The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 1:09pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I just read that article, interesting read. I hope it's true!

I know the Church has been involved in covering up scandal but I also know that the media are only too happy to paint the Church in a bad light and seem to care little for the truth behind the stories they publish.

Please tell me you are not serious?

It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased. This cannot be said for all news outlets but you can hardly say that all media are happy to paint the church in a bad light.

The facts are that the church deceived, covered up and fought victims for the past few decades. If the church is painted in a bad light it is because of their own actions. The name of the church is more important that protecting the vulnerable and innocent in society.

Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?

M6 · 30-03-2010 1:19pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

Please tell me you are not serious?

It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased. This cannot be said for all news outlets but you can hardly say that all media are happy to paint the church in a bad light.

The facts are that the church deceived, covered up and fought victims for the past few decades. If the church is painted in a bad light it is because of their own actions. The name of the church is more important that protecting the vulnerable and innocent in society.

Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?

The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings. I am all for healing and making right wrongs, but I will not sit back and let the Church be trampled by anti-Catholic haters, MISUSING this abuse scandal for their own perverted ends. There is a time for healing and a time for forgiveness. Remember what the Lord said:

But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

This applies to everyone, including those who've been abused by wicked priests.

The material I have supplied proves that the Times article was not interested in truth, but so what, their story is out, and nobody is interested in the dull facts after that. Of course not. This is the fact of the matter.

kelly1 · 30-03-2010 1:20pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

It is the media's duty to report the facts to the people unbiased.

Absolutely agree with this. I'm not sure the NYT gave an unbiased account of what happened in the Fr. Murphy case.

philiporeilly wrote: »

Do you think the media should stop reporting news about the church? Should we return to the ways of the 70s with vows of secrecy? Would ignorance of the truth be the best thing for the church?

No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 1:31pm

kelly1 wrote: »

No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.

What if those conflict. If evidence is found that proves the Pope was complicit in the coverup of abuse should they report it? Is the office of the pope worth hiding some facts?

BTW there are almost 6,000 news articles on Google news today besides the NY Times that investigate reports of coverup in Italy, Germany, Ireland and the states to name a few.

http://news.google.com/news/story?pz=1&cf=all&ned=en_ie&hl=en&ncl=dwFcgnNpfxU__WMFE1dJMn0dXP1bM

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 1:34pm

Also there wouldn't be so much of an outcry from the Vatican if this report came from a newspaper traditionally known for poor reporting standards.

The NY Times is generally held in high regard by millions of worldwide subscribers and if this was printed in The Sun or some other tabloid there would be no reaction.

kelly1 · 30-03-2010 1:35pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

What if those conflict. If evidence is found that proves the Pope was complicit in the coverup of abuse should they report it? Is the office of the pope worth hiding some facts?

All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 1:41pm

kelly1 wrote: »

All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.

Please explain the bias:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/world/europe/27pope.html

The NY times are stating facts. They report and give the church's response that the Pope had no knowledge. The Times article quoted the Rev. Lorenz Wolf, judicial vicar at the Munich Archdiocese, as saying that the memorandum, which he called routine, was “unlikely to have landed on the archbishop’s desk,” but said he could not rule out that Cardinal Ratzinger had read it.

Is this not fair reporting?

Zombrex · 30-03-2010 1:47pm

kelly1 wrote: »

No, No and No. I'm saying that the media should be more concerned with getting to the truth than tarnishing the Pope's good name.

That is some what of a contradictory statement. Surely you should be more interested in the truth than maintaining the Pope's good name? What if the truth is that the Pope doesn't have a good name?

There is little point in going on about truth and then dismissing anything that doesn't agree with your pre-conceived notions.

Aren't you doing exact what you are complaining about?

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 2:30pm

kelly1 wrote: »

That is seriously OTT!

Just how, friend?

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 2:40pm

kelly1 wrote: »

All TRUTH should be reported. Nothing should be hidden. It's the media bias I have an issue with.

The Church have a lot of media doing just that, hiding the truth and we know their canon law shenanigans have been all about covering their tracks and denying the facts to civil police authorities. Or do you deny that too?
There are none so blind as those who fear to see" !
Get real, friend.
The church is run by serious, hard-hitting, un-scrupulous gangsters, who we have seen are not afraid to bully and threaten all sorts when dealing with vulnerable, frightened victims of priest rape and worse. Don't believe that either? Brady and the secrecy deals? All lies and media bias?
Maybe rape by priests is not so bad as the naughty media would have us believe?
Where do you stop with that stuff, friend??

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 2:43pm

M6 wrote: »

The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings. I am all for healing and making right wrongs, but I will not sit back and let the Church be trampled by anti-Catholic haters, MISUSING this abuse scandal for their own perverted ends. There is a time for healing and a time for forgiveness. Remember what the Lord said:

This applies to everyone, including those who've been abused by wicked priests.

The material I have supplied proves that the Times article was not interested in truth, but so what, their story is out, and nobody is interested in the dull facts after that. Of course not. This is the fact of the matter.

Why am I not surprised to see rampant homophobia and the rest of it in a post seeking to defend priest rape cover-ups?

Fanny Cradock · 30-03-2010 2:52pm

Irlandese wrote: »

Why am I not surprised to see rampant homophobia and the rest of it in a post seeking to defend priest rape cover-ups?

M6 has been infracted, it's a ban next time. Let's leave it there. OK?

M6 · 30-03-2010 2:54pm

Irlandese wrote: »

The Church have a lot of media doing just that, hiding the truth and we know their canon law shenanigans have been all about covering their tracks and denying the facts to civil police authorities. Or do you deny that too?
There are none so blind as those who fear to see" !
Get real, friend.
The church is run by serious, hard-hitting, un-scrupulous gangsters, who we have seen are not afraid to bully and threaten all sorts when dealing with vulnerable, frightened victims of priest rape and worse. Don't believe that either? Brady and the secrecy deals? All lies and media bias?
Maybe rape by priests is not so bad as the naughty media would have us believe?
Where do you stop with that stuff, friend??

The American civil police knew about this Milwaukee priest. Why did they not do anything about it at the time???

goat2 · 30-03-2010 3:01pm

Irlandese wrote: »

I have just sent the following personal e-mail to the dotty old priest concerned.

Your attempt to defend ratzinger in the catholic anchor is being quoted on a blog I contribute to. Happily most of us are immune to the lies and low standards that typify the response of your church boot-boys to the revealing of your systemic depraved abuse of children and defenceless persons, for hundreds of years.
Your own morally appalling attempted defence of Ratzinger through the Catholic Anchor is yet another evil strike by you and your fellow travellers at defenceless children, victims and the millions hurt beyond repair by priest rapists and their network of protective and facilitating rings around the catholic world.
How dare you?
Let us be plain here.
You are not an honest broker and your motives are the preservation of a hegemony based on the sadistic, savage depravity that the church visits, even today, on the innocents under your power.
You, personally, figuratively and morally, are raping them again in joining the sick sad band of apologists and defenders of the indefensible. But then, that is what you were doing for years as a "judge" in those perniscious, incestuous covens called canon trials, was it not?
You and your fellow coven members were covering the tracks of the rapists and denying the FBI, police and others the information that state and federal law required to effectively take these rapists and possibly murderers out of circulation.
Do your soul a favour. Read this link and let the evil in your heart loosen a little, just a little:
http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

Yes, friend, I do not hate you, even as I hate the evil your actions do and the evil you seek to perpetuate.
No, the church is the very least safe place for any children and will always be, while Ratzinger, Cardinal Brady and their ilk are the chief protectors of the paedofile rings that run the church in too many places around the world.
I repeat, How dare you?
Are you one of them too? I only ask and it is a very legitimate question. "

"hopefully he will answer you, so that we can see what he has to say for himself,

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 3:03pm

M6 wrote: »

The American civil police knew about this Milwaukee priest. Why did they not do anything about it at the time???

The police have reported that they were obstructed at every turn and that the vatican "drew the evidence behind diplomatic immunity" and canon law.
Some enlightenment, friend:
"

* News
* World news

Pope 'obstructed' sex abuse inquiry

Confidential letter reveals Ratzinger ordered bishops to keep allegations secret

* Digg it
* Buzz up
* Share on facebook (140)
* Tweet this (23)

* Jamie Doward, religious affairs correspondent
* The Observer, Sunday 24 April 2005 09.58 BST
* Article history

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice' after it emerged he issued an order ensuring the church's investigations into child sex abuse claims be carried out in secret.

The order was made in a confidential letter, obtained by The Observer, which was sent to every Catholic bishop in May 2001.

It asserted the church's right to hold its inquiries behind closed doors and keep the evidence confidential for up to 10 years after the victims reached adulthood. The letter was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was elected as John Paul II's successor last week.

Lawyers acting for abuse victims claim it was designed to prevent the allegations from becoming public knowledge or being investigated by the police. They accuse Ratzinger of committing a 'clear obstruction of justice'.

The letter, 'concerning very grave sins', was sent from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican office that once presided over the Inquisition and was overseen by Ratzinger.

It spells out to bishops the church's position on a number of matters ranging from celebrating the eucharist with a non-Catholic to sexual abuse by a cleric 'with a minor below the age of 18 years'. Ratzinger's letter states that the church can claim jurisdiction in cases where abuse has been 'perpetrated with a minor by a cleric'.

The letter states that the church's jurisdiction 'begins to run from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age' and lasts for 10 years.

It orders that 'preliminary investigations' into any claims of abuse should be sent to Ratzinger's office, which has the option of referring them back to private tribunals in which the 'functions of judge, promoter of justice, notary and legal representative can validly be performed for these cases only by priests'.

'Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret,' Ratzinger's letter concludes. Breaching the pontifical secret at any time while the 10-year jurisdiction order is operating carries penalties, including the threat of excommunication.

The letter is referred to in documents relating to a lawsuit filed earlier this year against a church in Texas and Ratzinger on behalf of two alleged abuse victims. By sending the letter, lawyers acting for the alleged victims claim the cardinal conspired to obstruct justice.

Daniel Shea, the lawyer for the two alleged victims who discovered the letter, said: 'It speaks for itself. You have to ask: why do you not start the clock ticking until the kid turns 18? It's an obstruction of justice.'

Father John Beal, professor of canon law at the Catholic University of America, gave an oral deposition under oath on 8 April last year in which he admitted to Shea that the letter extended the church's jurisdiction and control over sexual assault crimes.

The Ratzinger letter was co-signed by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who gave an interview two years ago in which he hinted at the church's opposition to allowing outside agencies to investigate abuse claims.

'In my opinion, the demand that a bishop be obligated to contact the police in order to denounce a priest who has admitted the offence of paedophilia is unfounded,' Bertone said.

Shea criticised the order that abuse allegations should be investigated only in secret tribunals. 'They are imposing procedures and secrecy on these cases. If law enforcement agencies find out about the case, they can deal with it. But you can't investigate a case if you never find out about it. If you can manage to keep it secret for 18 years plus 10 the priest will get away with it,' Shea added.

A spokeswoman in the Vatican press office declined to comment when told about the contents of the letter. 'This is not a public document, so we would not talk about it,' she said."

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 3:07pm

goat2 wrote: »

"hopefully he will answer you, so that we can see what he has to say for himself,
about time someone told them what they think

I will of course copy any reply, immediately, un-edited. No worries.
It is well past time to confront any apologists and facilitators with
their own words, on behalf of the voice-less victims who were bullied and terrified into signing secrecy deals or were just too terrified ( or dead ) to bring claims for compensation in the first place.

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 3:08pm

the web ref for that quote is :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

goat2 · 30-03-2010 3:09pm

Irlandese wrote: »

I will of course copy any reply, immediately, un-edited. No worries.
It is well past time to confront any apologists and facilitators with
their own words, on behalf of the voice-less victims who were bullied and terrified into signing secrecy deals or were just too terrified ( or dead ) to bring claims for compensation in the first place.

good on you
how does one get an email to the pope

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 3:17pm

goat2 wrote: »

good on you
how does one get an email to the pope

supposedly, you cannot, although the vatican run a web page.
However, I am sure the pope is getting hourly up-dates on world press re-actions
so writing to letters pages of the Irish Times or , God forbid, the INDo will almost certainly guarantee you that he gets to hear about it if it is strong enough, representative enough, linked to any populist or media-visible movement etc. The emphasis is on self-preservation at personal and church level. If you were a saint for example, you wouldn't stand a chance of being heard. However, if you were a serious criminal, it would not upset your likelihood to be heard, just as long as you had the eye or ear of any major media.

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 3:21pm

goat2 wrote: »

good on you
how does one get an email to the pope

Then, the obvious question is, "why bother?"
The Pope is not at all interested in having the truth revealed any more than it is so far, which is too much for them. Then too, he has no intention of rolling back on the corrupt deal whereby all of us tax-payers are going to pay all their abuse related costs, including the very high costs of their legal representations at the tribunals and commissions of enquiry. You may recall that Minister Michael Woods, an Opus Dei supporter, did a quick, secret deal, behind the Atourney General's back, to grant the church immunity from all costs above a pittance that runs to less than 5% of real costs, despite the church owning more property in the state than anyone else, including the state !!

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 3:22pm

M6 wrote: »

The pro-gay media HATES the Catholic Church and its moral teachings.

Just because a lot of media sources report facts, unbiased, and do not discriminate or condemn people for their sexual orientations does not make them "pro-gay".

It is more appropriate to state that you are "anti-gay" and that most media sources like to report facts on topical issues regardless of influence from state or church.

kelly1 · 30-03-2010 5:47pm

More accounts of the Murphy case:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100032121/the-pope-the-judge-the-paedophile-priest-and-the-new-york-times/

http://www.zenit.org/article-28769?l=english

kelly1 · 30-03-2010 7:29pm

goat2 wrote: »

this is most frightning,

What's frightening about hearing the other side of the story? Or are you referring to something else?

Michael G · 30-03-2010 8:38pm

This, from an atheist brought up as a Catholic, is an interesting perspective. It should be read by those coming from an anti-Catholic mindset who are seizing this opportunity to attack the Catholic religion as a whole.

M6 · 30-03-2010 9:06pm

Michael G wrote: »

This, from an atheist brought up as a Catholic, is an interesting perspective. It should be read by those coming from an anti-Catholic mindset who are seizing this opportunity to attack the Catholic religion as a whole.

I'll give that a read. Meanwhile:

This article shows how the abuse scandal was largely the product of the same sandal-wearing hippie progressive 'Catholics' who are now wringing their hands today:
http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Gerald-Warner-It39s-the-Pope39s.6186172.jp

These people haven't a leg to stand on, as some of the figures presented on another thread show how most abuse occurs in homes by married men!!

Michael G · 30-03-2010 9:22pm

M6 wrote: »

This article shows how the abuse scandal was largely the product of the same sandal-wearing hippie progressive 'Catholics' who are now wringing their hands today.

And I'll read that, though unfortunately there were also plenty of active perverts before the "Spirit of Vatican II" generation got going.

Michael G · 30-03-2010 9:33pm

goat2 wrote: »

there are still people who do not believe this, and dont want to beleive it.
the younger among us are reacting more to all of this
the older folk seem to think it is not true
this is my personal experience

I am 53 so perhaps I fall between the two. Yes, I believe it. However what happened (the concealment of the abuse and the protection of the perverts) was a failure (and, if I may use a Catholic term, a sin) by some bishops and superiors of religious orders. The Catholic Church is administered, at a secular level, by humans. Some of them have proved incompetent, foolish or in some cases cynical. But the Church exists independently of them. I believe that Jesus Christ founded the Church, that it is the only Church that teaches the whole truth, and that at Mass the priest, representing Christ, re-enacts his passion, death and resurrection. If Catholic dioceses were badly run by those who had authority, that must be exposed and they must be brought to account. But it has nothing to do with the universal Church itself.

strobe · 30-03-2010 10:04pm

Michael G wrote: »

If Catholic dioceses were badly run by those who had authority, that must be exposed and they must be brought to account. But it has nothing to do with the universal Church itself.

It went far beyond the individual diocese level. That is the whole point.

goat2 · 30-03-2010 10:04pm

http://www.the-kingdom.ie/news/story/?trs=mhcwidmhoj&cat=news
here is another victim that was not heard, just herded out of the church.

Michael G · 30-03-2010 10:34pm

strobe wrote: »

It went far beyond the individual diocese level. That is the whole point.

I don't think it is. Because Rome makes the rules on doctrine, liturgy and some other things, many people think that the Church is like a multi-national where everything is controlled from the centre, like WalMart or Tesco. It actually is not. Normally, every bishop and every superior of a religious order has almost complete freedom in administering his or her area of responsibility (her in the case of orders of nuns). That is why the Pope has now ordered what is called a Visitation of the Irish dioceses. John Cooney, for whom usually I have very little time, has accurately said that the Irish church is "in receivership". What he means is that Rome has concluded that the Irish dioceses have been incompetently run and must be completely reformed. But this is something that Rome does only when a national church is in a catastrophic condition.

philiporeilly · 30-03-2010 10:46pm

Michael G wrote: »

I don't think it is. Because Rome makes the rules on doctrine, liturgy and some other things, many people think that the Church is like a multi-national where everything is controlled from the centre, like WalMart or Tesco. It actually is not. Normally, every bishop and every superior of a religious order has almost complete freedom in administering his or her area of responsibility (her in the case of orders of nuns). That is why the Pope has now ordered what is called a Visitation of the Irish dioceses. John Cooney, for whom usually I have very little time, has accurately said that the Irish church is "in receivership". What he means is that Rome has concluded that the Irish dioceses have been incompetently run and must be completely reformed. But this is something that Rome does only when a national church is in a catastrophic condition.

But given that this appears to be an international problem, where abuse and subsequent cover up are taking place, surely Rome has / had responsibility.

If it is as suggested Rome was in correspondence with individual dioceses and gave instructions to conceal the truth then they are just as guilty.

Michael G · 30-03-2010 11:08pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

But given that this appears to be an international problem, where abuse and subsequent cover up are taking place, surely Rome has / had responsibility.

I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others. While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.

philiporeilly wrote: »

If it is as suggested Rome was in correspondence with individual dioceses and gave instructions to conceal the truth then they are just as guilty.

Not "in correspondence with individual dioceses" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law.

This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. I have just been reading Nigel Slater's autobiography, Toast. The way he was treated by his father's gardener would nowadays have been considered serious child abuse. At the time, the gardener was sacked, not reported to the police, and Mr Slater's account does not suggest that he was at all upset by his experiences.

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 11:17pm

Michael G wrote: »

I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others. While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.

Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law.

This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. I have just been reading Nigel Slater's autobiography, Toast. The way he was treated by his father's gardener would nowadays have been considered serious child abuse. At the time, the gardener was sacked, not reported to the police, and Mr Slater's account does not suggest that he was at all upset by his experiences.

You are joking, right?

You are not a priest, right?

You haven't been really following the news these last few years, right?

Please say yes, yes, yes or start reading and watching, very fast. Start with this;
http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

Michael G · 30-03-2010 11:32pm

Irlandese wrote: »

You are joking, right?

You are not a priest, right?

You haven't been really following the news these last few years, right?

I'm not joking, I am not a priest, and I have been following the news — the facts, not the opinion pieces and commentaries.

Please review the news, write down what are objective and demonstrable facts (not opinions or inferences), analyse them and then post here again. Whenever you read a comment (like mine but also anyone else's), please ask yourself: Who is he, where is he coming from and what is his agenda?

Also read Nigel Slater's book, which is worth reading just because it is a very good book.

Irlandese · 30-03-2010 11:43pm

You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.

You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."

Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.

I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "

I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.

M6 · 30-03-2010 11:53pm

Irlandese wrote: »

You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.

You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."

Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.

I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "

I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.

The instruction to the Bishops bound them to secrecy on condition of excom but it did not bind the victims, who were free to go to the police.

Remember also, that the Bishops were advised by clever experts who claimed this fellow could be cured and returned to active service in parishes. They followed the advice. I don't see any psychiatrists being questioned or called to account.

Michael G · 31-03-2010 12:07am

Irlandese wrote: »

You state:" I would question your statement that it is an "international problem". It has happened in a number of countries; not in others."
I do not wish to say that this is pathetic but it is silly. Two countries makes it International. I have logged at least twenty seven countries in my own notes on reports abroad.

You go on: "While Rome is not to blame for what happened in individual dioceses and religious orders in those countries, it has taken charge of dealing with the consequences.
Not "in correspondence with individual diocese" but it does seem that there may have been a document sent to all dioceses that suggested that cases of sexual abuse should be dealt with in secret. It would not be possible to defend that now, and the Pope has made it clear in his Letter to the Catholics of Ireland last week that abusers should not be protected from the criminal law."

Holy maloney ! You say you have been looking at the news? Ratzinger's letter to all bishops as head of the curia has been widely reported and reproduced in full. It clearly shows that the vatican and ratzinger in particular have been co-ordinating an international campaign for years to hide the truth, deny local police forces and justice systems of their legal entitlement to details of crimes by priests and other religious and limit the compensation available to victims.

You really do over-estimate the capacity of an old-fashioned bureaucracy like the Roman Curia to "co-ordinate an international campaign ... for years to hide the truth " etc. I can see what you would like to believe, but at some point you will have to rely on what you can show to be true.

Irlandese wrote: »

I am disgusted by your following comment, quote : "This is a difficult argument to make, but just ten or twenty years ago most people did not think homosexual child-molesting was so serious. They did not think it would have a long-term bad effect on the child. "

I doubt any sane, decent person would say such a thing in an honest way. I will not reply to anything further from a person capable of such a comment.

Don't be afraid to quote the rest of my comment, and let people read Nigel Slater's book. I know well that some people were hurt by perverts. Others, if Mr Slater is to be believed, were not.

M6 · 31-03-2010 12:27am

The leading Irish dissident priest, Father Brian Darcy, spoke on RTE's Late Late Show.

Fr Brian also spoke of his own suffering at the hands of an abusive priest in Omagh before he was ordained and the code of silence that protected him.

"My parents went to their graves not knowing but when I mentioned it in my book people in Omagh could tell me who it was. It was the code of silence."

That quote is from the horrendous Sunday World website. I won't link to the scandalous rag.

But anyway, my question is, why didn't the young Brian Darcy go to the authorities - either religious or state? From his own words on that TV show, it would appear he placed his own future ordination ahead of reporting a priestly offender. Is that so different from accusations that have been hurled at the young Father Sean Brady, rightly or wrongly?

Michael G · 31-03-2010 12:34am

M6 wrote: »

The leading Irish dissident priest, Father Brian Darcy, spoke on RTE's Late Late Show.

I think Fr Darcy is wrong about many things, but he means well. I would not doubt that those things happened to him, and that they were hidden; and it was a great thing that he went on to be a priest, however wayward he has become since.

M6 · 31-03-2010 12:38am

Michael G wrote: »

I think Fr Darcy is wrong about many things, but he means well. I would not doubt that those things happened to him, and that they were hidden; and it was a great thing that he went on to be a priest, however wayward he has become since.

Meaning well is not enough when we are dealing with the salvation of souls.

I wonder though can he not understand how priests and bishops could have made bad decisions about how to handle these matters, particularly since they were being advised by psychiatrists and lawyers, in a completely different culture and knowledge base to that which we have now? His treatment (in the Sunday World) of Pope Benedict has been quite awful and most unfair.

Michael G · 31-03-2010 12:48am

M6 wrote: »

Meaning well is not enough when we are dealing with the salvation of souls.

I didn't doubt that he had been abused.

I wonder though can he not understand how priests and bishops could have made bad decisions about how to handle these matters, particularly since they were being advised by psychiatrists and lawyers? His treatment (in the Sunday World) of Pope Benedict has been quite awful and most unfair.

I do not mean to be uncharitable, but Fr Darcy has made a name for himself as an "independent" voice of Catholicism in the Sunday World and he has to write stuff to fit it. I am sure he means well, on the whole.

M6 · 31-03-2010 12:51am

Michael G wrote: »

I do not mean to be uncharitable, but Fr Darcy has made a name for himself as an "independent" voice of Catholicism in the Sunday World and he has to write stuff to fit it. I am sure he means well, on the whole.

Hmmm... I read what Fr Brian writes then I look at my Catechism and it doesn't compute. He does not speak for the Catholic Church, only for himself and those who follow him!

One must choose between a name based on petty gossip and prevailing opinions, or a stand for truth, and the temporal loss that may occur as a result.

Meaning well is not enough if not founded on the truth.

philiporeilly · 31-03-2010 1:05pm

M6 wrote: »

Hmmm... I read what Fr Brian writes then I look at my Catechism and it doesn't compute. He does not speak for the Catholic Church, only for himself and those who follow him!

One must choose between a name based on petty gossip and prevailing opinions, or a stand for truth, and the temporal loss that may occur as a result.

Meaning well is not enough if not founded on the truth.

Everything to you seems to be black or white. If you disagree with how the church hierarchy are dealing with the abuse scandal you must be "anti-catholic". If Fr Brian speaks out on certain issues he obviously is only doing this to suit his own interests, not that he believes that it is the right thing for society.

Obviously you are on the extreme right of catholicism. I know many good priests and I have to say their views on different issues would be on a varied spectrum of opinion.

I usually don't read the Sunday World but I read that article following your link. For many people Fr Brian and similar priests that are not afraid to speak against the system when they believe it to be wrong, is what a priest should be. Those priests are usually the ones that are heavily invested in working directly with all the community and have first hand experience in seeing how the general public live their lives.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I do respect him for being in the difficult position of speaking out for what he (and probably most of the general public) believes is right.

M6 · 31-03-2010 6:48pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

Everything to you seems to be black or white. If you disagree with how the church hierarchy are dealing with the abuse scandal you must be "anti-catholic". If Fr Brian speaks out on certain issues he obviously is only doing this to suit his own interests, not that he believes that it is the right thing for society.

Obviously you are on the extreme right of catholicism. I know many good priests and I have to say their views on different issues would be on a varied spectrum of opinion.

I usually don't read the Sunday World but I read that article following your link. For many people Fr Brian and similar priests that are not afraid to speak against the system when they believe it to be wrong, is what a priest should be. Those priests are usually the ones that are heavily invested in working directly with all the community and have first hand experience in seeing how the general public live their lives.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but I do respect him for being in the difficult position of speaking out for what he (and probably most of the general public) believes is right.

Nah, not extreme right, just at the heart of the Church, where every faithful priest is. There is no left or right, just orthodox or heterodox. Holy Mother Church teaches the faith definitively, infallibly, and authoritatively, and is so caring as to give us a summary in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Dissenters defile the Holy Faith and lead souls to hell by depriving them of the Gospel, although they mean well... The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Priests and Bishops are open to fair criticism when they have failed to do the right thing, but anti-Catholic bashing is another story and I don't tolerate that.

Anyway, this just in from Archbishop Dolan of NY who demolishes the NYT piece on Papa Benedict:

http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_select.php?newsid=&id=57030
***
Here’s a summary of the key points:

The New York Times relied on tort lawyers who currently have civil suits pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Holy See, who are aggressively supporting the radical measure right now before the Wisconsin legislature to abrogate the statute of limitations on civil cases of abuse, and who have high financial interest in the matter being reported. Hardly an impartial source…

The documentation that allegedly supports these sensational charges is published on the website of the New York Times; rather than confirming their theory, the documents instead show that there is no evidence at all that Cardinal Ratzinger ever blocked any decision about Murphy. Even a New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, calls this charge “unfair” in his column of March 29.

We also find on the website a detailed timeline of all the sickening information about Murphy, data not “uncovered” by any reporter but freely released by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee a number of years back, and thoroughly covered at that time by the local media in Milwaukee. One wonders why this story, quite exhaustively reported in the past, rose again this very week. It is hardly “news.” One might therefore ask: Why is this news now? The only reason it is news at all is because of the implication that Cardinal Ratzinger was involved. Yet the documentation does not support that charge, and thus they should have no place in a putatively respectable newspaper.

mewso · 01-04-2010 12:57am

underclass wrote: »

I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends.

Well maybe we should make sure they are not Catholic teachers then.

philiporeilly · 01-04-2010 3:02pm

Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has said he cannot agree with Catholics who want the Church to 'move on' from grief about the child abuse scandals.

He said that there was 'no way' his diocese could 'impose fast-track healing' on victims.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0401/abuse.html

M6 · 01-04-2010 5:25pm

Cardinal Ratzinger An Evil Monster?
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:14:59:46Z

The Pope and the abuse scandal: a guide for perplexed Catholics
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml

rovert · 02-04-2010 10:57pm

Out of touch Church is out of touch:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece

M6 · 02-04-2010 11:57pm

rovert wrote: »

Out of touch Church is out of touch:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7086143.ece

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.

This just in:

The dictatorship of relativism strikes back—and goes nuclear
http://www.logia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=121&catid=39:web-forum&Itemid=18

philiporeilly · 03-04-2010 12:02am

M6 wrote: »

Cardinal Ratzinger An Evil Monster?
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/cardinal?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NCRegisterDailyBlog+%2540The+Daily+Register%2541#When:14:59:46Z

The Pope and the abuse scandal: a guide for perplexed Catholics
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000551.shtml

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 Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments