The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Ryan Report, child abuse and matters closer to home > Comments

The Ryan Report, child abuse and matters closer to home : Comments

By Shane Wood, published 26/6/2009

'A busy life filled with a routine of prayer, study, sport and work would suffice to keep us from any temptation.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
Thank you for your efforts in helping people go beyond the accusations of "dirty old pervert" to looking at some of the socio-historical factors that lead to child abuse by the clergy. There needs to be a body of research developed to draw upon when talking about these more unsavoury, yet very real, aspects of humanity. To be drawn into a culture such as described here in the middle of the transition to adulthood, with all the biological changes going on must indeed play havoc with the social development of those youth. We are all a product of the past and we can't simply assume that the sexual prohibitions will disappear any time soon, therefore we need a far greater understanding of what leads to this behaviour. Surely the people guilty of these abuses could be directed to participate in research of this kind?

Thanks for a well balanced piece, though you probably didn't need to be so apologetic.
Posted by spotbanana, Friday, 26 June 2009 10:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am a victim of child sexual abuse for which has carried on into my adulthood, i am struggling to get answers or have someone be accountable, my mother was able to manipulate everyone in the family and the government, the government helped mother hand my daughter over to the same person who sexually abused me and i am punished for it. Please
Posted by shattered.dreams, Friday, 26 June 2009 10:32:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for an interesting insight in what must be a difficult and confronting thing to have to deal with; and your candour is appreciated.

I think the idea of psychological testing begs the question somewhat. The Christian religion would have to be one of the most, if not the most sex-negative belief systems in the world. All the psychology won’t be able to comb out the tangles that follow if people are operating on the basis of a belief system that is factually wrong. Thus the original sin here is not a moral one; it is the intellectual sin of treating something as true that people know, or should know, is false, or probably false. From this all the moral sins follows.

For example, in Genesis, God surveys everything he has made and ‘behold it was very good’. Yet the first mention of sex – Adam and Eve perceive their nakedness – and behold, it was very bad. The perception of nakedness, and of their original sin, were one and the same, it seems.

Although Genesis identifies the sin with eating forbidden fruit, the Christian church has for centuries identified the sin with sexuality. It caused a moral stain so bad that it not only runs in generations unborn, but requires them to be punished for something they never did. It was so bad, that the only way to atone for it, was human sacrifice, but the human to be sacrificed was also a god. Not only that, but he came into being in such a way that no sex was involved. And since he was without sin, we may suppose that he never had a sexual act, thought or feeling either.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Friday, 26 June 2009 1:56:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now to me, this just does not make sense. It is not a virtuous belief system. It is sexually perverted. Goatherds in the middle eastern deserts of 4,000 years ago had an excuse for believing it. We don’t. The Christian brothers are highly educated men. The first intellectual duty is to seek truth and reject falsehood. Scientific research has since demonstrated the Christian belief system to have been as mistaken as to human sexuality, as it was on the motions of the planets, or the origin of languages, or the origin of species.

If we had sought, we may have found, that sexuality deserves a much more honoured and healthy place in our lives than the Christian religion has ever been prepared to concede it. No amount of psychologising can or will fix such a fundamental error about our true nature. Those cases in Ireland are just the smallest sample of the oppression and misery that have been worked throughout two millenia by the Church’s utterly misguided and perverted beliefs about human sexuality.

You mention the training you never received. I respectfully recommend a very interesting theory on human sexuality from the standpoint of evolutionary psychology, called ‘Anatomy of Love: the natural history of marriage, adultery and divorce’ by Helen Fisher.’ To be really contrite, you should be prepared to seek new understanding of the errors underlying the sins.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Friday, 26 June 2009 1:58:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wing Ah Ling

As someone who has been a Christian for 25 years I have never once heard that the sin in the garden was sex. Your perceived theology is wrong. If sex was bad God would not have made us sexual beings. You seem to totally misrepresnt the Scriptures and then suggest studying the secular garbage that has done more to promote child sexual then any religous teachings. The adamic nature that you so readily condemn is obvious in every human including yourself.No doubt your support of perverse behaviour such as homosexuality shows this fact.
Posted by runner, Friday, 26 June 2009 4:56:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner,

I believe this article and the discourse surrounding it is positive in nature and comments such as "perverse homosexuality" is in no way relevant here. Your unfortunate post adds nothing positive or relevant, and merely steers the discussion towards tired old views.
Posted by spotbanana, Friday, 26 June 2009 5:29:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Catholic Church in the west is rapidly reaching the point where radical changes will have to be made for it to remain viable: there are not enough new priests in training to even run the remaining seminaries, much less staff the churches. Ultimately it will have to:

1) Employ priests from African, Asian and Latin American countries in the West -- nothing wrong with this in principle, but it will be hard to convince conservative elderly Westerners that they should follow a spiritual guide from Uganda or the Philippines, and perhaps also to convince committed Third World priests that their vocation lies in Vaucluse or Toorak.

2) Employ women priests, as more enlightened denominations have done for some time. Unfortunately even if this doubles the current supply it is not going to be nearly enough.

3) Embrace teleconferencing for its services and communion; an interesting idea but unlikely to be a hit with the current members.

If Father Wood has any other ideas which he thinks are more likely to succeed then I would be interested to hear them. If he believes that merely relaxing the celibacy requirement and improving training will be enough to keep the church supplied with priests then I suggest he looks at the similar difficulties being faced by Anglican, Episcopalian and Orthodox denominations.

There are simply no longer enough people in the West who regard priesthood as a worthwhile career choice. Father Wood should be asking himself (and his spiritual advisers) why.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 26 June 2009 9:05:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner
You haven't heard of it: so what?

Is the test of whether something has happened that you have heard of it?

What reason is there to think you would have heard of it? Have you researched the question? Have you read the relevant history?

For a history of the church's strictures against every kind of sex, including married sex - which they illegalised as much as six months of the year - see 'Sex in History' by Gordon Rattray Taylor.

And for history on the church's propagation of the doctrine that the reason for Adam's expulsion was that he had performed the sexual act, or at least had acquired sexual knowledge, see 'The Ideas of the Fall and Original Sin' by N.P. Williams.

Wing Ah Ling has not misrepresented the scriptures - he has correctly represented the history of church doctrine about human sexuality.

Your attempt to argue that Christians are not sex-negative is just a laughable display of the commitment to deliberate ignorance or intellectual dishonesty that he criticises.

The fact is, the Christian religion is one long tale of sexual ignorance and suppression of sexual behaviour of one kind or another - or all kinds - punctuated by the kinds of sexual crimes and abuses the author discusses.

From the inside looking out, the Christian religion is about God so loved the world, that he sent his only son etc.

But from the outside looking it, it's just one big sexual perversion.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 26 June 2009 11:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't think the original sin could have been that Adam and Eve had sex, otherwise how is it that Genesis says:

1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Adam and Eve were created, then told to go forth and multiply, *then they committed some transgression or other and were made leave Eden.

Two possible explanations occur to me (and there are probably others):

1. When they were told to go forth and multiply; they were being directed to go forth and do some math: "Go forth and calculate."

2. The whole thing may be symbolic, as I believe many Biblical writings are - which is in keeping of the history of the ages, where wisdom was passed down in parable and colourful stories so that it would be remembered by subsequent generations who were predominantly illiterate.

In any case, I don't think there is any problem with Christianity; problems begin with what people DO with Christian beliefs and teachings - twisting them to their own non-spiritual purposes.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 27 June 2009 12:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jardine K. Jardine

YOu write

'Wing Ah Ling has not misrepresented the scriptures - he has correctly represented the history of church doctrine about human sexuality.'

He along with you cherry pick your warped interpretation of Scriptures to justify your own perverse views.

I am actually surprised you actually agree that their is sexual perversion. Fancy you being so absolutely sure about something. I would of though you were into moral relativism.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 June 2009 8:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< He along with you cherry pick your warped interpretation of Scriptures to justify your own perverse views. >>

So sayeth, Runner, who managed to type the above without choking on his own hypocrisy.

He also wrote:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8753&page=0#138837

In his "cherry-picked" version of Christianity, only those who ask forgiveness of Jesus will spend eternity in Heaven - everyone else no matter how compassionate, honest and decent will rot in hell.

Aaaah religion can be used to justify anything.
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 27 June 2009 10:46:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not saying that the Scriptures do say that the original sin was sex. I am saying that the church later propagated that doctrine.

The fact is that, based either on the scriptures, or on later interpretations, the church has managed to come to the conclusion that virtually all human sexuality, including much of married sex, is wrong.

Runner, don't bore me with your tedious personal arguments.

The Christian horror of sexuality is evident in runner's drivel.

Obviously it's hard, starting from a Christian viewpoint, to arrive at any view of sex, other than that it's something negative. According to the orthodoxy, sex in general is bad, and then an exception is made for heterosexual married sex. But according to the sexual ideal, the couple should marry as virgins, and die faithful, thus having had sex during their lifetime with one person.

This is because, as with their understanding of the origin of species, Christians start with scripture and moral precepts, and then don't bother too much about the actual evidence of facts. But if the facts obtrude themselves on their notice, they try to suppress or ignore them.

But if we look first at the actual facts of human sexuality, we find that the pattern described in the Christian ideal is virtually nowhere the norm, which is, a *series* of *nearly* exclusive monogamous relationships. Even in very Christian societies, not just Ireland, but the religious orders themselves, the pattern described by scripture and church as being our true human nature, is very little in evidence.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Saturday, 27 June 2009 5:21:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wing Ah Ling

You write that 'Christians start with scripture and moral precepts, '

100% right while Wing. Secularist start with pseudo science and immoral precepts. You sum it up well.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 27 June 2009 7:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Child molesters indulge in activities that help maintain their cover –making friends with parents of targeted children; becoming the trusted employee in a school; undermining the target child’s credibility by encouraging other adults to regard the child’s behaviour as problematic – unreliable, deviant, a liar. This isolates the child; increases their dependency on any ‘kind’ adult and helps ensure that if the child seeks help she or he won’t be believed.

Paedophiles and some opportunistic child molesters will congregate where ever there’s an opportunity to indulge their proclivities. That they’d emerge in church schools is hardly surprising and I don’t think it has much, if anything, to do with being ‘repressed’. I think it has more to do with the availability of children who won't be listened to and believed, and a system (Church or any other) where a molester can operate with impunity.

It’s been a long time since religion exerted much influence on sexual morals or behaviour. I would say that Alfred Kinsey, a dedicated atheist, has been the major influence on sociosexual mores and behaviour since the 1970s at least.

One of the scientific community’s greatest shames surely must be that of the Kinsey. As pointed out by Dr. Judith Reisman, Kinsey was sado-masochistic and his collaborators; at least one a known paedophile – took it upon themselves “…to recognize and interpret the boys’ experiences.” (p. 177 from his book, Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (or The Kinsey Report):

http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Behavior-Human-Alfred-Kinsey/dp/0253334128/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246105105&sr=1-2#reader

p. 177: “… orgasm has been observed in boys of every age from 5 months to adolescence… Orgasm is in our records for a female babe of 4 months.”

The children’s responses that were interpreted as a sexual climax or orgasm include, “…convulsive action, often with violent arm and leg movements,,, sometimes with weeping…” (p. 177)

p. 178: “… 32 percent of the boys 2 to 12 months….. 57.1%... of 2- to 5- year olds…” [were observed to “reach climax”].

This is a complex but very worthwhile reading experience about Kinsey's impact on the law and definitions of child sexual abuse and rape: http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/fbi.pdf
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 28 June 2009 12:59:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'Day All; Nothing will stop this treatment of our children until the Legal Profession is prepared to clean thier act up,then the Courts, then the police who are responsible for taking the complaints & the investigation of those complaints.The whole trouble is that these organisations are not immune to having people in thier organisations that treat our children this way. Then one must not forget the Government Bodies that are so-called The Child Protection Bodies(DOCS etc). How many children have been abused or died whilst under thier supervision. The big problem is that adults think that this world is thiers but it is actually the childrens world & we are only care takers. Stop cover ups get rid of the sex as sex is not love & love can't be made as love IS. Thanks. Dave
Posted by dwg, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 12:26:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'Day All; Adding to my last post. The so-called "low life" mainstream crims had a code that they called "The Ten Commandments" & the first 3 were (1)Thou shalt not molest a Child,(2)thou shalt not abuse a Child,(3)thou shalt not burn a family home there could be a Child inside. Anyone that broke those rules were subjected to serious retribution but the Courts these days wont gaol offenders of this nature as they "know what will happen to them" so they put them back on the streets. To take the innocence of a child by any form of hurt is unforgivable & further does not carry a gender format except CHILD ABUSER but the "good people" consider the crims retribution is "barbaric" & must stop.Thanks again for your time. Dave
Posted by dwg, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 3:59:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Brother Shane you certainly have assumed the "split" you use as an excuse.

In one paragraph you acknowledge that many children were victims of shocking crimes at the hands of the Christian brothers, "it is plainly obvious that many horrific things were experienced by many of the boys" and then in the very next paragraph you start splitting by using language such as:

"should be brought to justice if crimes have been committed"

" to those proved to have genuinely suffered abuse of any kind."

You go on "None of this is an excuse what has been done to the victims of the abuse. It was criminal and inexcusable"

And now for the major split....

Our legal system systemically protects the abusers of children. In SA, until quite recently there was no legal recourse if these crimes had been committed before 1984. Read Robyn Latham's report into child abuse published in SA in 2003 to understand how sic kingly few perpetrators of child abuse get any sort of punishment through our judicial systems.
You then have the absolute audacity to suggest that our judicial system works against these accused priests
"On the other hand I know of some who have maintained their innocence but have been advised to plead guilty to avoid.....

What about the MANY MANY MANY victims who are dead, drug addicted, in prison or mentally ill.
MOST of them never did/do receive ANY form of Justice and retribution.

Your whole article makes me feel that the brainwashing you people operate under is alive and well, just a bit more subtle.

And if you use the word VICTIM , there has to be a PERPETRATOR.
ACCUSED is not a match. COMPLAINANT is.

The only two things you say that I can agree with are:

That the catholic church is responsible for people within it's ranks who have a
"very warped way of looking at oneself and the world."

And "It is easy to see how such people, put into a religious hothouse, untrained and overworked could become" split" personalities:

Thankyou for being honest if not somewhat confused.
Posted by oi, Tuesday, 30 June 2009 4:43:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think I know why sexual abuse goes on and why it hasn't stopped and why those victims feel ignored/forgotten.

Example:

"I am a victim of child sexual abuse for which has carried on into my adulthood, i am struggling to get answers or have someone be accountable, my mother was able to manipulate everyone in the family and the government, the government helped mother hand my daughter over to the same person who sexually abused me and i am punished for it.Please " "Posted by shattered.dreams, Friday, 26 June 2009 10:32:41 AM"
Posted by The Pied Piper, Thursday, 2 July 2009 7:51:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G;Day All. Lets get it straight the world needs LOVE & that ain't sex.Love IS love requires no making nor creating,love requires only the giving,love requires no reward for that giving only the sharing. Love does not seek its own only its opposite as love has no need for itself as love already IS.Love has one fault it is vain as it thinks it can conquer all. Sex is not love nor is it making love sex is an act of reproduction not a thing of pleasure although I have to admit that it produces pleasurable feelings. That is why sex should be between a male & female for the purpose of reproduction that way people would see that the alternatives are not acceptable. Thanks for your time Dave.
Posted by dwg, Friday, 3 July 2009 9:29:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy