Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
Hi,
I haven't read through all 58 pages of this thread, so I don't know if anyone has given the facts about the Pope's involvement yet, but I have noticed a lot of posts condemning the Pope based on information people have picked up in the largely biased media.
Here are the facts anyway, showing that he has no culpability in any abuse cases, and in fact has done more than any other Pope in history to combat child abuse.
http://www.xt3.com/smallprint/media.php
God bless:)
Its amazing that when the media print evidence which embarrasses the hierarchy of the RCC they are biased, yet when you or others here who link to religious or RCC opinion blogs they must be considered facts and have no bias whatsoever. I'm not refuting those sources but please if you are accusing the media of bias, it's ironic that you give sources that are not independent.
The media continue to investigate and print stories regarding the cover-up of sexual abuse in the RCC because it is of public interest, and it is still an evolving story. Its the public demand that the media follow, not some conspiracy or agenda. Some here would wish it would just go away but for the church to move on, this cannot be simply be swept under the carpets. (thats how we got here in the first place).
Likewise, some of the heads of other institutions that ruined this country would like media attention to disappear: The Bankers. They likewise could argue that the media are biased and should move on to something else.
As long as there is public interest in these matters, the media will report. It's their duty and to be fair the church would be as forthcoming with child protection issues if it wasn't for the media doing their jobs.0 -
-
philiporeilly wrote: »As long as there is public interest in these matters, the media will report. It's their duty and to be fair the church would be as forthcoming with child protection issues if it wasn't for the media doing their jobs.
It's the media's duty to make money. Newspapers etc are not there to inform people anymore, they are there to form opinions so people don't have to think for themselves. Most media outlets now are to information what McDonald's are to fine dining.0 -
ts amazing that when the media print evidence which embarrasses the hierarchy of the RCC they are biased, yet when you or others here who link to religious or RCC opinion blogs they must be considered facts and have no bias whatsoever. I'm not refuting those sources but please if you are accusing the media of bias, it's ironic that you give sources that are not independent.
The media continue to investigate and print stories regarding the cover-up of sexual abuse in the RCC because it is of public interest, and it is still an evolving story. Its the public demand that the media follow, not some conspiracy or agenda. Some here would wish it would just go away but for the church to move on, this cannot be simply be swept under the carpets. (thats how we got here in the first place).
Likewise, some of the heads of other institutions that ruined this country would like media attention to disappear: The Bankers. They likewise could argue that the media are biased and should move on to something else.
As long as there is public interest in these matters, the media will report. It's their duty and to be fair the church would be as forthcoming with child protection issues if it wasn't for the media doing their jobs.It's the media's duty to make money. Newspapers etc are not there to inform people anymore, they are there to form opinions so people don't have to think for themselves. Most media outlets now are to information what McDonald's are to fine dining.
I think Prinz is right - the media aren't necessarily interested in the truth - they are interested in making money first and foremost, and if they can create a big story they will - that's standard journalism, unfortunate but true.
Also, linking to a Catholic blog is hardly biased. It's in the interests of the Church to reveal the full facts, and I think it's fair to say that the people working on the ground in these respective cases would have much more reliable information than media punters.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I think it's clear now that the media's agenda has become anti-Catholic rather than objective, because that's what sells.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-a-more-honest-media-would-relentlessly-hunt-down-child-abuse-wherever-it-is-found-2140338.html
God bless:)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Please read the rest of my post. I said it is in the interests of the Catholic church to get all the facts on the table, and the people working in these cases first hand would have all the facts.
However it is in the interests of the media to sell and make money, regardless of what the facts are.
So I think if you are looking for a largely unbiased source, go to the people who are working in the case first hand.
God bless:)0 -
Just dropped in on this.
Some small points. And some not so small
(we work with survivors and abusers; so this is not statistical etc. Statistics can be made to support many things.
The disease of child abuse has run through every Church in the world.
See a site called abusetracker, and also google Kevin Annett. The "Canadian Holocaust" saw all the main Churches working to annihilatate First Nation and Inuit children. Kevin, who we know personally, is a strong, brave man. Please pray for him. He lost job, wife, family to try to get these atrocities aired etc.
What the Irish seminarians are being taught that hey, we didn;t do so badly compared with others eg teachers, scouts.
So we point out that for the Church to commit even one atrociity; we need to be above reproach as we are "supposed" to be teaching by our lives....
Much of the abuse within the Catholic Church around the world was committed by Irish clergy, brs and srs. Ireland "exported" both abusers and others to many, many lands. See eg Canada re the Christian buggers.. as they are called in Australia.
And remember also that the Church was the educator here and that abuse tends to be passed on down the generations of abuse.
What "should" be happening is that the orders involved - and there is ample provision for this in Canon Law - should be disbanded.
They are though dying out anyways; as is the priesthood here.God is not mocked. The average age of Irish Sistrs is late seventies and the death rate escalates as the months pass.
In a few years they will be gone. There will be enough priests to be bishops and a few more; the rest will have to come in from abroad as is already happening.
And each and all, Brady included, will face the ultimate judgement. Remember what Jesus says about offences against children.
He should not have obeyed when he did; at some point every young priest makes what is in a large degree the choice between obeying the Church - and remember he is in vows of Holy Obedience to his Bishop - and obeying Jesus.
These two often sadly conflict; in a good religious order no one can be asked to do something in Holy Obedience that is against their conscience.
And many priests do leave by choosing their inner conscience. Fr Ring in Cloyne did that. He quit and is now a social worker in the UK
Many srs also stood up against the abuse; they had no home save the order, no money etc and that is an incredibly hard thing to do.
Many have abandoned mass; OK the teaching is that the sacraments are valid whatever the sins of the priest; but who would choose to receive communion from the hands of a priest who either committed abuse - or who knew about it and covered up?
Not us; we go to mass in only one Church and one priest who we know was not involved.
These are personal choices many Catholics are facing now; and see countmeout and clericalwhispers for how many are making that choice.
There is so much pain here now
Because many of us know that what has emerged so far is not even the full truth. We know what went on in the irish seminaries.And in the orders that so far have not been exposed.
And yes of course there should be prosecutions and of course the criminals should face charges like any other.
And of course Brady and the others should quit. Moriarty has done so and so will others.
All each can do is keep our eyes upon Jesus.
And care for each other in the pain of it all.
Rather than batting arguments re statistics back and forth to no avail and letting this sin cause even more mayhem.
OK: I will grab my cloak as I go out the door.
Blessings and peace...0 -
philiporeilly wrote: »Its amazing that when the media print evidence which embarrasses the hierarchy of the RCC they are biased, yet when you or others here who link to religious or RCC opinion blogs they must be considered facts and have no bias whatsoever.
Nonsense! You are accusing me of double standards!
Ed Koch a JEW who opposes the Catholic Church on abortion and homosexual marriage wrote in the Jerusalem Post that the media were boiased aND ANTI CATHOLIC ABOUT THIS ISSUE!
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sinI'm not refuting those sources but please if you are accusing the media of bias, it's ironic that you give sources that are not independent.
Ed Koch is not just independent he is on record as opposing the Catholic church. But he doesn't indulge in anticlericism.The media continue to investigate and print stories regarding the cover-up of sexual abuse in the RCC because it is of public interest,
Rubbish! By "In the public interest" you actually mean "in what the public are interested". Just because people are interested in the priovater lives of golfres or soccer stars does not mean it is in the public interest.and it is still an evolving story.
ever heard of the Shakeshaft report?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment_in_education
The National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers,a British female educators' union, said that teachers who have sex with pupils over the age of consent should not be placed on the sex offenders register and that prosecution for statutory rape "is a real anomaly in the law that we are concerned about." This has led to outrage from child protection and parental rights group
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
A 2002 New York Times report quoted Shakeshaft, "Only 1 percent of the cases did superintendents follow up to ensure that molesting teachers did not continue teaching elsewhere. In 54 percent, superintendents accepted the teachers' resignations or retirements. Of the 121 teachers removed this way, administrators knew for certain that 16 percent resumed teaching in other districts... Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district. The term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators"[6]
A 2007 Washington Post report noted, "It's a dynamic so common it has its own nicknames: 'passing the trash' or the 'mobile molester.'" In addition, "Maine...has a law that keeps offending teachers' cases secret" and that "in Hawaii, no educators were disciplined by the state in the five years the AP examined, even though some teachers there were serving sentences for various sex crimes during that time. They technically remained teachers, even behind bars."[7] The report also said, "Laws in several states require that even an allegation of sexual misconduct be reported to the state departments that oversee teacher licenses. But there's no consistent enforcement, so such laws are easy to ignore. School officials fear public embarrassment as much as the perpetrators do, Shakeshaft says. They want to avoid the fallout from going up against a popular teacher. They also don't want to get sued by teachers or victims, and they don't want to face a challenge from a strong union."Its the public demand that the media follow,
not necessarily true but in this case as i stated "public interest " is not "what public are interested in" If the public wanted immigrants burned out or lynchings would that make it right for the media to follow them? the Nazis did the same thing against the church and Jews before.not some conspiracy or agenda.
Your evidence is?Some here would wish it would just go away but for the church to move on, this cannot be simply be swept under the carpets. (thats how we got here in the first place).
It should be dealt with! But my point is so should the other 99 percent of child abusers!Likewise, some of the heads of other institutions that ruined this country would like media attention to disappear: The Bankers. They likewise could argue that the media are biased and should move on to something else.
Nope it is quite clear that the Pope or any bishop is not awarding himself or any member of his family an EXTRA €7000 PER WEEK in a pension on top of what he already gets fro preciding over the biggest financial loss in a single year which washed out all the gains of the last 150 years!
But please post the bank stuff in another thread. It is off topic here.As long as there is public interest in these matters, the media will report. It's their duty and to be fair the church would be as forthcoming with child protection issues if it wasn't for the media doing their jobs.
I beg to differ. But I accpt the media have a role to expose things. So why dont they campaign for something on the other 99 per cent of abusers? Maybe to many unions and fellow travellers will be mixed up in that campaign?0 -
-
Just dropped in on this.
Some small points. And some not so small
(we work with survivors and abusers;
Fair enough you claim to have a view from both sides then.so this is not statistical etc. Statistics can be made to support many things.
The disease of child abuse has run through every Church in the world.
I don't know what you mean by "disease". can it be "caught"? and what about outside every church.? AS I pointed out 99 per cent of abusers are not clergy.See a site called abusetracker, and also google Kevin Annett. The "Canadian Holocaust" saw all the main Churches working to annihilatate First Nation and Inuit children. Kevin, who we know personally, is a strong, brave man. Please pray for him. He lost job, wife, family to try to get these atrocities aired etc.
Seems a very brave an righteous man. But again off topic.What the Irish seminarians are being taught that hey, we didn;t do so badly compared with others eg teachers, scouts.
Nope. If something is wrong it should be put right. But focusing on the one percent isn't dealing with the other 99 per cent.So we point out that for the Church to commit even one atrociity; we need to be above reproach as we are "supposed" to be teaching by our lives....
Exactly. We can condone not even one abusing cleric. But we also have to tackle the other 99 non clerics as well.Much of the abuse within the Catholic Church around the world was committed by Irish clergy, brs and srs. Ireland "exported" both abusers and others to many, many lands. See eg Canada re the Christian buggers.. as they are called in Australia.
ALL of the clerical abuse was by clergy! But it constitutes (for Roamn Catholic clergy) less than one percent of abusers! the other 99 per cent were not clergy!And remember also that the Church was the educator here and that abuse tends to be passed on down the generations of abuse.
Not since about the 1980s when corporal punishment was abolished.What "should" be happening is that the orders involved - and there is ample provision for this in Canon Law - should be disbanded.
so if one per cent of clerics abuse then all clerics should be removed. I went to a christian Brothers School. I witnessed or heard about no abuse. If iut happened it happened in certain schools. It didn't spread like a disease through the Order. Mind you i saw plenty of physical abuse but mostly from lay people not brothers.They are though dying out anyways; as is the priesthood here.
That has happened before. the church however is growing in Asia.
and as you stated if something is wrong one should put it right and not try to piecemeal change and slowly wean abusers off of abuse.God is not mocked. The average age of Irish Sistrs is late seventies and the death rate escalates as the months pass.
since about 1800 over 150 orders have disbanded. That's about one a year. Mostly because their work was done. If everyone was educated then the Christian brothers probably would disband. Many many Irish immigrants learned to read and write because of brothers. Many Africans and Asians today do.In a few years they will be gone. There will be enough priests to be bishops and a few more; the rest will have to come in from abroad as is already happening.
Yep maybe. so what? In fact the church is already planning for this.And each and all, Brady included, will face the ultimate judgement. Remember what Jesus says about offences against children.
Fair enough. But I prefer that the police should arrest criminals and charge them.
Brady by the way isn't a criminal or a child abuser.He should not have obeyed when he did; at some point every young priest makes what is in a large degree the choice between obeying the Church - and remember he is in vows of Holy Obedience to his Bishop - and obeying Jesus.
I fail to see what you are suggesting. He should have reported to the RUC? A police force not trusted by Catholics in 1978? And him not a witness to anything ansd living in another Juristiction? And you think that would have resulted in what?
Actually that also goes ion a "Bad order" whatever that is.These two often sadly conflict; in a good religious order no one can be asked to do something in Holy Obedience that is against their conscience.And many priests do leave by choosing their inner conscience. Fr Ring in Cloyne did that. He quit and is now a social worker in the UK
He hasn't quit pastoral work then! He just isn't doing it in a parish and hasn't any clerical responsibilities.Many srs also stood up against the abuse; they had no home save the order, no money etc and that is an incredibly hard thing to do.
I agree. But what about the non clerical people? The ones who knew about the other 99 percent of abusers?Many have abandoned mass; OK the teaching is that the sacraments are valid whatever the sins of the priest; but who would choose to receive communion from the hands of a priest who either committed abuse - or who knew about it and covered up?
so why not go to the other 99 per cent of priests? Or the other 500 per cent of people who distribute the Eucharist?Not us; we go to mass in only one Church and one priest who we know was not involved.
As if all the others were! You know only one in a hundred at most was involved.
And are you saying you wouldn't have taken communion from St Paul who persecuted Christians before he converted?These are personal choices many Catholics are facing now; and see countmeout and clericalwhispers for how many are making that choice.
Personal choices influenced by biased media. Just as the Nazi media persecuted Priests and created widespread propaganda about clerical child abuse when the Pope went anti Nazi.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ah you are a priest or a relative of one?
Defending the indefensible with false figures. One per cent is a lie.
Typical RC clergy ploy that reveals the depth of the corruption and total lack of any accountability etc.
Now I see what you are it is no use talking with you. All you say is based on lies to defend the indefensible.
No point wasting energy on thee.Fair enough you claim to have a view from both sides then.
I don't know what you mean by "disease". can it be "caught"? and what about outside every church.? AS I pointed out 99 per cent of abusers are not clergy.
Seems a very brave an righteous man. But again off topic.
Nope. If something is wrong it should be put right. But focusing on the one percent isn't dealing with the other 99 per cent.
Exactly. We can condone not even one abusing cleric. But we also have to tackle the other 99 non clerics as well.
ALL of the clerical abuse was by clergy! But it constitutes (for Roamn Catholic clergy) less than one percent of abusers! the other 99 per cent were not clergy!
Not since about the 1980s when corporal punishment was abolished.
so if one per cent of clerics abuse then all clerics should be removed. I went to a christian Brothers School. I witnessed or heard about no abuse. If iut happened it happened in certain schools. It didn't spread like a disease through the Order. Mind you i saw plenty of physical abuse but mostly from lay people not brothers.
That has happened before. the church however is growing in Asia.
and as you stated if something is wrong one should put it right and not try to piecemeal change and slowly wean abusers off of abuse.
since about 1800 over 150 orders have disbanded. That's about one a year. Mostly because their work was done. If everyone was educated then the Christian brothers probably would disband. Many many Irish immigrants learned to read and write because of brothers. Many Africans and Asians today do.
Yep maybe. so what? In fact the church is already planning for this.
Fair enough. But I prefer that the police should arrest criminals and charge them.
Brady by the way isn't a criminal or a child abuser.
I fail to see what you are suggesting. He should have reported to the RUC? A police force not trusted by Catholics in 1978? And him not a witness to anything ansd living in another Juristiction? And you think that would have resulted in what?
Actually that also goes ion a "Bad order" whatever that is.
He hasn't quit pastoral work then! He just isn't doing it in a parish and hasn't any clerical responsibilities.
I agree. But what about the non clerical people? The ones who knew about the other 99 percent of abusers?
so why not go to the other 99 per cent of priests? Or the other 500 per cent of people who distribute the Eucharist?
As if all the others were! You know only one in a hundred at most was involved.
And are you saying you wouldn't have taken communion from St Paul who persecuted Christians before he converted?
Personal choices influenced by biased media. Just as the Nazi media persecuted Priests and created widespread propaganda about clerical child abuse when the Pope went anti Nazi.0 -
Okay lets see what the mainstream Christians think up here in the land what John Paul II called for "the pagan land" back in 1989.
Fresh opinon poll
Over one third in favour for same kind of weddings for gays in church as men and women have
Over 60 % for belssing their gay-realtionship in Church with someother way than the present marriage wov
Over half of the Christians think those inside the church who are against women working as priests should leave the church
What do the police think
Women priests who have been discrimnated in their work as priests can make a complaint based on work laws and there are cases that has gone to court and sentences given out for those who do not follow the secular law
So what does this to do with child abuse. Well children are not the only ones our churches keep abusing. They keep abusing us spiritually too. Even if women as preists is now okay up here after 2000 years finally and next month the church is dicussing their stand on gay-marriages I can see that Churches do not reprecent tha mainstream. It may have worked in 1500 century to send bulletins out that "this is the truth" but nowadays people expect a dialog and don't buy any goddamn crap as word of God.0 -
Ah you are a priest or a relative of one?
LOL what is this now "guilt by association"? Where did I claim to be a priest? and almost everyone i Ireland could claim to be a relative of a Priest. In fact one of the points I made was that families and neighbors didn't mention the other 99 per cent of non clerical abusers.Defending the indefensible with false figures. One per cent is a lie.
so you are calling me a liar now? Typical. Do you always attack the poster when you can't deal with the actual argument posted. I posted a good deal of peer reviewed research. And you claim all of them are wrong?Typical RC clergy ploy that reveals the depth of the corruption and total lack of any accountability etc.
Where do you get off accusing me of being clergy? LOL as if that was something to be accused of? Next i suppose if someone is black and is complaining about racism you will accuse them of being biased because they are black?
The figure is actually LESS THAN one percent for Roman Catholics. I just use "about one per cent" as a rough figure. It is published in research!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65019361&postcount=10
the worst known case is probably brendan smith who was found guilty on 30 counts. The broadest department of education (in 2009 http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) report found 370 allegations in 250 institutions over about 50 years. They found that these institutions covered up clerical abuse in the sense that they reported lay abuse but dealt with clerics internally. It also found more institutionalised sexual abuse against boys and that this didn't happen to girls.
I posted quite a few published reports. Her is one I ddnt and relates only to the US.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbstudy/nrbreport.htm#johnjay
based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002. The number 4,392 represents four percent of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time.
But the FOUR percent were only alleged! If you look into the report the allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests - less than TWO per cent.
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse (iv) According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]
iV Alan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.
[v]Laurie Goodstein, “Decades of Damage; Trail of Pain in Church Crisis Leads to Nearly Every Diocese,” New York Times, January 12, 2003, Section 1, p. 1.
[vi] Interviewed by Bill O’Reilly, Transcript of “The O’Reilly Factor,” May 3, 2002.
[vii] Bob von Sternberg, “Insurance Falls Short in Church Abuse Cases; Catholic Dioceses are Forced to Find other Sources to Pay Settlements,” Star Tribune, July 27, 2002, p. 1A.Now I see what you are it is no use talking with you. All you say is based on lies to defend the indefensible.
Now we can all see that when you can't deal with the issue you call the poster a liar and attack to poster personally.No point wasting energy on thee.
that might work in the pub but it isn't much use here! Here you have to defend a claim with actual facts and not unsupported opinion and personal attack!0 -
Okay lets see what the mainstream Christians think up here in the land what John Paul II called for "the pagan land" back in 1989.
Fresh opinon poll
How does the above relate to child abuse? it seems to be just another attack on the catholic church by claiming public opinion show be deciding whether or not there shoudl be gay marriage!Over one third in favour for same kind of weddings for gays in church as men and women have
I seriously doubt that statistic but in any case under law gays can do as they wish and the church wont interfere. marriage is a churchsacrament so they cant call it marriage or get married in a church.
What do the police think
It isnt the police position to interpret the law. The courts do that job!Women priests who have been discrimnated in their work as priests can make a complaint based on work laws and there are cases that has gone to court and sentences given out for those who do not follow the secular law
WRONG! Actually under Irish law religious institutions have a special opt out based on their ethos. for example Churches can discriminate against women and Trinity College against Roman Catholics.So what does this to do with child abuse. Well children are not the only ones our churches keep abusing.
LOL it is okay to broaden the issue of "child sexual abuse" to include "other non sexualk abuse not of children2 but it isnt okay to broaden it to discuss the 99 percent non clerical abuse?They keep abusing us spiritually too. Even if women as preists is now okay up here after 2000 years finally and next month the church is dicussing their stand on gay-marriages I can see that Churches do not represent tha mainstream.
no you can't! Because mainstream Christians - BILLIONS of them -accept the church position and you clearly are not one of these!It may have worked in 1500 century to send bulletins out that "this is the truth" but nowadays people expect a dialog and don't buy any goddamn crap as word of God.
Dogma isnt issued by Papal Bull! The Church discusses the idea for some time. Many people are involved and very few actual edicts are on dogma.0 -
Merged threads about... clerical child abuse and everything that flows from that. This thread is an amalgamation of several threads discussing clerical child sex abuse. I don’t recall any non clerical child sex abuse threads that was merged in.Smug .
Note the word "merged"
Merged from a load of other discussions such as whether clergy should resign, is the coverage of them fair are the medias biased about child abuse etc.
So even if the 1% figure is true, it is not really relevant to engage in whataboutery regarding the other 99% in a thread that is discussing, specifically, the 1%.
MrP0 -
1% of the abuse but 99% of the headlines. Yeah, sounds fair. :rolleyes:0
-
philiporeilly wrote: »Its amazing that when the media print evidence which embarrasses the hierarchy of the RCC they are biased, yet when you or others here who link to religious or RCC opinion blogs they must be considered facts and have no bias whatsoever. I'm not refuting those sources but please if you are accusing the media of bias, it's ironic that you give sources that are not independent.
So True.
Bottom line if the print media is found out to be telling lies I sure they would be brought up for labial.
Why is there such a defiant defence by the same few on here for child rapist.
0 -
And? Assuming the figure is correct, the headlines are not just about the abuse. The main problem people have is the cover up.vodafoneproblem wrote: »1% of the abuse but 99% of the headlines. Yeah, sounds fair. :rolleyes:
The abuse is one thing, but the institutionalised cover up is quite another. Had the rcc not covered up the abuse and instead reported it to the authorities and not moved priests around allowing them to abuse more children the figure would probably be less than 1% and it would not be news anymore.
The fact is they felt the reputation of their church was more important than stopping the abuse. So yes, even if the figure is only 1% they do deserve the headlines. If it was not for the headlines and the fact they got caught they would probably still be keeping things quiet and moving priests around.
Let me try an analogy for all the defenders of the rcc, I posted this quite a while ago, btu here it is again.
McDonalds do kids parties. Imagine with the organisation there were a small number of staff that abused some of the children that went to these parties. Now imagine that the manager of one these outlet found out one of his team was sexually abusing children. So, he contacts his area manager and asks for advice. The area manager tells the outlet manager he will handle it. He handles it by moving the child abusing member of staff to another outlet and keep the whole thing quiet.
Imagine the same thing is happening at other outlets. Now imagine that this behaviour was eventually discovered. What do you think should happen to the people involved? Imagine this had been going on for years. Then imagine as time progressed more and more out lets were found to have behaved in the same way. How would you expect the media coverage to progress? Would you expect a little bit at the start and then have it fizzle away or would you expect each and every revelation to be publicised?
The church has done a despicable thing and it should be dragged kicking and screaming into the light. They do not have any special privilege, and I see no reason why they should. Their staff raped children and the managers cover it up.
MrP0 -
Merged threads about... clerical child abuse and everything that flows from that. This thread is an amalgamation of several threads discussing clerical child sex abuse. I don’t recall any non clerical child sex abuse threads that was merged in.
So because you don't recall something of which you are ignorant you conclude that it isn't true!
that is called "specious reasoning"So even if the 1% figure is true,
It is! You have been given the references.it is not really relevant to engage in whataboutery regarding the other 99% in a thread that is discussing, specifically, the 1%.
WRONG! If child abuse is a bad thing for society we can't ignore the vast majority of it and concentrate only on one per cent of it.
The point was already made about anticlericism.0 -
dunleakelleher wrote: »So True.
Bottom line if the print media is found out to be telling lies I sure they would be brought up for labial.
I think you meant libel! but the point isnt that the one per cent of abusers are not abusers. They are! the point is about the focus on this one per cent as part of anti-Catholicism. If two per cent of abusers were Jews or black for example and almost all the coverage was about jewish abusers or black abusers one might well conclude that there is an anti jew or racist bias behind it... no?Why is there such a defiant defence by the same few on here for child rapist.
LOL! Where ANYWHERE did i defend child rape?
You are trying the old "guilt by association" trick here! I have posted you the FACTS from published and peer reviewed sources which are not necessarily church sources.
AS it happens most abuse is of older pubescent teenage kids and not children
This goes for most abusers as far as i know and not just for the one percent who are clerics.
Your "child rape" is a typical Tabloid headline type attack.0 -
Advertisement
-
And? Assuming the figure is correct, the headlines are not just about the abuse. The main problem people have is the cover up.
Which is a separate issue!
You can't have it both ways. You cant claim it is about abuse and then claim it is about something else.
So lets discuss the separate issue of "cover up " as well then.
AS I mentioned if the one per cent of clerical abuse was covered up I do not justiofy it. b8t ther is also the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse and well it would seem that even if ten times as many non clerics were convicted that still leaves 90 times as many non clerical "coverups"The abuse is one thing, but the institutionalised cover up is quite another.
Exactly! it is a DIFFERENT issue. Im happy to discuss it but you have to then admit it is part of the broader issue of the societal problem child and teenage sexual abuse by adults.Had the rcc not covered up the abuse and instead reported it to the authorities and not moved priests around allowing them to abuse more children the figure would probably be less than 1% and it would not be news anymore.
Well this was dioscussed in the original thread and is not necessarily true. The reasons i gavew were it was not only the church but the whole of society who shgare the b;lame. Yes I admit the Church does have a role but you can't pin it all on the church. Also the Brady case he was a priest at the time who took a statement. He was in a different Criminal juristiction. If he crossed the border and reported it to the RUC it would have been hearsay. Also Catholics in the 1970s didn't trust the RUC. ther are a whole load of factors and it isnt as simple as "moving priests around" although this apparently did happen whether in the US Canada or Ireland. Orders also protected their own clewrgy to some extent and that can't be justified either. But that it is STILL for only one per cent of the abusers! Because the orders protected clerics maybe two three or for times as many non clerics were prosecuted but the point is there were 99 TIMES as many non clerical abusers!The fact is they felt the reputation of their church was more important than stopping the abuse.
some did in some cases. There are probably somewhere between a dozen and fifty such cases. But the TOTAL number of abusers are in the hundreds or thousands!So yes, even if the figure is only 1% they do deserve the headlines.
i didnt say they should not be brought to justice . I pointed out that the other 99 per cent also have to be dealt with if you are interested in solving the problem. You cant just deal with 50 or so clerics and whoever was in charge of them in the Church and then think you have solved the problem.If it was not for the headlines and the fact they got caught they would probably still be keeping things quiet and moving priests around.
that is called "specious reasoning".
Ill post on the rest of your message later.0 -
You are trying the old "guilt by association" trick here! .
Its not a trick. When it comes to child rape then one is guilty very guilty if associated with the crime. That association may be as little as knowing but staying silent to covering up, or as serious as facilitating these rapists by moving them around parishes to find new children to rape.0 -
Not really. A thread about sexual abuse in general, not related to the religious would not have a natural home in this forum and would be unlikely to remain unlocked.So because you don't recall something of which you are ignorant you conclude that it isn't true!
that is called "specious reasoning"
No. RIGHT. Non clerical sex abuse is not relevant to a discussion about clerical sex abuse. Non clerical sex abuse is relevant to society at large and should absolutely not be ignored, but this is not society at large, it is a thread discussing clerical sex abuse.WRONG! If child abuse is a bad thing for society we can't ignore the vast majority of it and concentrate only on one per cent of it.
The point was already made about anticlericism.
I am sorry but the two are intimately connected. Aside from the new reports of abuse most of the healines seemt o be about the cover up of… wait for it… clerical sex abuse. When discussing clerical sex abuse the cover up of the same is relevant.Which is a separate issue!
You can't have it both ways. You cant claim it is about abuse and then claim it is about something else.
Hmmm, you appear to be engaging in specious reasoning. Assuming your figures are correct, just because each and every instance of abuse that makes up the 99% was not prosecuted does not mean that there was a cover up. Each and every incident may not have resulted in a conviction but it is specious reasoning to conclude that this si die to a coverup.AS I mentioned if the one per cent of clerical abuse was covered up I do not justiofy it. b8t ther is also the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse and well it would seem that even if ten times as many non clerics were convicted that still leaves 90 times as many non clerical "coverups"
Excellent. Why don’t you start a thread about non clerical child sex abuse in an appropriate forum. Perhaps I will pop along. Humanities perhaps? In the meantime, I will continue to discuss clerical child sex abuse, and the issues that flow from it, in the clerical child sex thread.Exactly! it is a DIFFERENT issue. Im happy to discuss it but you have to then admit it is part of the broader issue of the societal problem child and teenage sexual abuse by adults.
Hmmm, yes society was to blame. And don’t forget the devil for tempting the priests with succulent kiddies. The church spent hundreds of years manoeuvring itself into a position where the thought of contradicting or challenging them was something that would simply not cross a persons mind.Well this was dioscussed in the original thread and is not necessarily true. The reasons i gavew were it was not only the church but the whole of society who shgare the b;lame.
Most of it. We can blame the church, or at the very least some of its employees for 100% of the clerical child rapes. We can also blame the church for covering up the abuse and moving priests around. Obviously some blame can be attached to others for aiding and abetting the church, but the vast majority of the blame must lie with those that carried out the offenses and those that directly covered up or attempted to cover up the crimes.Yes I admit the Church does have a role but you can't pin it all on the church.
I am not a priest, I am not a bishop. I don’t believe in your god, in fact I don’t believe in anyone’s god, but I can tell you one thing. If it ever come to my attention that a person is raping a child I will report it to someone, and I will make sure that something is done about it. I would not care about my personal feelings for the authority involved. I would find a way. Stop making excuses for him. If he had been inclined to report the abuse and have something done about it he would have found a way.Also the Brady case he was a priest at the time who took a statement. He was in a different Criminal juristiction. If he crossed the border and reported it to the RUC it would have been hearsay. Also Catholics in the 1970s didn't trust the RUC. .
Sorry, but not really relevant. Whatabouterry is not really a defense. Even if the 99% was covered up by some other organisation, and it is not clear it was, that does not make covering up a mere 1% ok. Particularly when the people covering up the 1% hold themselves forward as moral guardians.ther are a whole load of factors and it isnt as simple as "moving priests around" although this apparently did happen whether in the US Canada or Ireland. Orders also protected their own clewrgy to some extent and that can't be justified either. But that it is STILL for only one per cent of the abusers! Because the orders protected clerics maybe two three or for times as many non clerics were prosecuted but the point is there were 99 TIMES as many non clerical abusers!
Even if it was only one it was too many. To put the reputation of an organisation above the welfare of children, as was done here, is despicable and indefensible. One time, fifty times or a thousand times. Still despicable.some did in some cases. There are probably somewhere between a dozen and fifty such cases. But the TOTAL number of abusers are in the hundreds or thousands!
Enough about the other 99% already. We are discussing the 1%. The rest needs to be addressed to, but that does not mean your precious church can use it as a defence. Whataboutery is not a legal defence.i didnt say they should not be brought to justice . I pointed out that the other 99 per cent also have to be dealt with if you are interested in solving the problem.
I don’t think anyone is arguing this is the case. As I have pointed out, in a thread discussing clerical sex abuse dealing with non clerical sex abuse would be off topic.You cant just deal with 50 or so clerics and whoever was in charge of them in the Church and then think you have solved the problem.
Perhaps, but the fact remains, when you look at how they have behaved when they were caught what reason do you have to believe they would have acted in the interests of anyone but themselves had they not been caught.that is called "specious reasoning".
I quite literally can wait.Ill post on the rest of your message later.
MrP0 -
And? <snip>
And the point is that the liberal media are disproportionately covering it as compared to other cases and other news. I'm not saying the Church shouldn't have handled those cases better, or that it's not newsworthy, but it's being used as an excuse by those with vested interests to bash the Church.0 -
ISAW; I cannot possibly read all your posts.
Sorry if you are offended by my thinking you are a priest; they say all these things you see. So it was a likely assumption to make.
Which is pretty revealing is it not?
Others have responded to all that you say.
Vodpahone; where any child abuse is involved, the church maybe needs "bashing"
Considering we all abhhor abortion and rightly so. No life is more sacred than that of a child.
We are to be the "gold standard".. so any such crime is heinous indeed.
The truly awful thing is that what has so far been publicised is not by any means all.0 -
dunleakelleher wrote: »Its not a trick. When it comes to child rape then one is guilty very guilty if associated with the crime.
so you are saying if a cleric in Ireland abused a child then any cleric anywhere in the world is guilty of rape because they are associated with the church? Nonsense.That association may be as little as knowing but staying silent to covering up, or as serious as facilitating these rapists by moving them around parishes to find new children to rape.
not under the criminal law. But let us rather look to the moral law and say if it is right or wrong shall we?
Of course such a thing is wrong. But if others didn't report the other 99 per cent of "rapists" who were not clerics then why are you so keen to go into some of the percentage of the already small at one per cent of clerics. I mean some clerics were reported. Yes some were moved but non clerics outside the responsibility of the church were reported to an even lesser rate.0 -
I think it is called "misprision of a felony" Much the same as collusion.
Anyways, Cardinal Brady is scheduled to appear in the US High Court on this score in July.
Associated with an actual crime. Which he was.
OTE=ISAW;65589504]so you are saying if a cleric in Ireland abused a child then any cleric anywhere in the world is guilty of rape because they are associated with the church? Nonsense.
not under the criminal law. But let us rather look to the moral law and say if it is right or wrong shall we?
Of course such a thing is wrong. But if others didn't report the other 99 per cent of "rapists" who were not clerics then why are you so keen to go into some of the percentage of the already small at one per cent of clerics. I mean some clerics were reported. Yes some were moved but non clerics outside the responsibility of the church were reported to an even lesser rate.[/QUOTE]0 -
More whataboutery. For shame.Of course such a thing is wrong. But if others didn't report the other 99 per cent of "rapists" who were not clerics then why are you so keen to go into some of the percentage of the already small at one per cent of clerics. I mean some clerics were reported. Yes some were moved but non clerics outside the responsibility of the church were reported to an even lesser rate.
MrP0 -
ISAW; I cannot possibly read all your posts.
Actually you can. I have posted over 2000 and you CAN read them all since they are archived.
On this particular discussion I have posted maybe 50 at most.
But okay then you are admitting you didnt read then and you therefore argue from ignorance. If you make a sweeping statement please take the care before doing it to actually read what people wrote.Sorry if you are offended by my thinking you are a priest;
I didn't say i was offended. I stated that I didn't admit anywhere to being one. My being a priest or not makes no difference. Nor would my being black make any difference to arguments about racism. Deal with the issue and not the poster.they say all these things you see. So it was a likely assumption to make.
But you seem to miss the whole point! i am not making my personal opinions an issue!
i am stating the Churches position as I view it. similarly i have posted about the Pope's position on condom use with respect to the spread of HIV. does that mean I am the Pope just because "he says those things"?Which is pretty revealing is it not?
No it is not? i am the Pope now am I?The truly awful thing is that what has so far been publicised is not by any means all.
Indeed even if all the clerical abuse whas known you would still have the other 99 per cent of non clerical abuse.0 -
Advertisement
-
Merged threads about... clerical child abuse and everything that flows from that.
Yes -INCLUDING anti Clericism and media bias.This thread is an amalgamation of several threads discussing clerical child sex abuse. I don’t recall any non clerical child sex abuse threads that was merged in.
You don't recall therefore you conclude it is true? Now if a banker or a Bishop said i don't recall would you accept that as "it must be true"? So why should I then?So even if the 1% figure is true, it is not really relevant to engage in whataboutery regarding the other 99% in a thread that is discussing, specifically, the 1%.
your words : clerical child abuse and everything that flows from that.
the fact that clerical abuse is one per cent of abuse flows from a discussion of clerical abuse since it shows that people like you do not want to discuss child abuse in general and are only interested in discussing one per cent of it.0
Advertisement