Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
Why bring all this other stuff into the discussion ?? you have accepted that great wrong was done. The only way to move on from there is to take hits whether justified or not and by confronting and past errors and making recompense retake the moral high ground and and earn back the respect of the nation.
Anything else is seen as legalistic smoke and mirrors, even though in many cases,you may well be correct in your assessment of the motives of others.
I gather that this is your first time debating ISAW, then?0 -
Why bring all this other stuff into the discussion ?? you have accepted that great wrong was done. The only way to move on from there is to take hits whether justified or not and by confronting and past errors and making recompense retake the moral high ground and and earn back the respect of the nation.
I think you may have missed a lot of the discussion.
1. the church has admitted that some clerics ( less than 0.1% were involved in pedophile sex)
2. The church always opposed such behavior
3. The Church never planned organised or facilitated such behaviour.
4. The Vatican didn't cover it up.
5. when the behavior was identified the church reacted to it before the state did.
6. All the clerical abuse added together is less than one per cent of the number of abusers i.e. the problem is a wider societal problem not under the remit of the ChurchAnything else is seen as legalistic smoke and mirrors, even though in many cases,you may well be correct in your assessment of the motives of others.
You must have missed it! the church have admitted it existed and reacted to it. Child protection policies and disclosure existed in the church long ago . One in Four for example only recently ( last year or so) adopted full disclosure.
" confronting and past errors and making recompense" has already been dealt with a decade ago.0 -
I think you may have missed a lot of the discussion.
1. the church has admitted that some clerics ( less than 0.1% were involved in pedophile sex)
2. The church always opposed such behavior
3. The Church never planned organised or facilitated such behaviour.
4. The Vatican didn't cover it up.
5. when the behavior was identified the church reacted to it before the state did.
6. All the clerical abuse added together is less than one per cent of the number of abusers i.e. the problem is a wider societal problem not under the remit of the Church
You must have missed it! the church have admitted it existed and reacted to it. Child protection policies and disclosure existed in the church long ago . One in Four for example only recently ( last year or so) adopted full disclosure.
" confronting and past errors and making recompense" has already been dealt with a decade ago.
I hav'nt missed any of the discussion and all of the above, whether correct or not , is at this stage for the most part irrelevant.
The public perception on a world wide basis is that there was widespread child abuse within the church and that rather than confront this issue head on the church (unwittingly or not) compounded the problem by moving problem priests , silencing laymembers and victims and when the dam finally broke the first port of call by the church was the lawyers, and this continues to be the case.
Now I don't know whether you will agree with that summation or not , but I would bet my house that that is the view of a majority of people . And in the case of people without a direct involvement ,either with clergy or victims, I would say it is the view of a strong majority.
Sad to say perception is everything,and the Church is losing that battle big-time. Does it matter ? Well that is a question for another day.
And those posters on either side that are most vehement ( and yes I mean you ISAW among others) do their cause the most damage by being unwilling or unable to see this.0 -
I hav'nt missed any of the discussion and all of the above, whether correct or not , is at this stage for the most part irrelevant.
It is "irrelevant" to you because you want to ignore the elephant in the room. If there are 100 rapists put in a room and only one of them is black would you consider it irrelevant that 99 are white and start yelling "Look at this it proves black people have a terrible inclination to rape"The public perception on a world wide basis is that there was widespread child abuse within the church
Preception is not reality! Particularly perception based on anti catholic biased media reporting. You have been shown that the actual figures show there is not "widespread child abuse" in the church and that clerics constitute less than a per cent of child sex abusers.and that rather than confront this issue head on the church (unwittingly or not) compounded the problem by moving problem priests ,
No it didn't! the church never had such a policy! Some Bishops made this mistake. So far out of say 10,000 bishops over that period about 10 have resigned or admitted mistakes of moving clerics. And we are talking about maybe a dozen cases of such clerics.silencing laymembers and victims
Again misreported in the media. Crimen solicatis was not about child abuse it was about the tiny minority of clerics who solicit pennants during confession. Secrecy was maintained to protect the victim and it was the cleric who was bound over to secrecy.and when the dam finally broke the first port of call by the church was the lawyers, and this continues to be the case.
Again wrong! If it went down a legal route theis would go on for years. so the church in Ireland offered to pay money and in consultation with the state payments were made without any recourse to legal courts. The sums were very high in comparison to international standards e.g. the UK or Australia.Now I don't know whether you will agree with that summation or not , but I would bet my house that that is the view of a majority of people .
So what? If you have been lied to and want to believe the lie when the facts are available
don't blame me. Im sure the a large number of Germans might not have liked Jews and may havew passed laws against them. that didnt make it right did it? Was it right that the majority of N Ireland blocked Catholics form jobs and houses for 70 years?And in the case of people without a direct involvement ,either with clergy or victims, I would say it is the view of a strong majority.
Exactly! If your majority is "strong" use the jackboot on the innocent!Sad to say perception is everything,and the Church is losing that battle big-time. Does it matter ? Well that is a question for another day.
Yes perception isn't everything. Particularly when it is not based on the truth.And those posters on either side that are most vehement ( and yes I mean you ISAW among others) do their cause the most damage by being unwilling or unable to see this.
If it is a question for another day why are you making an issue of it now?
I see quite clearly what happens when the media bias creeps in.
I see quite clearly what a "perception" did to the Jews and gypsies.0 -
It is "irrelevant" to you because you want to ignore the elephant in the room. If there are 100 rapists put in a room and only one of them is black would you consider it irrelevant that 99 are white and start yelling "Look at this it proves black people have a terrible inclination to rape"
Preception is not reality! Particularly perception based on anti catholic biased media reporting. You have been shown that the actual figures show there is not "widespread child abuse" in the church and that clerics constitute less than a per cent of child sex abusers.
No it didn't! the church never had such a policy! Some Bishops made this mistake. So far out of say 10,000 bishops over that period about 10 have resigned or admitted mistakes of moving clerics. And we are talking about maybe a dozen cases of such clerics.
Again misreported in the media. Crimen solicatis was not about child abuse it was about the tiny minority of clerics who solicit pennants during confession. Secrecy was maintained to protect the victim and it was the cleric who was bound over to secrecy.
Again wrong! If it went down a legal route theis would go on for years. so the church in Ireland offered to pay money and in consultation with the state payments were made without any recourse to legal courts. The sums were very high in comparison to international standards e.g. the UK or Australia.
So what? If you have been lied to and want to believe the lie when the facts are available
don't blame me. Im sure the a large number of Germans might not have liked Jews and may havew passed laws against them. that didnt make it right did it? Was it right that the majority of N Ireland blocked Catholics form jobs and houses for 70 years?
Exactly! If your majority is "strong" use the jackboot on the innocent!
Yes perception isn't everything. Particularly when it is not based on the truth.
If it is a question for another day why are you making an issue of it now?
I see quite clearly what happens when the media bias creeps in.
I see quite clearly what a "perception" did to the Jews and gypsies.
What an extraordinary reply ! You have just made my case, and while you fiddle Rome burns.0 -
Advertisement
-
You quote an entire message and this is all you have to add?What an extraordinary reply ! You have just made my case, and while you fiddle Rome burns.
Why can't you discuss the points raised?
The facts are there. Ther is an anti Catholic bias and perception is in error.
Yes the minority of one per cent of abusers who were clerics were bad people.
But it seems you have not being paying attention to the thread.
The church responded to lax policy.
Victims were redressed and compensated.
Policies in selecting clergy were implemented.
Child protection policies were implemented.
The State still lags the church in reaction to pedophiles.
So your platitudes or throwaway remarks amount to nothing. deal with the actual facts.0 -
You quote an entire message and this is all you have to add?
Why can't you discuss the points raised?
The facts are there. Ther is an anti Catholic bias and perception is in error.
Yes the minority of one per cent of abusers who were clerics were bad people.
But it seems you have not being paying attention to the thread.
The church responded to lax policy.
Victims were redressed and compensated.
Policies in selecting clergy were implemented.
Child protection policies were implemented.
The State still lags the church in reaction to pedophiles.
So your platitudes or throwaway remarks amount to nothing. deal with the actual facts.
ISAW , you deal in absolutes, but life is not like that. Of course there is an anti catholic bias , there is a bias pro and anti every organisation. So what ! That does not mean that all criticism is malicious .
rather that face up to these issues you keep broadening the argument to include wider society. And your conclusions and statistics may well be correct,but I would remind you of the thread title , we are not dealing with the wider world in this specific thread- just the catholic church.
So it would appear that is is you that is not paying attention , and while you continue in that mode more and more people vote with their feet and the churches get emptier each week , vocations continue to fall , ( we even have a parishes now sharing priests, who would have thought it !) and The Archbishop of Dublin in appeals for funds to stave off bankruptcy.
Tell me , in that scenario, how does it feel to be right ?0 -
I think you may have missed a lot of the discussion.
The Vatican didn't cover it up.
when the behavior was identified the church reacted to it before the state did.
6. All the clerical abuse added together is less than one per cent of the number of abusers i.e. the problem is a wider societal problem not under the remit of the Church
Where is your proof for each of the above?0 -
Where is your proof for each of the above?
There are a number of logical fallacies in you query.
You are "shifting the burden". It is for the claimant to provide the proof.
If you claim unicorns exist I don't have to prove "there are no unicorns" is true.
I claimed the Vatican didn't cover things up.
One can't "prove a negative!"
The point is someone else is claiming that the Vatican did cover things up.
It is for them to provide proof.
If the one per cent of clerical abuse was covered up I do not justify it. But there is also the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse and well it would seem that even if ten times as many non clerics were convicted that still leaves 90 times as many non clerical "coverups" .
As regards child protection policies - see any parish website.
As regards the one per cent - discussed at length in this thread:
If only one per cent or less of pedophile abusers are clergy then obviously there is a problem with the other 99 per cent plus.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65508333&postcount=857
which show about 1.5 percent of abusers are clerics. Of that the rates for Roman catholics are even lower!
Child sexual abuse: historical cases in the Byzantine Empire (324-1453 A.D.)
John Lascaratos and Effie Poulakou-Rebelakou
a Department of the History of Medicine, Medical School, National Athens
University and International Hippocratic Foundation of Kos., Athens, Greece
b International Hippocratic Foundation of Kos., Athens, Greece
Received 13 October 1999; revised 13 October 1999; accepted 4 December 1999.
Available online 7 July 2000.
Conclusion: The research of original Byzantine literature disclosed many
instances of child sexual abuse in all social classes even in the mediaeval
Byzantine society which was characterized by strict legal and religious
prohibitions.
Reid, Charles J., "The Rights of Children in Medieval Canon Law" (2007). U
of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-34
Kuefler, Mathew
Love, Marriage, and Family in the Middle Ages: A Reader, and: Love, Sex and
Marriage in the Middle Ages: A Sourcebook (review)
The Catholic Historical Review - Volume 90, Number 4, October 2004, pp.
743-746
The Canon Law On the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later
Middle...
Donahue Journal of Family History.1983; 8: 144-158
In fact when the Greek and Western Roman empire was acceptable of such things there are church rules going back to the third or fourth century against sex with children.
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades,
less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in
the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.
Alan Cooperman, "Hundreds of Priests Removed Since '60s; Survey Shows Scope
Wider Than Disclosed," Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.
According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests
ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.
Laurie Goodstein, "Decades of Damage; Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads
to Nearly Every Diocese," New York Times, January 12, 2003, Section 1, p. 1.
Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and
1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.
Interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, Transcript of "The O'Reilly Factor," May 3,
2002.
Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately
two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.
Bob von Sternberg, "Insurance Falls Short in Church Abuse Cases; Catholic
Dioceses are Forced to Find other Sources to Pay Settlements," Star Tribune,
July 27, 2002, p. 1A.
Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas
Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that "80 to 90% of
all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent
boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than
the young altar boy or girls of any age.
Thomas Plante, "A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse,"
www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html.
In fact the stats are HIGHER for Jews and Protestants but that again is a
DIFFERENT topic!
In the spring of 2002, when the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church
was receiving unprecedented attention, the Christian Science Monitor
reported on the results of national surveys by Christian Ministry Resources.
The conclusion: "Despite headlines focusing on the priest pedophile problem
in the Roman Catholic Church, most American churches being hit with child
sexual-abuse allegations are Protestant, and most of the alleged abusers are
not clergy or staff, but church volunteers."
Mark Clayton, "Sex Abuse Spans Spectrum of Churches," Christian Science
Monitor, April 5, 2002, p. 1
Penn State professor Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles
and Priests, it was determined that between .2 and 1.7 percent of priests
are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and
3 percent.
Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests (New York: Oxford University Press),
pp. 50 and 81.
Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer is a professor of law and ethics at Loyola
Marymount University. It is his belief that sexual abuse among rabbis
approximates that found among the Protestant clergy. According to one
study, 73 percent of women rabbis report instances of sexual harassment.
"Sadly," Rabbi Schaefer concludes, "our community's reactions up to this
point have been often based on keeping things quiet in an attempt to do
'damage control.' Fear of lawsuits and bad publicity have dictated an
atmosphere of hushed voices and outrage against those who dare to break
ranks by speaking out."
Rabbi Arthur Gross Schaefer, "Rabbi Sexual Misconduct: Crying Out for a
Communal Response," www.rrc.edu/journal, November 24, 2003.
A review in 2006 of child pornography laws in 184 countries by the
International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC) and other
organizations including software giant Microsoft shows that more than half
have no laws that address child pornography
^ "Child Pornography Not a Crime in Most Countries" (pdf). International
Centre for Missing & Exploited Children. 2006.
http://www.icmec.org/en_X1/pdf/Summe...6formatted.pdf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_ShakeshaftA 2002 New York Times report quoted Shakeshaft, "Only 1 percent of the cases did superintendents follow up to ensure that molesting teachers did not continue teaching elsewhere. In 54 percent, superintendents accepted the teachers' resignations or retirements. Of the 121 teachers removed this way, administrators knew for certain that 16 percent resumed teaching in other districts... Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. The term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators"
A 2007 Washington Post report noted, "It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames: 'passing the trash' or the 'mobile molester.'" In addition, "Maine...has a law that keeps offending teachers' cases secret" and that "in Hawaii, no educators were disciplined by the state in the five years the AP examined, even though some teachers there were serving sentences for various sex crimes during that time. They technically remained teachers, even behind bars."[7] The report also said, "Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there's no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore. School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don't want to face a challenge from a strong union."0 -
Herr Ratzinger in his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith oversaw over three thousand reports of child abuse. How many of these cases were forwarded onto the relevant police forces?I claimed the Vatican didn't cover things up.
One can't "prove a negative!"
The point is someone else is claiming that the Vatican did cover things up.
It is for them to provide proof.
Also, why would someone who had nothing to hide and had the proof to back it up, seek diplomatic immunity from prosecution in a case of child abuse cover up?0 -
Advertisement
-
ISAW , you deal in absolutes, but life is not like that.
so you think sex between a six year old child and an adult might not be always wrong and might in siome circumstances be acceptable? Give us a break!Of course there is an anti catholic bias , there is a bias pro and anti every organisation. So what !
Well suppose there is an anti black or anti Jew bias and only one percent of abuse is by blacks and Jews and the other 99 per cent by white atheists? If the newspapers only ran headlines saying "Filthy Jews and Blacks rape our children" would you not think that is scapegoating them and distracting from the real issue of the 99 per cent of rapists?That does not mean that all criticism is malicious .
I never said all clerics are above criticism. But if you see the vast majority of media coverage is about blacks and Jews and you know that blacks and Jews make up less than one per cent of offenders might you not think some it it just might be malicious?rather that face up to these issues you keep broadening the argument to include wider society.
If the one per cent of clerical abuse was covered up I do not justify it. But there is also the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse and well it would seem that even if ten times as many non clerics were convicted that still leaves 90 times as many non clerical "coverups" .And your conclusions and statistics may well be correct,but I would remind you of the thread title , we are not dealing with the wider world in this specific thread- just the catholic church.
You are pandering to anti Catholic media bias.
1. clerical abuse is not only Catholic clergy. See above wher I outline non catholic clerical abuse.
2. One has to view in context.
3. As regards the title :Note the word "merged"
Merged from a load of other discussions such as whether clergy should resign, is the coverage of them fair are the media biased about child abuse etc.So it would appear that is is you that is not paying attention , and while you continue in that mode more and more people vote with their feet and the churches get emptier each week ,
Oh I'm paying attention alright. I've been over the "thread is restricted to only catholic Priests" issue several timesvocations continue to fall , ( we even have a parishes now sharing priests, who would have thought it !)
so what? same happened in France and elsewhere. It was quite clear and people did in fact think about it. The church has already prepared outline plans for the falls in parish priests. The plans are made bottom up from parishes themselves. If you are involved in any parish organisation you would be contributing to this plan.and The Archbishop of Dublin in appeals for funds to stave off bankruptcy.
If diocese go financially bankrupt that is a temporal matter not a spiritual . The first Christians had not vast wealth and even Bishops have scant personal wealth. Indeed the turn away from materialism might well be a good thing for the Church.Tell me , in that scenario, how does it feel to be right ?
If something is true it is true. It isn't a question of being right or not. Please don't personalise it. Appeals to "meanwhile the church is in a bad way financially" have nothing to do with media bias about clerical abuse. Or maybe they do by causing people to believe in the myths about the alleged huge numbers and widespread clerical abuse.0 -
Herr Ratzinger in his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith oversaw over three thousand reports of child abuse.
And your evidence is?
And of them how many were actual cases of clerical abusers?How many of these cases were forwarded onto the relevant police forces?
Where did you get the idea that Ratzinger read 3,000 clerical abuse cases? Or that such a number even occurred worldwide whether reported or not ?Also, why would someone who had nothing to hide and had the proof to back it up, seek diplomatic immunity from prosecution in a case of child abuse cover up?
I'm sure there are plenty of reasons but the fact is diplomatic immunity is offered to prevent any such nuisance cases. The point is however that guilt is not assumed, innocence is? If someone isn't obliged to attend court then you can't conclude that their reight to silence means they are guilty can you?0 -
Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the CDF's Promoter of Justice (effectively its chief prosecutor) made this claimAnd your evidence is?
And of them how many were actual cases of clerical abusers?
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588809.stm)Some 3,000 sexual abuse cases spanning 50 years have been processed by the CDF this century, he said, most of them originating in the US. Of these cases, 300 involved allegations of "genuine paedophilia", he said. Most of the others concerned homosexual attraction to adolescents.
About 20% of the 3,000 cases resulted in priests being defrocked, he was quoted as saying by L'Avvenire. In most of the other cases, priests were deemed too old to face a full trial but other penalties such as bans on celebrating Mass or hearing Confession were imposed.
I didn't say that he read them, I said that he oversaw them. He was the man in charge! Was it that he was unaware of the scale of the amount of abuse or was the information withheld from him? We can't really think so, so he was aware of these yet none to our knowledge were sent to the relevant police forces. Why? What made him think that he and his department was in a position to "solve" these criminal cases?Where did you get the idea that Ratzinger read 3,000 clerical abuse cases? Or that such a number even occurred worldwide whether reported or not ?
Nuisance cases? Really?I'm sure there are plenty of reasons but the fact is diplomatic immunity is offered to prevent any such nuisance cases. The point is however that guilt is not assumed, innocence is? If someone isn't obliged to attend court then you can't conclude that their reight to silence means they are guilty can you?
Also, I think his presence would have been important given my points above. he hid these cases which effectively allowed abusers to continue abusing. Children suffered due to his actions (or lack thereof).0 -
so you think sex between a six year old child and an adult might not be always wrong and might in siome circumstances be acceptable? Give us a break!
Well suppose there is an anti black or anti Jew bias and only one percent of abuse is by blacks and Jews and the other 99 per cent by white atheists? If the newspapers only ran headlines saying "Filthy Jews and Blacks rape our children" would you not think that is scapegoating them and distracting from the real issue of the 99 per cent of rapists?
I never said all clerics are above criticism. But if you see the vast majority of media coverage is about blacks and Jews and you know that blacks and Jews make up less than one per cent of offenders might you not think some it it just might be malicious?
If the one per cent of clerical abuse was covered up I do not justify it. But there is also the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse and well it would seem that even if ten times as many non clerics were convicted that still leaves 90 times as many non clerical "coverups" .
You are pandering to anti Catholic media bias.
1. clerical abuse is not only Catholic clergy. See above wher I outline non catholic clerical abuse.
2. One has to view in context.
3. As regards the title :Note the word "merged"
Merged from a load of other discussions such as whether clergy should resign, is the coverage of them fair are the media biased about child abuse etc.
Oh I'm paying attention alright. I've been over the "thread is restricted to only catholic Priests" issue several times
so what? same happened in France and elsewhere. It was quite clear and people did in fact think about it. The church has already prepared outline plans for the falls in parish priests. The plans are made bottom up from parishes themselves. If you are involved in any parish organisation you would be contributing to this plan.
If diocese go financially bankrupt that is a temporal matter not a spiritual . The first Christians had not vast wealth and even Bishops have scant personal wealth. Indeed the turn away from materialism might well be a good thing for the Church.
If something is true it is true. It isn't a question of being right or not. Please don't personalise it. Appeals to "meanwhile the church is in a bad way financially" have nothing to do with media bias about clerical abuse. Or maybe they do by causing people to believe in the myths about the alleged huge numbers and widespread clerical abuse.
Missing the point yet again, longwindedness,repetition and evasion is no substitute for argument. When you are left in possession of the field as a result of this type reply do you ever wonder where every one else is gone ?0 -
Monsignor Charles Scicluna, the CDF's Promoter of Justice (effectively its chief prosecutor) made this claim
(see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8588809.stm)
You claimSome 3,000 sexual abuse cases spanning 50 years have been processed by the CDF this century, he said, most of them originating in the US. Of these cases, 300 involved allegations of "genuine paedophilia", he said. Most of the others concerned homosexual attraction to adolescents.
Your 3,000 cases of "pedophile priests" suddenly are reduced by a factor of ten on examination!
That is 300 cases worldwide over 50 years ~ about 6 a year on average. That is about one "pedophile priest" per year per billion population worldwide.
Here is the Vatican's own record of that interview:
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_mons-scicluna-2010_en.htmlThe cases of priests accused of paedophilia in the true sense have been about three hundred in nine years.
Where do these three thousand cases come from?Mostly from the United States which, in the years 2003-2004, represented around eighty percent of total cases.
...
It must, in fact, be borne in mind that the overall number of diocesan and religious priests in the world is four hundred thousand, although this statistic does not correspond to the perception that is created when these sad cases occupy the front pages of the newspapers
That's 300 over 50 years in at least a million clerics over the same period. That's about three hundredths of a percent of clerics! Edit over 9 years that is bigger by a factor of 5 i.e. fifteen hundredths or 0.0015%I didn't say that he read them, I said that he oversaw them. He was the man in charge!
and the President of the US "oversees" 7,340 in prison per million or 7,340,000 people per billion whereas the Pope annually "oversees" 1 per billion population!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_StatesWas it that he was unaware of the scale of the amount of abuse or was the information withheld from him?
so basically you have no evidence Ratzinger read over 3,000 cases or even knew about 300 of them? I have no doubt he knew about some but wher is your evidence he covered up any cases? As for the scale it is apparent in the above stats.We can't really think so, so he was aware of these yet none to our knowledge were sent to the relevant police forces.
Again from the above Vatican sourceA recurring accusation made against the ecclesiastical hierarchy is that of not reporting to the civil authorities when crimes of paedophilia come to their attention.
In some English-speaking countries, but also in France, if bishops become aware of crimes committed by their priests outside the sacramental seal of Confession, they are obliged to report them to the judicial authorities. This is an onerous duty because the bishops are forced to make a gesture comparable to that of a father denouncing his own son. Nonetheless, our guidance in these cases is to respect the law.Why? What made him think that he and his department was in a position to "solve" these criminal cases?
You have the above reply from the vatican as regards respecting criminal jurisdiction. The Church court decide on church matters such as removing a priest from office. A criminal court can't do that.Nuisance cases? Really?
Yes. do you think diplomatic immunity should be abolished or do you realise why it is there? do you think the Queen should be made come to Ireland to answer Bloody Sunday enquirers?
Your non points?Also, I think his presence would have been important given my points above.he hid these cases
There you go again! Non point! Wher is your evidence Ratzinger hid cases of Pedophile priests?which effectively allowed abusers to continue abusing. Children suffered due to his actions (or lack thereof).
Given the premise isn't supported the conclusion is not logical.0 -
Missing the point yet again, longwindedness,repetition and evasion is no substitute for argument.
She stated, while quoting the whole message and responding to no single point made!
Touché!When you are left in possession of the field as a result of this type reply do you ever wonder where every one else is gone ?
When you are left with no arguments do you ever wonder that the "pedophile priests" thing might be an anti Catholic media myth? When you can't deal with the issue do you always resort to attacking the person who is showing you actual figures and facts and not distorted spin not from primary sources?0 -
She stated, while quoting the whole message and responding to no single point made!
Touché!
When you are left with no arguments do you ever wonder that the "pedophile priests" thing might be an anti Catholic media myth? When you can't deal with the issue do you always resort to attacking the person who is showing you actual figures and facts and not distorted spin not from primary sources?
Are you seriously saying there has not been a pedophile problem in the Catholic Church ? And that it is all a media plot ?0 -
She stated, while quoting the whole message and responding to no single point made!
Touché!
When you are left with no arguments do you ever wonder that the "pedophile priests" thing might be an anti Catholic media myth? When you can't deal with the issue do you always resort to attacking the person who is showing you actual figures and facts and not distorted spin not from primary sources?
How come you seem to be the only person on this thread that is defending the clergy?
I think you are defending the thread more so than the topic at hand. The majority of people are discussing the horrors of child abuse and torture as carried out by the clergy and you seem intent on defending to the last. Furthermore when someone makes a point, you berate their arguments with the nuke "Where is your proof???"
One simple question I would like you to answer (and without your usual statement of "99% of normal society and 0.1% of priests")
DO YOU THINK THAT THE CHILD ABUSE WAS ENDEMIC IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT A SYSTEMATIC COVER UP POLICY EXISTED AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WAS WRONG?0 -
That's 300 over 50 years in at least a million clerics over the same period. That's about three hundredths of a percent of clerics! Edit over 9 years that is bigger by a factor of 5 i.e. fifteen hundredths or 0.0015%.
Not to be pedantic but 15/100% should be written as 0.15% which is 100 times more than 0.0015%.
Are you suggesting that Brendan Smyth was responsible for over a third of all paedophilia carried out by clergy worldwide in that 50-year period? Were his offences included in the 3000 reports to which you have referred?0 -
Where did I mention paedophile priests?Your 3,000 cases of "pedophile priests" suddenly are reduced by a factor of ten on examination!
In fact there was much abuse by nuns and other non-priests so I wouldn't have mentioned priests alone.
However, the article mentions 3000 cases of sexual abuse which is what I referred to!
Its not 300. What is "homosexual attraction to adolescents" (given that it was placed under the context of sexual abuse)?That is 300 cases worldwide over 50 years ~ about 6 a year on average. That is about one "pedophile priest" per year per billion population worldwide.
Ask Monsignor Charles Scicluna - it was his words!Where do these three thousand cases come from?
300 or 3000, what percent were reported to the relevant police forces?That's 300 over 50 years in at least a million clerics over the same period. That's about three hundredths of a percent of clerics! Edit over 9 years that is bigger by a factor of 5 i.e. fifteen hundredths or 0.0015%
The pope was in charge of a department that oversaw chils abuse cases. It had no jurisdiction under civil or criminal law to do so. It just believes/believed that it had the authority because of canon law.and the President of the US "oversees" 7,340 in prison per million or 7,340,000 people per billion whereas the Pope annually "oversees" 1 per billion population!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
It was not the role of the CDF to look at all 1 billion followers. It did have the role (within the Vatican anyhow) to look at and investigate these 3000 cases. Ratzinger was head of this department. Are you seriously saying that he was completely oblivious to what any of these cases were about?
1. I don't really care whether he read them or not. However, as head of that department he should have had an awareness of them.so basically you have no evidence Ratzinger read over 3,000 cases or even knew about 300 of them? I have no doubt he knew about some but wher is your evidence he covered up any cases? As for the scale it is apparent in the above stats.
However, the fact that these cases were not dealt with appropriately by the local police forces but were handled by people completely unqualified to do so led to a cover up. The fact that Rome continued to allow the likes fo Brendan Smith to stay free to continue abusing purely to protect its own image and reputation was nothing short of a cover up. Are you seriously denying this?
A criminal court deals with child abusers. There is no other form of court. However, the church were unaware of this or more likely simply didn't care. This view is borne through the actions of the likes of Sean Brady forcing children to sign oaths of secrecy.You have the above reply from the vatican as regards respecting criminal jurisdiction. The Church court decide on church matters such as removing a priest from office. A criminal court can't do that.
I do think she should be forced to explain why she hasn't revoked the medals that were awarded to the paras.Yes. do you think diplomatic immunity should be abolished or do you realise why it is there? do you think the Queen should be made come to Ireland to answer Bloody Sunday enquirers?
How many of these cases were referred by his dept to the police forces again?There you go again! Non point! Wher is your evidence Ratzinger hid cases of Pedophile priests?
How? They could have stopped Brendan Smith but chose not to. They hid his history from the public and the authorities. How is that not a cover up?Given the premise isn't supported the conclusion is not logical.
Now in fairness, this country has a lot to answer to in terms of cover ups including the gardai, DPP, teachers, etc. but that is not to remove from the fact that the RCC has a history of covering up abuse cases.0 -
Advertisement
-
It is "irrelevant" to you because you want to ignore the elephant in the room. If there are 100 rapists put in a room and only one of them is black would you consider it irrelevant that 99 are white and start yelling "Look at this it proves black people have a terrible inclination to rape".
It is you who is ignoring the elephant.
If that one black man in a room full of rapists had been routinely protected from prosecution by the organisation, or part thereof, that employed him, then the black rapist should go to jail with the othe ninety-nine white rapists and the organisation that employed the black man should be investigated too with a mind to bringing about further prosecutions.0 -
Are you seriously saying there has not been a pedophile problem in the Catholic Church ? And that it is all a media plot ?
Have their been clerics who abused young children sexually -yes.
Did the media place a focus on this alone and ignore non clerical abuse - yes.
Compared it to the rest of society...
Suppose there was a death rate of 400 people a year on the roads by speeding and two of these were caused by RC Priests? Would you say there was a speeding problem in the Catholic Church due to the two priests or that society as a whole had a problem due to the other 398 speeding non priests?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »It is you who is ignoring the elephant.
If that one black man in a room full of rapists had been routinely protected from prosecution by the organisation, or part thereof, that employed him, then the black rapist should go to jail with the othe ninety-nine white rapists and the organisation that employed the black man should be investigated too with a mind to bringing about further prosecutions.
Of course he should go to gaol and be treated equally under the law to the other 99!
The thing is there wasn't routine protection for priests from prosecution by the Church or part thereof. In very few cases ( at most dozens) priests were not acted upon to the full weight of the law by their superiors.
Also why investigate only the orginisation that employed the black man and only draw attention to his crimes and ignore all the others who were protected not by the black man's orginisation? And most of the ninty nine non black rapists are not mentioned let alone punished.0 -
Can you please answer the question that I have mentioned a few times on the last couple of pages.
How many cases of clerical abuse investigated by the CDF were passed onto the appropriate police authorities?0 -
What laws can their superiors act upon?The thing is there wasn't routine protection for priests from prosecution by the Church or part thereof. In very few cases ( at most dozens) priests were not acted upon to the full weight of the law by their superiors.
I'm not aware of any law that allows a member of the clergy to be a judge/jury/executioner. Can you please cite this piece of legislation?0 -
Where did I mention paedophile priests?
Message 2021 where you statedHerr Ratzinger in his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith oversaw over three thousand reports of child abuse.
So by "reports of child abuse"
REports didn't mean "reports about priests"
"Child" didn't mean child
and "Abuse" didn't mean abuse?In fact there was much abuse by nuns and other non-priests so I wouldn't have mentioned priests alone.
So you don't mran clerical abuse by priests?
Do you also not mean "child" and include abuse of adults e.g. sexual harassment?
And do you mean non sexual abuse e.g physical abuse as well?
I have been quite clear I am talking about clerical i.e. priests sexual abuse of pre pubescent children in particular.However, the article mentions 3000 cases of sexual abuse which is what I referred to!
But not 3,000 cases of priests abusing young kids! in fact the numbers shring to 300 reports of that.Its not 300. What is "homosexual attraction to adolescents" (given that it was placed under the context of sexual abuse)?
Ask Monsignor Charles Scicluna - it was his words!
It is the sort of thing David Norris was saying is different.
Ephebophilia ~look it up.300 or 3000, what percent were reported to the relevant police forces?
Well considering 20% ~600 were apparently with other consenting adults there would be nothing to report except to the Church since such sex is not illegal . Only under canon law is it deemed an offence.The pope was in charge of a department that oversaw chils abuse cases.
The US president was in charge of a State that oversaw torture and dropped atomic bombs and executed people and had slavery...
Your point being?It had no jurisdiction under civil or criminal law to do so. It just believes/believed that it had the authority because of canon law.
You would be wrong here. the child abuse cases were 10% Twice that many were adult sex cases e.g. a woman having a child for a priest. There may be nothing illegal in that happening but the church court would investigate and dismiss the Priest for contravening a church law.It was not the role of the CDF to look at all 1 billion followers.
The Role of the Holy Office since it is about "faith" is whatever it sees as affecting faith. Technically this could be anything at all with any links to the Church.It did have the role (within the Vatican anyhow) to look at and investigate these 3000 cases.
No1 It had the role in canon law withing the remit of the Holy See i.e. worldwide!
You can't have oit both ways. If you are claiming that the Church is only responsible for the Vatican then you can't claim they are also responsible for investigating all 300 accusations of pedophile priests over the last 50 years!Ratzinger was head of this department. Are you seriously saying that he was completely oblivious to what any of these cases were about?
No . Im saying he didnt look at all 3,000 cases. Nor do I think did he look at all the 300 pedophile cases. I assume he did look at some and did investigate some.1. I don't really care whether he read them or not. However, as head of that department he should have had an awareness of them.
If yo don't care whether he knew about them why suggest it is unbelievable whether he was completely oblivious to what cases were about?However, the fact that these cases were not dealt with appropriately by the local police forces but were handled by people completely unqualified to do so led to a cover up.
Which cases are you suggesting the Vatican hid and were not reported to the local police?
Can you list any of them?The fact that Rome continued to allow the likes fo Brendan Smith to stay free to continue abusing purely to protect its own image and reputation was nothing short of a cover up. Are you seriously denying this?
Where in Rome did they know about Brendan Smyth?
How could Brendan Smyth be extradited to a State with which the UK didn't have an extradition policy with until the late 1980s?A criminal court deals with child abusers. There is no other form of court.
[/quiote]
There quite clearly is! A criminal court can't deal with sex between conscenting adults. A church court does that. and a church court can inprision people it can only remove their clerical office.However, the church were unaware of this or more likely simply didn't care. This view is borne through the actions of the likes of Sean Brady forcing children to sign oaths of secrecy.
You are making up the "didnt care" element and plucking it out of the air.
Sean Brady was not the local ordinary and didnt make decisions. The local RUC or Gardai didnt investigate the case either and the family requested secrecy.I do think she should be forced to explain why she hasn't revoked the medals that were awarded to the paras.
I am not a fan of the Queen either but diplomatic immunity is there for a reason and should be respected.How many of these cases were referred by his dept to the police forces again?
How? They could have stopped Brendan Smith but chose not to.
How? With what would you have charged Smyth in the Repuiblic?
How would you have extradited him?
how did they hide it? they = the Vatican?They hid his history from the public and the authorities. How is that not a cover up?Now in fairness, this country has a lot to answer to in terms of cover ups including the gardai, DPP, teachers, etc. but that is not to remove from the fact that the RCC has a history of covering up abuse cases.
Care to list the cases the Vatican knew were certainly true could act on and inform the civil authorities and hid?0 -
You are deliberately misreading what I've posted.
Nonetheless, the church invewstigated severl complaints of abuse and "dealt" with them in whatever manner they decided was appropriate. You ask me to reveal the cases that they passed onto the ploice where they felt it was a true accusation. The church has absolutely no reason to decide what was a true accusation or not. It is an organisation with no remit to investigate crimes.
You refer to church courts. These are as relevant to a society as an IRA kangaroo court. They have absolutely no legal status and are simply a bunch of people who think they are more important that they actually are.
You also say that I'm wrong whan i said that the church "had no jurisdiction under civil or criminal law to do so. It just believes/believed that it had the authority because of canon law."Do you not recall the comparison of canon law to golf club rules?
You also referred to my comments about Smith. Rome it is alleged (by Father Bruno Mulvihill IIRC) had a document referring to Smith's actions as early as the 60s (the norbertines apparently knew as far back as the 40s) but failed to act on it. Needless to say, Rome now cannot find this letter.
As for Smith being extradited, he did commit crimes here and the US, don't forget. He also was sheltered by the feckers* in Kilnacrot who actively obstructed the RUC inquiry. However, his extradition was delayed by the actions of the DPP here.
Now, lets not get caught up in the argument that canon law has an actual legal standing as it has nothing to do with the discussion of covering up criminal acts. So, what right did the church have to investigate any allegation of sexual abuse and how many of these cases were actually passed on to the relevant authorities?
Please don't bother writing anything else, just answer that!
* my intentional term as not just from their actions in protecting Smith but they also regularly "borrowed" money from my elderly grand-aunt.0 -
Of course he should go to gaol and be treated equally under the law to the other 99!
The thing is there wasn't routine protection for priests from prosecution by the Church or part thereof. In very few cases ( at most dozens) priests were not acted upon to the full weight of the law by their superiors.
Also why investigate only the orginisation that employed the black man and only draw attention to his crimes and ignore all the others who were protected not by the black man's orginisation? And most of the ninty nine non black rapists are not mentioned let alone punished.
Excuse me?
Allegations of paedophilia reported to the Church authorities are subject to the 'pontifical secrecy' rule; the default position of the RCC is to not report paedophiles to the police.
That constitutes protection for paedophile Priests that cannot be availed by teachers or babysitters.
Canon law has been used as a tool to protect paedophiles.
And with the authority of the Pope.
Let me ask you this with regard to confessor/Priest confidentiality: How many confessions of child sex-abuse should a Priest hear without acting in the interests of children?
I suspect that you will say that the Priest should never act in the interests of children on the basis of a confession that he has heard.
And diplomatic immunity is just another form of protectionism.0 -
How come you seem to be the only person on this thread that is defending the clergy?
do you know what a "loaded question" is?
You are assuming the clergy are guilty of something with a question like that!I think you are defending the thread more so than the topic at hand. The majority of people are discussing the horrors of child abuse and torture as carried out by the clergy and you seem intent on defending to the last. Furthermore when someone makes a point, you berate their arguments with the nuke "Where is your proof???"
Oh so you can take out any group you want (in this case it happens to be RC Clergy) and accuse them of despicable acts and tar the whole group with the one brush and not have to supply any evidence at all? That is simply anti Catholic bias.One simple question I would like you to answer (and without your usual statement of "99% of normal society and 0.1% of priests")
DO YOU THINK THAT THE CHILD ABUSE WAS ENDEMIC IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THAT A SYSTEMATIC COVER UP POLICY EXISTED AND WOULD YOU AGREE IT WAS WRONG?
Those are three questions!
1. What do you mean by "endemic" ? My answer would probably simply be NO
2. What do you mean by a "systematic cover up policy" ? Again my answer would probably be NO
3. Given 1 and 2 are not true the conclusion is based on a false premise so I can't answer about a policy that didn't exist being wrong. If you mean "is sex between a child and an adult wrong" then YES it always is0 -
Advertisement
-
OK then ISAW , can I ask you a question or two. Let us set aside just for a moment the larger issue of child sex abuse and society .
Can I ask you how well do you think the Catholic Church handled the Brendan Smyth and Sean Fortune cases ?0
Advertisement