The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Keylem

Newsite wrote: »

'For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God'.

'For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth'.

This entire debacle is what results when a man-made church, not only takes upon itself to establish and enforce its own rules and doctrines, but actively OPPOSES Scripture/the Word of God.

How can a church with a billion members stand over its flock? How can it possibly have an honest relationship with God when it can't possibly account for its cazillion members?

'But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person'.

Calvenists, protestants, baptists, mormons, muslims, and the 40,000 plus other man-made heretical religions who can't even agree with interpretation of scriptures among themselves.

Jesus founded ONE Church, and the CC has existed for 2000 years because God willed it!

Newsite

Keylem wrote: »

Calvenists, protestants, baptists, mormons, muslims, and the 40,000 plus other man-made heretical religions who can't even agree with interpretation of scriptures among themselves.

Jesus founded ONE Church, and the CC has existed for 2000 years because God willed it!

'I am the way, and no man cometh to the Father but by me'

Not an international, man-made hierarchy with vast riches overseen by a self-appointed 'infallible' head who claims to 'stand in' for Jesus and presides over a world empire of idolatrous edifices!

lmaopml

This is a very confusing thread - One never knows whether it's Christianity against bad people, or whether it's Christian against Christian or whether it's everybody out with paint brushes doing art work of their own..

I think ISAW, whatever happened I don't know, and obviously he/she doesn't feel the need to 'appeal' either - pointed out the 'image in the mirror' and I think he/she was right to try to do that, and had some very solid things to say too..Actually, it must have got rather painful pointing out the obvious at times.

Life goes on.

dead one

Off topic post deleted

Spacedog

Back on topic:
-Priests fucked a load of kids,
-The RCC covered it up,
-Followers of the RCC in the civil service supported the coverup.
-A follower of the RCC in the government proposed a limited liability 'child sex abuse insurance policy' for the RCC with a figure negotiated with the RCC before the full extent of the abuse was exposed.

-All tax paying citizens regardless of involvement or faith are financially liable all of the increasing difference, and for all new cases of clerical child sex abuse.

-This is like a licence to abuse kids and is ethically wrong.
-If you are a Catholic it might be seen as being morally right to protect the RCC which you may believe to be essentially good.

Such is the difference between morality and ethics.

-Now for those of us who are not followers of the RCC, and who didn't cover up any child abuse, and who do not defend the RCC's right to hide the abuse of a child an any situation. Can any of you explain to me why we should pay a single cent, when the RCC pays nothing?

dead one

Spacedog wrote: »

Back on topic:
-Priests fucked a load of kids,
-The RCC covered it up,

Back to the topic
Pope: Child rape is cool! Trust me! Pope Blames Child Abuse Scandal on Society
Pope’s child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims
The biggest, gayest brothel in the world Vatican Pope
Pope sees the Devil behind timing of sex abuse crisis
The Great Catholic Cover-Up - The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it.

lmaopml

Deleted for being off topic. Nothing whatsoever to do with Clerical Child Abuse.

getz

todays news---PSNI investigate 170 abuse claims, claims of clerical and institutional abuse going back 20 years,

marienbad

Here is a report from Associated Press (1.11.11) on a survey commissioned by the Iona Institute.

Almost half of Irish people believe that a fifth of priests are guilty of child abuse, a survey has revealed.
The Iona Institute, which commissioned the research, said almost a third of those surveyed were closer to the figure of 4% of clerics reported in a study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in the US.
Iona, which describes itself as a pro-religion organisation, said the poll carried out by Amarach Research reveals that a clear majority of the public overestimate the number of paedophile priests in the Catholic Church.
Professor Patricia Casey, consultant psychiatrist and Iona patron, said: "There has been very deep and completely justified public anger over the scandal of child sex abuse by clergy.
"However, only a small minority of priests are guilty of this terrible crime and in the interests of justice, and in fairness to the vast majority of priests, it is essential that this fact becomes universally known among the public at large."
Iona said the survey found 42% of people put the number of abusive priests above 20% of the clergy.
Prof Casey, a senior psychiatrist at the Mater Hospital in Dublin and a lecturer at UCD, said the extent of the overestimation was worrying.
"It might be understandable if the public were overestimating the number of guilty priests by a factor of two or so," she said.
"But the fact that so many members of the public are grossly overestimating the number of guilty priests should be a matter of deep concern to all fair-minded people."
The findings were based on a nationwide survey of 1,000 Irish people in September using the Amarach Research omnibus service.

dvpower

marienbad wrote: »

Here is a report from Associated Press (1.11.11) on a survey commissioned by the Iona Institute.

Here's a link to the Iona Institute article. It's not clear what 'guilty of child abuse' means. It would be good if they would publish the actual questions asked.

For example, I might take it as meaning that they were engaged in actual physical acts of abuse, or I might interpret it as meaning engaging in the cover up. Or, at a stretch, I might think that priests who put up with the lack of action (say, a PP who was foisted with an abuser and who passively went along with it) were 'guilty of child abuse'.

They don't even seem to differenciate between sexual and other abuse. Nor do they say when the research was carried out e.g if it was done the day after a Prime Time special or one of the reports was published, you would except a skewed figure.

gigino

marienbad wrote: »

Almost half of Irish people believe that a fifth of priests are guilty of child abuse, a survey has revealed.

Irish people / people in Ireland have probably more experience / knowledge of Priests as anyone else on earth. Irish people generally meet and are in direct contact with lots of priests through school system etc. Also its a small country, and word gets around eventually via family , friends etc , so if some priests" misbehave" its difficult to keep that quiet indefinitely.
Looking at it the other way around, half of Irish people think ( or have found in their experience ) four-fifths of priests are not guilty of child abuse. There are still plenty of decent priests about.

Incidentally, as discussed earlier in the thread and linked, in a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests "frequently abused children".

Guitar_Monkey

[QUOTE=marienbad;75255045)
"But the fact that so many members of the public are grossly overestimating the number of guilty priests should be a matter of deep concern to all fair-minded people."[/QUOTE]
This

gigino

marienbad wrote: »

But the fact that so many members of the public are grossly overestimating the number of guilty priests should be a matter of deep concern to all fair-minded people.

"But the fact that so many members of the church were covering up and grossly underestimating the number of guilty priests should be a matter of deep concern to all fair-minded people."

fixed that for you.;)

Guitar_Monkey

marienbad wrote: »

"However, only a small minority of priests are guilty of this terrible crime and in the interests of justice, and in fairness to the vast majority of priests, it is essential that this fact becomes universally known among the public at large."

No you didn't. But i wouldn't expect anything from you but the usual ant-Catholic trolling.

marienbad

I just posted the report for info only, it is one of the few I know of done by catholic organisation and it makes for interesting reading.

The figure of 4% is really a very high figure and one of the reason people in ireland think it is so much higher is that some of that 4% abused over an incredible number of years and thus victimised so many kids so would have affected just so many families.

''all it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing'' I think it was Pastor Niemoller said that. And the reason so much of this went on for so long is the those good priests did nothing.

MrPudding

A fantastic result here for the victims:

News story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-priests-court

Judgement here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2871.html

MrP

gigino

MrPudding wrote: »

A fantastic result here for the victims:

News story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-priests-court

Judgement here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2871.html

MrP

No word of it on our state news station . They would rather play the Angelus and give free advertising to the RCC.

MrPudding

gigino wrote: »

No word of it on our state news station . They would rather play the Angelus and give free advertising to the RCC.

Really? That is surprising, this is a pretty big deal.

MrP

gigino

MrPudding wrote: »

Really? That is surprising, this is a pretty big deal.

MrP

I looked at RTE Aertel ( teletext ) and when I looked it was not on it either. I suppose they only list what they consider to be the main number of news stories.

It reminds me of during the hunger strikes, if a " patriot" was on hunger strike he was talked about every night about how great he was, and if he gave up his hunger strike it was soon "not mentioned".

yutta

gigino wrote: »

I looked at RTE Aertel ( teletext ) and when I looked it was not on it either. I suppose they only list what they consider to be the main number of news stories.

It reminds me of during the hunger strikes, if a " patriot" was on hunger strike he was talked about every night about how great he was, and if he gave up his hunger strike it was soon "not mentioned".

It's a conspiracy.

Ever considered that abuse fatigue has kicked in?

The fact is that the monies have been paid out and abuse victims are coming back looking for second helpings.

prinz

gigino wrote: »

Incidentally, as discussed earlier in the thread and linked, in a survey for the Wall Street Journal-NBC News, it was found that 64 percent of the public thought that Catholic priests "frequently abused children".

Not forgetting of course that the same article highlighted how ridiculous that opinion was because there was nothing to back it up whatsoever.

MrPudding wrote: »

A fantastic result here for the victims:

Deep pockets theory in action. Couldn't really see it being decided the other way, that said an appeal will probably follow.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Deep pockets theory in action. Couldn't really see it being decided the other way, that said an appeal will probably follow.

Can't disagree with you. As the judge says, the purpose of vicarious liability is to direct the liability at the person best able to pay.

Do you think they will appeal and if they do, on what grounds?

MrP

MrPudding

yutta wrote: »

It's a conspiracy.

Of course it is... <slowly backs away>

yutta wrote: »

Ever considered that abuse fatigue has kicked in?

Genuine question; what does that mean?

yutta wrote: »

The fact is that the monies have been paid out and abuse victims are coming back looking for second helpings.

I doubt that. There is a principle in UK law that you can't be conpensated twice for the same tort, so if they have been paid for the rape they have suffered they won't get paid again.

I think in this particular case the actual rapist is dead, so there is not much chance of getting any money off him. In addition to that, an individual may not be in a position to adequately compensate his victim, this is one of the principles behind vicarious liability.

This is some fairly interesting law, and nothing to do with anti-catholic sentiment. Non religious organisations have been found vicariously liable for the sexual abuse of their non religious staff previously, the Lister case mention in this judgement being a prime example.

No conspiracy to see here, just an attempt to get victims the conpensation they deserve and send a message to organisations that they can be help responsible for those people acting on their behalf.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

Can't disagree with you. As the judge says, the purpose of vicarious liability is to direct the liability at the person best able to pay.

Depends on what the bishop has to pay out. I don't think looking for compensation above that level will work if you take the Nattras v Tesco case as an example (Tesco as an entity was fined for advertising misleading prices in one of their stores but successfully appealled the fine and argued that the buck stopped with the manager of the individual store itself) - AFAIK that's still good precedent for this kind of thing, I wonder what affect that would have on the pool of resources that compensation could then be paid out of.

MrPudding wrote: »

Do you think they will appeal and if they do, on what grounds? MrP

As a test case, probably, the particular diocese trust or whatever wouldn't have brought the case at all otherwise. Possibly argue the position of the priest is one of an independent contractor but can't see that bringing any benefit if the priest abused on diocese grounds or property, or that the diocese held the priest out even if he was recognised as an indepedent contractor as an agent of the diocese - which they effectively do. Can't see it working.

MrPudding wrote: »

Genuine question; what does that mean?

I'd say the poster means that abuse related news items just don't sell newspapers anymore basically. As an attention grabbing news item it's slipping down the rankings sadly.

Manach

My 2c on vicarious liability, based on an old Irish tort book is that:
1- was the person who committed the act in employment.
2- was the person's act "in the course of employment" - ie the person doing what s/he was employed to do.
Assuming 1 here applies, then for 2 it depends on the jurisdiction.
AFAIR in Canadian cases, a boarding school was held liable for abuse by one of its employee but in Ireland, the Dept. of Education was not.

yutta

MrPudding wrote: »

just an attempt to get victims the conpensation they deserve and send a message to organisations that they can be help responsible for those people acting on their behalf.

How much compensation do you think someone should get who was anally raped and suffers from moderate anxiety as a result? (for example).

Are you one of these people who believes that say, €500,000 is adequate? Or are you one of these people who believes that no amount of money is adequate and the entire Church (from Raphoe to Rome) should be sold off to enrich the victim?

Nearly all victims have received a payout. The purpose of these reports (Raphoe etc.) is to ensure that the Church undergoes reform and that this kind of abuse can never happen again. They do not serve to instigate another legal gravy train and enrich lawyers/abuse victims as the anti-Catholic media likes to think. After all, no amount of money can compensate for the trauma experienced by a rape victim.

MrPudding

prinz wrote: »

Depends on what the bishop has to pay out. I don't think looking for compensation above that level will work if you take the Nattras v Tesco case as an example (Tesco as an entity was fined for advertising misleading prices in one of their stores but successfully appealled the fine and argued that the buck stopped with the manager of the individual store itself) - AFAIK that's still good precedent for this kind of thing, I wonder what affect that would have on the pool of resources that compensation could then be paid out of.

I'll have a read of that when I get a chance, I don't recall seein it mentioned in either this case or the lister case... I presume there must be a reasonf or that.

prinz wrote: »

As a test case, probably, the particular diocese trust or whatever wouldn't have brought the case at all otherwise. Possibly argue the position of the priest is one of an independent contractor but can't see that bringing any benefit if the priest abused on diocese grounds or property, or that the diocese held the priest out even if he was recognised as an indepedent contractor as an agent of the diocese - which they effectively do. Can't see it working.

Yeah, I think they will have to try an appeal, but I really can't see it being successful either. I think the judge fairly effectively ruled out the independent contract line.

prinz wrote: »

I'd say the poster means that abuse related news items just don't sell newspapers anymore basically. As an attention grabbing news item it's slipping down the rankings sadly.

OK.

MrP

MrPudding

Manach wrote: »

My 2c on vicarious liability, based on an old Irish tort book is that:
1- was the person who committed the act in employment.
2- was the person's act "in the course of employment" - ie the person doing what s/he was employed to do.
Assuming 1 here applies, then for 2 it depends on the jurisdiction.
AFAIR in Canadian cases, a boarding school was held liable for abuse by one of its employee but in Ireland, the Dept. of Education was not.

Things have moved on now. Employment in the traditional sense is no longer required.

There was a boarding school type case in the UK as well and the owners were held liable.

MrP

MrPudding

yutta wrote: »

How much compensation do you think someone should get who was anally raped and suffers from moderate anxiety as a result? (for example).

I have no idea, but I would expect more than a supposedly pennyless priest could provide.

yutta wrote: »

Are you one of these people who believes that say, €500,000 is adequate? Or are you one of these people who believes that no amount of money is adequate and the entire Church (from Raphoe to Rome) should be sold off to enrich the victim?

I have no idea how much a rape victim should get, but that is ok because I don't decide how much a rape victim should get, so that all works out fine.

yutta wrote: »

Nearly all victims have received a payout. The purpose of these reports (Raphoe etc.) is to ensure that the Church undergoes reform and that this kind of abuse can never happen again. They do not serve to instigate another legal gravy train and enrich lawyers/abuse victims as the anti-Catholic media likes to think. After all, no amount of money can compensate for the trauma experienced by a rape victim.

Well, now that there is a chance the higher ups will be held liable for the wrong doings of their agents perhaps that little extra motivation might help spur them on a bit.

MrP

yutta

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, now that there is a chance the higher ups will be held liable for the wrong doings of their agents perhaps that little extra motivation might help spur them on a bit.

Do you think former Taoisigh, senior civil servants, judges, medical doctors and social workers should be held to similar standards? Or is it just the Church you have a gripe with?