The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Asry wrote: »

...I said "there hasn't really been an apology, or has there?" which implies I wasn't sure? So....yeah. Whatevs.

Well you know better now don't you? next time you want to post a disparaging remark would you please just do a simple search on it first? It took me less than 30 seconds.

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:

The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.

Your opinion! People might say cheating on your wife is abusing her and that women having to work as prostitutes is abuse of them as women.

Can the members remove pervert priests and bishops? No.

Can a pope. NO! Technically once one is a a Priest/Bishop it can't be removed.
All that can be done is to remove a temnporal office. And non clergy could do that.
Indeed non clergy can be given temporal office e.g. Cardinals.

Therefore the overwhelming blame for the cover-up lies at the door of the bishops, especially the papacy.

Non sequitor it does not follow. and false premise anyway.

All power tends to corrupt. It tempts us to do evil because we know we can get away with it.

corrupt and evil are different . Law and Chaos are a different scale to good and bad.

Specifically, the corruption expressed by the paedophile and sadistic priests and 'religious', and the corruption expressed by their superiors in covering up the offences and enabling them to continue.

corruption as in "changing rules" ? which rules did they change to suit themselves?
Dont forget clergy constituted a handfull of abusers over decades. A bishop might get to hear of one or two in his working life as bishop. That does not make it right but it might explain how they were not thinking about cjhild protection policies at the time. Bombing in Belfast, communism, nuclear testing and other things might have got more coverage.

As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up, including the papacy.

You are reading it wrong then! Where did you read that?

It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely.
[/qute]

It isnt just possible it is true. You are buying ionto a myth. Ther were thousands of Bishops . Can you name even ten involved in cover ups ( thats 0.1 per cent) ?

I think it just as likely that some of the bishops had been paedophiles themselves, and so sympathised with the perpetrators and enabled them to continue elsewhere.

And your evidence is? Of the 10,000 or so Bushops over the last 50 or so years there is not a single case of a pedo but you claim most of them are?

Really? Figures, please. If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?

While I admit societies become decadent it was not a case of someone getting get elected/appointed to a job where they have power and then saying "All this power suddenly makes me feel like abusing kids"

MrPudding wrote: »

Wow, are you really not getting this? Whataboutery is when you refer to the deeds of someone else to try to deflect from your own actions, or those of the organisation you are talking about. Talking about other elements of the same issue, by the person raising the issue, is not whataboutery.

Claiming you are only discussing clerical abuse and then bringing in cover up of abuse and legal elememts not to do with abuise at all is still discussing only clerical abuse? Go figure.

I am interested in the other 99%. I expect the authorities to deal with them. As I previously mentioned, if you want to discuss the other 99% open a thread about it and perhaps I might join in. I am interested in the 1% and I am discussing here, in a thread about the 1%.

You tried this before and you were shown that this is the thread. Then when you had to accept non clerical abuse had to be discussed in this thread you slipped into "what about..." But it seems you don't learn.

You already admitted you were an atheist. You obviously aren't concerned with improving the church. You posted very early on in this thread (post 5 I think) about the legal situation for all abusers and about whether a law could be used against Cardinal Brady.
Brady need I say is NOT an abuser and at the time the abuse happened not a Bishop covering anything up.

this is the thread for discussion ANY abuse clerical or not!

You were shown that you were wrong about your dictat that this thread is only for clerical abuse and non clerical abuse could be discussed elsewhere.

You were shown it could NOT and you quickly SWITCHED to " I do not want to discuss non clerical sex abuse in this thread." not thqat it could not but just that ytou didnt want to.

REaders note: expect the same switch.

I am not in a hole, nor am I digging deeper. You are, quite clearly an apologist for the catholic church. You can take that comment however you want.

I take it that you are saying I am assisting in covering up child abuse.
That is what you meant. And you are scared to admit it but if it is not what you meant it is very easy for you to say so. You fail to say you did not mean it.
that is the hole you are digging
Please clarify. do you accept i am not defending abusers?

He should be charged with what ever charge is appropriate for the acts he carried out.

Waffle! If you believe an abuser in Ireland from 1970 should be charged for abusing a boy what charge should be brought?

You really don't want to propose anything do you? all you want to do is attack the church hierarchy.

I must admit, I cannot find the source of this. I have read it previously but can't lay my hands on it.

Keep digging.

I am not familiar with what statues were in force at the time, but I do know that male rape is a fairly recent offence.

Indeed you do since i brought it up in this thread!

Whilst there may not have been an offence of rape, per se, I am pretty sure it was not legal for a man to insert his penis into the anus of a small boy, with or without his consent.

But this is my point. is it worth bring that boy ( now a man who does not want his name in the papers ) into court and spending say 100,000 on legal fees at a chance of a conviction? Or is it not better to give the victim 100,000?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/04/17/uk-pope-abuse-cardinal-idUKTRE63G1ST20100417

And you might be interested in an RTE programme outlining policy differences between the Congregation for Clergy and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI), which in 2001 secured that that all such allegations should be handled by it, not by the other congregation.

http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
Unspeakable Crimes

Additionally, there are sections of the crimen sollicitationis which deals with the procedure that should be followed, as one of the main requirements is secrecy on pain of ex-communication it seems like they did not want the state authorities being notified.

No this is in relation to anyone speaking about it in public might void a further criminal prosecution . I believe it is already answered in this thread.

So you are calling my hatred of the church a "wrong" and then putting that on an equal footing with raping kids? Classy.

Where did I do that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:

Here we had MI5 allowing paedophiles to run an boys' home and abuse the boys. (Any other abuse MI5 engaged in is not the subject of this thread). It seems they allowed this to run to blackmail politicians ( must be a big number of them involved in sexual perversion), rather than mere protection of the pervert McGrath.

It was a despicable act, but hardly unique in the annals of any state security service. Yet, if it was shown that this happened on a scale like in the RCC, governments would fall and jails would fill with both politicians and government agents.

wolfsbane would you plese leave in a link to my original message so I people can check you are quoting context.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72697401&postcount=1010

And I would prefer if you put you comments ( the bit in red) on my words outside the quote box.



As regards you comment that
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72721501&postcount=1055

Yes, I should have said I was speaking about our modern western societies. Here it is power and secrecy that enable abuse

If abuse was not about power and secrecy in ancient Greece and yet was still abuse what is the significance of attaching the quality of being a powerful group to abuse if it isnt a defining factor. the only one I can see is to tar a powerful group with being immoral just because they are powerful. i.e. attack the Church on the basis that it is powerful and all powerful groups are immoral. But you already admitted power and secrecy aqre NOT the source of child abuse.

You then change to saying this was only in "Modern Western" society. Do you believe in relative morals an that some time in the future in a society child abuse will be acceptable. The Church position is that it is always wrong.

TO take your own words:http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72721501&postcount=1055

If it was not power that led to the abuse and kept it covered, what was it?

saee the think is cerical offenders were not operating internet rings like organised modern western pedos. I have discussed this with people from the mental health fraterniuty abroad who oversee such offenders. their opinion is "arrested development". The y view many such offenders as not having emotionally developed and having a childish psyche.
True this may manifest in power in a minority of cases but certainly not in large political power structures which would require adult manipulation. I really don't think you "they are pedos because they are in power" argument is a runner as the causal factor.

But what is the comparison with the RCC? What reasons did it have for covering up the abuse and allowing the perpetrators to continue abusing?

It didn't have any reason for continuing abuse and it didn't have a policy of covering it up.

Of the ten thousand or so bishops worldwide maybe as many as ten believed ( along with the other non Church elements of society ) that not mentioning it and moving the offender might just make the think go away . One might compare homosexual members of the Aristocracy a century ago or say a member of the Royal family doing drugs today. It might well be hushed up and the "bad elements" removed or paid off or people allowed to get away with it in isolation.
[/quote]

1. It thought itself far above all such minor details, thought its people ought to put up with it as a price for a celibate priesthood?

There is no evidence for that. In fact ther is very ancient evidence of the opposite i.e. of church rules deploring child abuse.

2. It sympathised with the perverts, for many of the bishops/papacy had engaged is it themselves?

Not "many". I'm not aware of any popes who were child sexual abusers. There have been 265 popes. excluding anti-popes how many of these do you assert were child sex offenders?

3. Something else?

"Something else" assumes a coverup by the Church worldwide. There wasn't.

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:


The only form of the above that is abuse is sex-slavery. All the wife-swapping, dogging and prostitution are voluntary perversions.

If an adult willingly takes part in slavery or perversion it may not be illegal but still be immoral. Also, feminists regard prostitution as abuse of women whether they consent to it or not. http://www.feministissues.com/

Radical feminism opposes prostitution on the grounds that it degrades women and furthers the power politics of the male gender. Feminists seek to be supportive of sex workers while deploring the work itself as inherently wrong.

Can the members remove pervert priests and bishops? No. Therefore the overwhelming blame for the cover-up lies at the door of the bishops, especially the papacy.

But they can't remove them either! Once ordained it is forever! If you mean "can they remove them form Temporal office". Yes non clergy can. Indeed non clergy can attain any office in the RCC except Pope. all other temporal offices can be held by laity. A cardinal for example is a temporal office. Also while non clergy cant hold ordinary power in spiritual matters e.g. they can't act as a Bishop non clergy can elect Bishops What do you think "vox populi" means?

All power tends to corrupt.

We have been over this. The "They abused children because they were in power positions" is a non runner! In fact none of the abusers were in senior positions. As many as ten maybe people in senior positions who did not abuse did take part in a "coverup" in so far as they moved the offending Cleric ( with the knowledge of the parents). at the time both state authorities and psychological advice was to remove the offender usually to a mental institution. In some rare instances the cleric was allowed to continue in office resulting in more horrific abuse.

In fact if anything you have it wrong way around. Someone who was [already a pedo gravitated to a job which involved children. In 99 times out of 100 this was a teacher swimming instructor policeman etc. In one case in a hundred or less it was a a clerical job. Power didnt cause the pedo Pedophilioa caused them to look for positons of power over children.

As I read it, all the bishops involved in the investigations took part in the cover-up,
including the papacy.

Where did you read that? It didn't happen everywhere so we don't have a loarge proportion of Bishops but take Dublin. In Dublin ther were four arch bishops and about sixteen ( my guess there are less clergy and currently six bishops you can get the detalis here: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/ie.html ) over the last 50 years
Ther were four Archbishops two of which knew. there is no evidence of the other 16 Bisjhops knowing or assenting to any cover up much less the 100 or so other Irish Bishops over the period. We also know that other Archbishops in other Diocese knew about other cases in their own diocese.

There was no central register in Ireland or the Vatican of offenders.
There was no state register in Ireland of offenders clerical or non clerical.
No POPE was involved in making any decisions about clergy in Dublin or aware of what happened there.

It is possible that some bishops never knew any abuse took place in the RCC, but I think that rather unlikely.

Why? If everybody knew then why were you not out on the streets in the 1970s 80s and 90s with all this? The reports list the people who knew and the numbers of clergy who knew were small. true they made errors in what they did but they were not representative of Church policy.

I think it just as likely that some of the bishops had been paedophiles themselves, and so sympathised with the perpetrators and enabled them to continue elsewhere.

There is no evidence for this pure conjecture!

MrPudding wrote: »

Wow, are you really not getting this? Whataboutery is when you refer to the deeds of someone else to try to deflect from your own actions, or those of the organisation you are talking about. Talking about other elements of the same issue, by the person raising the issue, is not whataboutery.

So when it suits you other elements like "numbers of non clergy involved in child abuse" are not part of the same issue and "numbers of Bishops and priests not involved in child abuse or not knowing about it" are not part of the issue but state laws in the UK nothing to do directly with child abuse in Ireland are part of the issue and only clergy are part of the issue?

How can you talk about a level of abuse of clergy is you don't compare it to non clergy.

We have been over all this before and by your own admission you hate the church. It is quite clear you only want to address the victimisation of children in so far as it can be use to damage the Church. You are not interested in the victims of abuse per se but in picking a tiny per centage of abusers so you can try and blame the whole Church for abuse and link the entire hierarchy to the failings of a tiny minority of church officials and an even larger number of non church officials.

All elements of the 1%. All still talking about the 1%. All still talking about clerical sex abuse.

No because the "cover up " as you call it extends to non abusers most of which were non clergy as well.
why is clerical abuse and onlythe clerics who responded badly to it and not the non clerics so significant to you? The answer is obvious.

I am interested in the other 99%. I expect the authorities to deal with them.

I expect the authorities to deal with the 100% and treat them all equally under the law But you it seems have a special final solution to your clerical problem.

As I previously mentioned, if you want to discuss the other 99% open a thread about it and perhaps I might join in. I am interested in the 1% and I am discussing here, in a thread about the 1%.

No it isn't and I showed you why. Which you conveniently forgot! Who is covering up now?

wolfsbane wrote: »

ISAW said:

Wife-swapping is not cheating on your wife - she is engaged in it. As for women 'having' to work as prostitutes, any interviews I've read showed they choose to do so to avoid boring/low paid jobs, or to fund their drugs habit. Not abuse, but self-abuse.

Encouraging people to debauchery is not abusing them? curious.

It is the office we are speaking of - the position of power that enables abuse. The bishops/papacy did not remove them from such positions, but rather quietly moved them to new positions to continue the abuse.

Vox populi can remove such people from temporal office. It has not happened.
They wqere not in all cases moved to a similar position elsewhere. They were in some cases and that was wrong. The Pope did not decide on such moves.

No false premise, and it does follow. Who do you think bears the primary blame for the cover-ups?

What coverups? Do you refer to moving of offenders to positions in which they could re offend? Care to list say ten cases and Ill tell you who I think is responsible or who should share blame whether Bishop, local administration, social worker parents or whatever.

The victims? Their parents? The priests who knew? Anyone but the bishops and papacy?

Depends on the case. Bishops didnt know in every case. when they did they acted on professional advice bt they no doubt share blame. I am not aware of the Papacy being involved in moving a priest. Could you enlighten me on these cases?

What a strange thing to say! It is a truism that power tends to corrupt: corrupt in the moral sense, not in a lack of order.

You are just taking a Cliché from a British Baron born into privileged. The double irony is he wrote those words to a Bishop.
in which he stated:

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... My dogma is not the special wickedness of my own spiritual superiors, but the general wickedness of men in authority—of Luther and Zwingli, and Calvin, and Cranmer, and Knox, of Mary Stuart and Henry VIII., of Philip II. and Elizabeth, of Cromwell and Louis XIV., James and Charles and William, Bossuet and Ken.

No, nothing to do with rules or order. Moral declension. Protecting the perpetrators and enabling them to continue.

So you believe in absolute morals and things being always wrong and this being corrupted i.e. changed from the perfect over time

But was it not you who referred to "modern western" societies having different standards to ancient greece fior example in sexual practice?

So then are you accepting corrupted standards or is it the opposite that modern societies have improved on earlier moral standards due to their power structures? forgive me is i confuse your posts with those of another.

Not from what I've read.

What did you read? Where?

And each priest did not commit one offence - it was years-long multiple offences. Offences that often continued after the bishop became aware of the original offences.

I am not arguing that clerical offenders were mre likely to have multiple victims. I have shown that to be statistically accepted. But I would argue that this was because they had more access (e.g. to a whole school or parish) and no convincing statistical argument exists that multiple victims were caused primarily because the cleric was moved.

I grew up with the threat of WW3, and later with the Troubles. I had personal friends maimed and murdered. But I would not have covered-up sexual abuse of those in my care - much less allowed it to continue. It would have been at least as big on my horizon as the other problems around me.

You opinion and it is a decent one but you cant say it is representative.
Did the British and US intelligence cover up the genocial slaughter of Prussians by Stalin's forces in order to maintain them winning the war? Was the Dreyfuss case covered up because he was a Jew? So then political ramifications can result in cover up.

I seem to recall several in Ireland alone. And many in the USA, Germany, Belgium, Australia - and of course those who knew in Rome. It will be interesting to find out what has been happening in all the other countries of the world.

It would. Rather than believe conjecture and media hype and atheists who have an "I hate the church" agenda and did little or nothing for people in the developing world.

No, I suggested some of them were. Remember, the bishops were once priests too - if my understanding of Catholic hierarchy is correct.

But the "move them" solution was based on the idea that people could be "cured" of pedophilia. If you are suggesting Bishops one were abusers and then stopped you are suggesting that policy was valid. are you?

MrPudding wrote: »

The covering up of the abuse is part and parcel of the abuse. it is one thing.

But the actual abuse by non clergy is NOT the one thing? LOL
Why is only the one per cent of clerical abuse and the minority of clerics involved in the failed reactions ( and not the majority of non clergy involved in decisions or the successful reactions) of interest to you? Obviouslyt you are not interested in victims bt only in attacking the Church.

This may be the only place to discuss other abuse in this particular forum, but it is not the only hread in boards.

Whi is covering up now? You said it before and you were show you were wrong and you tried it again and you were show you are wrong. Now you resort to "I meant in another forum" . I don';t believe you and I believe you are using "weasel words" which you accused others of!

This is the thread for discussion of clerical and non clerical abuse. I am certain if i start a thread on non clerical abuse it will end up being locked and moved here. I have shown you why.

I am concerned with improving the church insofar as to ensure they do not get away with raping kids and covering it up again.

You are not concerned in improving the church! you hate the church! You are concerned in scapegoating one per cent of abusers since that suits your agenda of attacking the church. You want to treat your "special group" differently from all the other offenders under the law. If you really care about victims you would care about ALL victims and not just the victims of one per cent of abusers. But tyou want special treatment for them because they are catholic Clergy and you hate the church!

I don't care if it withers and dies and I personally believe the world would be a better place without it.

so we should have an atheist society supporting no Church and no god. Like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot? Atheistic Rgimes which slaughtered hundreds of millions! THAT is your agenda.

At the same time I realise that this is not likely in the short to medium term, so I am interested in it being improved in relation to child protection. Much the same as I am interested in local authorities, my children's swimming club, my children's rugby club and my children's schools etc also having policies and procedures that protect the children in their care.

Funny how you don't address that much then is nt it? How is it you attack only the religious ? Not the secular or atheistic abusers? The ones that burned and shot whole families?

I am not aware of any allegations of abuse against Brady. Knowing there was abuse and failing to report it to the authorities is tantamount to covering up that abuse.

Of course you are not because that is where you came into this thread and were shown all that was known and the whole history. did t stop you hating Cardinal Brady did it?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7464378/Cardinal-Sean-Brady-apologises-for-child-abuse-failures.html

So what? I initially believed that we should not discuss non clerical abuse in a thread entitle Clerical abuse as it would be off topic,

Rubbish
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65686206&postcount=932

WRONG! You are trying to change you claim! You claimed that my posts were off topic for this thread. You didn't claim you were posting only what you wanted you claimed the entire thread was only about clerical abuse. We then entered into a discussion on what your thought the thread was about and you quite clearly stated (having been shown by me that it was not) that it was only about clerical child abuse. It subsequently transpired that you revealed an additional hidden agenda in that you wanted to discuss not only child abuse but how the hierarchy dealt with it!

you initially came in [message 5 ] saying

it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. ...
Presumably, if there was, there are a fairly large number of church officials guilty of this offence

You came in discussion how Bishops should be charged with crimes!
Later you got cornered on the "this is not only about clerics" by me.

additionally, I had no particular interest in discussing non clerical abuse in the thread. So what if someone decides it is ok to talk about it in this thread?

Rubbish! You insisted it was only about clerical abuse and you were shown it was not.
Message 903:

Most people would say slavery is wrong. Let us assume most world slavery was conducted by white people. Say 99.9 per cent of it. Let us say the public feel slavery is wrong. If you were discussing black people who control the slave trade and I came along and said "but why are you discussing the one per cent what about the 99 per cent who control the other 99 per cent of the trade"? Would you say "but we are discussing only black people who control slavery"? Might people not think you have a problem about black people or do you really believe they would think you are desperately concerned about solving slavery?

and 905
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65593060&postcount=905

It was a general point. he didn't say "clerical" child abuse.
It was made in relation to Ratzinger commenting on child abuse.
there is absolutely no way you can claim that Ratzinger above is being accused as having said clerical abuse was OK whereas non clerical wasn't.

It also brings in the medi point from the previous message replied to.

It isn't for you to moderate or decide what is or isn't on topic!

Where I draw your attention to a discussion yu were in which was not "clerical"

And again in 910:

I have! It is a completely nonsensical point that we can only discuss clerical abuse in this forum and non clerical abuse is off limits! Particularly in a discussion in which anticlericism is central! But if you have a problem about that post a moderator and don't try to moderate the discussion yourself.

And in 921

Post about what you are interested in. and we can all see that you already admitted
what you are interested in is who the church hierarchy handled it and not the abuse itself. Why? why as a self confessed atheist are you only interested in church hierarchy? It seems to me that other than just not believing in god your atheism extends into Church bashing.

Furthermore, you also tried to net cop me! You told me what I should be posting on! You tolf me the thread was about clerical abuse. It now seems you yourself ignored your own advice since your main interest isn't the abuse but how the Hierarchy handled the abuse!

I did not think it was appropriate nor did I want to talk about it. If it is subsequently found that it is appropriate that does not change the fact that I don't want to talk about it in this thread. There are other places where a discussion of that nature could take place, I believe I even suggested you open a thread in the humanities board.

Dodge!

You are trying to change you claim! You claimed that my posts were off topic for this thread. You didn't claim you were posting only what you wanted you claimed the entire thread was only about clerical abuse. We then entered into a discussion on what your thought the thread was about and you quite clearly stated (having been shown by me that it was not) that it was only about clerical child abuse. It subsequently transpired that you revealed an additional hidden agenda in that you wanted to discuss not only child abuse but how the hierarchy dealt with it!

Then you took a hioatus and when you came bak started into the same fundamentalist beliefs ignoring all the above facts which you have been given ( including a moderators sticky saying non clerical child abuse can be discussed)

Finally you are on the "discuss it in another thread" net cop vibe. You didnt originally claim this and these are weasel words. You clearly staed that you referred to this thread and this group. But in any case I don't want to go to another forum . You go if you want and preach your unsupported atheistic opinions there.

Here we prefer reason and evidence in debate and not opinion.

I don't believe you are assisting in the cover up of abuse, I am not aware of any of your activities outside of boards,

More weasle words. Care to tell me if you were warned not to say I am supporting child abuse? Did you post " I don't believe you are assisting in the cover up of abuse" after such a warning? And what do you mean by "i am not aware of your activities outside boards" ? Do you think I go around outside boards covering up abuse?

posting in a forum about clerical abuse is not taking part in a cover up, IMO. Do you deny your are an apologist for the church?

If you mean do I think it was right for the Church to apologise for any mistakes the Church made then YES. If you mean I am trying to defend child abuse in any way and put the Instution and authoritarianism of the Church first then NO.

I believe that he should be charged with whatever would be appropriate at the time. I do not believe that criminal liability should be retrospective, therefore as male rape was not a crime at the time, they should not be charged with that. I do not know what charges were available at the time, nor do I have the time to research them. I have an exam tomorrow, and I am already wasting too much time on this thread.

Run away if you wish. To be fair I wont reply to any more of your posts till after you finish them. I will say a prayer for you. You can thank God yourself later.

My proposal is a simple one, anyone involved in the abuse of children, whether it is the actual abuse, the cover up, failing to carry out their duty (gardai or local authorities, teachers etc) should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But you really only want to talk about one per cent or less of such people who just happen to be clerics? On and you co incidentally happen to hate the church?

The fact that I do not know the specific charged that could or should be brought is not relevant to this. I believe people should be criminally liable for their behaviour, if it is criminal.

and if there is no crime ( for example in Thailand - forgice me if i have it wrong ) it suddenly becomes ok? Even with teh same child it was not illegal with elsewhere?

Should it turn out that there is, or was, not appropriate criminal offence at the time, then i would have to have a rethink. That causes me a conflict as I strongly believe the law, particularly the criminal law, should not be retrospective and this would be in conflict with my desire to see those responsible punished.

Well Ill give you and example. Oddly from Gerry springer. It probably was invented but a guy on one show has children urinate and deficate on him with parental consent. the child was not physically touched and there was no law against what he was doing. I think that man ( if the story is true) is seriously disturbed. But he is not a criminal. And ironically I think he needs treatment not punishment. As do the parents and the child. He was also not a cleric by the way in case you ask.

Sorry, but this is something you can't take credit for. I was already aware that there was no male rape at the time. When I use the term rape in this thread I am using the current definition of it.

when did you become aware? because you didnt say so over a year ago when I mentioned it.

Are you saying we should let criminals off because it might be a bit hard to get a conviction?

In the Us they have a thing called "plea bargaining" . You find that is immoral?

The relevant authorities should make the decision based on all the facts. The likelihood of conviction is one thing that should be considered, as are the feelings of the victims. As most of the offenders seem to have abused multiple victims it does not seem beyond the realm of possibilities that there might be a number that are willing to stand up in court.

A non child abuse example Hep C women. compensate them now or leave it drag on in courts and let them die before they get any money?

Additionally, we have the old adage that justice must be seen to be done. This is another consideration when deciding whether or not to take a case.

Eh NO! It isn't because such cases are normally in camera. In fact even adult victims usually want no publicity.

Are you say that the abusers sould not face criminal charges?

Very good question. I am saying justice should first concentrate on the VICTIMS . And Not one one per cent of them! All the victims! Punishment is only secondary to that.

I will try to check that out after my exam.

I will wait.

I am pretty sure it specifically mentions protecting the accused and the church, and make no mention of voiding criminal prosecution. In fact, it makes no mention of any actions outside of internal church proceedings.

More selective memory

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64980815

the above canon applies to CONFESSION. fr Brady was not hearing a confession of the 14 and 15 year old boys as far as i know. If he was then according to the above canon he should not have recorded anything!

Also neither canon 904 or 2368 mention anything which might be akin to "covering up"

The document above dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.

"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.

Finally i have no idea if this is the actual procedure Brady was following.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Just to clarify for those folks who asked, I think that there can be reference to sexual abuse outside religious institutions if it is for the purposes of comparing it to abuse within religious institutions.

i.e. non clerical abuse is not out of bounds especially where it relates to analysis of abuse in general.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Firstly, cover-ups make it difficult to obtain hard evidence and secondly, there is no evidence other than what you 'read'.

In other words "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"
so what? it isn't proof of abuse either!
You are pleading to a conspiracy theory mindset which is like "we don't have any evidence but that proves there must be a cover up"
I am sorry but just not good enough! We do not assume guilt we prove it based on evidence.
You have produced no evidence of widespread corruption or coverups.
Suppose I said "the invisible unicorns are behind it all"?

There are testimonies, admissions, paper trails, all of which indicate a problem.

Okay which testimonies, admisions and paper trails and what[/p]problem do they indicate?

You assert the evidence is there . SO? Where is it?

Then there is the failure of Church and State to act in the interests of justice; and their attempts to 'sweep away' the issue of paedophilia in the church.

the failure of several Bishops ( five or ten) and per haps an archbishop/cardinal to deal with the issue adequately. They didnt all attampt to "sweep" it. and it isnt a widespread issue no more than priests committing bank robbery or murder is. If for example a priest killed someone else and the bishop believed he had not done it as premidated murder and hushed it up and it that happened for a few priests say ten or twenty and involved say fve bishops. Say it was in a central american country a south american one Ireland and a pacific one . say it was related to terrorist groups in those countries. it could happen. Anyway one would not assert this was a planned "coverup or mercenary priests" endemic to the entire church and which the Pope knows about and is keeping hidden.

Didn't you notice how the Vatican stepped up its language of appeasement? They started off saying there was no problem... it didn't wash. Then they admitted that there were errant priests but they were few and not representative of the church... that didn't wash either. Then as the Ratzinger letter, gagging-contracts that the church authorities forced children to sign, and all sorts of other documentation came out, the Vatican modified its language again. At every step trying to concede as little as possible and just enough to get them out of the spotlight.

the above is all you opinion. read the thread since the fifth century the church has issued anti child abuse laws. The abusers are few ( less than one per cent of the total number of abusers) and not representative ( none are bishops). The letter issue ifs far from clear. What are you claiming? What documentation from the Vatican was a "gagging contract"?
have you a source document?

But the lights got brighter and the official Church position got fuzzier. It is not unreasonable to interpret the Churches actions as condoning paedophilia. It seemed like they would only admit what was already known.

What lights got brighter? how did the Church "get fuzzier"?
It is reasonable to interpret your suggestions as "fuzzy" since you supply no names dates or source documents . where are they?

At best, the church engaged in protectionism (at the expense of the children) and baulked at exposing its hypocrisy and at worst, the church sponsors paedophilia.

and you arrive at the conclusion "the church sponsors paedophilia."?

You have presented a false dichotomy. The Church did not sit down and plan and say " we need to protect ourselves and hide the offenders" .

My own opinion is that paedophiles see the church as a free-pass to children with added protection that is not available to teachers and relatives of children.

And I would agree with you 100%. But this means the pedo comes first and his attraction to the church is to facilitate his disorder. It is not being a priest that causes it! the protection was extended to teachers and relatives who were the majority offenders. If your suggestion was true how is it ther are offenders who are clergy who also abused their family?

It is an exclusive club, being a priest, and canon law supercedes state law.

that is a dated argument. some clergy believe it. It was never a Church position.

It needs to be dealt with. Forcibly if necessary; the State should threaten the position of the church and force it to take part in an open enquiry and procedures should be put in place to stop the problem re-occurring.

They were. Mostly by the Church. The state if anything is lagging.

I'm not saying that every member of the RCC hierarchy is corrupt and would say that most are well-intentioned but there is something wrong somewhere in the upper eschalons.

Where in the upper echelons?

Ther are only two levels in the Church when it comes to clergy. Priest and Bishop.

There is a lot of smoke but there is resistance to calling the fire-brigade. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck but we're told it's a swan. The lady doth protest not enough. Pride come before you try to hang on to power.....

And strings of clichés come before no evidence yada yada yada!

Most Catholics are just people. Common, everyday, garden-variety people who just want to get on with their lives. And some Catholics are people with great power. And strange tastes!

And all clergy are just people.

optogirl wrote: »

How can you say this when abusers & rapists were shielded from criminal prosecution and actually given posts where they could continue to abuse???

How many worldwide and where is the evidence of hierarchical collusion?

gigino wrote: »

E There was a good interview with someone on the Pat Kenny show yesterday morning, in which 200 + cases of clergy abuse were talked about etc.

[What 200 cases?

If people were less afraid of the Priests / nuns, we would have spoke out about them more. Many people never complained about abuse by clergy, as the clergy often picked on those who were religous / less likely to squeal. It is thought the figure of 5.8% of boys who were abused were abused by the clergy / religous is higher than that.

LOL. You are lying abut that 5.8 per cent again!

Where did you get it?
you are aware that source says 1.9 % and is not statistically valid since it is 4 cases in about 500! and not 4 actual cases but alleged by a phone poll.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Then I would say that you're an idiot!

So you prove my point! Look upi "Burden of proof"

[/B]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

Suck on that for a little while.

Which begins

Pope Benedict XVI faced claims last night he had 'obstructed justice

for "faced claims" read "alleged"

Where is a copy of the letter? We can go through it and see if it says as your source alleges.


The letter seems to be available on the Web:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ratzinger_as_Prefect_of_the_Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith#Response_to_sex_abuse_scandal

The promulgation of the norms by Pope John Paul II and the subsequent letter by the then Prefect of the CDF were published in 2001 in Acta Apostolicae Sedis[12] which is the Holy See's official journal, in accordance with the Code of Canon Law,[13] and is disseminated monthly to thousands of libraries and offices around the world.[14]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article7061133.ece

Begins:

Cardinal Seán Brady, the head of the Catholic church in Ireland, was involved in an alleged cover-up of child sexual abuse complaints against Brendan Smyth, Ireland’s most notorious paedophile priest.

Have you any evidence and not just allegations?

this case is coovered early on in this thread as it is one of the merged threads.
Try reading from this message on wher I take it up:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64996858&postcount=292

According to my unofficial translation the aboive letter does refer to

-A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years.

It also says

All tribunals of the Latin church and the Eastern Catholic churches are bound to observe the canons on delicts and penalties, and also on the penal process of both codes respectively, together with the special norms which are transmitted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for an individual case and which are to be executed entirely.
Cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret.

It refers to canons 1362 qnd 1152 as egards the reference to criminal process

1152 is in relation to separation of a Marriage so we can forget that

1362 is about
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P4Z.HTM

criminal action is extinguished by prescription after three years, except for:

it gets quite tricky here because we are dealing with all sorts of things a priest should not do e.g. withhold absolution to a partner of someone forgiven etc.

We are only interested in abuse of minors (the canon covers under 18 but we specifically are interested in per pubescent here)

It seems to say to me that if you are a priest and commit such an offense that under canon law the possibility of prosecuting you lasts ten years after the victim becomes 18.

Actually 1`395.2 says:

§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

Do you deny that the vetting procedure of the RCC was inadequate?

No. No more than the vetting of teachers or babysitters was.

The church protected these men. ISAW, that is not okay with me.

Not as part of a plan or their rules! Individuals in and outside of church offices protected some of them by admission or omission and that is not alright with most Catholics but that does not mean the whole clergy were corrupt .

Dated you say? Ironic when you think that a two-thousand year old fairytale forms the basis of modern religion.

Yes dated.
Off topic. Jesus is no more a fairy tale than Alexander the Great or Socrates.

The Church position is to admit nothing and apologise for what is found out!!!!!!!

So absence of evidence is proof of something now?

Shut up! The State prosecutes paedophiles, the Church doesn't!!!

The church does but its law does not have Jurisdiction as regard imprisoning someone. all the church can do is excommunicate, remove clerical office ( not the order) and tell them wher to live or where not to live ( which they can't physically enforce)

The State has very few of these alleged offenders in goal if 99 per cent of them are non clergy. it is lagging.

The bloody POPE!

Where is you evidence about the Pope?

Not a defence against paedophilia.

It was a question as to where in the hierarchy is there evidence for this alledge widespread corruption is?
Any evidence?

Yady yada yada!!!!

More cliché

People with power! Unfettered, unmonitored, POWER!

Who has such power? i already told you the Church cant imprison anyone.

One is too many!

So what? Im not justifying any. Im asking how you can demonstrate widespread collusion among the hierarchy?

Are you still sucking?

Are you still relying on cliché and second hand allegation?