The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

outrage stated:
Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think?

and you replied:

No, I don't believe they care about anything anyone outside what the church thinks.

in other words you extrapolated what the church thinks about some Irish times readers and generalised it to all people outside the church.

Yes - you are right - I did. And I think that is a reasonable stance based on the condict of the church on all matters regarding child abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

You said you believe the church do not care about ANYONE people outside it when the original poster suggested that they shouldn't care about what some Irish times readers say.

Yes thats what I said - prove me wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't reasonable at all to base your belief on anecdotal evidence! Is it now?

Well, I think it is. However, I did state just after that statement that I would not pursue that argument for lack of solid evidence. But you chose to ignore that I notice.

ISAW wrote: »

Most what? Most Catholics are opposed to Brady? Opposed to him about what?
And your view of the entire church is based on Catholics you have spoken to? they know all about all the church teachings and are experts in sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions are they? Why didnt they advise the Bishops then ?

ALL catholics I have spoken to are opposed to his stance of not reporting the abuse to the correct authorities - of not coming public with this for decades. And no I'm sure they are not experts in "sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions". But then neither are most people so are you dismissing the majority opinion??

ISAW wrote: »

You are quite entitled to an unsupported personal opinion based on newspaper gossip. Just declare it as so and not dress it up as some sort of morally guided authority supported by objective evidence and research.

I stated quite clearly that my opinion WAS based on anecdotal evidence AND that I would therefore not pursue it any further. YOU are the one dragging it up. (And by the way I don't read tabloids).

ISAW wrote: »

so you think the church does not care about people outside the church? And your evidence is? Their "funny way" of showing the church cares is?.

As stated already - for the disgraceful way they have conducted themselves throughout this affair.

ISAW wrote: »

It proves that YOU based on the above concluded that Brady only has the support of "a small minority"! Your conclusion was wrong! Just because a small minoroity expressed support (or for that matter expressed opposition and asked him to resign although even a small minority of say 50 in his parish doing so - parishes contain typically several thousand - might be significant)
does not mean that most Catholics want him to resign. they have to think about it and he has to try to find out what they think.

I was replying to outrages assertion that he has the support of the majority of catholics based on wellwishers on a specific mass. Until all catholics are ballotted that is simply speculation.

ISAW wrote: »

the Church do indeed have a census sunday but

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=74640
2006 census
Population of Ireland 4.2 million
Roman Catholic - 3.7 million ( the protestants have an additional 160,000 or so)

But just leaving it a t 37/42 = 88 per cent which is ABOUT 90 percent as i stated!

the census legal document circulated and signed in the home! over 90 per cent are Christian!

So how many of these 'catholics' actually practise? Exactly - you can hardly call them catholic can you?

ISAW wrote: »

No it isn't! how did Brady block a state investigation in the 1970s? He was a priest then not a bishop. how did he personally block anything? Apparently what is suggested is that he asked people not to talk about it again.

He was present when children signed an effective gagging order never to talk about their abuse. That, my friend, is blocking an investigation which could never even get started due to the cover-up.

ISAW wrote: »

Now you are suggesting that he should not have filed a report to his bishop as instructed and immediatleely gone to the Gardaí and reported it. But surely the parents or teachers or someone else should have done that? How was it up to the person recording the minutes at a meeting to report it to the Gardaí and how is it only him that should be responsibloe and what law did he break?

So when, after a reasonable length of time, no one else at that meeting reported the abuse, why did he not then report it? When Smyth abused again, & again, & no one else came forward, why did he not report it? Did he not have a conscience? Just because no one else did it doesn't let him off the hook. Isn't he supposed to be the moral authority in all of this?

ISAW wrote: »

It is? How is it pretty obvious? Lets take a hypothetical case. If you came to me in confession and told me you raped someone or if you were a drug addict and told me in confidence and then twenty years later you said you had told me and I hadn't told anyone else then am I supposed to be at fault? How about all the other people who surrounded you all the drugs workers or the poor victims who didn't come forward? what if the person you raped came to me? I prevented them from coming forward by not outing them or outing you did I?

They are all to blame - just as much as Brady. But shared blame is still blame.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

91011 wrote: »

So maybe there needs to be a study on all the priests who have abused children. Find out the real reason the joined the church, find out their family background and see if irish society itself back in the 50's to 70's played a part in the creation of these monsters.

From what I've read, I don't think a priest is more likely to be a paedophile than any other member of the population (maybe even less likely!). So for that reason, it doesn't matter what happened in the 50's to 70's.

I think the problem with the Catholic Church is the failure of the hierarchy to report the paedophile priests to the civil authorities. Instead they moved them from one parish to the next, knowing they had abused.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

i do doubt you. "Family ties" are hearsay! i have no evidence that Brady said canon law was to be preferred to law of the land so i can only assume he didn't say it.

Im about to go home so I'm not going to address all of the your comments however, I had been referring to Bishop McKiernan and not Brady here.

--amadeus--

ISAW wrote: »

It would be nicer if you acknowledged that the innocent victims were and continue to be members of the Church.

Easiest point first...

They may have been members of the church at teh time they were abused and molested. I would be amazed if more than a handful still are, so while it might be "nicer" for me to acknowledge that they "continue to be members of teh Church" it would also be a lie, spin and a falsehood. Sadly all to much in keeping with the RCC attitude to this entire affair.

ISAW wrote: »

Or you are presenting a false dichotomy which is a "fallacy of the excluded middle"?

You just did! Don't let lack of formal logical training prevent you looking up "fallacy " and "excluded middle" and "false dichotomy"

By the way dont let my response put you off. while it is fallacious your post does more than anything up to that point (in my opinion) to address the actual definition of the problem than skirt around the issue - anjd I include my own posts in that!

And please don't let your lack of formal logical training prevent your ad hominem attack on me, my education and intelligence. In fact I highlighted teh "excluded middle" when I specifically said that there may be a third option I had missed, what is it? I hope that anyone reading teh thread saw through your attempt at rubbishing my points by attacking thier author and saw instead a nifty two footed side shuffle past them.

So, I will ask again a very simple and very direct question. To you. And to anyone else who feels this man should retain his position.

Did he:

(A) not see the immorality of covering up and hiding the rape of children

or

(B) see the immorality but considered protecting children from rape and bringing the abuser to justice was a lower priority than protecting teh name of teh church

or

(C) some other (non legal jargon and simple moral) explanation

~~~

Frankly if it is either A or B he is morally unfit to act as teh leader of a religious organisation preaching on right and wrong. And all this talk of laws and societal standards and media is a 21st century variation of angels on teh head of a pin. Defend him if you must, but do us the curtesy of being honest about what he really did wrong

dunleakelleher

ISAW wrote: »

That just isn't true! It is a sweeping generalisation!

Is that right. well let me be a bit more specific.


Pope Benedict XVI's former diocese in Germany is facing daily allegations of physical and sexual abuse, the head of its new sex-abuse task force says. "It is like a tsunami,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577252.stm

Catholic Church sex abuse scandals around the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8576268.stm

Oremus

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Is that right. well let me be a bit more specific.


Pope Benedict XVI's former diocese in Germany is facing daily allegations of physical and sexual abuse, the head of its new sex-abuse task force says. "It is like a tsunami,"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577252.stm

Catholic Church sex abuse scandals around the world

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8576268.stm

Yawn.

Read this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100030155/lord-rees-mogg-are-you-proud-of-the-way-the-times-is-vilifying-the-leader-of-your-church/

Oremus

91011 wrote: »

Thankfully the attitudes have changed in tandem with increased education and the gay community can hold their heads high and anyone who is gay should have no issue with the vast majority of people in society.

Attitudes towards homosexual behaviour are the same as ever: anal sex is wrong. It doesn't matter how many liberal articles in the popular press are written by the homosexual lobby. The vast majority of people in society are Catholic, not homosexual behaviour advocates.

--amadeus--

Oremus wrote: »

Attitudes towards homosexual behaviour are the same as ever: anal sex is wrong. It doesn't matter how many liberal articles in the popular press are written by the homosexual lobby. The vast majority of people in society are Catholic, not homosexual behaviour advocates.

Facts tend to generate more light than heat. Baldly stating your opinion as a fact on the other hand tends to generate more heat than light.

So I will simply politley point out that - as far back as 1996 - 80% of people not only didn't think that "anal sex is wrong" (I assume that you are happy enough with lesbian couples?) but they supported the idea of giving same sex couples legal recognition (albeit something short of full marriage). This is a link to the Irish Times report of teh survey, I'm sure Google has many more of teh same ilk. Since in teh recent census ~80%+ of teh population tagged themselves as RC I assume that being catholic and being comfortable with teh idea of homosexuality (or even being a gay catholic) is extremly common.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

Telling something in confession is not the same as a victim approaching a bishop with a view to have a rapist punished.

The canons referred to are about someone being raped in confession and about how the church should investigate it!

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Yes - you are right - I did. And I think that is a reasonable stance based on the condict of the church on all matters regarding child abuse.

It may be but it is also a contradiction sine you claim that yu didnt say this!
in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64977395&postcount=238
wher you said

Not true.

Yes that's what I said - prove me wrong.

You already said yourself this was not true! im just trying to clarify.

Well, I think it is. However, I did state just after that statement that I would not pursue that argument for lack of solid evidence. But you chose to ignore that I notice.

And I will also draw attention to any statements like "people may say he is a fraudster but i don't believe any of the stories I heard about the five million he embessled from the church". I also note you CLAIM to ignore it but you re enter it later on!

ALL catholics I have spoken to are opposed to his stance of not reporting the abuse to the correct authorities - of not coming public with this for decades. And no I'm sure they are not experts in "sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions". But then neither are most people so are you dismissing the majority opinion??

Having just claimed you are not pursuing anecdotal evidence as a line of debate and having rebuked me for not ignoring your hearsay you immediately set of on a line of anecdotal evidence!

I stated quite clearly that my opinion WAS based on anecdotal evidence AND that I would therefore not pursue it any further. YOU are the one dragging it up. (And by the way I don't read tabloids).

No YOU are the one referring to "people i have spoken to" as evidence! then after you claim you will not refer to that again you refer to it again. You also referred to something as "not true" and when I kept on about that you claimed it is true and asked me to prove it wrong! I suggest you look up "proving a negative"

As stated already - for the disgraceful way they have conducted themselves throughout this affair.

What disgracefull way and how does it prove "the church does not care about people outside the church?"

the people abused were people IN the church! There are many many people nothing to do with sexual abuse outside the Church which the Church does care for. to claim the church does not care about all of them is ludicrous!

I was replying to outrages assertion that he has the support of the majority of catholics based on wellwishers on a specific mass. Until all catholics are ballotted that is simply speculation.

It isn't. If most catholics opposed him in Ireland (or even if a significant number did) he would leave his office.

So how many of these 'catholics' actually practise? Exactly - you can hardly call them catholic can you?

I assume you mean roman Catholic? going to mass on a sunday does not make one a Catholic - you should know that!

He was present when children signed an effective gagging order never to talk about their abuse. That, my friend, is blocking an investigation which could never even get started due to the cover-up.

No read the reference given. It is a gagging order on the PROCEEDINGS and the clergy not on the victims. But I will accept in paractice the victims may have viewed it as such. their family it seems certainly didnt want the abuse made public.

So when, after a reasonable length of time, no one else at that meeting reported the abuse, why did he not then report it?

He being Brady? well i dont know. Maybe he thought he had no locus standi and it was for the family or the victims to do so? maybe ther was no law of rape of a male teenager? Maybe he felt bound by vows? maybe something else? you would have to ask him.

When Smyth abused again, & again, & no one else came forward, why did he not report it?

Im nmot aware of the Smith case. Maybe smith was in another juristiction ? I think he was extradited eventually was he not? maybe all the other reasons aboive?

Did he not have a conscience? Just because no one else did it doesn't let him off the hook. Isn't he supposed to be the moral authority in all of this?

when he became bishop of Armagh yes. Which was ? - 1996
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/darma.html

They are all to blame - just as much as Brady. But shared blame is still blame.

so we should fire all RUC Gardai nurses or anyone else?

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Easiest point first...

They may have been members of the church at teh time they were abused and molested. I would be amazed if more than a handful still are, so while it might be "nicer" for me to acknowledge that they "continue to be members of teh Church" it would also be a lie, spin and a falsehood. Sadly all to much in keeping with the RCC attitude to this entire affair.

I heard a man on the radio the other day. I think he was on the Late Late show in the audience and he is a former Fianna fail mayor of a town. He is a victim and he said he is still in the church but doesn't go to Mass.

Michael O’Brien from Clonmel, I think is the man. i do not see him as someone heavily influenced by spin!

In fact I highlighted teh "excluded middle" when I specifically said that there may be a third option I had missed, what is it?

By claiming it didn't exist!

I hope that anyone reading teh thread saw through your attempt at rubbishing my points by attacking thier author and saw instead a nifty two footed side shuffle past them.

I resent that. I made no personal attack on you! In fact if anything I pointed out you chad contributed mre to the issue than anyone yet (including myself) ! I pointed out yout present a falxe dichotomy and in pointing it pout I pointed out that there is possiobly many other explainations and your oresentation of two alternatives might give the impression that it was only a choice between one or the other.

If you think i was personally attacking you you are sorely mistaken. You presented two equally distasteful alternatives as if they were the only options.
alluding to another possibility isn't offering the excluded middle as the most probable!

So, I will ask again a very simple and very direct question. To you. And to anyone else who feels this man should retain his position.

Did he:

(A) not see the immorality of covering up and hiding the rape of children

Yes he saw the act as wrong (assuming he believed it happened)
Apparently judging by the times it was the normal thing to do to file a report and let the bishop and family decide and not interfere with the family wishes.

Rape was not committed as there was not law of raping boys!
Brady himself didnt "cover up" anything other than asking the people making a statement not to talk about it. famiuly courts do this all the time as far as i know.

(B) see the immorality but considered protecting children from rape and bringing the abuser to justice was a lower priority than protecting teh name of teh church

I would say No to this and I think Brady would and if he sees it that way then he should not alone go bt not be appointed in teh first place.
or

(C) some other (non legal jargon and simple moral) explanation

yes most probably this

Frankly if it is either A or B he is morally unfit to act as teh leader of a religious organisation preaching on right and wrong.

It isnt B It might be A under the consideration of the times. and i disagree that your conclusion that someone acting in a moinor role taking a statement at the time warrents your conclusion as "morally unfit" and even if he were marally unfit people or the organisation could change in the meantime.

And all this talk of laws and societal standards and media is a 21st century variation of angels on teh head of a pin. Defend him if you must, but do us the curtesy of being honest about what he really did wrong

Would you mind listing what you consider you think Im lying about?
I havent' been dishonest or lied about anything as far as I know which means i must therefore be honest!

dunleakelleher

ISAW. Can I ask you for your personal view to a very simple question?
Do you think it is acceptable or not acceptable for a person not to report a child abuser to the police?

Fanny Cradock

1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious. I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them...


6. To the victims of abuse and their families
You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel...

7. To priests and religious who have abused children
You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres...

Source: http://sufferingworld.blogspot.com/2010/03/popes-letter-to-irish-church.html

In certain respects, I am quite please that the Pope has gone so far. It is, of course, too little too late. But perhaps some wounds can begin to heal.

dunleakelleher

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In certain respects, I am quite please that the Pope has gone so far. It is, of course, too little too late. But perhaps some wounds can begin to heal.

Gone so far. He wrote a letter. He has taken no action. Called nobody to account. Disciplined nobody just wrote a bloody letter.:mad:
Well done you Pope you really restored my faith in the RCC.

prinz

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Gone so far. He wrote a letter.

er yes that is the point of a Pastoral Letter.

dunleakelleher wrote: »

He has taken no action. Called nobody to account. Disciplined nobody just wrote a bloody letter.:mad:
Well done you Pope you really restored my faith in the RCC.

There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

Macha

prinz wrote: »

There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

Perhaps the Church might one day realise that transparency is vital, especially when the trust of thousands was abused so systematically.

prinz

taconnol wrote: »

Perhaps the Church might one day realise that transparency is vital, especially when the trust of thousands was abused so systematically.

Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.

Ghost Buster

you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.
But what about answering before the law or, as seems apparent, is the Church outside the reach of state law?

Ciaran500

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.

What are they? They don't have to take out an add just make the information available.

Macha

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.

Er..you just said that we are not "privy" to them... Either they are made public or they are not. They're not Amish - they can use the internet if they want to broadcast the changes widely.

And you wouldn't tell a survivor of abuse to wander down to their local RCC priest for a chat about this.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.
But what about answering before the law or, as seems apparent, is the Church outside the reach of state law?

That's up to the civil authorities. The Pope has no jurisdiction or authority to make pronouncements about what will happen under the Irish legal system. He can only talk from his own perspective as a church leader.

looksee

As I read the letter I thought there was some good, sincere thoughts in it, but as I read on I was rather saddened to see that the vast bulk of the letter was about rescuing the church.
While I can see that this would be important to the faithful, surely it would have been more appropriate in a separate letter/document.
I tried to read it sympathetically, but I am afraid by the time I got to the end I was thinking - they are still missing the point.
And there was no reference to the culpability of the Pope (of the time) in being the person with authority to amend Canon law and remove the veil of secrecy. In any civil situation this would be a resigning matter, but of course we are talking about the Church, and the rules don't apply.

Ghost Buster

PDN wrote: »

That's up to the civil authorities. The Pope has no jurisdiction or authority to make pronouncements about what will happen under the Irish legal system. He can only talk from his own perspective as a church leader.

Im not suggesting the Pope has any jurasdiction any more than I do but morally if I was in his shoes I think I would address one of the burning issues for many that being that the church regards canon law as more important than state law.
Wouldnt it be a little apt for him to reccomend that Church leaders respect the law of the land and turn in paedophiles rather than deal with it (or not) themselves?

Ghost Buster

Originally Posted by PDN
That's up to the civil authorities
Indeed it is but they cant act if they dont get informed

marty1985

I am relieved by his words and apology, I know it's too little too late, but I think it might be remembered as a turning point. I think the priests who have to read it will be relieved too that it actually says sorry.

PDN

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Im not suggesting the Pope has any jurasdiction any more than I do but morally if I was in his shoes I think I would address one of the burning issues for many that being that the church regards canon law as more important than state law.
Wouldnt it be a little apt for him to reccomend that Church leaders respect the law of the land and turn in paedophiles rather than deal with it (or not) themselves?

As I understand it that has already been done. Procedures are in place within the Church instructing leaders to report all allegations of child abuse to the Garda. The purpose of this statement was obviously to apologise to the victims and to encourage the many ordinary Catholics who are hurt and confused by what has happened.

prinz

Ciaran500 wrote: »

What are they? They don't have to take out an add just make the information available.

They are there to be researched.

taconnol wrote: »

Er..you just said that we are not "privy" to them... Either they are made public or they are not. They're not Amish - they can use the internet if they want to broadcast the changes widely.

Either are you presumably so go use the internet and find out.

taconnol wrote: »

And you wouldn't tell a survivor of abuse to wander down to their local RCC priest for a chat about this.

Survivors of abuse are dealingwith the Church day in day out.

checkyabadself

PDN wrote: »

The Pope has no jurisdiction or authority to make pronouncements about what will happen under the Irish legal system.

I`m sure he has the power to remove every single paedophile reported and convicted and anyone who aided and abetted paedophile priests from his church. Surely he has the power to do that much.

He could order an inquiry to purge the ranks of paedophiles, but lets get real, he himself was involved in the cover up.

It`s too late, the mountain of reports from VICTIMS (not survivors) will ensure that it`ll be years if not decades of headlines until each single victim has been heard.

dunleakelleher

prinz wrote: »

er yes that is the point of a Pastoral Letter.

Oh please do be a such a smart a#$. This a serious issue. One can also discipline, call people to account and call for resignations in a letter.

prinz wrote: »

There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

The RCC is made up of the ordinary people of the Church. Only a minute percentage are clergy. So if the majority of the Church are not privy to those changes it really means nothing and nothing will change..
Remember Vatican II was fundamental in giving the Church back to the ordinary people from the hierarchy of the Church.

Macha

prinz wrote: »

Either are you presumably so go use the internet and find out.

I don't think you get it. The onus is on the Church to demonstrate that it has changed, not for people like me to go running around trying to figure out if they've decided that I can be "privy" to their internal procedural changes.

prinz wrote: »

Survivors of abuse are dealingwith the Church day in day out.

Good for them. Thousands are not. To suggest that one has to go to a RCC priest to find out what the Church has implemented is inconsiderate to those that do not want to have direct contact with the Church.

prinz

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Oh please do be a such a smart a#$. This a serious issue. One can also discipline, call people to account and call for resignations in a letter.

A pastoral letter to the congregation is not the time or place to call for a resignation. One the one hand you claim it is a serious issue on the other hand you want it treated like some sort of circus, which is it? Would you expect your boss to send an email around the company telling them that he is calling for your resignation? Or would you expect him to come to you.

dunleakelleher wrote: »

The RCC is made up of the ordinary people of the Church. Only a minute percentage are clergy. So if the majority of the Church are not privy to those changes it really means nothing and nothing will change.. .

These changes mean nothing will change?

checkyabadself wrote: »

I`m sure he has the power to remove every single paedophile reported and convicted and anyone who aided and abetted paedophile priests from his church. Surely he has the power to do that much.He could order an inquiry to purge the ranks of paedophiles, but lets get real, he himself was involved in the cover up.

Did you miss the part about a visitation? The Vatican is getting involved on the ground here so that outsiders can come in and try to clean up. About time too.

taconnol wrote: »

I don't think you get it. The onus is on the Church to demonstrate that it has changed, not for people like me to go running around trying to figure out if they've decided that I can be "privy" to their internal procedural changes.

Would you listen even when they do? People over on another thread aren't even bothered reading the Pastoral Letter, apparently all waffle/too long etc. The same people complain that the Church hasn't done x,y and z, when in fact it has.

taconnol wrote: »

Good for them. Thousands are not. To suggest that one has to go to a RCC priest to find out what the Church has implemented is inconsiderate to those that do not want to have direct contact with the Church.

Like I said, the internet is wonderful. Of course you could also go down to the local pub where there is no doubt an armchair Vatican expert.

Macha

prinz wrote: »

Would you listen even when they do? People over on another thread aren't even bothered reading the Pastoral Letter, apparently all waffle/too long etc. The same people complain that the Church hasn't done x,y and z, when in fact it has.

So...your argument is the Church doesn't need to publicize the changes it has implemented to make sure this doesn't happen every again because we wouldn't bother listening anyway. What utter nonsense. What has it done? Where have the changes been instigated? Where are the mandatory reportings of abuse to the authorities?

prinz wrote: »

Like I said, the internet is wonderful. Of course you could also go down to the local pub where there is no doubt an armchair Vatican expert.

So provide a link. Your comments about the pub are quite irrelevant to this debate.

You seem far, far too willing to dismiss people who want answers. The Church has a very bad history of having a similar attitude.

checkyabadself

prinz wrote: »

Did you miss the part about a visitation? The Vatican is getting involved on the ground here so that outsiders can come in and try to clean up. About time too.

With respect, I`ll believe it when I see it. If he does remove every paedophile priest, or lets face it, even one, I`ll be amazed. He was involved in the cover up so I dont see how he`s going to start kicking priests out of the church, without himself going too. He did after all send a letter to bishops(not 100%, might have been cardinals) requiring secrecy about cases of abuse a few years back. That makes todays letter hypocritical.

Galwaymother

I am not a Catholic, nor a Christian, and from my standpoint, it is too little, too late, indeed. Child sex abuse, i.e. rape (of minors), has been recognised and illegal for hundred of years, and the Catholic Church has tried to confuse the matter for too long. Personally, I can't wait for the time when Church and State will be truly separate in Ireland, and people will be able to make an informed decision about their belief-system and attitudes, without the weight of social pressure to conform. Too many of my own acquaintances go along with the sacraments without an iota of real belief, just because they feel this pressure, and have no alternative world-view to give meaning to their lives. It's either Christianity or a moral vacuum in this country! Time to construct a more flexible sense of identity, less reliant on religious beliefs, I think...

Ciaran500

prinz wrote: »

Would you listen even when they do? People over on another thread aren't even bothered reading the Pastoral Letter, apparently all waffle/too long etc. The same people complain that the Church hasn't done x,y and z, when in fact it has.

Complete bull. Some people not reading it is not a reason to not publicise any changes.

So, have any changes been made publicly?

dunleakelleher

prinz wrote: »

Would you expect your boss to send an email around the company telling them that he is calling for your resignation?

I would if I raped the kids of my fellow employees.

prinz wrote: »

These changes mean nothing will change?

Oh do answer my point please, and stop fluffing around.

Here it is again.

prinz wrote:

There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

The RCC is made up of the ordinary people of the Church. Only a minute percentage are clergy. So if the majority of the Church are not privy to those changes it really means nothing and nothing will change..
Remember Vatican II was fundamental in giving the Church back to the ordinary people from the hierarchy of the Church.

prinz

taconnol wrote: »

So...your argument is the Church doesn't need to publicize the changes it has implemented to make sure this doesn't happen every again because we wouldn't bother listening anyway. What utter nonsense. What has it done? Where have the changes been instigated? Where are the mandatory reportings of abuse to the authorities?

I ask the priests of the diocese and the Parish Pastoral Councils to ensure that the wide reaching measures introduced into our parishes and organizations regarding the safeguarding of children are rigorously observed and constantly verified and updated. This scandal must be an occasion for all of us to be vigilant so that the abuse of children - wherever it takes place in our society - is addressed and the correct measures are taken promptly.

It is important to repeat that anyone with information regarding child sexual abuse by priests in Dublin makes contact with the Child Protection Service of the Diocese, the Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive or a counselling or support service of their choice.

Archbishop Martin reiterates an appeal, made many times before, that anyone with information regarding child sexual abuse by priests in Dublin makes contact with the Child Protection Service of the Diocese, the Garda Síochána, the Health Service Executive or a counselling or support service of their choice. It is only by knowing the full truth of the past can we improve the levels of safety for children today.

Safeguarding children in the Dublin Diocese
26th November 2009
In Brief


The Archdiocese of Dublin operates Children First – State Child Protection Guidelines -in conjunction with Church Guidelines.


The Child Protection Service in the Diocese has two main objectives; to minimise the possibility of abuse happening, and if it does to maximise the possibility of detection.

It is Diocesan policy to report all allegations of child sexual abuse to the civil authorities.

Every parish in the Archdiocese of Dublin has a trained child protection representative in place.

2,100 parish volunteers and Diocesan Organisation personnel and volunteers have participated in the Keeping Safe programme as licensed by the VDA (Volunteer Development Agency) and used by the HSE.


7,065 personnel have taken part in the Garda Vetting Process. This includes clergy, parish workers and volunteers, Diocesan agency workers and volunteers and ancillary staff in catholic schools. (Teachers are vetted by the Teaching Council)

All Catholic schools in the Archdiocese of Dublin, like every other school in the country, are required to implement the State Child Protection guidelines, Children First. The Dublin Diocesan Education secretariat has also carried out training for Boards of Management in Dublin Catholic schools to ensure best practice in child protection. This is monitored on an ongoing basis.

The Archbishop ensures that no priest is permitted to minister in the Diocese against whom an allegation has been made, who is considered by the Diocesan Child Protection Service, Diocesan Advisory Panel, the HSE or the Gardai to be a risk to children.

Priests who are out of ministry as a result of child protection concerns are required to co-operate with a monitoring system operated by the Child Protection Service .
The Gardai and the HSE are kept informed of the support systems put in place for priests who are out of ministry and are notified of any changes in their circumstances.

All taken at a glance from press releases on the Dublin Archdiocese website. But you're right, nothing has changed..

Macha

prinz wrote: »

All taken at a glance from press releases on the Dublin Archdiocese website. But you're right, nothing has changed..

Please point out where I said nothing had changed.

There is a really bad attitude towards questioning the actions of the Church. It is not healthy.

Blueboyd

How about appologising for the Vatican issuing a letter in 1922 and reisuing it in 1962 to all bishops of the world how to keep all abuse secret. How about appologising for the letter he sent personally to all the bishops of the world in 2001 where he told the issue of child sexual abuse should be dealt purely inside the church and all data should be sent to him directly and kept all details secret. How about admitting that in each country where RCC operates all national laws should be respected and in all cases without any exceptions the national law takes place over canonical law. How about appolgising that those who kept these hideous crimes secret locally were only following the orders of the Vatican and he personally was to blame of all cover ups that has happened.

looksee

I have just read the document linked in Blueboyd's post. If it is indeed a real document, and it certainly appears to be, then there is no wonder Bishop Brady felt that reporting to his superior was as much as he need do.

The implications in that document are staggering by current thinking, and it would be appropriate for the Pope to state that it has been withdrawn. It is apparent that the current letter does not require that clergy have a civil responsibility for the reporting of offenses. What is especially bizarre is that the victim is under pain of excommunication to report offences within a month (thats how I read it anyway) but the accused is not to be required to take an oath to tell the truth. And under NO circumstances is it suggested that any matter be dealt with other than by ecclesiastical law.

ISAW

dunleakelleher wrote: »

ISAW. Can I ask you for your personal view to a very simple question?
Do you think it is acceptable or not acceptable for a person not to report a child abuser to the police?

You present a tabloid newspaper headline type situation. You even put it in bold.

In 2010 it is child abuse should be reported.
some things were not illegal in the past which are nowadays.

We can't judge something in the past based today's standards.

Nor do I subscribe to Whig history.


Whether in every case today it should instantly be reported to the police or to social service I don't know. It certainly should be in almost every case I would think.

Consider for example where an adult patient in a hospital is "abusing" younger people. the staff of the hospital should be probably first called. whether one should then go to the police i don't know. This would be akin to the institutional abuse in the 1970s. You might trust the staff to deal with it.

Also just suppose it was not a crime as rape was not a crime against a male in 1977. would that make it right? I think it wouldn't. so just being illegal isn't the criterion for it being wrong.

second what about "suspected" child abuse. You have to be quite carefull here. if for example you accuse a sports or swimming instructor in the wrong then you could ruin their career and if they prove that, then your company (say for example a sports club) could be in liquidation because of a false rape claim or similar. it is very easy to moralise about what is right and wrong but in practice there are ramifications which you may not have considered.

An adult having sexual relations with a child however is always wrong in my opinion even if it is allowed under law. But then we are into what is an adult or a child? I woudl consider that when ther are no sewcondary sexual charachteristics then we a re talking about a child.

I woudl have sympathy for the man in the CC (i think) case . I dont approve of what he did but i donbt consider it rape. He met a 14 year old in a night club. The 14 year old was admitted and was drinking there and he thought she was eighteen and to him she looked 18. he had sex with her. i think that is wrong but I would still not be happy if she was eighteen and it was legal for him to do so.

so it isn't quite so "simple" as you might imagine.

dunleakelleher

ISAW wrote: »

some things were not illegal in the past which are nowadays.

I disagree but
Thank you for your personal view.

My personal view is raping a child is a crime even in the 70s and should be reported to the police.
I don't think i would like to continue a conversation with you. But thank you for your input.

Now back to the original post.
the support of the Primates Position.
Is the pope saying in his letter that he does not support the primates position.
The Pope said "Nevertheless, it must be admitted that grave errors of judgement were made and failures of leadership occurred. All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness"
Well can you have a leader of the Church in Ireland with
serious undermined credibility and effectiveness.

Blueboyd

Offences against the State Act 1939

17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
( a ) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or
( d ) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the Commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,

james finn

the 1970s are gone, its 2010 and yes it was bad form but why keep going on about it, whats done is done.

--amadeus--

Claiming that what happened wasn't rape is below contemptable. Like dunleakelleher I have no interest in discussing morality with someone who's concept of right and wrong is so out of kilter with the norm.

james finn

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Claiming that what happened wasn't rape is below contemptable. Like dunleakelleher I have no interest in discussing morality with someone who's concept of right and wrong is so out of kilter with the norm.

yes its rape but what do we do, talk about it till we die or make the change and move on cos its on tv-radio everyday, you have to get to a point where you say enough is enough move on.

Orion

prinz wrote: »

There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

Aren't all catholics part of the church not outside it? I may be an atheist but I have read and do understand your bible. I cannot remember the chapter in it that states that only the frocked are part of the church :rolleyes:

my 2c - it's a letter that basically says "sorry now stfu". IMO Ratzinger is a lame duck pope. He's been implicated himself and has proven that this corruption goes all the way to the top. There wasn't even an implied criticism of Brady or any of the archbishops or cardinals that participated willingly in various cover-ups of child abuse. Basically it is a waste of ink.

On the plus side it probably will cause more people to leave the RCC as it being exposed more and more as a corrupt organisation that will do everything in its power to protect that power.

PDN wrote: »

That's up to the civil authorities. The Pope has no jurisdiction or authority to make pronouncements about what will happen under the Irish legal system. He can only talk from his own perspective as a church leader.

That is true. I do not blame the catholic church for the lack of prosecutions - that is our fault for allowing our politicians to protect these bastards.

aleybert

Macros42 wrote: »

That is true. I do not blame the catholic church for the lack of prosecutions - that is our fault for allowing our politicians to protect these bastards.

Couldn't agree more. However, I do blame the church for probably being the most corrupt evil organisation in the world today.
The answer of "sure theres good priests as well as bad" line doesn't work anymore. They work for this organisation, so are guilty by association. THATS how rotten to the core the church is. Its not just the child beatings and child rapes that makes me sick, its the excusing and condoning of it, that is just as evil.
The popes letter doesn't help anyone. Marching every paedophile up to the police station might.

dunleakelleher

Macros42 wrote: »

Aren't all catholics part of the church not outside it?

prinz. Seems to refuse to answer that point by many different posters here. But maybe prinz made that comment by mistake. So if so that is not an issue we all make mistakes. And as we know in the catholic church we can all make mistakes and sometimes even our leaders refuse to analogue them. And as our pope told us today Its all part of being a good catholic.

Fanny Cradock

goat2 wrote: »

no one will go to jail
none of the victims will receive the substantial damages they deserve
this is all in avoiding paying up

You don't actually know any of this. For what is is now worth, people have gone to jail and settlements have be agreed. I see no reason to think that this wont continue.