilty deserve their punishment, the innocent deserve the same respect as anyone else.

Benny_Cake

I thought that most of the coverage has been pretty fair so far.All the articles I've seen have been very tough on the church hierarchy-and rightly so,the Cloyne report is the final nail in the coffin for the institutional Catholic church in this country and for the credibility of the bishops.I haven't read anything that would disrespect your average Catholic.

Knight who says Meh

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

One problem the media seem incapable and unwilling to differentiae between the innocent people in the Church and the guilty. The guilty deserve their punishment, the innocent deserve the same respect as anyone else.

Why do you speak pluralistically? Is there more than one Roman catholic Church under fire? More than one Pope? What are you on about?

toby08

on the statement about innocence once upon a time I believed in fairy tales as far as the church in ireland is concerned there are very few in my humble opinion innocents.
As it is a large organisation and to the best of my knowledge composed of human beings it is impossible to keep secrets.
there were if you recall a large number of priests who while not offenders themselves were complicit in that they knew of such offenders.
if you recall when these reports started naming individuals others stated that yes they were aware and once the offender got a few weeks holiday sorry it was called treatment and was moved on everything was okay.
I was following orders and those were the rules that excuse is not good enough, just remember these people /priests however you wish to address them were for the most part well educated and had an indepth knowledge of theology surely they knew the difference between right and wrong.
to me having knowledge of a crime and keeping it secret is worse than carrying out the crime. this to me is a central issue a criminal does what he or she does for whatever reason .but someone that knows I think is morally bound to report to the proper authorities not your own private organisation........
my children and most of their friends have left the rc church and my grand children (7+10) are no longer attending. Each time the conversation comes there is no argument the church as a whole was wrong and will nor admit it. I mention the statements but they are quick to point just words with no action and every time things get better there are new revelations.
When I was growing up there was an expression "the first sunday there's no mass" for the first time I think I will see this in my lifetime the church has to change not just pretending to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Yes He did!

Read History!

http://www.catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp

Sorry, I think you'll find that St. Paul invented Christianity.

With a little help from Peter.

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

From David Quinn today. Well worth reading if for no other reason than to take a lesson in objectivity.



source

You misunderstand the problem; noone trusts the state to look out for anyone's interests. We expect the state to lie to us, to con us, to make us pay for the mistakes of others.

We expect more from the Church.

Are you saying we should ignore the problem of paedophile Priests and the fact that the Church seems to routinely put its own interests ahead of child-protection because the state has failed us too?

We can only respond to issues as they arise in our consiousness and the Church has been on the back foot for some time now. They take no resposibility for the members of their organisation whilst at the same time utilising rules that act against the spirit of child-protection.

These rules protect paedophiles. Don't you get it? They provide a hiding place for them. They allow them to avoid state-law. Maybe they're not supposed to but the rules actually enable paedophiles to escape justice. Why should Priests be subject to a two-tier legal system when the rest of us have to make do with one; the state one? The Church has actually lied over recent times; denied the problem: shifted blame; offered prayer and fasting as a solution; actually endandered real children in the real world who could possibly have been protected if the Church had acted with integrity.

They didn't and because of these canon rules, children are at risk from the Church. The Church has a well established infrastructure that is cursed to fail children in a trade-off with protectionism.

But don't get me wrong, ISAW has pointed out a number of problems with 'societal paedophilia', as has Fanny Cradock, that cannot in reality be seperated from the Church but are more to do with the human condition than with Catholicism. However, it cannot be denied that there is an umberella of protection afforded to Priests by Church policy which paedophiles can, and have been known to, take advantage of.

There is no getting around that and pointing the finger at other sections of society does nothing to protect children. Let's face it; there has been a media frenzy but how many libel claims have been made against the media in its coverage of this issue?

And the Church should lead in moral conduct, that's its job. When when it fails, it should be sacked. Sure, the Church will say they are against paedophiles but does their response to child sex-abuse reflect that sentiment? I think not.

Oaths of silence and Pontifical secrets may benefit the Church but they actually, really, in the real 'non-Harry Potter' world, actively put children in harm's way. Many children and much harm.

That said, though, I truly feel that an all out assault on paedophilia would open a can of worms which could actually destroy society as we know it.

And I think that an attack on the Church rather than an attack on paedophilia would actually raise the spectre of a Revelations type episode of human existence.

Now, I'm not a Catholic but I understand how the RCC serves as a focus for some kind of ideal that almost all of its billion or so adherents would be lost without. I get that religion is a way of stopping poor people from murdering the rich. The control. The necessary restraints on human-nature without which civilisation would never have developed.

This isn't really a religious argument and I won't try and score points on that basis but I do see a real problem with Canon-law and its implementation.

I would accept that almost all RCC staff are well-intentioned people who want to do God's work; people who are good in their hearts. But that may be part of the problem; they are too nice to successfully administer law.

The administration of law requires a certain ruthlessness; it must be coldly applied. I think that the Church-police want to believe the best about those who have been ordained. I imagine it is difficult for one Priest to condemn another who is on their knees praying for forgiveness.

I would be happy for the state to claim jurisdiction of the Church as far as law is concerned and take such decision-making out of the hands of the Church entirely.

Then we can focus on the only department charged with child-protection; the state.

gigino

toby08 wrote: »

As it is a large organisation and to the best of my knowledge composed of human beings it is impossible to keep secrets.

The truth is slowly outing of this rotten organisation. Many people now around the world , including quite a few Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, have left the Roman Catholic church and are Christians in other denominations. They do not want to be part of the cover up any more.

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

Sorry, I think you'll find that St. Paul invented Christianity.

With a little help from Peter.

And Peter, with a little help from Jesus who gave him the keys!

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

And Peter, with a little help from Jesus who gave him the keys!

No, Jesus gave Paul a cow to sell at the market and he swapped it for magic beans.

Seriously, do you think that Jesus even suggested there should be a Priesthood. The law of God is written on the hearts of men; do not preach. I think that was more along the lines of what Jesus was saying.

Paul, and Peter actually founded a multi-billion dollar global business. I'm sure Jesus never advocated that; to create a holy royal family on earth; that men in frocks should be revered above other men and that they should be subject to their own special laws, seperate from other men and closer to God.

If Jesus contracted Paul to build the Church in His name and reflecting His spirit then I reckon He should get His money back.

Even in terms of the Talents parable, the Church can't claim to be collecting gold for God, can they? Shouldn't they be collecting souls; aren't they 'fishers of men'?

wolfsbane

himnextdoor wrote: »

No, Jesus gave Paul a cow to sell at the market and he swapped it for magic beans.

Seriously, do you think that Jesus even suggested there should be a Priesthood. The law of God is written on the hearts of men; do not preach. I think that was more along the lines of what Jesus was saying.

Paul, and Peter actually founded a multi-billion dollar global business. I'm sure Jesus never advocated that; to create a holy royal family on earth; that men in frocks should be revered above other men and that they should be subject to their own special laws, seperate from other men and closer to God.

If Jesus contracted Paul to build the Church in His name and reflecting His spirit then I reckon He should get His money back.

Even in terms of the Talents parable, the Church can't claim to be collecting gold for God, can they? Shouldn't they be collecting souls; aren't they 'fishers of men'?

You are right about the 'Church' not being what Jesus intended. But you mistake - or take the word of the 'Church' about - the true Church.

Peter and Paul and the rest of the apostles founded the true Church. It has endured down the ages, through many storms of trouble within and without. It is not identical with the RCC, Orthodox or and particular denomination - but is the people of God, meeting in many local churches, under many denominational names or none.

Some of the people of God are in the RCC, Orthodox, etc. Most are not. All who love God and submit to His word (as clearly as they see it) - are His. They are the Church. The apostles' doctrine continues with them.

Wicked men have usurped the place of the Holy Spirit and Scripture and set themselves up as Christ's representatives on earth. But by their fruits you will know them. They are not part of His Church.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Bob Cratchet

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some of the people of God are in the RCC, Orthodox, etc. Most are not.

There are estimated to be 2.2 billion Christians in the World.
1.1 Billion of them are Roman Catholic, and about 240 million are Eastern Orthodox. Therefore most are.
The remaining 860 million belong to one of the 33,000 (and rising) Protestant interpretations.

gigino

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wicked men have usurped the place of the Holy Spirit and Scripture and set themselves up as Christ's representatives on earth. But by their fruits you will know them. They are not part of His Church.

*********************************************************************
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Well said. The RCC evolved in to something totally different from the church of the first few centuries.

toby08

If the church followed the word of jesus there would be no thread but we would have some drownd clergy

Jesus said, “Temptations, and stumbling blocks, enticements are surely to come, but whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a giant millstone would be tied around their neck and they would be thrown into the sea

Bob Cratchet

toby08 wrote: »

If the church followed the word of jesus there would be no thread but we would have some drownd clergy

Jesus said, “Temptations, and stumbling blocks, enticements are surely to come, but whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a giant millstone would be tied around their neck and they would be thrown into the sea

Agree, but also remember the Church is 1.1 billion Catholics. The problem is weeding out the evil cardinals and bishops from the genuine. Concrete evidence and proof is required to determine beyond all reasonable doubt who they are, and don't for one second think the evil ones are not clever enough at lying and accusing other Cardinals and Bishops to protect their own power and necks.

alex73

gigino wrote: »

Well said. The RCC evolved in to something totally different from the church of the first few centuries.

Clerical abuse of minors was not a RCC issue. Every Christian denomination has had its scandals.

COI had their Protestant run institutions where abuse also occurred and was covered up...

We all need to learn from this horrible reality, reform and move on.

Central beliefs of RCC does not have anything in it about protecting or covering up abusers.. Bible is quite clear.

"But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea."