Ongoing religious scandals

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point about Satan as accuser is that his accusations, while scandalous, are often justified...

Quite right, which makes this all the more clever, and indeed devious.
My interpretation is that Pope Frank is trying to isolate Vignano; by suggesting he is being manipulated by Satan. But note that Pope Frank has not actually denied anything that Vignano has said.

Satan is working to uncover the sins of bishops so that they will be visible and a cause of scandal, Pope Francis said during his homily at Mass on Tuesday. “This is good to remember, in these times in which it seems that the Great Accuser has been unchained and is attacking bishops. True, we are all sinners, we bishops. He tries to uncover the sins, so they are visible, in order to scandalize the people. The Great Accuser, as he himself says to God in the first chapter of the Book of Job, 'roams the earth looking for someone to accuse'. A bishop’s strength against the Great Accuser is prayer, that of Jesus and his own; and the humility of being chosen and remaining close to the people of God, without seeking an aristocratic life that removes this unction,” the pope said Sept. 11 during his Mass at the chapel of the Vatican's Casa Santa Marta.
“Let us pray, today, for our bishops: for me, for those who are here, and for all the bishops throughout the world.”

source

Bishops are being encouraged to close ranks against the "accuser(s)".
The perpetrators then somehow become the victims, and those who stand against the erstwhile perpetrators must be in league with the devil.

4068ac1elhodqr

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, it is the Daily Mail, not noted for its accuracy or balance generally, and particularly notorious for stuffing up its reports on religious matters, where its right-wing bias is compounded by profound ignorance of the subject matter.

Take your pick. If the world's most read online newspaper isn't good enough for you, or you hold prejudice against it as a source of news.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Um. The point about Satan as accuser is that his accusations, while scandalous, are often justified. He accuses you of what you have done, not of what you haven't. So it's unlikely that this is a "the devil made me do it!" defence.

Gobbledygook. Uncovering and exposing sin where it exists is good work. As long as it's truthful, it is indeed justified.

In cases where it's false then they can too be proven/disproven. Surely all that matters is the search for truth. Only what matters is indeed what you have done. What you haven't done is irrelevant.

Perhaps using the excuse of their arch-enemy, is highly convenient and somewhat a removal of reponsibility.

Reading about what some of the clergy (at all levels) get/got up to, could well indicate it is indeed the devil's direct work at play, through them.

Odhinn wrote: »

Is 38% a higher percentage than was/is the case here?

Yes, much. Until the last couple of decades, prosecutions of clerics for such offences would have been vanishingly rare in Ireland.

It should be pointed out that we don't know - at least, from the newspaper reports; the full study is not due to be published for another fortnight - how many of the incidents were crimes capable of prosecution. The age of consent in Germany is 14, so many improper, abusive, etc relationships would not be crimes, or not clearly so. So the proportion of prosecutable crimes that were actually prosecuted may be even higher than 38%.

I recall reading before that one of the distinctive features of the sex abuse crisis in the German church was that quite a high proportion of clerics were reported to the police. ("High" relative to the proportion that were reported in other countries, anyway.) But prosecutions were often not mounted and when they were mounted, penalties imposed by the courts were, by contemporary standards, very lenient.

This doesn't seem to have been a special deal for the church; it seems to be the result of a view that was quite widely held in from the 1960s to the 1980s or even 1990s that early sexual experience was basically not harmful to children/young teenagers, and that this was a relatively minor offence. Plus, there was little or no understanding of the compulsive nature of the behaviour. in offenders. In Germany at the time, non-church offenders were treated in much the same way by the police and the courts.

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

Not sure if this report is accurate . . .

Well, it is the Daily Mail, not noted for its accuracy or balance generally, and particularly notorious for stuffing up its reports on religious matters, where its right-wing bias is compounded by profound ignorance of the subject matter.

Xzavier Loud Steam wrote: »

According to the article, Franics, during his address at morning Mass at the Vatican:

- suggested the 'Great Accuser' aka the devil, was behind all the recent (abuse) revelations.
- Francis also claimed the accuser (Mr.Devil) 'had it in' for bishops, who are being hounded.

So every criminal should just blame their actions on the wee red man with horns?
Even if many of his priests are possesed (could well be the case) why not actually take some responsibility.

Um. The point about Satan as accuser is that his accusations, while scandalous, are often justified. He accuses you of what you have done, not of what you haven't. So it's unlikely that this is a "the devil made me do it!" defence.

4068ac1elhodqr

Not sure if this report is accurate, but it seems rather bizzare:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6155521/Vatican-official-Sex-abuse-scandal-churchs-9-11.html#comments

According to the article, Franics, during his address at morning Mass at the Vatican:

- suggested the 'Great Accuser' aka the devil, was behind all the recent (abuse) revelations.
- Francis also claimed the accuser (Mr.Devil) 'had it in' for bishops, who are being hounded.

So every criminal should just blame their actions on the wee red man with horns?

Even if many of his priests are possesed (could well be the case) why not actually take some responsibility.

Odhinn

More than 3,600 children in Germany were assaulted by Roman Catholic priests between 1946 and 2014, a leaked report has revealed.
The study was commissioned by the Church itself, and was due to be published on 25 September.
According to the report, some 1,670 clergymen in Germany committed some form of sex attack on 3,677 minors, German outlet Spiegel Online reported.
A Church spokesman said it was "dismayed and ashamed" by the findings.

Sex abuse and the Catholic Church explained

Only 38% of the alleged perpetrators were prosecuted, with most facing only minor disciplinary procedures, German media said. About one in six cases involved rape.
Most of the victims were boys, and more than half were aged 13 or younger.
Predatory clerics were often moved to new communities, where no warning was issued about their actions.
The study was compiled by three German universities, using 38,000 documents from 27 German dioceses. Its authors said the true extent of the abuse may be even greater, as some records were "destroyed or manipulated".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45500072

Is 38% a higher percentage than was/is the case here?

Odhinn

smacl wrote: »

And at the same time we still see comments like this today elsewhere on boards;

Anyone else find it disturbing that this sentiment still exists in Ireland today?

Given that I've heard it said that people only "complain" about the church in order to gain financially (evidently being raped & abused not figuring into it), little surprises me.

robindch wrote: »

UCD went through the Ryan report with a digital microscope:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/how-data-analytics-revealed-new-insights-in-ryan-report-on-child-abuse-1.3616861

The resulting website is here and is a quite horrific in its scale.

https://industrialmemories.ucd.ie/

And at the same time we still see comments like this today elsewhere on boards;

realitykeeper wrote: »

At least the women in the laundries got free bed and board until they were ready to move on.

Anyone else find it disturbing that this sentiment still exists in Ireland today?

robindch

UCD went through the Ryan report with a digital microscope:

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/innovation/how-data-analytics-revealed-new-insights-in-ryan-report-on-child-abuse-1.3616861

The resulting website is here and is a quite horrific in its scale.

https://industrialmemories.ucd.ie/

recedite wrote: »

And I have my own suspicions.

We would need firm evidence and citations to argue these points any further. However I'm not particularly interested in researching this subject in any detail, so we'll leave it at that.

Voicing a suspicion that gays are more likely than others to be engaged in pedophilia and then refusing to support this suspicion is really no more than homophobia. It really is neither clever nor pleasant to make derogatory remarks about any group of people unless you're willing to support them and stand over them.

smacl wrote: »

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves...

I know that, but you said...

smacl wrote: »

If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that.

I merely corrected you on the point that a paedophile is still a paedophile whether they are currently and physically molesting kids or not.

So, smacl asserts that paedoplilia is no higher among homosexuals than among the general population.
And Peregrinus asserts that paedoplilia is no higher among priests than among the general population.
And I have my own suspicions.

We would need firm evidence and citations to argue these points any further. However I'm not particularly interested in researching this subject in any detail, so we'll leave it at that.

smacl wrote: »

My main point to Rec was that lumping this in with homosexuality is entirely inappropriate until a very good reason can be found to do so.

I agree. I think the research suggest that when paedophiles also have adult relationships, there's no connection between the orientation of their adult relationships and the orientation of their paedophilia. Hard to know, obviously,if that also holds good for paedophile clerics, since they tend not to have adult relationships or, if they do, they are covert.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I believe it's not higher among the priesthood; the incidence appears to be about the same as in other occupations associated with contact with children and youth - teachers, sports coaches, etc. The scale of the problem in the church is hugely magnified by the "multiplier effect" of the church's reprehensible denialism, concealment, shuffling around, failure to recognise the compulsive nature of the behaviour, etc, etc.

Quite possibly. I think you also have a strong possibility that potential pedophiles are attracted, whether consciously or subconsciously, to vocations that have opportunity of access to children. As such, their employers need to expect this and be in a position to detect it ad deal with it effectively and transparently, both at recruitment stage and on an ongoing basis.

My main point to Rec was that lumping this in with homosexuality is entirely inappropriate until a very good reason can be found to do so.

smacl wrote: »

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves. I think a vocation that is restricted to one gender who must make a vow of celibacy is also a rather unusual demographic when we're considering proclivities. The concern lies with acted out on and expressed sexual predation of minors, which seems high among the priesthood. Linking this to homosexuality demands strong proof of correlation, without which looks more like homophobia.

Actually, I believe it's not higher among the priesthood; the incidence appears to be about the same as in other occupations associated with contact with children and youth - teachers, sports coaches, etc. The scale of the problem in the church is hugely magnified by the "multiplier effect" of the church's reprehensible denialism, concealment, shuffling around, failure to recognise the compulsive nature of the behaviour, etc, etc.

That's not to say that celibacy and the associated culture has nothing to do with the problem - it may do, but I think the jury is still out on exactly what contribution it makes, and how big that contribution is. But it appears to be relatively minor compared to the contribution made by the church's handling of the behaviour, once it manifests.

(And of course we must consider that the church's catastrophic handling of the issue was itself due to a defective understanding of the problem which may have been partly or indirectly due to, or contributed to by, a culture of celibacy.)

recedite wrote: »

It's not quite that simple though. A paedophile who does not act on his impulses is still a paedophile. Just as a celibate homosexual priest is still a homosexual. Or a celibate heterosexual priest is still heterosexual. Religion thinks it can help such people stay on "the straight and narrow" and maybe it can.

But we don't Judge people on what they think, we judge them on how they act and to a lesser extent how they express themselves. I think a vocation that is restricted to one gender who must make a vow of celibacy is also a rather unusual demographic when we're considering proclivities. The concern lies with acted out on and expressed sexual predation of minors, which seems high among the priesthood. Linking this to homosexuality demands strong proof of correlation, without which looks more like homophobia.

smacl wrote: »

It is no different to sexual attraction to a minor of the opposite sex. If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that. The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality until such time as you can establish a strong link that says otherwise.

It's not quite that simple though. A paedophile who does not act on his impulses is still a paedophile. Just as a celibate homosexual priest is still a homosexual. Or a celibate heterosexual priest is still heterosexual. Religion thinks it can help such people stay on "the straight and narrow" and maybe it can.

Senator Norris whose long campaign for gay rights eventually received majority public support, later fell from public favour again after he tried to explain that pederasty was not paedophilia. Twas a bridge too far, for the Irish public.
Anyway, from the point of view of the RCC and the pope wars, I think a pope who is liberal on homosexual priests will also be liberal on paedophile priests. Thats just the way it is, and its tied in with canon law which applies a similar sanction to both.

Hotblack Desiato

Priests / brothers had much more access to boys (altar boys, teaching in boys' schools) than girls (convent schools where there were always nuns floating about when the priest visited, and no altar girls in those days.)

Nonetheless many of the convicted clerical paedophiles abused both boys and girls, access to the family home provides equal access to both genders.

recedite wrote: »

But what if one's sexual orientation involves a sexual attraction to minors of the same sex?

It is no different to sexual attraction to a minor of the opposite sex. If you act on it, you're a paedophile, simple as that. The issue has nothing to do with homosexuality until such time as you can establish a strong link that says otherwise. The historical link in Catholicism is that homosexuality was considered a perversion, sex with children is a perversion, and thus the two fall into the same category of sexual perversions. The civilised world has long since moved on and fully accepts that being gay is entirely normal and acceptable. The problem here is the Catholic church's repressive and anachronistic notions regarding sexuality, it is no one else's.

Odhinn

Peregrinus wrote: »

There is a sharp distinction in canon law, and it's become a lot sharper in previous years. There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors; they wouldn't be relevant where only sexual behaviour involving adults has been alleged.

......but how will these fare in a society within society, where there are strict protocols, vows of total obedience and so on?

Peregrinus wrote: »

There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors...

Going to the police is not one of them apparently.

robindch

The bishops of Australia announce that they won't report sexual abuse if it has been disclosed during confession.

Apparently, it's "contrary" to their religious beliefs and "inimical to religious liberty". They also say that they are "committed to the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people" while maintaining the confidentiality of confession.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-45364556

recedite wrote: »

Good points. However, there is no such difference in Canon Law. The Pope (or Popes) may have their own personal opinions on such matters, but they are somewhat "constrained" in what they can say or do by the office they hold.

There is a sharp distinction in canon law, and it's become a lot sharper in previous years. There are a growing number of canon law measures that address clerical sexual abuse of minors; they wouldn't be relevant where only sexual behaviour involving adults has been alleged.

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:
One is a sexual orientation the other is carrying out physical and mental abuse of children. Please refrain in future from comparing the two in such a fashion. Your points can be made in other ways.

But what if one's sexual orientation involves a sexual attraction to minors of the same sex?
First let me say that the issue of consent is central to all this, and IMO what two consenting gay adults "get up to" is their own business. The church does not place enough importance on this.

Secondly, there is also an distinction between a sexual orientation and acting on that impulse. The church places huge importance on this, and in some ways is more compassionate than secular society. That is to say, it will harbour a paedophile if it believes the paedophile is not sexually active. It will do exactly the same for a gay priest.

Peregrinus wrote: »

What others said about this.

Plus one other important related point which doesn't emerge from your summary. Vigano alleges that Francis was informed of allegations against McCarrick, but SFAIK (I admit I haven't read the entire screed) he doesn't allege that Francis was told about allegations involving minors. (Nearly all of what is alleged against McCarrick involves adults.)

This makes a difference. If you're of the homophobic "paedophilia-is-a-dimension-of-homosexuality" perspective, then an allegation of clerical homosexual abusive behaviour is just as damaging as an allegation of child abuse, and indeed probably implies it. Whereas if you're not of that view. allegations that McCarrick had improper and abusive relationships with adults, while serious, are a world away from allegations that he was involved in child abuse. The anti-Francis faction will tend not to make this distinction, partly because confusing the two phenomena suits their purpose in this instance, and partly because they themselves genuinely tend to conflate the two phenomena.

This is one of these "what did the President know and when did he know it?" moments, only for "President" read "Pope".

Good points. However, there is no such difference in Canon Law. The Pope (or Popes) may have their own personal opinions on such matters, but they are somewhat "constrained" in what they can say or do by the office they hold.
The liberal media, in contrast, is free to laud homosexuality while vilifying paedophilia. One could even suggest that in asserting no connection whatsoever between the two, they are engaging in some level of wishful thinking that is akin to the church's position on celibacy. Which suggests that religion allows mankind to live a life of purity, independent of his sexual desires.

recedite wrote: »

URL="https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107657063&postcount=3060"]As pointed out earlier in this thread[/URL], the latter faction would tend to be favoured as the darling of the media, if it wasn't for the kiddy fiddling. Which we are informed, is not related in any way to the homosexuality. But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.

What others said about this.

Plus one other important related point which doesn't emerge from your summary. Vigano alleges that Francis was informed of allegations against McCarrick, but SFAIK (I admit I haven't read the entire screed) he doesn't allege that Francis was told about allegations involving minors. (Nearly all of what is alleged against McCarrick involves adults.)

This makes a difference. If you're of the homophobic "paedophilia-is-a-dimension-of-homosexuality" perspective, then an allegation of clerical homosexual abusive behaviour is just as damaging as an allegation of child abuse, and indeed probably implies it. Whereas if you're not of that view. allegations that McCarrick had improper and abusive relationships with adults, while serious, are a world away from allegations that he was involved in child abuse. The anti-Francis faction will tend not to make this distinction, partly because confusing the two phenomena suits their purpose in this instance, and partly because they themselves genuinely tend to conflate the two phenomena.

This is one of these "what did the President know and when did he know it?" moments, only for "President" read "Pope".

Turtwig

recedite wrote: »

But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.
.

Mod:
I get the spirit of the point you're trying to make but please be aware it's not really ever helpful to list a demographic of people side by side with another that committed sexual abuse against children. Especially when these demographics have been contrasted in the past in a derogatory manner as means to delegitimise the plight for civil rights of LGBTI people. Whether you intended it or not it, making such a comparison, invokes a feeling of both being similar which they most certainly are not. One is a sexual orientation the other is carrying out physical and mental abuse of children. Please refrain in future from comparing the two in such a fashion. Your points can be made in other ways.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

But the oftentimes close association of the two "intrinsic disorders" puts the media (and Colm O'Gorman) in a slightly awkward position.

That's a pretty disgusting slur.