The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Graces7

gimmebroadband wrote: »

At least admit that the CC is more safer for children in 2011 than any other organisation.

You must be joking? Or just deceived? All we have seen is lies and cover ups and that the Church we love so much has let us donw so badly it cannot ever be trusted again.

One thing also; the Church was in charge of education here so in a very real sense they taught generations....and started all the main organisations....

Jeepers; I can hardly believe that anyone really belives that any child is safe in the Church. Much of the alleged child protection verbiage is to "prevent false accusations" and the vaunted child protection course is one evening session. Overseas it is a year's course.

Added to that many of the priests are still refusing to allow vetting.

Graces7

prinz wrote: »

An "inside and totally reliable source" isn't official government figures is it? Total twaddle btw.

Please mind your manners; thank you.

As you insist; this is Church government. These are the Vatican figues as released by a religious there.

Hence the spin now..

Horrific as it is, the Vatican knows and has always known the full extent of the abuse here. Maybe some here think that there is less; remember that in fact very few of the abused spoke out and asked for redress. A small minority. The rest led and lead diminished lives with a great deal of courage.

We know many such. Who never thought of money etc.

An estimate on politics ie assessed the numbers of children who were in the industrial schools - and that does not include the Magdalene Laundries - as 35, 000. In these places what Kenny rightly calls @rape and torture" were the norm.

The documentary "Sex in a cold climate " is online.

And that does not include parochial abuse.

gimmebroadband

Graces7 wrote: »

You must be joking? Or just deceived? All we have seen is lies and cover ups and that the Church we love so much has let us donw so badly it cannot ever be trusted again.

One thing also; the Church was in charge of education here so in a very real sense they taught generations....and started all the main organisations....

Jeepers; I can hardly believe that anyone really belives that any child is safe in the Church. Much of the alleged child protection verbiage is to "prevent false accusations" and the vaunted child protection course is one evening session. Overseas it is a year's course.

Added to that many of the priests are still refusing to allow vetting.

I never said the CC was the safest, just safer. Consider the HSE and and their failure to protect children in their care, they have not implemented any new procedures or guidlines. Cloyne diocese has posted guidelines on the web.

http://www.cloynediocese.ie/2011/02/cloyne-safeguarding-children-policy/

These things won't happen overnight, and now that the abuse has been exposed, the clergy will know that the world will be keeping a close eye on them in the future.

Graces7

JimiTime wrote: »

Thank you for your honest assessment of what has and is happening. I'm sure it is very hard to utter such words when you love your Church as you do.

May I ask, what do you think a faithful Catholic Christian like yourself should do in the face of this? Do you ignore it, and continue in your faith in Christ while staying under the RCC's banner? Do you think leaving the banner of the RCC is an option? As a non RC Christian looking in, it is very difficult to see why I should look to the RCC as a 'mother' spiritually speaking. As someone on the 'inside' as it were, would you mind if I pryed into your opinions on the above?

Also, I'm just wondering about the 76% figure. I thought that 70% of abuse was carried out by a friend or family member. Though i have to say, Be it 2% or be it 90%, the issue, from an organisational point of view, is more to do with how it was dealt with.

See my post re the figures; which horrify of course.

Hate labels! But maybe you have that the wrong way round; maybe "Christian ... catholic.. " is wiser, but simply Jesus is my Life, my Lord, my Light and everything to me.

What matters is not what others do to me; but what I do in His Light and Love to others. He is all to me.

Truth is Light; until the Church faces fully the rottenness therein, it will fail Jesus, and that is their sin, one which I will not join in or hide or condone. Truth as Jesus says, is freedom also.

And when Jesus is all, the rest is window dressing.

There is no such thing as a pure Church; period. Our heart is the true Church.

Sometimes the phrase "more catholic then the pope, " comes to mind also!

Someone once said to me, that RC may be the Church Jesus founded, but it bears no resemblancde to it now.

Graces7

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I never said the CC was the safest, just safer. Consider the HSE and and their failure to protect children in their care, they have not implemented any new procedures or guidlines. Cloyne diocese has posted guidelines on the web.

http://www.cloynediocese.ie/2011/02/cloyne-safeguarding-children-policy/

These things won't happen overnight, and now that the abuse has been exposed, the clergy will know that the world will be keeping a close eye on them in the future.

You really think this? Sigh.. this is why things are as bad as they are. The pot calling the kettle black... Adam blaming Eve... plus ca change etc... Shameful.

Graces7

Monty. wrote: »

It may be a desirable aim, but no way is this proven true yet, far from it.

Policies continue to be mere windowdressing that the likes of McGee and his Cardinals can continue to ignore. Words and documents and committees mean nothing, actions count.

Research Cardinals Sodano, Bertone and Law before you make claims like this.

Powerful Cardinals like Sodano, Bertone and Law, and Bishops like Brady and McGee must be properly dealt with. Wrong is wrong. End of story.

Amen to this. Thank you.

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

As a victim of child sexual abuse myself I can certainly say that abortion is far worse!! There are certain degrees of child abuse and I would say that abortion tops it all!!

So then, people who have abortions are worse than paedophiles?

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

So then, people who have abortions are worse than paedophiles?

I was referring to the sin of abortion, not the sinner who commits it!! It's not the sinner I condemn says the Lord, it's the sin!

John 8:11

I do not Judge any sinner, that's for God alone, but I can detest the sin!!

---

For me this thread has run it's course, I/we can speculate all we want about what's being done/not done. It's fair to say that guidelines take time to be set up and enforced, and a renewal to take place in the Church. Perhaps importing new bishops to oversee the clergy would be a good start!

http://blog.acton.org/archives/25154-what-ireland-has-lost-and-how-it-can-be-regained.html

Monty.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Perhaps importing new bishops to oversee the clergy would be a good start!

Why do you think foreign bishops will be any more capable or honest, or able to understand this country any better ? We'd be a backwater dumping ground for the rejects, not the cream.

Also what about the extremely powerful problems in Rome, i.e. the unholy trinity of Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Law ?

What would be wrong about promoting Irish priests that have the skill, ability, energy, determination, will and clean record to do the job ?

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I was referring to the sin of abortion, not the sinner who commits it!! It's not the sinner I condemn says the Lord, it's the sin!

John 8:11

I do not Judge any sinner, that's for God alone, but I can detest the sin!!

---

For me this thread has run it's course, I/we can speculate all we want about what's being done/not done. It's fair to say that guidelines take time to be set up and enforced, and a renewal to take place in the Church. Perhaps importing new bishops to oversee the clergy would be a good start!

http://blog.acton.org/archives/25154-what-ireland-has-lost-and-how-it-can-be-regained.html

Before you go, are you saying that in the eyes of God, doctors who perform abortions are more sinful than paedophile Priests?

alex73

himnextdoor wrote: »

Before you go, are you saying that in the eyes of God, doctors who perform abortions are more sinful than paedophile Priests?

Murder on a scale of sin is worse than abuse... But both sins will land younin hell, they are disgusting

himnextdoor

alex73 wrote: »

Murder on a scale of sin is worse than abuse... But both sins will land younin hell, they are disgusting

Again; Jeremiah 31:31 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.”

Non-belief, not sin, is what lands you in Hell.

Abortion is no more murder than contraception is and technically, menstruation is a form of abortion. As is masturbation.

'Let the living tend to the living'.

alex73

himnextdoor wrote: »

Non-belief, not sin, is what lands you in Hell.

Abortion is no more murder than contraception is and technically, menstruation is a form of abortion. As is masturbation.

'Let the living tend to the living'.

Very protestant point of view.

gimmebroadband

himnextdoor wrote: »

Non-belief, not sin, is what lands you in Hell.

Abortion is no more murder than contraception is and technically, menstruation is a form of abortion. As is masturbation.

'Let the living tend to the living'.

What a load of garbled shyte, looks like it's been written by someone who's been at the sauce!

himnextdoor

alex73 wrote: »

Very protestant point of view.

Oh, now I see; Corinthians versus Jeremiah, is it?

Protect your children or abdicate resonsibility for you children; Protestestant versus Catholic is it?

Please God, let the Protestants win.

And PDN, notice the word 'shyte'; if I'd have said that I would have had an infraction.

At least my kids are safe.

himnextdoor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

What a load of garbled shyte, looks like it's been written by someone who's been at the sauce!

I hope you don't have children.

himnextdoor

alex73 wrote: »

Very protestant point of view.

It's in your Bible.

Or is it a case of 'If the cap fits, choose another passage from scripture'?

JimiTime

alex73 wrote: »

Very protestant point of view.

Not that I really know what 'protestant' really means, as its so broad, but that is not any protestant dotrine that I know of I thought all (Well most anyway) Christians believe that it is sin that leads to destruction It is the basis for salvation. Jesus bares our sins if you accept his gift of salvation. If we don't accept the gift, then we simply get paid the wages of sin I.E. Death. (Though some will tell you its eternal life in a place called hell, then argue that being concious and in your wits etc, is not actually being alive etc and that destruction is not REALLY destruction and that the second DEATH of which there is no resurrection is not actually a second death, but rather a LIFE without God. those same people will also criticise the tradition sytem that gave birth to such doctrines*;):))


*provocation intentional, but done with a smile, a nudge and a wink:);)

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

Not that I really know what 'protestant' really means, as its so broad, but that is not any protestant dotrine that I know of I thought all (Well most anyway) Christians believe that it is sin that leads to destruction It is the basis for salvation. Jesus bares our sins if you accept his gift of salvation. If we don't accept the gift, then we simply get paid the wages of sin I.E. Death. (Though some will tell you its eternal life in a place called hell, then argue that being concious and in your wits etc, is not actually being alive etc and that destruction is not REALLY destruction and that the second DEATH of which there is no resurrection is not actually a second death, but rather a LIFE without God. those same people will also criticise the tradition sytem that gave birth to such doctrines*;):))


*provocation intentional, but done with a smile, a nudge and a wink:);)

Fair enough but I hold that Priests are peers and not superior to others in the eyes of God.

Why then is there a need for a second set of laws?

prinz

Graces7 wrote: »

Please mind your manners; thank you..

What's wrong with my manners? First you claimed you were citing 'official government figures'.... that turned into 'a reliable source'........

Graces7 wrote: »

As you insist; this is Church government. These are the Vatican figues as released by a religious there...

"This is Church government"....eh what? If these are released figures please include a link to them in your next post.

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

Not that I really know what 'protestant' really means, as its so broad, but that is not any protestant dotrine that I know of I thought all (Well most anyway) Christians believe that it is sin that leads to destruction It is the basis for salvation. Jesus bares our sins if you accept his gift of salvation. If we don't accept the gift, then we simply get paid the wages of sin I.E. Death. (Though some will tell you its eternal life in a place called hell, then argue that being concious and in your wits etc, is not actually being alive etc and that destruction is not REALLY destruction and that the second DEATH of which there is no resurrection is not actually a second death, but rather a LIFE without God. those same people will also criticise the tradition sytem that gave birth to such doctrines*;):))


*provocation intentional, but done with a smile, a nudge and a wink:);)

Then what should I understand from Jeremiah 31:31-34?

It seems to say that sin will count for nothing in the end...'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more'.

What does it mean?

JimiTime

himnextdoor wrote: »

Then what should I understand from Jeremiah 31:31-34?

It seems to say that sin will count for nothing in the end...'For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more'.

What does it mean?

It means what I said. Sin is what leads to destruction, but through Gods offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, He will forgive our iniquity. We must take up the offer of course, if not, we will be paid the wages of sin, which is death.

CiaranMT

@Himnextdoor... Is it a case of this again tonight?

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

It means what I said. Sin is what leads to destruction, but through Gods offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, He will forgive our iniquity. We must take up the offer of course, if not, we will be paid the wages of sin, which is death.

Which, taken literally, means as long as they believe in Jesus, or whatever, paedophile Priests will not be judged by God on the basis of their sins.

That may well keep them out of Hell but it should not keep them out of prison.

himnextdoor

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

CiaranMT wrote: »

@Himnextdoor... Is it a case of this again tonight?

No but it wouldn't be a band-wagon if it wasn't jumped on, would it?

Well done you. :rolleyes:

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

It means what I said. Sin is what leads to destruction, but through Gods offer of salvation through Jesus Christ, He will forgive our iniquity. We must take up the offer of course, if not, we will be paid the wages of sin, which is death.

To clarify; only non-Christians can sin in the eyes of God.

Is that what you are saying?

Seroiusly, I'm intersested; do say, Muslim paedophiles go to Hell while Christian paedophiles go to heaven?

Is that how God decides?

I asked this before: is Christianity a free-pass to heaven? Has Christianity found a 'loop-hole' in the law of God?

JimiTime

You've been around here long enough to know better, but giving the benefit of the doubt.

himnextdoor wrote: »

To clarify; only non-Christians can sin in the eyes of God.


Is that what you are saying?

NO Sin is sin, whoever does it.

Seroiusly, I'm intersested; do say, Muslim paedophiles go to Hell while Christian paedophiles go to heaven?

Where are you getting this from? It seems your preconceptions really stumble you away from even a remote sense of understanding.

No, any nonrepentant sinner, be they muslim, Jew or "Christian", will be judged for their iniquity. Many Atheists and the like, love to be able to declare anyone who calls themselves Christian, representative (Only when it suits them to do so of course). The fact is, that in the REAL sense, the title 'Christian' is a gold standard and anyone who lives in defiance of this standard is NOT a Christian, even if the label is applied. Now I want to emphasise the word 'DEFIANCE'. It is important, because a person who continues to murder, abuse children, fornicate etc is in DEFIANCE. A person who has murdered, or abused a child, or fornicated but has repented has sinned, but is not defiant. So when you say, 'A Christian child abuser', its an oxymoron. He is either one or the other. Brendan Smith was a child abuser, not a Christian, he will suffer the same fate as any muslim or hindu child abuser. When you want to define a Christian, look to its leader I.E. Jesus. He told us that our fruitage will identify us. A bad tree wont produce good fruits, nor will a good tree produce bad fruit. Anti-Christian folk hate such a definition though, because they can't point at people and say, 'Evil Christian, shooting abortion doctors' etc. they would have to say, 'Look at that person who thinks that they are following Christ, but are so far from him'. So they prefer to act dumb as to what a Christian is, such is the self delusion or mere dishonesty.

I asked this before: is Christianity a free-pass to heaven?

If you had any idea what it was to be a Christian, I would simply answer yes. Due to your skewed view though, I'll have to elaborate. Following Christ and having faith in him is most certainly a free pass. He has paid our debt. Going to mass on sundays or believing in his existance or who he is , is not being a Christian (The devil knows who he is afterall), so in THAT context, a person is no different to any other sinner.

PDN

Maybe we could stay on the subject of clerical child abuse rather than messing around while himnextdoor pretends not to understand the Christian concepts off repentance and forgiveness?

himnextdoor

JimiTime wrote: »

You've been around here long enough to know better, but giving the benefit of the doubt.



NO Sin is sin, whoever does it.



Where are you getting this from? It seems your preconceptions really stumble you away from even a remote sense of understanding.

No, any nonrepentant sinner, be they muslim, Jew or "Christian", will be judged for their iniquity. Many Atheists and the like, love to be able to declare anyone who calls themselves Christian, representative (Only when it suits them to do so of course). The fact is, that in the REAL sense, the title 'Christian' is a gold standard and anyone who lives in defiance of this standard is NOT a Christian, even if the label is applied. Now I want to emphasise the word 'DEFIANCE'. It is important, because a person who continues to murder, abuse children, fornicate etc is in DEFIANCE. A person who has murdered, or abused a child, or fornicated but has repented has sinned, but is not defiant. So when you say, 'A Christian child abuser', its an oxymoron. He is either one or the other. Brendan Smith was a child abuser, not a Christian, he will suffer the same fate as any muslim or hindu child abuser. When you want to define a Christian, look to its leader I.E. Jesus. He told us that our fruitage will identify us. A bad tree wont produce good fruits, nor will a good tree produce bad fruit. Anti-Christian folk hate such a definition though, because they can't point at people and say, 'Evil Christian, shooting abortion doctors' etc. they would have to say, 'Look at that person who thinks that they are following Christ, but are so far from him'. So they prefer to act dumb as to what a Christian is, such is the self delusion or mere dishonesty.



If you had any idea what it was to be a Christian, I would simply answer yes. Due to your skewed view though, I'll have to elaborate. Following Christ and having faith in him is most certainly a free pass. He has paid our debt. Going to mass on sundays or believing in his existance or who he is , is not being a Christian (The devil knows who he is afterall), so in THAT context, a person is no different to any other sinner.

Actually, I find this 'outlook' informative and somewhat reasonable; to say a 'Christian Paedophile' is to say a 'good bad'.

Fair enough.

It seems to me also to be reasonable to expect all members of the Catholic clergy to be Christians and that Brendan Smyth obviously was not a Christian.

It makes me wonder how many other clergy are actually not Christian and how can they be detected? And what can be done when they are detected?

Fanny Cradock

It makes me wonder if you will ever ask genuine questions rather than try score rhetorical points.