Cartoon by John Kennedy

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries … There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium”, the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties - Hans Kung

It might be difficult to believe but there have to be some good apples in the barrel that has Catholic Church stencilled on its side. Not everyone affiliated to this International Centre for Child Rape is an abuser or an accomplice before or after the fact in terms of cover up. It might well take Indiana Jones to find them but they are there. Why is another matter. Maybe they believe that such is their penance; born into original sin they must walk the earth scorned as the associates of paedophiles because as tiny children they were not worthy in the eyes of the god they proclaim to love so much. Worth it in the end because silent deference to an obedience-demanding god shall see them rewarded with eternal salvation.

It never seems to occur to them that a god who hates children so much that he has them branded as sinners the moment they emerge from the womb, is unlikely to reward them with anything but more of the same. The writer Martin Amis thought that paedophilia was anything but a love for children. He saw it as a hatred of children. So maybe the rapist priests are at one with their god after all. For what is original sin but a hatred of children?

The whole sordid business goes right to the very top. In Ireland, for example, Cardinal Brady has been found to have a history of cover up. In 1975 he participated in imposing a vow of silence on abused children. That he seems an alright sort of guy today is beside the point. Sometimes cultural embedment when it is reinforced by cultic ritual distorts the thinking processes. Brady most likely bitterly regrets his involvement in silencing the abused now that there has been a substantial descaling of his eyes. But if he couldn’t see to begin with what authority can he preach to the rest of us about a god who failed miserably to guide him or equip him with a moral conscience?

Internationally the head of the Catholic cartel, Joe Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, or to cynics like me simply the priestfuehrer, too has hands which are by no means clean. Yes, the man with the hotline to Heaven has been up to his neck in a little bit of covering the tracks and distorting he facts. His latest rubbish beggars belief. Rather than place culpability firmly where it belongs, in the hands of the clerical rapists and the institution that covered up the crime, society is offered this: the root cause can be traced to the 1970s when ‘paedophilia was theorised as something that was in keeping with man and even the child … The effects of such theories are evident today.’

Not surprisingly this provoked howls of anguished outrage
from survivors groups that spanned the Atlantic. Margaret Kennedy, from the British Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors group, complained:

He is trying to say that the modern world is corrupt and sexually rampant. It is blaming society for what is actually their responsibility. No one in any age has ever thought that adults having sex with children is right.

Even more scathing was Barbara Blaine, head of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests which is based in the US:

It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal … Catholics should be embarrassed to hear their Pope talk again and again about abuse while doing little or nothing to stop it and to mischaracterise this heinous crisis … The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context’ he can’t control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context’ he can influence - the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.

Next he will be blaming the altar boys. They made the priests rigid.

Papal Bull

Cartoon by John Kennedy

And now, on top of these many crises comes a scandal crying out to heaven – the revelation of the clerical abuse of thousands of children and adolescents, first in the United States, then in Ireland and now in Germany and other countries … There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up cases of sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005). During the reign of Pope John Paul II, that congregation had already taken charge of all such cases under oath of strictest silence. Ratzinger himself, on May 18th, 2001, sent a solemn document to all the bishops dealing with severe crimes ( “epistula de delictis gravioribus” ), in which cases of abuse were sealed under the “secretum pontificium”, the violation of which could entail grave ecclesiastical penalties - Hans Kung

It might be difficult to believe but there have to be some good apples in the barrel that has Catholic Church stencilled on its side. Not everyone affiliated to this International Centre for Child Rape is an abuser or an accomplice before or after the fact in terms of cover up. It might well take Indiana Jones to find them but they are there. Why is another matter. Maybe they believe that such is their penance; born into original sin they must walk the earth scorned as the associates of paedophiles because as tiny children they were not worthy in the eyes of the god they proclaim to love so much. Worth it in the end because silent deference to an obedience-demanding god shall see them rewarded with eternal salvation.

It never seems to occur to them that a god who hates children so much that he has them branded as sinners the moment they emerge from the womb, is unlikely to reward them with anything but more of the same. The writer Martin Amis thought that paedophilia was anything but a love for children. He saw it as a hatred of children. So maybe the rapist priests are at one with their god after all. For what is original sin but a hatred of children?

The whole sordid business goes right to the very top. In Ireland, for example, Cardinal Brady has been found to have a history of cover up. In 1975 he participated in imposing a vow of silence on abused children. That he seems an alright sort of guy today is beside the point. Sometimes cultural embedment when it is reinforced by cultic ritual distorts the thinking processes. Brady most likely bitterly regrets his involvement in silencing the abused now that there has been a substantial descaling of his eyes. But if he couldn’t see to begin with what authority can he preach to the rest of us about a god who failed miserably to guide him or equip him with a moral conscience?

Internationally the head of the Catholic cartel, Joe Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict, or to cynics like me simply the priestfuehrer, too has hands which are by no means clean. Yes, the man with the hotline to Heaven has been up to his neck in a little bit of covering the tracks and distorting he facts. His latest rubbish beggars belief. Rather than place culpability firmly where it belongs, in the hands of the clerical rapists and the institution that covered up the crime, society is offered this: the root cause can be traced to the 1970s when ‘paedophilia was theorised as something that was in keeping with man and even the child … The effects of such theories are evident today.’

Not surprisingly this provoked howls of anguished outrage
from survivors groups that spanned the Atlantic. Margaret Kennedy, from the British Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors group, complained:

He is trying to say that the modern world is corrupt and sexually rampant. It is blaming society for what is actually their responsibility. No one in any age has ever thought that adults having sex with children is right.

Even more scathing was Barbara Blaine, head of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests which is based in the US:

It is fundamentally disturbing to watch a brilliant man so conveniently misdiagnose a horrific scandal … Catholics should be embarrassed to hear their Pope talk again and again about abuse while doing little or nothing to stop it and to mischaracterise this heinous crisis … The Pope insists on talking about a vague ‘broader context’ he can’t control, while ignoring the clear ‘broader context’ he can influence - the long-standing and unhealthy culture of a rigid, secretive, all-male Church hierarchy fixated on self-preservation at all costs. This is the ‘context’ that matters.

Next he will be blaming the altar boys. They made the priests rigid.

160 comments:

  1. So there are people in Belfast who oppose this,I was beginning to wonder !

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anthony,

    <<...Pope Benedict, or to cynics like me simply the priestfuehrer, too has hands which are by no means clean... His latest rubbish beggars belief. Rather than place culpability firmly where it belongs, in the hands of the clerical rapists and the institution that covered up the crime, society is offered this: the root cause can be traced to the 1970s when ‘paedophilia was theorised as something that was in keeping with man and even the child … The effects of such theories are evident today.>>

    Pope Benedict most certainly did “place culpability firmly where it belongs”:

    (Those priests who abused) “are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; … neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; …”

    Everything happens within a context and the Pope rightly notes that these abuses have happened within a context that has spawned child pornography and sexual tourism and other evils. Seeking to find the poisoned roots that could have given rise to this he remarked that:

    "In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained - even within the realm of Catholic theology - that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a "better than" and a "worse than". Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today.”

    You have isolated the words “In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.”

    The Pope is only stating the truth. He is stating it to condemn it, but he is stating the truth. This does not excuse it, quite the opposite, but as he says elsewhere in the same speech:

    “...Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen.”

    It should not be forgotten that the rate of child abuse among priests is lower than it is for just about every other profession. It is natural then that he should look for causes of it in society as it is a problem that affects and indeed infects all society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As we discussed in a previous topic Anthony it's about the prespective to which these dreadfull crimes are approached.
    You didn't offer me any stats opposing the studies I provided you showing the rates of child abuse being much higher in secular organizations than in clerical.As a global human intsitution the Catholic Church is open to human failings.
    The Holy Father was speaking about Moral Relativism that had emerged since the liberalisation of society since Vatican II - the idea that moral principles have no objective standards

    ReplyDelete
  4. John,

    Ratzinger most certainly did not place culpability where it belonged. Hans Kung did that if you look at the top quote. Ratzinger said nothing about his role nor the Vatican's.

    Context is often alibi. In this case it was definitely alibi, a false one.

    'pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.'

    Where?

    'Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist.'

    As in Church hierarchy cover up for the clerical rape of children.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stefan,

    'You didn't offer me any stats opposing the studies I provided you showing the rates of child abuse being much higher in secular organizations than in clerical.'

    That was a bit of an aunt Sally given that I was not arguing the position one way or the other. I gave you stats suggesting the falsification of figures by the Vatican. You provided nothing to the contrary, not that I was concerned one way or the other.

    Morality is determined by people. This is why it can be so dangerous. There is no morality that stands outside human society. Those of us who believe that there are objective human rights at the end root them in the human condition. And we see how they slip in front of our eyes when an inviolable human right such as the right not to be tortured is openly violated by the US and the inviolable human right not to be raped is compromised by the Church hierarchy and its cover ups.

    How do we establish an objective morality? If you intend to tell me the bible or god spare us both the time and forget I ever asked the question.

    'As a global human institution the Catholic Church is open to human failings.'

    Exactly. With no special powers, infallibility or a hot line to heaven. And one which should be open to the same societal scrutiny as other human institutions with absolutley no claim to special privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not an Aunt Sally now we have reached it's relevance to the debate anthony.
    If it concerns you now I would be happy to respond to the stats suggesting the falsification of figures by the Vatican, not saying it would be contrary to your evidence without seeing it first.I must confess to be at fault in missing the stats you provided, there was alot of material to process in that thread and everyone involved was pushed to digest and respond to every point raised.There cannot be a Catholic alive that says the Church wasn't at fault in its dealing with what happened but what is called for is some perspective on this unless ofcourse you are out to deliberately tarnish the good and positive works done the world over which ofcourse is never weighed against the mistakes.
    The natural law of right and wrong doesn't need establishing...it simply is.It's origins don't need disecting for this debate.This is what the Holy Father is talking about, the wishy washy liberalisation that greys a black and white issue.

    On this we both agree...the Church should be open to the same societal scrutiny as other human institutions but allowances must be granted when secular law in greater society grants and bolsters infringement of natural law.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stefan,

    if you missed the stats so be it. They were from Geoffrey Robertson. Now that I have said you didn't respond I just hope I did post them. There has been, as you say, so much on this discussion. I certainly wrote them out but haven't the inclination to trawl back through at the minute to ascertain if I posted them. Maybe later if the notion takes me and if you don't do it. On second thoughts, I will do it as curiosity will get the better of me.

    I see no one out to tarnish the good works done over the world. It is not the good works being attacked but the bad.

    'The natural law of right and wrong doesn't need establishing...it simply is.'


    Now that is far removed from your own position of 'question everything.'

    What is this natural law of right and wrong? When was it fixed and by whom? How do we know it?

    I have a view of what is right and wrong but it is not a view shared by others.

    It seems to me to be natural that the head of the CDF who covered up child abuse as outlined by Kung should be jailed. But others disagree. How does natural law arbitrate there?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.'

    "Where?"

    Take for example the 1977 petition in France to remove ‘age of consent’ laws and the decriminalization of all consented relations between adults and minors below the age of fifteen.

    This was signed by such luminaries as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Louis Althusser, Jean-Paul Sartre, Simone de Beauvoir and André Glucksmann, Roland Barthes, by the novelist/gay activist Guy Hocquenghem, the actor/play-writer/jurist Jean Danet, writer and filmmaker Alain Robbe-Grillet, writer Philippe Sollers, pediatrician and child psychoanalyst Françoise Dolto and also by people belonging to a wide range of political positions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Stefan,

    here is the full post. I don't expect you to reply. Merely putting it up to show that I did post it. That you missed it is no great deal.

    'On the question of abuse I don’t spend my time priest-chasing through social research studies! I think child abuse is terrible regardless of where it occurs. Where secularists do it they are no better than priests who do likewise. I think what sees the priests done for is that they have claimed to be the moral standard bearer for the rest of us.

    That said I would like to cite from Geoffrey Robertson’s The Case of the Pope.

    ‘Faced with this unfolding crisis, it is to the credit of the US Catholic Bishops Conference that in 2002 it decided to commission an objective study of the problem. It retained a groups of respected criminologists from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York to conduct a comprehensive review and their report, published in 2004, drew some very disturbing conclusions. It recorded that since 1950 no fewer than 10,667 individuals had made plausible allegatuiomns against 4, 392 priests – 4.3 per cent of those active in the period ... but on any view, the falsity of Ratzinger’s claim of ‘less than one per cent has been conclusively demonstrated.’

    I think it is of secondary importance whether priests or non-priests are the abusers. Where the Catholic Church is concerned it is the criminal conspiracy from the top down that has raised eyebrows and given rise to serious concerns. Here is a major societal institution that had a position of trust. Its staff abused that trust, raped at will and and were covered for by their superiors who were more concerned with protecting the institution that bestowed status and social power on them than they were concerned with protecting raped children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great to see John Kennedy back, Anthony a lot of wise words have been written re the churchs,s involvement in the sbuse of OUR children, to me the old saying power corrupts absolute power corrupts absolutly,the infulence and power these people hold needs to be removed from them.they and the organisation they represent are a disgrace to what we call humanity, and I for one would love to see a return of the penal days,putting those pervie bastards on the run would help keep their charlies in their pockets!!!

    ReplyDelete
  11. John,

    We are not seeking the marginal voice of protest from France which had no impact on the parliamentary legislation being enacted in the country. What is required is not this or that individual or small group advocating positions – we have that today throughout the world much the same as we always have had it - but the paradigmatic existence of a body of thought that was substantial enough to have theorized paedophilia ‘as something fully in conformity with man and even with children to the extent that it created a culture where clerical rape of children could be taken as some sort of norm. It didn’t exist.

    Furthermore, if you read the arguments from the time and are familiar with Foucault’s libertarian position, the thrust of his attack (thought I did think of him when you mentioned the Greeks because he did intellectual work on that also which caused me more concerns than the age of consent issue) was against the form of penal regulations that were steadily gathering momentum in a wide range of agencies. It was anti-statist and libertarian. Those who signed the letter were for the most part concerned with the erosion of rights in general. They were not paedophiles, many of them not even gay, and made the point very clearly that to defend an individual was not to side with them. I think they may have drawn comparisons between themselves and defence lawyers who are often viewed as being on the side of those they represent.

    Decriminalisation was a very important part of Foucault’s thought. He felt society was creating the essentialist criminal based on the commission of a certain act. He had much earlier made the point that the ‘homosexual’ became a manufactured subject/category whereas prior to that anal sex was something that was performed by people who were not reduced to some essence. Society was spuriously creating targets/subjects to be controlled and regulated. He would have regarded the creation of the paedophile in the same fashion as he regarded the creation of other categories to be policed. Ultimately he ended up becoming an activist in many anti-penal campaigns.

    Also, if I recall correctly, those signing the letter were also concerned with the rights of the child which they felt were being eroded to the point that the child could no longer speak for itself and its voice was handed to psychiatrists or social worker. A brilliant treatment of the same phenomenon is to be found in Stieg Larsson’s Millennium Trilogy.

    The people associated with the letter later explained that they were totally opposed to rape. Not exactly the position of many priests.

    So, to use this letter as ‘an example’ fails on a number of counts. Ultimately, Ratzinger is running from his responsibility. Blame everyone else for the depravity of his clerics and seek mitigation. Many feminists and non feminist educated people in the opening decades of the last century opposed the age of consent laws. But it did not suit Ratzinger to draw on that issue.

    The Age of Consent is very subjective. It will always be decided by society and the mores of the time. France was what – 15 or something? I think it is 18 in the US, 14 in Peru. (not sure of my figures here). Foucault and company were also showing the anomaly that existed between the age of legal responsibility and the age for consent.

    I don’t know what the age of consent should be. When 12 I probably thought it should be 11. Now with my own children I think 25! Seriously, I tend to go by the laws of the day on the matter knowing that there is no natural right or wrong which can guide us. We try to do our best with the knowledge we have at our disposal. If somebody argues for the age of consent to be lowered or raised we have to accept it as a legitimate opinion even where we disagree. If people have sex with others not of the age societal determined as sufficient for consent then they pay the price. But for the Church consent has no validity outside marriage. It is sinful to consent to sex if the union is not formally ordained by a priest. FFS

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anthony,

    'pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.'

    "Where?"

    There are a whole host of examples in David Quinn's article in the Independent.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-pope-is-right-on-views-of-paedophilia-in-1970s-2473118.html

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you google

    'Der Spiegel' 'The sexual revolution and children: how the left took things too far.'

    This is the article reffered to by Quinn and it is sick. Original Sin continues to wreak a vengeance on a fallen humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A Chairde Gael,

    The concept that a grown adult would place their sexual organ in a child's orifice is preposterous to any sane humane animal.

    Only when a child has developed mentally and physically, to the point of being able to make a real choice, is relevant to the matter.

    Anyone who tries to rationalize it, is a very sick person and that includes the child rape apologist the Pope.

    Surely we all know that anyone who has any role of community leadership, has particular responsibilities in these matters.

    If we cannot defend the most vulnerable in our communities,i.e children, sick, elderly,..etc,I put it to you that areas like Belfast and the Vatican are no longer community in the proper sense of the word.

    The fact that an honourable young man, was gunned down in his own home, in front of his wife and baby, because he prevented child rape and the communities in Belfast stood idly by and let it go, beggars belief, bearing in mind, the noble community heritage this town on the Lagan once had. In-action on this matter is complicit. If we are any sort of community, they are all our children. What would you do if you saw an adult, place their sexual organ in your child ??????. I personally cannot fathom the silence and inaction of Belfast on this particular matter ??????

    Only a buffoon would attempt to use Greek or Latin literature, to make it a grey area for the masses. The Pope is an unadulterated liar in is his statement, regarding the culture of of the '70s and his whitewash of Catholic theology on the relativity of good and bad. Has he never hear a Jesuit Missionary deliver their infamous hellfire and brimstone, flames of everlasting hell, fear of god sermons to children on the consequence of good and bad !! How bloody dare he !! Millions upon millions of lives were and still are being destroyed by their culture of fear and rape. They sucked the last iota of joy out of Irish childhood, teenage life for centuries,and he has the neck and audacity to now say;

    “In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said. “It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than’ and a ‘worse than’. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

    I used to think Ian Paisley was a lunatic, the more I see of this Pope, the more I conclude the Ballymena man was right all along with regard to the reptiles of Rome. Perhaps I am doing reptiles an injustice, as I doubt they would treat their offspring like Roman Catholics. I say that as someone unfortunate enough to have been born into that particular form of mental slavery.

    Irish republicans recall being excommunicated, with the penalty of everlasting hell, delivered to them by the Irish Catholic church, prompting the reply "that we would prefer to be down in the flames of hell forever, with our own kind rather than hypocritical realms of heaven with that shower of hypocrites.

    The sheer arrogance of it all is as preposterous as trying to rationalize child rape !!!

    beir bua,

    BrianClarkeNUJ

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brian,

    “The concept that a grown adult would place their sexual organ in a child's orifice is preposterous to any sane humane animal.”

    Of course. Is anyone saying otherwise?

    “Anyone who tries to rationalize it, is a very sick person and that includes the child rape apologist the Pope.”

    I am not aware that anyone is trying to rationalise it, least of all the Pope.

    “Only a buffoon would attempt to use Greek or Latin literature, to make it a grey area for the masses.”

    ??????

    “The Pope is an unadulterated liar in is his statement, regarding the culture of of the '70s and his whitewash of Catholic theology on the relativity of good and bad.”

    I have supplied evidence that backs what he said.

    “Has he never hear a Jesuit Missionary deliver their infamous hellfire and brimstone, flames of everlasting hell, fear of god sermons to children on the consequence of good and bad !!”

    It is a long time since those sermons were given. In my view that is a large part of the problem.

    “I used to think Ian Paisley was a lunatic, the more I see of this Pope, the more I conclude the Ballymena man was right all along with regard to the reptiles of Rome.”

    It seems the big man has a few devotees here!

    “The sheer arrogance of it all is as preposterous as trying to rationalize child rape !!!”

    Did you read the Pope’s speech? It is always better to have an informed opinion, where debate is concerned. An uninformed opinion is no more that prejudice!

    ReplyDelete
  16. John,

    a complete waste of your time discussing anything there.

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7178118-paedo-fighters-sleeping-with-radioactive-fish-in-british-nuked-irish-sea

    That is what you are dealing with.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BrianClarkeNUJ.
    Andy Kearney was not shot for preventing child rape, that is totally untrue.
    Andy was shot because he beat the crap out of the O/C of Ardoyne.
    The humiliated RA man got or perhaps ordered a squad to go to his flat, he was shot and the lift was jammed to delay escape or prevent help.
    Disjusting enough what happened without adding insult to injury.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mackers, has the Professor escaped? I thought the provos or the vatican would have got to him by now, or the Master no escaping him!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anthony,

    "a complete waste of your time discussing anything there."

    What does this refer to? I see a link but am not sure of its relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A chara,

    I suppose Sinead O'Connor is a waste of time too ?

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Sinead-OConnor-writes-letter-to-Pope-Benedict-over-pedophile-remarks-112369599.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. In case the link does not work, here is Sinead O'Connor's letter on Papal Bullscutter !

    The letter reads: An open letter to Pope Benedict from Sinead O’Connor:

    The letter reads: An open letter to Pope Benedict from Sinead O’Connor:

    Sir, Some burning questions arise from the following statement you made in your Christmas address to your cardinals on December 20 regarding how it came to pass that the house of the Holy Spirit became a haven for criminals of a sexual nature.

    ‘In the 1970s pedophilia was theorized [by the church] as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.’

    Please deign to respond to this letter directly and personally and put aside all the pomp and titles and so-called ‘proper channels’ all of which belong not in the 21st century but the 12th and are unbecoming of Christ.

    Exactly who held the theory that pedophilia was fully in conformity with man and with children? Please give us their names.

    Exactly when did they hold this theory? Exactly when if ever did they cease holding the theory?

    Why was this information not given to victims?

    Why was it never given to any commissions of enquiry or civil authorities?

    Why in all the years since these scandals broke out was yesterday the first mention of this information?

    It is highly disrespectful of the victims that you would throw this out as an aside remark and not present yourself for questioning on such a very serious piece of information which would be key in the potential recovery of the church.

    The Holy Spirit requires you to familiarize yourself with honesty and respect if you retain any desire to salvage the remains of the church which has been ruined by its being allowed to live by its ownlaws and not God’s.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anthony,

    I just read the link, I understand now.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for doing the trawling Anthony...if yours hadn't then my curiosity would have got the better of me!
    It would be rude not to respond now youve been to the trouble of re-presenting these figures.
    Even in the face of the difference of data presented, which can and does occur in studies 4.3% of preists having allegations posed at them is still a long way out of 27% of actual sexual abuse in secular society as presented in the SAVI report, 2003, McGee et al.

    Quote - 'The natural law of right and wrong doesn't need establishing...it simply is.
    Now that is far removed from your own position of 'question everything.'
    What is this natural law of right and wrong? When was it fixed and by whom? How do we know it?

    Natural law goes through the same scrutiny as everything else and stands as inherent rights, not conferred by acts of legislation which I feel covers the issues you raise regarding bringing charges against the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anthony,

    "There is no denying the fact that the worldwide system of covering up sexual crimes committed by clerics was engineered by the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (1981-2005).

    "Here is part of an open-letter to Hans Kung from George Weigel, which diposes of the errors in his accussations.

    "That, sir, is not true. I refuse to believe that you knew this to be false and wrote it anyway, for that would mean you had willfully condemned yourself as a liar. But on the assumption that you did not know this sentence to be a tissue of falsehoods, then you are so manifestly ignorant of how competencies over abuse cases were assigned in the Roman Curia prior to Ratzinger’s seizing control of the process and bringing it under CDF’s competence in 2001, then you have forfeited any claim to be taken seriously on this, or indeed any other matter involving the Roman Curia and the central governance of the Catholic Church.

    As you perhaps do not know, I have been a vigorous, and I hope responsible, critic of the way abuse cases were (mis)handled by individual bishops and by the authorities in the Curia prior to the late 1990s, when then-Cardinal Ratzinger began to fight for a major change in the handling of these cases. (If you are interested, I refer you to my 2002 book, The Courage To Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church.)

    I therefore speak with some assurance of the ground on which I stand when I say that your description of Ratzinger’s role as quoted above is not only ludicrous to anyone familiar with the relevant history, but is belied by the experience of American bishops who consistently found Ratzinger thoughtful, helpful, deeply concerned about the corruption of the priesthood by a small minority of abusers, and distressed by the incompetence or malfeasance of bishops who took the promises of psychotherapy far more seriously than they ought, or lacked the moral courage to confront what had to be confronted.

    I recognize that authors do not write the sometimes awful subheads that are put on op-ed pieces. Nonetheless, you authored a piece of vitriol—itself utterly unbecoming a priest, an intellectual, or a gentleman—that permitted the editors of the Irish Times to slug your article: “Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests, according to this open letter to all Catholic bishops.” That grotesque falsification of the truth perhaps demonstrates where odium theologicum can lead a man. But it is nonetheless shameful.

    Permit me to suggest that you owe Pope Benedict XVI a public apology, for what, objectively speaking, is a calumny that I pray was informed in part by ignorance (if culpable ignorance). I assure you that I am committed to a thoroughgoing reform of the Roman Curia and the episcopate, projects I described at some length in God’s Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church, a copy of which, in German, I shall be happy to send you. But there is no path to true reform in the Church that does not run through the steep and narrow valley of the truth. The truth was butchered in your article in the Irish Times. And that means that you have set back the cause of reform."
    George Weigel
    Apr 21, 2010

    ReplyDelete
  26. John,

    you are of course free to discuss whatever you want. But I felt before you continued you should at least know what you are giving your time to. When I read that piece it reminded me that there are some things I do not suffer gladly.

    ReplyDelete
  27. John kennedy's cartoon has a rattle bounce of the pope-
    unfortunately all the scandel-
    sex claims [facts ] will bounce of as well- the teflon pope, another
    one

    Im for a funeral in the morning, it
    would be a bit odd if there were no priests in attendance
    there are a lot of priests who do a lot of good work- but unless
    everything is made public by the vatican this work will count for nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "you are of course free to discuss whatever you want."...REALLY ? wow ! after the latest 40 year phase of struggle for freedom...perhaps you could let Indymedia Ireland know that !! So you support Adams enabling child abuse ????

    ReplyDelete
  29. No gods no masters, it is time we lived our lives as grown ups.

    ReplyDelete
  30. brian clark nuj

    If you have evidence of Adams
    enabling child abuse perhaps you
    should let the authority's know in
    case some one makes the claim that you support child abuse-

    I never heard anyone attack the
    Pensive Quill because their views
    were held back- everyones views are
    on here- your attitude to the Quill is a mystery to me brian.

    ReplyDelete
  31. michaelhenry, the authorities actually colluded with Adams in the cover up as did members of Sinn Fein.
    Adams knew about the accusations against his brother for years and yet, he was quite happy for Liam to work amongst children here in Clonard in the Clonard youth centre.
    He actually said the authorities were aware his brother was there!
    How does a suspected paedophile who has a list of accusations against him get to work in a constituency where his brother is the MP and under the nose of the PSNI?
    He was perfectly aware what his brother had been accused of when he was canvassing with him in Louth, when he was a perspective candidate.
    Tell the authorities! they actively assisted in the cover up as did his friends in Sinn Fein.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Quote Anthony "you are of course free to discuss whatever you want. But I felt before you continued you should at least know what you are giving your time to. When I read that piece it reminded me that there are some things I do not suffer gladly."
    Can you expand on that please.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Mickey

    You were supposed to announce the ceasefire has ended on the quill… give em hell.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well said Nuala hon it puts a whole new slant on that old psf chant "for effective local leadersdhip"like the piece from Animal Farm when the other animals were looking through the window and couldnt tell who was animal and who was pig,is it a sign that one has arrived when you engage in the perved acts of those in establishment,it goes without saying that I agree with Mise Eire,s quote re,strangling kings with priests entrails,complusive viewing that would be!but dickey dodgers need to be included as well!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Stefan,

    you have missed an earlier comment seemingly.

    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7178118-paedo-fighters-sleeping-with-radioactive-fish-in-british-nuked-irish-sea

    If you manage to suffer that gladly you will have won me over to ID

    ReplyDelete
  36. John,

    [Part 1]

    I had a look at both David Quinn's article and the piece in Der Spiegel on which it is mostly based. They made for very disturbing reading. However, while I think the Der Spiegel article demonstrates that there were completely inappropriate attitudes to child sexuality among sections of the Left in Germany, it is not at all clear that this lead to widespread child abuse. As the political scientist Wolfgang Kraushaar remarked:

    "At the core of the movement of 1968, there was in fact a lack of respect for the necessary boundaries between children and adults. The extent to which this endangerment led to abuse cases is unclear,"

    Nor is it clear that these attitudes were shared by most left-wing/liberal people in general, both in Germany and elsewhere. Certainly, there are stories of reprehensible behaviour in some of the German kinderladens and communes, which ought to be investigated, but apart from the Odenwald school, victims of sexual abuse by leftists do not seem to be coming forward, or at least not to an extent that would suggest abuse was as rampant in those circles as in the Catholic Church.

    Nevertheless, Daniel Cohn-Bendit would seem to have questions to answer, as would elements in the German Green Party in the 1980s. On the other hand, I don't think Sartre, Foucault and the other French intellectuals who signed a petition and an open letter in 1977 advocating the repeal of the age of consent laws were actually advocating child molestation or rape. As Anthony has explained, one of their key points was, if teenagers are considered legally responsible for their actions at the age of 13, then why can't they consent to sexual relations at that age? I think it is worth noting that only one of the signatories of the 1977 letter also signed a second letter in 1979 that offered explicit support to a paedophile who was then being prosecuted for abusing girls from the ages of 6 to 12 (though it is possible the original signatories were unaware of the second letter).

    The civil liberties or gay rights organisations that accepted pro-paedophilia groups as affiliates ought to be condemned, though it must be said that many of the these paedophile groups did use reasonable arguments about teen sexuality and the age-of-consent laws to obfuscate their odious belief that prepubscent children can consent to sexual relations. At that time in the USA and the UK, there were differential age-of-consent laws for heterosexuals and homosexuals and it was in the context of campaigning for equalisaton of these laws and for a lowering of the age of consent in general that NAMBLA and its ilk were initially tolerated to some degree. However, these paedophile groups were never more than a fringe minority in the gay rights movement and there seems to have been much opposition to them from within the gay community. Indeed, many gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA's participation in parades and conferences. Still though, the fact that it took until 1993 for NAMBLA to be expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John,

    [Part 2]

    Even if we accept that support for paedophilia was an integral part of the Left internationally, I think that the main flaw in David Quinn's thesis lies in explaining how far left radicals could have such an influence on the thinking of Catholic Church bishops, given that the church itself was vehemently opposed to sexual liberation and left-wing ideology. Also, I don't think mainstream society in the 1970s was even aware of these radical ideas on child sexuality, let alone influenced by them. Quinn says the Left were "fantasticaly influential", but I fail to see how the beliefs of conservative bishops like Bernard Law and Desmond Connell were significantly affected by atheist philosophers like Sartre and Foucault or by German leftist radicals. Quinn accepts that conservative bishops were just as likely as liberal ones to cover up abuse; I think he also accepts that clerical sexual abuse did not just begin in the 1960s. To me, these two facts would suggest that the abuse problem did not arise from any 1960s ideological shift in the clergy, but from instincts of loyalty and self-preservation that were always there. I believe priests and bishops were primarily motivated by protecting their own reputation and that of the church; cover-up of any clerical sex abuse that occurred may have seemed the best way to do this. Furthermore, I think the clergy valued the well-being of fellow priests over that of the children in their care - why else would they send abusive priest on retreats or to counselling instead of reporting them to the police? Of course, I could be wrong in thinking this; however, for Quinn to be right, the Church would had to have undergone a radical overhaul of its thinking on sexuality in the space of a few years without letting any of its parishioners know about it.

    I was reluctant to post this comment because I don't want to minimise or condone paedophilia. Of course, it is legitimate to argue about the age of consent, but I think a line must be drawn at puberty or preferably after. Personally, I think 16 is a reasonable enough age of consent; however, I don't think a pair of young teenagers of a similar age who are below the age of consent should be prosecuted for having sexual relations with each other. The law should be there to protect young teenagers from predatory adults, not to prosecute them for exploring their sexuality amongst themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ah, didn't realise you was refering to that.
    Indeed there is some strange fruit born of the human race.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I tend to speed read over some of the comments from those who seek to support the church and the pope on this and thats basically because i belief that their can be NO justification for child rape. So let me see his holiness is now trying to pass the blame onto the liberal morals of the 70's? Surely to feck it was going on long before that! Also we're focusing on sexual abuse here, what about the physical abuse dealt out by members of the church? I personally witnessed a savage beating in my youth by a member of the church on a school mate, maybe it was meant to put the fear of 'god' in us, I'd say it put a hatred of him instead.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mise Eire "whats a dickey dodger?" well mo cara they come in many guises and names but are collectively known as nuns,and are as guilty of abusing and facilitating the abuse of children here and abroad,its important that this group of bitches do not slip below the radar when justice comes a calling,3000 horses running round a field mo cara thats one big f##king field,I,d be inclined to call that a county,and 3000 horses thats a hell of a lot of hot dogs no hunger there then, when the bearded one gets his hands on the reins of power down there its the jockeys I would worry about,he and his mates have a history of making people dissapear.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. MartyDownUnder,

    "I tend to speed read over some of the comments from those who seek to support the church and the pope on this and thats basically because i belief that their can be NO justification for child rape."

    In case your 'speed reading' might have missed it. NO-ONE IS SAYING THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR CHILD RAPE. In fact as someone who has sought to support the Church and the pope I find it deeply offensive if you are implying that I am justifying child-rape.
    For the record, I believe no punishment is enough for anyone engaged in such activity.
    But the bottom line is, if people followed the teaching of the Catholic Church they would not engage in such activity. The problem is with those who have gone against the teaching of the Church. How this can have come about is what is being discussed. An unpleasant conversation, no doubt, but a necessary one if it is to ensure that such a thing never happens again.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Stefan,

    ‘At some point though two humans appeared in the Garden of Eden quite distinct from the animal species.’

    Along with a talking snake. A biblical myth. You must see how the people of an atheist disposition you engage with would have serious problems with that.

    ‘The reason why I quoted the scripture was too try and offer something
    towards the plan for a better world that socialism leaves out to its
    detriment.’

    We hardly need scripture for that. Many resile from scripture because of its violent entreaties.

    ‘The DI put some solid arguments over deconstructing Darwin.’

    We still await them. To my mind it all appears to be right wing evangelicals doing a rerun of the Scopes Monkey trial. The derision that greeted that has made the DI a bit more circumspect. So it stays away from laughable creationism and talks of Intelligent Design. People familiar with the history of ID movement would see it more as Intelligent Deception. It doesn’t really have an impressive array of peer reviewed material or research programmes. I suppose that was what made it so easy for Forrest to intellectually eviscerate it. And how she did it too. If ID ever do to science what Forrest did to ID I will have no option but to believe in god.

    ‘Question everything’

    Not a bad approach to knowledge. But science is where it is today because it questioned supernatural explanations of our origins.

    ‘Adam had eternal life and was told not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. He did thus inherited death through that knowledge with a little help via the fallen angel and Eve.’

    Is that meant to pass as science? Should the likes of that really be taught in a science class?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mise Eire mo cara while not wishing to disagree with the Dublin peasants bible i.e., sex jockeys being a low life form,but I believe there is one lower life form type which is the masterego of the bearded variety,this disgusting political animal stands well apart from the rest in its endless desire to achieve power at any price.this many faced ego will gladly send comrades to their deaths whilst eating alter rails.turns a blind eye to activities of sex jockeys (Dublin term) order the dissapearance of mothers and fathers,break every rule in his bible (green book)while having others apart from those well in nutted for doing just the same,and has been charged with allowing comrades to starve to death for his political gain,and then willfully denies his former position as a major player in our recent violent dirty little war,as for the north being more screwed up by religion mo cara I think both states got exactly what they wanted i.e., a catholic 26 county state where the pulpit was mightier than the ballot box,and the 6 counties was left in the hands of orange bigots and a playground for the perverts in mi5 and their agents hence places like Kincora, no mo cara since that f##ker Patrick put foot in this place we as a nation went head down bum up imo!

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Alfie,

    “However, while I think the Der Spiegel article demonstrates that there were completely inappropriate attitudes to child sexuality among sections of the Left in Germany, it is not at all clear that this lead to widespread child abuse.”

    I accept that, but I am not claiming that it did. My point here is merely to offer evidence that “In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.” I believe the evidence I have given shows this. Benedict XVI calls these some of the ideological foundations. He is saying this, of course, to try to reach the truth of what happened. Maybe there are many factors but this is surely one factor. This does not justify anything, quite the contrary.

    I accept also that such abuse occurred in the pre-Vatican II Church, but its canon law was very strict in dealing with it where it came to light. The fact that canon law no longer offered such safeguards from the late 60’s onwards is, I would suggest, partially responsible.

    “Of course, I could be wrong in thinking this; however, for Quinn to be right, the Church would had to have undergone a radical overhaul of its thinking on sexuality in the space of a few years without letting any of its parishioners know about it.”

    This is only anecdotal on my part, but I remember visiting the Carthusian Charterhouse of Parkminster in 1980, and the Father Prior pointed to the books on morality and said that they were totally out of date and should be disposed of. That is the religious order reputed to be the strictest in the world. The post Vatican II Church has a lot to answer for. It ruptured all the structures and cast aside traditional morality in most of its seminaries. In fact in was next to impossible to be accepted as a candidate for priesthood if you were deemed to adhere to pre-Vatican II morality and belief. That I have witnessed at first hand in Ireland, France and England and have been assured was also the case from the USA to Italy and Australia. That explains why we never hear clear moral teaching from the pulpit. At the moment there appears to be a belated recognition of this, but so many of the bishops and priests in the Church were formed with a new morality, which has led to terrible evils in many areas, not least in the sexual abuse of some children. This occurred at a lower rate than society in general, but has rightly been give a disproportionate coverage, because the level should be at zero percent, due to the nature and claims of the institution involved.

    ReplyDelete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lol Mise Eire, while not praying I do admit to sticking pins in a lifelike effigy.the chances of the bearded one dropping of his perch anytime soon is highly unlikely because as we say here "he,s to good to himself"but I,d gladly contribute £20 if it helped him on his way...and another £20 if he brought a lot of the clergy with him! mind you if he would devour a well out of date tin of beans and instantaneously combust while having a meeting with the bishops ,well then that surely would be a devine wind mo cara!!!

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. AM-

    The bible's were wrote by mere men
    who being human had a tendency to
    brag and tell the odd yarn- like
    most writers or story teller's

    Adam and eve had two children two
    male's - where did the human race come out of then-

    I believe its just that i have little faith in the worlds spiritual leaders and those that tell us how to live, like we should have no choice

    Mise eire-

    The ghost of christmas past, are you the ghost of shergar past.

    ReplyDelete
  54. mise eire,
    stake through the heart you mean.
    To induce a heart attack the target has to have one, which is looking very unlikely in his case.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Stefan,

    I'm not sure you can conclude that priests and members of other religious organisations (like Christian brothers and nuns) were less likely than other groups in society to abuse children just because the SAVI report estimates that 27% of Irish people have suffered some form of sexual abuse as children. This figure most likely includes abuse by members of religious organisations as well. I haven't seen a percentage breakdown by occupation of child abusers, but for what it's worth, the SAVI report did observe that religious ministers and teachers (such as priests and Christian brothers) were the largest single category of authority figures who sexually abused boys. That doesn't mean that members of religious organisations are disproportionately represented among all child abusers; I would need to see more figures before I could be sure if that is the case or not.

    PS. I just did a rough calculation based on the figures in the SAVI report; I came up with a figure of about 3.3% for the proportion of all abusers that were religious ministers or teachers. In order to determine if this is disproportionate, we would have to know the proportion of the population that are members of religious organisations (ie. non-laypeople). A percentage higher than 3.3% would suggest that members of religious organisations are not disproportionately represented among abusers, while a lower percentage would suggest that they are. I found a figure of 4752 in the Irish Independent for the number of Catholic clergy in Ireland in 2008. Taking this figure and generously estimating the number of nuns/brothers at about 2000 and the number of non-Catholic clergy at 2500, we get about 9252 members of religious organisations. Let's round this up to 10000 and double it to allow for the fact that there were more priests and nuns in the past. Also, because the population was lower in the past, let's use the estimate of 2.83 million for 1960. With these assumpions, the proportion of religious was roughly 0.71% of the population of the republic - and I did try to make this percentage as high as possible at every turn, so if anything, it is an overestimate. Thus, members of religious organisations would seem to figure diproportionately among abusers; that is, members of a group comprising 0.71% of the population perpetrated 3.3% of child abuse in Ireland. However, since I don't have the knowledge to take factors like access to children into account, these figures have a certain back-of-the-envelope quality and may be erroneous. I suspect, though, that the proportion of priests, ministers and other religious was/is a lot lower than 0.71% of the population for the relevant period; thus if I'm right that members of this group make up 3.3% of all child abusers as per the SAVI report, then the figures do demand further analysis and explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  56. John,

    odium theologicum.

    Now that is an interesting accusation for Weigel to level at Kung. What has theological love done for Weigel? Led him to become an advocate of war in Iraq while lining up with every theocon and neocon from Texas to New Washington. Although on our atheist side of the house he has Hitchens for company on Iraq. So no point in me throwing stones at the glass houses of others, I suppose.

    Although I am instantly suspicious of anyone associated with the Discovery Institute, I did try to read his attack on Kung with an open mind and came away asking what did he actually tell us? Nothing at all. I read the original Weigel letter in On The Square and viewed it as the typical style of a Ratzinger apologist – savage the dissenting voice. For that reason I was at one with a comment on the thread which claimed ‘having read both open letters, it seems to me that Weigel's is much more acrimonious and belligerent.’ It was the very vitriol he accused Kung of. Kung, I found much more measured in his open letter. And for that reason I found myself in agreement with another comment that said Kung’s ‘points should be addressed as presented rather than dismissed as heresy by those who are frantically circling the wagons around the Pope.’

    Weigel sounded like an absolute sycophant.

    Still, I will try and read one of his books when I get the chance – The Courage To Be Catholic. It has been on the TBR list (to be read) for a while along with Kung’s Why I Am Still A Christian. Problem is … you know what it is! Time.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Brining your question over from the Fiery Terry thread - "What natural law are you talking about? Not that I dislike the concept, pinning it down causes me a problem. Explain an infringement of it," - as I do feel its wholly relevent here as we discuss the rise of moral relativism and the demise of objective standards that moral principles should be guided by.I have mentioned before these objective standards root themselves in natural law and now this needs clarifying.
    This is a law that is immanent in nature, ie can be discovered or found via human conscience but not created.I'm sure all will agree the topic being discussed falls into this category.Another couple of examples usefull for this blog as they refer back to fundamental faults in socialist principle I can draw from the Encyclical Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII.The first being the right to private property in so much that if a previously unowned portion of ground is tilled and nutured from barren ground to become and maintained as fertile crop bearing soil the man that interacted with this ground for this outcome has a natural right to claim it as his own.
    Second example I present is the 'society in miniature' - the family - born of the union of man with woman in a trusting and loving relationship to increase, multiply and instill the objective standards to measure behaviour by necesary for the smooth running of society.
    An example of an infringement of these two examples would be an overbearing of the role of the State into these areas which is a fundemental flaw in the socialist utopia.

    ReplyDelete
  58. marty said...a catholic 26 county state where the pulpit was mightier than the ballot box,and the 6 counties was left in the hands of orange bigots...

    1913-..it was the bishops who refused Larkin and Connollys kids
    permission to board the gangway for the ferry to liverpool where
    the english working-class had agreed to house them...the childern of the tenements..the childern of the dockers...

    1930s-..it was the bishops who
    blessed the blueshirts in Dun Laoighaire,when Frank Ryans men came from the otherside...

    1950s-...it was the bishops who
    fucked up again with family plannin
    and now there's peasants eveywhere
    ...

    Nuala...stake in the heart...me mother always said it was hard to
    kill a bad thing{but not impossible}Keep prayin for the heart attack...

    ReplyDelete
  59. Mise Eire I just got a text from Maynooth asking me to ask you not to use the words fuck and bishop in the same sentence,its causing some considerable consternation among the faithfull.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Micheal

    Im just a big rock floating in the
    north athlantic ocean,down a bit from Sulvas Waves on the fringe of the great north sea...

    All jokes aside Pearse wrote a great essay about ghosts.....
    the ghost of Tone,the ghost of
    Emmet,the ghost of Lalor...‘Is mairg do ghní go holc agus bhíos bocht ina dhiaidh,’ says the Irish proverb. ‘Woe to him that doeth evil and is poor after it.’ The men who have led Ireland for twenty-five years have done evil, and they are bankrupt. They are bankrupt in policy, bankrupt in credit, bankrupt now even in words. They have nothing to propose to Ireland, no way of wisdom, no counsel of courage. When they speak they speak only untruth and blasphemy. Their utterances are no longer the utterances of men. They are the mumblings and the gibberings of lost souls.

    ReplyDelete
  61. 1913 - Without sympathetic action from England the general strike was doomed to failure with gradual resumption of work agreed in combined ballots ending in roughly 500 men, members of ITWU, going back to work on the 19th Jan 1914.
    Historical perspective is called for when analysing worker solidarity in this dispute and although much economic assistance was donated via the British labour movement the support the Dublin railway men had lent to the English in 1911 wasn't replicated and thus the victories won then could've been repeated without the need for evacuation of Irish children.
    The encyclical I quoted above was much debated at that time and the Labour movement was willing to use it as a justicfication for the trade union movement.To quote Pope Leo XIII "Justice therefore demands that the interests of the poorer classes should be carefully watched over by the administration so that they who contribute so largely to the advantage of the community may themselves share in the benefits which they create."

    ReplyDelete
  62. While Emmet Stagg was noted for his anti-IRA views, his brother Frank Stagg was a Provisional Irish Republican Army member who died in a British prison in 1976 while on hunger strike

    ReplyDelete
  63. Mise Eire,

    can you document or otherwise verify the age of the person mentioned in your comment which we have not yet posted? Unless you can do so we cannot publish.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Could a certain politician's sojourns in the Phoenix Park be the subject of Mise Eire's unpublished comment, I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Alfie,

    spot on. But the age suggested by Mise Eire if wrong could lead to serious repercussions

    ReplyDelete
  66. Marty D/U

    I read the comments though the more I read the defenders with their elaborate explanations that add up to shifting the blame and indirectly ignoring the victims.
    Instead of the victims plight being primary it is buried under the mountains of pathetic excuse and longwinded lies defending the good name of the church.
    No matter what face of evil they paint on the monster the church is ultimately responsible and that is that.
    If there was a trail in a public court the evidence would not only convict the guilty but also those who enabled and provided the means for the crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mise Eire,

    I am familiar with the case. What I do not find anywhere or in the latest piece you have submitted is corroboration of the age you alleged.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Mise Eire,

    the age thing is crucial to this issue. That is why we have not posted your original comment.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Tain Bo,

    "No matter what face of evil they paint on the monster the church is ultimately responsible and that is that."

    If this is a problem of the Catholic Church alone then how do you account for cases outside of it?

    Surely by this logic child abuse does not exist outside of the Catholic Church.

    Is there ANY evidence that the rate of child abuse is any higher within the Catholic priesthood than it is among any other group outside?

    ReplyDelete
  71. John,

    piggybacking in here with a very brief question. I don't know if the rate of abuse is higher for priests than it is for others. What interests me is that the other institutions to which abuses belonged seem not to have been involved in the same organised way as the Church in covering up. That is what makes abuse in the Church seem institutionalised.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anthony well said a cara ,that just about sums it up in regards to thr catholic church,s involvement in this whole sordid mess

    ReplyDelete
  73. "What interests me is that the other institutions to which abuses belonged seem not to have been involved in the same organised way as the Church in covering up. That is what makes abuse in the Church seem institutionalised."

    I believe the reason for this was the collapse of traditional Catholic moral teaching and practices following the Vatican Council II, coupled with its adoption of fashionable but false psychological views.

    I would imagine that many bishops did not believe their priests had acted as they did and when it was impossible to deny they adopted the wrong views of their age.

    Often psychological "experts" had assured bishops,(in line with the thinking of the time), that the priests in question had been treated successfully, and they presented no further danger.

    The biggest failure of the hierarchy in the post Vatican II era, was to abandon its stringent regualtions and adopt those of the world. There are many in the hierarchy to blame for this, but the attempts to attack the Pope on this are often motivated by alterior motives.

    When John Paul II went to England and Wales in 1982, Pailsely said he was protesting him because he was the 'antchrist'. When he protested Benedict XVI's visit he said it was to protest at Catholic child abuse. Pull the other one!

    Paisley, Dawkins and others have a different agenda than defending children. Anti-Catholicism is nearer to the mark. To use the undoubted and criminal tragedies of so many as a stick to beat the Catholic Church with is contemptible.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anthony

    That has me puzzled and I was going to ask the same question.

    ReplyDelete
  75. John

    If the discussion was about individual cases then there would be merit to your point.
    Shifting the focus away from the church in the media age is pretty much like standing outside in the rain and wondering why you are wet.
    Denial is a powerful convincing tool even if it was homosexuals no matter who you blame or try to argue the innocents of the church they are as guilty if not more guilty for letting these atrocities take place.
    Yes the abusers are not confined to sacred ground they walk amongst us in all walks of life but still that does not mean monkey see monkey do and excuse it all away with the blessing of the holy Father.

    There is not just a smoking gun in this issue it’s more like a dirty- bomb which the Vatican supplied the radio-active materials without concern for the hell unleashed without the Vatican these individuals would have found a way to carry out their sickness then you could argue individual cases. Wearing the robes of a catholic priest give them complete power and with only a slap on the wrist from the Vatican no wonder they felt invincible and this continued for decades that is that.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Mise Eire,

    resend the second one. For some reason it came through twice but went into the spam folder. When I deleted the copy both were lost. Sorry about that

    ReplyDelete
  77. Mise Eire,

    sorry about this. The comment has reappeared in the spam folder. I posted it for you. Some tech issue here I don't understand

    ReplyDelete
  78. Mise Eire Stagg, Dick. Cox! is this a male thing a cara?

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anthony,

    "For what is original sin but a hatred of children?"

    G K Chesterton wrote that "Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved," (Orthodoxy, chap. 2).

    Your view seems tainted with Calvinistic sombreness. I prefer the more Catholic view:

    O certe necessárium Adæ peccátum,
    quod Christi morte delétum est!
    O felix culpa,
    quæ talem ac tantum méruit habére Redemptórem!

    O happy fault,
    O necessary sin of Adam,
    which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

    ReplyDelete
  80. John
    it's galling to hear so much squirming and refusal to place blame in proportion to where it belongs.
    An old man allowed his house to be used by the UVF and when weapons were eventually uncovered there that had been used in many murders he was given life in jail. He was uninvolved in the actions and protested at his late age he'd never do a life sentence. 'just do as much as you can' replied the judge.
    The catholic 'house' church shielded and facilitated child rape for decades, in full knowledge of all the gory details.
    GUILTY AS CHARGED, there's no place to hide!! Those at the top are evil, unashamed, unremorseful and should be in jail.

    ReplyDelete
  81. In response to your question John "is there ANY evidence that the rate of child abuse is any higher within the Catholic priesthood than it is among any other group outside?", I have previously submitted findings which lead us to be believe the opposite is true and resubmit them here...
    McGee et al, 2003, The SAVI Report: Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland - of every ten thousand Irish children an average of two-thousand and seven-hundred (27%) suffer sexual abuse in secular society.
    The 2009 Commission to Enquire Into Child Abuse - over a 34 year period more than 170,000 children passed through Industrial and Reformatory Schools operated by the Catholic Church. Of this number a total of 369 people made complaint to the Irish Child Abuse Commission during its nine-year investigation that they had suffered sexual abuse whilst at one of these institutions. The rate of prevalence is 0.2%.
    Anthony submitted data from Geoffrey Robertson’s The Case of the Pope.
    ‘Faced with this unfolding crisis, it is to the credit of the US Catholic Bishops Conference that in 2002 it decided to commission an objective study of the problem. It retained a groups of respected criminologists from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York to conduct a comprehensive review and their report, published in 2004, drew some very disturbing conclusions. It recorded that since 1950 no fewer than 10,667 individuals had made plausible allegatuiomns against 4, 392 priests – 4.3 per cent of those active in the period ..'
    Like I said in a previous post, even allowing for the differention in data which seems to be the point of the case concluding 'but on any view, the falsity of Ratzinger’s claim of ‘less than one per cent has been conclusively demonstrated.’ the figures still show a huge leaning to sexual abuse being more common outside of the church.
    Anthony suggested it's of secondary importance whether priests or non-priests are the abusers but the issues surrounding the "collapse of traditional Catholic moral teaching and practices following the Vatican Council II", conclude that the "adoption of fashionable but false psychological views", are rooted in Secular society so by means of deduction Tain Bo's statement, "No matter what face of evil they paint on the monster the church is ultimately responsible and that is that," isn't defenitive as at first it seems.


    Changing the subject, in relation to an earlier post, as an example of infringement of natural law by the overbearing state, I would like to highlight Castro's recent comments regarding the redeployment of half a million workers (10%) from the state to the co-operative and private sectors and a scaling back of government subsidies.
    In relation to these measures Mr Castro was quoted as criticising those who "confuse socialism with freebies and subsidies and equality with egalitarianism,"
    As a working model of socialism, external factors aside, this latest development is something subscribers would do well to analyse.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Mise Eire,

    your latest post is an attempt to make the same smear against the same individual in a more insidious manner. It will not be carried.

    ReplyDelete
  83. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  84. John,
    I am not saying you are defending the rape of innocents, my problem is the defense of the institution that was up to their necks in it. You are obviously a man of great faith and i am not going to attack you for it, so i can understand you want to understand how it could have occurred but surely the attempts of the current pope to shift blame are beyond contempt?
    This case is one that always moved me http://www.news.com.au/world/priest-molested-200-deaf-boys/story-e6frfkyi-1225845437714

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mise Eire,

    there is not a problem with you expressing the general criticisms you have. But in these issues we cannot allow an accusation to be thrown anyone's way without the slightest shred of evidence. Where evidence has been presented by you we carried it. Where the accusation was made without any evidence we refused to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  86. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mise Eire,

    in this case the assertion of truth is no substitute for evidence of truth

    ReplyDelete
  88. Is child rape wrong? If so why is it somehow mitigation for 'less' of it to go on in the RC church than ordinary society? The clergy being highly educated,trusted and religious should be above this behaviour. That's the shock and disgrace here. Also, it's disgraceful anyone would try and lessen the evil of the actions and the protection of the rapists. No doubt about their guilt, no dodgy allegations or downright lies and slander. These PRIESTS were raping kiddies with the consent...CONSENT and facility of the RC church right to the top...il papa facilitated child rape.
    John, you seem inteligent..so fukin wise up.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Larry I think it goes back to when the clergy came from well to do families and the better of your family were the higher up in the church you went, when a priest couldnt walk down a street without all the men tugging their forelocks and the women genuflecting,they adopted the same superior attitude as the gentry i.e peasants were here on earth only to serve.I can remember a lot of years ago while working in the kitchen tileing,I turned around to see a couple of dickey dodgers standing there,just opened the door and walked in, yip I gave them a mouthfull and chased them, the point being their attitude towards towards the working classes was/is one of arrogance and contempt.do you think the dickey dodgers in Nazareth Lodge or the Magdalene sisters knew nothing about the abuse of the children in their care ,of course they did ,but better a hundred kids suffer than cause a scandal or embarassment to the order and church,after all these people are of no consequence,when compared to a man/woman specially called to do gods will!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Larry,

    "Is child rape wrong? If so why is it somehow mitigation for 'less' of it to go on in the RC church than ordinary society?"

    It is not 'mitigation' but rather perspective. To see it as merely a Catholic problem is not to see the reality before us.

    "The clergy being highly educated,trusted and religious should be above this behaviour. That's the shock and disgrace here."

    Yes, I agree.

    "Also, it's disgraceful anyone would try and lessen the evil of the actions and the protection of the rapists."

    I don't think the guilt can be lessened, for those who are guilty. Justice demands that they are severely punished.

    "No doubt about their guilt, no dodgy allegations or downright lies and slander."

    I personally know of one priest who had his life ruined by an allegation that subsequently proved to be false.

    "These PRIESTS were raping kiddies with the consent...CONSENT and facility of the RC church right to the top...il papa facilitated child rape."

    This is where we disagree. I have not seen evidence of this. The Catholic Church gives local bishops more autonomy than is generally realised. Many bishops are at fault, but to say they were complicit in priests raping children does not follow.

    To say that the Pope facillitated child rape is plainly not true.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Stefan,

    "In response to your question John "is there ANY evidence that the rate of child abuse is any higher within the Catholic priesthood than it is among any other group outside?", I have previously submitted findings which lead us to be believe the opposite is true and resubmit them here..."

    Thank you for providing these details.

    ReplyDelete
  92. MartyDownUnder,

    "This case is one that always moved me http://www.news.com.au/world/priest-molested-200-deaf-boys/story-e6frfkyi-1225845437714"

    That is certainly a very moving and disgraceful case. I note the local bishop was the notorious Rembert Weakland.

    He is responsible for the lack of action against the criminal who committed these crimes. A bishop is responsible for what goes on in his diocese. His attempt to try to blame others is nothing short of reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Mise Eire, did you ever get on any the builds around City West Business park.I was on the Re-bar there in the boom.
    In response to Larry, the severity is the same in whatever context child abuse takes place, the point being stressed here is the idea of liberalisation of morality having it's source in 'odinary' society as you put it.Do you have an example of the Church consenting to child abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  94. John,

    thought you might find this funny.

    'It is well established that, during the Nazi era, false cases of sexual abuse were fabricated to malign the Catholic Church. The "immorality trials" (Sittlichkeitsprozesse) of Catholic priests in April and May 1937 are the prime examples of this phenomenon. In these trials, innocent priests and members of religious orders became the target of accusations of luring children and youth into sexual acts. Staged trials of Franciscan friars held in 1936 did not receive the media attention the National Socialist Regime hoped for; and this was not the only problem. In a case that would eventually be dismissed as baseless the alleged victim, when asked at trial if the offender was in the courtroom, pointed to the president of the court.'

    ReplyDelete
  95. John Mc Girr of course the pope and the cardinals ,bishops ,and everyone else in authority within the catholic church who knew of the activities of these sex beasts and did nothing other than move the perpetrator on to a new parish either here or abroad making it all the more difficult to catch the bastards,if this is not facilitating these pervs in pursuit of their vile pleasure then I dont know what is,

    ReplyDelete
  96. John,

    My point here is merely to offer evidence that “In the 1970s, pedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.”

    There is evidence that a number of far-left radicals had some contemptible ideas on child sexuality, but I have seen no evidence that these ideas were influential or even well-known in wider society. I think Anthony makes an important point on this:

    "What is required is not this or that individual or small group advocating positions – we have that today throughout the world much the same as we always have had it - but the paradigmatic existence of a body of thought that was substantial enough to have theorized paedophilia ‘as something fully in conformity with man and even with children to the extent that it created a culture where clerical rape of children could be taken as some sort of norm. It didn’t exist."

    Anyway, the church set its face against any kind of sexual liberation with its continued public opposition to extra-marital sex, homosexuality, contraceptives, divorce, etc.. If the church really was infected with a new liberal morality, why did it continue to oppose all of these things?

    I accept also that such abuse occurred in the pre-Vatican II Church, but its canon law was very strict in dealing with it where it came to light.

    The Murphy report makes the following point about canon law:

    "The Commission heard evidence from canon law experts that the status of canon law as an instrument of Church governance declined hugely during Vatican II and in the decades immediately after it."

    I accept that canon law fell into disuse in general from the 1960s onwards, but I have seen no evidence that priests and brothers who abused children in earlier times were defrocked. As the Ryan report demonstrates, abusive Christian brothers during the 1930s, 40s, and 50s were only given canonical warnings or transfers for their first offences, with the worst repeat offenders being allowed to leave the congregation in good standing rather than being expelled. Many of these inveterate abusers then went on to become teachers. What is more, priests who abused in these institutions were merely reprimanded and transferred, but not defrocked. The Ryan report also notes that "when lay people were discovered to have
    sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a
    Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported
    to the Gardaı." David Quinn claims that in the past, abusive priests and brothers were expelled from the church and handed over to civil authorities, but I haven't seen any evidence of this.

    ReplyDelete
  97. The church in moving known monsters like brendan smith about for decades was facilitating child rape. There were documents released showing the present pope shifted perverts about in germany.
    Never mind taking the plank from thy own eye...take your heads down out of yer arse holes and stop patronising people.
    Yes marty the days when filth could be dressed in a smock and adulated are gone. Obviously not for some though.
    As for false allegations,anyone doing that should recieve the sentence they hoped to get for the accused. It's the foulest of all deeds, to falsely accuse and goes unpunished for some reason. How many women have simply walked out of court after being caught lying about being abused or raped? CRAZY.
    That's not the issue here..the church admits what happened for cedades WORLD WIDE.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anthony,

    I hadn't heard of these 'Sittlichkeitsprozesse' but nothing surprises me anymore. The ending of the one you mentioned is amusing in one way, if it were not in such a situation of false allegations.

    It makes me wonder if similar accusations might not account for the demise of the Knights Templars. There were a lot of similar accusations made against them, which I have never been sure were true.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Marty,

    "...of course the pope and the cardinals ,bishops ,and everyone else in authority within the catholic church who knew of the activities of these sex beasts and did nothing other than move the perpetrator on to a new parish either here or abroad making it all the more difficult to catch the bastards..."

    I have heard many allegations but seen no evidence that the Pope was involved. Do you have such evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Alfie,

    “I have seen no evidence that these ideas were influential or even well-known in wider society.”

    I haven’t sought to say that they were, nor do I believe the Pope was. I understood him as saying, (these are my words), that morality had broken down to the extent where these ideas were being put forward. I don’t think that the Pope or anyone is saying that a culture existed “where clerical rape of children could be taken as some sort of norm.”

    “Anyway, the church set its face against any kind of sexual liberation with its continued public opposition to extra-marital sex, homosexuality, contraceptives, divorce, etc.. If the church really was infected with a new liberal morality, why did it continue to oppose all of these things?”

    It continued to oppose them in its teaching documents while doing nothing to correct the abuses and downright refusal of its teachings by entire episcopates. eg the Canadian bishops rejection of Humanae Vitae.

    “I accept that canon law fell into disuse in general from the 1960s onwards, but I have seen no evidence that priests and brothers who abused children in earlier times were defrocked.”

    The sin of sodomy was not tolerated in the code of Canon Law, which was in effect until Vatican II:

    ‘If they are clerici maiores (deacons, priests, or bishops) let them be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their possible stipend and in the gravest cases, let them be deposed.’ (2359, 2).

    ReplyDelete
  101. Larry,

    "...There were documents released showing the present pope shifted perverts about in germany..."

    Could you give any references to such documents.

    ReplyDelete
  102. John there has been many investigations and reams of evidence published about the catholic church ,and its hierarchy from Benny the bad down and their involvement in the sexual abuse and subsequent coverups, without me wasting time pissing into the wind ,so to speak, for mo cara I dont think you will accept any evidence that proves your devotion to a myth and those who peddle it is anything other than just that,If I may turn your position on its head ,what would you say if gods no 1 man on earth didnt know about these things ,he would be a lousey CEO dont you think!

    ReplyDelete
  103. john
    are you in SF? You certainly have all the political atributes.

    ReplyDelete
  104. A very happy new year to you all on this day of Mary mother of God and World Day of Prayer for Peace.
    I can assure you Larry that no ones trying to patronise anyone.
    Contrary to your claims of facilitating abuse, "The Vatican has released documentation which shows that Pope Benedict sought as early as 1988 to find faster ways of permanently removing priests who were guilty of abusing children but his efforts were rejected by Cardinal Jose Rosalio Castillo Lara, who headed the Vatican commission responsible for implementing the 1983 code of canon law."
    Heres a section from the US Diplomatic cable recently leaked...
    "While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out politically. The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty. Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply. Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent) Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters rogatory."

    ReplyDelete
  105. John
    unless you've been residing on mars you will have seen documents uncovered/released/exposed in Germany recently showing Ratzy the natzi was involved in cover ups regarding paedo sagarts in his career.
    If you are blinkered in your news coverage that's your problem, not mine.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Larry,

    "john
    are you in SF? You certainly have all the political atributes."


    No, I haven't backed them since 1986 when the first sell-out happened.

    I think of it as their Vatican II, only Gerry isn't infallible.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Larry,

    I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers, but even if I did there has been nothing which backs the claims you have made against the Pope.

    The Pope has enemies all over the world, some of whom have smeared him and used innuendo. Even with that, they have not succeeded. The evidence is just not there.

    Do you believe in justice or would you rather just consider him guilty and lynch him and then look for evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  108. hmm...gerry isn't infalible? SF supporters obviously still disagree with that. However i now get the impression ur takin the uria here.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Larry,

    "However i now get the impression ur takin the uria here."

    I don't know why you would think this. I wasn't, I meant it.

    ReplyDelete
  110. John I,d gladly just hang the git and his mates on behalf of all those who suffered throughout history in the name of god,I,d even supply the rope!

    ReplyDelete
  111. john
    the RC church has already admitted its guilt. What on earth are you ranting on about like a drowning man searching for straws?

    mackers liverpool 12 mins away from a priceless point lol.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I'd say Larry is refering to this John.
    Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8565986.stm

    The Vatican has denounced attempts to link Pope Benedict XVI to a child abuse scandal in his native Germany.
    Spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said there had been "aggressive" efforts to involve the Pope, but added: "It's clear that these attempts have failed."
    The Holy See's prosecutor meanwhile said that "to accuse the current Pope of hiding [cases of abuse] is false".
    The Pope's former diocese earlier said he once unwittingly approved housing for a priest accused of child abuse.
    The episode dates back to 1980 when he was archbishop of Munich and Freising, and known as Joseph Ratzinger.
    However, a former deputy said he - not the future Pope - had made the decision to re-house the priest, who later abused other children and was convicted.

    ReplyDelete
  113. if he had no clue what was going on around him how did he get to the top?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Stefan,

    "I'd say Larry is refering to this John.
    Taken from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8565986.stm"

    Thank you, I had seen this. If this is the best they can come up with I would say he pretty safe.

    I would add that if anyone came up with real evidence I am not going to ignore it. But so far the evidence seems to be zero.

    This seems the stuff Diplock courts are made of. More like Kangaroo courts, convicting with no evidence!

    ReplyDelete
  115. I know the facts don't interest those who want to lynch the Pope, but here are a few:

    FACT #1
    The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that sexual abuse of minors is a damnable sin, of the worst kind, in which Jesus Christ himself said it would be better for someone who does this to tie a millstone around his neck and be thrown into the deepest part of the sea. Catholics involved in sexual abuse have not only failed in morality, but they have also failed in Catholicism, in that they are not practicing the Catholic Christian faith at all.

    FACT #2
    The total number of all priests accused of sexual abuse of minors is less than 5% of all Catholic clergy. That means more than 95% of Catholic clergy have never been accused and are doing their jobs correctly, living quiet and holy lives in service to their parishes.

    FACT #3
    In spite of what people say about clerical celibacy being a "cause" of these problems, actual statistics indicate that the majority of sex-abuse of minors is perpetrated by married men; step-fathers, uncles, cousins and live-in boyfriends. Statistically speaking, being a celibate man in the Catholic priesthood actually REDUCES your odds of sexually abusing minors. That's just a matter of statistical FACT.

    FACT #4
    In the overwhelming vast majority of cases (more than 80%), the alleged victim was a male between the ages of 11 and 17. Victims younger than 11 were almost never reported, and sexual abuse of females was also rare. This is not the clinical definition of pedophilia. It is however a type of predatory homosexuality that seeks to take advantage of underage young men. Therefore the term "pedophile priests" is a misnomer and not based on hard statistical data. A more accurate term should be "predatory homosexual priests."

    FACT #5
    Homosexual men are not allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church. In order for a homosexual to become a priest he must lie about his homosexuality just to get into seminary and remain "in the closet" indefinitely. If he is ever discovered to be gay, he would be fired and laicized (defrocked).

    FACT #6
    Sexual abuse of minors is slightly higher in Protestant churches according to data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.

    FACT #7
    Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.

    FACT #8
    The reforms implemented in the US Catholic Church after the sex-abuse scandal of 2002-2003 have been hailed by child protective services as the most comprehensive ever seen in a public institution and have been cited as a model for other institutions to follow.

    FACT #9
    No other person in the Vatican has done more to defrock abusive priests and curb sexual abuse in general than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI). He was a hawk on clerical discipline and hunting down predators. When he became pope he instituted a zero tolerance policy not only against abusive clerics but against homosexual priests in general. So it's ironic that this pope would find himself under media scrutiny for this reason.

    ReplyDelete
  116. John,

    I haven’t sought to say that they were, nor do I believe the Pope was. I understood him as saying, (these are my words), that morality had broken down to the extent where these ideas were being put forward. I don’t think that the Pope or anyone is saying that a culture existed “where clerical rape of children could be taken as some sort of norm.”

    The pope was trying to explain why abusive priests priests and brothers were usually just reprimanded and transferred by their superiors, but not expelled and handed over to the police. He suggests that this was because, in the 1970s, "paedophilia was theorised as something that was in keeping with man and even the child." For this explanation to hold, most bishops and priests would need to have subscribed to this theory. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of this.

    It continued to oppose them in its teaching documents while doing nothing to correct the abuses and downright refusal of its teachings by entire episcopates. eg the Canadian bishops rejection of Humanae Vitae.

    I think the so-called Winnipeg statement to which you refer was exceptional. The statement itself was a kind of a fudge by Canadian bishops who were trying to deal with the widespread dissent among Catholics from the prohibition of all forms of artificial contraception as decreed in the encyclical Humanae Vitae. The bishops stated that those who cannot follow the teaching should not be excommunicated from the church, and that "if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assured that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience." It's a bit daft all right, but then again, so was Humanae Vitae.

    The sin of sodomy was not tolerated in the code of Canon Law, which was in effect until Vatican II:

    ‘If they are clerici maiores (deacons, priests, or bishops) let them be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their possible stipend and in the gravest cases, let them be deposed.’ (2359, 2).


    The Ryan report demonstrates that well before Vatican II, the Church was soft on child abuse. Look at the files on Artane, Letterfrack and Upton:

    http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/

    I came across an interesting book on the history of clerical sexual abuse called Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse by Thomas P. Doyle, A.W. Richard Sipe, and Patrick J. Wall. The authors document that abuse was a persistent problem throughout the history of the church. They claim that during the Middle Ages, the church often defrocked abusive priests and handed them over to civil authories (sometimes the victim was punished as well); however, after the Reformation, "the institutional church found its power and monolithic control threathened. From that point on, one sees a pattern of secrecy emerging with the church's response to clerical sexual issues." They also note that from the eighteenth century to the present, there was no requirement or recommendation in any Vatican documents to report abusive clergy to civil authorities. So if these authors are correct, it would seem that the concealment of clerical sexual abuse is an old phenomenon and that it arose out of an instinct of self-preservation.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Larry, the mass media have intentionally misrepresented specific situations around this whole case making it easier for people like yourself to jump on the bandwagon and make wild, unsubstantiated allegations.The evidence presented deconstructs key elements of your argument, you need to rebuild your case against His Holiness with some evidence contrary to whats been put up.The Vatican document I quoted shows His Holiness battling with liberal elements within the church that are rooted in what you call 'normal' society, quoting from 'Light of the World' “In Ireland, the problem is altogether specific – there is a self-enclosed Catholic society, so to speak, which remained true to its faith despite centuries of oppression, but in which, then, evidently certain attitudes were also able to develop….We must examine thoroughly how it was possible for that to happen, and at the same time what can be done so that something like that does not happen again.”

    ReplyDelete
  118. Stefan

    ‘I think an introduction to James Le Fanu at this point would be a good
    idea.’

    Perhaps he might be but I doubt if I will read him just yet although one of his books is in the Amazon basket (along with hundreds of others that I might get to before I die and don’t make it to heaven or hell!). The link didn’t work for me. But my experience of this discussion so far is that you suggest something. I look at it, read the critique and invariably find it more persuasive. You make a case and Alfie comes along and takes it apart in a manner that seems more persuasive. But against that I am not an objective witness. I am predisposed toward the critique. Point is, there are only so many links we can all go to. And as each one recommended fails to shift things the inclination to go to new ones decreases. It is just the way we are. As for Le Fanu, he has been well critiqued elsewhere.

    Alfie,

    ‘Even if you accepted Baumgardner's claim that there is intrinsic
    radiocarbon in these samples, it still gives ages well beyond the
    biblical time frame.’

    But this always happens with these types of claims. That is why the bible is not regarded by many (excluding Mervyn Storey and company up North who want it taught as science!) as a work of science. The notion of a 6000 year old earth is laughable. The ID people seem to avoid it like the plague. They are too savvy not to understand the ridicule it brings down on its adherents.

    While I admire Baumgardner’s frankness: ‘I would say my primary goal in my scientific career is a defense of God's Word, plain and simple’, do we really need to be spending time refuting rubbish which has been refuted a million times over? Apologies for the link to add to the ever increasing flood (pardon the pun) of it.

    http://www.flascience.org/wp/?p=118

    ReplyDelete
  119. Alfie,

    "The pope was trying to explain why abusive priests priests and brothers were usually just reprimanded and transferred by their superiors, but not expelled and handed over to the police. He suggests that this was because, in the 1970s, "paedophilia was theorised as something that was in keeping with man and even the child." For this explanation to hold, most bishops and priests would need to have subscribed to this theory. As far as I'm aware, there is no evidence of this."

    That is absolutely not what he is saying. In the speech he aknowledges the guilt of those who have engaged in such sins against children, but then goes on to put it in a wider context. This is very well explained in this short video clip by Father Barron.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BxH6nGH-o4&feature=player_embedded

    ReplyDelete
  120. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  121. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  122. no interest in getting into a statistical debate about child rape within the RC church. It happened and was covered up for decades from the top down. If statistics help convince RC's that somehow the activities of priests are lesser 'statistically' than elsewhere then deflect all you want. Personally i think anyone engaging in that crap is just a sicko too. Shame on you!!

    ReplyDelete
  123. Larry,

    I don't think it is so simple. There is a need to follow the evidence and not let this become susceptible to the amplification spiral. If the figure of 4% of abusing priests is indeed that high then it is nothing short of a disgrace. My argument would not be that priests should by especially targeted here but that neither they nor the institution to which they belong should be afforded any special privilege. Canon Law has all the status of golf club rules, nothing else. A gold club has no more right to shield its members who rape children than the Church.

    In fact I think because of their attempt to set themselves up as some sort of moral guardian they deserve a special contempt.

    There is indeed a failure to face up to the gross abuse perpetrated by the Catholic Church and an attempt to deflect the blame onto something else. I am not impressed by the argument that the abuse is worse in secular society. Not that I believe the priests are better or worse, simply as bad. I tend to feel that the argument (even if statistically true) is designed to gloss over the very real criminality at the heart of the Church with a 'sure they were all at it.'

    The institutional cover up is the problem here which makes the institution a party to rape. Statistics either for priests or against them should not be allowed to deflect the focus away from this. If you want a concise critique of Ratzinger's role in this read Robertson's The Case of The Pope. At the same time 'beware the man of one book.' But in my view he makes a compelling case. The Vatican just smacks so much of cover up.

    ReplyDelete
  124. A.M.
    there's much emphasis on 95% of clergy not involved. I say 95% are pinball wizzards...deaf dumb and blind..as if.
    not interested.

    ReplyDelete
  125. John,

    I had a look at the relevant passage in the pope's speech. Of clerical sexual abuse, he says:

    We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light.

    He goes on to describe the prevalence of child pornography, sex tourism and drug abuse in modern society. Then he remarks:

    In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today.

    To me, the pope is trying to describe the context in which clerical sex abuse occurred and was concealed, and to explain why bishops and priests behaved as they did. His explanation is similar to yours, ie. a 'new morality' pervaded the priesthood. However, this theory does not explain why clerical sex abuse was common long before the 1960s and 70s nor why Catholic bishops seemed to stop handing over abusive priests to civil authorities some time after the Reformation.


    FACT #7
    Sexual abuse of minors is significantly higher in non-religious institutions that deal with children, particularly public schools, where according to a U.S. government report, a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church.


    Abuse and its cover-up would seem to have been a problem in the US public school system. The estimates of the number of US teachers who sexually abuse range from 0.04 to 5%, while estimates of the number of US priests that abuse range from 2 to 6%. Given that only 22% of the population there are Catholic, it would make sense that the average child is more likely to be abused in a public school than by a Catholic priest. However, I don't know where the "100 times more likely" statistic comes from.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anthony,

    It is true that some bishops have mishandled and mismanaged sexual abuse cases. In fact, I think the charge of intentional cover-up is even warranted in some rare cases. Where there is real evidence of this I would fully support any actions taken against them, whether canonical or civil.

    In the case of Pope Benedict XVI the whole media smear campaign involves three things.

    1) A single priest transferred without Archbishop Ratzinger's knowledge or permission while he was the Archbishop of Munich during the early 1980s.

    2.) A single priest in Milwaukee during the 1990s, who should have been defrocked by his bishop, but instead his bishop sent the case to the Vatican without sufficient evidence and without canonical jurisdiction. The Cardinal who handled the case was Cardinal Bertone (not Ratzinger) the civil authorities had already been notified and dropped the case due to statute of limitations, and the priest in question was literally dying. (In fact, he died four months later.)

    3.) Vatican directives issued by Ratzinger in 2001 demanding secrecy in the handling of evidence for ecclesiastical trials. This is standard procedure to protect the wrongly accused, and in no way does it prohibit reporting evidence to civil authorities

    ReplyDelete
  127. Anthony,

    do we really need to be spending time refuting rubbish which has been refuted a million times over?

    You have a point. But if I'm honest, I will say that I did enjoy investigating the issues Stefan raised. It rekindled my fascination with science - particulary maths and physics - and I'm now planning to take some Open University courses as a step back on the educational ladder. So, the discussion has really benefitted me; I hope others enjoyed it too.

    ReplyDelete
  128. “To me, the pope is trying to describe the context in which clerical sex abuse occurred and was concealed, and to explain why bishops and priests behaved as they did.”

    I believe he was referring to the roots of child pornography and sex-tourism and the sexualisation of children in broader society, after having spoken about evils within the clergy. I do not see that he was referring to priestly abuse with those words, but rather looking at the ‘signs of the times’ in general. In speaking about ‘foundations’ he is looking for the false principles that he goes on to enumerate, which have given rise to evil.

    That is certainly the way it has been interpreted in every circle outside the ‘kick the Pope’ or ‘Mother’ Bernadette Mary O’Connor circles. If his words meant what you are suggesting there would be uproar within the Church as such a sentiment would be ridiculous and patently false.

    “His explanation is similar to yours, ie. a 'new morality' pervaded the priesthood. However, this theory does not explain why clerical sex abuse was common long before the 1960s and 70s”

    The rate of abuse prior to the Vatican Council II was miniscule. I believe it to have been about the rate has reduced to under the present Pope, i.e. less than 0.1% of accusations. Of course that is still too high then as now, but nowhere near what it was in the 60’s to 80’s.

    “ nor why Catholic bishops seemed to stop handing over abusive priests to civil authorities some time after the Reformation.”

    I am not aware of what evidence there is to suggest this. I will look out for that book you mentioned previously.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Alfie,

    "I don't know where the "100 times more likely" statistic comes from."

    Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
    "So we think the Catholic Church has a problem?" she told industry newspaper Education Week in a March 10 interview.
    To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000. That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.
    Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

    http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  130. Alfie,

    Stefan has been a blessing! Strange choice of words but I am sure he will smile. He has renewed my interest in topics that I had a passing interest in. So the debate was very enjoyable and in my view worthwhile. I am also glad John McGirr came on board with his views as that has led to another fascinating discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "I am re-posting as it went to the wrong thread)!"

    Larry,

    "Personally i think anyone engaging in that crap is just a sicko too. Shame on you!!"

    Yet another unfounded allegation from you. You have quite a record of it. Here are some of your contemptible and slanderous accusations:

    “It's a pity the 'faith' wouldn't stay out of kiddies rear ends.”

    “Sex before marriage, homosexuality and rape ARE ok in the Catholic church. IF YOU'RE A PRIEST, [and don't use a condom] Not only ok, facilitated, covered up, and protected.”

    “They were going to permit priests to marry but decided any more sex might actually do them harm.”

    “A few priests only..? yeah right, a few in every parish in every country on every continent. And those not doing it know about it.”

    “John,…...nomatter how clever YOU think you are, i suspect you're just dangerous...to kids, indirectly of course, with your blind support of the RC church.”

    “These PRIESTS were raping kiddies with the consent...CONSENT and facility of the RC church right to the top...il papa facilitated child rape.”

    “There were documents released showing the present pope shifted perverts about in germany.”

    “unless you've been residing on mars you will have seen documents uncovered/released/exposed in Germany recently showing Ratzy the natzi was involved in cover ups regarding paedo sagarts in his career.”

    When asked for evidence of any of this libellous BULLSHIT, what did you come up with, oh yes another insult. Well you clearly are not one to worry about facts, or even common decency.

    For the record, I don't believe you have read a single post I have written which makes you totally incapable of judging me with your sanctimonious ramblings!

    ReplyDelete
  132. John,

    thanks for this link. While long viewing Quinn as a purveyor of superstitious silliness the comment he provided from Daniel Cohn Bendit absolutely stunned me. It gave me one of those WTF moments. This is what happens with cults. And that sort of sexual licentiousness is a feature of some of those zany American religious cults that post date the deranged Left of 1970s Germany. Bendit should be Ratzinger's cell mate. Then I was never a fan anyway.

    However, all of this appears to be a quick trawl by Quinn through the net, where he even manages to get dates wrong, in a pretty pointless bid to depict as mainstream views that existed only the margins. Quinn’s attack on Sartre underlined his desperation. Sartre liked young women but it is hardly a crime. There has never been a suggestion that I am aware of that he advocated child rape or an institutional cover up. While regarding context as alibi, I note that Quinn never as much as explained or considered the alibi of Sartre which I addressed earlier.

    We have always had views about alternative lifestyles, even today. We don't make the mistake of thinking they ever approached being hegemonic.

    The far left in Germany was 'fantastically influential'. The hippies were more influential. The German revolutionaries hardly constituted a substantial body of opinion. This is a disingenuous attempt by Quinn to conflate the entire range of far left thought with this deranged sect. Having said that when I read the article you linked I immediately felt that really what we had here was not a political project/experiment no matter how ill judged but the deliberate exploitation of a situation by paedophiles on the Left. Those on the Left who knew of it or approved it should not be allowed to take refuge behind the shield of misguided radicalism. This was a paedophile project, pure and simple. If Cohn Bendit did not realise it he should have no place in public life today on the grounds of gross incompetence. I don’t buy into the view that ‘for the adherents to the new movement, the child did not serve as a sex object to provide the adults with a means of satisfying their sexual urges. This differentiates politically motivated abuse from paedophilia.’ Nice veneer but essentially guff.

    As bad as it was in my view the scale of it still does not amount to the theorization of “paedophilia as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.’ This was the dissenting view from what was actually theorized i.e. sex with children was absolutely wrong.

    In all of this there seems an unwillingness to confront Vatican criminality and the role of the clergy in the global rape of children. Writers like Quinn would rather defend the odious Ratzinger, ignore the dissident Kung, and regularly regale us with guff.

    Sad, really. Does nothing for the victims of the clerical rapists and only reinforces the suspicion that the real purpose is to defend the Church not the children.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Anthony,

    "As bad as it was in my view the scale of it still does not amount to the theorization of “paedophilia as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.’ This was the dissenting view from what was actually theorized i.e. sex with children was absolutely wrong."

    But the Pope wasnt saying it was main stream. Take an example, there are those today who theorize about incest being acceptable, (in switzerland and in a few court cases). They are an extreme minority, but they are there. I don't think the Pope meant more than that. He was showing that bad philosophical principles can lead to terrible conclusions. If he were saying what you think he is saying then my answer would be that he is wrong. But I don't believe he was saying that.

    I don't believe most of the 'left' went along with this, but it was there, and as it was from the same country as the Pope is, I can only imagine it was on his mind when he said this.

    ReplyDelete
  134. 'inteligent' bullroot is a bullroot just the same. castrate and burn em at the stake. The scumbags should relate to that.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Here is a view from a bishop who is not in 'good-standing' with Rome, but who represents a lot of traditional Catholics.

    http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php
    ?id=10&catname=7

    ReplyDelete
  136. Larry,

    "castrate and burn em at the stake. The scumbags should relate to that."

    Much as I hate to say it, I agree!

    ReplyDelete
  137. I know Westmoreland Street.Spent most of me time round the bars of Dublin of an evening whilst I was there.Dunno your cafe mo chara but the Arlington did a fine carvery.
    May have got in Mother Redcaps, I did most of them - my base was the Red Cow Inn, Naas road.
    'God bless the auld dumplings' - ceart go leor a dhuine uasail, in London as in Dublin.
    Good luck with courses Alfie, I can safely say the debates helped to further my own research of different topics covered especially the examples and arguments you raised against mine.
    Thankyou for your kind words Anthony, indeed I smiled a lot, but it is your blog that is the blessing being the vessel for the well represented non partisan debate you allow.

    Regarding leftwing liberal ideology...
    Taken from the article by Peter Hitchins - Question: Who said: 'Not all sex involving children is unwanted and abusive'? Answer: The Pope's biggest British critic.

    "on June 26, 1997, Mr Tatchell wrote a start­ling letter to the Guardian newspaper.
    In it, he defended an academic book about ‘Boy-Love’ against what he saw as calls for it to be censored. When I contacted him on Friday, he emphasised that he is ‘against sex between adults and children’ and that his main purpose in writing the letter had been to defend free speech.
    He told me: ‘I was opposing calls for censorship generated by this book. I was not in any way condoning paedophilia.’
    Personally, I think he went a bit further than that. He wrote that the book’s arguments were not shocking, but ‘courageous’.
    He said the book documented ‘examples of societies where consenting inter-generational sex is considered normal’.
    He gave an example of a New Guinea tribe where ‘all young boys have sex with older warriors as part of their initiation into manhood’ and allegedly grow up to be ‘happy, well-adjusted husbands and fathers’.
    And he concluded: ‘The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
    ‘While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful.’
    Well, it’s a free country. And I’m rather grateful that Mr Tatchell, unlike most of his allies, is honest enough to discuss openly where the sexual revolution may really be headed.
    What he said in 1997 remains deeply shocking to almost all of us. But shock fades into numb acceptance, as it has over and over again. Much of what is normal now would have been deeply shocking to British people 50 years ago. We got used to it. How will we know where to stop? Or will we just carry on for ever?"

    ReplyDelete
  138. Anthony, going back to earlier discussions, you may find this interesting.
    I was reading around one of the leaders of NCSE's public relations effort in promoting evolution by the name of Eugenie Scott.It was she who amoungst other NCSE staff served as scientific and educational consultants for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial.
    Quite surprisingly in contradiction of what they fought for in the trial she spearheaded the effort to inject religion into public school science classes in order to promote evolution.
    According to John G.West
    Is Darwinian Evolution Compatible with Religion?
    Quote -
    On a taxpayer-funded website that the NCSE helped design, teachers and students are directed to a list of statements by religious groups endorsing evolution, and Eugenie Scott, the group’s executive director, encourages biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution. Scott even suggests that students be assigned to interview local ministers about their views on evolution—but not if the community is “conservative Christian,” because then the lesson that “Evolution is OK!” may not come through.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Papal Bull

    Michaelhenry,

    ‘The bible's were wrote by mere men
    who being human had a tendency to
    brag and tell the odd yarn’

    You are not claiming Gerry wrote the bible are you?!

    You are right. A book written by men and passed off as the word of god. Joseph Smith did the same. A brazen con carried out in relatively modern times yet he got away with it. Now there may be about 14 million worldwide who have that as their holy book. His Holiness Joe was just a crook who ended up shot in a gunfight in jail.

    Nuala,

    The Professor indeed. If he makes an escape attempt let’s hope he is successful.

    Tain Bo

    ‘Wearing the robes of a catholic priest give them complete power and with only a slap on the wrist from the Vatican no wonder they felt invincible and this continued for decades.’

    This sums up the attitude of many people watching this general debate. All the bobbing and weaving by the hierarchy has not dispelled the suspicion or banished the smell. There is something about a cover up that is instantly detectable. People sense it instinctively.

    John

    ‘The Catholic Church gives local bishops more autonomy than is generally
    realised. Many bishops are at fault, but to say they were complicit in
    priests raping children does not follow.’

    But it does follow. By their actions they provided the enabling factors that greatly enhanced the safety zone for the rapist and the danger zone for the child.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Carried over from Fiery Terry

    John,

    ‘To refuse to deal with the real problem would be criminal.’

    Whatever the problem it was not dealt with. The pass the pervert policy from diocese to diocese was the criminal abdication of a duty of care.

    That is where the evidence leads.

    ‘Put simply, most clerical abusers are homosexuals.’

    Put simply most clerical abusers are priests!

    ‘I agree they were monsters. I do not agree the Church has let us down,
    but some in the Church have shown that they are ‘wolves in sheep’s
    clothing.’

    This sounds so much like a reticence to tackle the issue and acknowledge it as corporate crime. It dismays because since you have taken to arguing your position on this blog I have been convinced that you are every bit as opposed to abuse as the rest of us and genuinely want it stopped yet there is this mental road block that will not allow you to plunge the dagger into the heart of the beast.

    ReplyDelete
  141. john
    ive no interest in your waffle trying to sidetrack on the issue. Glad you're collecting my points, pass them on to your local sagart/fagart. They obviously dont hear anything blunt or honest from the likes of you+ your apologist buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  142. John,

    There is an important difference between what you and Charol Shakeshaft are saying. Dr. Shakeshaft claims that "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests." She is saying that the number of abuse cases involving teachers is probably more than 100 times the number of abuse cases involving priests. This is mostly explained by the fact that there are about 4 million teachers in the USA but only about 40,000 priests. Also access to children is a factor; I would say that teachers have more access to children that any other profession. Indeed, primary school teachers probably spend more time with children during the school year than parents do. Anyway, what you inferred from Shakeshaft's statement was that "a child is literally over 100 times more likely to be molested in a public school than in a Catholic church." That may be true of the average child, particularly one who is not Catholic, but you cannot deduce that from what Dr. Shakeshaft claimed. For example, let's say there was a country which had 1000 priests and 100,000 teachers; let's also assume that 10% of each group abused children. In this case, you would have 100 times more cases of abuse by teachers than by priests, but both priests and teachers would be equally likely to abuse. But were/are teachers and priests in the USA equally likely to sexually abuse children? One way to determine this is by comparing estimates of the number of teachers and priests who abuse. As I've said before, Shakeshaft's estimates of US teachers who abuse range from 0.04% to 5%, while estimates of the number of US priests that abuse range from 2% (Phillip Jenkins) to 6% (Richard Sipe). So they are broadly similar. You could also look at the number of reported abuse cases involving teachers and priests, while taking into account the much larger number of teachers than priests.

    With regard to the relationship between clerical sexual abuse and Vatican II , this is what conservative Catholic scholar Leon Podles makes of Pope Benedict's attempt to link them:

    Benedict makes some dubious assertions, half-truths at best. He claims that a misunderstanding of Vatican II led to a neglect of the penal aspects of the code of canon law. This may have happened, but what explains the toleration of abuse before Vatican II? From the American cases I have read the usual response of a bishop before Vatican II was to pawn an abusive priest off on an unsuspecting bishop, who was then stuck with him

    The sexual liberation of the 1960s seems to have led to an increase of abuse cases; but this may be an illusion of reporting. Victims in older cases may have died and the files of abusive priests were generally destroyed on the death of the abuser. And terrible abuse occurred before the 1960s, and later abusers were trained in pre-1960s seminaries.


    Podles should know; he has written a widely-praised study of clerical sexual abuse in the US, called Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church

    ReplyDelete
  143. "It dismays because since you have taken to arguing your position on this blog I have been convinced that you are every bit as opposed to abuse as the rest of us and genuinely want it stopped yet there is this mental road block that will not allow you to plunge the dagger into the heart of the beast.

    I just don't see the beast to be the Catholic Church. If it were really that simple then there would not be similar problems outside of it.

    In my life I have met hundreds of priests and religious, partly due to trying my vocation in two different Benedictine monasteries and a Dominican priory. These were traditional pre-Vatican II groups who refused to adopt the reforms of the Council. I can honestly say that I never even heard of such things anywhere. Indeed when the first cases became known, I personally thought that they were malicious inventions by people seeking money. After a while the sheer wait of evidence forced me to accept that these things had been going on. That is why I contend, that, in the main, they are a result of an almost total meltdown within the Catholic Church as its bishops, priests and religious couldn't discard everything sacred quikly enough, and the best, when corrupted became the worst!

    I have since met many modern priests who made a point of rejecting Catholic teachings and traditions. A lot of these were suspect and have since defected from the priesthood.

    Some of the people I would blame the most for the crisis of faith and morals are the so-called periti of Vatican II, such as Hans Kung. You see him as a hero, I see him as at least partially responsible for the tragedy we are living through. I am not saying he supported this, but he sure helped to break down the barriers that has resulted in the deseased Catholicism that predominates throughout most of the Catholic world.

    I would have no mercy on any bishop, priest or religious who did this as the damage they have caused could lead to the loss of faith of millions. But I don't agree that because some have done this we should attack all priests. I have known priests who have been spat on and insulted. These good priests have given their lives to serve the faithful, and are now going through hell because of what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Alfie,

    "Podles should know; he has written a widely-praised study of clerical sexual abuse in the US, called Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church"

    I found an article from him, (see below), which confirms everything I have written in previous posts about it being a question of 'predatory' homosexuality, rather than 'paedophilia'.

    Among other things he says:

    "Homosexuality Is the Problem
    ..., Jenkins’s analysis indicates that the true nature of the problem in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia, but homosexuality, which can lead to sexual relations with sexually mature but underage boys."

    "Neither the media nor the Church have made it clear to the public that most of the abuse cases involve teenage boys, for this would focus the issue on the problems of homosexuality, a topic that is not politically correct. By not making this clear, the media has given the impression that the Catholic Church attracts sick priests who like little children, as opposed to homosexuals who like teenage boys (not a good thing, but not as disgusting as pedophilia)."

    http://www.podles.org/catholicscandals.htm

    I note also his words;

    "The Catholic Church has been a target because it keeps good records, but the Episcopal Church has a comparable problem, and some of the worst cases have been in fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches—but these cases rarely receive public attention."

    Thank you for bringing him to my attention. He certainly does seem to be a serious writer on the subject.

    (I will get back to you on your last points.)

    ReplyDelete
  145. Alfie,

    “Podles should know; he has written a widely-praised study of clerical sexual abuse in the US, called Sacrilege: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church”

    I was looking at his website and was very interested to see that he concurs with me entirely on the fact of the issue being predatory homosexuality rather than paedophilia.

    He writes:

    “First, as to the nature of clerical misbehavior: Pedophilia refers to sexual desire for pre-pubescent children. This is extremely rare, and only a handful of cases in several decades have involved priests who are true pedophiles…”

    “Homosexuality Is the Problem”

    “Second, and most important, Jenkins’s analysis indicates that the true nature of the problem in the Catholic Church is not pedophilia, but homosexuality, which can lead to sexual relations with sexually mature but underage boys.”

    “Neither the media nor the Church have made it clear to the public that most of the abuse cases involve teenage boys, for this would focus the issue on the problems of homosexuality, a topic that is not politically correct. By not making this clear, the media has given the impression that the Catholic Church attracts sick priests who like little children, as opposed to homosexuals who like teenage boys (not a good thing, but not as disgusting as pedophilia).”

    He mentions the influence of secular psychology in its mishandling and he goes on to debunk the fallacy of clerical celibacy as a cause.

    He notes also:

    “The Catholic Church has been a target (by the media) because it keeps good records, but the Episcopal Church has a comparable problem, and some of the worst cases have been in fundamentalist and Pentecostal churches—but these cases rarely receive public attention.”

    Thank you for bringing Podles to my attention. If the rest of his work is as good as what I have seen so far, anyone with a genuine interest in eliminating any abuse in the Catholic Church or elsewhere would have much to learn from him.

    (I do intend to come back to your last points as soon as I can.)

    ReplyDelete
  146. I just re-wrote my last post to Alfie as I thought I had lost it.

    Feel free to delete the near duplicate.

    ReplyDelete
  147. John,

    I suppose it was only a matter of time before I was hoist with my own petard! Seriously though, I certainly don't agree with everything Podles writes, such as his conflation of pederasty and homosexuality. It is true that clerical sexual abuse is mostly of adolescent males, but it is also true that most homosexuals in wider society do not pursue pederastic relationships. Nor are homosexuals any more likely than heterosexuals to force themselves on others. However, it could well be the case that the priesthood attracts a disproportionate number of homosexually inclined men, and of these, a small minority are serial pederasts. Indeed, as Philip Jenkins observed, out of the 100,000 priests active in the US in the latter half of the twentieth century, a select cadre of just 149 individuals accounted for over a quarter of all the allegations of clergy abuse. Also, the priesthood would certainly have afforded these pederasts much more opportunities to abuse than those who preferred young girls. To me, this theory is more plausible than Podles's contention that homosexuals are generally irresponsible boy-lovers and it is their presence in the priesthood that is the problem. I mean, if this were the case, homosexuals in all walks of life (for example, teachers) would present a huge threat to adolescents; I've yet to see any evidence of this. If you're interested, here are two articles on the issue:

    http://www.imt.ie/opinion/guests/2010/05/is-there-a-reason-for-paedophilia.html

    http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

    ReplyDelete
  148. Carried over from Fiery Terry

    Stefan

    "While Crocker’s slides may be easy to slam based on a lack of hard facts behind them, that doesn’t mean that hard facts don’t exist on the topic. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water."

    Just about sums up why she should not have been smuggling religion into the science room. Teach it as mythology or theology but not science. She could be a brilliant Irish speaker but that does not give her the right to teach it in the French class.

    ‘Irrespective of what reactionary elements want as an outcome from
    the goals of the wedge strategy a big step to undermining the
    Capitalist class is exposing the falsehood of materialism which is the veil holding back the truth that man does not hold dominion over our world.’

    The wedge strategy is the baby of the reactionary element.

    What does hold dominion over our world? God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, the Devil?

    ‘The theocracy wanted by rightwing America’

    A good point. I think not enough people appreciate this.

    ‘Just because some of the constructs of your theory come from either end camp doesn't mean you buy wholeheartedly into either in its entire strategy.’

    Fair comment. But the Intelligent Design Movement is very much in one camp.

    ‘I would refocus on Crocker’s case who simply initiated the belief that a divine force is behind all the science which I don't view as any sort backdoor attempt
    in smuggling anything new into the curriculum.’

    Her slides weren’t? Was it already in the curriculum?

    ‘Darwinian evolutionary theory within a theistic framework to the point of it becoming Deism.’

    What could possibly be wrong with that from a religious perspective?

    In this whole debate it is sometimes overlooked that natural selection can also criticised from an atheist perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Carried over from No Disgrace in Embrace

    John,

    'Meanwhile, I enclose two links to an article by Randy Engel which I
    believe to be relevant.'

    www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian1.htm

    www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian2.htm

    John they may be relevant but I don’t have the patience to read them. Apologies. I opened the first one and crank religiosity jumped out at me. That was about it for me. We all have our foibles. But thanks for providing all the same. I can stomach religious people easily enough but when they sound like cranks I switch off. That is not only in relation to religious cracks by the way as you probably discerned from my recent suggestion to you not to waste your time on some things.

    ReplyDelete
  150. John,

    I should also say that The Crossland Foundation, an organisation founded by Podles, has published a book on the clerical sexual abuse crisis in Ireland. The book is called An Irish Tragedy, How Sex Abuse By Irish Priests Helped Cripple The Catholic Church and it is written by Joe Rigert. Contrary to the situation in the USA, the author estimates that half of abusive priests in Ireland targeted girls. However, I think it it is generally true that abusers who target boys tend to have more victims than those who target girls. Nevertheless, let me say again that men who abuse boys or young adolescent males tend not to be interested in adults of either sex. I suppose if the church wanted to stamp out clerical sexual abuse completely, it could always switch to women priests!

    ReplyDelete
  151. Anthony in response to your comment "teach it as mythology or theology but not science", I transfer over contradictions in the Dover 'ethics' of "the science class is not being the place where religion should be," from Fiery Terry thread...
    "Eugenie Scott, the NCSE's executive director and scientific and educational consultant for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, encouraging biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution."

    If indeed the wedge strategy is the baby of the reactionary element then they don't know the power it holds when applied succesfully.
    Being that you asked I'll give the courtesy of response for want of my own beleif albeit well out of your realms of your reality I would assume.Satan's dominion over the Earth concluded in between Vatican II and the rise of Solidarność, 75 - 100 years post Pope Leo XIII's vision after Mass which is well documented in its relevance to the events.

    Just because the the ID 'movement' is firmly rooted in one camp does it mean all its followers have to originate or dwell in that camp?
    Quoting from your post in response to me -
    "‘I would refocus on Crocker’s case who simply initiated the belief that a divine force is behind all the science which I don't view as any sort backdoor attempt
    in smuggling anything new into the curriculum.’
    Her slides weren’t? Was it already in the curriculum?"
    Encouraging biology teachers to spend class time having students read statements by religious leaders supporting evolution is in the curriculum so why can't Crocker do her thing?
    With regards to Darwinian evolutionary theory being in a theistic framework to the point of it becoming Deism and your question 'what could possibly be wrong with that from a religious perspective?', I can sum up as Deism falling short of explaining my own religious experiences thus for me it don't work.

    ReplyDelete
  152. John,

    'Original Sin continues to wreak a vengeance on a fallen humanity.'

    It deems the truly innocent - children - as sinful who need a redeemer for the sins they never committed and if they don't have that redeemer they will be banished from Heaven. What a hateful concept. It took a seriously poisoned mind to devise that. I wonder how many children have been raped by the Redeemer's representative after being subjected to that type of logic.

    ‘G K Chesterton wrote that "Certain new theologians dispute original
    sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be
    proved," (Orthodoxy, chap. 2).’

    Can really be proved. Could that proof be presented to us?

    I am relieved that you translated the Latin. I did three years of it at school but remember so little of it.

    ‘O happy fault,
    O necessary sin of Adam,
    which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’

    You don’t really expect me to treat such circular nonsense with any degree of seriousness?

    Stefan,

    ‘Natural law goes through the same scrutiny as everything else and
    stands as inherent rights, not conferred by acts of legislation.’

    Where has this natural law been found without human interpretation? Who made the discovery?

    ReplyDelete
  153. Stefan,

    ‘Heres a section from the US Diplomatic cable recently leaked...’

    "While Vatican contacts immediately expressed deep sympathy for the
    victims and insisted that the first priority was preventing a
    recurrence, they also were angered by how the situation played out
    politically. The Murphy Commission's requests offended many in the
    Vatican, the Holy See's Assessor Peter Wells (protect strictly) told
    DCM, because they saw them as an affront to Vatican sovereignty.
    Vatican officials were also angered that the Government of Ireland did
    not step in to direct the Murphy Commission to follow standard
    procedures in communications with Vatican City. Adding insult to
    injury, Vatican officials also believed some Irish opposition
    politicians were making political hay with the situation by calling
    publicly on the government to demand that the Vatican reply.
    Ultimately, Vatican Secretary of State (Prime Minister equivalent)
    Bertone wrote to the Irish Embassy that requests related to the
    investigation must come through diplomatic channels via letters
    rogatory."

    This sounds so arrogant and was designed to be evasive and widely viewed as such at the time. Hiding behind pseudo sovereignty hardly allowed the Church to portray itself in a good light after the release of the Murphy Report.

    However, a former deputy said he - not the future Pope - had made the
    decision to re-house the priest, who later abused other children and
    was convicted.'

    A variant of this is used in every cover up. That s not to say that the former deputy is covering up but it is typical of a bureaucratic shifting of responsibility.

    Stefan, many of the comments are lying around, having been written some time ago and being posted in no particular order. So don’t feel that I have overlooked your comments on Eugenie Scott etc. I will get to them in time.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Carried over from Fiery Terry

    Alfie,

    I thought the brief discussion between yourself and Robert caught the essence of the debate quite well. You presented the case marvellously. Biblical explanations are so simple compared to scientific ones and easy to follow. But the scientific account is much easier to accept. And the critique of the scientific account has been so impoverished. I always feel that with science there is less of the feel of a con to it, less willingness to censor. I often wonder why believers are prepared to risk Deism in defence of the bible. Makes little intellectual sense to me.

    Stefan,

    ‘serious ID proponents draw a strict line in the sand with Creationism.’

    Which serious ID proponents are you referring to? What ID critiques or creationism would you recommend?

    ‘Creationism is not science on this part we all will agree.’

    Well we don’t agree unfortunately otherwise we would not have ‘creationist science.’ Robert if I don’t misrepresent him implies creationism is science.

    ‘As long as you keep coming from the angle that evolution is a done deal
    the notion of creationism is gonna baffle you.’

    Evolution is a done deal, well established outside of what I might think of it with my limited knowledge of science. But as has been asked so often and not answered with any degree of substance is why should believers worry in the slightest about evolution? It by no means invalidates the existence of god. A religious believer armed with evolutionary beliefs is a much more formidable witness for theism than the anti-evolutionists.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Aristotle is said to be the father of natural law but this is due to the attention given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.Obviously this being the first documented human interpretations of a much older concept.
    Serious ID proponents would include anyone using scientific means to disprove blind random mutation to account for the complexity in nature.You seem to be trying to meld the two concepts Anthony but in reality Creationism is a religious beleif and scientific evidence to disprove Darwin isn't...it's plain science.
    A religious believer armed with evolutionary beliefs possesses nothing more than an acid which "eats through just about every traditional concept," to quote philosopher Daniel Dennett.To coin another phrase from William Provine "Evolution is the greatest engine of Atheism ever invented,"
    Theistic Evolution is simply an attempt to promote Darwin to the religious faithfull.

    Remarkable exchange between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett
    2006 Leaked email
    “I think that you (Daniel Dennett) and Richard (Dawkins) are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design - we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms - what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues - neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas - it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims - more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will.”

    ReplyDelete
  156. John,

    According to Podles, priests and male religious account for 3.2% of all the abuse in Ireland, but only make up 0.15% of the general population. I was making a similar argument, but I was taking other denominations into account as well because the SAVI report just gave abuse figures for "religious ministers" and "religious teachers", but not for individual denominations. So, if these figures are correct, it would appear that (in Ireland at least) Catholic clergy are/were disproportionately perpetrating sexual abuse of minors. Podles also claims that Catholic clergy in Ireland are 5 times more likely to abuse than other men.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I guess I was very fortunate to know good priests when I was growing up. Men of the cloth who were honest, straight, dedicated to their beliefs and very kind to those less fortunate.

    Unfortunately, over the years, the church made it very difficult for those who were not involved in such disgraceful matters to continue to be silent on such issues, as discussed here, and therefore forced them to leave the priest hood.

    I am a baptized Catholic and I believe in God. I do not believe in man made laws. I do not hold, as absolute "truth," anything a priest tells me, but I do respect the law of God and that consists of the Ten Commandments.

    If one looks at the ten commandments from a non religious point of view, they are nothing more than a basic guideline to a humantarian life style.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Carried over from Fiery Terry

    ‘I think honest scientists would agree that there is an element of disinformation made to the general public in so much as it is put across through the media that if science doesn't have all the answers presently its only a matter of time till they do, which is clearly a massive overstretching of their capabilities to the point of lying.’

    I disagree. The false testimony was borne at Dover. They were not the scientists. I think it is totally reasonable for science to claim it will discover information about many things it does not now possess. That has been the experience up to now. That is hardly lying. I think it is dubious to claim that science in general claims that it will discover ‘all the answers.’ In my experience what science claims is that what answers are to be discovered will be discovered by science. Whether it will be the work of Christian scientists or Atheist scientist we do not know. But it will be science. The pseudoscience of Intelligent Design just won’t figure.

    ReplyDelete
  159. Carried Over From No Disgrace in Embrace

    John,

    ‘An important principle was held back by the Pope and hardly
    likely to be understood by a sensationalist press in regard to this, and that is that is never morally permissible to do evil, even to attain a good … there is no allowance whatsoever in the Catholic system for directly choosing an evil.’

    But this is what has been happening. Even presuming the reputation of the Church was worth preserving the evil used to attain it was self evident. What should be done with the Church which through its practices institutionalised child rape?

    ‘The girl’s Bishop is adamant that there was no risk to the girl’s life, unless she were to have a natural birth, which would not have been allowed for someone so young.’

    What possible business could it be of the bishop’s? The girl’s family should have told him where to get off. Medical opinion is what matters here not the view of some bishop from a church that had already amply demonstrated its disregard for the welfare of children.

    Alfie

    ‘I'm against the death penalty, which I consider to be morally wrong. Nevertheless, I believe executing someone by a less painful method, like lethal injection, is better than hanging or beating or burning someone to death. So lethal injection, though wrong in an overall sense, is perhaps a step in the right direction; it is certainly more
    moral than inflicting an incredibly painful death on someone.’

    This is trying to diminish a pain that is certain to occur anyway. Without intervention it will be worse. Lessening pain is always a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
  160. I response to your question, Anthony, as has been asked so often and not answered with any degree of substance is why should believers worry in the slightest about evolution, I would like to submit some quotes starting with Darwin himself...
    "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of Natural Selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
    University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne...
    "True there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers, but this does not mean that faith and science are compatible...It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers."
    Casey Luskin on Science journalist Chris Mooney...
    "Like any good political strategist, atheists in the NCSE backed evolution lobby court the middle ground - in this case religious moderates - in hopes of increasing their base support" he says of Mooney on the subject " he simply realized that linking Atheism with Darwin could be dangerous to public opinion and public evolution education".

    In my opinion Theism corrupted by Darwin becomes Deism with the overall goal of Atheism.

    ReplyDelete