Pope's child porn 'normal' claim sparks outrage among victims

IIIOIII

recedite wrote: »

If you don't know what the official sanction for paedo behaviour is under (this silly) canon law, how do you know it wasn't used?


Back to those famous Aggressive Atheists again, the Nazis :rolleyes: Mein Gott!

The Pope said that the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmaid Martin, told him it wasn't used.

An extract from BXVI's recent book, Light of the World:

The Archbishop of Dublin [...] said that ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950s; admittedly it was not perfect - there was much to criticise about it - but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people.

-- http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/11/after-the-mid-sixties-however-it-was-simply-not-applied-any-more.html

magicbastarder

my toes curled reading that last sentence. weasel words.

IIIOIII

magicbastarder wrote: »

my toes curled reading that last sentence. weasel words.

I suppose the Pope is making the point that people can think they are doing good when they are, in fact, not doing good. Even people who consider themselves 'good' can be guilty of grave crimes.

Sins can be of commission (sexual abuse, abortion, theft etc...) or omission (which is what many bishops were guilty of: not doing what was right and just).

Galvasean

recedite wrote: »

Back to those famous Aggressive Atheists again, the Nazis :rolleyes: Mein Gott!

"God with us". Strange motto for an atheist organization.




Here is Hitler literally arm wrestling power from a priest.


And here he is walking away from a church. He can't get through the door because he is wicked.

Zombrex

IIIOIII wrote: »

One of the Green pedos is now installed in the EU parliament and laughs off his previous involvement and nobody calls for his arrest. Check the article by David Quinn.

It's disgusting to see the left flog the Catholic Church for the wicked sins of a few perverted priests when they themselves were promoting pedophilia in the 70s. The hypocrisy is sickening.

I wasn't born in the 1970s so can you explain how I was promoting pedophilia in the 70s?

The Mad Hatter

magicbastarder wrote: »

i just briefly skimmed that, but can someone verify that when they say 'the left' in the head of that article, they mean 'a small enough group of people with leftist views'?

Yes, but don't you see? It's even more true because, according to David Quinn, Der Spiegel is itself a leftist source.

Zombrex

IIIOIII wrote: »

This was the spirit of the times that was prevalent back then.

So you admit they all knew it was happening and did nothing? The people who are still in charge running the organisation?

Well that is reassuring. :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter

Galvasean wrote: »

And here he is walking away from a church. He can't get through the door because he is wicked.

Aww, look how sad he looks!

robindch

IIIOIII wrote: »

Herr Ratzinger wrote:

The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish.

Seriously, do you believe this total and complete rubbish?

.

Seth Brundle

IIIOIII wrote: »

Compare the level of abuse among RCC priests with vicars, doctors, dentists, sports coaches etc... Then you'll see how the priests compare.

Are you seriously defending the child raping antics that the Catholic Church has protected for far too long?
It really appears that way from your various posts and to do so would be simply unbelievable.

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

If you don't know what the official sanction for paedo behaviour is under (this silly) canon law, how do you know it wasn't used?

I think it is fairly common knowledge that canon law was used. It was under canon law that the non disclosure agreements were enforeced.

recedite wrote: »

Perhaps the recommended punishment was to move the offending gay or paedo priest away from the temptation which caused his fall from grace, make him say 50 Hail Marys and then hope and pray that the holy spirit would re enter his mind and genitals at the next parish.

Interestingly, according to canon law, being a paedophile provides a full defence to child rape. So, if you are called before a tribunal under canon law for child rape and you tell them that you are a paedophile then you will not be punished. This is according to Geoffrey Robertson. I am embarrassed by the number of time I have linked to his book, so I will link to an article about it instead…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep/11/pope-vatican-abuse-geoffrey-robertson

MrP

recedite

Well, if Robertson is correct the sanctions under canon law are pretty mild;

Its "penalties" for raping children include such draconian measures as warnings, rebukes, extra prayers, counselling and a few months on retreat...... a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on

Just as well they decided against the island, or there might have been a bigger flood of paedo priests coming out of the woodwork!
If Diarmuid Martin is correct;

The Archbishop of Dublin [...] said that ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950s; admittedly it was not perfect - there was much to criticise about it - but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather, a Church of love; she must not punish.

Then even those mild sanctions were not applied. But we know that the RCC were able to "lean on" Gardai up until recently, so that civil law was not used either. So, if that is the case, no law at all was applied to these priests.

Either scenario is appalling. I would imagine if we looked closer into the lack of Garda involvement, the trail would lead right to the top level in An Garda Siochana and possibly to govt Ministers for Justice too. Its a historic fact that Archbishop JJ Mc Quaid had regular tete a tetes with the government of the day.
But if that was true, the current lot would have got together and organised a massive state indemnity for RCC to avoid any embarrassing court revelations.
Oh wait...

MrPudding

recedite wrote: »

Well, if Robertson is correct the sanctions under canon law are pretty mild;

Quite. But the bit I love the most is, if anyone involved in the canon law investigation spoke about it, be it the accused priest, the person investigating (who by the way it is recommended is someone that knows the accused well), the victim or any of the victims relatives, then it is automatic ex-communication. So, raping a child you get a couple of Hail Mary's and a relaxing holiday, but mention it to anyone and you get ex-communicated.

I think the bit that gets me most about it is this, devout followers are more likely to go to the church first if there is an accusation. This is natural, they are devout followers and would clearly think that the church hierarchy should know about the problem. After all, the church takes great pains to present itself as the moral authority. So this devout family go to the bishop because their son has been raped by a priest. Immediately they are tied into a canon law investigation and must sign a non-disclosure agreement which has ex-communication as a penalty for a breach. To you or I the threat of ex-communication means nothing, I would welcome it, but to a devout family it would be devastating. So the bastards manipulate the feelings of their followers who are victims and play on their fears and abuse their position of power in their lives.

Scum. Pure scum.

recedite wrote: »

Either scenario is appalling. I would imagine if we looked closer into the lack of Garda involvement, the trail would lead right to the top level in An Garda Siochana and possibly to govt Ministers for Justice too. Its a historic fact that Archbishop JJ Mc Quaid had regular tete a tetes with the government of the day.
But if that was true, the current lot would have got together and organised a massive state indemnity for RCC to avoid any embarrassing court revelations.
Oh wait...

Agreed. It is a travesty that these crimes were overlooked, either not reported or reported and ignored.

Whilst I will make no excuse for it, I can see how this could come about. The church has spent the last 2000 setting itself up as an authority in moral issues, and indeed to an extent an authority in day to day life. I think this might have had something to do with it.

Additionally, there must be many thousands of cases of rape throughout the world that the authorities don't even know about because the victims family chose to go to the church first.

The rcc is a despicable institution. The child rape cover up and enabling is probably one of the worst things it is responsible for, but the abuse of its ridiculous "state" status follows closely behind. Things like trying to block the availability of emergency morning after pills for victims of gang rape in war zones, for example, is one such abuse that makes me so angry I can barely type.

The manipulation and fear tactics they use on their faithful who are in positions of power is also quite disgusting. Using threats of ex-communication against government personnel who might dare to support any initiative that goes against the grand wizards views.

Read the book and then do a bit of extra reading in the areas he talks about. How anyone can try to justify the actions of this organisation is beyond me.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

Quite. But the bit I love the most is, if anyone involved in the canon law investigation spoke about it, be it the accused priest, the person investigating (who by the way it is recommended is someone that knows the accused well), the victim or any of the victims relatives, then it is automatic ex-communication. So, raping a child you get a couple of Hail Mary's and a relaxing holiday, but mention it to anyone and you get ex-communicated.

Wow, is that actually true?

If so really speaks to the priority of the Catholic Church, to hush this all up rather than take action that could expose the church to embarrassment and scandal.

Shocking really, all these people are still in power. Given the defensive and combative way the church has dealt with this scandal you really can't see that much has changed.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Wow, is that actually true?

If so really speaks to the priority of the Catholic Church, to hush this all up rather than take action that could expose the church to embarrassment and scandal.

Shocking really, all these people are still in power. Given the defensive and combative way the church has dealt with this scandal you really can't see that much has changed.

According to Mr Robertson this is indeed the case. He has extracts of canon law and internal communications etc. I really would recommend his book, though it is an infuriating read.

MrP

robindch

IIIOIII wrote: »

I think it is great that things have come to this point. Not to be callous about the victims, but the corruption had to be brought to light. I say this as a loyal and faithful Catholic who loves the Church.

A bit like sawing off your legs with a penknife, then congratulating yourself when they stop bleeding

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

A bit like sawing off your legs with a penknife, then congratulating yourself when they stop bleeding

Or saying I'm glad that woman got raped because it highlights the need for a street lamp in that lane way.

Brown Bomber

Galvasean wrote: »

"God with us". Strange motto for an atheist organization.

A Nazi coin with a swastika on one side and the star of David on the other. Do you also find this strange?

Galvasean wrote: »

Here is Hitler literally arm wrestling power from a priest.


And here he is walking away from a church. He can't get through the door because he is wicked.

And here is Hitler mourning at the funeral of Kurt Eisner a Jewish-German Bolshevik leader.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dem2pvU4AjY

By your logic Hitler was a Marxist, Jewish Zionist as well.