The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

CiaranMT wrote: »

I'm sure those who read the article can spot those rather salient points.

I tend to use references to highlight a point. Posting a single comments that three investigations are underway article may give the impression three different church groups or different people are involved in separate cases of child abuse when it is really an investigation into one possible abuser. What it boils down to is hearsay and allegation. If and when someone is convicted of a crime you can say that person was guilty. The truth is in this case we just don't know. Nor should we preempt the investigation. or any court finding.

smokingman wrote: »

Given the churchs proven history of cover-ups and hiding facts, maybe the authorities now have some proper info to follow up on?

What proof of historic cover ups? The Vatican were not involved as far as I know in any cover ups of sexual abuse of pre pubescent kids by clergy. That is a media myth. Ther are several thousand Bishops world wide . Maybe as many as ten thousand since the 1930s. Even in the extreme case of senior Clergy being involved it it would be doubtful you could say that more then a tenth of a per cent of these were involved. Hardly a widespread Church coverup?
What facts do you claim the Church hid?

And the "Authorities" are authorities who did little or nothing about the vast majority of abusers ( more than 99 per cent of them) who were non clerical abusers . so why do you think the church is to blame for the 99 per cent plus of non clerical abusers nont under their authority and that somehow the authorities who did not deal with the non Clerical abusers were somehow "better" or are to be trusted more than the Church?

optogirl wrote: »

ISAW - how do you honestly feel about the relentless uncovering of abuse & rape by the catholic clergy and covering up of said abuse & rape by the church,

How I feel is not at issue.
But I have several times stated I think sexual abuse of per pubescent children is wrong. It is wrong when the less than one per cent of abusers who are clergy do it and it is wrong when the 99 per cent plus of non clerical abusers do it.

There isn't "relentless uncovering"! There are possibly dozens of cases of abusing priests. It is always wrong but the numbers are tiny in comparison the the thousands of non clerical abusers. Go and check the stats and list the abusers . Ill bet you cant name 100 or 50 or 30 or possibly even 20 abusing clergy from Ireland. You may however relentlessly trot out the same five or six names.

including the pope & Vatican.

What are you saying the Pope and the Vatican did which was covering up abuse. No doubt you will trot out the letter written by Ratzinger before he was Pope. The letter was sent by Ratzinge'rs predecessor before ratzinger was over the Dicastry of the faith.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65508617&postcount=860

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

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

I cannot understand how you continue to put this down to a few bad apples or continue to regard the RCC as a credible conduit to god.

I cannot understand how you ignore the stats on child abuse. A tiny proportion of abusers were RC Clergy - numbering in the dozens worldwide (in hundreds of thousands of clergy) as compared to the thousands or tens of thousands of non clergy overseen by non Church authorities.
Four or five Bishops have admitted making mistakes and resigned. None of these bishops were themselves involved in abuse.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66647442&postcount=5

In 2004, Shakeshaft published a 156-page report for the United States Department of Education titled Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature. In it, she stated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, have been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse. The literature review describes among other topics: prevalence of educator sexual misconduct, offender characteristics, targets of educator sexual misconduct, and recommendations for prevention of educator sexual misconduct.

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. 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."



According to a 2006 National Review Online opinion column republished by CBS News, Shakeshaft said that "... the physical sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by [Catholic] priests." She estimated that about 290,000 students were victimized between 1991 and 2000.

Compare the numbers with the much-publicized Catholic Church scandals.

See also 'Sexual Misconduct in the School System' on Talk of the Nation broadcast by National Public Radio (NPR) in the US.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65018973&postcount=365

People said Brady should resign and clerics be charged with rape. The particular cleric in this case is now dead but i pointed out that that person could not be charged with rape in this case. The point was made in general that those responsible knew and should have reported such people. I pointed out it is the local Bishop who is the one responsible and Brady was NOT the local Bishop in this case. So, Brady was not responsible for that particular clerical abuse and he could not have reported rape. Nor could the parents. Nor did the parents want to.

I also pointed out in spite of other people claiming that they haven't that things have however changed!!! A priest in a similar position today would report rape and a parent would also but we can't judge the 1970s based on the law or the culture today. Yes the act was just as wrong then but neither society or the law would have dealt with it. Just as slavery was just as wrong when it was legal but society would have dealt with it differently.

Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.

optogirl wrote: »

Media myth my ar*e. You can read the actual vatican doc here too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

'Crimine solicitationies', is a document about procedures for clergy who are accused of sexually soliciting penitents during confession!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis
http://www.richardsipe.com/Docs_and_Controversy/2010-03-04-solicitation.html
paragraph 23

"According to the 1922 and 1962 documents, accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process. There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities."

John L. Allen, Jr. has said the secrecy was aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed, and for free finding of facts.
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word0815.htm

Hardly "explosive" . It has been around since 1922!

New York Times article of 1 July 2010 said that since 1922, and not 1962, contrary to what was previously asserted by the Vatican he Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office had "authority" to prosecute clergy accused of sexual abuse
[The office led by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had actually been given authority over sexual abuse cases nearly 80 years earlier, in 1922, documents show and canon lawyers confirm." New York Times, July 1, 2010 edition.]

But the NTY and AP have consistently promulgated a myth by getting things wrong:
http://subcreators.com/blog/2010/04/10/once-more-unto-the-breach/

Essentially the letter is saying, “your request is important to us, we’ll get to it soon, please be patient.” It may not even have been written by Ratzinger personally but perhaps with a stamped signature.
...
The seven-year delay mentioned was in the diocese! [Not the Vatican]

optogirl wrote: »

are you seriously implying that rapist priests were NOT moved from parish to parish and NOT allowed to continue to commit crimes with the full knowledge of their superiors?

Not by the Pope and Vatican as was claimed no! And you have produced no evidence to support "Pope and Vatican covered it up" claim Mostly moved by their own orders and occasionally by some Bishops and not necessarily to deny but in some cases because they mistakenly and wrongly assumed the abuse would stop.

Are you also saying that the vatican doc which I posted earlier does not contain sickening instructions to those with knowledge of abuse?

Yes. It is a doccument on how to proceed to process abuse by clergy during confession. A tiny minority of cases involve clergy soliciting sex during confession. a particular doccument was required because confession is a particular place that requires secrecy .

As I have shown you the doccument does not set out to cver up solication in confession but to find a way for the victim to be able to prosecute the offending cleric who by the way is entitled to a defence.

'Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Much the same is done in secular Family courts. It is called "in camera" hearings.

And I don't care whether it is to do with sexual abuse in a confessional box, on an altar, in a priest's bed or in the sacristy. I fail to see what difference that makes to anything.

It is an even tinier minority of a minority of cases. But it clearly not to cover up things no more than fgamily courts are to cover up the trutth. Certain subjects require in camera treatment.

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

Entire cases may be heard in camera when, for example, matters of national security are involved. In camera reviews may also be used during otherwise open trials - for example, to protect trade secrets or where one party asserts privilege (such as attorney-client privileged communications). This lets the judge review the document in private before determining its admissibility in open court.

In camera can also describe closed board meetings that cover information not recorded in the minutes or divulged to the public. Such sessions may discuss personnel, financial, or other sensitive decisions that must be kept secret (e.g., a proposed merger or strategic change the organization does not want disclosed to competitors).

The term is also used to describe the portion of a graduate level thesis examination that includes only the examining committee and the student. This follows a presentation by the student, at which the public is welcome.

smokingman wrote: »

Oh I get it, there was no such thing as priests raping children,

I never claimed that! Where did I?
I claimed clerics did rape children maybe one cleric did for every 100 non cleric.

the bishops finding out,

Very few bishops of the 10,000 or so since the 1930s have had such a case brought before them.

the vatican ordering them to move the priest to another parish,

Never happened to my knowledge. You have not produced any evidence of it ever happening.

asking the bishops to make children swear oaths not to tell anyone and....

Again I am not aware of this but I am aware of in camera rules. I ghave also produced evidence of Church rules from the early church decrying child abuse.

er...oh yeah, the crusades didn't happen either.....they were all made up by the lefty media.

The Crusades (involving christians and Muslims) were responsible for the death of maybe a million people unlike atheistic regimes who killed hundreds of millions. Again you focus on the minor numbers. I know killing people is wrong but get with the actual stats please.

optogirl wrote: »

10 cases.

In the Republic of Ireland you would be rpressed to name much more than ten offending Clergy who abused pre pubescent kids.

NO, 1000s of cases and I have produced evidence not to mention the word of hundreds of victims in these cases

What evidencfe shows thousands of clergy abused pre pubescenbt children?

& priests
who knew and reported it and found that nothing was done.
[/qute]

What evidence did you produce where thousands of different priests were reported by other priests and were later found to be abusing pre pubescent children?

You just choose to ignore what is distasteful to you. I wish i was able to do the same.

Since you claim you dont ignore the evidence What evidence did you produce where thousands of different priests were reported by other priests and were later found to be abusing pre pubescent children?

I don't need to create any anti-Catholicism, they've managed that all by themselves.

Obviously you are not a Catholic and don't like Catholics but that still isnt supplying any evidence to support your claims of Vatican coverups ort of thousands of cases of Catholic Priests abusing pre pubescent children.
Wher eis it?