Manach wrote: » In answer, afaik, is that if the respondent was part of a professional body such as a soliticator or doctor then it would be their legal right to have a internal hearing under the auspices of that organisation.
JimiTime wrote: » Whatever 'reasonings' or fears they had in relation to such things coming out, it does not explain why the hell they would let these paedo's continue to molest??
...all the criticism is obscuring something equally important: For anyone who knows the Vatican’s history on this issue, Benedict XVI isn’t just part of the problem. He’s also a major chapter in the solution. To understand that, it’s necessary to wind the clock back a decade. Before then, no Vatican office had clear responsibility for cases of priests accused of sexual abuse, which instead were usually handled — and often ignored — at the diocesan level. In 2001, however, Pope John Paul II assigned responsibility to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s all-important doctrinal office, which was headed by Joseph Ratzinger, then a cardinal.
peccavi wrote: » Because they were told by 'expert's that such and such a priest was 'cured' and good to go. They were sold a lie by the prevailing culture and wisdom of the psychological profession at the time.
Raiser wrote: » This is contrary to the reporting and main body of facts involved over the past number of decades. - But it does reassign blame to a convenient extent.
peccavi wrote: » O Rly? It was the psychologists who advised the Bishops. Surely they have a case to answer for their crappy science? They were learning as they went along.
Jonny7 wrote: » Men were buggering small children, people knew and names should have been given straight to the police, what is there not to understand about this? no really, what is there not to get about that?
MrPudding wrote: » Apparently back then they did not know that raping small children was bad. MrP
theg81der wrote: » These people continue to make me sick. They really have settled on the notion that people are looking for money or that the devil got into the child and tempted the poor priest, when they had no option of disbelief. Anything to escape responsibility, if they at least were what they are pretending to be but the only thing they represent is evil.
JimiTime wrote: » So they got these men assessed by independant Psychologists, who said that they ere 'cured'? I haven't heard this, is there any links to back this up? If true, it certainly doesn't relieve them of blame, but rather scatters the blame further, this time onto these Psychologists.
JimiTime wrote: » One of the questions I would ask is 'what motivated the cover-up'? The two obvious things I would assume are: 1. The hierarchy believed that it would be a 'scandal'. 2. The hierarchy believed it would undermine the illusion of holiness, and in turn loosen the grip the church had on the people. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be admitting to any cover-up so we get left with our assumptions. What do other Christians think the reasons could be? and Why on earth did they provide them with more victims? I wholeheartedly condemn the cover-up, but I can see their 'reasoning' (still disagreeing of course) in not wanting it to come to light. The bit that just leaves me flabbergasted, disgusted, confused and angry is WHY on earth would they then move them to a position to do it again:mad::(:confused: Whatever 'reasonings' or fears they had in relation to such things coming out, it does not explain why the hell they would let these paedo's continue to molest??
wolfsbane wrote: » I think the two reasons you mention are summed up in: Protect the reputation of the RCC. Never mind the needs of the victims. But the most wicked part lies in allowing the paedophiles to continue. They could have been permanently stopped, even without going to the police. Permanent exile in a monastery could have been offered as an alternative to them being reported to the police. I'm not saying that would have been better, just showing that even a desire to protect the RCC reputation can not explain why they allowed the paedophiles to continue.
wolfsbane wrote: » It seems a real possibility to me that the paedos were protected and allowed to prosper because many among their superiors were guilty of the same crimes. They do their best to look after their own. We see this in other elites, not just in religions.
Michael G wrote: » You are of course right. Those men should at least have been kept from ever coming in contact with children again. That would certainly happen now and they would, rightly, be reported to the police as well. But it does seem that expert advice twenty or thirty years ago was that that kind of sexual perversion could be cured or at least controlled, and there really was less understanding of the harm it might do to the children. This view was not by any means confined to Catholics or the psychologists who were advising them.
Michael G wrote: » I can't agree with you about that. You have to look at statistics here. When we get into a secular science like that, we can only discuss what we know has been proven to be true (my apologies, but I'm reading Ben Goldacre's Real Science at the moment so I am inclined to talk like this). The proportion of Catholic priests, brothers or nuns who sexually abused children is said to be in low single figures. According to the statistics I have just found through Google, there are about 400,000 Catholic priests in the world. If 5% of those (for argument's sake) were perverts, that would be 20,000. There are 2,795 bishops and 5% of those would be 140. There are 137 cardinals under 80 (they must be under 80 to vote for the election of a Pope) and 5% of those would be 7. So if your "real possibility" were plausible, this organised cabal of perverts would have at least to maintain its level of representation all the way up through the hierarchy and finally persuade 62 non-perverts to vote for one of their little clique as Pope. At this point we are back in the world of Elvis assassinating Kennedy, or the Da Vinci Code. Or perhaps the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Michael G wrote: » You are of course right. Those men should at least have been kept from ever coming in contact with children again. That would certainly happen now and they would, rightly, be reported to the police as well. But it does seem that expert advice twenty or thirty years ago was that that kind of sexual perversion could be cured or at least controlled, and there really was less understanding of the harm it might do to the children. This view was not by any means confined to Catholics or the psychologists who were advising them. I can't agree with you about that. You have to look at statistics here. When we get into a secular science like that, we can only discuss what we know has been proven to be true (my apologies, but I'm reading Ben Goldacre's Real Science at the moment so I am inclined to talk like this). The proportion of Catholic priests, brothers or nuns who sexually abused children is said to be in low single figures. According to the statistics I have just found through Google, there are about 400,000 Catholic priests in the world. If 5% of those (for argument's sake) were perverts, that would be 20,000. There are 2,795 bishops and 5% of those would be 140. There are 137 cardinals under 80 (they must be under 80 to vote for the election of a Pope) and 5% of those would be 7. So if your "real possibility" were plausible, this organised cabal of perverts would have at least to maintain its level of representation all the way up through the hierarchy and finally persuade 62 non-perverts to vote for one of their little clique as Pope. At this point we are back in the world of Elvis assassinating Kennedy, or the Da Vinci Code. Or perhaps the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
ISAW wrote: » what does plus 1 mean?
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » This reminds me of Religion in school! Goddamn catholics will just keep arguing!! I quit, Catholics are great, the church is wonderful, Ireland is not a country messed up in the head from church control!!
kbannon wrote: » I note from RTE that:http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/abuse.html On the presumption that this is indeed the case, this is an absolutely outrageous tactic to be taken. Were the children meant to take photos of Smyth in action? I'm absolutely disgusted with Brady now.
Irlandese wrote: » one hopes Brady's sick request for such proof was not an expression of a typical desire among perpetrators to look at each other's shared photo galleries of their little abused innocents posed for the delectation of their peers? Just asking, in view of the apparent total absence of any sense of personal shame or humanity in making such a request.
philiporeilly wrote: » What most people have issue with is the percentage of hierarchy who facilitated decades of abuse through inaction, deceit, cover-up or denial.
philiporeilly wrote: » This was a sick sense of protectionism of the church's name and those who think otherwise are the conspiracy theorists who believe this is an attack on the church.
wolfsbane wrote: » I think the two reasons you mention are summed up in: Protect the reputation of the RCC. Never mind the needs of the victims. But the most wicked part lies in allowing the paedophiles to continue.
Irlandese wrote: » A few comments: "Secular Science"?? What the hell is that supposed to be ? Science is science, friend, usually typified by analysis and deduction, subsequently tested by the scientific method. Many people believe that anything else is supposition, superstition, down-right fiction or ideological manipulation.
Irlandese wrote: » Your stats are way, way off the mark. Many people with a professional interest in priest and religious-commited sexual abuse and other sexual depravity perpetrated by religious on minors, believe that the incidence of sexual deviance among priests and religious could be as high as eighteen to twenty-plus percent. With an estimated 10% of general populations thought by researchers to have strong homosexual tendencies (which I am certainly NOT equating to anything to do with paedofilia) and many of these opting for careers that increase their contact with same sex opportunities, a very high and much increased proportionally percentage of religious are thought to come from not just homosexual but, importantly and very differently, from disturbed homosexual backgrounds. It has been postulated that we are talking about more than thirty to thirty five percent ( 30 to 35%) of entrants having deviant sexual tendencies and perhaps fifteen plus percent having active deviant tendencies leading to sexual abuse patterns. Then, active sexual deviants naturally come together in rings or organised cliches to share experiences, share data on victims and assist each other to access and abuse minors through existing and new networks. This tendency and behaviour assists them to form cliches who naturally for them assist each other to access higher levels of power and authority, to promote greater access for participants to vulnerable children. As a result, and very logically, their concentrations as in presence per hundred members, rise significantly, if not exponentially, the higher up the heirarchy you get. Many of us believe from reported statements by Dr. Noel Browne who as a family doctor reportedly treated one of his alleged victims, a publican's son in Dublin, that the chief Archbishop of the Irish Church for many years was one such example and that he promoted only those who were of a similar disposition, giving the Irish heirarchy a strong and decisive and very active (as in practising sexual deviance on children) slant re this subject. The pattern was evident world-wide and the levels at bishop and cardinal levels can only be guessed at by those of us not actively collaborating with them in the procurement and sexual abuse of children. Guesses might start at forty to sixty per cent, without straining credulity. But then, that is just science !!
Jonny7 wrote: » Priests and the Catholic church have spent much of their entire existence, over hundreds of years, studying, debating morals.. whats right and wrong.. Yet a small child can tell you that a man having sex with a kid is very very wrong.. At what point in the seventies/eighties did the Catholic church suddenly become a little hazy about this?
Michael G wrote: » At no point whatsoever. It was their focus that was wrong. They concentrated on the sin committed by the priest and on the reputation of the Church. They did not give enough attention to the effect on the children. Whether that was cynical or because they did not properly understand the harm it did to the children is the question that has to be determined, probably case-by-case.
JimiTime wrote: » What about the fact that they facilitated the child rapists? After finding out about them, they didn't think of the victims etc, which you acknowledge above. However, they then provided them with new victims elsewhere. What would you say about that side of the whole scandal?
Michael G wrote: » What I am going to say will probably exasperate you, but let me say it nevertheless. When you say that they "provided them with new victims elsewhere", you are making assumptions that I believe are incorrect. They focused too much on sin. In Catholic teaching, forgiveness for sin requires an undertaking by the sinner not to do it again. Catholics believe that through the Sacrament of Confession, the person who repents is given some supernatural strength, called grace, to help him or her not to do it again. I know that makes no sense in secular terms but that is the principle. Also, in many of these cases, the pervert priests were sent for what was at the time believed to be effective treatment and came back with reports that they were either cured of their inclinations or not likely to indulge them again. They were at best ignorant, misled or irresponsible. In some cases they may have been callous or cynical. Let criminal investigations determine what happened in each case and let the people responsible take the consequences.
