The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

What I'm saying is that laws formulated by duly elected parliamentarians, with an independent judiciary is preferable to listening to a church that does not know its place.

SD

REally? and such parliaments are around for how long?
And were involved in how many world wars?
And oversaw the Irish famine ;the wiping out of the native US and Australian population etc.?
You are probably going to vote in the upcoming referendum with the masses to "curb judges pay" and to make abbeylaragh gardai answerable to the Oireachtas committees thereby weaken the independence of the judiciary and breaking the division of powers aren't you? So don't harp on about an independent judiciary if you are voting them away.

Wow, you blame democracy for the world wars? Do we really need to start discussing how much blood has been spilt in the name of the RC church?

SD

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

I agree. And therefore maybe we should listen to the victims of the 99 per cent non clerics more then the less than one per cent RC clerical offenders?

Why not just listen to all victims without distinction ? And let each organisation/religion/government/individual face up to their own responsibilities without continually making comparisions.

What someone else or some other organisation does or does not do should be completely irrelevant .

marienbad wrote: »

Agree with you there, but why at this late stage does every discussion have to descend into a legalistic and comparative discussion ?

Great wrong was done, can we not just accept that totally and irrevocably and in a humble manner and without caveat ?

Thereafter we might try listening to the victims and with such humility we might even hear them .

I agree. And therefore maybe we should listen to the victims of the 99 per cent non clerics more then the less than one per cent RC clerical offenders?

StudentDad wrote: »

What I'm saying is that laws formulated by duly elected parliamentarians, with an independent judiciary is preferable to listening to a church that does not know its place.

SD

REally? and such parliaments are around for how long?
And were involved in how many world wars?
And oversaw the Irish famine ;the wiping out of the native US and Australian population etc.?
You are probably going to vote in the upcoming referendum with the masses to "curb judges pay" and to make abbeylaragh gardai answerable to the Oireachtas committees thereby weaken the independence of the judiciary and breaking the division of powers aren't you? So don't harp on about an independent judiciary if you are voting them away.

marienbad wrote: »

Agree with you there, but why at this late stage does every discussion have to descend into a legalistic and comparative discussion ?

Great wrong was done, can we not just accept that totally and irrevocably and in a humble manner and without caveat ?

Thereafter we might try listening to the victims and with such humility we might even hear them .

No one is denying that great wrong was done, and yes it's right to expose it so that it can be dealt with. OTOH, if the Gov't was really serious about safeguarding children, then they would have to look at society as a whole and not just at one institution. I believe Clerics from other denominations are deliberately being overlooked by the media in order to incite hatred of the Catholic Church.

marienbad

himnextdoor wrote: »

Better this though than allowing it to be swept under the carpet. Again.

Agree with you there, but why at this late stage does every discussion have to descend into a legalistic and comparative discussion ?

Great wrong was done, can we not just accept that totally and irrevocably and in a humble manner and without caveat ?

Thereafter we might try listening to the victims and with such humility we might even hear them .

ISAW wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

I am not contradicting myself. The law of Ireland is made up of common law, statute, constitutional law and the entire body of European law.

So the European law too? ~that would include canon law then?

This was agreed by the electorate through our Parliament and as such our laws must be formulated to accord with EU law - derogations aside -

also out laws have to accord with Church law. for example we have laws against blaspheme; we have laws protecting the jobs of certain people who must be of certain religions etc.

Canon law refers to the laws of the Vatican State and her embassies and has no legal effect outside of that jurisdiction.

No canon law is like a club rules. the law of the lan respects for example if a golf Club does not allow men to be full members. But the club cannot make rules binding on non club members.

If a citizen of Ireland seeks to place any other body of law above the law of the land and acts contrary to its provisions he leaves himself open to prosecution by the State if the State deems such action is warranted.

Hmmm. That is a bit literalist. In Ireland we have what honourable jurists like to call "natural and constitutional justice" It isn't all about positive laws i.e. the letter of the written law.

Whether or not a citizen agrees or disagrees with a given provision in law, is irrelevant.

Then you claim the written law is paramount and binding? What about court decisions which decide rights exist which are not proscribed in law?

Of course a citizen may object to a law but he must do so within the bounds of law.

Indeed and in a Republic democratic decisions are regulated by law and the law regulated by the will of the people. But the will of the people isn't always the right thing is it?
Are you claiming it always is?

What I'm saying is that laws formulated by duly elected parliamentarians, with an independent judiciary is preferable to listening to a church that does not know its place.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

I am not contradicting myself. The law of Ireland is made up of common law, statute, constitutional law and the entire body of European law.

So the European law too? ~that would include canon law then?

This was agreed by the electorate through our Parliament and as such our laws must be formulated to accord with EU law - derogations aside -

also out laws have to accord with Church law. for example we have laws against blaspheme; we have laws protecting the jobs of certain people who must be of certain religions etc.

Canon law refers to the laws of the Vatican State and her embassies and has no legal effect outside of that jurisdiction.

No canon law is like a club rules. the law of the lan respects for example if a golf Club does not allow men to be full members. But the club cannot make rules binding on non club members.

If a citizen of Ireland seeks to place any other body of law above the law of the land and acts contrary to its provisions he leaves himself open to prosecution by the State if the State deems such action is warranted.

Hmmm. That is a bit literalist. In Ireland we have what honourable jurists like to call "natural and constitutional justice" It isn't all about positive laws i.e. the letter of the written law.

Whether or not a citizen agrees or disagrees with a given provision in law, is irrelevant.

Then you claim the written law is paramount and binding? What about court decisions which decide rights exist which are not proscribed in law?

Of course a citizen may object to a law but he must do so within the bounds of law.

Indeed and in a Republic democratic decisions are regulated by law and the law regulated by the will of the people. But the will of the people isn't always the right thing is it?
Are you claiming it always is?

himnextdoor wrote: »

Are you for real?

Where does the law of Ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt trace their roots?

Codified European law is not based on that of ancient Greece or that of Egypt.
That is the issue you seem to be missing!
The Church superceded the Roman empire which lay the foundations of the Justininan code and all the other similar laws of their time.

Concepts such as 'Thou shall not kill, steal or lie' predate Canon Law by millennia.

Such concepts are to be found in the Hebrew Bible.
But Im not talking about then nor about wearing clothes of different thread or dietary laws.
I'm talking about the Code of Justinian and similar reforms. State Laws centered in Christian beliefs and Church regulation. they are part of the European tradition of Jurisprudence.

But you miss the point; it is not an adequate defence for the Church to say 'There may be abuse within the Church but there is more abuse outside'.

Haven't missed that one at all! I have several times stated in this thread that such abuse by a cleric or not is always wrong. But I have also stated that there is an inordinate media bias in focusing most of the reportage on less than one per cent of offenders.

I mean take for example Colyne ~ all about mandatory reporting.
One in Four lambasted the church over Cloyne and about secrecy. But one in four din't adopt a policy of mandatory reporting on sex abuse until when? I'll give you a chance to find out before I tell you.

This does not exhonorate the Church for its failure in its capacity as the last bastion against evil.

No it doesn't. where ANYWHERE have I stated child abuse by anyone clergy or not was acceptable?

The Church cannot/will not protect children and I will be damned if I trust my soul to such an organization.

Ah. But if you find that a hundred times more abuse happened outside the clergy then what organization do you trust?
One in four?

gimmebroadband wrote: »

A tiny corner of the carpet at that, the other 99% of filth under the carpet is being ignored!

This does not exhonorate those guilty of Clerical Child Abuse. Or those who routinely and robustly let countless children down, Brady, for example, or the various Popes that could have given useful leadership on this issue.

Let me put it this way: Suppose that there is a contingent within the RCC that is in the business of exploiting children for sexual purposes - a paedophile ring - wouldn't you want to see that operation 'busted'?

I understand how nervous this must make all Catholics; if the RCC is the right hand of God, what does the behaviour of the Church say about God.

It seems to me that it is quite possible, likely even, that such a paedophile operation is running within the Church and I want to be sure that there isn't before I move on and abandon other children to their fate.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Better this though than allowing it to be swept under the carpet. Again.

A tiny corner of the carpet at that, the other 99% of filth under the carpet is being ignored!

marienbad wrote: »

I find this thread just so depressing, nothing learned and nothing forgotten.

Better this though than allowing it to be swept under the carpet. Again.

marienbad

I find this thread just so depressing, nothing learned and nothing forgotten.

ISAW wrote: »

But suppose the church has a law against something e.g. sex with a per pubescent child and the law of the country the church is in e.g. say Thailand or Italy allows for such sex you think the Church should say nothing about the practicew in that country and not preach that they believe it is wrong?

But the Church doesn't believe it to be wrong! If the Church believe that child-abuse is not only wrong in the eyes of the law but is also evil in the eyes of God then when Brendan Smyth was on the run and being protected by the Nobertines, the Pope would have said something along the lines of, 'Canon Law can never be a powerful tool in the hands of evil and must not be used to protect or hide evil criminals' and should have stripped Smyth of his Priesthood and ordered the Norbertines to hand him over. Especially after what had transpired in 1975 under the auspices of Brady and others.

He didn't.

Brendan Smyth broke your so-called 'Church law' decades before he was stopped by the state but the Church never preached that he was wrong did they? They also showed that there are no consequences to breaking 'Church law', didn't they?

ISAW wrote: »

So if Ireland decided to get rid of Statutory rape enen though the church accepts that the law is valid and the act can happen the church should also not say anything about that rape being wrong even though they accept it is not illegal?

So if Statutory Rape is removed from the statute and and the type of sex referred to in that statute becomes commonplace, should those engaged in such sexual acts bother turning up for Mass at all anymore; would they be damned for recognising state-law before Canon-law? What difference does state-law make to a person's soul?

And could you give me an example of a state-sanctioned practice that is a sin capable of putting the mortal soul in jeopardy in the eyes of the RCC?

ISAW wrote: »

On one hand the church should not be able to inform the conscience of Irish people and they can make their own laws but on the other the Europeans should be able to tell Ireland what it can and cannot do.

No! The Church doesn't inform the conscience, it indoctrinates; different thing!

When people were more faithful, or fearful, of it, the Church was able to 'get away with murder' by way of unquestioned authority. It is only now that people are waking up to reality that the evil that resides within the ranks of the Church is coming to light.

And there is more to come!

ISAW wrote: »

Yes but sin existed before any law did.

If a fox breaks into a rabbit-hutch and kills the pet rabbits, has it committed a sin?

If I did that, would I have sinned?

Sin requires morality and morality is an observance of some law; sin and law were invented at the same time.

Canon-law promotes the interests of the RCC, its self-interests.

The Church stance on moral issues are simply selling-points: 'Give us your children, we will take better care of them than the state; we have rules against child-abuse.'

And when the parents are gone, so are the rules.

The purpose of the RCC is to indoctrinate children and amass gold; the RCC observes a law that promotes that agenda.

The Catechism is nothing but a sales-pitch.

Moral Law V Unjust Law

http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/the-moral-law-versus-unjust-laws/

Saint Augustine: “For it seems to me that an unjust law is no law at all.”

ISAW wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

The only place where the canon law of the RCC church has any bearing is within the confines of the Vatican State and her embassies.

The only place in international law

But suppose the church has a law against something e.g. sex with a per pubescent child and the law of the country the church is in e.g. say Thailand or Italy allows for such sex you think the Church should say nothing about the practicew in that country and not preach that they believe it is wrong?

If a legislature of a country such as Ireland chooses to look at canon law for guidance that is entirely a matter for the duly elected Parliament to decide.

So if Ireland decided to get rid of Statutory rape enen though the church accepts that the law is valid and the act can happen the church should also not say anything about that rape being wrong even though they accept it is not illegal?

If the Irish State or any other State for that matter chooses to legalise such hideous practices that is a matter for those states to consider. Although the Irish State would be prevented from enacting such legislation as it would be contrary to European Law.

So are you saying the Irish State isn't paramount because it does answer to an outside authority or not?

On one hand the church should not be able to inform the conscience of Irish people and they can make their own laws but on the other the Europeans should be able to tell Ireland what it can and cannot do.

If the RCC church has a problem with proposed legislation it can as it does I imagine lodge a protest against such legislation.

Yes but sin existed before any law did.

It does not take from the fact however, that residents of the Republic of Ireland or any other state are bound by the laws of the state before any other body of law.

REally? You just stated they could not make laws contrary to Europe! You are contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself. The law of Ireland is made up of common law, statute, constitutional law and the entire body of European law. This was agreed by the electorate through our Parliament and as such our laws must be formulated to accord with EU law - derogations aside -

Canon law refers to the laws of the Vatican State and her embassies and has no legal effect outside of that jurisdiction.

If a citizen of Ireland seeks to place any other body of law above the law of the land and acts contrary to its provisions he leaves himself open to prosecution by the State if the State deems such action is warranted.

Whether or not a citizen agrees or disagrees with a given provision in law, is irrelevant.

Of course a citizen may object to a law but he must do so within the bounds of law.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

The only place where the canon law of the RCC church has any bearing is within the confines of the Vatican State and her embassies.

The only place in international law

But suppose the church has a law against something e.g. sex with a per pubescent child and the law of the country the church is in e.g. say Thailand or Italy allows for such sex you think the Church should say nothing about the practicew in that country and not preach that they believe it is wrong?

If a legislature of a country such as Ireland chooses to look at canon law for guidance that is entirely a matter for the duly elected Parliament to decide.

So if Ireland decided to get rid of Statutory rape enen though the church accepts that the law is valid and the act can happen the church should also not say anything about that rape being wrong even though they accept it is not illegal?

If the Irish State or any other State for that matter chooses to legalise such hideous practices that is a matter for those states to consider. Although the Irish State would be prevented from enacting such legislation as it would be contrary to European Law.

So are you saying the Irish State isn't paramount because it does answer to an outside authority or not?

On one hand the church should not be able to inform the conscience of Irish people and they can make their own laws but on the other the Europeans should be able to tell Ireland what it can and cannot do.

If the RCC church has a problem with proposed legislation it can as it does I imagine lodge a protest against such legislation.

Yes but sin existed before any law did.

It does not take from the fact however, that residents of the Republic of Ireland or any other state are bound by the laws of the state before any other body of law.

REally? You just stated they could not make laws contrary to Europe! You are contradicting yourself.

ISAW wrote: »

Where does the codified law we have today trace it's roots?

Are you for real?

Where does the law of Ancient Greece or Ancient Egypt trace their roots?

Concepts such as 'Thou shall not kill, steal or lie' predate Canon Law by millennia.

But you miss the point; it is not an adequate defence for the Church to say 'There may be abuse within the Church but there is more abuse outside'. This does not exhonorate the Church for its failure in its capacity as the last bastion against evil.

The Church cannot/will not protect children and I will be damned if I trust my soul to such an organisation.

ISAW wrote: »

Where does the codified law we have today trace it's roots?
If a golf club rules are irrelevent why do they exist?
You are aware the Church law suggests that people follow the law of the land you think this rule is irrelevant?
What about a state governed by canon law?
And are you saying irish law cant make something illegal that is legal elsewhere e.g. what about someone committing child abuse in a country where such an act is legal? I think Italy or Thailand are such examples. In Italy the legal age of consent is well below the Irish one.

The only place where the canon law of the RCC church has any bearing is within the confines of the Vatican State and her embassies.

If a legislature of a country such as Ireland chooses to look at canon law for guidance that is entirely a matter for the duly elected Parliament to decide.

If the Irish State or any other State for that matter chooses to legalise such hideous practices that is a matter for those states to consider. Although the Irish State would be prevented from enacting such legislation as it would be contrary to European Law.

If the RCC church has a problem with proposed legislation it can as it does I imagine lodge a protest against such legislation.

It does not take from the fact however, that residents of the Republic of Ireland or any other state are bound by the laws of the state before any other body of law.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

The sooner the church realises that Canon law is utterly irrelevant the better - when a cleric quotes Canon law in defence of illegal activity. In terms of law he may as well be running the local golf club and quoting it's internal rules - Utterly Irrelevant.

SD

Where does the codified law we have today trace it's roots?
If a golf club rules are irrelevent why do they exist?
You are aware the Church law suggests that people follow the law of the land you think this rule is irrelevant?
What about a state governed by canon law?
And are you saying irish law cant make something illegal that is legal elsewhere e.g. what about someone committing child abuse in a country where such an act is legal? I think Italy or Thailand are such examples. In Italy the legal age of consent is well below the Irish one.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Cossax wrote: »

Seems like a made-up job really - surely if you believe in a god of some sort who is all knowing and who you believe you can directly pray to, why do you need a middleman to tell him what you've done when s/he/it would know anyone both what you'd done and whether you were sorry for it?

Your/the RCC's view of the priest being a middle man won't be all that important if the proposed legislation comes in, it will be the State who finally and ultimately decides who the confession belongs to.

No it won't, because it's unworkable. There is already legislation in place that everyone who knows of a crime is suppose to report it! If the Gov't specifically mentions the Seal of Confession, penitents who are abusers will confess outside of the juristiction/country, or not at all.

The sooner the church realises that Canon law is utterly irrelevant the better - when a cleric quotes Canon law in defence of illegal activity. In terms of law he may as well be running the local golf club and quoting it's internal rules - Utterly Irrelevant.

SD

Cossax wrote: »

Seems like a made-up job really - surely if you believe in a god of some sort who is all knowing and who you believe you can directly pray to, why do you need a middleman to tell him what you've done when s/he/it would know anyone both what you'd done and whether you were sorry for it?

Your/the RCC's view of the priest being a middle man won't be all that important if the proposed legislation comes in, it will be the State who finally and ultimately decides who the confession belongs to.

No it won't, because it's unworkable. There is already legislation in place that everyone who knows of a crime is suppose to report it! If the Gov't specifically mentions the Seal of Confession, penitents who are abusers will confess outside of the juristiction/country, or not at all.

Cossax

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The penitent is confessing to God, not the priest, he just ministers the sacrament - the contents of the confession does not belong to him, but to God!

Seems like a made-up job really - surely if you believe in a god of some sort who is all knowing and who you believe you can directly pray to, why do you need a middleman to tell him what you've done when s/he/it would know anyone both what you'd done and whether you were sorry for it?

Your/the RCC's view of the priest being a middle man won't be all that important if the proposed legislation comes in, it will be the State who finally and ultimately decides who the confession belongs to.

StudentDad wrote: »

At this point the priest should inform the police that he/she has information regarding a crime. Failure to do so by the priest should leave him/her open to an automatic prosecution on obstruction of justice charges.

SD

The penitent is confessing to God, not the priest, he just ministers the sacrament - the contents of the confession does not belong to him, but to God!

gimmebroadband wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Biblically the word 'repentant' is metanoia - it means to make a 180 degree turnaround, changing one's behaviour. It certainly does not mean that child abusers can say they are sorry and then do the same thing again. Nor, incidentally, does it mean that being forgiven by Christ absolves anyone from making restitution or facing the punishment of the legal system.

How many people commit sin after they are sorry, Jesus told the Apostles the we must forgive 70 times 7.

The priest can also absolve sins on condition that if the sinner be truly repentent then he/she must make restitution by reporting the crime and suffer the consequences. If he/she doesn't, then they are not truly repentant, and don't deserve forgiveness!

At this point the priest should inform the police that he/she has information regarding a crime. Failure to do so by the priest should leave him/her open to an automatic prosecution on obstruction of justice charges.

SD

PDN wrote: »

Biblically the word 'repentant' is metanoia - it means to make a 180 degree turnaround, changing one's behaviour. It certainly does not mean that child abusers can say they are sorry and then do the same thing again. Nor, incidentally, does it mean that being forgiven by Christ absolves anyone from making restitution or facing the punishment of the legal system.

How many people commit sin after they are sorry, Jesus told the Apostles the we must forgive 70 times 7.

The priest can also absolve sins on condition that if the sinner be truly repentent then he/she must make restitution by reporting the crime and suffer the consequences. If he/she doesn't, then they are not truly repentant, and don't deserve forgiveness!

PDN

Cybercelesta wrote: »

If the sinner was unrepentant!

And Jesus would be a witness before His Father in Heaven to say that the penitent asked for forgiveness for the sin, and he forgave them!

Biblically the word 'repentant' is metanoia - it means to make a 180 degree turnaround, changing one's behaviour. It certainly does not mean that child abusers can say they are sorry and then do the same thing again. Nor, incidentally, does it mean that being forgiven by Christ absolves anyone from making restitution or facing the punishment of the legal system.

gimmebroadband wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

Who said? Were you there? Dogma will not help or comfort the victims of the church

SD

I am a victim of sexual abuse by family member, and a school bully and I forgive them! I even pray for them! 99% of abuse victims were non-clerical! Can you even imagine how many children that is compared to clerical! There were four children involved in my family alone, and I wasn't sorry when the abuser died when I was 12 years old. As I got older I learned to forgive!!!

You're a better Christian than most.

SD

StudentDad wrote: »

Who said? Were you there? Dogma will not help or comfort the victims of the church

SD

I am a victim of sexual abuse by family member, and a school bully and I forgive them! I even pray for them! 99% of abuse victims were non-clerical! Can you even imagine how many children that is compared to clerical! There were four children involved in my family alone, and I wasn't sorry when the abuser died when I was 12 years old. As I got older I learned to forgive!!!