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

Ongoing religious scandals

Options
1…2526283031…124

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    Just when you think you've heard it all (well most of it anyway) along comes this news item:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/9153676/Dutch-Roman-Catholic-Church-castrated-at-least-10-boys.html
    There are also allegations that Vic Marijnen, a former Dutch Prime Minister, who died in 1975, was linked to the case. In 1956, Mr Marijnen was the chairman of the Gelderland children's home where Mr Heithuis and other children were abused [and castrated]. He intervened to have prison sentences dropped against several priests convicted of abusing children.

    I'm trying to understand how the church bribed the Dutch PM. I don't believe that they use money. The church uses it's 'divine' power and the fact that it's gods club, and the members regularly 'talk' to god. "Treat us well and you go to heaven". "Cross us and hell awaits with hot coals and pointed sticks".

    It happened here when the Garda would turn a blind eye to priests raping kids. Now THAT'S power! :mad:


  • Options
    #813
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    joseph brand wrote: »
    What is the point of this report [...]
    This isn't really a factual report on events as per the Murphy and Ryan reports. Instead, it appears to be a discussion of why, from a religious perspective, the abuse took place, and to recommend a series of actions to prevent it in future. At the this time, it seems likely the report will recommend that some dioceses will be merged with others, and that applicants to seminaries will be vetted in some way. In other words, at the moment, it appears most likely to recommend some mid-level administrative changes and that's about it. Let's see what it does recommend when it's made available.

    It's also likely that the report will reply to Ratzinger's request from his splendidly unapologetic Pastoral Letter (to catholics, not the entire country) from two years back:
    Ratzinger wrote:
    In order to recover from this grievous wound, the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children, [...] Such an acknowledgement, accompanied by sincere sorrow for the damage caused to these victims and their families, must lead to a concerted effort to ensure the protection of children from similar crimes in the future.
    Note that Ratzinger calls for somebody to admit that the crimes took place and to express "sorrow for the damage caused", not for somebody, and especially not the church, to admit responsibility.


  • Options
    #814
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    Just when you think you've heard it all [...]
    Dutch original here and translation here.
    Ellis Dee wrote: »
    [...] if the Catholic clergy are really serious about celibacy, they don't have themselves castrated prior to their ordination. After all, if they lived by their own rules, they wouldn't need those appendages anyway.
    Leviticus 21 lays down the rules on priestly bollocks:
    Leviticus wrote:
    [...] No man of your offspring throughout their generations who has a defect shall approach to offer the food of his God. For no one who has a defect shall approach: a blind man, or a lame man, or he who has a disfigured face, or any deformed limb, or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD’S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God. ‘He may eat the food of his God, both of the most holy and of the holy, only he shall not go in to the veil or come near the altar because he has a defect, so that he will not profane My sanctuaries. For I am the LORD who sanctifies them.’


  • Options
    #815
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Typical christian response.

    Try dealing with the issue and facts instead of attavcking the poster.
    where do i here or anywhere else claim to be a christian?
    what i do claim in the christianity forum is that i believe the view i give represents the christian or orthodox or Protestant or roman Catholic view -depending on the issue. I have also claimed to represent the Islamic view the US view and the Nazi view. thayt doesnot mean i speak for the Nazis just that i claim that is their view.
    The main difference being that the church acts like an International Paedophile Ring.

    Really? in what way?
    Even the current pope
    so you are referring to roman Catholicism not all of Christianity?
    is accused of signing papers to move a scumbag priest from one church to another so as to hide him. They all knew what was going on.

    Note is accused of! Where is your evidence?
    where is you evidence that the Pope moved priests from one church to another?
    I have never seen this evidence produced but plenty of people being accused[/b)

    apparently dreyfuss was accused , the birmingham six and guildfod four and annie Mc guire were accused, Fr reynolds in Mayo was accused. Even christ himself apparently was accused. Were any of them guilty?
    apparently yu claim the Pope moved priests to other parishes to prevent them being convicted of sexual abuse and the whole vatican knew he did it!
    You really must have loads of evidence for this. How about producing some?
    Of course there are dirty paedos outside the church, but they are usually working alone.
    Except in cases of paedo rings. None of which are as massive as the RCC paedo ring.

    the above evidence makes a nonsence of that. It shows several pedo rings. Again i am aware of no cases of pedophile priests operating in a ring with oterh priests or even with non priests. where is you evidence of this? To what so called RCC paedo ring do you refer? Have you names of the people in that so called ring and of the victims they abused? How did they communicate their videos and photos to each other?


  • Options
    #816
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Paedophile Ring: a group of people who take part in illegal sexual activity involving children

    By not reporting cases of child abuse and instead moving priests to other locations where priests have the opportunity to abuse more children on a large scale (as opposed to a mother being aware her husband is abusing their child and not reporting it), and covering up or not releasing information which could have protected children from being abused... parts of the RCC could be considered to be a paedophile ring. Doesn't mean they were passing pictures and videos between each other or anything, but simply that other priests, by their actions and the actions they were told to take by their superiors, helped to facilitate child abuse. Not intentionally to do so, but did so nonetheless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    Dutch original here and translation here.
    thanks for that robin I believe i read the report before.

    the castration cases mentioned are not in it. they are hardly "current" if they occurred in the 1950s. Nevertheless this does not mean they shoul be ignored. but whther they are an "ongoing religious scandal" you are pushed to include slavery and The inquisition too. if true they do indicate terrible behavior by the state and some church officials. I doubt the doctors who carried out the surgery were priests. and the idea that staff did not think the parents need be involved seems totally against the Law. but i am not up n dutch law.

    anyway back to Holland; i dont think you can hold dutch society up as a beacon for where society should go in the future. I mean open prostution and drugs are a problem. the report itself says the core church declined and lost authority there since the 1950s. pages 5-6 and that in the pre war to post war period WWII that is there was concern about the sexual morality of catholics with respect to children and minors. i suppose you could say similar of ireland today.


    Now i have to first explain the difference in percentage of victims and precentage of abusers. People in authority are likely to have a larger number of victims so for example while priests may account for less than 1% of sexual abusere they may account for over 3% of the victims. The report also distinguished between accusations which they call "perpratrators" and convicitions.

    the did a survey of over 34,000 dutch people aged 40and over. It included the broadest definition of sexual in terms of nature and scale. I am assuming like SAVi it includes sverbal suggestion ot engouraging others to watch images. it alsoi included ephebophile up to age 18 and not just pedophile sex. It was heavily weighted with Catholic respondents; the information is on pâge 8 in the english version

    then on page 9
    The study focused on perpetrators working in the Roman Catholic Church. Of the
    Dutch nationals aged 40 years or older, between one in a 100 (0.9%) and one in 300
    (0.3%) have experienced unwanted sexual advances before the age of 18 from a
    perpetrator working in the Roman Catholic Church.

    thats under 1% and that is of perpetrators not of people known to have abused.


    then on page 15-16
    According to
    the Episcopal Contact Commission Vrouw en Kerk, there was scarcely any
    information available at that time about the nature and scale of sexual abuse in the
    Netherlands. Although it was regarded as a very serious problem, there was no
    substantive discussion of it by the Conference of Bishops.
    The problem was raised for the second time in 2003 in response to the presentation
    by the chairman of Help & Justice of a list of 47 reports of sexual abuse that had been
    received by Help & Justice in 2002. That was an unprecedented number of reports at
    the time, and around 20 of the reports concerned sexual abuse of minors.

    the report concludes the numbers were small in percentage but if you broaden the possible perpretrators to all Catholics working in the church and not just priests broaden the type of offence to include suggestive remarks and broaden the age of the victim to 18 it could go into the tens of thousands.
    I would suggest however the instance of pedophile offenders who were priests as distinguished from those having adult affairs or homosexual relationships or with oldre teenagers is a fraction of the already small 1% in the report.

    i also accept their other conclusion that bishops were aware of the problem. But of a much smaller scale than suggested and by a few bishops and i mean two or three and 20 reports not thousands. i dont think ther is any evidence the vatican or anyone else was moving priests around in a conspiracy.


  • Options
    #818
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    Paedophile Ring: a group of people who take part in illegal sexual activity involving children
    [/quote}

    and the Pope was involved in this ... how?
    By not reporting cases of child abuse and instead moving priests to other locations where priests have the opportunity to abuse more children on a large scale ... and covering up or not releasing information which could have protected children from being abused...

    and you evidence the Pope was doing this is?
    parts of the RCC could be considered to be a paedophile ring.

    The OP stated the Pope was doing this and all the vatican and Bishops knew he was!
    Doesn't mean they were passing pictures and videos between each other or anything, but simply that other priests, by their actions and the actions they were told to take by their superiors, helped to facilitate child abuse.

    when did any bishps ever meet and decide to hide child abuse. It may have happened i m not aware it ever did. But ver the mlast century ther were abuot 100,000 bishops and even if it did in a small scale I would not think it indicates the hierarchy is giving it the nod.

    And i am aware of bishops acting on their own and not discussing it with others but these number five to ten over the last century.
    Not intentionally to do so, but did so nonetheless.

    Look up mens rea and actus rei.
    If you shoot someone and didnt intend to you are not guilty of murder. the intention has to be there to commit the crime. Not alone that but you already admit the bishop is not partaking in the act.


  • Options
    #819
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    and the Pope was involved in this ... how?

    Never said he was.

    and you evidence the Pope was doing this is?

    Never said he did.

    The OP stated the Pope was doing this and all the vatican and Bishops knew he was!

    I'm not the OP.

    when did any bishps ever meet and decide to hide child abuse. It may have happened i m not aware it ever did. But ver the mlast century ther were abuot 100,000 bishops and even if it did in a small scale I would not think it indicates the hierarchy is giving it the nod.

    And i am aware of bishops acting on their own and not discussing it with others but these number five to ten over the last century.

    You have proof of these five or ten? What were their names? When did it happen? What actions were taken against them by the church for clearly doing something wrong?

    Look up mens rea and actus rei.
    If you shoot someone and didnt intend to you are not guilty of murder. the intention has to be there to commit the crime. Not alone that but you already admit the bishop is not partaking in the act.

    If you shoot someone and didn't intend to, you could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Like I said, the bishops etc may not have abused the children themselves, but by moving paedophile priests and not reporting their crimes, they gave the paedophile priests the opportunity to abuse again. Which they did.

    As for Ratzinger:
    CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH LETTER
    sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
    to Bishops of the entire Catholic Church and other
    Ordinaries and Hierarchs having an interest
    REGARDING THE MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES
    reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
    [Translation of the text was printed in Origins 31:32, January 24, 2001, and posted at http://www.austindiocese.org/epistle/2002/graveoffenses.doc]
    In order to fulfill the ecclesiastical law, which states in Article 52 of the apostolic constitution on the Roman Curia, “[The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] examines delicts against faith and more grave delicts both against morals and committed in the celebration of the sacraments which have been reported to it and, if necessary, proceeds to declare or impose canonical sanctions according to the norm of common or proper law,”(1) it was necessary first to define the method of proceeding in delicts against the faith: This was accomplished through the norms titled Agendi Ratio in Doctrinarum Examine, ratified and confirmed by the supreme pontiff, Pope John Paul II, together with Articles 28-29 approved in forma specifica.(2)
    At approximately the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, through an ad hoc commission established, devoted itself to a diligent study of the canons on delicts both of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in order to determine “more grave delicts both against morals and in the celebration of the sacraments” and in order to make special procedural norms “to declare or impose canonical sanctions,” because the instruction Crimen Sollicitationis, issued by the supreme sacred Congregation of the Holy Office on March 16, 1962,(3) in force until now, was to be reviewed when the new canonical codes were promulgated.
    Having carefully considered opinions and having made the appropriate consultations, the work of the commission finally was completed. The fathers of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith examined the commission’s work carefully and submitted to the supreme pontiff conclusions on the determination of more grave delicts and the manner of proceeding to declare or impose sanctions, with the exclusive competence in this of the apostolic tribunal of this congregation remaining firm. All these things, approved by the supreme pontiff himself, were confirmed and promulgated by the apostolic letter given motu proprio beginning with the words Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela.
    The more grave delicts both in the celebration of the sacraments and against morals reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are:
    -Delicts against the sanctity of the most august eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments, namely:
    1. Taking or retaining the consecrated species for a sacrilegious purpose or throwing them away.(4)
    2. Attempting the liturgical action of the eucharistic sacrifice or simulating the same.(5)
    3. Forbidden concelebration of the eucharistic sacrifice with ministers of ecclesial communities which do not have apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination.(6)
    4. Consecrating for a sacrilegious purpose one matter without the other in the eucharistic celebration or even both outside a eucharistic celebration.(7)
    -Delicts against the sanctity of the sacrament of penance, namely:
    1. Absolution of an accomplice in sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue.(8)
    2. Solicitation in the act, on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, to sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue, if it is directed to sin with the confessor himself.(9)
    3. Direct violation of the sacramental seal.(10)
    -A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.
    Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
    As often as an ordinary or hierarch has at least probable knowledge of a reserved delict, after he has carried out the preliminary investigation he is to indicate it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unless it calls the case to itself because of special circumstances of things, after transmitting appropriate norms, orders the ordinary or hierarch to proceed ahead through his own tribunal. The right of appealing against a sentence of the first instance, whether on the part of the party or the party’s legal representative, or on the part of the promoter of justice, solely remains valid only to the supreme tribunal of this congregation.
    It must be noted that the criminal action on delicts reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is extinguished by a prescription of 10 years.(11) The prescription runs according to the universal and common law;(12) however, in the delict perpetrated with a minor by a cleric, the prescription begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age.
    In tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. When the trial in the tribunal is finished in any fashion, all the acts of the case are to be transmitted ex officio as soon as possible to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
    All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely. Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.
    Through this letter, sent by mandate of the supreme pontiff to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, to superiors general of clerical religious institutes of pontifical right and clerical societies of apostolic life of pontifical right, and to other interested ordinaries and hierarchs, it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.
    Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001.
    Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
    Prefect

    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2010/10/concerning-very-grave-sins/

    Another interesting article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection


  • Options
    #820
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    Dutch original here and translation here.
    thanks for that robin I believe i read the report before. the castration cases mentioned are not in it.
    I believe the word "gecastreerd" in the original Dutch title translates into English as "castrated" and the article, while not perfect, is clearly enough talking about the catholic church presiding over the castration of young boys.


  • Options
    #821
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bishops release the report:

    http://www.catholicbishops.ie/2012/03/20/bishops-summary-findings-apostolic-visitation-ireland/

    http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Summary-of-the-Findings-of-the-Apostolic-Visitation-in-Ireland.pdf


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I'm trying to understand how the church bribed the Dutch PM. I don't believe that they use money. The church uses it's 'divine' power and the fact that it's gods club, and the members regularly 'talk' to god. "Treat us well and you go to heaven". "Cross us and hell awaits with hot coals and pointed sticks".

    It happened here when the Garda would turn a blind eye to priests raping kids. Now THAT'S power! :mad:


    Yes, it certainly is, of the realest kind. In fact, that kind of power, which is not actually enshrined in anything or backed up by anything concrete, is often called "soft power".:)

    But there's nothing soft about it when it's in the hands of an organisation like the RCC.:eek:


  • Options
    #823
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    So you dont stand by the comments in message 811 which were the nes i was replying to when you replied?

    and which stated -emphasis mine

    The main difference being that the church acts like an International Paedophile Ring. Even the current pope is accused of signing papers to move a scumbag priest from one church to another so as to hide him. They all knew what was going on.

    Of course there are dirty paedos outside the church, but they are usually working alone. Except in cases of paedo rings. None of which are as massive as the RCC paedo ring.

    that is what i replied to you then provided a definition and claimed the RCC were participâting in a Pedo ring

    Your words:
    by their actions and the actions they were told to take by their superiors, helped to facilitate child abuse
    which came right after you definition of a pedo ring.
    So if you were not referring to a catholic church Pedo ring to what were yu referring when you
    1. supplied a definition and
    2. Immediately followed the definition with on opinion that the RC church is culpable for child sexual abuse?
    Penn wrote: »
    As for Ratzinger:


    http://churchandstate.org.uk/2010/10/concerning-very-grave-sins/

    In which you quote "...with a minor below the age of 18 years.
    Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

    how does that in any way suggest a cover up.
    what is says is that a local bishop cant
    it is an ajoinder to Crimen Sollicitationis, which responds to clerics who try to use the seal of confession to protect themselves- i would add the proportion of pedo abuse in this form is tiny.

    What it says as far as i see is that local bishops cant allow child abusere to hear confession or say Mass and that is reserved for a church court in Rome.
    the church has no authority in local civil law --(except in some exceptional circumstances)
    the doccument is only referring to the priestly office and not the law of the land.
    And nowhere does it say it supercedes the law of the land or that priests have to be sent to Rome just that the Holy Office is the one deciding on laisiaation and the like in these cases.

    to suggest this document is about a conspiracy to hide pedophiles in rome is not supported at all.

    As for the Pontifical secret -those reasons for confidentiality were made clear in crimen solicatatis as they are in civil law -protection of the victims defence.

    As for in tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. Yes in CHURCH tribunals. Just as in civil tribunals we can say we want judges and not just barristors or lay people presiding. which makes no comment on how a criminal case should prceed.
    If you shoot someone and didn't intend to, you could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

    Yes but not murder! the bishops may be guilty of solmething but not pedophilia or participation in a pedo ring as you suggested!
    Like I said, the bishops etc may not have abused the children themselves, but by moving paedophile priests and not reporting their crimes,

    Few bishops if ever did this. None to the Vatican as far as I know. and no bishops in the vatican were involved. Also bishops did not meet and conspire to do it in a "ring" the bishops who hampered criminal investigations did it in isolation and numbered in the tens in 100,000 bishops! You cant call that anything like participating in child sexual abuse and certainly not the hierarchy of the church participating in a pedo ring as suggested.
    they gave the paedophile priests the opportunity to abuse again. Which they did.

    Yes five or ten bishops or maybe even dozens of unknowingly did give them the opportunity. which was wrong. But you still cant say that constituted a pdeo ring involving the Vatican or the Pope or the congregation of bishops.

    robindch wrote: »
    I believe the word "gecastreerd" in the original Dutch title translates into English as "castrated" and the article, while not perfect, is clearly enough talking about the catholic church presiding over the castration of young boys.

    Yes the Article is! Not the Deetman commission
    http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Samenvatting_eindrapport_Engelstalig.pdf


  • Options
    #824
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    ISAW wrote: »
    So you dont stand by the comments in message 811 which were the nes i was replying to when you replied?

    I don't stand by anyone's comments other than my own. I didn't write post 811. I simply used the paedophile ring thing as a 'jump-off' point.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Your words:

    which came right after you definition of a pedo ring.
    So if you were not referring to a catholic church Pedo ring to what were yu referring when you
    1. supplied a definition and
    2. Immediately followed the definition with on opinion that the RC church is culpable for child sexual abuse?

    I was referring to a catholic church pedo ring. The definition I found for paedophile ring was "Paedophile Ring: a group of people who take part in illegal sexual activity involving children". That does not mean each member of the group of people has to sexually abuse a child. For example, 10 people make plans and arrangements to kill someone. A few people cause distractions, a few people get the victim in place, one person drives the killer to where the victim is and one person actually pulls the trigger to kill the victim. One person is guilty of murder. All are guilty of conspiracy to murder.
    ISAW wrote: »
    In which you quote "...with a minor below the age of 18 years.
    Only these delicts, which are indicated above with their definition, are reserved to the apostolic tribunal of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith."

    how does that in any way suggest a cover up.
    what is says is that a local bishop cant
    it is an ajoinder to Crimen Sollicitationis, which responds to clerics who try to use the seal of confession to protect themselves- i would add the proportion of pedo abuse in this form is tiny.

    What it says as far as i see is that local bishops cant allow child abusere to hear confession or say Mass and that is reserved for a church court in Rome.
    the church has no authority in local civil law --(except in some exceptional circumstances)
    the doccument is only referring to the priestly office and not the law of the land.
    And nowhere does it say it supercedes the law of the land or that priests have to be sent to Rome just that the Holy Office is the one deciding on laisiaation and the like in these cases.

    to suggest this document is about a conspiracy to hide pedophiles in rome is not supported at all.

    As for the Pontifical secret -those reasons for confidentiality were made clear in crimen solicatatis as they are in civil law -protection of the victims defence.

    As for in tribunals established by ordinaries or hierarchs, the functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests. Yes in CHURCH tribunals. Just as in civil tribunals we can say we want judges and not just barristors or lay people presiding. which makes no comment on how a criminal case should prceed.
    If you shoot someone and didn't intend to, you could be guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

    Yes but not murder! the bishops may be guilty of solmething but not pedophilia or participation in a pedo ring as you suggested!


    Few bishops if ever did this. None to the Vatican as far as I know. and no bishops in the vatican were involved. Also bishops did not meet and conspire to do it in a "ring" the bishops who hampered criminal investigations did it in isolation and numbered in the tens in 100,000 bishops! You cant call that anything like participating in child sexual abuse and certainly not the hierarchy of the church participating in a pedo ring as suggested.



    Yes five or ten bishops or maybe even dozens of unknowingly did give them the opportunity. which was wrong. But you still cant say that constituted a pdeo ring involving the Vatican or the Pope or the congregation of bishops.

    Let me ask you something, seeing as how you can obviously interpret this things better than I can.

    What did Ratzinger mean by this line?
    ...it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.


  • Options
    #825
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »

    Another interesting article:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

    And again the spin is made about letters
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74135324&postcount=1842

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_delictis_gravioribus

    not a secret.
    The letter was published in the official gazette of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, in 2001.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS%2093%20%5B2001%5D%20-%20ocr.pdf

    the document lists one offence of a moral character, not directly connected with administration of the sacraments, as reserved in the same way as these to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, namely, the offence of a cleric (a bishop, priest or deacon) who commits a sexual sin with someone under 18 years of age.

    Reservation of these offences to the Congregation does not mean that the Congregation itself tries those accused of committing them. It requires instead that, if a preliminary investigation shows that it is at least probable that the offence was committed, the ordinary (in the Eastern Catholic Churches called the hierarch) is to consult the Congregation on the manner in which his own tribunal is to proceed. In addition, any appeals from the verdict of that tribunal are to be made to the Congregation, instead of the usual appeals tribunal.

    it does not claim Church courts make judgement about criminal cases or keeping priests away from prosecution. all that interpretation is SPIN!


  • Options
    #826
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes the Article is! Not the Deetman commission
    http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Samenvatting_eindrapport_Engelstalig.pdf
    So what? :confused:

    Deetman was concerned exclusively with "sexual abuse", the definition of which appears on page 3 of his report.

    That definition does not encompass castration, so it shouldn't be surprising that Deetman's report doesn't talk about it.


  • Options
    #827
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Penn wrote: »
    I don't stand by anyone's comments other than my own. I didn't write post 811. I simply used the paedophile ring thing as a 'jump-off' point.
    [/quote)

    You supplied a definition and then went on to implicate the hierarchy of the church immediately following the definition.

    If the definition had nothing to do with what followed why include it?
    I was referring to a catholic church pedo ring. The definition I found for paedophile ring was "Paedophile Ring: a group of people who take part in illegal sexual activity involving children". That does not mean each member of the group of people has to sexually abuse a child. For example, 10 people make plans and arrangements to kill someone. A few people cause distractions, a few people get the victim in place, one person drives the killer to where the victim is and one person actually pulls the trigger to kill the victim. One person is guilty of murder. All are guilty of conspiracy to murder.

    correct! so where is the conspoiracy Bof bishops who planned to facilitate pedophiles?
    when did they make plans and arrangements for pedophilia?
    what bishops caused distractions did they cause in order for the pedophile to commit abuse?
    which bishops got victims in place for the pedophile?
    what bishop brought a pedophile to the place where he was going to abuse kids?

    how and in what way did bishops conspire? How did the Pope or vatican conspire in this?
    Let me ask you something, seeing as how you can obviously interpret this things better than I can.

    What did Ratzinger mean by this line?

    ..it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided, but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful even through necessary sanctions.

    Ill parse it for you

    ..it is hoped not only that more grave delicts will be entirely avoided,

    the delicts involved are numinous
    Of the eight more serious offences in behaviour or in the celebration of the sacraments that De delictis gravioribus specified, four concern the Eucharist:

    Throwing away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, taking them away or keeping them;
    Attempting, if not a priest, to celebrate Mass or pretending to do so;
    Concelebrating the Eucharist with ministers of ecclesial communities that lack apostolic succession and do not recognize the sacramental dignity of priestly ordination;
    Consecrating either bread or wine without the other, of even consecrating both but outside of celebration of Mass.

    Three concern the sacrament of Confession:

    Absolving an accomplice in sexual sin;
    Making a sexual advance in Confession or on the occasion of or on the pretext of Confession;
    Direct violation of the secrecy of Confession.

    Finally is the sexual one involving a minor. by the way Irish law says under 17 I think. the Vatican says under 18.

    ....but especially that ordinaries and hierarchs have solicitous pastoral care

    These are bishops i.E those with "ordinary Power" i.e they can ordain
    and they have to care for their diocese /flock/ abbey etc.

    ....to look after the holiness of the clergy and the faithful

    And that they have a duty to morally guide their flock

    .... even through necessary sanctions.

    and if necessary they should act to empower or remove power from those those under them to assist them in this.

    It basically says bishops should empower people to facilitate holiness and act on those who abuse the eucharist or confession.


  • Options
    #828
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    So what? :confused:

    Caznt see why you are confused

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77679640&postcount=807

    telling that the Dutch church castrated boys.

    YOU replied

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77680237&postcount=814
    Dutch original here and translation here.


    And i replied that that source says "The commission Deetman, commissioned by the Roman Catholic Church child abuse within the Church examined, was informed in writing about the castrations, but not mentioned in its final report."

    In other words it is a media article about things which cant be proved and never got into the report probably for that reason. i prefer to deal with actual reports and evidence than allegations and lack of evidence.

    That's what!

    Deetman was concerned exclusively with "sexual abuse", the definition of which appears on page 3 of his report.

    That definition does not encompass castration, so it shouldn't be surprising that Deetman's report doesn't talk about it.


    Deetman was also concerned with the culture that enabled such abuse.
    the point is whether such things could today be proved or whether the victims want to continue i guess. In your opinion is discovering the truth more important than the victims wishes?


  • Options
    #829
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    it is a media article about things which cant be proved and never got into the report probably for that reason. i prefer to deal with actual reports and evidence than allegations and lack of evidence.
    :confused:

    Page 2 of Deetman's report indicates that it was an "independent inquiry". That means that the allegations it contains have not been tested in court, and therefore have no legal standing as "fact". It's also clear (Page 3) from Deeman's remit, that the castration of young boys is not covered, so I'm perplexed as to why you think that the allegations that were not included (for being outside the remit) have any less standing than the allegations that were included.
    ISAW wrote: »
    . In your opinion is discovering the truth more important than the victims wishes?
    :confused:

    What on earth are you talking about?


  • Options
    #830
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    robindch wrote: »
    Dutch original here and translation here.Leviticus 21 lays down the rules on priestly bollocks:

    I forgot all about the crushed testicles...which is a shame, as its a classic. I wonder if one would be ok, as it does refer to the plural.....

    Speaking of bollocks - page 6, last paragraph, from the report released today
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0320/vaticanvisit.pdf
    "The Visitators also encountered a certain tendency, not dominant but nevertheless fairly widespread among priests, religious and laity, to hold theological opinions at variance with the teachings of the Magisterium, this serious situation requires particular attention, directed principally towards improved theological formation. It has to be stressed that dissent from the fundamental teachings of the church is not the authentic path towards renewal"

    They should run that with the headline "Irish In 'Own Ideas' Shock" in the Vatican newsletter.


  • Options
    #831
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    i posted robindch about backup evidence for a 6.5% claim and he informs me it is in this thread. the only single reference i can find to 6.5% is a single post by robindch.
    He as yet has not produced the support for 6.5% and says it is posted here.
    I think that is shifting the burden of proof.
    and i dont see wher he has posted it other than
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71716870&postcount=536
    Im not going to continue the 6.5% claim issue here as i have rebutted it where my evidence has been posted

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3001
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3002
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77657998&postcount=3003

    PS the reason I posted this thread on other stuff was because i came to look for robindchs reply
    when he didnt provide one here i PMed him again.
    I still dont see any backup for the 6.5% claim and i await it elsewhere where I indicate above


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    robindch wrote: »
    :confused:

    Page 2 of Deetman's report indicates that it was an "independent inquiry". That means that the allegations it contains have not been tested in court, and therefore have no legal standing as "fact". It's also clear (Page 3) from Deeman's remit, that the castration of young boys is not covered, so I'm perplexed as to why you think that the allegations that were not included (for being outside the remit) have any less standing than the allegations that were included.:confused:

    Fair enough if you think female circumcision has nothing to do with sexual abuse of women or castration to do with sexual abuse of men I wont argue about it. i did say probably.

    Im just pointing out it isnt in the report referred to in the dutch article.

    i already stated the culture which enabled the abuse was not outside the remit as I view it. for example they refer to sexual conduct of adults and non church people as well. In fact their survey included some of these people too.
    What on earth are you talking about?
    Im talking about other victims not wanting to have the issue pushed and having their names in public or have to go and revisit the abuse in a trial which might not even prove the abuser guilty.


  • Options
    #833
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    Fair enough if you think female circumcision has nothing to do with sexual abuse of women or castration to do with sexual abuse of men I wont argue about it.
    It's clear (Page 3) from Deeman's remit, that the castration of young boys is not covered, so I'm perplexed as to why you appear to think that it should be.

    Otherwise, frankly ISAW, I'm surrendering on this point -- I give up -- white flag -- my life is too short.

    For the 6.5% figure, I'll search back through this thread for you when I get a few minutes and let you know which previous post documented it.


  • Options
    #834
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,280 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    robindch wrote: »
    Otherwise, frankly ISAW, I'm surrendering on this point -- I give up -- white flag -- my life is too short.

    Snap!


  • Options
    #835
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    ISAW, this is a long-running thread that sees occasional updates with occasional discussion. I won't allow to turn into another of your trainwrecks.

    If I see you setting up camp here with the intention of multiquoting and soapboxing your views day and night I'm going to be forced to call in the water cannons.

    This post is not open for discussion here.


  • Options
    #836
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Dades wrote: »
    ISAW, this is a long-running thread that sees occasional updates with occasional discussion. I won't allow to turn into another of your trainwrecks.

    If I see you setting up camp here with the intention of multiquoting and soapboxing your views day and night I'm going to be forced to call in the water cannons.

    This post is not open for discussion here.

    i offer only facts not my views
    robindch asked me to come to this thread.
    I attempted to get the data about the 6.5% by PM
    after three EDIT : five attempts he refused to respond and constantly referred me to this thread.
    he said he would repost after my second PM to the thread. He didnt.
    I am quite happy to debate it elsewhere and asked robin to do that and posted the thread in the forum Christianity which he had entered but he insisted I post it here.
    That is the reason I came here.
    to find the source of the claim which he claimed This percentage is roughly the same as the figures produced by the Government in respect of clerical abuse elsewhere and is in line with figures arrived at by other means.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77619733&postcount=39
    where are
    1. the figures produced by the Government in respect of clerical abuse elsewhere and
    2. figures arrived at by other means.
    and
    3. the original 6.5% in a source from a dublin diocese report

    that is all I want. He claimed it will take minutes and if it does im outa here in seconds.
    dont even reply here if it suits you.
    Reply to the thread i referenced above
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692


  • Options
    #837
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Penn wrote: »
    Ongoing religious scandals, ISAW
    He must have mistaken it for the "whatabouttery" thread.

    MrP


  • Options
    #838
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Very disturbing that those Dutch youths were apparently castrated in a catholic-run psychiatric hospital for daring to accuse priests of abusing them.
    Another strong argument for secularism in hospitals.


  • Options
    #839
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ISAW wrote: »
    robindch asked me to come to this thread. I attempted to get the data about the 6.5% by PM after three EDIT : five attempts he refused to respond and constantly referred me to this thread.
    The thread over in the christianity forum was closed, so posting there was difficult, and since Sunday, you've sent me a string of rambling, crotchety PM's. However, I checked this thread and I can't find the posts I was referring to, so instead of spending any time looking for them...

    Here's where the rate figures for clerical abuse come from:

    1. Cloyne Report. Available here. Go to section 1.7 on page 2. Quote:
    Cloyne Report wrote:
    Of the 163 clerics listed in the Diocese of Cloyne Diocesan Directory for 1996, there have been allegations made or concerns expressed about 12 (7.6%).

    2. Report by Commission of Investigation into Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Available here. Go to section 1.8 on page 2 of "Part 1". Quote:
    RCICAD wrote:
    The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.)
    It's not unreasonable to think that perhaps half of the 11 "unnamed priests" might be included in the 172, so adding the remaining five to the 172, we get a figure of 177 priests against whom allegations were made. Then, go to section 3.4, page 43. Quote:
    RCICAD wrote:
    Since 1940, about 1,350 priests were ordained for the Archdiocese of Dublin and about 1,450 members of religious orders and societies held appointments in the Archdiocese. An unquantifiable number of priests did supply work.
    1,350+1,450 = 2,800. There are no statistics concerning abuse by supply priests, and I'm assuming that the original 177 are taken from the 2,800 anyway. So, dividing 177 by 2,800 gives 6.3%.

    3. The Irish Catholic reported some years ago -- I haven't been able to find an online edition of that issue -- that 4% of convicted pedophiles in Irish prisons were clerics. As clerics make up around only 0.1% of the population of the country, we'd therefore expect, all other things being equal, that they'd make up around 0.1% of the convicted prison population too (so the 4% figure indicates they're actually being convicted at 40 times the expected rate). The conviction rate will necessarily be lower than the allegation rate owing to the death of the accused, the difficulty of securing a conviction after the passage, in many cases, of many years and the reluctance of the accuser to take their case to court. So the rate of 4% seems plausible, given that it's substantially less than the allegation rate noted elsewhere.

    I hope this clarifies the issue for you.


  • Options
    #840
    Ellis Dee
    Registered Users Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭Ellis Dee


    recedite wrote: »
    Very disturbing that those Dutch youths were apparently castrated in a catholic-run psychiatric hospital for daring to accuse priests of abusing them.
    Another strong argument for secularism in hospitals.

    Indeed, and I would go even further and say it's a strong argument for criminal prosecution on grounds along the lines of "obstruction of justice" or "perverting the course of justice" if any of the perpetrators are still alive.:mad:

    How many more people in this world have been unjustly accused, detained, mutilated and perhaps even much worse because they dared accuse those "whited sepulchres" (to use one of their own phrases) of gross abuses and crimes?:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    robindch wrote: »
    3. The Irish Catholic reported some years ago -- I haven't been able to find an online edition of that issue -- that 4% of convicted pedophiles in Irish prisons were clerics. As clerics make up around only 0.1% of the population of the country, we'd therefore expect, all other things being equal, that they'd make up around 0.1% of the convicted prison population too (so the 4% figure indicates they're actually being convicted at 40 times the expected rate). The conviction rate will necessarily be lower than the allegation rate owing to the death of the accused, the difficulty of securing a conviction after the passage, in many cases, of many years and the reluctance of the accuser to take their case to court. So the rate of 4% seems plausible, given that it's substantially less than the allegation rate noted elsewhere.

    Robin, I don't know if this is the earliest article but this one mentions the 4% issue.

    Fixing the Church
    The Irish Catholic wrote:
    Given that clergy account for approximately 4% of abuse, Irish society has a long way to go to rooting out this evil in our midst.


Advertisement