The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

theg81der · 05-04-2010 11:04am

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.

Jonny7 · 05-04-2010 12:59pm

How would a priest now respond if someone came to confession and explained that they had been having sex with children? Tell them its bad, but that they can say a few Hail Marys and 'repent' their sins? The church cannot have any moral authority if they do not face up to this issue.. its absolutely unbelieable that heads are not rolling left, right and centre in order to somehow resolve and admit some accountability.. to bloody absolve themselves somehow of this..

Also, I've noticed the whole 'och leave them alone' attitude of more than a few parishioners on TV when asked about either a local childabusing priest or the issue in general.. I wish the interviewers would ask them if they could elaborate? as in 'och its only a bit of child abuse, nothing serious'

I am very angry about this whole thing.. I just cannot get my head around how the whole organisation is treating it.. bloody heck.. go ahead and tell your boss you have abused 200 children and see if he just 'transfers' you to another department..

Manach · 05-04-2010 1:26pm

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.

MrPudding · 05-04-2010 2:15pm

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.

Yes, but the difference is that whatever professional internal hearing you had would be separate from and in addition to legal proceeding heard by the state, assuming there was an offence committed.

The Bar Association or Medical Council would not hide and move the rapists.

MrP

JimiTime · 05-04-2010 3:08pm

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??

peccavi · 05-04-2010 3:19pm

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??

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.

On other issues:

...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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

That article challenges the picture that's been painted of Pope Benedict and I encourage all to read it.

Raiser · 05-04-2010 3:41pm

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.

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 · 05-04-2010 3:48pm

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.

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 · 06-04-2010 7:31am

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.

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 · 06-04-2010 8:45am

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?

Apparently back then they did not know that raping small children was bad.

MrP

prinz · 06-04-2010 10:02am

MrPudding wrote: »

Apparently back then they did not know that raping small children was bad.
MrP

Apparently they didn't. Clergy and laity alike. A lot of people still don't.

PDN · 06-04-2010 10:17am

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.

Although I have little sympathy for the RC Church in this whole matter, the above comment is so twisting things as to be little better than trolling.

When the Catholic Church refers to Satan in regard to these matters, it is in the context of Satan motivating the priests, not the devil 'getting into the child'. And, from the Church's perspective, the role of Satan does not lessen the guilt or evil of the priests' actions at all.

People are understandably angry at what the Church has done. But let's try to stick to the facts.

JimiTime · 06-04-2010 10:20am

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.

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.

philiporeilly · 06-04-2010 7:34pm

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.

Another excuse. If there were such professional reports then why aren't the church taking legal action against those who produced them?

The church seems to have no issue fighting victims in lengthy legal battles so why not counter sue those who gave such licentious advice?

Going on the facts presented by the various commissioned reports, it's obvious that the practice at the time was to keep such scandals confined within church ranks.

wolfsbane · 06-04-2010 8:10pm

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??

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.

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.

Remember, the popes, cardinals, archbishops and bishops all came by way of the priesthood. They knew what was going on, some of them participated in it. They knew also that for many centuries corruption has been part of the hidden culture of their institution. Why ever would they think of changing it?

Michael G · 07-04-2010 12:24am

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.

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.

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.

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.

philiporeilly · 07-04-2010 12:07pm

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.

What expert advice? Please list sources!

As stated previously if such existed the church could sue those who gave it. They have no problem fighting victims in lengthy legal battles. Going on the evidence in the commissioned reports this was mainly kept within church ranks.

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.

Even if you maths is correct, that only explains the percentage of abusers. What most people have issue with is the percentage of hierarchy who facilitated decades of abuse through inaction, deceit, cover-up or denial. As we have seen those figures should be much much higher.

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.

Jonny7 · 07-04-2010 12:12pm

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 really don't know where to start with this paragraph..

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?

I'll tell you why, its because they didn't become hazy at all, in fact its just an extraordinarily weak excuse being peddled about at the moment.

The media was less intrusive back then, people kept their mouths shut, secrets were easier to keep. Forget God, and judgement, and morals, this was just a huge organisation hiding a problem lest they face embarrassment.

After World War 2, Germany didn't start hiding what happened, they didn't start making excuses like oh 'Hitler was Austrian', 'there was less understanding of the effects of gas on the Jews at the time'. They took the blame. That is what the Catholic church should be doing now, but incredibly its not. In any other organisation, arrests would be made, heads would be rolling. The irony that this organisation is one dedicated to preaching morals is just staggering.

/outrage

Irlandese · 07-04-2010 2:14pm

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.

Nice try, but it won't wash.
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.
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 !!

Irlandese · 07-04-2010 6:15pm

ISAW wrote: »

what does plus 1 mean?

I hope it means " Oh, cripes, here is another one ! "

Where exactly are you coming from with all the pseudo-legal clap-trap and the nonsense in response to disected quotes ad nauseum that I will not dignify with individual responses. Trying to stymy the debate to cover the church, father??

Sorry friend, your stats re paedofile priests and religious are barmy. Have a decko at my much later post which looks at the figures in context and where I comment loosely, informed from reading from a huge literature and conversations with counsellors, police psychologists and forensic psychologists regarding the guestimates of fifteen to twenty percent of Irish religious being prone to such tendencies and the upper heirarchy being much more likely, percentage-wise, to reflect such tendencies. The figures for non-religious paedofile abuse are not available, but we can be certain that they are certainly not as you present here.

My contacts believe that we should look at church control and influence over schools and hospitals and other institutions in Ireland where they exercise(d) intolerable control and where they have been responsible for over 90% plus of reported child rapes. That is the figure to keep in mind, 90% plus of child rapes in orphanages, schools and juvenile detention centres known as Industrial Schools, in Ireland. 5% ?? Who are you trying to protect, father??

Irlandese · 07-04-2010 6:21pm

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!!

Stick in there friend.
People like the "possibly very close to the issues" commentator you are pissed off with are revealing more about the inner state of that sick organisation he belongs to than maybe he or others like him realise.
I am begining to see some light at the end of this particular part of the tunnel when the funnel-web spiders start to jump out with the stuff I have just seen today.
He wants us to freeze the thread, folks.
So, friend, are we going to accomodate him?

Irlandese · 07-04-2010 6:26pm

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.

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.

PDN · 07-04-2010 6:41pm

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.

MODERATOR'S WARNING :
This thinly veiled insinuation that Brady is a paedophile is totally unacceptable. If you or any other poster have any evidence to support such an accusation then take it to the Guards. Posting such stuff on here will result in an instant Permaban from this Forum.

Michael G · 07-04-2010 6:43pm

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.

Agreed. But I was trying to address a different point.

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.

I agree with the first part of that sentence. I don't agree with the second. There is plenty of justifiable indignation at what bishops did, or did not do, in these cases. However there are plenty of others who are making use of these scandals to support a hatred of Catholicism which is startling in its vehemence. You have probably heard of this one by Dawkins: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html. You can almost hear Dawkins screaming and see the spittle on his lips. He has reached the point where hatred drives out reason, and travelled some way beyond it.

JimiTime · 07-04-2010 6:47pm

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.

Thats my point alright. They could have done the whole 'protect the reputation' thing which would have been wrong still of course, without moving these child rapists to other postions that make it easy to abuse??

It just boggles the mind, and IMO the piece of the whole debacle that makes the RCC organisation guilty rather than some isolated people within the RCC.

The Child abuse scandal is not about simply a systemic cover-up, but much much worse. The cover up could be explained as 'lack of wisdom', 'fear of scandal' etc. Of course I'm not saying such things would be adequate excuses, but they could be excuses that revealed that the cover-up was motivated by stupidity or fear rather than wickedness. However they acted as facilitators of these child rapists of which there is no excuse, adequate or otherwise. How can someone say that it is anything but wickedness.

Michael G · 07-04-2010 6:51pm

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.

Calm down. I seem to have inadvertently pushed one of your buttons. I was in fact saying that when one quotes statistics one is getting into an area where verifiable data and strict analysis are required.

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 !!

Phrases like "Many of us believe" and "Guesses might start" don't really give great credibility to your statements. May I recommend to you the book I mentioned, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (a sturdy rationalist who clearly is no friend of religion). What he anatomises, while in a different context, is not too different from the dialectic processes that are evident in your post.

Michael G · 07-04-2010 7:00pm

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?

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 · 07-04-2010 7:08pm

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.

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 · 07-04-2010 7:23pm

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?

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.

wolfsbane · 07-04-2010 8:17pm

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.

Michael, I can appreciate how an offender could be treated/rehabititated and put back to work afterwards (let's ignore the issue of reporting him to the police for the moment). One expects him to be given grace not to reoffend and assumes he is now safe.

That would account for one instance of him actually re-offending. All are horrified to learn he has done so. Now he is defrocked and reported to the police. We can understand why they thought he was cured, though we condemn their recklessness in not keeping a really close eye on him and so allowing him to re-offend.

But that is NOT how it has worked out in history.

What the RCC actually did was keep him in position after each offence and 'treatment' - or moved him from parish to parish. That wasn't naivety, that was complicity.

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments