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
1…1819212324…131

Comments

  • Options
    #602
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I just read that article, interesting read. I hope it's true!

    I know the Church has been involved in covering up scandal but I also know that the media are only too happy to paint the Church in a bad light and seem to care little for the truth behind the stories they publish.

    Please tell me you are not serious?

    It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased. This cannot be said for all news outlets but you can hardly say that all media are happy to paint the church in a bad light.

    The facts are that the church deceived, covered up and fought victims for the past few decades. If the church is painted in a bad light it is because of their own actions. The name of the church is more important that protecting the vulnerable and innocent in society.

    Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?


  • Options
    #603
    M6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭M6


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Please tell me you are not serious?

    It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased. This cannot be said for all news outlets but you can hardly say that all media are happy to paint the church in a bad light.

    The facts are that the church deceived, covered up and fought victims for the past few decades. If the church is painted in a bad light it is because of their own actions. The name of the church is more important that protecting the vulnerable and innocent in society.

    Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?
    The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings. I am all for healing and making right wrongs, but I will not sit back and let the Church be trampled by anti-Catholic haters, MISUSING this abuse scandal for their own perverted ends. There is a time for healing and a time for forgiveness. Remember what the Lord said:
    But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

    This applies to everyone, including those who've been abused by wicked priests.

    The material I have supplied proves that the Times article was not interested in truth, but so what, their story is out, and nobody is interested in the dull facts after that. Of course not. This is the fact of the matter.


  • Options
    #604
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased.
    Absolutely agree with this. I'm not sure the NYT gave an unbiased account of what happened in the Fr. Murphy case.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?
    No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.


  • Options
    #605
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.

    What if those conflict. If evidence is found that proves the Pope was complicit in the coverup of abuse should they report it? Is the office of the pope worth hiding some facts?

    BTW there are almost 6,000 news articles on Google news today besides the NY Times that investigate reports of coverup in Italy, Germany, Ireland and the states to name a few.

    http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=en_ie&hl=en&ncl=dwFcgnNpfxU__WMFE1dJMn0dXP1bM


  • Options
    #606
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Also there wouldn't be so much of an outcry from the Vatican if this report came from a newspaper traditionally known for poor reporting standards.

    The NY Times is generally held in high regard by millions of worldwide subscribers and if this was printed in The Sun or some other tabloid there would be no reaction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #607
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    What if those conflict. If evidence is found that proves the Pope was complicit in the coverup of abuse should they report it? Is the office of the pope worth hiding some facts?
    All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.


  • Options
    #608
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    kelly1 wrote: »
    All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.

    Please explain the bias:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27pope.html

    The NY times are stating facts. They report and give the church's response that the Pope had no knowledge. The Times article quoted the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese, as saying that the memorandum, which he called routine, was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” but said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.

    Is this not fair reporting?


  • Options
    #609
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    kelly1 wrote: »
    No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.

    That is some what of a contradictory statement. Surely you should be more interested in the truth than maintaining the Pope's good name? What if the truth is that the Pope doesn't have a good name?

    There is little point in going on about truth and then dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions.

    Aren't you doing exact what you are complaining about?


  • Options
    #610
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    kelly1 wrote: »
    That is seriously OTT!
    Just how, friend?


  • Options
    #611
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    kelly1 wrote: »
    All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.
    The Church have a lot of media doing just that, hiding the truth and we know their canon law shenanigans have been all about covering their tracks and denying the facts to civil police authorities. Or do you deny that too?
    There are none so blind as those who fear to see" !
    Get real, friend.
    The church is run by serious, hard-hitting, un-scrupulous gangsters, who we have seen are not afraid to bully and threaten all sorts when dealing with vulnerable, frightened victims of priest rape and worse. Don't believe that either? Brady and the secrecy deals? All lies and media bias?
    Maybe rape by priests is not so bad as the naughty media would have us believe?
    Where do you stop with that stuff, friend??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #612
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    M6 wrote: »
    The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings. I am all for healing and making right wrongs, but I will not sit back and let the Church be trampled by anti-Catholic haters, MISUSING this abuse scandal for their own perverted ends. There is a time for healing and a time for forgiveness. Remember what the Lord said:



    This applies to everyone, including those who've been abused by wicked priests.

    The material I have supplied proves that the Times article was not interested in truth, but so what, their story is out, and nobody is interested in the dull facts after that. Of course not. This is the fact of the matter.
    Why am I not surprised to see rampant homophobia and the rest of it in a post seeking to defend priest rape cover-ups?


  • Options
    #613
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Irlandese wrote: »
    Why am I not surprised to see rampant homophobia and the rest of it in a post seeking to defend priest rape cover-ups?

    M6 has been infracted, it's a ban next time. Let's leave it there. OK?


  • Options
    #614
    M6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭M6


    Irlandese wrote: »
    The Church have a lot of media doing just that, hiding the truth and we know their canon law shenanigans have been all about covering their tracks and denying the facts to civil police authorities. Or do you deny that too?
    There are none so blind as those who fear to see" !
    Get real, friend.
    The church is run by serious, hard-hitting, un-scrupulous gangsters, who we have seen are not afraid to bully and threaten all sorts when dealing with vulnerable, frightened victims of priest rape and worse. Don't believe that either? Brady and the secrecy deals? All lies and media bias?
    Maybe rape by priests is not so bad as the naughty media would have us believe?
    Where do you stop with that stuff, friend??
    The American civil police knew about this Milwaukee priest. Why did they not do anything about it at the time???


  • Options
    #615
    goat2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭goat2


    Irlandese wrote: »
    I have just sent the following personal e-mail to the dotty old priest concerned.



    Your attempt to defend ratzinger in the catholic anchor is being quoted on a blog I contribute to. Happily most of us are immune to the lies and low standards that typify the response of your church boot-boys to the revealing of your systemic depraved abuse of children and defenceless persons, for hundreds of years.
    Your own morally appalling attempted defence of Ratzinger through the Catholic Anchor is yet another evil strike by you and your fellow travellers at defenceless children, victims and the millions hurt beyond repair by priest rapists and their network of protective and facilitating rings around the catholic world.
    How dare you?
    Let us be plain here.
    You are not an honest broker and your motives are the preservation of a hegemony based on the sadistic, savage depravity that the church visits, even today, on the innocents under your power.
    You, personally, figuratively and morally, are raping them again in joining the sick sad band of apologists and defenders of the indefensible. But then, that is what you were doing for years as a "judge" in those perniscious, incestuous covens called canon trials, was it not?
    You and your fellow coven members were covering the tracks of the rapists and denying the FBI, police and others the information that state and federal law required to effectively take these rapists and possibly murderers out of circulation.
    Do your soul a favour. Read this link and let the evil in your heart loosen a little, just a little:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

    Yes, friend, I do not hate you, even as I hate the evil your actions do and the evil you seek to perpetuate.
    No, the church is the very least safe place for any children and will always be, while Ratzinger, Cardinal Brady and their ilk are the chief protectors of the paedofile rings that run the church in too many places around the world.
    I repeat, How dare you?
    Are you one of them too? I only ask and it is a very legitimate question. "

    "hopefully he will answer you, so that we can see what he has to say for himself,


  • Options
    #616
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    M6 wrote: »
    The American civil police knew about this Milwaukee priest. Why did they not do anything about it at the time???
    The police have reported that they were obstructed at every turn and that the vatican "drew the evidence behind diplomatic immunity" and canon law.
    Some enlightenment, friend:
    "

    * News
    * World news

    Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

    Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

    * Digg it
    * Buzz up
    * Share on facebook (140)
    * Tweet this (23)

    * Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
    * The Observer, Sunday 24 April 2005 09.58 BST
    * Article history

    Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

    The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

    It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

    Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

    The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

    It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

    The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

    It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

    'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

    The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

    Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

    Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

    The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

    'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

    Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.

    A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said."


  • Options
    #617
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    goat2 wrote: »
    "hopefully he will answer you, so that we can see what he has to say for himself,
    about time someone told them what they think
    I will of course copy any reply, immediately, un-edited. No worries.
    It is well past time to confront any apologists and facilitators with
    their own words, on behalf of the voice-less victims who were bullied and terrified into signing secrecy deals or were just too terrified ( or dead ) to bring claims for compensation in the first place.


  • Options
    #618
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    the web ref for that quote is :
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection


  • Options
    #619
    goat2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭goat2


    Irlandese wrote: »
    I will of course copy any reply, immediately, un-edited. No worries.
    It is well past time to confront any apologists and facilitators with
    their own words, on behalf of the voice-less victims who were bullied and terrified into signing secrecy deals or were just too terrified ( or dead ) to bring claims for compensation in the first place.
    good on you
    how does one get an email to the pope


  • Options
    #620
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    goat2 wrote: »
    good on you
    how does one get an email to the pope
    supposedly, you cannot, although the vatican run a web page.
    However, I am sure the pope is getting hourly up-dates on world press re-actions
    so writing to letters pages of the Irish Times or , God forbid, the INDo will almost certainly guarantee you that he gets to hear about it if it is strong enough, representative enough, linked to any populist or media-visible movement etc. The emphasis is on self-preservation at personal and church level. If you were a saint for example, you wouldn't stand a chance of being heard. However, if you were a serious criminal, it would not upset your likelihood to be heard, just as long as you had the eye or ear of any major media.


  • Options
    #621
    Irlandese
    Registered Users Posts: 538 ✭✭✭Irlandese


    goat2 wrote: »
    good on you
    how does one get an email to the pope
    Then, the obvious question is, "why bother?"
    The Pope is not at all interested in having the truth revealed any more than it is so far, which is too much for them. Then too, he has no intention of rolling back on the corrupt deal whereby all of us tax-payers are going to pay all their abuse related costs, including the very high costs of their legal representations at the tribunals and commissions of enquiry. You may recall that Minister Michael Woods, an Opus Dei supporter, did a quick, secret deal, behind the Atourney General's back, to grant the church immunity from all costs above a pittance that runs to less than 5% of real costs, despite the church owning more property in the state than anyone else, including the state !!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #622
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    M6 wrote: »
    The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings.

    Just because a lot of media sources report facts, unbiased, and do not discriminate or condemn people for their sexual orientations does not make them "pro-gay".

    It is more appropriate to state that you are "anti-gay" and that most media sources like to report facts on topical issues regardless of influence from state or church.


  • Options
    #623
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    More accounts of the Murphy case:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100032121/the-pope-the-judge-the-paedophile-priest-and-the-new-york-times/

    http://www.zenit.org/article-28769?l=english


  • Options
    #624
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    goat2 wrote: »
    this is most frightning,
    What's frightening about hearing the other side of the story? Or are you referring to something else?


  • Options
    #625
    Michael G
    Registered Users Posts: 797 ✭✭✭Michael G


    This, from an atheist brought up as a Catholic, is an interesting perspective. It should be read by those coming from an anti-Catholic mindset who are seizing this opportunity to attack the Catholic religion as a whole.


  • Options
    #626
    M6
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24 ✭M6


    Michael G wrote: »
    This, from an atheist brought up as a Catholic, is an interesting perspective. It should be read by those coming from an anti-Catholic mindset who are seizing this opportunity to attack the Catholic religion as a whole.

    I'll give that a read. Meanwhile:

    This article shows how the abuse scandal was largely the product of the same sandal-wearing hippie progressive 'Catholics' who are now wringing their hands today:
    http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Gerald-Warner-It39s-the-Pope39s.6186172.jp

    These people haven't a leg to stand on, as some of the figures presented on another thread show how most abuse occurs in homes by married men!!


  • Options
    #627
    Michael G
    Registered Users Posts: 797 ✭✭✭Michael G


    M6 wrote: »
    This article shows how the abuse scandal was largely the product of the same sandal-wearing hippie progressive 'Catholics' who are now wringing their hands today.
    And I'll read that, though unfortunately there were also plenty of active perverts before the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation got going.


  • Options
    #628
    Michael G
    Registered Users Posts: 797 ✭✭✭Michael G


    goat2 wrote: »
    there are still people who do not believe this, and dont want to beleive it.
    the younger among us are reacting more to all of this
    the older folk seem to think it is not true
    this is my personal experience
    I am 53 so perhaps I fall between the two. Yes, I believe it. However what happened (the concealment of the abuse and the protection of the perverts) was a failure (and, if I may use a Catholic term, a sin) by some bishops and superiors of religious orders. The Catholic Church is administered, at a secular level, by humans. Some of them have proved incompetent, foolish or in some cases cynical. But the Church exists independently of them. I believe that Jesus Christ founded the Church, that it is the only Church that teaches the whole truth, and that at Mass the priest, representing Christ, re-enacts his passion, death and resurrection. If Catholic dioceses were badly run by those who had authority, that must be exposed and they must be brought to account. But it has nothing to do with the universal Church itself.


  • Options
    #629
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Michael G wrote: »
    If Catholic dioceses were badly run by those who had authority, that must be exposed and they must be brought to account. But it has nothing to do with the universal Church itself.

    It went far beyond the individual diocese level. That is the whole point.


  • Options
    #630
    goat2
    Registered Users Posts: 4,939 ✭✭✭goat2


    http://www.the-kingdom.ie/news/story/?trs=mhcwidmhoj&cat=news
    here is another victim that was not heard, just herded out of the church.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #631
    Michael G
    Registered Users Posts: 797 ✭✭✭Michael G


    strobe wrote: »
    It went far beyond the individual diocese level. That is the whole point.
    I don't think it is. Because Rome makes the rules on doctrine, liturgy and some other things, many people think that the Church is like a multi-national where everything is controlled from the centre, like WalMart or Tesco. It actually is not. Normally, every bishop and every superior of a religious order has almost complete freedom in administering his or her area of responsibility (her in the case of orders of nuns). That is why the Pope has now ordered what is called a Visitation of the Irish dioceses. John Cooney, for whom usually I have very little time, has accurately said that the Irish church is "in receivership". What he means is that Rome has concluded that the Irish dioceses have been incompetently run and must be completely reformed. But this is something that Rome does only when a national church is in a catastrophic condition.


Advertisement