Because the venereal Church owns many schools the transfer of some of these to the state is considered one way of getting the religious orders to do the decent thing rather than simply carry on in their own usual indecency. The Education Minister Ruairi Quinn complained that the offers from the congregations up to now:
fall well short, by several hundred million, of the €680 million contribution they should bear towards the cost of institutional residential child abuse. In April, I called on the orders to consider handing over appropriate school infrastructure as a way to make progress towards the 50:50 target contribution. I reiterate that call now.
The Ryan Report, which took ten years to complete, had recommended that the 18 orders between them pay half the bill. Why they should not be forced into footing every last cent is perhaps something that will tax the mind of the tax payer. The government’s insistence that the congregations share 50:50 with the public is grating. True, the state should not be allowed to dodge responsibility for handing many children over to predatory vultures who preyed on the vulnerable. Maybe there is no way around it but it is galling in these trying economic times. The tax payer did not rape the children; religious congregations did and then engaged in cover-up. Yet the Congregations still want to evade even paying half the full amount and have thus far forked out only a quarter of the total. It would be ideal were not one red cent to be paid by an already overburdened taxpaying public as compensation for clerical rape.
Ruairi Quinn in calling for the handover of property has claimed that ‘only two out of the 18 congregations have replied positively.’ Rape, cover up and a refusal to cough up has been the history of these vile institutions. He was also critical of his predecessor Mary Coughlan who had failed to proceed quickly enough and for ‘not pursuing it with the vigour required.’
But the tardiness is much more systemic than may be gleaned from pointing the finger at Mary Coughlan. As of May this year, two years after Ryan was published, there had not been one single prosecution. The government in a submission to the United Nations Committee on Torture said that while 11 files had been given to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the latter had decided not to pursue charges in at least 8 of the cases.
This can only help strengthen the marked reluctance on the part of these institutions to accept the terrible harm their clerics have done. Every move made is forced out of them and then carried out grudgingly. It is an attitude that is global and is resentful that the men of god should somehow be accountable to mere human institutions such as the law and courts. God’s men should not be imprisoned by normal law but trafficked off under canon law to another parish, abroad if need be, where they are free to rape again. The recent report commissioned by US bishops, despite taking five years and $2 million, blamed the swinging sixties for the massive clerical assault on children. As Jim Hightower wrote:
The diabolical theory of this study is that "social chaos" created by the tie-dyed sexual revolution of the 1960s so discombobulated otherwise chaste and honorable men that they used their religious authority to rape 10-year-olds and teenagers.
It makes a change of sorts from blaming gays, journalists or Jews, all favourites of Mother Church when the blame needs deflected.
Until the monstrous men of god have the reality of their culpability rammed down their throats with the same forcefulness that they rammed themselves down the throats of children, societies everywhere will be confronted with foot dragging procrastinations and oily evasions as black garbed fiends scuttle for cover behind every available scapegoat.
Strip them of every asset and leave them as naked and defenceless as their victims. Ruairi Quinn has a made a start but there is a long, long way to go.
The details are out there. Still the denial will continue. Denial and self delusion seem to be the trend these days.
ReplyDeleteNo punches pulled in that article.
'Journalists, Jews and gays' the usual scapegoats? Jews and gays are sound lol.
The Vatican should pay more than 50percent... What i think Irish taxpayers don't always realise is the fallout from abuse (survivors as adults in the past & into the now)the cost be on them already. Treatment of survivors - ptsd, unable to work, domestic violence related directly to abuse as a minor, chronic depression, medications, therapy and such. The greed of the Vatican head honchos is barf up material but totally predictable.
ReplyDeleteAnthony you should submit this and other stuff u write to here:
Brill website (I recommend for anyone interested.)
Website title - Militia against abuse by the religious of those molested, exploited & abused by religion.
World wide link up of groups – & NB Irelands group on site is titled Fire & Ice
http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=740
You are an exeptionally gifted writer Anthony - i would be terrified 2 ever fall under your scathing pen radar which fortunately i wont ahaha. U tear it up with words BUT best of all you invite all to participate, heighten consciousness and learn to apply critical thinking.
RE 'Strip them of every asset and leave them as naked and defenceless as their victims.'
Yessssss Dismantle the Vatican... but it wont happen cos they r sly as foxes It is the waiting game and half moves they play. Always how they do things. Waiting for the general public outrage to simmer down... Hoping as many as possible abuse victims top themselves or become so f..ked up they no longer have a voice. Tenacious as all get but so are survivors.
And yet Peter Tatchell is a 'human rights activist' and Oscar Wilde was okay in abusing Algerian children. Double standars or what?
ReplyDeleteDoes the Catholic Church advocate sex between men and boys like Tatchell and Wilde and many more of the trendy atheist left from the sixties onwards?
John,
ReplyDeletewhy are you defending child abusers?
Digging around in the dirt to expose someone else does not lessen the impact.
If you are as religious as you claim to be, then surely you must know what Jesus himself said would happen anyone who abused children.
Fionnuala,
ReplyDelete'why are you defending child abusers?'
Where have I defended child abusers?
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteTo be fair to John McGirr, I don't think he has ever defended abusers. He has condemned the abuse by those in the Catholic church, but he wrongly (I believe) attributes the cause of the clerical sexual abuse crisis to a supposed infiltration of the church by liberal homosexuals from the 1960s onwards.
John,
Like every other crime, there are degrees of severity of sexual abuse. I believe that statutory rape is wrong, but do you really believe that, for instance, a 23-year-old lad who gets into a relationship with a 16-year-old girl is as much to blame as a 50-year-old man who forcibly rapes his 8-year-old daughter? Most of the victims of clerical sexual abuse claim that they were coerced or manipulated into sexual relations with their abusers, whereas, for example, Bob Geldof was nostalgic in his autobiography about losing his virginity when he was 13 to a woman in her thirties who lived on his street. This is the distinction I was aiming for when discussing the crimes of Oscar Wilde and I think it is what Peter Tatchell was trying to get at too, but I believe he went too far in arguing that children as young as 9 could potentially consent to sexual relations with adults. To me, that is abhorrent. I believe it is acceptable to have a debate about the age of consent as long as we are talking about post-pubescent teenagers, though I personally believe this category of youngsters should be protected by the law from predatory adults. Children younger than 12 are, I believe, not physically or mentally capable of consenting to sexual relations; indeed it is arguable that they are not even criminally responsible. So Tatchell is wrong in that respect and ought to be condemned for it.
John,
ReplyDelete'Does the Catholic Church advocate sex btween men and boys'
It certainly did little or nothing to prevent it.
John, if I did misunderstand your point then I am sorry, but it sounded more like what about the gays than condemnation.
I don't understand why the catholic
ReplyDeleteleadership [ pope and such titles ]
will not allow their priests and nuns to marry whoever they want-
The first pope was a married man- so this law is catholic made- not God made-
God rules not the Pope-
michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteI don't think celibacy is the issue. Hetrosexual and homosexual people don't turn to children when there is nothing else on offer.
Smyth was a paedophile and there are many many more like him.
Fionnuala-
ReplyDeleteAgree with you but a bad law leads to two bad laws then 3 and so forth
Honesty could have prevented a lot of abuse- but it went on and is still going on becuse the perverted
think / know that they will get away with it- it might just be a bad few but the church elders knew about the abuse- every one involved in the abuse and cover up should be on the sex register-
Maybe its just me- but i dont hear of that many paedophile's in other religions outside of the catholic chuch- i know they are everywhere but a lot seem to be the pope's priests
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteExcepting what you say about Oscar Wilde, (whom I don’t regard as guilty as wayward clerics), there is hardly a word I would disagree with in your post.
Michaelhenry will do doubt accuse me of mellowing.
Fionnuala,
ReplyDeleteJM “'Does the Catholic Church advocate sex between men and boys'”
FP ‘It certainly did little or nothing to prevent it.’
Many people within did nothing or little and should be condemned for that.
FP ‘John, if I did misunderstand your point then I am sorry, but it sounded more like what about the gays than condemnation.’
In isolation, I can see why you might think this. It just seems to me that sweeping generalisations are not helpful. The Catholic Church, in its teachings has always opposed vigorously any such abuse, but has been let down by many who did not practice what they preached. The 1960’s gave rise to some horrible ways, and many, many people in the Church betrayed their trust.
The fact that the cause of Irish Republicanism has rapists, monsters and traitors in it does not invalidate the rightness of the cause. The fact that the Catholic Church has had, in recent decades, its own rapists, monsters and traitors does not invalidate its cause either.
michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteYou could be right but I don't think you are. I think some of these paedophiles joined the priesthood as a means of escape for others it was an opportunity.
John,
All sorts of people get into all walks of life.
I know there were paedophiles and rapists in the republican movement.
I also know quite a few of them were protected by members of that movement, probably the most famous being Liam Adams.
However I believe there is a big difference between the republican movement and the Catholic Church.
While some of the old guard in the movement believed that republicanism and religion went hand in hand, they never realistically presented themselves as moral guardians, the church did.
They preached the fire and brimstone message to such an extent, that I remember waiting an hour to return to the confessional because I could not remember how many hail mary's I had been given for childish flaw.
They were morally policing children and abusing them at the same time.
I totally agree with you John, that sweeping generalisations do not help, but neither did the Churchs policy of cover up and moving an abuser on to prey on helpless children.
Again, apologies.
Fionnuala,
ReplyDelete‘All sorts of people get into all walks of life.’
The former Communist and Catholic convert Bella Dodds said that at least 1300 Communists had become priests to attack the Church from the inside. This was in the 1940’s and 50’s. Who knows what other groups may have done likewise. There has certainly been a homosexual takeover. I suspect that many with paedophile tendencies saw it as their opportunity.
‘They were morally policing children and abusing them at the same time.’
Those who were should be made to pay, but they could never pay enough. Thank God for the Hereafter.
‘I totally agree with you John, that sweeping generalisations do not help, but neither did the Churchs policy of cover up and moving an abuser on to prey on helpless children.’
I agree.
‘Again, apologies.’
No need, Fionnuala. You said what you said because you read it that way. I should have been clearer in my post. Thank you anyway.
There is a website which tackles these questions head on and yet is in no way anti-Catholic. It is just as critical as Anthony or anyone, whilst faithful to the Church.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/hottopics.html
@ Alfie yes u r dead on with what you wrote. I also would add in that in some cultures sex with minors can be portrayed as cultural more/practice which is why all cultural ways must be examined and not sanctioned as o it is a cultural way. A minor can never be viewed as giving consent to sex with an adult as the minor is not able to understand what is truly occurring and the immense ramifications of what is being done to them. Developmentally they are not able to grasp it all. Hence it is always abuse and can never be watered down to anything other than that.
ReplyDelete@ John McGirr I do think you wrestle with staying within the constructs of Catholicism knowing what you know is going on - and it slips out in your constant way of trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia. There is no linkup - it be a myth, propaganda and a strategy by the Vatican to justify their vile history and cover-ups of child abuse into the now. Distraction by isolating a group of individuals with same sex attraction and demonising them always pulls a crowd and roars of approval from those willing to ignore the true issue at hand. Lookit here the whole world is turning gay and we won’t stand for it – see how godly and healthy we are says the Vatican. It all be a twisted ploy. Don’t buy it and prop the bastards up in their games.
Abuse of minors is not the sole domain of the Catholic constructs and we all know that and there is heaps of abuse that occurred within Irish republican homes that was hidden, dumbed down and covered up as pointed out by fionnuala. Ireland has a misogynistic shameful history propped up/reinforced by Catholicism. Bring back Brehon Law bring it back and toss out Catholicism & OO forever.
Freemasonary and Catholicism are (such irony) compatible Both are built on delusions/control/separatism. However the issue re the article is Justice that the Vatican studiously, cunningly avoids in every sense propped up their own laws. It is vile travesty and mocks the Christian faith/the scriptures/the Christ and all He stands for.
An ex catholic priest Richard Bennett is worthy of checking out. Just google his name and see his videos and writings. . Sniff sniff what’s that smell – Babylon is burning John! Fire!! 4 the Vatican!
@ Fionnuala I remember the confessional box stuff and confusion re how many hail marys our fathers and so on to say ahaha Worse i remember making up sins because i had none to tell the priest and then it dawned on me one day i was doomed because i had sinned by making up sins What a headtrip!
@ Anthony i have near finished reading The case of the Pope by Geoffrey robinson – a worthy read. Gets the blood boiling with rage tho all over again.
SMH,
ReplyDelete‘The Vatican should pay more than 50percent... What i think Irish taxpayers don't always realise is the fallout from abuse (survivors as adults in the past & into the now)the cost be on them already. Treatment of survivors - ptsd, unable to work, domestic violence related directly to abuse as a minor, chronic depression, medications, therapy and such.’
A very good point.
I checked out that site and it seems a good one for information but I did not see a way to submit to it. This is the beauty of the web. The henchmen of the Vatican can’t censor as they could in the past.
I genuinely do not regard myself as a good writer. And to whatever extent I may have been good I am no longer as good as I was. I know my limitations. I would just hate to be churning out stuff of such poor quality like Jim Gibney does in his weekly column in the Irish News. It would be so demeaning.
‘you invite all to participate, heighten consciousness and learn to apply critical thinking.’
That’s what it is about. No idea is rejected. Some clowns don’t get on for spamming, vandalism or sock puppeting.
‘Dismantle the Vatican...’
I would like to see it. If they were close to Christ they would dismantle it themselves. I wonder if there are many of them even believe in god. I would like to see Ratzinger brought before the court and tried for crimes against humanity. Geoffrey Robertson makes a strong case in that regard.
John McGirr
ReplyDelete‘And yet Peter Tatchell is a 'human rights activist'…’
Which he is. I have addressed this issue elsewhere and Alfie has done likewise.
‘and Oscar Wilde was okay in abusing Algerian children. Double standards or what?’
Didn’t know Oscar was a priest amongst his many other failings. Abusing Algerian children? Send him and all the abusers to the godly gulag.
‘Does the Catholic Church advocate sex between men and boys like Tatchell and Wilde and many more of the trendy atheist left from the sixties onwards?’
It has done little to deter child rape and has been involved in a global paedophile trafficking ring.
But none of this about Tatchell or Wilde addresses the issue. If Wilde chose somewhere other than the priesthood for the pursuit of his activities he is no less guilty than those who join the priesthood to do so. If priests want to call for the age of consent to be shifted up or down they are free to do so. If priests want to ride priests they are free to do so. But no adult is free to sexually pursue a person beneath the age of consent. And society sets that age not religion.
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteJohn McGirr does not defend child abusers but he allows his argument to wander all over the place and this makes him sound a bit like the Michaelhenry of religion. Although I get the sense whereas Michaelhenry takes the piss for the craic, John actually believes his stuff. I think he has put the reputation of the church above that of child protection and forever wants to cause diversions by throwing up this or that example so as to avoid dealing with the issue of clerics raping children. And I think he has difficulty accepting that his religious opinion has no more standing than a sporting opinion. Nor can he reconcile himself to the concept that religion should be practised on oneself and not others.
Alfie,
You introduce an element of badly needed nuance for John to consider.
Tatchell is within his rights to argue for the age of consent to be raised or lowered if that is what he thinks. He can argue that he thinks a child of 9 should be allowed to smoke but he most definitely cannot give a child of 9 a cigarette. I think his view of a 9 year old potentially being able to give consent is a no no. But he might argue that if a precocious 9 year old is able to do a university maths course it should be able to consent to other adult things. Whatever the argument for that position the law can’t be built around it. It has to be general in application. Because it seems clear to me that nine year olds generally are not in a position to consent.
John McGirr,
ReplyDelete‘Many people within did nothing or little and should be condemned for that.’
The Church as a system did very little to prevent it. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith armed with canon law globally assisted paedophilia by refusing to report thousands of suspects to the civil authorities; it moved them from parish to parish in the full knowledge that these people had abused children. The CDF behaved as if canon law was something other than the rules of a private club. As an institution the Church aided and abetted child abuse and was an accomplice both before and after the fact.
‘The Catholic Church, in its teachings has always opposed vigorously any such abuse, but has been let down by many who did not practice what they preached.’
Let down by the Vatican, the CDF, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, the religious orders, the nuns. Preaching means nothing if what is practiced contradicts what is preached.
‘The 1960’s gave rise to some horrible ways, and many, many people in the Church betrayed their trust.’
The Church was burning people long before that.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteMH ‘I don't understand why the catholic leadership [ pope and such titles] will not allow their priests and nuns to marry whoever they want’-
Priests and nuns have never married in the history of the Church. Life is difficult enough for them without inflicting them further.
MH ‘The first pope was a married man’-
He was married and left his wife to follow Christ.
MH ‘so this law is catholic made- not God made’-
But God said “He who hears you, hears Me.”
MH ‘God rules not the Pope’-
No Pope here, eh?
The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, appointed as the visible ruler of His Church.
Have you ever considered becoming a Catholic? ;)
Nuala,
ReplyDeleteIs right. Although the Master resembled a bishop in the way he covered up for the child rapist, there is no real comparison between the Catholic Church and the Provisional Movement. The Church was a global institution that trafficked paedophiles on a world scale, covered it up on a world scale and intimidated witnesses on a world scale. In the countries it operated in the Church supported the forces of law and order and had no reason not to hand rapists over. The Provisionals were hostile to the cops ideologically and where these cases arose might have with great folly thought that ideology came before victims.
John,
‘The fact that the cause of Irish Republicanism has rapists, monsters and traitors in it does not invalidate the rightness of the cause.’
But if it had as many rapists in the movement and it was covered up at the highest level and the rapists were moved on silently to the next company area so they could rape again it would invalidate the movement that purports to stand for the cause. And then people would with justification ask how does a good cause produce such bad people.
John,
ReplyDeletedisagree with you totally, the homosexual infiltration of the church sounds as bizarre as the communist one.
Mackers,
more often than not the coverups in the movement were more about the 'old pals' act than ideology.
Father Gerry allowed his brother to take up youth work positions knowing he was an abuser, he must have known it was like putting Dracula in charge of a blood bank.
I know of at least three other cases were the abuser was ferried to another location and the abuse played down.
The 'boys' called to the door, 'any chance of dropping this for all times sake'
In one instance, the women involved was tarnished and made out a lunatic to fit with the cover up.
John McGirr-
ReplyDeleteThe first pope abandoned his loving wife and left his nippers to fend for themselves-
Im sure that the first pope made a oath / vow To God at his wedding to
stay with his wife till death parted them- why did he go back on his word-
SMH,
ReplyDelete‘A minor can never be viewed as giving consent to sex with an adult as the minor is not able to understand what is truly occurring and the immense ramifications of what is being done to them. Developmentally they are not able to graspit all. Hence it is always abuse and can never be watered down to anything other than that.’
I think this is the only safe position.
It is a great book but while impressed with the intellectual rigour I am not surprised what Ratzinger and his fellow scroat bags got up to.
John McGirr
So we can add the Communists to the Jews, journalists, the swinging sixties and gays as being the real cause of priestly rape.
michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'The first pope abandoned his loving wife and left his nippers to fend for themselves'-
I don't believe there is evidence he had children. If he did they would have been cared for.
'Im sure that the first pope made a oath / vow To God at his wedding to stay with his wife till death parted them- why did he go back on his word'-
That oath of 'til death' came in with Christianity, not before. He left everything, his wife, his friends, his job, his family when he followed the evangelical counsels to follow Christ.
Even with that vow, there is nothing to this day preventing a mutual agreement between a man and a woman that would prevent them parting to join a religious order.
It's not very common these days, but it still happens. Of course it does not break the bond of marriage, but is an agreement not to make use of it.
It is giving something good up for something better. Of course maybe not appreciated by those who view marriage as a cure for peadophilia.
AM et alia,
ReplyDeleteFor those who think the Catholic Church is negated because of abuses I would suggest they look here:
http://www.traditioninaction.org/
Go to 'Hot topics' and then 'Pedophilia'. Here you will see faithful Catholics condemning said abuse with equal vigour as AM but with a deep love of the Church rather than his hatred.
It is just plain dishonest to say that a number of bad Catholics, should they be 99% of the total, makes the Catholic Church wrong.
That is unless you believe in guilt by association. Was Bobby Sands wrong because PSF sold out? Did Collins' or Dev's treachery negate Pearce and Connolly?
John McGirr-
ReplyDeleteJewish brides in bible times were
purchased- her father got the money
then came the betrothal- which was
took serious,final,sealed in blood
and legally binding-
The jewish marriage contract is called Gods word [ our ketubah ]
The first pope went against Gods word when he abandoned his young wife-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete‘Jewish brides in bible times were
purchased- her father got the money
then came the betrothal- which was
took serious,final,sealed in blood
and legally binding’-
‘The jewish marriage contract is called Gods word [ our ketubah ]’
‘The first pope went against Gods word when he abandoned his young wife’-
I’m not quite sure of the point you are making. In what way can he be said to have abandoned his wife? Firstly, it is possible she died, secondly their marriage was not a Christian one, and thirdly, even if it had been it could be mutually agreed to abstain from its use in order for one or both to pursue something higher. In any case, I am certain the early Church would have looked after her.
There was an interesting case in Boston in the late 40’s where Father Leonard Feeney founded two religious communities, the majority of whom had mutually agreed with their spouses to renounce their rights. Children were looked after on a communal basis and the men and women had no contact with each other. A thousand years previously, St Bernard convinced most of his relations to enter the religious life. This is not commonplace, but it is not wrong either.
A few points about the report to which Anthony refers, The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by
ReplyDeleteCatholic Priests in the
United States, 1950-2010, by the John Jay College:
1) The researchers claim that the social and cultural upheaval of the 1960s was the principal causative factor in the significant rise in reported cases of clerical sexual abuse from that time until the early 1990s. The 'Swinging Sixties' may have had some effect, but I find it far from a complete and credible explanation for the phenomenon. For one thing, as sociologist David Finkelhor contends, much of the observed rise in sexual abuse by priests and in society at large can be explained by an increase in the reporting of such crimes and a growing awareness and understanding of sexual abuse by authorities. Indeed, before the 1960s, people did not speak openly about sexual matters and children's problems were often ignored. Secondly, Finkelhor argues that if it were true that the social/cultural revolution of the 1960s was the main cause of the abuse crisis, one might expect men who came of age in the 1960s to have been more likely to abuse minors in subsequent decades than younger cohorts of men. However, that is not what is observed in crime statistics. Thirdly, it has been shown that the church has a long-standing problem with sexual abuse of minors by priests; Fr Tom Doyle, Patrick Wall and Richard Sipe demonstrated this in their book, Sex, Priests, & Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. Pertaining to the 20th century, Fr Doyle notes that Fr Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Paraclete community in 1947 to provide help to priests with problems. From the beginning Fitzgerald was treating priests with psycho-sexual issues and in a letter to a bishop in 1964, he said that 3 out of every 10 priests admitted were there because they had sexually molested minors. Doyle also contends that victim support groups and plaintiffs' attorneys in the USA and elsewhere are seeing a significant increase in victims who were violated in the fifties and even the forties. So it would seem that sexual abuse by priests was a significant phenomenon long before the free-wheeling 60's and 70's. Finally, it must be said that there was not nearly the same degree of social and cultural upheaval here in Ireland in the 1960s as there was in the USA. Indeed, Ireland remained a very conservative society right until the early 1990s. So even if the so-called "Woodstock defence" was credible in the US, it just doesn't wash here.
2)The report finds no connection between homosexuality and clerical sexual abuse of minors. "We looked at behavior of men before they entered seminary, in seminary and once they were ordained," Karen Terry, the principal investigator for the report, said. "Those who participated in same-sex behavior were not significantly more likely to abuse children than men who had not had that same-sex behavior."
Moreover, the report notes that openly homosexual men began entering the seminaries “in noticeable numbers” from the late 1970s through the 1980s. By the time this cohort entered the priesthood, in the mid-1980s, the reports of sexual abuse of minors by priests began to drop and then to level off. If anything, the report says, the abuse decreased as more gay priests began serving the church.
3)The report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those age 10 and under. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent. However, the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. If the John Jay researchers had used that cutoff, the vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent.
I skimmed through the report; the bits I read in detail seemed well-argued, so I would say the report is a worthwhile contribution to the study of clerical sexual abuse. However, it is far from the definitive study on the subject and, like everything else, its conclusions must be scrutinised and debated.
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDeleteWhile a great comment, it would have made a better article. It is detailed and very well laid out.
@ Anthony the contact email address for molestedcatholics.com is as follows:
ReplyDeletecontact@MolestedCatholics.com
It is on the left of their webpage and down towards end of page in column. I am deeply appreciative of all the stuff you have written on this subject and it has been at times a liberating/healing thing for me personally reading it.
I felt quite ill by time i finished the case of the pope but it certainly left me in no doubt of anything being other than what it is... totally maggot infested Vatican antics/crimes and no fear or love of God nor respect for humanity NOR recognition of what they have done...
@ John McGirr I had a quick look at that catholic site - yes it is commendable the truth is being told by Catholics. Whilst I am an Ex catholic I don't hate Catholics per se. NB No one suffered more than those little ones in the institutions - they had NO LET UP no reprieve by going to a family home or being removed from the situation. At least I could eventually get away from Catholicism clutches forever at 16... but be sure of this John no kid abused ever truly gets away. The damage stays on one At 52 I know this experientially unfortunately.
It is insidious damage that is hard to define why it lasts so deeply. Geoffrey Robinson highlighted research found clergy abuse of minors seem to have a more deeply entrenched impact. I personally perceive it as due to the total and instant errosion of any faith in what as a kid once thought were Godly, trustworthy people. Ones world is shattered & forever unsafe. The confusion terror fear dissociation is profound and lasting post trauma and screws developing minds up horrendously into adulthood and NB it all linked up with crucifixes, mass, statues, churches, that Sacred Heart picture on the wall, on and on... They are trigger items.
It is also why one sees old men/women weeping when trying to recount what happened. One can never get back ones childhood. I would never dumb down any clergy abuse survivors expressing rage, hate or other emotions. "Go for it" I say Better out than imploded. Wanna swear and rage - go for it! Wanna hate on the Vatican - go for it. Don't you dare drink/drug/self hate yourself to death for a crime done on you. That is why some clergy abused victims suicide because they no longer can bear the damage on them... Imploded so deep death is preferable...
Lastly yes i am sick of always having a loud voice about it but its due to all the decades i didnt due to misplaced shame... Never again will we be silent. Never will we accept vatican tokenism and games about it all. I am actually grateful to God I lived to see the crimes exposed to the world. PS i do have a life but i fought for it so long & so f..king hard else i would be pushing up daisies. The fight was worth it is what I want all abuse survivors to know. Fight on brother Fight on sister. You are not ever alone with it all and the shame is not ours. Sin-e.
Anthony,
ReplyDeletePoint taken. Indeed, the piece is too long and detailed for a comment.
Michaelhenry, I would not get too hung up on popes breaking their word. They are just men like the rest of us men and every bit as fallible even though they pretend otherwise.
ReplyDeleteNuala,
It is a case of any scapegoat will do as far as the Hierarchy is concerned. Communists, Jews whatever – you might recall the time that silly old plonker of a cardinal came out with the excuse that condoms had tiny holes in them to ensure they did not work. He would rather lie ridiculously through his teeth than see AIDS confronted. He was laughed out of Christendom.
‘I know of at least three other cases were the abuser was ferried to another location and the abuse played down.’
That sounds like a tactic lifted straight from the Church guide to dealing with rapists. I know of one case where a guy was shipped off. There is no way favours should be done for these people whatever about old times sake.
‘In one instance, the women involved was tarnished and made out a lunatic to fit with the cover up.’
Another church tactic. Inexcusable.
The Liam Adams affair did show how there are some quite prepared to go the full distance to hold onto power no matter what it takes.
Exposing The Indecent
ReplyDeleteJohn McGirr
‘It is just plain dishonest to say that a number of bad Catholics, should they be 99% of the total, makes the Catholic Church wrong.’
It would be a very hard case to make it look right. It is a human institution with the same susceptibility to failure as other human institutions. If 99% were bad what would it take to make the church right?
‘Was Bobby Sands wrong because PSF sold out?’
No. Difference is the Church sold out not the individual Bobby Sands Christian within it. In that sense your analogy is bad - SF can be compared with the Church.
Alfie,
ReplyDeleteAs I said your synopsis would have made for a good article but there we go. Lot of good points in it.
There will be no definitive study. The report will be cherry picked. The Church will be upset at no Jews, Communists, journalists or gays to blame but will welcome the ‘loud music made me rape children, Lord’ sort of defence.
However, of more importance is that all these reports leave the Church looking pretty smelly. With each new report it becomes harder for the Church to evade its culpability. So, it is very much a case of painstakingly cornering the lot of them and denuding them of cover.
I found your distillation of Finkelhor, Sipes, Wall and Doyle very informative. I wonder why the report was not as engaging with their views. It strikes me as obvious that the Church has been raping children for aeons. It is a natural home for molesters – offers sanctuary, accessibility to prey, collegiality and cover-up. As Terry Eagleton said ‘the first child sex scandal in the Catholic church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on.’
On the report finding gay culture not to have been a causal factor, I feel it was stating the obvious. That type of excuse was long becoming a defence based on prejudice. Fewer people were treating it seriously. I found it interesting that abuse decreased as more gay men entered the clergy. Although I don’t know why this would be so. I would have thought it had no bearing either way. Maybe by that time the campaigning against clerical rape was having an effect. That gay men would want to become priests is interesting. They might have felt Jesus and his apostles were a gay group and that gay men who wanted to follow Christ should not be put off by what any bollix of a bishop said.
The cut off point for prepubescent children seems arbitrary. The Church was a haven for paedophiles and no amount of juggling with the age alters that. A bit like the way the Tories began rigging the jobless figures to pretend unemployment was lower than it actually was.
SMH,
ReplyDeleteI posted a link to the piece on that site.
I felt uplifted to learn you got something from my musings on this topic.
It is hard for me to believe that there is anybody in the Vatican hierarchy that has a love of god. The way they treated children. I simply refuse to buy into the bollix. If there s eveil in the world it is there we will find it. I intend to review Robertson’s book for Fortnight magazine in Belfast.
You seem to have had a very bad experience and I am pleased you escaped the clutches of Catholicism. You help add to our understanding of it.
Anthony,
ReplyDeleteI might turn the comment into an article at some stage. I had been doing a little reading on the subject last Friday after you mentioned the John Jay report in your article Exposing The Indecent. I then spent the weekend helping my brother gather and shear his flock of sheep on his mountain farm, so I had a lot of time to think. However, I would have to reword some of my comments as I lifted a few sentences directly from the report and from a New York Times article without proper attribution.
I suppose I would be open to the argument that 1960s liberalism caused an increase in clerical sexual abuse, but it is currently so full of holes that it does not stand up to much scrutiny. Perhaps the social/cultural revolution in the Western world at that time had some impact, but I have yet to be persuaded of even this much, let alone that it was the principal causative factor of the abuse crisis. I mean, even conservative Catholic scholars like Leon Podles who believe that the "Swinging Sixties" worsened the problem are not naive enough to ignore the wealth of evidence showing that clerical sexual abuse and its cover-up are age-old. Podles also concedes that the perceived increase in abuse from the 1960s to the 1990s could well be an illusion of reporting, especially since most of the records of abuse prior to the 1950s would have been destroyed. I think it is far more credible that the abuse problem was always a feature of the church and that it only came to light as society became more candid about sexual matters and more attentive to children's rights.
PS. Incidentally, the John Jay report contends that priests who said they were confused about their sexuality were more likely to abuse minors than those who self-identified as gay or straight. I suppose the church will blame it all on bisexuals now!
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"Maybe by that time the campaigning against clerical rape was having an effect."
That is the only reason I can see. I think there is merely a circumstantial connection between the fall in reported clerical sexual abuse and the rise in men who self-identify as gay being ordained priests.
"That gay men would want to become priests is interesting. They might have felt Jesus and his apostles were a gay group and that gay men who wanted to follow Christ should not be put off by what any bollix of a bishop said.
Possible, but I doubt it. From what I've read, many gay men who are devout Catholics believe that their homosexuality is a trial which must be endured and overcome. Strangely enough, many feel that the priesthood is the best place for them to do this!
The lowlife of Cloyne Catholicism have been exposed. The criminal bishop John Magee has been caught lying through his teeth. He should now be arrested and tried. Mountjoy is where that scuzbucket should be.
ReplyDeleteAlfie,
ReplyDeleteI agree about the 60s. I see every Church explanation as an excuse rather than a reason. I think Podles says a lot worth considering. I have not read him but will get the book. I just thought some of the discussions earlier which incorporated him were worthwhile following.
‘I suppose the church will blame it all on bisexuals now!’
Don’t put ideas into its head.