The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

Is that not, inter alia, exactly what you were doing when you wrote about the lack of a relevant offence with which to charge Brady?

If you want to find something pertinent in respect of the same, in a devils advocate way, please do so and come back to me/us with the results of your research.

PS: I know we can keep up batting this back and to between us and waste thread space in doing so, so I won't bother doing so.

An answer to your point does leap to mind, but I note your last sentence. I think we are probably boring people.

Peace, man.

aloyisious

I'm thankful we're here in Ireland and not in the US. Bill Donohue, president of the US Catholic League, statement in relation to rape and sexual abuse victims of Catholic priests there: This is an obscene lie. Most of the alleged victims were not raped: they were groped or otherwise sexually abused, but not penetrated.

I can just imagine what the response would be if something similar came from the head of a similar organisation here. He accepts that it's a fact that the victims were groped or otherwise sexually abused but still uses the word ALLEGED when he refers to the victims in an attack on the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report.

http://angelqueen.org/2018/08/19/catholic-league-on-predatory-priests-its-not-rape-if-the-child-isnt-penetrated/

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

An answer to your point does leap to mind, but I note your last sentence. I think we are probably boring people.

Peace, man.

Ta. I took a little time out to cool down. I was getting too one-sided in my replies, mainly because I'm now settled in the opinion that while the state and the population were mostly OK with the way the church went about it's business behind closed doors, I applied the rule that what the actual offenders physically and mentally did to the children and women in their care was way worse than the failure of the state and population to call a halt to the actions of the religious. Consequently I had no time for what I was beginning to see as apologists for the offenders, even those people who were acting as Devil's Advocates.

There was and is, IMO, no comparison between the culpability of the offenders and that of the state and population who turned a blind eye and I made my judgement on that basis. I don't include the members of the RC religious who assisted their offending colleagues in the priesthood or nunneries by moving the offenders around to prevent criminal sanction as being part of the population with cleaner less guilty hands and minds.


As I said, I will give any personage in religious attire the courtesy of a "good morning" but most definitely not any bridge. That will have to come from them.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Ta. I took a little time out to cool down. I was getting too one-sided in my replies, mainly because I'm now settled in the opinion that while the state and the population were mostly OK with the way the church went about it's business behind closed doors, I applied the rule that what the actual offenders physically and mentally did to the children and women in their care was way worse than the failure of the state and population to call a halt to the actions of the religious. Consequently I had no time for what I was beginning to see as apologists for the offenders, even those people who were acting as Devil's Advocates.

There was and is, IMO, no comparison between the culpability of the offenders and that of the state and population who turned a blind eye and I made my judgement on that basis. I don't include the members of the RC religious who assisted their offending colleagues in the priesthood or nunneries by moving the offenders around to prevent criminal sanction as being part of the population with cleaner less guilty hands and minds.


As I said, I will give any personage in religious attire the courtesy of a "good morning" but most definitely not any bridge. That will have to come from them.

Ive just posted along similar lines on the other "church" thread - I think there is a deliberate strategy among supporters of the church to conflate physical abuse, which many people knew or suspected - but then society was a violent place for many children not just those in the care of religious orders - and sexual abuse, which I do not believe ordinary people had the slightest inkling about.

I don't think they should be allowed to do that - the church hierarchy knew about the rapes and sexual abuse. And let it go on. It takes a rare evil to do that. And the rest of society is not to blame for that, just the criminals who did it, and their accomplices.

Peregrinus

I don't think this is a case where we must blame either the church or wider society, and I don't think the failings of wider society are in any sense a mitigation for the culpability of the church.

Still, if what we are actually concerned about is protecting children, we have to look at both of these things, since both of them contributed to the problem. It is true that our horror of child sexual abuse is actually quite modern. In the past, for instance, where child sexual abusers were prosecuted, the sentences tended to be much lower than they are today. Child prostitution was much, much more common than today and, while people tut-tutted about it and generally deplored it, they also kind of accepted it as the way of the world. In Ireland in particular we were generally puritanical about sex and judgmental about non-marital sex, but we weren't notably more puriticanical and judgmental about underage sex. And the casual characterisation, common today, of sex with an underage person as automatically rape, was certainly not made in the past.

All of this helps to understand the context within which we let the church get away with so much. It wasn't just respect for or deference to the church, though that was undoubtedly a large part of it. It was also that we didn't take the underlying crime as seriously as we do today.

This isn't just an Irish thing; it's generally true in Western society that, though we have generally become much more permissive in matters of sex over the past couple of generations, we have become much less so in regard to sexual relationships between an adult and a young person or a child. And that helps to explain how, although the Catholic church is in a class of its own when it comes to catastrophic handling of this problem, we also see non-religious bodies engaging in, and getting away with, similar patters of concealment and protection - scouting bodies, sporting bodies, schools, etc.

volchitsa

Yeah, no.

The church also defined and taught what society ought to think was morally significant ie good or bad, so the fact that those rules were themselves bad isn't an excuse for the church also breaking many of its own basic rules as well.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah, no.

The church also defined and taught what society ought to think was morally significant ie good or bad, so the fact that those rules were themselves bad isn't an excuse for the church also breaking many of its own basic rules as well.

Agreed.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't just an Irish thing; it's generally true in Western society that, though we have generally become much more permissive in matters of sex over the past couple of generations, we have become much less so in regard to sexual relationships between an adult and a young person or a child.

It 'helped' that in the past the victims were so filled with shame, and/or convinced that they would not be believed, that they didn't come forward. The RCC's power helped them with both of these. Now that victims' voices can be heard, we are much more aware of the harm such abuse causes so it's not a surprise that it is sanctioned more heavily.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It 'helped' that in the past the victims were so filled with shame, and/or convinced that they would not be believed, that they didn't come forward.

"In the past"? This is still a big issue.

And it's particularly a problem for child victims of sexual abuse. Children are, by definition, immature, and you can't expect a mature reaction to something like this. So they'll often try to deal with it though immature responses like denial, wishful thinking, avoidance, etc. All of which militate against seeking help or support.

(But that's maybe a bit off-topic.)

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The RCC's power helped them with both of these. Now that victims' voices can be heard, we are much more aware of the harm such abuse causes so it's not a surprise that it is sanctioned more heavily.

This. Also, I do think we have an improved understanding of human sexuality generally.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Also, I do think we have an improved understanding of human sexuality generally.

Not so sure that an organisation that only offers vocations to men and insists on celibacy has really got 'an improved understanding of human sexuality generally' quite yet P.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Not so sure that an organisation that only offers vocations to men and insists on celibacy has really got 'an improved understanding of human sexuality generally' quite yet P.

Yes. By "we" there I meant "society", not "bishops".

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. By "we" there I meant "society", not "bishops".

Tongue in-cheek of course, though on that basis why anyone would allow a bishop to dictate their sexual behaviour, when their understanding of the topic is both limited and out of date, is beyond me.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Tongue in-cheek of course, though on that basis why anyone would allow a bishop to dictate their sexual behaviour . . .

Actresses are apparently well-known for this.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

In February 2020, an internal report by l'Arche concluded that Vanier sexually abused six women in Trosly-Breuil, France, between 1970 and 2005. The investigation was conducted by the U.K.-based GCPS Consulting Group.

Oh dear.

Mod: Moved from First Married couple to be Canonised thread where it was off topic

@Hotblack Desiato, please restrict posts in this forum relating to clerical abuse to this thread. Thanks for your attention

Peregrinus

Not actually a cleric.

Not just a nitpick; it's relevant in the context of this thread to note that Vanier was not subject to any kind of church direction or control and L'Arche, which he founded, is not a church organisation and is equally not subject to church direction or control; it's open to people of all faiths and none.

None of this is to excuse or minimise what Vanier has been found to have done; just to make the point that in a thread devoted to clerical child abuse, this isn't an instance of clerical abuse.

(Or indeed of child abuse; the victims were not children or people with disabilities, etc in the care of L'Arche; they were either workers for or collaborators with L'Arche.)

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not actually a cleric.

Not just a nitpick; it's relevant in the context of this thread to note that Vanier was not subject to any kind of church direction or control and L'Arche, which he founded, is not a church organisation and is equally not subject to church direction or control; it's open to people of all faiths and none.

None of this is to excuse or minimise what Vanier has been found to have done; just to make the point that in a thread devoted to clerical child abuse, this isn't an instance of clerical abuse.

(Or indeed of child abuse; the victims were not children or people with disabilities, etc in the care of L'Arche; they were either workers for or collaborators with L'Arche.)

I agree that it's not about child abuse, and that it's probably pertinent to distinguish between the two, but I would disagree strongly with your claim that the Arche is not really a church organisation - sure, it's not run by clerics, but nor, to a large extent, is Opus Dei nor indeed our own dear Iona, and yet the church is very present in both of those.

In the case of L'Arche, the church's imprimatur provided an alibi of morality for the abusers which helped abusers target victims and evade detection.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not actually a cleric.

Not just a nitpick; it's relevant in the context of this thread to note that Vanier was not subject to any kind of church direction or control and L'Arche, which he founded, is not a church organisation and is equally not subject to church direction or control; it's open to people of all faiths and none.

None of this is to excuse or minimise what Vanier has been found to have done; just to make the point that in a thread devoted to clerical child abuse, this isn't an instance of clerical abuse.

(Or indeed of child abuse; the victims were not children or people with disabilities, etc in the care of L'Arche; they were either workers for or collaborators with L'Arche.)

It's an entirely valid point P. and I dithered between placing it here, putting it on a new thread or simply deleting it. Arguments could be made for either approach so it might make for decent discussion on the feedback thread as to which approach the regulars of this forum would prefer. Personally I'd be concerned that censorship doesn't serve anyone's interest and isolating this kind of discussion to a single thread limits the likelihood of derailing other threads.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that it's not about child abuse, and that it's probably pertinent to distinguish between the two, but I would disagree strongly with your claim that the Arche is not really a church organisation - sure, it's not run by clerics, but nor, to a large extent, is Opus Dei nor indeed our own dear Iona, and yet the church is very present in both of those.

In the case of L'Arche, the church's imprimatur provided an alibi of morality for the abusers which helped abusers target victims and evade detection.

Opus Dei ("Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei") is an explicitly church organisation, constituted and governed by an apostolic constitution, no less. You have to be a Catholic to join, and the organisation explicitly subordinates itself to the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. It is governed by a prelate whose authority to govern is conferred by the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church.

None of this is true of L'Arche, which is organised and governed under the civil law of the various countries in which it operates, and which is open to people of all faiths and none. It's true that L'Arche was founded by people acting out of an explicit religious motivation and that many of the people who work with it today do so with a religious motivation, but the same could be said of, e.g., Amnesty International.

But I agree that L'Arche does have sufficient religious associations to make it topical and relevant for this thread. In particular it's relevant to consider whether the organisation's spiritual character, and/or Vanier's personal religious character or standing, provided some kind of cover or protection for what Vanier did.

And while the victims in this case were not children or people with disablities, the thread has previously discussed cases of sexual abuse of adults where the abuser was a person of status or influence and so there was a power imbalance. So, again, I have no quarrel with discussing this in this thread.

I do think it's important that we note these points; I certainly wouldn't want it to be thought that I was arguing that, because of these points, we shouldn't be discussing the abuse in this thread.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Opus Dei ("Prelature of the Holy Cross and Opus Dei") is an explicitly church organisation, constituted and governed by an apostolic constitution, no less. You have to be a Catholic to join, and the organisation explicitly subordinates itself to the teaching of the magisterium of the Catholic church. It is governed by a prelate whose authority to govern is conferred by the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church.

None of this is true of L'Arche, which is organised and governed under the civil law of the various countries in which it operates, and which is open to people of all faiths and none. It's true that L'Arche was founded by people acting out of an explicit religious motivation and that many of the people who work with it today do so with a religious motivation, but the same could be said of, e.g., Amnesty International.

But I agree that L'Arche does have sufficient religious associations to make it topical and relevant for this thread. In particular it's relevant to consider whether the organisation's spiritual character, and/or Vanier's personal religious character or standing, provided some kind of cover or protection for what Vanier did.

And while the victims in this case were not children or people with disablities, the thread has previously discussed cases of sexual abuse of adults where the abuser was a person of status or influence and so there was a power imbalance. So, again, I have no quarrel with discussing this in this thread.

I do think it's important that we note these points; I certainly wouldn't want it to be thought that I was arguing that, because of these points, we shouldn't be discussing the abuse in this thread.

L'Arche is not very present in Ireland so perhaps you don't know them very well, but they are deeply associated with the Catholic Church (in parishes/dioceses where they are present, in Canada and the south of England for example) they're part of local church life in the same way as catholic schools are, so to argue that they are merely Christian in the way Amnesty International is is just wrong.

Also, one of the main abusers, after Jean Vanier himself, was a priest, Fr Thomas Philippe, and his actions were covered up in the traditional way. Nuns were among the abused - not too likely to happen without close links between L'Arche and the church.

(BTW, Opus Dei only got their own bishop in a very controversial move by Pope John Paul 2. That increased and formalised their level of recognition within the church, but was not historically the case. So I take your point that their main aim is not the same as L'Arche's, which was about providing care for the disabled rather than promote a theology, but it is very definitely a Catholic organisation with the Catholic Church at its core. Can't have it both ways - Catholic when it suits and not really Catholic when they're caught out abusing women.)

Peregrinus

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of L'Arche's practical links with the church. And, as I have already said, I accept that their religious character, and Vanier's personal religious character, are relevant considerations here.

The point that they are not a clerical organisation, though, is an important one, and for this reason: part of the particular scandal of sex abuse in the Catholic church is, on top of church officials using their position and status to abuse children and vulnerable people, the church as an institution magnifying the damage by the systematic failure of superiors, not themselves abusers, to listen, to investigate, to discipline, or to take any of a range of actions they should have taken, or refrain from taking a range of actions that they should not have taken (e.g. active concealment, policy of reassignment, that kind of thing).

This is going to be less of a factor in the Vanier/L'Arche case because, their religious character notwithstanding, they stand outside the church's clerical structures and aren't controlled or regulated by them. There won't be bishops and cardinals who should have been keeping an eye on L'Arche but weren't, or who were in the loop and trying to supress the truth. So that dimension of institutional culpability isn't going to be at work here in the same way as in, say, the Legionaries of Christ case, or any number of cases involving abuse by diocesan priests of members of religious orders.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'll defer to your superior knowledge of L'Arche's practical links with the church. And, as I have already said, I accept that their religious character, and Vanier's personal religious character, are relevant considerations here.

The point that they are not a clerical organisation, though, is an important one, and for this reason: part of the particular scandal of sex abuse in the Catholic church is, on top of church officials using their position and status to abuse children and vulnerable people, the church as an institution magnifying the damage by the systematic failure of superiors, not themselves abusers, to listen, to investigate, to discipline, or to take any of a range of actions they should have taken, or refrain from taking a range of actions that they should not have taken (e.g. active concealment, policy of reassignment, that kind of thing).

This is going to be less of a factor in the Vanier/L'Arche case because, their religious character notwithstanding, they stand outside the church's clerical structures and aren't controlled or regulated by them. There won't be bishops and cardinals who should have been keeping an eye on L'Arche but weren't, or who were in the loop and trying to supress the truth. So that dimension of institutional culpability isn't going to be at work here in the same way as in, say, the Legionaries of Christ case, or any number of cases involving abuse by diocesan priests of members of religious orders.

Well, look up Father Thomas Philippe, and his links to Jean Vanier, and see what you think. Catholic newspapers are calling Vanier and Philippe's actions "spiritual abuse" because they both used their religious "spirituality" as a way of getting sexual access to women.
https://www.indcatholicnews.com/news/38977

(I suppose you can make the point that they're weren't under diocesan authority, but I do think that's nit picking, TBH, which was your original objection. It's like saying that a priest who was a spiritual adviser in a catholic school wasn't part of the clerical abuse scandal because he was operating independently of his parish at the time. Anyway, you're entitled to disagree, obviously, so I'll leave it at that.)

Irlandese

Looking back, now, after twice more studying than reading, taking careful notes and arranging for ex colleagues to fact check cited references of US official documents in the library of the US Congress, I can say that much light on the appalling facts of the behaviours and beliefs of pope john paul 2 and Ratzinger are now fully checked and available in the frightening report of an in-depth investigation of the Vatican Curia, by a noted french journalist and expert, who was actually housed in the vatican during part of his years long investigation, I strongly recommend the purchase on amazon or elsewhere and the careful study of the

following chilling factual analysis of why the catholic church protects

paedofile priests and why these two popes presided over and protected

the most extensive and active "courts" of practising homosexuaal

cardinals in church history or elsewhere.

In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy; THE NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER Hardcover – February 21, 2019

by Frederic Martel (Author)

Manach

Your overgeneralisatons and broad sweeping asserations of tarring all the Church suggest your notes and study leave a lot to be desired. For in "Last Testament" the author ( Peter Seewald ) discusses the numerous actions the Church took to deal with the Priests who abused children. That any such abuse happened, even one, was horrific but the institutational inertia dealing with such cases also effected secular bodies such as Governements who similiar blocked/impeded the victims legal path to justice (in one case the victim having had to go to the ECHR). This later is often overlooked as no political capitial can been gained by reporting on such and hence the quiesnce on reporting of current day scandals that have had nothing to do with the Church.

z80CPU

Letter from Archbishop Farrelly of Dublin diocese on this topic read out at end of Mass in my parish church Sunday 24th September. The lady who read it out on the lectern read it out very tersely indeed.The Irish Times newspaper was given honourable mention in relation to an investigating journalist. (The Irish Times journalist has been enlightening on the situation.

My own situation:

I'm 51, single.

I've no next of kin and living in the lurch to some extent.

I'm not at all happy to have this read out to me!

I'm disgusted with the letter. PM me if you like.