The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

gigino

alex73 wrote: »

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

Presumably you mean " Clerical abuse of minors was not only a RCC issue".
Of course other Christian denominations have had their odd scandal, but it appears to have been "endemic" in the Irish RCC, as the government found in its study. Why exactly this occured in this "celibate" group of frocked men is a different question.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

Presumably you mean " Clerical abuse of minors was not only a RCC issue".
Of course other Christian denominations have had their odd scandal, but it appears to have been "endemic" in the Irish RCC, as the government found in its study. Why exactly this occured in this "celibate" group of frocked men is a different question.

Jesus was a "frocked celibate man", cut the childish crap.

gigino

Why exactly is child sex abuse and its cover up so "endemic" ( to use the governments own word to describe abuse in the Irish RCC, after its study in to same following widespread concern ) in this group of "celibate" frocked men do you think ? Do you think the culture of enforced "celibacy" ( leading to sexual and emotional frustration etc ) has anything to do with it, as in the early years of the church many were not celibate - even many Popes were not celebate. Throughout history celibacy is not a natural occurance in the animal kingdom, or among humans either. Jesus's deciples were not all celibate, I do not think he would have approved of the widespread abuse of power by the RCC.

Festus

gigino wrote: »

Why exactly is child sex abuse and its cover up so "endemic" ( to use the governments own word to describe abuse in the Irish RCC, after its study in to same following widespread concern ) in this group of "celibate" frocked men do you think ? Do you think the culture of enforced "celibacy" ( leading to sexual and emotional frustration etc ) has anything to do with it, as in the early years of the church many were not celibate - even many Popes were not celebate. Throughout history celibacy is not a natural occurance in the animal kingdom, or among humans either. Jesus's deciples were not all celibate, I do not think he would have approved of the widespread abuse of power by the RCC.

What evidence do you have that child abuse is characteristic of the Irish Catholic Clergy and not Baptists, Pentecostals, COI, Unitarians, Gardai, teachers, politicians, doctors, married men, married women, babysitters, or any other human grouping apart from one sensationalist comment?

What evidence do you have that celibacy causes sexual and emotional frustration?

What evidence do you have that choosing not to engage in sexual relations is not natural?

What evidence do you have that only Catholic priests choose celibacy?

What evidence do you have for "widespread" abuse of power?

If we are to follow your argument then corruption is endemic to Irish Police, politicians and the judiciary, drunken debauchery is endemic in Irish universities, and anti-Catholicism and sectarianism is endemic to the Christianity forum of Boards.ie.

The evidence that is on the table relates to few individuals, not the entire organisiation. There is evidence that procedures were either not followed or bad decisions were made. That is accepted. Harping on about it and blowing it out of all proportion for the sake of beating up all the good Catholics, good priests and good bishops is not very Christian.

However you do appear to enjoy playing the anti-christ.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

Do you think the culture of enforced "celibacy" ( leading to sexual and emotional frustration etc ) has anything to do with it

It's not enforced, it's a voluntary choice to decide to abide by if that’s the life you want, celibate people don't have a problem with celibacy, only uncleibate people do, and that's their life choice. You've been banging the celibacy drum a thousands times now and never once produced a shred of credible evidence or proof or study that has linked celibacy with child abuse in any walk of life. To devote yourself so entirely to your belief and faith that you wish to be celibate so that nothing complicates your faith, mission, and goals in life is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's not for everyone, or if you suspect it will be too hard for you personally, then you don't have to choose that path in life.

Benny_Cake

Personally I think celibacy should be voluntary for new candidates to the priesthood.That said,in terms of abuse I think it's something of a red herring. The top-down, centralised and authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church surely has a lot to do with how abuse was ignored and covered up for so long,allowing a culture of complicity and silence to take hold.Other denominations have varying degrees of lay involvement,from elected lay participants in synods in Anglicanism,or allowing congregations to hire their own ministers.Openness and accountability is key here,a church of 1 billion members can't continue to use a medieval structure in the modern world.

Bob Cratchet

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The top-down, centralised and authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church surely has a lot to do with how abuse was ignored and covered up for so long,allowing a culture of complicity and silence to take hold.

It would be more correct to say the top-down, centralised and authoritarian structure of the Catholic Church was/is abused and manipulated by certain wrongdoers in order to ensure a cover up of abuse, allowing a culture of complicity and silence to take hold. Some individuals are very adept at abusing and twisting any system to make the truth lies and lies the truth. All authority can be abused.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that child abuse is characteristic of the Irish Catholic Clergy and not Baptists, Pentecostals, COI, Unitarians, Gardai, teachers, politicians, doctors, married men, married women, babysitters, or any other human grouping apart from one sensationalist comment?

Actually Festus this is a good point. As far as I know there have been cases of abuse in the Church of England, but I haven't heard of any widespread cover up. These people were handed over and prosecuted. You will almost certainly be defrocked if you have committed such a grievous crime.

I would hold any church which systematically covered up child abuse with the same criticism. It's not just a special case. Likewise other communities and groups in secular society.

gigino

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

celibate people don't have a problem with celibacy

....but many Roman Catholic Priests / Brothers have had. I do not mean just the likes of Bishop Casey and Fr Cleary, the 2 who stood each side of the Pope when he was here in 1979, ( it turned out later they had children ! )...whats of more concern is those clerics who abuse those least likely to complain i.e vulnerable children. Thats what this thread is about...clerical child abuse. Why celibate clerics abuse others is a different question. Surely the authoritarian structure of the "celibate male only" RC Church has a lot to do with how abuse was ignored and covered as much as possible for as long as possible.

Festus

gigino wrote: »

....but many Roman Catholic Priests / Brothers have had. I do not mean just the likes of Bishop Casey and Fr Cleary, the 2 who stood each side of the Pope when he was here in 1979, ( it turned out later they had children ! )...whats of more concern is those clerics who abuse those least likely to complain i.e vulnerable children. Thats what this thread is about...clerical child abuse. Why celibate clerics abuse others is a different question. Surely the authoritarian structure of the "celibate male only" RC Church has a lot to do with how abuse was ignored and covered as much as possible for as long as possible.

Perhaps you should read this. It catalogs a number of cases where the cleric was not bound by celibacy, had access to relations with women their wives, and still chose to abuse children.

gigino

Festus wrote: »

Perhaps you should read this. It catalogs a number of cases where the cleric was not bound by celibacy, had access to relations with women their wives, and still chose to abuse children.

Your link proves my point, thank you. Your free website link does not go too far before it just starts cataloging people"accused" of child sex abuse. Such cases are far smaller than the many many thousands of sex abuse cases involving the Roman Catholic church. Nobody claimed clerical abuse only happened in the RCC.

Fanny Cradock

This thread is not about Nazism. Haven't I said this before? Anyway, usual rules apply - off topic posts get deleted, repeat offenders get a smack on the wrists.

Fanny Cradock

An interesting opinion piece from Sinead O'Connor in today's Indo.

Well, well, well, Bishop John Magee. Truly you are one of the most glorious examples of supreme idiocy in human history. As proven by you actually thinking you might fool all in the end, including God.

The Cloyne Report is the beginning of the end of all Vatican and Catholic hierarchical lies.

Not even the dogs who merely pee against the walls of the Vatican can escape its judgment.

Monsignor O'Callaghan, you also are resplendent with the same shimmering stupidity of thinking you could fool God and us -- which by the grace of the Holy Spirit you revealed on RTE Radio's News at One last Thursday when, in response to being repeatedly asked under what circumstances you might not have reported an allegation to civil authorities you listed among other desperate, straw-grasping, fumbling reasons that "it might be Christmas".

Maybe the priest was supposed to be making the puddings and the dinner would be ruined without him? I dunno.

I'd love to have had the opportunity to ask you to elaborate.

And I would also love to ask you that if the child victims of rape were nieces and nephews or brothers or sisters of the clergy, do you think the clergy would have behaved differently?

As I see it, the only way this current leadership of the Catholic Church can save the reputation of Catholicism is to walk out of the Vatican now and give us over the keys so we can run the church ourselves .

Our situation as Catholics now is that we can plainly see our church has been hijacked by liars.

The good name of Catholicism is in ruins because imposters who do not respect the Holy Spirit have made a nest for devils in the Vatican and Christ is being held hostage.

This can only continue if we allow it. It should be either they walk away or we do. One way or the other we cannot leave Christ in their care for another moment.

If they do not confess all and vacate, then we must look at starting our own alternative church as a breakaway from what they have turned Catholicism into.

The people's alternative catholic church, welcoming all current Catholic clergy who feel -- as we do -- that Christ is being murdered by liars. And welcoming any and all who wish to proclaim that what is being sold by the Vatican is not Catholicism at all.

- Sinead O'Connor

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/we-must-destroy-nest-of-devils-in-the-vatican-for-christs-sake-2823575.html

Given the grass-root disillusionment that is apparent, I wonder if this type of sentiment could spread upwards?

himnextdoor

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that child abuse is characteristic of the Irish Catholic Clergy and not Baptists, Pentecostals, COI, Unitarians, Gardai, teachers, politicians, doctors, married men, married women, babysitters, or any other human grouping apart from one sensationalist comment?

What evidence do you have against Baptists, Pentecostals, COI, Unitarians, Gardai, teachers, politicians, doctors, married men, married women, babysitters, or any other human grouping?

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that celibacy causes sexual and emotional frustration?

Google it; it's very well documented.

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that choosing not to engage in sexual relations is not natural?

Go forth and multiply.

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have that only Catholic priests choose celibacy?

Noone said that. And noone says that only Catholics commit child sex-abuse crimes.

Festus wrote: »

What evidence do you have for "widespread" abuse of power?

The Cloyne report?

Festus wrote: »

If we are to follow your argument then corruption is endemic to Irish Police, politicians and the judiciary, drunken debauchery is endemic in Irish universities, and anti-Catholicism and sectarianism is endemic to the Christianity forum of Boards.ie.

Yes, yes and yes.

Festus wrote: »

The evidence that is on the table relates to few individuals, not the entire organisiation. There is evidence that procedures were either not followed or bad decisions were made. That is accepted. Harping on about it and blowing it out of all proportion for the sake of beating up all the good Catholics, good priests and good bishops is not very Christian.

And lies were told.

Festus wrote: »

However you do appear to enjoy playing the anti-christ.

If the anti-Christ can sort out paedophilia he'll get my vote.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An interesting opinion piece from Sinead O'Connor in today's Indo.

Given the grass-root disillusionment that is apparent, I wonder if this type of sentiment could spread upwards?

I wonder, how does one get oneself excommunicated?

Suzie Sue

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

An interesting opinion piece from Sinead O'Connor in today's Indo.

Given the grass-root disillusionment that is apparent, I wonder if this type of sentiment could spread upwards?

Sinead seems to be under the grand disillusion that only the honest and genuine clergy would head off to a "breakaway" Church. All structures can be infiltrated, manipulated and used for ulterior purposes. Satan attacks his enemies hardest, but the gates of hell will not prevail.

gigino

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Sinead seems to be under the grand disillusion that only the honest and genuine clergy would head off to a "breakaway" Church. All structures can be infiltrated, manipulated and used for ulterior purposes.

So how would you react to the cover-ups by church hierarchy, and how would you weed out those who are not "honest and genuine", as you seem to imply this class of person exists in the RCC ?

himnextdoor

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Sinead seems to be under the grand disillusion that only the honest and genuine clergy would head off to a "breakaway" Church. All structures can be infiltrated, manipulated and used for ulterior purposes. Satan attacks his enemies hardest, but the gates of hell will not prevail.

Which is exactly why Jesus would have insisted that it be done in a different way. I reckon that He would frown upon the Vatican ethos in the same way that the Levites didn't want a 'King of the Jews'; it tends to suggest that some humans are closer to God than others.

I don't think Satan is worried about people who pray or people who fast. A bit like real vampires aren't affected adversely by garlic. Some even cook with it.

It seems to me that Satan finds very little resistance from the RCC institution.

Suzie Sue

gigino wrote: »

So how would you react to the cover-ups by church hierarchy, and how would you weed out those who are not "honest and genuine", as you seem to imply this class of person exists in the RCC ?

That class of person exists everywhere, and always will.

The state needs to start doing its job and convict those it has evidence and proof from the reports. Everyone else is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, that’s the golden thread of justice.

Suzie Sue

himnextdoor wrote: »

Which is exactly why Jesus would have insisted that it be done in a different way. I reckon that He would frown upon the Vatican ethos in the same way that the Levites didn't want a 'King of the Jews'; it tends to suggest that some humans are closer to God than others.

It seems to me that Satan finds very little resistance from the RCC institution.

Jesus also taught that for every 12 apostles one will turn out to be a Judas.

himnextdoor

Suzie Sue wrote: »

Jesus also taught that for every 12 apostles one will turn out to be a Judas.

Did He? That must be a rule then.

He should have taught that 'a stitch in time saves nine'. ('saves nine' - geddit?)

Suzie Sue

himnextdoor wrote: »

Did He? That must be a rule then.

He should have taught that 'a stitch in time saves nine'. ('saves nine' - geddit?)

You can take it up with him so.

PDN

Suzie Sue wrote: »

You can take it up with him so.

Before he does so, maybe you could point us towards the Bible verse where Jesus ever taught that for every 12 apostles one will turn out to be a Judas?

gimmebroadband

Jesus statement:

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70

It would seem that even among the chosen that there will always be a "devil" among them!!

PDN

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Jesus statement:

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? John 6:70

It would seem that even among the chosen that there will always be a "devil" among them!!

Thank you, that kind of 'interpretation' certainly helps explain how some Catholics claim to get doctrines out of Scripture that are obviously not there by any plain reading of the text.

Jesus said that one of the twelve was a bad egg.

That does not, to anyone is even vaguely literate, equate to teaching that a one in twelve ratio must apply always to apostles, or indeed that there will always be a devil among the chosen.

gimmebroadband

PDN wrote: »

Thank you, that kind of 'interpretation' certainly helps explain how some Catholics claim to get doctrines out of Scripture that are obviously not there by any plain reading of the text.

Jesus said that one of the twelve was a bad egg.

That does not, to anyone is even vaguely literate, equate to teaching that a one in twelve ratio must apply always to apostles, or indeed that there will always be a devil among the chosen.

I didn't mention a 12/1 ratio!!! The original Church with the 12 Apostles had one devil, and I implied that there will always be some percentage of evil in the Church

Suzie Sue

PDN wrote: »

Thank you, that kind of 'interpretation' certainly helps explain how some Catholics claim to get doctrines out of Scripture that are obviously not there by any plain reading of the text.

Jesus said that one of the twelve was a bad egg.

That does not, to anyone is even vaguely literate, equate to teaching that a one in twelve ratio must apply always to apostles, or indeed that there will always be a devil among the chosen.

LOL, You know full well what we meant. Chancer. There is going to be a percentage of wrongdoers in all walks of life, it even happened in Christ’s band of apostles.

himnextdoor

Suzie Sue wrote: »

LOL, You know full well what we meant. Chancer. There is going to be a percentage of wrongdoers in all walks of life, it even happened in Christ’s band of apostles.

Yes there is but that doesn't mean that the Church should operate an equal opportunities policy for evil-doers.

The Church should be more adverse to the evil of men and less interested in 'sinful children'.

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

Yes there is but that doesn't mean that the Church should operate an equal opportunities policy for evil-doers.

The Church should be more adverse to the evil of men and less interested in 'sinful children'.

You got that arseways.... evil doers use the Church as an equal opportunity policy!

PDN

Suzie Sue wrote: »

LOL, You know full well what we meant. Chancer. There is going to be a percentage of wrongdoers in all walks of life, it even happened in Christ’s band of apostles.

So when you posted "Jesus also taught that for every 12 apostles one will turn out to be a Judas", you actually meant "Jesus didn't teach this at all - but Suzie Sue thinks there will be a percentage of wrongdoers in all walks of life."

While I will accept your protestation that is actually what you meant, you can hardly call someone a chancer for taking your statement at face value and assuming you were making a claim that Jesus had taught such a thing.