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…5960626465…124

Comments

  • Options
    #1832
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    Mentally ill, perhaps, but, that's still no excuse.
    No. They were not ill. They never claimed to be ill, their defence teams never claimed they were ill and no court ever conceded that they were ill.
    They were healthy adults who used their power and influence to rape children in their care - and two governments have allowed them to get away with it.


  • Options
    #1833
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    Banbh wrote: »
    No. They were not ill. They never claimed to be ill, their defence teams never claimed they were ill and no court ever conceded that they were ill.
    They were healthy adults who used their power and influence to rape children in their care - and two governments have allowed them to get away with it.
    Eh, I'd argue that a mentally healthy adult wouldn't rape a child. They didn't though, which is your point I know.


  • Options
    #1834
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Banbh wrote: »
    They knew damn well what they were doing.

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

    Unless they weren't sentient it follows that they would know what they were doing.

    A normal person with a functional brain would be repulsed by the notion of having sex with children.

    I'd imagine that priesthood would generally attract a disproportionately large number of assorted weirdos (for obvious reasons).


  • Options
    #1835
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    I'm saying that it is incorrect to excuse/explain the crimes of the priests on the grounds that they were 'mentally disabled' or 'mentally ill'.


  • Options
    #1836
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Banbh wrote: »
    I'm saying that it is incorrect to excuse/explain the crimes of the priests on the grounds that they were 'mentally disabled' or 'mentally ill'.

    It doesn't excuse them, anymore than a person being a psychopath excuses them of a murder they committed.

    What I'm saying that in society there will be psychopaths and paedophiles. You have to deal with them as they arise. What you don't expect to have to deal with is apparently "normal" people acting as callously as the church hierarchy did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1837
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    Are you saying that the priests that committed these crimes were phychopaths or mentally ill or mentally disabled?


  • Options
    #1838
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Banbh wrote: »
    Are you saying that the priests that committed these crimes were phychopaths or mentally ill or mentally disabled?

    Are you suggesting that paedophilia isn't a mental illness?


  • Options
    #1839
    Banbh
    Registered Users Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭Banbh


    Although abusing children is obviously terrible, it's as a result of mentally disabled people
    I thought at first that you were just misusing the term 'mentally disabled' but obviously not. Can you give any evidence that any of the priests that were prosecuted for raping and assaulting children claimed to be mentally disabled? I


  • Options
    #1840
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Gbear wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that paedophilia isn't a mental illness?

    Is a sexual preference a mental illness?


  • Options
    #1841
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Is a sexual preference a mental illness?

    Would you say that the woman who married the Berlin wall was mentally sound? It depends, really, on whether or not one could class paraphilias as mental illness.

    Personally I'm not sure that the majority of the priests involved in child abuse were actually paedophiles. I think that paedophiles genuinely have suffered from something traumatic whereby they direct their sexual urges toward children, and I think that that could be classed as a mental illness. However, I think that for the majority of the clergy involved it was a crime of opportunity more than anything else; they wanted to have sex but were unable to approach women for fear that they would be found out, but there are those children, you could tell them to keep quiet or they'll go to hell, no-one would ever know....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1842
    SebBerkovich
    Registered Users Posts: 1,624 ✭✭✭SebBerkovich


    kylith wrote: »
    Would you say that the woman who married the Berlin wall was mentally sound? It depends, really, on whether or not one could class paraphilias as mental illness.

    Personally I'm not sure that the majority of the priests involved in child abuse were actually paedophiles. I think that paedophiles genuinely have suffered from something traumatic whereby they direct their sexual urges toward children, and I think that that could be classed as a mental illness. However, I think that for the majority of the clergy involved it was a crime of opportunity more than anything else; they wanted to have sex but were unable to approach women for fear that they would be found out, but there are those children, you could tell them to keep quiet or they'll go to hell, no-one would ever know....

    I would agree with that, well said.

    I would also like to add that Priests involved in child abuse where - to my mind - getting off on power. Being able to to do what they wanted consequence free to people who couldn't defend themselves. Weather they were hetrosexual, homosexual or paedophiles is not relevent. They're sadistic and sociopathic and should be treated as such.


  • Options
    #1843
    Kivaro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Kivaro


    Cardinal Timothy Dolan sought to protect money from claims, struggled with Vatican to defrock abusers:

    From http://www.jsonline.com/features/religion/Cardinal-Dolan-sought-to-protect-money-from-claims-struggled-with-Vatican-to-defrock-abusers-b9943953z1-213832541.html

    Four years before the Archdiocese of Milwaukee filed for bankruptcy, then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan — now cardinal of New York — sought Vatican approval to move nearly $57 million in cemetery funds off the archdiocese's books and into a special trust to help protect them "from any legal claim or liability."

    There's more. Never knew about laicization:
    During his tenure in Milwaukee, Dolan also pleaded repeatedly with the Vatican to "laicize," or defrock, sexually abusive priests, a process that often took years.
    Included in the documents were letters showing that the archdiocese paid abusive priests -- usually $20,000 -- to accept laicization.

    So let me get this straight. Abuse a child, and instead of going straight to jail, you win $20,000?

    The article is a fascinating (albeit sad) report on how abusers were shielded.


  • Options
    #1844
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    According to the documents, Dolan paid $20,000 to abusive priests who agreed not to fight their dismissal from the priesthood.
    If wonder if Irish priests were paid a similar amount to disappear off the books, where they might become an even bigger financial liability?


  • Options
    #1845
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    http://www.salon.com/2013/07/02/huge_document_dump_shows_how_church_covered_abuse/


  • Options
    #1846
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    kylith wrote: »
    Would you say that the woman who married the Berlin wall was mentally sound? It depends, really, on whether or not one could class paraphilias as mental illness.

    Just wondering where the line is.

    So children and inanimate objects are on one side and same sex and opposite sex is on the other.


  • Options
    #1847
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Just wondering where the line is.

    So children and inanimate objects are on one side and same sex and opposite sex is on the other.

    I would draw the line at consenting adults.


  • Options
    #1848
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Kivaro wrote: »
    Four years before the Archdiocese of Milwaukee filed for bankruptcy, then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan — now cardinal of New York — sought Vatican approval to move nearly $57 million in cemetery funds off the archdiocese's books and into a special trust to help protect them "from any legal claim or liability."
    More on that story:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/dolan-sought-vatican-permission-to-shield-assets.html?_r=0

    BTW, it's not the first time that cemetary funds have been misappropriated by the current crop of top-level catholic leaders in the US:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-church-cemetery-fund-20130210


  • Options
    #1849
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Just wondering where the line is.

    So children and inanimate objects are on one side and same sex and opposite sex is on the other.
    It's an interesting discussion and not one I've fully formed an opinion on but I think the accepted reasoning is that being attracted to other adults, regardless of their gender, is fine because adults can give informed consent.

    Being attracted to children, animals, inanimate objects, dead bodies, etc, is seen as wrong because these are people and things that are unable to give informed consent and there is a notion that part of the reason the attraction exists is because they cannot consent.


  • Options
    #1850
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,848 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    robindch wrote: »
    More on that story:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/dolan-sought-vatican-permission-to-shield-assets.html?_r=0

    BTW, it's not the first time that cemetary funds have been misappropriated by the current crop of top-level catholic leaders in the US:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/09/local/la-me-church-cemetery-fund-20130210

    Ah sure, the money was just resting in their account. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1851
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I would draw the line at consenting adults.

    Well there's a difference to what you accept and what you're attracted to.

    18 is a completely arbitrary number. A good one in my opinion, but not really based rigidly on biology.

    There's nothing unhealthy about being attracted to 16+ year olds. It's just been deemed by society that people need to be protected until such a time as they can give consent.

    It would've been pretty normal throughout history (or maybe you, the history buff can correct me) for girls to marry at 13/14. Although for the sake of society we now draw the line later, it's not because it's a dividing line between mental illness and not.

    Being attracted to pre-pubescent children would seem to be very different though.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1852
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Gbear wrote: »
    Well there's a difference to what you accept and what you're attracted to.

    18 is a completely arbitrary number. A good one in my opinion, but not really based rigidly on biology.

    There's nothing unhealthy about being attracted to 16+ year olds. It's just been deemed by society that people need to be protected until such a time as they can give consent.

    It would've been pretty normal throughout history (or maybe you, the history buff can correct me) for girls to marry at 13/14. Although for the sake of society we now draw the line later, it's not because it's a dividing line between mental illness and not.

    Being attracted to pre-pubescent children would seem to be very different though.

    Age of consent in Spain is 13. Most of Europe seems to be around the 14/15 mark - Ireland is at the 'older' end of the scale at 17 with only Malta and Turkey at 18. Yet, in Malta one can marry at 16.

    Historically it was considered unseemly to have sex with a pre-puberty female but perfectly ok to marry her. No actual laws against it, it was just seen as being in poor taste.

    Being attracted to some one is outside our control - but acting on that attraction is within our control.

    I am in a monogamous relationship - does that mean I haven't ever been attracted to some one other than my partner? Of course not. I would, however, never act on that as I made a promise.


  • Options
    #1853
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Being attracted to some one is outside our control - but acting on that attraction is within our control.
    Whose line was this one:

    "I don't care what menus you read, so long as you eat at home".


  • Options
    #1854
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Being attracted to some one is outside our control - but acting on that attraction is within our control.

    Right. But being attracted to "children" who are in fact 16 isn't in any way abnormal. That's just good old fashion biology.

    Whereas I definitely think that finding a 7 year old attractive or even being able to tolerate thinking about them in such a way and not being utterly revolted by it has to be considered a mental illness.

    I don't know what that means for other, what I'm going to call "non-biologically normal" (I don't know how to say that in a way that doesn't sound like I'm judging them) sexual preferences. If someone wants to have sex with stopwatches that's up to them and it doesn't do any harm - it should probably still be considered a mental illness.

    It's important that I don't shy away from asking that question of homosexuality. That's not to say it is a mental disability. But I think it's condescending and dishonest if I don't try to follow that argument to it's logical conclusion. I don't know where you draw the line but I feel like paedophilia should definitely be to one side of it and regular, garden variety(literally, in the case of some animals) homosexuality on the other.

    Anyway. I raised this issue originally (and we've gotten somewhat sidetracked from that) to point out that the problem with the scandals wasn't the occurrence of paedophiles, which is just a part of society, albeit an unpleasant one, but that there was a cynical attempt to cover it up.

    That there were paedophiles in the church is almost incidental. It was being so callous and evil as to place the reputation of the church above justice for the victims and preventing attacks from happening again, all the while claiming to be a moral authority with a direct line to the supreme, all powerful, all loving creator of the universe that's the reason why this is a scandal that damns the hierarchy of the church and not just some mentally ill people.

    And with that I shall bid ye adieu!


  • Options
    #1855
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Gbear wrote: »
    Right. But being attracted to "children" who are in fact 16 isn't in any way abnormal. That's just good old fashion biology.

    Whereas I definitely think that finding a 7 year old attractive or even being able to tolerate thinking about them in such a way and not being utterly revolted by it has to be considered a mental illness.

    There are places in the world that would say the same about same-sex attraction.


  • Options
    #1856
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,303 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/paedophile-priest-told-boy-7-he-could-get-dead-grandfather-into-heaven-if-he-performed-sex-act-29389769.html
    A paedophile priest told a distraught seven-year-old boy that he could get his dead grandfather into heaven if he performed a sex act on him, a court has heard.

    Belfast Crown Court heard that the boy was quite distressed about his grandfather being in purgatory but that 55-year-old James Martin Donaghy told the child "he could get him into haven if he helped him" and performed a sex act.


  • Options
    #1857
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Penn wrote: »
    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/paedophile-priest-told-boy-7-he-could-get-dead-grandfather-into-heaven-if-he-performed-sex-act-29389769.html

    I am not usually in favour of the death penalty, but there are some people for whom I would make a slow, agonising, exception.


  • Options
    #1858
    Beruthiel
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 42,362 Mod ✭✭✭✭Beruthiel


    robindch wrote: »
    "I don't care what menus you read, so long as you eat at home".

    Or, just because I'm on a diet, doesn't mean I can't look at the menu. ;)


  • Options
    #1859
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Beruthiel wrote: »
    Or, just because I'm on a diet, doesn't mean I can't look at the menu. ;)

    Or in my case I look at the prices on the menu and say feck that, I can make that better and cheaper at home. :D


  • Options
    #1860
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Or in my case I look at the prices on the menu and say feck that, I can make that better and cheaper at home. :D

    "Hey OH, I decided to come home to you because you're cheap... why are you hitting me"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1861
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    bluewolf wrote: »
    "Hey OH, I decided to come home to you because you're cheap... why are you hitting me"

    Yeeehhhh...I may be a bit crap with the ol romance lark....

    But c'mon - 'let's go home, I'll make dinner and dessert, there's a few bottle of ale in the fridge and you know how you like Westerns? Meet Deadwood' sounds bloody great to me.....


Advertisement