The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

prinz

Macros42 wrote: »

Roll your eyes all you want.

Yes, and you too. Might want to check the post of yours I quoted.

Macros42 wrote: »

But if the church is still making decision in secret and keeping them from the membership of the church then very little has changed.

You may have missed the various press releases on the Dublin Archdiocese website I quoted. They are all there for the public to read if you want them. Problem is, you won't see those press releases being printed on the front page of the papers, hence people believe nothing has changed.

J C

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi JC,

Why don't you just read the letter?

... Hi lmaopml

... does it answer any of the key questions of moral responsibility that I asked ... and which only the Vatican/Pope can answer.

... if it does please give us the answers that it provided ... and I will then consider reading the rest of it.

Turtwig

I'm just curious, for those that attended Mass this weekend was it read out at your church? Our PP (who's obviously had enough with this crap) just mentioned it was in the newsletter and gave his usual sermon like any normal weekend mass.

mehfesto

Some very strong words against this on Newstalk just there. Is that the end of the issue as far as the Vatican is concerned, now?

If so, it's a terrible pity for them - VERY few people seem to h
think anything was actually achieved, on the radio at least.

ISAW

taconnol wrote: »

So...your argument is the Church doesn't need to publicize the changes it has implemented to make sure this doesn't happen every again because we wouldn't bother listening anyway. What utter nonsense. What has it done? Where have the changes been instigated?

taconnol, what is your local Roman Catholic parish?
I hopefully will show you the changes about which you are enquiring.
If you wan't to keep your local parish a secret
then pick a diocese and i will pick out a deanery in it and show you some changes in parishes with respect to children.

If you get that will you then admit there have been changes?

Where are the mandatory reportings of abuse to the authorities?

Im not sure whaty you mean by this? do you mean when did the instructions that all reportings are mandatory (which I think is provided in anpther thread) or do you mean why aren't there loads of priests indited? The reason for the latter is that only one per cent of abusers are clergy. Most of them are from a time when the changes (you know the ones you are not aware of ) by church and State haden't yet happened. many offenders have therefore either died or can't be charged or have moved abroad to retire.

Of the othr abusers (i.e. clergy since the manditory reporting came in it may well be there are none who haven't been indited given the crime is so rare for clergy). You seem to expect there are laods of clkerical abusers. In fact clergy number as I stated about one per cent of abusers. The reason clerical abuse is so serious is because they were clergy and were responsible for the moral welfare of people and not just a swimming instructor soccer coach etc.

So provide a link. Your comments about the pub are quite irrelevant to this debate.

A link to what? the internet didnt exist when the abuse happened in the 1970s. Parishes didn't have websites. they are only developing them today. However parishes do have child policies. You are the one claiming "no changes" . why don't you begin by stating what yu claim existed and how it hasent changed and others can then attempt to show the changes of which you seem to be ignorant?

You seem far, far too willing to dismiss people who want answers. The Church has a very bad history of having a similar attitude.

You seem to be engaging in smear tactics when you admit total ignorance of the current situation! from a position of ignorance of changes you are then blaming the church for not informing you of changes of which you are not aware! ??? the mind boggles!

ISAW

checkyabadself wrote: »

With respect, I`ll believe it when I see it. If he does remove every paedophile priest, or lets face it, even one, I`ll be amazed.

How do you know there are any still remaining in jobs where they are near children? Have you any evidence of such clergy? The clergy themselves haven't! They have procedures to report such clergy. Parishoners are also encouraged to do so. You seem to think ther are still child abusing Priests working with children in Ireland! there aren't!
If it ever happens again it will be even rarer then the one percent it was in the past!

He was involved in the cover up so I dont see how he`s going to start kicking priests out of the church, without himself going too.

Ratzinger (and I was no fan of his) was NEVER in ireland or had any dealings with covering up anything in Ireland to my knowledge. If you are claiming he covered up anything in any dealings since he became Pope would you mind listing them?

He did after all send a letter to bishops(not 100%, might have been cardinals) requiring secrecy about cases of abuse a few years back.

What letter? Evidence? How it it evidence of a cover up?

That makes todays letter hypocritical.

It makes you claim look unsupported! what letter did he send asking bishops to cover up anything?

dunleakelleher

mehfesto wrote: »

VERY few people seem to
think anything was actually achieved, on the radio at least.

Ya talking to people that was the general consensus outside of mass this morning as well. The Pope seems to have lost a great opportunity to restore a little credibility in the church among the faithful. Pity.

ISAW

dunleakelleher wrote: »

I would if I raped the kids of my fellow employees.

and if you sent around such a lettr and the accused asked you to prove it and you couldn't then your employees and you would be out of jobs and the abuser would be filthy rich.

The point is it isnt up to a boss to decide whether a person in his employ is guilty or not- it is up to the COURTS through DUE PROCESS!

The RCC is made up of the ordinary people of the Church. Only a minute percentage are clergy. So if the majority of the Church are not privy to those changes it really means nothing and nothing will change.

Most people in the RCC attend mass weekly or go to the youth club or attend the active age group or family councillor or attend one of up to a hundred parish groups. The Parish is a local community . at Mass and through all these linkages people are informed and debate the current issues of the day., In fact it is more "bottom up" than "top down" Local people are aware of the changes in schools youth clubs etc.

Maybe you are not involved in any parish orginisation. Most "ordinary caTHOLICS" ARE!


Maybe you want to keep your parish a secret? even if you are not a catholic.

If you list a diocese I will show a parish website where you can get such information how about that?

Remember Vatican II was fundamental in giving the Church back to the ordinary people from the hierarchy of the Church.

Your point being? It didn't make all Catholics into web designers and journalists and expert communicators!

ISAW

Macros42 wrote: »

Fanny - that's not the point. Jail and settlements are civic & civil issues. The problem with the RCC and this letter from JR is that the church itself does not acknowledge it's own responsibility for covering up years of abuse - and actively participating in moving perpetrators around to find new victims.

That seems old hat to me. What NEW VICTIMS? what clergy have been reported and convicted since say 2000? And I mean NEW cases and not cases of clergy who are now 75 years old?

Brady's excuse "it wasn't my responsibility to report it" is laughable

Why?

- it reminds me of Irish Rail... "it's not my job sir". And the bishop of Rome has not only refused to demand resignations from various Bishops and Cardinals

Brady wast a Bishop then - you can't have to both ways! yo can't say not being a Bishop should not matter and then also say he shoould have resigned as bishop because being a Bishop matters.

PPS - yes I purposely do not call JR Benedict or capitalise pope in relation to him. And that is nothing to do with the current scandals - it dates back to the day of the white smoke and it's for many reasons. If you object to me refusing to recognise him please take it to PM or start another thread. But I won't change this.

Just because you deny Benedict is Pope does not remove the fact that the Roman Catholic church accept him as Pope. I was never a firm supporter of Ratzinget but I accept he IS the Pope! I mioght not have liked George bush either but he WAS the President of the US.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm just curious, for those that attended Mass this weekend was it read out at your church? Our PP (who's obviously had enough with this crap) just mentioned it was in the newsletter and gave his usual sermon like any normal weekend mass.

it is to long to read out. There is a summary. they should probably put it up an parish websites for anyone interested and make some printed copies available and give a homily on it.

--amadeus--

ISAW wrote: »

It happens to be a fact. In the 1970s one could not rape a male. The law of rape only applied to females as far as i am aware.

You seem to be confusing morality with the law and assuming legal courts are moral courts. In courts you get the law.

I have no contempt about right and wrong. i have clearly pout my opinion about what I regard as wrong on the record and I have also shown what alws applied and how even if you believed something was rape no gardai would be able to prosecute someone for rape then. And am now going to ask you to withdraw that personal remark that my personal views on right and wrong are contemptable. As it stands you are trying to make a tabloid type bullet point that I approve of child abuse. i refuse to accept your personal remarks about me.

I have time and again made the point that this is about morality not law. It is a convienience to muddy the two because of legal changes but the civil autorities are investigating this matter and I hope to see teh cardinal asked to answer a charge of conspiring to pervert teh course of justice. That is however not something I can influence.

However there is a clear difference between moral and legal. I would not take contract advice from an illeterate solicitor. I would not take tax advice from an accountant unable to add. Why would I take advice on right and wrong from a man with no moral judgement?

And teh claim that it wasn't rape because taht wasn't on the statute book is below contemtible. Soviet troops went on an orgy of rape and pillage in Berlin in 1945. There was no legistlature in the German state at teh time and no functioning legal system. What the troops did was technically not against the law as there was - again technically - no law to break. But it was still morallt wrong and - by a dictionary definition - it was rape.

The same applies here. Pre-teens were sexually abused. It was rape and attempting to weasel out of it on teh basis of a legal technicality is an attitide I find morally repugnant.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

wolfsbane

This article from a militant atheist is not unexpected, but it is worth hearing him out and especially worth following the links from article to article:
The Great Catholic Cover-Up
http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

Fanny Cradock

goat2 wrote: »

by hiding the crimes
he is accessory to crimes
never again to be trusted
lied lied lied
leopards dont change spots

Ah! The ancient art of super mega hyper haikus!

dunleakelleher

wolfsbane wrote: »

This article from a militant atheist is not unexpected, but it is worth hearing him out and especially worth following the links from article to article:
The Great Catholic Cover-Up
http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/

I presume that this linked article is completely unbiased and its quotes are taken IN context coming for an militant atheist.
Its like asking Bin Laden to write a article on the achievements of the Bush administration and how it has benefited the Muslim world. I did read it and followed all the links. But...

dunleakelleher

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ah! The ancient art of super mega hyper haikus!

Ah come on now. The ancient art is confined to the RCC lying about sex abuse.
I think we have enough proof that child rape occurred and even more evidence that the church tried to hide it.
Even the pope admits to this fact.

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I have time and again made the point that this is about morality not law.

Really?
WHERE?
Where have you made the point to me that charging abusers is not about the law?

It is a convienience to muddy the two because of legal changes

which is basically saying i muddied the two.
Please care to take ANY post i have made about due legal criminal process against abusers and point out if I have not mentioned that in my opinion sexual relations between an adult and child is wrong?

I didn't muddy the two and I resent you claiming that i did and claiming that i am not morally "normal".

but the civil autorities are investigating this matter and I hope to see teh cardinal asked to answer a charge of conspiring to pervert the course of justice.

Where is ther a crime listed under irish law of "perverting the course of justice"?
Look if you think he should be charged with a criminal offence i am quite simply asking what one! What do you think he is guilt of under Irish criminal law?

We already know that he himself said abuse was wrong we know where he stands morally on it. what i want to know from you is what crime you think he might be guilty of.

That is however not something I can influence.

so what? Are you suggesting you should be able to influence what a court decides?
You might first start by stating what CHARGES he might be accused of in a court.

However there is a clear difference between moral and legal.

Not necessarily. As I think I pointed out things could be immoral and legal or moral and illegal but it would seem that the Church instituted guidelines some time ago and are changing and positive law has also begun to catch up with natural law.

I would not take contract advice from an illeterate solicitor. I would not take tax advice from an accountant unable to add. Why would I take advice on right and wrong from a man with no moral judgement?

And in asking that you assert that the Primate of Ireland has no moral judgment!
And your authority to decide on that stems from where?

And teh claim that it wasn't rape because taht wasn't on the statute book is below contemtible.

Nobody can be charged with rape if the crime didn't exist at that time! that is the law! You can NOT make a retroactive criminal offence!

Soviet troops went on an orgy of rape and pillage in Berlin in 1945. There was no legistlature in the German state at teh time and no functioning legal system. What the troops did was technically not against the law as there was - again technically - no law to break. But it was still morallt wrong and - by a dictionary definition - it was rape.

And you suggest that those troops should be tried ? By what court ? Under what law? You entirely MISS THE POINT! the point is that every reasonable person knows that rape is wrong. They knew it even then. This discussion however is about the idea that they should imprison or punish offenders. Under law you cannot find someone guilty of rape is rape didn't exist tat that time!

Look for example at head shops. the law will not exist until June. It may be morally wrong biut you cant actually arrest anyone for selling these drugs until June. you can stomp up and down all you want but the Gardai cant go into these places until then because NO CRIMINAL LAW exists which they are breaking.

The same applies here. Pre-teens were sexually abused. It was rape and attempting to weasel out of it on teh basis of a legal technicality is an attitide I find morally repugnant.

You again and again lay charges against me of moral repugnance.
I have ALWAYS stated such acts were wrong. The point is the people who did them on boys CANT be charged with rape! You seem to think that because they cant be charged with rape that somehow i am saying what they did was right.
where ANYWHERE did I say such deplorable acts were right. i have NEVER stated such a thing and I resent you constantly asserting that i have!
Please STOP IT!

ISAW

goat2 wrote: »

by hiding the crimes
he is accessory to crimes
never again to be trusted
lied lied lied
leopards dont change spots

What "crimes" do you claim he was hiding?
What "lies" do you claim Brady made?

santing

Fintan O'Toole published a good article the Guardian:

The cover-up of child sexual abuse by the Catholic church is not about sex and it is not about Catholicism. It is not, as Pope Benedict rightly argued in yesterday's distressingly bland pastoral letter, about priestly celibacy. It is about power.

Article is called: "Arrogant, corrupt, secretive – the Catholic church failed to tackle evil"

ISAW

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Ah come on now. The ancient art is confined to the RCC lying about sex abuse.

Where did the RCC say child abuse never occured? where did they make such a lie?

I think we have enough proof that child rape occurred and even more evidence that the church tried to hide it.

Child rape under today's definition yes. Certainly what was done on children was wrong whether or not it was against the law. The church invistigated in the way it did then. But even today i have asked what do you expect such people to be charged with?
Even after that under what law can damages be made?

Yes probably "authorities" concealed such scandalous acts but the reasons for that are known. First of all most abusers weren't clergy and the names of those abusers or charges against that other 99 per cent of abusers rarely happened as well. so it wasnt just the Church covering something up and you cant claim it was since the other 99 percent of abusers didn't get "outed". Second the advice (and culture) at the time was to trust authority whether that be a Bishop, social worker psychiatrist, garda etc.

Even the pope admits to this fact.

What fact about "concealing abuse" or lying that it had happened does the Pope admit?

goat2

ISAW wrote: »

What "crimes" do you claim he was hiding?
What "lies" do you claim Brady made?

he knew what had gone on

Orion

ISAW wrote: »

Brady wast a Bishop then - you can't have to both ways! yo can't say not being a Bishop should not matter and then also say he shoould have resigned as bishop because being a Bishop matters.

Brady not being a bishop then does not absolve him of responsibility. He was aware of abuse and he was complicit in a cover up. That makes him a criminal in my view. His bull**** about it not being his responsibility is ridiculous. And it makes his current position untenable. He should resign (or be fired) for having committed a criminal act. That's completely apart from him being prosecuted as an accomplice after the fact which he should be too.

ISAW wrote: »

Just because you deny Benedict is Pope does not remove the fact that the Roman Catholic church accept him as Pope. I was never a firm supporter of Ratzinget but I accept he IS the Pope! I mioght not have liked George bush either but he WAS the President of the US.

I did say take it to PM. This will be my last comment on this. Ratzinger is a disgrace of a human being. I thought this long before all this came out. The day his name was read out I actually felt ill. While I have to accept him as the leader of a church I do not and will not call him by any name other than Joseph Ratzinger. I considered his election to be a vile act and his appointment to be disgusting. This is completely irrelevant to the child abuse scandals and his letter. If you really want to have a discussion about it start a new thread here on in A&A or PM me. I have no problem discussing my position on this man but this thread is not about him or my opinion of him.

J C

ISAW wrote: »

That seems old hat to me. What NEW VICTIMS? what clergy have been reported and convicted since say 2000? And I mean NEW cases and not cases of clergy who are now 75 years old?.

Just read page 6 of the Irish Mail on Sunday ... and an article on the Popes's Letter by Hermann Kelly who apparently was/is the editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper and is therefore an 'insider' within the Roman Catholic establishment.
He seems to be indicating an ongoing malaise in relation to the kind of RE being taught to children in Roman Catholic schools.

He said "to put it bluntly, most things that the Bishops touch turn to dust. The bottom line is the Catholic faith is not being taught in the primary and secondary schools under their care. The Alive-O Cathetical series which they approve does great damage to young people who are churned out after 14 years of so-called 'Catholic' education - faithless and ignorant."

... he goes on to say "Vile child abuse and the mishandling of the problem by the bishops are symptoms of a deeper malaise at the heart of the Irish Church."

Does anybody know what this man is talking about?

What Faith is being taught in Roman Catholic schools, if the Roman Catholic Faith isn't being taught?

What is this Alive-O Programme all about ... and why does Hermann Kelly say it 'does great great damage to young people' ... and why does he say that Alive-O turns out young people who are 'faithless and ignorant' after 14 years in RC Schools?

I saw somwhere back a few years ago that the RE programme in Protestant Primary Schools is also based on the Alive-O programme?

--amadeus--

I'm not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal. I have said my piece and have tired of aiming at moving targets.

I will however clear up one misconception which you are throwing around like confetti. I do have some training in law (do you?). And I know that there are criminal charges that can (and in my mind should) be brought. So in direct answer to:

ISAW wrote: »

Look if you think he should be charged with a criminal offence i am quite simply asking what one! What do you think he is guilt of under Irish criminal law?

I will refer you to an excellent piece written by people with far better qualifications than mine. They say:

There are nonetheless numerous options available to the DPP should he wish to pursue criminal prosecutions including the possibility of conspiracy, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice and the common law offence of misconduct in public office./

Thier professional opinion is that it would take "ingenuity" to make the first two stick but that the third is very possible.

But - yet again - I will say that the civil authorities will do what they do and no-one can influence that. There is either evidence to prosecute or there is not.

But his actions indicate a total lack of morality (to say nothing of compassion) and that is why I feel he should resign. He has shown himself unfit for office irrespective of any criminal charges he may face.

goat2

if i deny deny something that really happened
then i am lying
plain and simple

underclass

Cardinal Brady resigning will serve nothing only to satisfy the insatiable lust of those seeking the ruin of the Church. If he resigns, they'll make more and more demands and will never be happy until their ultimate goals are achieved. It's like negotiating with terrorists.

He should stay in office to fulfil the duties which he was tasked with in 2007, and have no doubt that he will stay in office. Today's direct intervention from Rome has been a huge help to all Irish Catholics. The work must continue. There are others lined up to replace Cardinal Brady for when he can no longer continue, but things are not going to be passed over just yet. At 71, he's still only a baby as far as the College of Cardinals goes.

underclass

I went to evening Mass today. The priests of the parish printed off the Pope's letter and the prayer and made little booklets available at the back of the church. There was a swarm of people trying to get their hands on the booklets. I've never seen anything like it.

I really do hope they read everything the Pope has to say, say that prayer he gave us and confess our own sins. If we don't do this, the intervention of the Pope will be a waste of time regarding the renewal and cleansing of the Church.

underclass

J C wrote: »

Just read page 6 of the Irish Mail on Sunday ... and an article on the Popes's Letter by Hermann Kelly who apparently was/is the editor of the Irish Catholic newspaper and is therefore an 'insider' within the Roman Catholic establishment.
He seems to be indicating an ongoing malaise in relation to the kind of RE being taught to children in Roman Catholic schools.

He said "to put it bluntly, most things that the Bishops touch turn to dust. The bottom line is the Catholic faith is not being taught in the primary and secondary schools under their care. The Alive-O Cathetical series which they approve does great damage to young people who are churned out after 14 years of so-called 'Catholic' education - faithless and ignorant."

... he goes on to say "Vile child abuse and the mishandling of the problem by the bishops are symptoms of a deeper malaise at the heart of the Irish Church."

Does anybody know what this man is talking about?

What Faith is being taught in Roman Catholic schools, if the Roman Catholic Faith isn't being taught?

What is this Alive-O Programme all about ... and why does Hermann Kelly say it 'does great great damage to young people' ... and why does he say that Alive-O turns out young people who are 'faithless and ignorant' after 14 years in RC Schools?

I saw somwhere back a few years ago that the RE programme in Protestant Primary Schools is also based on the Alive-O programme?

Good points he raises. Fear not though, because when the inspectors from Rome arrive, they will also be inspecting schools and the Catholic education system. The influence of the crusty liberals who so dangerously misinterpreted Vatican II and now find themselves pulling the strings in schools/teacher training colleges (not to mention being highly paid) are in for a rude awakening.

The question arises: which senior cleric is going to grab the bull by the horns and tackle the failed ideologies of people in permanent jobs? We might need to pay for early retirement packages and this will be an expensive business.

goat2

Originally Posted by Macros42
Aren't all catholics part of the church not outside it? I may be an atheist but I have read and do understand your bible. I cannot remember the chapter in it that states that only the frocked are part of the church


well that is how it looks, the frocked part of the church fooled the unfrocked part

J C

underclass wrote: »

Good points he raises. Fear not though, because when the inspectors from Rome arrive, they will also be inspecting schools and the Catholic education system. The influence of the crusty liberals who so dangerously misinterpreted Vatican II and now find themselves pulling the strings in schools/teacher training colleges (not to mention being highly paid) are in for a rude awakening.

The question arises: which senior cleric is going to grab the bull by the horns and tackle the failed ideologies of people in permanent jobs? We might need to pay for early retirement packages and this will be an expensive business.

... why do you think the 'inspectors from Rome' will do anything about the RE programmes when they must have been kept fully aware of the RE programme in Ireland all along?

... what is this Alive-O progrmme all about ... and why does Hermann Kelly say it does 'great damage to young people'? ?