The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Blueboyd wrote: »

Thanks wolf.

And ISAW I'd argue that mainstram christianity is what you label a la carte Christianity cos main stream of people like to think for themselves. I think "Taliban-chrisitianity" - if we continue with labels - is a minority.
...
Anyways - what bothers me maybe most in the official doctrines is that all of it seems very much to concentrate on the past or the future - but what happens now this very minute is the thing that counts. If you don't get it now - you probably won't later either.

sorry but NO! Much of the debate about Tiinity/no trinity Jesus was God/Man etc. was dealt with in the past about 1800 years ago and has NOT CHANGED! If you believe these doctrines are wrong then you are not a mainstream Christian. You can't just decide to believe "maybe Christ never existed" or "Maybe Christ was just a prophet" and claim to be a mainstream Christian.

Irlandese wrote: »

sorry friend, but you cannot take the spotlight away from the fact that ratty's secret letter to all bishops, world-wide, ordered them to cover up abuse cases and to effectively obstruct any local police investigations etc. So, yes, it was official church policy and still is.

Cite! What "secret letter" I assume you mean Ratzinger? What letter ? In waht capacity did he writ it? wher does it suggest he ordered them to cover up0 abuse or obstruct police investigations?

Evidence please?

philiporeilly wrote: »

Those who seek an open investigation and public disclose of the facts, no matter what they are, are not anti-catholic.

so you accept Catholic priests are less than one percent of abusers and that is published and researched? do you think any discussion should happen about the other 99 per cent of abusers or do you think it should all be about catholic clergy?

Irlandese wrote: »

frankly, all of this is shown to be wrong by the growing evidence, including the text of the infamous cover-up policy letter from ratty already quoted on this thread.

WHERE was it quoted? and how does it show a cover up?

You claim it was already referenced so care to show us where?
And then care to show us a quote from that letter showing a cover up?

Do you really think you can change reality by repeating nonsense often enough?

Do you? Hwe is the actual quote from the actual letter you claim?

NY Times, can see in all it's terrible clarity, as with the secret letter from ratty, written in latin and never to be revealed, in the interests of the church, certainly not of the frightened, abused little children, huddled in corners, waiting for the priest to finish playing with their poor bodies and minds.
Shame on anyone who seeks to defend by false and deliberately misleading spin-doctoring and downright lies.
I say it clear, a child is safer with a shark or a lion than with a catholic priest.

I agree. so care to show the link to the NY times and the latin letter and I think I am competent enough in latin to translate it?

Do you refer to this:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/

Nevertheless, the NYT neglected to translate another letter with important facts in it. Here are the facts in order (which is more than you will get from the MSM).

Fr. Steven Kiesle, a young priest in the diocese of Oakland, had molested at least six young boys between the ages of eleven and thirteen. He was arrested in 1978, pleaded no contest and received a three-year suspended sentence. He requested laicization voluntarily in 1981.

Fr. Kiesle’s request for dispensation from priestly obligations and celibacy was one of many that would be pouring into the Holy See that year – a mass exodus from the priesthood had begun in the late 60’s and early 70’s. The petitioners ranged from those who wanted to leave the ministry to marry to those who wanted to join Marxist revolutionaries, become Buddhists or otherwise “find themselves.” (I have corrected this somewhat: see the update below). A priest who asked to be voluntarily released who was also a pedophile would be unusual. It’s not clear if that was the exact reason that Kiesle requested the dispensation. But the pastor and the bishop both agreed that he was an immature individual who had little taste for the ministry and never should have become a priest.

The request on Kiesle’s behalf went to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which at that time handled these dispensations. It should be noted that it did not go there because Fr. Kiesle had committed sexual abuse of minors. The CDF did not gain control of such cases until 2001. It would have been treated simply as a laicization case.

Neither the AP nor the NYT article mentions the fact that the first letters sent by Fr. Kiesle’s pastor (April 25, 1981) and Bishop Cummins (May 8, 1981) were addressed not to Cardinal Ratzinger but to Franjo Cardinal Seper, Ratzinger’s predecessor as Prefect of the CDF. (1) Ratzinger did not take office until February 1982.

A reply came from Cardinal Seper on November 17, 1981. He requested more information, among other things asking the bishop “not to neglect to send together with the records your votum (vow, solemn statement) on not fearing scandal.” It is obvious from the way that this is put that this is a declaration that the bishop was required to make as part of canon law, and – note carefully – would be required for ALL requests for laicization. In it, the bishop declares that releasing this priest from his ministry and vow of celibacy would not create scandal. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that this particular case involved sexual abuse of a minor. It doesn’t necessarily mean that either Seper or Ratzinger feared scandal because such abuse was involved. Of course, neither the AP nor the New York Times thought to make this clear, probably because of a complete lack of understanding of canon law.

Bishop Cummins forwarded the information, and on February 1, 1982, wrote to the new Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger with yet more details.

There was no reply from Ratzinger’s office. The bishop wrote again on September 24, 1982, and received a reply on October 21 saying that no further information could be given at that time.

Now (though neither the Times nor the AP mentions this) there is a three-year gap with no communications from the diocese of Oakland to the CDF; on September 13, 1985, Bishop Cummins again writes to Ratzinger (and mentions that his last communication was in September 1982). This time he got a more detailed reply. The fact that he received a reply may be due to the fact that unlike the previous times he actually forwarded it to the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.S. to be put in his diplomatic pouch. These letters would be more likely to be considered than the general flood of mail in the offices of the CDF.

http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2010/04/lets-get-the-story-straight-defrocking-and-divorce-fr-joseph-fessio-sj.html

They repeated this lie, although the story had already been exploded by the bishop who succeeded Moreno, Gerald Kicanas.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/article_80cdd198-3d24-11df-8711-001cc4c002e0.html

NOTES

(1) Two of the internal memos from the Oakland diocese say that Ratzinger wrote the November 17, 1981 letter, but this is obviously incorrect, and must be due to a failure of memory on the part of the bishop. The letter has Seper’s signature on it.

(2) The AP mistranslated this as “these incidents,” evidently trying to make it sound as the Pope were referring to sexual abuse, where it is clear that it is referring to the petitioner’s request for dispensation from his vows.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I really don't know where to start with this paragraph..

Priests and the Catholic church have spent much of their entire existence, over hundreds of years, studying, debating morals.. whats right and wrong..

Yet a small child can tell you that a man having sex with a kid is very very wrong..

so can a theologian.

At what point in the seventies/eighties did the Catholic church suddenly become a little hazy about this?

So the Byzantine empire had nothing to do with the Church according to you?
http://rumkatkilise.org/rayabyzantium.htm#cooliris
Byzantine culture and Orthodoxy are one and the same. All these peoples
became in fact Orthodox.

Now what had they to say?:

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.

To my knowledge of several places worldwide clergy (well stats in the Roman
Catholic Church anyway which is being discussed above. Protestant and Jewish
clergy may have different stats but little on child abuse is conclusive but
in any case abiove is Roman catholic so let us stay with that shall we?)
constitute one or two per cent of abusers. the above if true however shows
that clergy are either owning up or being singled out since of 1000 abusers
TEN are clergy but 990 are non clergy. If there is a four to one ratio of
conviction that means say you convict EIGHT of the ten clergy then you also
convict TWO of the 990 non clergy!

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!

The data on the Protestant clergy tend to focus on sexual abuse in general,
not on sexual abuse of children. Thus, strict comparisons cannot always be
made. But there are some comparative data available on the subject of child
sexual molestation, and what has been reported is quite revealing.

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

In the authoritative work by 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/SummerNewsletter2006formatted.pdf.

Reference 62 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography#cite_note-61

philiporeilly wrote: »

As I said previously, the media do regularly

How regularly?

report (unfortunately) the abuse of people committed by non clergy. The court report pages often contain very sad cases which are reported and you call that a cover-up?

"often" like "regularly" is also a relative term.
How often? Produce some actual hard data. how many column inches and on what pages? As compared to how many stories about clergy?
My contention is that there is way more coverage of clerics, roman Catholics in particular, considering there are 99 times as many non clerics. given also that the rate is higher for Protestant or non Christians. how come you don't many of these? clearly the idea is that the Roman Catholics are a powerful organisation and the anti catholic bias in column inches manifests based on this attitude.

60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s......

Numbners of detections reportings and convictions ion those decades. cite cite cite cite cite?

how many Catholic priests charged and convicted in the 60s 70s 80 s 90s 00s and how many non clerics?

Even the pope has apologised for the gross failings and cover-up committed by the church in Ireland with these matters. (while disassociating Rome)

The Church has some responsibility to bear yes. but if 99 per cent of abusers were not clerics then the responsibility is hardly all the Churches to bear is it?

Society at the time was controlled by the Iron rule of the RCC.

No it wasn't! In the 30s 40 and 50s maybe but as the 60s came in it began to wane. In the 70s the "special place" of the Catholic Church was removed from the constitution. through the 80 wittnessed the introduction of contraception divorce etc. You just cant claim the church had an Iron hand over all society then.

nor did hte church run the Gardai, Army, governmnet etc. If Gardai didn't investigate sex criome you cant claim it was the churches fault. furthermore how is it that people say that priests such as Brady who is notw a Cardinal were irresponsille and should have gone and reported people to the Gardai for child abuse and then also say that the Gardai would not act because the Bishops had an "iron hand"?

Also the failures of other organisations and the Government have been published in the various commissioned reports and media.

Yes i have pointed that out. But the media isnt devoting much space to the other 99 per cent.

It's just that the RCC still deny the extent of this or continue to fight victims in court. That's what's being reported.

what is being reported is twisted spin and lies. for example the NY times published that the current Pope told a bishop in a letter to "cover up" an abuse case when Ratzinger was clearly sending a form letter about laisisation!

It's a sad fact that the court pages are regularly full of stories regarding non clerical abuse. The vast majority of them are non clerical abuse.

"vast majority" ? so you have stats then? what would that be? how many reports? What vast percentage of media coverage is about non clerical abuse 80 per cent? 90?

In regards to the RCC, the media are reporting allegations of cover-up by the hierarchy.

no they are not they are making up allegations! The NY times article is a good example of that!

That's a complete different issue to abuse. It's their duty to report cover-ups, be it church or state.

Exactly! Because child abuse is such a henious crime they focus in the one per cent of abusers in order to have a go at the Church. not that the Church or anyone who conceals a child abuse should not be brought up. the point i am saying is why don't the media ask about the society that produced the other 99 per cent of non clerical abusers?

As I said previously, the media do regularly report (unfortunately) the abuse of people committed by non clergy. The court report pages often contain very sad cases which are reported and you call that a cover-up?

No i don't deny non clerical abuse is reported. In fact I think I have posted the stats of four times as many non clerical abusers are convicted. But if four tims as many are convicted 99 times as meany offended. This means for 1000 offenders if ten of them ( one percent) are clergy and say five of then are convicted then there are five clerics who are not convicted but there are also 970 non clerical offenders at large. But rather then report the 970 offenders at large the media focus on the five possible priests and whoever knew then for the last 40 years. What about who the other 970 worked with? who were their bosses? Did "friends" cover up for them?

Have a good look at the various commissioned reports, legal actions taken against abuse victims by the church, and leaked letters.

i have . The "leaked letter" of Ratzinger is a non story! But many are happy to believe it. I saw the same with "WMD" and "possible mushroom clouds" and "saddam has chemicals"
I dint believe it then either. that does not mean I supported Saddam.

Even the pope has apologised for the gross failings and cover-up committed by the church in Ireland with these matters. (while disassociating Rome)

The Pope apologised to the Jews as well. Was the WWII Holocaust all the Churches fault?
While the church could have done more for the Jews might the society in Germany ( wher Catholics didn't vote for Hitler) not have some responsibility?

And as I said many times they are reporting on the RCC due to the fact as an organisation, through in-action, cover-up or deceit, they facilitated decades of abuse.

As maybe they did in WWII? Was the RCC responsible for the Holocaust though?

In regards to the RCC, the media are reporting allegations of cover-up by the hierarchy. That's a complete different issue to abuse. It's their duty to report cover-ups, be it church or state.

Why not report on who covered up the other 99 per cent of abusers as well then?
No whipping boy there for the media is there?

The vast majority of court reports are non clergy. The media are reporting on the separate issue of cover-up.

Vast majority = ?

any numbers or do you just make them up?

few people read the court repost page. Clerics and Cardinals are on page 1.

And as I said many times they are reporting on the RCC due to the fact as an organisation, through in-action, cover-up or deceit, they facilitated decades of abuse.

and the non reporters of the other 99 percent of abusers didn't?

In regards to the RCC, the media are reporting allegations of cover-up by the hierarchy. That's a complete different issue to abuse. It's their duty to report cover-ups, be it church or state.

Or invent them when they cant get a story?

philiporeilly wrote: »

Obviously you have a very narrow view of what's going on around you and haven't noticed that stories of abuse committed by non clergy are reported almost daily in the broadsheets and tabloids. It's sad but true.

Care to list say three newspapers. We will look at them for a week and see how much space is devoted to clerical abuse related stories and how much to non clerical abuse. In spite of there being 99 times as many non clerical abusers even if there is equal space devoted to non clerical abuse ( which is still a ratio of fifty to one times less) I will be amazed! Care to prove me wrong?

Your "sad but true" comment is about as believable to me as "Saddam has WMD it is sad but true". and i say this as someone who has studied media and who has published in academic and scientific (and NOT religious) publications! go any look at actual facts and don't let your opinion be formed by opinion pieces in the media. don't even accept my opinion (which I hardly ever state by the way) go and do some research. I happy to help you.

her is todays irish times:
http://irishtimes.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

Front page home news on Vatican and the Resignation of a Bishiop on the child abuse issue. Link given to page 9.

The also link to 3 other stories:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0422/breaking20.html

ALL are to do with clerical abuse.


In depth news contains a special report on The Popes Pastoral Letter
http://www.irishtimes.com/indepth/

no reports on non clerical abuse

The top news item only yesterday on most irish news websites was the current case of a woman who accuses her father of abuse years ago. This has continued into most newspapers and not just in the court sections.

Not in today's Irish times it seems. Tell us about the case

Please get this point. The media are reporting the decades of systematic cover-up, deceit or denial of abuse committed by top levels of an organisation than commits to define moral standards. The RCC continue to fight victims in court and all of this is news worthy.

I accept the media have a role in this. so do the church . But both must act responsibly and not make up stories or lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
For example, on March 24, 2010, a report by the New York Times cited the Fr. Murphy case to accuse Pope Benedict XVI of a cover-up while he was head of the CDF in 1996.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html

The Canonical Judge in the Murphy trial, Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, wrote an article trying to clear up some of the facts in the case, "...my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals... The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself... Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured...on the day that Father Murphy died, he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial."http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
...
In April 2010, there were reports of a letter signed by Cardinal Ratzinger in 1985, in which he allegedly dismissed a request to laicize a Father Stephen Kiesle, a California priest accused of molesting boys. The Vatican responded that "...the letter followed a request from the priest himself for laicization, supported by the bishop. As such it was not a punishment, or part of a canonical process or the civil trial. At this stage, Father Kiesle was already dismissed from pastoral duties during the investigation, and he had no contact with any parishioners or children.

Even today the Pope is expected to accept the resignation of Bishop Moriarty after he admitted last December that he had not challenged the Dublin archdioceses' past practice of concealing child abuse complaints from authorities. Should this not be reported today?

It should be reported by if a Bishop or the Cardinal resigns that does not make them guilty of a crime as posters to this forum suggest.

The Pope has also promised to crackdown on abuse.

It isn't his palce to propose this! His responsibility is to the church. He sould not really be proposing wording for laws in any state to deal with child abuse. He is directly responsible for systems which will eliminate the one percent of clerical abuse but, while he should assist and instruct clergy to assist civil state organisations iit is a bit of a "division of powers" senario and the Pope should not be "sitting in on " how goivernments deal with the other 99 per cent of non church abuse. The church would have a role in assisting or guiding this however.

These are welcome steps. Should this not be reported today? Would the Holy See be taking these steps if it wasn't for the Press investigating and reporting these matters?

Now that is a very interesting question and goes to the heart of the matter. Maybe 30 years ago in Ireland the answer would be "no". Maybe trade Unions or the media had more central places in social change. today it is somewhat different I would argue, although a lot of people are still influenced by opinion from newspapers TV and radio. By the same token the are also less influenced by the "authority" of the church in non church matters.
Mind you the church is still heavily involved in non direct religious matters. Every oparish has about a hunderd groups supporting the poor , aged, handicapped, children, family marriage and drug councilling, providing coffee shops etc. Most are funded by the Church. Just like the hospitals had nuns scrubbing the floors for free and the schools had brothers teaching for free. Yes i am aware there were other abuse problems but that doesnt change the contribution make by the 99 or so percent of non abusing clergy.