The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

rovert · 03-04-2010 12:04am

M6 wrote: »

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/because-this-week-wasnt-bad-enough-already/

World is out of touch with the ultimate reality. I wouldn't worry too much about one comment made by a Jewish friend of the Papal Preacher and foolishly repeated.

Im not interested in a wacky blog

M6 · 03-04-2010 12:07am

philiporeilly wrote: »

Interesting and worth reading but it doesn't completely discredit the NY Times article or any of the other revelations that other independent media sources have found since.

Obviously those sources you listed are from two different Roman Catholic newspapers and the odds of them EVER printing "The Pope is Wrong" is probably a billion to one, if that!

Although the articles are correct in saying the basis for the NY Times articles included evidence supplied from victims lawyers. Those documents were subpoenaed from the church and nobody has refuted their authenticity.

It is newsworthy that a priest abuser was not defrocked and that correspondences had been sent to the directly to the future Pope's office begging for leniency, which he received. If he didn't see those correspondences as stated there still was a failure by members in his office in dealing with this.

The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.

The declining John Paul II may indeed have been somewhat remiss in addressing this evil, but the press, spoon-fed by Roman Catholic Modernists, cannot be expected to highlight insignificant details such as the fact that Benedict XVI has vigorously addressed this issue from the first days of his papacy (remember the disciplining of Fr. Maciel, once the protecting hand of the former Pope was withdrawn?). The Manchester Guardian (another allegedly “quality” newspaper from the UK) announced the other day that, for twenty-four years, Ratzinger failed to act on clerical sexual abuse of children; its journalists forgot to mention that the issue was only directly handed to his congregation in 2001! (Check out http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis ) When guilt is foreordained and execution already carried out, mere supporting evidence is of no account. Barely a week ago the New York Times headlined the “news” that, as cardinal prefect in 1996, Ratzinger quashed the canonical trial of a priest of the Milwaukee archdiocese accused (and believably guilty) of unspeakable crimes. There is no likelihood of the NYT apologising for its barefaced lie, uttered after it declined to interview the canon lawyer who presided over the judicial proceedings in Milwaukee. http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601 According to him, the canonical process was still in full swing when the accused priest died; we can’t expect the secular press to get the point that the case then moved to the final court of appeal.

=> http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18

philiporeilly · 03-04-2010 12:13am

M6 wrote: »

The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.

=> http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18

Any sources besides religious newspapers?

Worth reading but as I said earlier somewhat predictable in editorial.

M6 · 03-04-2010 12:18am

philiporeilly wrote: »

Any sources besides religious newspapers?

Worth reading but as I said earlier somewhat predictable in editorial.

That one is from Lutherans, not Catholics. The other sources can be found in links with the other articles I posted. I'm not going to post links to largely anti-Catholic newspapers and websites. What other sources are there?

philiporeilly · 03-04-2010 12:29am

M6 wrote: »

That one is from Lutherans, not Catholics. The other sources can be found in links with the other articles I posted. I'm not going to post links to largely anti-Catholic newspapers and websites. What other sources are there?

LOL. As usual if they report on something you don't like they are "anti catholic".

Those documents the NY Times based their article have not been refuted. They are church correspondences and the response was shocking. It wasnt proved that the now Pope had seen those documents but it is newsworthy and worth investigating.

M6 · 03-04-2010 12:35am

philiporeilly wrote: »

LOL. As usual if they report on something you don't like they are "anti catholic".

Those documents the NY Times based their article have not been refuted. They are church correspondences and the response was shocking. It wasnt proved that the now Pope had seen those documents but it is newsworthy and worth investigating.

The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?

philiporeilly · 03-04-2010 12:48am

M6 wrote: »

The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?

Is it not newsworthy that a priest who abused many children and sent a letter to the now Pope's office asking for leniency, was given it?

This does not prove that he saw those documents or acted upon them but it is worth reporting.

Although this may not be palatable for many to read, reporting of these facts can hardly be seen as a smear campaign. Further independent investigation is warranted.

Fanny Cradock · 03-04-2010 1:50pm

This is article explains his position in a little more depth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8601381.stm

goat2 · 03-04-2010 2:32pm

thank god, someone has spoken up, this is how the other religions see the catholic church,
our problems go all the way to the vatican
which means we need to do a clean sweep starting at the top down to the bottom,

LostinKildare · 03-04-2010 2:52pm

M6 wrote: »

The canonical trial was not dropped, it was on-going when the priest died.

M6 wrote: »

The articles I've posted show that the NYT article was inaccurate and misleading. They tried to smear the Pope. Sadly, after the event, few people are interested in the facts. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to suggest, except maybe read them, again?

M6, you are not keeping up with the developing story. Last week, Brundage had to walk back his claims that the NY Times had misquoted him, and that the canonical trial was ongoing when the priest died.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01chrono.html

Father Brundage, who is now working in the Archdiocese of Anchorage, posted an essay this week saying he was never informed that the trial of Father Murphy had been halted.
He also said that he had been misquoted in both The New York Times and The Associated Press. In an interview on Wednesday, Father Brundage acknowledged that he had never been quoted in any Times articles about the Murphy case — and the paper did not misquote him. He said he was misquoted in an Associated Press article that was posted temporarily on the Times Web site, and he mistakenly attributed that to The Times.
He said the documents show that the Vatican had encouraged the Milwaukee Archdiocese to halt the trial, but they did not use strong language and actually order a halt. He said that he never saw the letter from Archbishop Weakland abating the trial until it appeared on the Times Web site last week.

You can read for yourself Weakland's 19/08/98 letter, in which he tells Bertone, "I have instructed my Judicial Vicar to formally abate the judicial process that had begun against Father Murphy," in the original documents here: http://documents.nytimes.com/reverend-lawrence-c-murphy-abuse-case?ref=us#document/p75

At that same address you can also read for yourself the translated notes (13/07/98) of the 30 May Vatican meeting at which Weakland argued for the continuation of the canonical trial of Murphy, but was overruled by Bertone. To summarise,

In his plea for continuation of the trial, Weakland argued that in addition to the many victims of Murphy there were still victims yet unidentified, that the community of victims had rejected lesser "pastoral solutions," that because of the time elapse there could be no civil trial (instead of canonical trial), Murphy had no remorse, and that there was a danger of a great scandal if the Church didn't proceed.

Then Bertone lists the problems of continuing a trial: difficulty in furnishing proof and testimonies without increasing scandal, the need for secrecy, the long period of time that had elapsed and the lack of other accusations from the Superior diocese; that “there are not enough elements to instruct a canonical trial.” Bertone outlines what should be done by way of “penal remedies,” such as restricting where Murphy can celebrate Eucharist (only in Superior, not Milwaukee), and requiring permission in writing. Also that Murphy must give clear signs of repentance, “otherwise he must be applied to a trial.” (Interesting, since Weakland had just told him that Murphy was not repentent.)

Then Bertone “restates the two central points to be followed”: “1) the territorial restriction of the celebration (of the) Eucharist and 2) the needed remorse and reform of the priest.”

The meeting concludes with Weakland’s pained “difficulty he will have explaining this to the community of the deaf.”

He knew it was a bad decision and that the people back home would be outraged. Which brings us back to Brundage. When he tells the NY Times that he never saw Weakland's obedient follow-up letter to Bertone telling him that he'd told Brundage to drop the trial, he says

“The only possible explanation I can come up with is that Archbishop Weakland withheld the letter, knowing the reaction I would have had,” Father Brundage said.
Father Brundage said he would have been appalled because he was absolutely convinced that Father Murphy should be put on trial, because, “This was a horrendous case.”

So, at best, by his own reckoning, Brundage was purposely left in the dark about the decision to end the trial. He didn't need to be told, because Murphy was about to die anyway.

EDIT: Of course, this does mean that Brundage is accusing Weakland of telling Bertone a bald-faced lie in his letter -- i.e., that he [Weakland] had told him [Brundage] to halt the trial. Ah, the finger-pointing!

Michael G · 03-04-2010 10:53pm

Has anyone noticed that Irish Catholics are still going to Mass and the Holy Week services in hundreds of thosands? Apart from those within the Church who have their own agenda, which is to breathe life into the maggot-ridden corpse of the "Spirit of Vatican II", the only people making hay out of this are the ones who would like to destroy the Church as an influence on "social policy", which seems to be all about sex. Nowadays, the criminal law allows people to go in for almost any kind of sex. What the ones who now make all the noise seem to want to prohibit is any expression of disapproval of any kind of sexual activity, however strange. I would be interested to see why they still think it is wrong to have sex with children.

PDN · 03-04-2010 11:53pm

Michael G wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that Irish Catholics are still going to Mass and the Holy Week services in hundreds of thosands? Apart from those within the Church who have their own agenda, which is to breathe life into the maggot-ridden corpse of the "Spirit of Vatican II", the only people making hay out of this are the ones who would like to destroy the Church as an influence on "social policy", which seems to be all about sex. Nowadays, the criminal law allows people to go in for almost any kind of sex. What the ones who now make all the noise seem to want to prohibit is any expression of disapproval of any kind of sexual activity, however strange. I would be interested to see why they still think it is wrong to have sex with children.

Well, to be be fair, most people are still opposed to rape as well. Which would indicate that consent is the crucial issue.

Criminal law has no business legislating what consenting adults get up to in private.

philiporeilly · 03-04-2010 11:57pm

Michael G wrote: »

Has anyone noticed that Irish Catholics are still going to Mass and the Holy Week services in hundreds of thosands? Apart from those within the Church who have their own agenda, which is to breathe life into the maggot-ridden corpse of the "Spirit of Vatican II", the only people making hay out of this are the ones who would like to destroy the Church as an influence on "social policy", which seems to be all about sex. Nowadays, the criminal law allows people to go in for almost any kind of sex. What the ones who now make all the noise seem to want to prohibit is any expression of disapproval of any kind of sexual activity, however strange. I would be interested to see why they still think it is wrong to have sex with children.

Its great that so many people are still going to mass but please do not associate that to every single one of them having the exact same view point as you.

Not everything is black and white as some are making out. Yes you can criticise the failings of the hierarchy of the church without being "anti catholic". You can also attend mass and consider yourself a catholic.

I drove my grandmother to mass tonight and I have to say that listening afterwards to some of the older generation I was surprise to see so many that are still upset with how the church is handling this.

The media have a place in our society to investigate and report on matters of interest to the public, even if it is uncomfortable for some to hear.

I disagree with you that those making noise "want to prohibit is any expression of disapproval of any kind of sexual activity". In fact I say that it is generally the opposite. They want everyone to have equal rights and openly express their views no matter what race, creed or sexual orientation they are.

You may be disagree with their views or how they live their lives but legally (and rightfully) everyone has right to live without discrimination.

rovert · 04-04-2010 10:21am

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086738.ece

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 3:48pm

Depends on what media you read.

The days of the Sindo/Times having total control over the Zeitgeist are numbered.

Catholics should boycott the Sunday Independent imo. I'd be clicking my heels with glee and lodge €1,000 in my local parish account if a bishop called for its boycott. I think the Irish Times has a good overall Christian ethos and you get good articles on both sides of the coin. Although there are a lot of journos who went to college during the height of the feminist era, have weaseled themselves into tenured positions and have been pumping out the same ****e since the 1990s. Unlike the change being undergone by the Catholic Church with regards to protecting children, they're never going to change. They've got their little champagne liberal principles to uphold.

Fighting Irish · 04-04-2010 3:57pm

What i hate, is when the media calls them "abuse survivors"

Hagar · 04-04-2010 3:59pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

Unlike the change being undergone by the Catholic Church with regards to protecting children

What change? And why was it needed?

rovert · 04-04-2010 4:03pm

Im fairly specfical of PapaRatzinger as a poster....

Fighting Irish wrote: »

What i hate, is when the media calls them "abuse survivors"

Ok

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 4:04pm

69 wrote: »

What change? And why was it needed?

You've obviously been asleep for the last decade. Every catholic parish in this country has a child protection policy. For example, no volunteer (scout leader, choirmaster, etc.) from the parish can access a child under any circumstances without comprehensive Garda vetting. Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was in charge, fast-tracked the proceedure for outing paedophile priests where it was quite clear that abuse had taken place. Previously, a full ecclesiastic tribunal was required. Etc., etc. I suggest you open you mind to other media sources. Vatican.va or the Vatican's youtube channel would be a good start for closed-minded people like you.

bigeasyeah · 04-04-2010 4:06pm

davef1000 wrote: »

I'm also sick of hearing about an organisation that covered up hundreds of cases of sexual abuse of children, and protected the abusers from punishment at the hands of the law.

The swimming council?

rovert · 04-04-2010 4:07pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

You've obviously been asleep for the last decade. Every catholic parish in this country has a child protection policy. For example, no volunteer (scout leader, choirmaster, etc.) from the parish can access a child under any circumstances without comprehensive Garda vetting. Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was in charge, fast-tracked the proceedure for outing paedophile priests where it was quite clear that abuse had taken place. Previously, a full ecclesiastic tribunal was required. Etc., etc. I suggest you open you mind to other media sources. Vatican.va or the Vatican's youtube channel would be a good start for closed-minded people like you.

This has to be a gimmick account right? Just look at the username and joining date.

Boston · 04-04-2010 4:11pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

You've obviously been asleep for the last decade. Every catholic parish in this country has a child protection policy. For example, no volunteer (scout leader, choirmaster, etc.) from the parish can access a child under any circumstances without comprehensive Garda vetting. Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was in charge, fast-tracked the proceedure for outing paedophile priests where it was quite clear that abuse had taken place. Previously, a full ecclesiastic tribunal was required. Etc., etc. I suggest you open you mind to other media sources. Vatican.va or the Vatican's youtube channel would be a good start for closed-minded people like you.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the church in Ireland run today by the same people who covered up child sex abuse 30 years ago? And what exactly brought about these changes in the church you speak of? Was it moral men who could stand no more, or the outrage of catholics when they first heard the truth? A truth which the church suppressed for years and now wishes to water down. You accuse other of being narrow minded, when it is you who is blind.

Jaysoose · 04-04-2010 4:12pm

musings wrote: »

Who gives who over to the Gardai? It not as if they have to be extradited or something. I mean if someone has been abused by someone, then that person complains to the Gardai themselves or someone does it for them and the law deals with them accordingly be they builder, doctor, teacher or priest.

Yes, in the past the Church knew of abusers and didn't act in a responsible way in tipping off the gardai, however they have apologised for it, resolved never to do it again, some bishops have resigned over it and there is no evidence to suggest that they are covering up anything today.

what more can they do?

They can look at themselves as human beings and as such be held accountable the same way as the rest of us. If at any stage anybody was aware of abuse and didnt act on it they should hand themsleves over to the authorities i cant see any other way to approach the issue and all the promise of reforms and hollow apologies is a disgusting sideshow.

billybigunz · 04-04-2010 4:13pm

Anybody who supports the church is a paedophile enabler and apologist. If you believe in hell then that is your destiny.

davef1000 · 04-04-2010 4:15pm

bigeasyeah wrote: »

The swimming council?

People were removed from their positions, tried in court, and sentenced. Just like in the CCL, right?

Hagar · 04-04-2010 4:47pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

You've obviously been asleep for the last decade. Every catholic parish in this country has a child protection policy. For example, no volunteer (scout leader, choirmaster, etc.) from the parish can access a child under any circumstances without comprehensive Garda vetting. Also, Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was in charge, fast-tracked the proceedure for outing paedophile priests where it was quite clear that abuse had taken place. Previously, a full ecclesiastic tribunal was required. Etc., etc. I suggest you open you mind to other media sources. Vatican.va or the Vatican's youtube channel would be a good start for closed-minded people like you.

I'm not closed minded at all, I just don't swallow the pap being dished out by the RCC as the truth. You completely avoided why the changes were needed. You say that every parish has a child protection policy. Theses policies were only brought in to combat the systematic abuse at the hands of the clergy. Your ecclesiastical tribunals don't mean anything outside your church grounds, until child abusers are put into State prisons justice has not been done.

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 4:59pm

Boston wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't the church in Ireland run today by the same people who covered up child sex abuse 30 years ago? And what exactly brought about these changes in the church you speak of? Was it moral men who could stand no more, or the outrage of catholics when they first heard the truth? A truth which the church suppressed for years and now wishes to water down. You accuse other of being narrow minded, when it is you who is blind.

Lol. You're probably the very type of person who is calling for Cardinal Brady's "resignation". Were that to happen (and it won't), his shoes would be replaced by someone who graduated from the same seminary 5 years later.

What you really want is for the Church to be taken over by a bunch of aggressive secularists. That is never going to happen.

rovert · 04-04-2010 5:02pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

Lol. You're probably the very type of person who is calling for Cardinal Brady's "resignation". Were that to happen (and it won't), his shoes would be replaced by someone who graduated from the same seminary 5 years later.

What you really want is for the Church to be taken over by a bunch of aggressive secularists. That is never going to happen.

For a Christian and new poster you are quite antagonistic...

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 5:03pm

davef1000 wrote: »

People were removed from their positions, tried in court, and sentenced. Just like in the CCL, right?

Instead of engaging in endless gossip all the time, could you please be more specific in your allegations? Please cite the relevant laws and the specific individuals you'd like to see in front of the courts.

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 5:05pm

rovert wrote: »

For a Christian and new poster you are quite antagonistic...

Christians have been known to attack as well as defend. The truth will cut through all the gossip and offer renewal and healing.

Hagar · 04-04-2010 5:10pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

could you please be more specific in your allegations? Please cite the relevant laws and the specific individuals you'd like to see in front of the courts.

1. Obstructing justice.
2. Every single one of them.

rovert · 04-04-2010 5:13pm

PapaRatzinger wrote: »

Christians have been known to attack as well as defend. The truth will cut through all the gossip and offer renewal and healing.

Betcha you say that to all the boys Papa :rolleyes:

PapaRatzinger · 04-04-2010 6:19pm

69 wrote: »

1. Obstructing justice.
2. Every single one of them.

What law do you refer to?

Funny that you talk about "every single one". Do you think good priests should be thrown in the slammer too? You come across as an out and out church-hating extremist.

A nasty little gossiper, aren't you?

PDN · 04-04-2010 8:07pm

PapaRatzinger & rovert, this thread will run a lot smoother if you both take a deep breath and don't get so personal.

Thanks.

Hagar · 04-04-2010 8:20pm

The trouble is that everybody is aware that the so called "good" priests knew what was going on but didn't speak out. They saw their loyalty to the Church as more important than their duty to the children. If only one of them had the courage to do so a lot of human misery could be avoided. Many of the good priests are guilty of conspiracy by silence.

peccavi · 04-04-2010 9:24pm

This is a very interesting piece which addresses the above named instruction from the Vatican which the MSM calls the smoking gun...

An excerpt:

One of the Big Lies left over from the Long Lent of 2002 in the U.S. is that clerical sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance and misgovernance were abetted by a 1962 Vatican document, Crimen sollicitationis (“The Crime of Soliciting”). That document, and a 2001 letter from then-cardinal Ratzinger to all the bishops of the world on specific abuse cases, have been cited for years as the smoking gun proving that the Vatican is engaged in an international conspiracy to protect child molesters (and its own reputation and exchequer). Ms. O’Connor, wittingly or not, bought this Big Lie in her Washington Post article. Explaining why it’s a Big Lie requires a understanding how the Catholic Church understands the sacraments, including the Sacrament of Penance, often called “confession.”

Go read the whole thing: http://article.nationalreview.com/429663/spreading-the-big-lie/george-weigel-br-rev-jay-scott-newman

Jonny7 · 04-04-2010 10:47pm

I think a large proportion of the anger (and my anger specifically) over this issue is the way in which the RCC are treating it.

This isn't a Mel Gibson film which creates an absolute furorer inside the church, its something far far worse, child abuse... yet from the very first rumors, to the Priests actually being named, to the massive media outcry, the RCC has treated the issue the same the whole way - shrug and brush under the carpet as if its just a minor thing.

Its as if the whole institution is a gentleman's club who's had a few members behave in an ungentlemanly manner and nothing to get in a fuss about. Try not to get caught, and if you do, for the fifth time, just plead the usual tack "the devil made me do it" and the you'll get is a free transfer or at worst a light "defrocking".

I'm not saying the Church is full to the brim of paedophiles but how they can be so nonchalant about such evil within their institution speaks volumes of their mindset.

/rant over

goat2 · 04-04-2010 11:46pm

lucy2010 wrote: »

I feel that anyone who was in anyway involved either by practice or knowledge needs to go but also needs to face a criminal investigation. & if that means every priest in the nation so be it.

they are still not doing a thing, cant beleive it

Raiser · 05-04-2010 10:52am

Cardinal Angelo Sodano dismisses Child Abuse as "Petty Gossip"

Cardinal Angelo Sodano wrote:

A LEADING cardinal yesterday sparked outrage among victims' groups by dismissing the clerical sex abuse scandal as "the petty gossip of the moment".

Cardinal Angelo Sodano delivered the shocking speech at the start of the papal Easter Sunday Mass in the Vatican.

The cardinal strongly defended Pope Benedict, saying that the church would not be intimidated by "petty gossip" about sexual abuse of children by priests before he warmly embraced the Pontiff.

Please do not simply move this thread to the massive catch-all that is the "Mega Thread" where it will simply be lost forever - This is a new and very real development in the whole topic that is unfolding around us that I believe deserves its own discussion.

I've noticed recently that there has been a worrying trend of all but dismissing the ongoing Child Abuse issue almost entirely by belittling it, playing it down, marginalising it, hinting that its has been blown out of proportion and otherwise skewing the facts. However the above incident really does illustrate for me in a very telling manner how this attitude now can demonstrably be shown to reach from our local Parish Church right the whole way up the hierarchy to the Popes own inner circle of Supporters.

Is it acceptable for no changes to be made on the basis of what it has become commonplace to inaccurately and conveniently describe in an idle, throwaway manner as "the misdeeds of a few Priests and Nuns"?

This argument is never then accompanied by acknowledgement of the many instances where the People behind the mechanisms of the Church covered up these "Sins" and crimes, which in the majority of cases enabled the violating Party to continue with their sick and evil cravings at will.

rovert · 05-04-2010 10:58am

I thought this was just a meme of PapaRatzinger

theg81der · 05-04-2010 11:04am

These people continue to make me sick. They really have settled on the notion that people are looking for money or that the devil got into the child and tempted the poor priest, when they had no option of disbelief.

Anything to escape responsibility, if they at least were what they are pretending to be but the only thing they represent is evil.

Jonny7 · 05-04-2010 12:59pm

How would a priest now respond if someone came to confession and explained that they had been having sex with children? Tell them its bad, but that they can say a few Hail Marys and 'repent' their sins? The church cannot have any moral authority if they do not face up to this issue.. its absolutely unbelieable that heads are not rolling left, right and centre in order to somehow resolve and admit some accountability.. to bloody absolve themselves somehow of this..

Also, I've noticed the whole 'och leave them alone' attitude of more than a few parishioners on TV when asked about either a local childabusing priest or the issue in general.. I wish the interviewers would ask them if they could elaborate? as in 'och its only a bit of child abuse, nothing serious'

I am very angry about this whole thing.. I just cannot get my head around how the whole organisation is treating it.. bloody heck.. go ahead and tell your boss you have abused 200 children and see if he just 'transfers' you to another department..

Manach · 05-04-2010 1:26pm

In answer, afaik, is that if the respondent was part of a professional body such as a soliticator or doctor then it would be their legal right to have a internal hearing under the auspices of that organisation.

MrPudding · 05-04-2010 2:15pm

Manach wrote: »

In answer, afaik, is that if the respondent was part of a professional body such as a soliticator or doctor then it would be their legal right to have a internal hearing under the auspices of that organisation.

Yes, but the difference is that whatever professional internal hearing you had would be separate from and in addition to legal proceeding heard by the state, assuming there was an offence committed.

The Bar Association or Medical Council would not hide and move the rapists.

MrP

JimiTime · 05-04-2010 3:08pm

One of the questions I would ask is 'what motivated the cover-up'? The two obvious things I would assume are:

1. The hierarchy believed that it would be a 'scandal'.

2. The hierarchy believed it would undermine the illusion of holiness, and in turn loosen the grip the church had on the people.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to be admitting to any cover-up so we get left with our assumptions.

What do other Christians think the reasons could be? and Why on earth did they provide them with more victims? I wholeheartedly condemn the cover-up, but I can see their 'reasoning' (still disagreeing of course) in not wanting it to come to light. The bit that just leaves me flabbergasted, disgusted, confused and angry is WHY on earth would they then move them to a position to do it again

:mad:

:(:confused:

Whatever 'reasonings' or fears they had in relation to such things coming out, it does not explain why the hell they would let these paedo's continue to molest??

peccavi · 05-04-2010 3:19pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Whatever 'reasonings' or fears they had in relation to such things coming out, it does not explain why the hell they would let these paedo's continue to molest??

Because they were told by 'expert's that such and such a priest was 'cured' and good to go. They were sold a lie by the prevailing culture and wisdom of the psychological profession at the time.

On other issues:

...all the criticism is obscuring something equally important: For anyone who knows the Vatican’s history on this issue, Benedict XVI isn’t just part of the problem. He’s also a major chapter in the solution.

To understand that, it’s necessary to wind the clock back a decade. Before then, no Vatican office had clear responsibility for cases of priests accused of sexual abuse, which instead were usually handled — and often ignored — at the diocesan level. In 2001, however, Pope John Paul II assigned responsibility to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s all-important doctrinal office, which was headed by Joseph Ratzinger, then a cardinal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

That article challenges the picture that's been painted of Pope Benedict and I encourage all to read it.

Raiser · 05-04-2010 3:41pm

peccavi wrote: »

Because they were told by 'expert's that such and such a priest was 'cured' and good to go. They were sold a lie by the prevailing culture and wisdom of the psychological profession at the time.

This is contrary to the reporting and main body of facts involved over the past number of decades.

- But it does reassign blame to a convenient extent.

peccavi · 05-04-2010 3:48pm

Raiser wrote: »

This is contrary to the reporting and main body of facts involved over the past number of decades.

- But it does reassign blame to a convenient extent.

O Rly?

It was the psychologists who advised the Bishops. Surely they have a case to answer for their crappy science? They were learning as they went along.

Jonny7 · 06-04-2010 7:31am

peccavi wrote: »

O Rly?

It was the psychologists who advised the Bishops. Surely they have a case to answer for their crappy science? They were learning as they went along.

Men were buggering small children, people knew and names should have been given straight to the police, what is there not to understand about this? no really, what is there not to get about that?

MrPudding · 06-04-2010 8:45am

Jonny7 wrote: »

Men were buggering small children, people knew and names should have been given straight to the police, what is there not to understand about this? no really, what is there not to get about that?

Apparently back then they did not know that raping small children was bad.

MrP

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments