Child Rape, Secrecy and the Catholic Church

Thucydides

Johann Harri, a highly respected journalist at The Indepdendent, has just written an article, which very succiently and in all its full horror explains the global and deliberate coverup of the church on the rape and sexual abuse of children over decades.

Have a read

The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil

What can make tens of millions of people – who are in their daily lives peaceful and compassionate and caring – suddenly want to physically dismember a man for drawing a cartoon, or make excuses for an international criminal conspiracy to protect child-rapists? Not reason. Not evidence. No. But it can happen when people choose their polar opposite – religion. In the past week we have seen two examples of how people can begin to behave in bizarre ways when they decide it is a good thing to abandon any commitment to fact and instead act on faith. It has led some to regard people accused of the attempted murders of the Mohamed cartoonists as victims, and to demand "respect" for the Pope, when he should be in a police station being quizzed about his role in covering up and thereby enabling the rape of children.


In 2005, 12 men in a small secular European democracy decided to draw a quasi-mythical figure who has been dead for 1400 years. They were trying to make a point. They knew that in many Muslim cultures, it is considered offensive to draw Mohamed. But they have a culture too – a European culture that believes it is important to be allowed to mock and tease and ridicule religion. It is because Europeans have been doing this for centuries now that we can no longer be tyrannised into feeling bad about perfectly natural impulses, like masturbation, or pre-marital sex, or homosexuality. When priests offer those old arguments, we now laugh in their faces – a great liberating moment. It will be a shining day for Muslims when they can do the same.


Some of the cartoons were witty. Some were stupid. One seemed to suggest Muslims are inherently violent – an obnoxious and false idea. If you disagree with the drawings, you should write a letter, or draw a better cartoon, this time mocking the cartoonists. But some people did not react this way. Instead, Islamist plots to hunt the artists down and slaughter them began. Earlier this year, a man with an axe smashed into one of their houses, and very nearly killed the cartoonist in front of his small grand-daughter.


This week, another plot to murder them seems to have been exposed, this time allegedly spanning Ireland and the United States, and many people who consider themselves humanitarians or liberals have rushed forward to offer condemnation – of the cartoonists. One otherwise liberal newspaper ran an article saying that since the cartoonists had engaged in an "aggressive act" and shown "prejudice... against religion per se", so it stated menacingly that no doubt "someone else is out there waiting for an opportunity to strike again".


Let's state some principles that – if religion wasn't involved – would be so obvious it would seem ludicrous to have to say them out loud. Drawing a cartoon is not an act of aggression. Trying to kill somebody with an axe is. There is no moral equivalence between peacefully expressing your disagreement with an idea – any idea – and trying to kill somebody for it. Yet we have to say this because we have allowed religious people to claim their ideas belong to a different, exalted category, and it is abusive or violent merely to verbally question them. Nobody says I should "respect" conservatism or communism and keep my opposition to them to myself – but that's exactly what is routinely said about Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. What's the difference?


This enforced "respect" is a creeping vine. It soon extends beyond religious ideas to religious institutions – even when they commit the worst crimes imaginable. It is now an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church systematically covered up the rape of children across the globe, and knowingly, consciously put paedophiles in charge of more kids. Joseph Ratzinger – who claims to be "infallible" – was at the heart of this policy for decades.


Here's what we are sure of. By 1962, it was becoming clear to the Vatican that a significant number of its priests were raping children. Rather than root it out, they issued a secret order called "Crimen Sollicitationis"' ordering bishops to swear the victims to secrecy and move the offending priest on to another parish. This of course meant they raped more children there, and on and on, in parish after parish. Yes, these were different times, but the Vatican knew then that what it was doing was terribly wrong: that's why it was done in the utmost secrecy.


It has emerged this week that when Ratzinger was Archbishop of Munich in the 1980s, one of his paedophile priests was "reassigned" in this way. He claims he didn't know. Yet a few years later he was put in charge of the Vatican's response to this kind of abuse and demanded every case had to be referred directly to him for 20 years. What happened on his watch, with every case going to his desk? Precisely this pattern, again and again. The BBC's Panorama studied one of many such cases. Father Tarcisio Spricigo was first accused of child abuse in 1991, in Brazil. He was moved by the Vatican four times, wrecking the lives of children at every stop. He was only caught in 2005 by the police, before he could be moved on once more. He had written in his diary about the kind of victims he sought: "Age: 7, 8, 9, 10. Social condition: Poor. Family condition: preferably a son without a father. How to attract them: guitar lessons, choir, altar boy." It happened all over the world, wherever the Catholic Church had outposts.


Far from changing this paedophile-protecting model, Ratzinger reinforced it. In 2001 he issued a strict secret order demanding that charges of child-rape should be investigated by the Church "in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret." Since it was leaked, Ratzinger claims – bizarrely – that these requirements didn't prevent bishops from approaching the police. Even many people employed by the Vatican at the time say this is wrong. Father Tom Doyle, who was a Vatican lawyer working on these cases, says it "is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes... Nowhere in any of these documents does it say anything about helping the victims. The only thing it does say is they can impose fear on the victims, and punish [them], for disclosing what happened." Doyle was soon fired.


Imagine if this happened at The Independent. Imagine I discovered there was a paedophile ring running our crèche, and the Editor issued a stern order that it should be investigated internally with "the strictest secrecy". Imagine he merely shuffled the paedophiles to work in another crèche at another newspaper, and I agreed, and made the kids sign a pledge of secrecy. We would both – rightly – go to prison. Yet because the word "religion" is whispered, the rules change. Suddenly, otherwise good people who wouldn't dream of covering up a paedophile ring in their workplace think it would be an insult to them to follow one wherever it leads in their Church. They would find this behaviour unthinkable without the irrational barrier of faith standing between them and reality.


Yes, I understand some people feel sad when they see a figure they were taught as a child to revere – whether Prophet or Pope – being subjected to rational examination, or mockery, or criminal investigation. But everyone has ideas they hold precious. Only you, the religious, demand to be protected from debate or scrutiny that might discomfort you. The fact you believe an invisible supernatural being approves of – or even commands – your behaviour doesn't mean it deserves more respect, or sensitive handling. It means it deserves less. If you base your behaviour on such a preposterous fantasy, you should expect to be checked by criticism and mockery. You need it.


If you can't bear to hear your religious figures criticised – if you think Ratzinger is somehow above the law, or Mohamed should be defended with an axe – a sane society should have only one sentence for you. Tell it to the judge

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

TLDR, wanna summerise it for us lazy folk?

For Forks Sake

too many words

*falls over*

Hank_Jones

That a lot of reading for After Hours.

Plus, it's about the church...

Biggins

Can you pass on a link? Cheers.

Thucydides

http://johannhari.com/2010/03/19/the-pope-the-prophet-and-the-religious-support-for-evil

For those of you a little reluctant to read all of it, go straight to paragrah 7 onward..

Biggins

Good find - lead to another:

The letter is clearly an effort to restore the credibility of a church rocked by the publication of three state investigations into clerical crimes and church over ups in Ireland. The Pope has seen all three of these reports.

And yet, disgracefully, he used his letter and this issue to attack one of his favourite targets, secularisation. We are asked to believe that the secularisation of Irish society led to abuse and cover up. In fact, it is the secularisation of society that finally led to the exposure of the crimes of the church.

The most horrific abuse was perpetrated, not in a secularised Ireland, but at a time when Irish society was dominated, socially and politically, by the Catholic Church. That the Pope appears to have wilfully ignored this established fact is a blatant and disgraceful deceit.

Some have reported that the Pope issued a heartfelt apology to victims of abuse. In fact, the word 'sorry' appeared just once in a letter running to almost 4,700 words.

The Pope said he was "truly sorry" that victims had suffered. But an expression of sorrow is not the same as an acceptance of responsibility. The letter does go some way to express remorse. But why is it impossible for this Vicar of Christ on earth to name truth in simple, unambiguous terms? Is that really too much to ask?

The Pope's letter has been described as "unprecedented" and an important step forward by the Vatican in dealing with clerical child sexual abuse. It is neither. Just consider an earlier Papal decree addressing the issue of catholic clergy abusing children.

In his papal order Horrendum, Pope Pius V said that priests who abused children were to be stripped of the priesthood, deprived of all income and privileges and handed over to the civil authorities.

Pretty strong stuff, especially when one considers that it was issued in 1568. And far stronger than anything the current Pope was able to muster in his letter. Strip away some worthy and welcome sentiments, consider the issues ignored and all that remains is a constant concern for the preservation of the institutional church – and little real concern for the safety of children.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/colm-ogorman-papal-letter-was-a-disgraceful-deceit-1925049.html

citizen_p

sounds like the title for a full book, like the da vinci code...except this would be based on facts

DubMedic

Bit slow on the uptake of actually admitting what went on ey?.

.

underclass

Another journo whine from a man who works for a banner with a notorious church-hating track-record. He's certainly not tasked with cleaning up the mess after a bunch of perverts. He's quite willing to knock the Church and turn a blind eye to the filth tolerated in secular society.

DrumSteve

underclass wrote: »

Another journo whine from a man who works for a banner with a notorious church-hating track-record. He's certainly not tasked with cleaning up the mess after a bunch of perverts. He's quite willing to knock the Church and turn a blind eye to the filth tolerated in secular society.

what banner does secular society hide behind when abuse is perpertrated?

Cheap Thrills!

<fetches pitchfork>

DrumSteve

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

<fetches pitchfork>

*hands torch* your gonna need this too. you cant be amateur about this.

Biggins

DrumSteve wrote: »

*hands torch* your gonna need this too. you cant be amateur about this.

Very good! :pac:

starbelgrade

Why didn't Ratzinger just do a Father Jack...

It doesn't take 3,000 words to basically say f*ck all without any sincerity.

Carry

Thucydides wrote: »

Johann Harri, a highly respected journalist at The Indepdendent, has just written an article, which very succiently and in all its full horror explains the global and deliberate coverup of the church on the rape and sexual abuse of children over decades.

Have a read

The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil

Not exactly being a fan of the Independent but this article ist one of the most accomplished on this subject I've read so far in an Irish publication.

Here's another one: http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/
And no, I won't give a summary for the lazy ones ...

Carry

underclass wrote: »

Another journo whine from a man who works for a banner with a notorious church-hating track-record. He's certainly not tasked with cleaning up the mess after a bunch of perverts. He's quite willing to knock the Church and turn a blind eye to the filth tolerated in secular society.

Underclass, in several threads across boards.ie you are fighting your corner. I appreciate it - as a principle. Sticking to your belief is fine and defending them courageous. But that involves to listen to what other people have to say and to question your own belief if necessary. Simply: making up your own mind and not repeating the way "as it always was" (the downfall of every absolute rule), open your mind and THINK.

Never ever did you mention the victims of an organised religion who still suffer, committed suicide or generally failed to live a fulfilled life because of the actions of certain priests and especially the actions or rather non-actions of their superiors - which are the men who claim to represent a religion which is/was supposed to give spiritual comfort and reassurance to the people.

What are you afraid of? Of thinking for yourself? Being lost without guidance from mortal men with a lust for power?
Don't be.
You'll find it very liberating when you start to feel real compassion for those who were subjected to fear, threats, pressure and downright blackmail. You'll be exhilarated in a very spiritual way when you discover that to be a good person is entirely up to you and not up to an organisation. I promise.

Min

I read that article last Friday, things a bit slow in AH?

Min

DrumSteve wrote: »

what banner does secular society hide behind when abuse is perpertrated?

20 children dead in the past decade under state care, lets stay quiet about it and try and get a cardinal sacked for something he did as a priest 35 years ago.

Biggins

underclass wrote: »

Another journo whine from a man who works for a banner with a notorious church-hating track-record. He's certainly not tasked with cleaning up the mess after a bunch of perverts. He's quite willing to knock the Church and turn a blind eye to the filth tolerated in secular society.

Same thing as I stated in the politics section:

Honestly, I'm beginning to genuinely scratch my head over some of the "out there" stuff your coming out with.
I believe you have a strong faith and thats to be respected, but some of the stuff your coming out with is out there with the faeries.

That article is just one of many, many many saying the same thing in different words and you know they are not all "militant atheists" as another has claimed or just out to "knock" the church for the sake of it.
There is genuine disgust at this yet another wasted opportunity for things to start being set right.
Instead what the Irish public got is more PR spin, convenient and deliberate side-tracking and other methods of just covering their asses - as long as it don't involve actual money or doing something besides telling us all to pray or repent!

You might to decide to knock that one article because you disagree with it - and that is your right - but again, there are many, many to replace it - all saying nearly the same thing!
Sooner or later, if your actually bothered to see/read them - the message that is clear to all but a blind man, so far that they are ALL stating, is staring you/Rome in the face - and cannot nor should not be ignored.
It is a message/protest that the pope and his steadfast "living in the past ways" clan has wantonly missed. A demand for change. PROPER change and what the public is saying is that and more - but it seems they/you don't want to hear it - yet again!!!

The people have had enough of the same crap over again and again.
Brady must go. (No. we haven't forgotten about him with this latest stunt to also side-track the public)
The lies must end, the convenient omissions must end and telling us to all go back to our knees for its all our fault for what their perverts did - just don't cut it.
The public isn't swallowing that bullschite any more - and nor should they have to!

If Rome wants to know why the Catholic religion is failing, all they have to do in Rome is look in the mirror for their answer.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

You might to decide to knock that one article because you disagree with it - and that is your right - but again, there are many, many to replace it - all saying nearly the same thing!

I never believed Iraq had WMD no matter how many experts said they had.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

I never believed Iraq had WMD no matter how many experts said they had.

This is true and the rest of the world I believe said different and protested so.
They, the public and other countries were proven right!

Be it America or Rome, no matter how much spiel is trotted out, if the rest is saying something different and is consistent with the same message - you know more often than not, the message they are trying to say is actually right!

Only those that don't want to hear the message for their own nefarious ends, will go on playing deaf and trotting out the usual rubbish.

CiaranC

Great article

LifesgoodwithLG

As part of Church Policy, brutalised children were sworn to silence on the pain of excommunication while their rapist were moved from parish to parish to continue ruining lives. Their morally corrupt policy unquestionably facilitated children being abused while trying to keep their 'good name'. It seems a lot more likely that they are a lot more Sorry about being found out.

My heart goes out to the victims and their families along with the good Clergy and Lay people out there.

LifesgoodwithLG

In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office … under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism!
PURE EVIL -