The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

And that is the point: Children who are raped by Catholic clergy are less likely to find justice than any other child who is raped.

You think?

PatricaMcKay

himnextdoor wrote: »

And feeding the the poor has nothing to do with stopping, or at least doing what you can to stop, children being raped.

And that is the point: Children who are raped by Catholic clergy are less likely to find justice than any other child who is raped.

Sorry but if you believe that you are making a desperate effort to be thick.

Scum from Ireland fly over regularly to third world countries to basically rape (and yes rape, if you believe there is such a thing as an eight year prositute you are sick and evil) kids, those kids stand hardly any chance of getting justice in this world, much less than kids abused or raped by RC priests in the first world.

himnextdoor

CiaranMT wrote: »

You're quoting yourself now?

Am I?

I have three children and not once, not ever, have I considered them in the role of my carer.

And did those starving Ethiopians believe that having children was a way of rescuing themselves from starving to death? I don't think so, I thought, 'More people to starve to death while being filmed by producers who earn more than the combined GDP of Ethiopia.'

Large families are not, and never have been, a solution for geriatric care. Memories and knowledge are what made old people valuable.

But not any more, unfortunately.

I wouldn't mind but you'd be hard pressed to find an Irish Catholic person employed to take care of the Irish elderly. You should be collectively ashamed of yourselves on that score.

Thank goodness for the Latvians, Estonians, Polish, Lithuanians...

himnextdoor

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Sorry but if you believe that you are making a desperate effort to be thick.

Scum from Ireland fly over regularly to third world countries to basically rape (and yes rape, if you believe there is such a thing as an eight year prositute you are sick and evil) kids, those kids stand hardly any chance of getting justice in this world, much less than kids abused or raped by RC priests in the first world.

And an RC Priest who holidays in Thailand has an extra layer of legal protection.

You miss the point; it is worthwhile for 'scum' to join the Priesthood as a measure of protection. The Church introduces another level of beaurocracy, an opportunity for the interests of an abused child to be thwarted.

Priests get 'free-bites' by virtue of the fact that they are Priests.

If Gary Glitter were a Priest...

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You think?

Only in the sense that a member of the RCC has an extra 'Get Out Of Jail' card at his disposal.

I take Patricia's point but 'scum' who are clergy are more likely to escape prosecution for raping third-world children than your normal, garden variety 'Irish scum' who commit the same crimes.

himnextdoor

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Sorry but if you believe that you are making a desperate effort to be thick.

Scum from Ireland fly over regularly to third world countries to basically rape (and yes rape, if you believe there is such a thing as an eight year prositute you are sick and evil) kids, those kids stand hardly any chance of getting justice in this world, much less than kids abused or raped by RC priests in the first world.

Let me put it this way; if two people, a paedophile electrician and a paedophile Priest go to the same place where they rape two children in two adjacent rooms, the child raped by the Priest has ALL the legal problems of the other child PLUS the added frustration that canon law is an escape-pod. So to speak.

For the record, and because there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here, they should all burn on a slow burning fire. Paedophiles, that is.

PatricaMcKay

himnextdoor wrote: »

Let me put it this way; if two people, a paedophile electrician and a paedophile Priest go to the same place where they rape two children in two adjacent rooms, the child raped by the Priest has ALL the legal problems of the other child PLUS the added frustration that canon law is an escape-pod. So to speak.

For the record, and because there seems to be some kind of misunderstanding here, they should all burn on a slow burning fire. Paedophiles, that is.

What about a paedophile millionaire? About zero chance.

Look at the way that David Norris still has so many supporters after giving pro-paedophile views.

Look at how the Dublin establishment gathered around to defend that poet who was exposed as a sex tourist.

himnextdoor

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Sorry but if you believe that you are making a desperate effort to be thick.

Scum from Ireland fly over regularly to third world countries to basically rape (and yes rape, if you believe there is such a thing as an eight year prositute you are sick and evil) kids, those kids stand hardly any chance of getting justice in this world, much less than kids abused or raped by RC priests in the first world.

And really, I'm not thick and you betray youtself by suggeting I am.

I see something inherently wrong about guys wearing dresses and being preoccupied by the sins of our children. The fact that the RCC has had a stranglehold on the people of this country says more about their intellect than it does about mine. It doesn't look right.

Children confessing? What's that all about? What kind of fetish is that?

Rape, murder, robbery, evil in society and Priests are interested in 'little Johnny stealing a bit of chocolate'.

I assure you, I am not the thick one.

Men in dresses, frightening our kids to death ... what kind of prick would sign up to that?

CiaranMT

himnextdoor wrote: »

Am I?

Yeah, ya did.

And it's quite simple. There is no social welfare/pension system on place in the vast majority of African nations. You agree? Who then, will look after the elderly? You see the reasoning now?

himnextdoor

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Sorry but if you believe that you are making a desperate effort to be thick.

Scum from Ireland fly over regularly to third world countries to basically rape (and yes rape, if you believe there is such a thing as an eight year prositute you are sick and evil) kids, those kids stand hardly any chance of getting justice in this world, much less than kids abused or raped by RC priests in the first world.

But you do make a good point. Unfortunately we seem to need to put civilised countries like Iraq and Afghanistan right as a priority rather than to deal with the Mugabes of the world.

They don't care about either your children or your grandparents; it's up to you, you have to stand up for them. You have to be convicted enough to make them change the law and they won't do that willingly. Media frenzies are how things get changed and if one of the things that gets changed is CPP then more power to it.

The frenzy is proportional to resonance; lot's of people have been let down by the RCC and it is THEIR voices that are being characterised as a 'frenzy'.

I'm sure you'll agree.

lmaopml

himnextdoor, the RCC and Ireland have had a relatively short history in the greater scheme of things, some good, some bad, some sad and tied in with times gone by and history.

I think perhaps that the 'state' and the 'church' being interwoven have been detrimental to eachother in many ways. It's best they are seperate, but it will take some time and understanding, and also freedom on behalf of citizens to find that equilibrium

- However, it's not nice to call 'good' people pricks - there are plenty of them in everyday life - I'm sorry, but as a 'Catholic' I'm afraid that we don't hold the monopoly on that particular noun - open your eyes, look around - although it seems that the good will be destroyed along with the bad with this generation - so many wolves at the door, and it seems they have no regard for how others feel, just their idealism.

himnextdoor

CiaranMT wrote: »

Yeah, ya did.

And it's quite simple. There is no social welfare/pension system on place in the vast majority of African nations. You agree? Who then, will look after the elderly? You see the reasoning now?

The lions, tigers and bears dude.

It's the law.

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

himnextdoor, the RCC and Ireland have had a relatively short history in the greater scheme of things, some good, some bad, some sad and tied in with times gone by and history.

I think perhaps that the 'state' and the 'church' being interwoven have been detrimental to eachother in many ways. It's best they are seperate, but it will take some time and understanding, and also freedom on behalf of citizens to find that equilibrium

- However, it's not nice to call 'good' people pricks - there are plenty of them in everyday life - I'm sorry, but as a 'Catholic' I'm afraid that we don't hold the monopoly on that particular noun - open your eyes, look around - although it seems that the good will be destroyed along with the bad with this generation - so many wolves at the door, and it seems they have no regard for how others feel, just their idealism.

I didn't mean to offend; I just don't like to be called thick by Catholics who don't necessarily disagree with me.

There are many good people but I would say that that has very little to do with religion per se. Some atheists are awfully nice people too.

But, if I'm brutally honest, we are a bunch of Big-Brother watching, X-factor voting for, keeping up with the Joneses obsessed, tabloid-reading pricks who consider themselves the highest summit of civilised behaviour.

I just think that Catholicism takes advantage of that side of human nature.

Most people are thick.

himnextdoor

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

What about a paedophile millionaire? About zero chance.

Look at the way that David Norris still has so many supporters after giving pro-paedophile views.

Look at how the Dublin establishment gathered around to defend that poet who was exposed as a sex tourist.

Yes, being part of an elite club does have its compensations.

CiaranMT

himnextdoor wrote: »

The lions, tigers and bears dude.

It's the law.

What?

himnextdoor

CiaranMT wrote: »

What?

Who looks after the elderly? - The lions, tigers and bears.

The elderly serve society on the basis that they can't run fast; they are expendible. It's nature. We pervert nature by 'caring'. We give the weak and infirm equal opportunities.

It ain't natural and this is manifested in our attitude to elderly care. Old people's homes are nothing more than waiting rooms; a last stop on the journey of life. Who wants to go and live in an old folks home? It's where we go to die.

We pretend to care by budgeting a small bit but that;s where it ends. Old people are a burden on society but noone can say so. It's an open secret.

And in Africa, it's worse.

lmaopml

himnextdoor wrote: »

Who looks after the elderly? - The lions, tigers and bears.

The elderly serve society on the basis that they can't run fast; they are expendible. It's nature. We pervert nature by 'caring'. We give the weak and infirm equal opportunities.

It ain't natural and this is manifested in our attitude to elderly care. Old people's homes are nothing more than waiting rooms; a last stop on the journey of life. Who wants to go and live in an old folks home? It's where we go to die.

We pretend to care by budgeting a small bit but that;s where it ends. Old people are a burden on society but noone can say so. It's an open secret.

And in Africa, it's worse.

himnextdoor, I hope you read this at some stage in the future and change your mind. What a sad thing to say? No? I don't believe that you believe this even...it's just a random post..not from the heart.

'Old' people are NOT expendible - we don't pervert nature by caring - we, some/most people go beyond nature and rise above it by 'caring' about 'people' whatever age they may be and showing love and compassion and respect. Whether people in general contribute, have contributed, will never get the chance to contribute and only need care from day one - that's what makes us 'human', with what we call human spirit, it's what every person desires worldover, and longs for....and it's not a 'selfish' desire to care for the old, or some random way of making sure it boomerangs back at us when we are old - It's quite simply because they 'deserve' our love and respect and care etc. etc. because it's the 'right' thing to do.

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

himnextdoor, I hope you read this at some stage in the future and change your mind. What a sad thing to say? No? I don't believe that you believe this even...it's just a random post..not from the heart.

'Old' people are NOT expendible - we don't pervert nature by caring - we, some/most people go beyond nature and rise above it by 'caring' about 'people' whatever age they may be and showing love and compassion and respect. Whether people in general contribute, have contributed, will never get the chance to contribute and only need care from day one - that's what makes us 'human', with what we call human spirit, it's what every person desires worldover, and longs for....and it's not a 'selfish' desire to care for the old, or some random way of making sure it boomerangs back at us when we are old - It's quite simply because they 'deserve' our love and respect and care etc. etc. because it's the 'right' thing to do.

I think it is natural to be nice about old people on the basis that we all get old and want to be treated with respect. You know, 'do as you would be done by' and 'be done by as you did'. But to deny the root of nature is to hide from the implications and that requires faith.

Nature is conservative. If you don't use a muscle, it wastes away. In nature, predation or competition weeds out the weak and infirm and in nature, the old are classified as weak or infirm. In human society however, knowledge and experience, because of the ability of humans to communicate so well, are counted as 'strength'. Such people are useful to their younger counterparts and so a place is kept for them at the table.

Old people sometimes tell interesting stories; that's another reason to keep them around. They can teach and they can entertain.

We don't have to worry about lions, tigers and bears (oh my) and so the weak and infirm aren't 'weeded out', so to speak, and become a significant minority who place a significant burden on society.

So, when things get tight, who suffers most? Who are usually the first to be affected by cuts in budget, for example? Is it politics or is it the raw edge of nature opening a window to reality?

I think it is important to understand this in the context of the old looking after the young; nature is the driving force of protection; protection equates with survival and survival is an 'I' thing, wholly selfish.

At nature's most basic level, it's every man for himself and all societies, human or otherwise, are an interpretation of that 'code', if you will.

We have to teach respect and care; they are not natural but serve humans as a tool of survival.

A naturally selected one.

And I love my granny.

himnextdoor

Hello? Ciaran; PDN; FISMA; Patricia?

Where did ISAW go?

I would suggest that you are all so ignorant of human nature as to be completely redundant in this discussion.

Don't you get it? ... Every man for himself!

And some men are about raping kids.

My kids aren't for raping... that's me looking out for myself. I avoid guilt by ensuring the safety of my children and not putting that 'burden' on a Priest, a teacher, a baby-sitter...

And I would like the law to protect YOUR children where I cannot. Canon law gets in the way and most people are too weak to stand up for themselves, never mind their children. IT'S UP TO SOMEONE ELSE! YOU!!!

****, guys, it's simple; we want our children to be safe regardless of what the law deems 'criminal'.

Why are you so resistant???????

himnextdoor

Okay:

Name one thing that would merit a media frenzy more than CATHOLIC PRIESTS RAPING CHILDREN does.

Just one and I swear I will close my boards.ie account.

One.

himnextdoor

'Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing' makes me weary of sheep.

Et toi?

Genghiz Cohen

How drunk were you?

himnextdoor

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

How drunk were you?

Very.

Sorry guys.:o

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

What about a paedophile millionaire? About zero chance.

Look at the way that David Norris still has so many supporters after giving pro-paedophile views.

Look at how the Dublin establishment gathered around to defend that poet who was exposed as a sex tourist.

I believe this is a crucial indicator of how things will evolve in the West. The ground-work is being laid for the legalization of man/boy sex. That will apply also to woman/girl sex, in this age of equality.

Maybe the disapproval will move from the act to the context - just as with sexual harassment adult/adult. The paedophile priests who intimidate will get jailed, the paedophile actors and others who seduce or buy the favour will be thought of as 'chic'. Gary Glitter was just before his time.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

lmaopml

himnextdoor wrote: »

Hello? Ciaran; PDN; FISMA; Patricia?

Where did ISAW go?

I would suggest that you are all so ignorant of human nature as to be completely redundant in this discussion.

Don't you get it? ... Every man for himself!

And some men are about raping kids.

My kids aren't for raping... that's me looking out for myself. I avoid guilt by ensuring the safety of my children and not putting that 'burden' on a Priest, a teacher, a baby-sitter...

And I would like the law to protect YOUR children where I cannot. Canon law gets in the way and most people are too weak to stand up for themselves, never mind their children. IT'S UP TO SOMEONE ELSE! YOU!!!

****, guys, it's simple; we want our children to be safe regardless of what the law deems 'criminal'.

Why are you so resistant???????

It's not 'every man for himself' it never was..

himnextdoor, you mean well - I know you do, you come across sincere imo, even if just a tad..lol.. biased, but that's ok. You are quite correct that we 'could' have done more, society, everybody could 'do' more. I am not 'every man for himself' I'm part of 'this' generation, that knows more, like you. I'm just 'waking up' to the dragon in the trustworthy den and I am aware that he doesn't make himself any fixed abode. That's the reality out there.

wolfsbane

wolfsbane wrote: »

I believe this is a crucial indicator of how things will evolve in the West. The ground-work is being laid for the legalization of man/boy sex. That will apply also to woman/girl sex, in this age of equality.

Maybe the disapproval will move from the act to the context - just as with sexual harassment adult/adult. The paedophile priests who intimidate will get jailed, the paedophile actors and others who seduce or buy the favour will be thought of as 'chic'. Gary Glitter was just before his time.

*******************************************************************
Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

Follow up on that: David Norris appears to be another example:
Senator David Norris and Paedophilia
http://www.westmeathjournal.com/2011/05/senator-david-norris-and-paedophilia.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sex-comment-sabotaged-my-campaign-says-irish-presidential-candidate-2291327.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/fresh-scandal-hits-norris-campaign-as-key-aides-resign-2835827.html

******************************************************************
Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.

alex73

wolfsbane wrote: »

Follow up on that: David Norris appears to be another example:
Senator David Norris and Paedophilia
http://www.westmeathjournal.com/2011/05/senator-david-norris-and-paedophilia.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sex-comment-sabotaged-my-campaign-says-irish-presidential-candidate-2291327.html

http://www.herald.ie/news/fresh-scandal-hits-norris-campaign-as-key-aides-resign-2835827.html

Spot on. Sad world. And a clear overview of the double standards that exist with the media, Headlines today "Norris is the victim of a targeted, "nasty" campaign"... Paedophile abuse is wrong, no matter who does it, and anyone who supports and sides with the abuser is wrong.

PatricaMcKay

You know that Norris regularly takes Communion?

I dont understand why the C of I havent chucked him out.

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

It's not 'every man for himself' it never was..

himnextdoor, you mean well - I know you do, you come across sincere imo, even if just a tad..lol.. biased, but that's ok. You are quite correct that we 'could' have done more, society, everybody could 'do' more. I am not 'every man for himself' I'm part of 'this' generation, that knows more, like you. I'm just 'waking up' to the dragon in the trustworthy den and I am aware that he doesn't make himself any fixed abode. That's the reality out there.

Ditto, lmaopml, and I honestly believe that everyone here wants children, the future, to be protected.

But you know how evrybody thinks they have lots of friends, how people mistake 'chuminess' for friendship when in fact you can count your 'true friends' on one hand? I'm trying to point out a natural tendency to abdicate responsibility when 'perceptoin of reality conflicts with actual reality'; that thing that makes us say, 'A priest wouldn't do that' and makes it seem beneficial to assume that the child is lying.

In ancient time the Levites resisted the notion of a King on the basis, I believe, that to proclaim a King would cause give rise to a 'hierarchy of Holiness' with the King at the top, just below God. The Levites, I believe, recognised that the word of God was written onto each man's heart and therefore all men were equal in the eyes of God.

Ordained Priests may be elevated in the eyes of men but I believe that Priests are an abomination to God;

Jeremiah 31: 31 - 37:

31 “Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah— 32 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them,/B][URL="http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/#fen-NKJV-19720a"][COLOR=#651300][B]a[/B][/COLOR][/URL][B says the LORD. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”
35 Thus says the LORD,
Who gives the sun for a light by day,
The ordinances of the moon and the stars for a light by night,
Who disturbs the sea,
And its waves roar
(The LORD of hosts is His name):
36 “ If those ordinances depart
From before Me, says the LORD,
Then the seed of Israel shall also cease
From being a nation before Me forever.”

I think that the God of the Bible does not approve of a 'Holy Hierarchy' (and would not approve of 'canon law') but that passage suggests that God would even forgive errant Priests; they are not supposed to preach but their sins will not count against them on judgement day.

Every man for himself?

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

You know that Norris regularly takes Communion?

I dont understand why the C of I havent chucked him out.

I didn't know that - but I'm not surprised. The Anglican communion is corrupt to the core. Those true believers among them are like Lot, sitting in the gate of Sodom:
2 Peter 2: 7 and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked 8 (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)—





**********************************************************************
Matthew 18:10 “Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven.