The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

optogirl wrote: »

ISAW, you used to make me really angry. Now you make me so so sad. This thread pertains to clerical child abuse. Your non stop spouting of percentages does nothing to take away from the fact that children were raped by priests.

Yes and by non priests. About a hundred non priests for every priest. but nobody seems interested in the other hundred.

Those children who were brave enough to speak up were silenced and the rapists were allowed to continue to rape.

none were allowed continue! some of the already small number were moved by misinformed elements of the hierarchy.
there were very few four or five i guess with dozens of victims (some of them over a hundred) but such is also true of non clerical abusers; ther were no "rings" as exist elsewhere.
for the minority of abusers who were moved -again single digit numbers- several bishops or the Vatican didnt sit down and decide to move them. a local bishop acting on his own made the decision.

that situation has changed. New policies mean the Bishop must report it to the Vatican and also follow the local legal requirements.

If I knew a colleague of mine had raped somebody, I would go through the proper channels to alert management. If I then found that nothing was done I would go to the police and would pursue it until the person was brought to justice .

no you wouldn't. Even if you were an adult woman fifty years ago! Various publications have shown the likelihood is that the vast majority of rapes went unreported and still do today. the unreported percentage for children is probably higher.

Far better to implement policies that avoid the possibility of child sexual abuse and i,introduce profiling and vetting of staff. The church did this and did it in advance of other organisations for example One in four

The rape of children is now and was then the most appalling of crimes

I agree. but it seems people are interested only in rape by less than 0.01% of rapists or historically by less than 1% and the other 99.99% of people who rape children are not of interest to them. How come that?

and for the likes of Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children is, at best, disingenuous.

PS thank you Optogirl for you honesty. Im happy you actually read what I write and dont get angry and react to other pêoples hype and try to understand my arguments before you comment.

I think maybe anyone who was not raped can not understand the effect it has on victims. And then maybe some victims react in different ways.

I rarely discuss my beliefs here. i once admitted i had been a victim (of physical abuse by a religious brother) and I was berated for not reporting it or demanding compensation by someone whose main agenda was claiming without evidence that abuse was endemic to priests.

eviltwin wrote: »

Oh I have no doubt many lay people knew and did nothing, I have equal contempt for them but we're talking about the Church in this thread. If a teacher in my childs school raped a child and was allowed teach my child would be out of there. I'd feel the same anger towards parents who just carried on.

But that is what happened. Lay teachers also abused. Much more than Priests. Non priests abused - a hundred times more of them.

My family still go to mass, two members of my family are in the orders, I have to hear how every sunday half ten mass is full of children. I don't get it, I honestly don't understand it. It feels like no one cares really.

so you think not going to Mass is a solution to the problem of dozens of abusing priests among tens of thousands of abusers from the seventies eighties and before?

eviltwin wrote: »

It would send a strong message. As for your 'if it happened' comment I am not going to attempt to convince you. It happened.

Im not asking you to convince me.
Have you reported the priest you claim tried to rape you to the Gardai?

In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.

cdsb46 wrote: »

96% vote on the Nolan show for Brady to resign, its time he goes and maybe face some criminal charges for his actions.....or lack of!!

The church should not run like a PR firm or political party based on whatever mood the people happen to be in. It should be based on the truth and what is right and wrong. If 96% of the people on a whim decide the Trinity isn't true the church doctrine doesn't just follow that because most people say it.

steelcityblues wrote: »

The worst ever PR week for the Catholic Church in this country.

Actually it is all based on a BBC TV show outlining two cases one in Raphoe another in Armagh. Those cases are already known and little new evidence emmerged. The issue isnt who were the abusers that is already old news. the central issue is people in the hierarchy who knew about abuse and did not react adequately to it. That would be the local bishop at the time. The role of Fr. Brady at the time was to record the witness statements and to tell the witnessess not to discuss the process. NB that doies ,not mean "do not report it to the gardai/RUC" but it would be most unlikely for a catholic in 1975 to report anything to the RUC.

The central issue is whether people (Brady or anyone else) had information and did not act on that information to prevent further cases of abuse. People could have gone to the parents of the Children but didn't. The parents probably would not have gone to the RUC anyway but they could have been given the option. Ironically, in another threadf on the subject of free will Marianibad asked whether intervention removed free will. this is possibly a case where intervention could have enabled free will.

I would like to know what the parents of the Belfast boy would have done in 1975; Mc Kintyre the journalist of the BBC documentary did trace the Belfast boy. He also made the point than when another priest knew he went to the parents. Whether the parents are alive i do not know but i would like their view. Also the parents were in a different juristiction to Brady as was his Bishop. Im not suggesting Mc Kintyre dorstep them like he did Brady.

barfizz wrote: »

How can this man pretend to care about children when he abandoned so many to continued abuse.

He filed a report and he didn't contact parents of a second. As I understand it (I stand open to correction) he had a child in his own school which he interviewed who was abused by Smith and lived in Belfast. The child confirmed the abuse and Brady filed it but didnt contact the parents in Belfast. that is the only new evidence and the central issue in this case.

Not only should he resign from the church, he should also be arrested and tried in a criminal court for crimes against humanity (children).

Such a crime would not apply in either jurisdiction.

Let him try to plead (lie) his case under real scrutiny.

I dont think there is any question of Brady lying! He has not told any lies and it is your unsupported opinion that he did so.

barfizz wrote: »

Never in my life have I been asked to investigate (sorry "take notes") on a case of child abuse.
How dare you compare me to this guy.

that is a sidestep and shows double standards.
You can't on one level say "if i was in his position" and claim he should have reacted in a certain way and then when pressed on it say "i have never been in that position so dont ask me"

He failed as a human being, never mind as a priest.

Well who do you think he should report to as regards child abuse in Belfast in 1975.
Remember he was a priest in a school in the south who had then gone to rome the following year i believe.
Under what law and based on what evidence should the RUC even listen to him?
Would the pârtent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?

ratticus wrote: »

ISAW: Yes, I did make a personal attack because you have posted comments I found to be abhorrent.

but that is your opinion. You are bringing personal bias into it. which comments? In what way are the abhorrent? The comments please not the person making them!

All I have seen you do is try to explain why the Catholic Church is not worse than anyone else

In your "all i have seen" opinion. i have done a lot more than that but your bias again is that based on a few comments I allege abuse is okay because it is not worse than elsewhere.
i NEVER made such a commnet
I have frequently stated (unlike relativists who say "right or wrong depends on the society of the day" or "right or wrong is meaningless") that child abuse by anyone is always wrong. Not a single case of child sexual abuse is right or ever can be. It is not justified or never will be. but you have to look at the big picture. Why disregard almost all child abuse cases and focus only on a tiny minority of cases?

and to try to deflect focus away from your precious priests.

AHA! so you admit yu want to focus only on Roman Catholic Priests?
My point is proved by your own admission!
Why ? why focus only on them?
And please dont personalise this! I never claimed they were MY priests or PRECIOUS.

Anyone who protects a rapist is as bad as the rapist, and yes, that is you ISAW. There, that is a direct attack.

Not alone that but you are claiming that we should have lynch law and noone is entitled to the assumption of innocence and that any defence lawyer defending a rapist should be convicted of rape.

ratticus wrote: »

So he was right not to even tell the parents? You do not needs laws to know what is the right thing to do in this situation.

I don't think you are paying attention.
i drew attention to this as the only relevant difference from all prior reports.
I have yet to see it confirmed but I take the journalists word that the parents had not been informed by Fr. Brady.
I would like to know if they were informed by anyone else and whether if informed they decided not to report the abuse or if not informed whether they would have gone to the RUC.

ISAW, What is your agenda? Why are you trying to find reasons to exonerate these people?

Ad hominem.
when yu cant deal with the issues do you always resort to attacking the poster?

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Raping children.

there was no such crime in 1975.
Only females could be raped. Rape did not apply to males.
Rape in Belfast (the case being discussed) would not come under Garda juristiction in the Republic (where Brady lived).

Why the inverted comments on Smiths crime?

QED Rape of a male was not a crime in the republic.
Brady was not a witness to the rape so his reporting of it would be inadmissible anyway.

EDIT>> Would it matter whether it was the RUC or the Garda that stopped Smith?

I would think so
considering the whole government collapsed over an extradition warrant for Smyth and that the extradition could only happen after a law enabling such extradition was passed in both jurisdictions in 1986 I think.

kbannon wrote: »

1. what sports clubs had the moral aspect and also concealed crimes such as the raping of children?

I would be guessing but ...
were there cases of swimming instructors which caused or contributed to the collapse of their whole structure and the subsequent formation of Swim Ireland?
Even after that
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-child-abuse-claims-rock-swim-ireland-despite-reform-135115.html

As a result of a series of high-profile scandals, Swim Ireland, a largely voluntary organisation, has been forced to radically reform the way it conducts its business.

then you have One in Four who dint introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse until a decade after the roman catholic church. and they are a victims group.

2. How do you know that the church has/had no policy to protect abusers? Just because they haven't shown us a policy document does not mean that a policy did not exist!

How do you know it was not space aliens or Unicorns did it?
Look up "Argument from ignorance" and "proving a negative" . You will find them under "fallacy"

We are told by Father Bruno Mulvihill that documentation relating to Smith was sent from the vatican to kilnacrott was found by BM in a drawer and not acted upon.

Where are we told that?

He is what I do know note smith is not smyth
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-who-blew-whistle-on-smyth-estranged-from-order-2101285.html

n 1995, Rev Kevin Smith, the Norbertine abbot who was Smyth's superior for 25 years, admitted Smyth had abused children in two parishes in the US to which he was dispatched.

Rev Smith stated in a letter to UTV television about Smyth's time in America: "On neither occasion was the bishop of the diocese to which he was sent notified of (Smyth's) propensity to molest children.

"On both occasions, Fr Smyth offended against young parishioners," the abbot said. "I acknowledge that I, as his religious superior, committed a grave error in sending him abroad without warning the bishop to whom I sent him."

That is a bishop=the abbot admitting responsibility.

Im not aware of Vatican documents sent to Kilnacrott.
Thank you for drawing that to my attention
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/abuse-victims-legal-case-dragging-on-for-13-years-2106165.html

Mulvihill said that he had previously seen a document sent from the Vatican in 1968 instructing the Norbertine Order to compel Brendan Smyth to stay within the grounds of the Abbey at Kilnacrott, Co Cavan, and to have no priestly, or any, duties outside. He said he found the letter in a drawer and said it was never acted on.

Where is that letter now?
Did the Vatican send such a letter?
Why was it not acted on if they did?
Why didnt they ask why it was not acted on when the Smyth case broke in the 1980s?

There must have been something there to ensure that canon law was followed but to avoid the relevant civil authorities (presumably because of the daft perception that canon law actually meant something).

Again more argument from ignorance. Canon law does not supercede local law except in cases where local law is immoral e.g. nazism there was no policy to circumvent local law. some bishops by some i mean ten or so per ten thousands.

Also, the idea of conducting an investigation into allegations of abuse using an expert in canon law (Sean Brady) and not using civil authorities meant that this procedure, which we can only assume to have been the norm, was part of the policy to protect abusers.

N oin fact we cant assume that. we can however see that the secrecy of the procedure (NOT of reporting the crime) was to protect the victims from a plea by the abuser to destroy the case or to protect the family of the abused. such "in camera" cases happen daily in Ireland.

Furthermore, roughly what percentage of the rapists say between 1950 and 1990 were reported straight away by the church to civil authorities. On the flip side, what percentage were dealt with internally by the church?

As the church does not deal with criminal cases zero percent -it is for the criminal law to deal with . the church only deal with canon law and they can only disallow a priest from holding an office.

3. "misinformed action" - clarify this please?
There is a difference between doing something because you were misinformed and not doing something that you know is the right thing purely because you are following procedures.

Bishops did things because they thought at the time they were the right thing to do. They did it witiout talking to other bishops or to the Vatican. what they decided was wrong. This happened to maybe ten bishops out of tens of thousands.

The Nurenburg defence does not work, don't forget.

Nor does its court which was based on retroactive law. One cant invent "war crimes" and then try people after the law is invented. The Nazis were evil people yes and were opposed by the church before WWII but one can argue they didnt break laws. They actually legally passed anti Jew laws. This is a case where the Church would disregard civil law.

Brady could have quickly penned a note or, less likely given the times, made a quick call to the parents. He didn't.

a quick call to Belfast in 1975? unlikely.
Penned a note??? surely this is something parents shoul be informed of directly ?
Maybe they were informed. We dont know. all we know is Brady didnt inform them.

Tell me something, would you have been satisfied to have stood back in this same scenario? Would you have been happy to not follow up on such a serious allegation? Would you have been happy to sit there listening to questions about how a kid may have enjoyed the experience of being raped and not considered that they needed proper care from their family?

i certainly would not. i was one of the few who talked out to brothers; It was not done. It didnt enter peoples heads. they expected priests (and other adults) not to even think about such things.

That is not answering my question. How many abusers had an institution available to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities because the institution did not want to look bad?

How much more can you load a question before asking it?
You question assumes an intent and collosion by the Church to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities.

Can you refer to some of them please? I know that both the Department of Education & the Dept of Health/HSE and certain Gardai have been included within reports (seemingly based on an adherence to catholicism). Care to name some of the others?

already done. swiming organisations/ Kincora boys home Bethany homes . I dont want to go into Protestant vs catholic issues. Im sure if educate together existed 50 years ago similar problems would have appeared there.
http://www.paddydoyle.com/category/bethany-homes/

Ruairi Quinn has rejected not just Bethany survivors but his own party colleagues Joe Costello and Kathleen Lynch who have been campaigning for years on this issue. Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch was thrown out of the Dail last October while trying to raise the issue of Bethany survivors with the then Fianna Fail minister.

In fact in the US shakeshaft has produced such statistics which i have posted in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994.[3] She found that "All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."
In 2004, Shakeshaft published Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature for the United States Department of Education.[2] The report indicated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, had been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse.

PDN wrote: »

In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.

Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ringing the childs parents- there is no civil law or procedure against decency.

People didn't have phones in 1975.
You might have to ring the local phone box.
Also you are calling cross border and calls were monitored.
You really think that is a proper way to deal with such matters?