I have just watched a really interesting interview on Dateline (SBS) tonight. See transcript at the following link:

http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/600432/n/Interview-with-Father-Tom-Doyle

I grew up as a Catholic, although I now consider myself as a skeptic.
I still have many family members who are practicing Catholics and they are all upset over the current revelations of widespread child sexual abuse by priests all over the world, and the cover-up by their Catholic superiors, such as their Bishops.

Father Tom Doyle appears to think that the whole Catholic Church needs to be cleaned up, and it needs to start at the Vatican.
But who is going to police this clean-up? Who would dare question these men at the Vatican objectively?

The only satisfactory outcome as far as I am concerned is that all allegations of abuse by ANY Catholic Clergy at any time in the past must be reported to police now.

Until the allegations have been investigated, all the suspect Clergy must be stood down from any duties in the church.

Once tried and convicted they need to go to jail, just like all paedophiles, and be sacked from the church forever.

All Clergy from all levels who have been found to have covered up any part of any convicted paedophiles activities will need to be sacked from all church activities.

All people who have been proved to have been sexually abused by Catholic Clergy need to be fully compensated and counselled correctly.

Then, and only then, can the Catholic faithful believe in the goodness of their church fully.

Many Catholics complain that their church is not the only church whose Clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse, while other Church members say it is mainly the Catholics because their clergy are required to be celibate. But do all celibate people become paedophiles?

Others say that the accused Catholic Clergy are only a small number of accused paedophiles in our world.
However, most paedophiles don't also claim to be God's disciples on Earth, and thus less likely to commit such horrendous sins.

What are everyone's thoughts on this debacle

You're right on what needs to be done. The Vatican needs to open their archaic metaphorical doors and flush out the stinky rubbish that finds refuge in there.

I'd suggest they are paedophiles THEN Clergy, though. Criminals who use psychology as part of their tool kit to manipulate their victims are smart and quite obviously they've figured out over time that being a priest offers access to potential victims and protection - due to shame - from the outside world. Perfect set up for them.

Catholicism too - as I'm sure you know - is a strict religion and "being a good Catholic" is a family pressure where most who wouldn't go to church are guilted into it via tradition. My mind automatically goes to Italians of New York and their mafia where on Sunday's they're "good Catholics" because of their family but on Monday they're out selling drugs and killing.

If you're brought up that way with various social psychological malfunctions then that very emotional structure nurtures sneakiness. There's ENDLESS examples in literature and movies regarding sickos in Catholicism. And of course, it not only happens in Catholicism, there's MANY examples of different forms of predators gravitating towards, and using to their advantage, various social structures. This is why - IMO - domestic violence and child abuse is RIFE within insular communities.

I don't understand this though...

>>>"However, most paedophiles don't also claim to be God's disciples on Earth, and thus less likely to commit such horrendous sins."<<<

The approach you outline sounds fair and reasonable Suze as well as those followed up in StG's comments.

Celibacy in itself does not cause pedophilia (I wouldn't think so), perhaps it is more that those who are of a pedophilic persuasion are attracted to those roles of trust that bring them into contact with children.

Nevertheless I think the Catholic Church would be far healthier to allow married priests into the Church. Marriage is a normal part of life and would-be married priests (IMO) should not be discriminated against. Being married may give them insights a non-marriued clergy cannot have. This is not to argue that a single priest is in any way wanting, just that marriage in itself should not be a preclusion.

The Catholic Church could do worse than to open the doors to married people, men and women to join the priesthood.

It is not too late to make amends for past mistakes and to ensure history does not repeat itself.

The sexual abuse of children is horrendous and
intolerable and the failure of the church to
deal with it effectively has done immeasurable
damage to victims. The cover-ups,
the protection of abusive clergy and the refusal
to admit egregious mistakes are unjustifiable.
We haven't yet begun to calculate the damage
these crimes have done to people's trust and to
the reputation of the church.

The Catholic Church as a whole must accept its
collective responsibility for the sexual abuse
committed by its members.

Trust is going to have to be built from the
bottom up by bishops and priests before
their pronouncements on morality will be taken
seriously again.

StG, yes I agree with what you say.
When I made the comment (albeit poorly!):
"However, most paedophiles don't also claim to be God's disciples on Earth, and thus less likely to commit such horrendous sins.",

What I was trying to say was that the average paedophile (if there is such a creature!)is not putting themselves out there, as Priests or Brothers do, as God's representatives on earth and therefore should be beyond reproach as far as their behaviour is concerned.

As Pelican pointed out, these accused men had joined the Priesthood supposedly as good men who planned to bring the word of God to people, as well as to bring solace to all who go to them for help.

To then sexually abuse children in their flock is a very cruel offence, and a huge tragedy for all in their community.

I see this problem with the catholic church and others to a lesser degree as a structural and dictatorial problem.
It is structured from the top down. It should be democratic.
The Pope should not claim to be infallible. They keep changing the rules at the top to hold onto power more tightly.
The emotionally disturbed find sanctuary in these places.
To practice celibacy is un-natural and against the call of a healthy mind and body.
I surmise from this that the structure is riddled with child molesters from top to bottom and cannot investigate itself. that is the job of the law. Maybe they should hold a royal commission.On another note it should be stated that Religious organisations are private clubs and you don't have to be a member. A lot of gospels are missing, put them back.

One of the fundamental problems in tackling an issue like this is the question of chain-of-command.

The classic defence mechanism - for example, when a priest refuses to help the police with information given to them in the confessional - is that "we answer to a higher authority".

Attempting to address priestly paedophilia using a secular toolset to make Catholics accountable to life-on-earth, as opposed to life-after-death, will inevitably fail against this universal stonewall.

Add to this the fact that religions are also given a privileged position in society by government, change becomes impossible to impose from the outside.

It can only come from within.

And frankly, given where they come from, and what they have to do to get where they are, I can't see any Pope having the moral courage to do anything except "express concern".

'Cos that what it would need, to make a real difference.

Moral courage.

I certainly support the point that celibasy in the clergy has not been healthy, but please wound not it be natural in that case for clergy to have affairs. Paedophilia is a mental illness, it infects all social networks that are involved with children. The common problem is that all of these churches, schools or associated organisations all have a history of cover up. they do not want to face that it is happening in their organisation and then have to deal with the fall out. This is a whole community issue that needs to be faced head on. As a society we are at a cross roads as to the true moral values we have, churches claim the high moral ground but then deny the decay that lives within their own communities. This problem stands over how we as parents view our children and what we consider the right way to bring them up. My children aged 9 and 10, have never stayed with anyone except their grandparents. I have to trust their school but always watch. Though this may seem protective i would not have them suffer the pain and total destruction of person that their mother suffered as a child. Anyone who has suffered as a victim of abuse or tried to deal with the out come of an abused partner will know the total destruction it has on a persons life. Some can find the strength to over come it but for others their whole life will be affected. Whether this is an increasing problem or just that we are more aware of the problem I don't care. It is time to act and the best action is that of parents. Do not trust people just because they are a church, child care or any other organisation that works with children. Stop palming them off so that your career or social life is better and then complain that the government did not do enough or the church deceived you. They are your children protect them.

I do not think the Catholic Church in its present form can be saved.
Remember these claims have been around for a very long time.
Even here heads of this church have been said to cover up these acts.
Satan if he existed would be proud of some within this church.
However we all must not forget it is not just Catholics or their church that victim's children.
Pedophilia exists in all walks of live all classes.
We nearly always ignore sub teenage girls dressed in full make up and sex like poses as mums and dads steal children's childhood.
Grown men and women buying magazines having such photos as porn not the intended fashion.
As each generation grows up, gets courage to tell of the infamous things adults inflict on them we get evidence that we continue to fail.
That pedophilia is happening still like the Catholic Church humanity has not yet made an effort to protect our kids.
No guilty person should ever walk our streets again

suzeonline,

Yes, the individuals in the Christian Churches, notably the Catholic Church must be held into account. As you might recall from old posts, I am a skeptic too. Yet, that is not fully the point. Were I a believer, I would still want the heads of the bishops and priests involved. It seems now more so than in the past priests are de-frocked and the underlings in the Church sometimes are gaoled (if found out). Yet, those whom cover-up are not pursued by the political powers and the police. The Bishops who transfer the priests are neveer prosecuted after the fact for hindering and obstructing the natural course of justice. (Maybe, that is not quite true. I think a past Bishop of Boston was sought by US police, only to flee to the Vatican to be protected by the Pope and the Church hierarchy.)

No loving god or secular society can counterance over-ups upon cover-ups upon cover-ups. Forget separation of Church and State, there is a need put the Church in thesecular dock, ASAP. If cardinals and bishops deserve to share residence with secular murders and rapists, so be it.

Perhaps, Kevin Rudd, should recall Tim Fisher, for instructions to direct the Pope that Australia's position is that even the most senior clergy must be put on secular trial for enacted paedophilia or providing support to these perverts. If Benedict is involved maybe, we should close our embassy, while he remains Pope.

What bugs me too are the Christians (good people), who attend church each Sunday, don't get hard into the faces of their Bishops and local priests about this significant issue, which does not go away. Herein, if Christians are Christians, it is a puzzlement, as to why these faithful people follow candestine Christian leaders, considering the latter all too often act, as a self-servicing super-cliche.

If any OLO reader is a Catholic: Why not protest by not attending mass en-mass one Sunday? Declare the date of a Postest Sunday and perhaps a month of making no donations to the Church.

I was impressed with Father Doyle's candor.

Pericles,

With regards the widespread paedophilia and cover-ups in the Catholic Church surely the time has come where secular law must trump ecumenical law. Perhaps, judicial respect for Sanctity of the Confessional should stop with priests hearing each others’ confessions. Besides, if the Pope sanctioned it, mandatory penance could be the clerical sinner must hand himself into the secular authorities, stop. Relatedly, the practise of making confession started generations after Jesus died, when early Christians had their confessions heard by their fellows doomed to Martyrdom. Confession is the doctrine of a Church, not a teaching of Jesus.

The other reason why change is unlikely to come from within is that incumbent Popes stack the deck, by appointing cardinals like themselves, perpetuating the System. They line-up all the ducks, before they die. hite smoke or black smoke; this cardinal or that cardinal; JPII set things up knowing his consrevatism would continue.

Will check back in few days. Busy.

Thanks for all the thoughts on this subject so far.
I agree that it should be the secular law makers who should be investigating this whole stinking mess that the Catholic church has long got itself into.

I personally know of several recent Catholic faithful who have left the Church because of this very issue Oliver, so I know that Catholics are upset and confused over the continued cover-up by the Catholic hierarchy.

If some Bishops or Priests have heard the confessions of other Clergy about their present or past dealings in Child sexual abuse issues, then I believe they should be made to name the perpetrators under secular law.

These men should not be 'absolved' of sexual abuse 'sins' merely because they say their acts of contrition and several Hail Mary prayers!
They should be in jail with the other paedophiles.

The homosexual abuse of young boys by priests is a terrible thing,
but the church's response of vetting applicants for the priesthood
for homosexual proclivities is the worst kind of discrimination.

No Proxy! This thread is not about homosexuality at all!
This thread is about some Priests and Brothers wanting and having sex with children - both boys and girls.
This is called paedophilia.

How is that related to homosexuality? Are you suggesting that all the Priests who abused children were homosexuals?

There is absolutely no proof that homosexual people are more likely to sexually abuse children than any other person.

Damn pesky homosexuals. Ruin EVERYTHING.

...them and COMMUNISTS.....and them thar Mooslums. Yeehaw.

The BBCs "Dateline" journalists had a discussion on this topic,
which I found most informative, for it gives us the broader
European opinion. Its a shame that they don't do transcripts.

It seems that instructions went out from Rome to bishops, to
keep things a secret. So clergy were simply moved around, when
an incident arose. At that time Ratzinger was responsible for
these matters at the Vatican, so his credibility as pope is
the big issue here. In country after country, more abuse and
cover ups are coming to light.

The various foreign correspondants seemd to agree that more and
more 1st world Catholics are voting with their feet and leaving
the church, especially in the US, Germany and the rest of Europe.
So the Catholic Church is expected to shrink even more in the
first world, as it keeps losing credibility and rely on the third
world for its flock of true believers

suzeonline,
How can you neatly quarantine this issue from homosexuality?
More than 80% of the abuse is homosexual in nature whereas the percentage of homosexuals in the population is around 2%.
As I said, it's a terrible thing to discriminate against homosexuals but that doesn't alter the facts of this issue.
Interestingly, international studies of teacher on student abuse report only an average 43% rate of homosexual abuse, with Ireland at a high of 63%, Australia at 48% and USA at a low of 35%, amongst other countries.

I'm sorry Proxy, you've lost me.
What homosexual abuse are you talking about?

You do realize there are male and female homosexuals in our community?
Are you suggesting there is rampant female to female homosexual abuse in the Catholic church then?

Or is it that you are confusing grown men having anal sex with boys as homosexuality?
It isn't, it's called paedophilia.

Let me spell it out for you. Some paedophiles abuse girls and some abuse boys, while others abuse both.
Paedophile Priests and Brothers have traditionally had more access to boys, and thus have had more opportunity to abuse them than girls.

All are very sick, nasty people, but NOT all are homosexual.

Proxy, temped but controlled my self, leave it out.
If Christ lived and breathed or ever did his church would ,rightly show bias against many groups.
Those who are as concerned as I am about the church that first bought to the masses Christianity, and its refusal to end this will not see this thread diverted.
Had these priests, not just of the near past but over century's, been ordinary people, this Church would have demanded long prison terms.
We are talking about pedophilia in the Catholic church, but it is no better in any section of the community.
Those who want to defend homosexuality first know , I think as I wish, am not aiming at you but surely start a thread?
No church, no religion, any of them, has more questions to answer than the Catholic church.

Suzeonline

Excellent topic - particularly at a time of self congratulation by the Catholic Church and Christianity in general.

As others have noted, paedophiles will align themselves in organisations that give them access to children be it religion, teaching, scouting, sports or other venues where children congregate.

I fully endorse Oliver's comment:

...surely the time has come where secular law must trump ecumenical law...

This 'special' exemption is an issue that vexes the non-religious community greatly. That one can simply 'confess' and be absolved of the most heinous behaviour is surely one of the greatest hypocrisies of the Catholic Church - an organisation the scores extraordinarily high on doublethink given its attitudes towards women and contraception among other discrepancies.

However this hypocrisy extends into other Christian denominations, Father Peter Jensen used his Easter address this year to condemn people for not believing in god - hardly a crime against humanity which paedophilia surely is.

suzeonline,
I never claimed that all these sick, nasty people were homosexual.
Re-read my post.
I clearly said 80% in the case of priests and 43% in the case of teachers.
It's interesting that the rate of child abuse is actually higher among teacher-students, with extensive cover-ups happening as well.
Maybe the secular issue doesn't get as much airplay because teachers don't hold themselves up to be as holier-than-thou as priests.
Mind you, that's changing as teachers increasingly seek to indoctrinate children with their ideologies.
Or maybe the church is just an easier target?

Proxy,

I would suggest that kernel of the condemnation of abuse by guilty Christian leaders is that they have sex with minors. If adult priest had a consensual relationship with another single adult, homosexual or heterosexual, that would not be significant. Even, perhaps seeing prostitutes, though unsavoury, is not heinous.

Addressing the paedophilia issue requires treating selected Church leaders like MAFIA bosses and drug cartels. Cut of the heads of the organisation. Sure, it is desirable to catch the line perpetrators a after their umpteenth offence, but that is not the same as taking out the Made Dons, whom see to be above secular law and able create the opportunity for multiple offences by not bringing the police and transferring the priests to an environment with a new set of vulnerable children.

The police must be involved as the first offence.

Albeit extreme, perhaps Christian schools with bad track records could be forfeited to the State and placed under secular administration. Is this action so much different to publicans loosing their licenses for serious in-house breaches or street hoons loosing their cars?

All this, of course, has nothing to with freedom believing in god or not believe in god. It is about catching criminals, perpetrators and their minders and placing these disgusting creatures on trial, and, if guity, behind bars for a very long time, preferrably life.

As previously noted, we have diplomatic representation at the Vatican (Tim Fisher). Herein, the PM (and other world leaders) must in the strongest terms push the Pope on the issue. We should downgrade our representation in need and make it clear that the Pope is unwelcome until the Church puts its house in order, or, at least until the Pope is seen to being really trying, rather than issuing the odd apology.

Hmmm, so here we have a poster who acts as though they’re not a Christian, but is anti-abortion, anti-Islamic, homophobic and uses line-breaks for each sentence rather than proper paragraphing.

Well, I’d just like to be the first to say, welcome back KMB/HermanYutics.

‘Proxy’ is a better nick though. I mean, giving yourself a nick that was a play on the term ‘hermeneutics’ and claiming that you’re not a Christian? Sheesh!

I'm not anti-abortion, anti-Islamic or homophobic.
I just tell it like I see it.
I confess that I do enjoy the irony that abortion removes from the gene pool those who are most likely to be genetically predisposed toward abortion.
Some would incorrectly argue that homosexuality operates in similar manner.
I do object however to Islamic attempts to remove Islamophobes from the gene pool.
BTW,
what's a line break?

Suzeonline,

It is right to be upset over the current revelations of historical child sexual abuse by priests all over the world, and the failure by their superiors. Paedophiles weren't exactly overrepresented in the priesthood and the Bishop's response was normal at that time in history. However, as you rightly note priests are charged with a duty to be moral shepherds. The priests involved were wolves and the Bishops were asleep on the watch. At one time the exposure was a needed wake up call for the Church even if it seems to have developed into a sport.

However I suspect Fr Doyle is being a little disingenous (to advance his own belief that the hierarchy needs scrapping so that his own beliefs can triumph within the Church). He should know how much work the Catholic Church has done to address the problem of sexual abuse. An indication of this can be found here:
http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

Or by reading the Collins book that Foxy had me buy and I misplaced (title?).

I don't believe celibacy causes paedophilia. Doesn't it mainly occur within families? I also subscribe to the view that at one time paedophiles were attracted to the Catholic priesthood as it gave great cover. Now they would go to greener pastures. On that note the continual digging up of priestly misbehaviour and Bishop's poor handling decades ago now creates a perception that Catholic priests have a monopoly on paedophilia and risks the greener pastures, wherever they may be might be now, will be hidden for the next 50 years.

Abusers should be put in jail but the confidentiality of the confessional does serve a purpose. Granted it can be abused but who would confess if it wasn't confidential? It is like arguing that more criminal offenders would be caught if lawyers were obliged to rat on their clients. That is true but it would compromise the system.

Surely it would be a non-issue these days as a victim of a Catholic priest would assume that secular authorities would believe them cf. the situation if anyone else was the abuser.

I hope foxy is ok she is catholic and not well at present.
Above everything else those in this church who hurt children this way.
Are they true believers?
Are those who covered it up?
If God existed would he forgive this? ever? if he would I Am pleased do not believe.

Dear mjpb,

Thanks for mentioning the book.

The title of the book is:

"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future?" by Dr Paul Collins.

It's an excellent book with quite a bit
on sexual abuse. Dr Collins is one of
Australia's most controversial and respected
commentators on the Catholic Church.
A graduate of Harvard Divinity School and the
Australian National University, he's a former
priest and a historian and broadcaster.

I can highly recommend this book to anyone who's
interested in this topic. Dr Collins doesn't
shy away from the difficult questions that must
be asked about the church. However he does deliver
an optimistic message, a clear program for reform
and renewal and the realisation that the church
has managed to recover from its mistakes in the
past.

Dear Belly,

Don't worry about me.

I'm coming along quite well.
Still a bit light-headed at times -
and my pulse rate now is a bit low -
but once I get rid of all the medication
that's currently in my system - I should
be back to normal. I'm doing fine.

The sexual abuse scandals have done enormous
harm - there's no question about that. The
Church needs a strong leadership and a
willingness to confront both the difficulties
and the opportunities that it now faces.

I can only hope that it will meet the challenges
that have arisen and actually do something about
them, and not simply express "concern," as Pericles
suggested in his excellent post.

what a lovely topic, and just how many of you [chattering classes as Howard pronked it] have ACTUALLY gone though the "Pain & Healing" of this?

I bet not one of you

I was abused [in the so called confessional] in 1958 as a 12 year old boy and 48 years later I investigated the Healing process.

In fact the greatest ever legal con man [and best mate of Howard for that reason] pronked the process itself as "Towards Healing" [and no mention at all of it in the OP article even though Pell used it himself to get off his own pedophile matter].

The "man" is Professor Parkinson, so start Googling folks and if you don't discover the corruption I will explain

Foxy, I am glad your health is improving.
Thanks to all again for their thoughts on this sad subject.

I am horrified by the Pope's Easter message to the Catholic faithful.
Not one word about the current disgusting child sex abuse allegations within his ranks.
The victims must feel violated all over again.

DivorceDoctor I am sorry for what you have been through.
I have a close female friend who has been through an abusive situation in the confessional as well.
After several inappropriate questions on sexual matters, my friend raced out of the confessional and ran home to tell her mother.

Her mother wouldn't believe her though, and rebuked my friend for repeating 'dirty things'.
She hasn't stepped foot in a church since.

AJ Philips, I believe you have hit the nail on the head! Proxy and Yutic certainly sound the very same. I will not be drawn into any more of his nonsense again, and I feel just a little violated because I had chosen to ignore that poster previously.

However, many priests are not celibate. It is dependent upon the vows they have chosen to take and permission given.

The Catholic Church [and am not defending it] have had paedophiles lurking within its structure over the years; as have many families, extended family members and other [paedophiles]roaming for long periods in our communities.

Yes, I agree Suzeonline that of course the Catholic Church should be scrutinized; however shortly there wont be any priests to observe closely as it has almost died out [ie no more Priests to investigate]as in the case of Nuns dying out [can hear you sigh with relief Suze]: I had my share of great Nuns and a couple of cane and ruler Nuns for a few years lol.

I see the Catholic Church turning the corner soon and following the Anglican way in terms of having Priests marry if of course the Pope or a new Pope agrees. I have personally known some wonderful loving highly principled Priests and the odd one [twice in my lifetime] wondered about after the media brought out recent stories.

Many people sitting on an alter though should be closely observed; not only Priests.

I am a very senior citizen, a lifelong member of the Anglican Church.

I have many friends who belong to the Roman Catholic Church, at times over the years I have been tempted to embrace the Catholic faith. I have visited the Holy Land and worshipped in the biblical places denoted in Christ's teachings. I consider myself to be a Christian. Not a demonstrative Christian but a quiet believer.

In my many discussions with my Roman Catholic friends I have come to believe they are quite immune to some of the obvious shortcomings of their faith, one could almost say uninterested. This lack of questioning of some of their archaic beliefs as expounded to them from their local church pulpits and reinforced by their religious teachers, this almost blind belief in the teachings of their religion as expounded by the average parish priest, is both the cause and the effect of what is wrong with the RC Church today.

It is well beyond time that the catholic laity started to question
some of the unrealistic religious edicts issued by their clergy, which appear to be unrelated to Christ's teachings but still expected to be blindly accepted by the catholic congregations with perhaps the extreme threat of excommunication or exclusion from partaking in Holy Communion rites if these beliefs are questioned.

Divorce Doctor I truly am deeply sorry for what you suffered and understand why you feel as you do.
The anger is just and in truth not something you should leave behind.
But if we take your lead this thread a vital one, would not have been seen.
I Just missed out, rightly so,as Suz had beaten me to it no two threads on one subject should run together.
But we must see change must see an end to this, you are wronging saying what would we know.
My post history tell of a 13 year old who was raped by her dad, a relative I rared in prison ,for pedophilia.
My social background has given me the SADNESS of knowing more victims.
I can not bring my self to ever forgive anyone who does such things, in our efforts to be Christian/forgiving we are saying its over let us forget , such as you never can.
We must never forget, I will never forgive, this isn't just the Catholic Church's problem.
They however claim to know God, Satan maybe not the God I once thought was true.
A new pope now new direction now or no catholic church in 30 years.

Foxy,

Sorry to learn you have been unwell if this is the case.

mjpb,

I don't think critics see the Bishops, as sleeping on the job, rather they are alleged to cover things up. If so, they should be charged with obstruction and more serious charges if the "transferred" priest offended again.

Regarding the Confessional, the Pope could dictate that the mandatory penance for paedophilia is to go to the police and hand oneself in. If someone confessed to be a serial of clergy killer, I suspect that the priest hearing the Confession would instist that the criminal surrender to authorities ASAP.

Perhaps, courts should not respect the Confessional in the cases of murder, kidnap, child molestation and treason. The needs of society outweights the rite of Church.

Is time for a change. I think that lay Christians should really be pressing clergy on this in fight mode not flight mode. March on the Cathedrals don't leave their Church (if they are beleivers).

Jack from Bicton,

Perhaps the Christian churches generally should better recognise history. That Faith was institutionalied because of the activities of Jews in response to Hadrian, the writings of St. Paul and Constantine, long after Jesus was dead. There was plenty of morphing and cherry-picking theology over that time.

Even with the Anglicans the final say on the 39 Articles of Faith were approved by Elizabeth I. There were 42, initially. Before, true nation states people followed their monarchs with regards to the form worship: e.g., Spain and England. People really didn't make free choices. Had the Spanish Armada (1588) succeeded, you would in high likihood now be a Catholic.

I think you might find that Confession and Exorcism are known to Anglican theology but rarely practised.

Allowing priests to marry would create a different community of practice, closer to the Anglican one. Less like a police or military brothehood, and, more like a typical community with typical relationships.

Foxy,

Thanks for that. I have no idea where I have buried my copy. It must be around somewhere. It is good to hear you have recovered. What happened?

The comments of the Judge in that article I linked to indicate that the Pope demonstrated strong leadership both in his former and current roles on the issue. The irony is obvious so I won’t spell it out.

Belly,

People can be strange so it is impossible to know what they believe. However the natural suspicion is that they were predators on children who sought a position of trust back in the days when noone would believe that a Catholic priest would do such a thing as Suzeonline’s friend’s experience clearly demonstrates.

As regards those who ‘covered it up’. That is more complicated.

There was a recently reported case where the Vatican was accused of inaction for failing to defrock a priest. The abuse occurred up to the 70s. In the 70s it was reported to Church and police but neither did anything effective. The police didn’t prosecute. The Bishop didn’t take any type of Church action. The local Bishop didn't inform the Vatican until 1996 and the priest died in 1998 while the matter was still under enquiry after living in seclusion. A Bishop involved had an out of court settlement with his gay lover who sued him. In that case there would be intense suspicion regarding the Bishop but as they say only God knows.

In most cases however where the Bishops referred the priests to mental health professionals and then reassigned them when they were ‘cured’ it is more likely that the Bishops were believers. However their weakness and delegation of duty to secular customs of the time is apparent.

I believe the orthodox view is that God is willing to forgive anything no matter how atrocious. I am sorry to say that given your statement as I would rather that you did believe.

we are unique,

I refer to my previous celibacy comments. I’d add that I don’t see the universally married priest thing happening soon and particularly not before this scandal abates. The Church experienced 1000 years of piecemeal attempts to address failures of married priests to be “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” before introducing celibacy as a standard. With failures to be sexually continent in focus putting priests in a situation where it is harder to be sexually continent is probably unrealistic. It may happen but not soon.

Jack from Bicton,

Have you considered that they might have a different theological view and are politely refraining from pointless debate in case it harms the friendship?

Oliver,

What about the mental health professionals that the Bishops wrongly delegated authority to when alternative action, albeit non-normative in the secular world at that time in history, was called for? Shouldn’t they be held more accountable legally if not morally? They were the experts relied upon and they made no vows about confession. How come Kinsey is glorified in a movie in spite of his published research on the sexual responses of infants and his organization doesn’t even get bad pr? Things were different in those days but why just the Bishops in the Catholic Church simply because the media use rhetorical descriptions of their failure and single them out for dirt digging from 50 years ago?

Being asleep at the wheel as Shepherds is something that has rightly moved the scandal to a level much higher than it would be if it was just a tiny proportion of priest abusers. Their role opens them up to special condemnation as Suzeonline has pointed out. However I don't understand why they should be legally singled out when there are so many other possible defendants.

yes Belly, but the Cure is worse than the Curse, so THAT is where the anger lies.

It is a long story but once I "came out" CentreCare [the Catholic Employment Agency] was at the start and end of the whole Towards Healing process, and as soon as I read the lovely book on TH and saw that Parky had been called in by Howard to "ammend" it, it was instant deja vu to the same as he did to Family Law Act and Child Support Acts, ie gave the impression [to all but legal experts like me] that a person no longer gets "his day in court" [see HCA re Brandy case]

So I let them know what I knew and did they ever $hit blue lights, employing an ex chief of police to do the final interview [similar to Spannish Inquisition].

I could have taken it to court because I knew how but I guess I made my point rather well on my web sites, finally getting an email from the ex wife of Parky confirming he [she calls him buckwheat, as in *uckwitt] DOES check every hour to see that "his poos don't smell" by putting his hand down his trousers and sniffing it.

Dear Olly and mjpb,

Thanks to both of you for your concern.
I won't go into to much detail as I don't
want to de-rail Suze's thread. However,
I had a scare recently by being rushed
by ambulance to the Emergency Section of
my nearest hospital with a pulse-rate that
was through the roof. They also found that
I had a lung infection - and then things
got worse before they got better. I received
all kinds of injections and medications - some
of which didn't agree with me. Anyway - I'm
slowly getting better - so all's well that ends
well. It did scare me quite a bit though.

Dear Divorce Doctor,

I'm so sorry for what you've suffered - and I
wish you all that's beautiful and good in life!

As I've written in my earlier posts - I hope that
the Church will take action on these latest
charges - and win back the trust that it's lost.
It needs to put its house in order.

I feel sorry for the average Catholic...I truly do. All they want is to follow their faith and yet aren't they continually undermined by the actions of their church and it's leaders and some of the priests?

If what these articles allege, is anywhere near correct, is the Pope and his credibility in serious trouble?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpZz8Ps6u6M

Do these articles (if true) make the Pope's apology to harmed children in Australia hypocritical and way too little and way too late?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4361704.ece

Where is the law in these matters? Isn't there a law of "accessory after the fact"? Shouldn't those who covered up the crimes also be punished?

Is the confessional the perfect system for cover-ups and crimes against children?

Please read what the Catholic Encyclopaedia says on the confessional http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01061a.htm

Where in the Bible did Jesus allow the creation of the confessional?

When Jesus said the Lord's prayer and gave it to humankind to pray, it stated, that we repent directly to GOD... Luke 11:2-4"...forgive us our trespasses (sins)..." http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=11&v=2&t=KJV#top

Does the confessional place a man in between the sinner and his/her GOD?...Do we now have men (priests) forgiving us of our sins, and where does Jesus permit this? Do we now have priests forgiving priests there sins?

Mark 2:10 states "the son of man has the power to forgive a sin" but it doesn't give man this power.

If the confessional replaces GOD in the process, does this make it unbiblical and therfore unChristian?

Is this an obviously flawed process, and has it allowed for the catholic church to keep any criminal activity "in house"?

But let's not just criticise the Catholic Church because this has happened in many institutions.

Didn't we lose a Governor General for a similar problem? Where were the "accessory after the fact" laws in that case?

Have you seen http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/ ?

When Jesus said "Suffer little children to come unto me" many of them sure suffered...and doesn't the suffering continues through lack of justice?

Luke 18:16 http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=18&v=16&t=KJV#16

What should happen to the Pope if what is alleged in the above articles is true?

Dear mjpb,

You wrote;

“The Church experienced 1000 years of piecemeal attempts to address failures of married priests to be “eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven” before introducing celibacy as a standard.”

My understanding of the Orthodox churches is that while they regard themselves as Catholic they do not acknowledge the authority of Rome.

From what I can gather within them it is a prerequisite for a priest to be married before he can officially serve as such. However the Bishops and Archbishops are chosen from the monastery folk who do indeed lead celibate lives.

Does this structure has merit? While it means a priest can not aspire to the position of Bishop-hood it keeps the celibate monastery types from engaging in direct pastoral care, seemingly with less impact on the more vulnerable in the parishes.

Opinionated 2,

Generally fair comments if the allegations are all true. If it was all as it appeared it wouldn’t make the hierarchy look good to understate things incredibly.

Your link 1:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

I’m sure that it is true that the documentary was on the BBC made the allegations but I don’t believe that the BBC allegations were true. Crimen Solicitationis is referred to extensively and appears to be the crux of it. Doylie is quoted as saying “What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.” This seems to be the central thesis of the documentary. Doylie however blamed the documentary producers for misunderstanding him. He said “I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse.” Last I heard the BBC has never put forward any type of correction.

Also on the program is apparently the correct revelation that certain priests were accused of child abuse and were moved to another parish and that out of court settlements have occurred.

Without mentioning a date it refers to child abuse allegations being dealt with directly by Rome. It calls this a cover up policy. However all indications are that it was a way of preventing the delays and mishandling that had been occurring. The handling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith headed by the current Pope then Cardinal Ratzinger started in 2001. I refer again to specific information on that case:

http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601
“When the competency was changed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in my observation as well as many of my canonical colleagues, sexual abuse cases were handled expeditiously, fairly, and with due regard to the rights of all the parties involved. I have no doubt that this was the work of then Cardinal Ratzinger.”

CONTINUED

Your link 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpZz8Ps6u6M

The BBC claim that the Pope covered up as no action was taken against abuser Fr Murphy in spite of being reported to the Vatican in the 1990s. They later contradict that by claiming that a canonical trial was held but that it was stopped. Murphy abused deaf boys between 1950s and 1974. It states that July 1996 the local Archbishop (Weakland) wrote to Ratzinger and they consider it a cover up because the Archbishop wrote a second letter saying that noone had got back to him. Interestingly it has someone explaining that Weakland is a man held in great esteem in many parts of the Church and it was arrogant for the Vatican not to not take him seriously. Weakland stepped down after it was revealed that he had spent Church funds in an out of court settlement relating to a sexual assault claim against him. He later admitted that he had returned abusive priests to ministry without alerting parishioners or police.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/12/archbishop-rembert-weakla_n_201972.html

As I said they claimed that the canonical trial was stopped. They inferred that this was the result of a letter from Murphy to Ratzinger. However as the link I put forward shows Murphy was still on trial the day he died.

Your next link is an article reporting the Pope’s apology to victims. I assume it just showing the apology.

”Where is the law in these matters? Isn't there a law of "accessory after the fact"? Shouldn't those who covered up the crimes also be punished?”

The media use the terms quite broadly so probably there is probably nothing available criminally.

”Where in the Bible did Jesus allow the creation of the confessional?” etc. etc.

Are you some type of protestant fundy who wants to convert Catholics? I can answer the question but is this the forum? On this basis I have skipped much of the rest of your post.

”What should happen to the Pope if what is alleged in the above articles is true?”

I think that many mistruths can be established.

Well Oliver you seem to have quite a grasp of religious knowledge, for which I salute you.

Yes I understand the 39 Articles of Faith as applied to the Anglican Church. In the main they are as valid today as when they were first mooted all those years ago.

There is Confession in the Anglican Church, it usualy takes the form of a general congregational confession as part of the morning service prior to the rite of Holy Communion. A private confession between priest and supplicant can usually be arranged, provided the participating priest is willing. This rite of a general congrgational confession was practised by a certain latin catholic priest in the Brisbane Diocese, but unfortunately, although well received within his parish he was forced by the Diocese Bishop to resign from his parish and he was replaced with a more doctrinated amenable priest.

I would surmise that the two main causes of paederasty/paedophilliac
behaviour within the latin catholic church,or indeed, any religion in which such unnatural practise's operate, is firstly, the priestly closed confession, and secondly, the practise of the vow of celibacy. The first one with its secrecy and invariable forgiveness, must encourage unnatural behaviour and, the second with its very unnatural attitude to procreation of the species, must prove extremely difficult to manage except for the very strong minded, who unfortunately are few and far between.

This pentultimate paragraph I think sums up all the preceding comments. I rest my case!

Jack form Bicton. I agree that the closed confession is a boon to those sinners and priests who have something to hide, however I don't believe celibacy has anything to do with paedophilia.

If celibate priests or brothers were feeling 'unnatural' in themselves then I imagine they would (and have done!) seek out other adult sexual partners anyway.

There are many paedophiles who are in adult sexual relationships in our community and still seek out children for their sick sexual gratification.

What reason would you give for non-celibate people practicing paedophilia?

I will always believe that the paedophile was active before they became priests (even if only in the mind at that stage), and they only joined the church to have a more likely chance of sourcing victims.

The Catholic church is by no means the only church that has paedophile members.

Suze I am sure Will not mind foxy told us the nature of her illness in another thread, she copped a verbal diatribe from one and look in her post history for the nature of illness.
get well friend
DD and others who post here are evidence that forgiveness for some crimes should never be given.
surely saying sorry can not undo such evil.
I refuse to think priests who did this believe in God.
Or that a God would forgive this.

Suzie I'm not so convinced that all started as child abusers. More likely it's a mixed bag.

I'm pondering what I've read of prison life where a percentage of inmates will involve themselves in same sex activity because that's what's all they have access to then revert to hetro activity when they are released. I've seen research material on that in the past but don't have any links saved. I did find the following http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Prison_sexuality

It has probably been a lot easier for adult's with a claimed vow of celebacy to get sexual access to children than to other adult's especially where there is also a strong taboo against homosexual activity (note - activity rather than orientation). Often those children will be children of the same sex as the abuser because that's who they have access to.

Some people take whatever they can get, it's not about orientation.

R0bert

Robert,

I'm with Suzie. Up front I admit the bias that if Jesus talked about being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven then I wouldn't expect it to cause paedophilia.

I skimmed your prison article and there was an awful lot about rape. So clearly forcing is often required and you did say a percentage. The article mentions that the perpetrators don't identify as homosexual. However surely some homosexual men commit crimes and we have all heard of (or known)men who engage in homosexual activity but don't feel comfortable identifying as a homosexual. Isn't it possible that the prisons might provide an outlet for those type of peope? Isn't it also possible that a macho culture (which I expect would be present in jail) might result in pressure to lie rather then admit to a non-normative sexual preference? If it is purely situational why do some men embrace it but most need to be raped?

"It has probably been a lot easier for adult's with a claimed vow of celebacy to get sexual access to children than to other adult's especially where there is also a strong taboo against homosexual activity (note - activity rather than orientation)..."

Having sex with children is considered worse than having sex with adults. I can only talk about the Catholic Church but priests often have access to seminarians and other priests and it is widely believed that homosexual orientations are overrepresented in those who have entered the priesthood so gaining access to people who might be tempted should be easy.

The fact that paedophilia is underrepresented in the celibate also undermines your theory as does the fact (?) that most paedophilia occurs within families. Fathers and defactos who presumably have regular access to sex without resorting to child sex I believe from memory are the most common perpetrators.

Plus of course the idea that paedophiles would seek out children wherever they can get away with it at the time is a compelling theory. You conceded it as a part cause with your "mixed bag" comment.

Belly,

Saying sorry cannot undo any evil.

Fundies still with a faith like to tell everybody about losing the burden of sin upon accepting Jesus. Confession is like doing this after every slip up. It can help people to walk on the straight and narrow if they feel that their mistakes are set aside cf. identifying with past behaviour. I'll try an analogy. Two people have avoided overeating for months. Then Easter comes around and they pig out on easter eggs. One says "I have blown my diet" and overeats from then on. The other person accepts overeating as past of Easter which ends with Easter and they continue being disciplined. All things being equal the first person will be less healthy because they didn't just put things behind them. They have both 'sinned' equally but psychologically viewing the problem as something in the past leads to desirable future behaviour.

Only God and the perpetrators know but my suspicion is that you are correct that the perpetrators aren't believers.

"Or that a God would forgive this."
Again from a Christian perspective only God judges people's souls but theoretically anything can be forgiven. If it gives cognitive comfort...if only some things were forgiven how could a line be drawn? You are operating on the basis of some sins being forgiveable and some not so following through presumably a line would need to be drawn. Imagine two people almost identically sinful and both repentent. One had been a tiny bit more sinful thus putting them over the line. Would that make sense to you?

Even if you did believe in God I don't understand why the characteristics of a God would be determined by you (you seem to imply that you wouldn't believe in a God unless they were exactly like you wanted). Surely only a God could logically design a God(assuming standard concepts of same being an omnipotent being who is presumably a lot cleverer than us and can understand things a lot better).

Dr Paul Collins tells us in his book,
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism have
a future?" that:

"... the Catholic church is in a prison...It
constructed the prison for itself, locked
itself in and threw away the key.
That prison is the prison of not being able
to be wrong... Far too often the Catholic
church believed that it had such a level of
divine guidance that it did not need the right
to be wrong ... even when clear evidence emerges
that earlier decisions were conditioned by their
own time and that the arguments for them are not as
strong as they were once thought to be..."

This imprisonment in the past has been reinforced by
the doctrine of infallibility, which also conveys a
sense that the church can never be wrong.

It's this that the church needs to confront. Especially
today with its current problems.

That's why mjpb's post are helpful in pointing out
church history that not only reveals the depths to which
the Church has sunk and still survived but also it
shows the church's high points as well.

As Dr Collins tells us:

"Historically Catholicism has shown a great ability to
survive crises of all sorts, including its self-inflicted
problems and stupidity. The paradox is that while tearing
out its hair in frustration, many have stayed, simply
because they feel at home in a church that is such a
scarred institution..."

Ultimately I'm still optimisitc that it's not too late.
The church has to seize the opportunity that this latest
crisis of decision is giving them. It needs to admit
its mistakes and correct them - do the hard yards.
Otherwise it will come across as being peopled by
stern autocrats. Not the church of God - but the church
of ruthless and ambitious men.

mjpb, have you seen any material on how long priests (monk's, nun's etc) have typically been in the church before the earliest known offenses? That's not something I have seen but it could be relevant in understanding the issue better.

I assume that most would have a number of years of training and close supervision before they are in roles which provide easy unsupervised access to children. They would also have to deal with the possibility that they won't be assigned to a role which gives that access and that those in authority over them would not take their responsibilities seriously.

Choosing the priesthood (or similar) as a means to get access to children seems to be a slow and risky proposition.

I do think that the strength of identification with a specific sexual orientation varies amongst people. For some it appears to be very much situational, for others it's very strong. Some of that is genetic, some cultural. For some being in a situation where their nominal orientation is not available means a shift to something else. There will be others who take whatever they can get regardless of the availability of their nominal preference.

R0bert

Suzieonline and Jack from Bricton,

When I was kid it was pointed out me that one makes a "good" confession and performs genuine penance: Abusing children on Friday with prior intention of going to making Confession on Saturady would not stack-up. Although, it might make a good cover-up. As I say above, standard penance should be the pedaephile hands themselves into secular authorities to suport their act of contrition. If they, don't the Confession would not be a "good" confession.

It is not a Bishop's role to send a priest off to a psychiarist, a Court can make that assessment.

Robert I don't. However in the Murphy case the abuse was from 50s to 70s and he died from illness in 1998 without yet retiring so presumably it started early in his career in that case. That isn't a study just an isolated example. However even if a study found the same it could be confounded by presumably a higher sex drive when younger.

In those days the priests were implicity trusted. It was seen as impossible that a Catholic priest would do such a thing (as incredible as that might sound today). In some cases the victims own parents wouldn't believe them. The prospect of detection was slim and the protection afforded by that image great. Even if their bosses became aware organisations in those days typically hid problems like that so the ramifications were smaller than being out alone. In theory the Bishops should have distinguished themselves from the rest of society and taken a harder line but Vatican II was in the air and blending with the world was in fashion. In the Murphy case the victim even reported the issue to the police in the 70s and no action was taken. Admittedly the fact that paedophiles could march for equal rights and Kinsey's research on children's orgasmic responses were socially acceptable provided a further context. But presumably the fact he was a priest contributed. All those benefits would be worth waiting a few years for a paedophile.

Regarding the orientation causation thing some people exhibit a lot of flexibility with gender but does that extend to paedophilia?

Oliver,

You should have also included Belly in that as he has questioned the genuiness of the perpetrators. You have a point. Confession isn't like the Catholic jokes suggest. It doesn't sound like a genuine confession. Although I don't believe the priest hearing the confession is empowered to make that assessment.

That penance would make sense although without being in the role of priest or confessor in that situation it is hard to know what exactly occurs. On the flip side the priest hearing the confession told them to go to the police as penance they also would be gagged from saying "But I told him to go to the police as penance". Like you said good cover.

"It is not a Bishop's role to send a priest off to a psychiarist, a Court can make that assessment."

True. Of course these days psychiatrists don't claim to cure paedophiles anyway.

Robert,

It just occurred to me that the options being debated are God loving individuals who were genuinely prepared to sacrifice even their sex life to serve God and help people who were driven by sexual desire to something unnatural or an opportunistic wolf in sheeps clothing who sees the priesthood of the 60s as a means to an end. Hopefully that is an acceptable description of the dichotomy. Even if it isn't I think I can make a point.

If those are the options then wouldn't the God loving individual with unusual and intense desires adopt less gravely sinful options such as masturbation rather than interfering with young children just because they are there? Many married people have intensely adulterous feelings but fail to act on them as a result of their own personal views on morality. It just seems you can't have it both ways.

It is one thing to get a desire but we aren't talking prisoners who may have been locked up for rape here (and it usually takes something dramatic to get locked up). These were priests. Raping whoever you want to isn't a moral option from that belief system. Even many prisoners look down on those who rape kids.

Of the competing theories doesn't the behaviours, particularly the repetition, fit better with the predator one?

mjpb,

Nope I'm not a protestant fundy......I believe in the rule of law...and the punishment of those who break those laws.

Are you a Catholic fundy?...lol

Do you work for the Catholic Church in any way, shape or form?

Is the problem with institutions like the Catholic Church that they are only answerable to GOD and are therefore above the law? Is this Biblical?

I have more Catholic friends than protestant friends!

You stated you could answer all my other questions... well go on then.

For instance if what http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/ says is true, How did Cardinal Pell become a Cardinal? Why wasn't the Christian, love, charity and compassion given to the victims?

It alleges "Catholic priest Gerald Ridsdale (left) walks to court, accompanied by his support person (Bishop George Pell, then an auxiliary bishop in Melbourne), when Father Ridsdale was pleading guilty to his first batch of criminal charges in May 1993.

But no bishop accompanied the victims, who felt deserted by the church hierarchy."

How can this be, where's the support for the victims? I wonder what Jesus would think of Pell's actions and promotions that followed?

This list http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html gives the names of 117 Catholic priests, religious brothers and seminarians who have been sentenced in Australian courts in Broken Rites cases.

The questions that needs to be asked are....what did the organisations do?

Have a read for yourself of this case http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page137-baker.html

But has this Pope got a record for poor decision making?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gpAv-XCnRkh9A6YycUSb9_omKvuw

Do the Popes have a good record?

http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm

or the Catholic view

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

So please feel free to answer my questions afterall you said "I can answer the question but is this the forum?" Yep this forum is fine.

How many times has the Catholic Church reported one of it's members directly to the Police?...OR Is that the job of the victims?

and to "”What should happen to the Pope if what is alleged in the above articles is true?”

You replied "I think that many mistruths can be established."

On both sides or just the victims? You didn't answer the question...lol

mjpb, "but does that extend to paedophilia?" - again I have not saved the link but I did read an interesting piece some time back on the types of paedophiles. The piece described two main types, those who had a strong orientation towards children and opportunistic abusers.

The former is primarily sexually attracted to children with little or no sexual interest in adults of either gender, the later uses children because they can be an easy target.

My guess is that a lot of "celibate" people do use safer option such as masturbation to try and meet their sexual needs. I also think that you can have it both ways, many married people chose not to act on adulterous feelings but some do. We all have different make up's, different backgrounds and different life experiences and people will choose differently with what is nominally the same set of circumstances.

Sexual abuse is a long step from generally agreed christian values but so to are other activities and choices undertaken by some christian's (and likewise for followers of pretty much any other value system).

R0bert

Opionated2,

I believe in the rule of law and punishment for those who break the law but I wouldn't jump into an argument with a Mufti about the subtleties of Islamic scriptures just because I thought that some Islamic clerics were behaving badly.

You have brought up a whole lot of stuff from an organisation that states it was formed by abuse victims who have apparently been a little put off the Catholic Church as an understandable reaction. I presume you want some type of response to that. However you also refer to the question that I didn't answer in spite of saying that I could (and presumably the related questions/argument). I'll start with the earlier stuff:

Where in the Bible did Jesus allow the creation of the confessional?

Like most stuff about Jesus and the Church He set up the surprising bits are prefigured in the Old Testament. Take Exodus 32.30. It gives an example of vicarious atonement. Then there is Numbers 14:19-23 where God told Moses that other people were forgiven because Moses had prayed that they be forgiven. Does the Bible place Moses in between man and God by your reckoning? The of course there is Numbers 16:46-48 where on Moses' direction Aaron made atonement for other people. Then you get to the New Testament Matthew 16:19 where Jesus gives the first Pope the keys and Matthew 18:18 "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven" or perhaps totally on point John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" I note that both of the latter two were said to all the Apostles not just the Pope. The apostles have successors. The Apostle Paul even lays down requirements for Bishops.

I think the clump of confessional questions is already answered.

Re: Mark 2:10 I refer you to the passage in John I refer to above.

"If the confessional replaces GOD ...?"

It doesn't replace God. It is done with God's authority in the Church where God is worshipped.

mjpb,

The scripture you quote refers to absolution methinks, not directly to Confession as the means to have a sins forgiven. I think it was Robin Lane Fox, who claims confession to liked with martydom. Sinners beleived that martyrs were well placed to intercede.

I suspect Kinsey was "glorified" because he reported on taboo topics. I studied three years of psych. in the 1970s. He was hardly mentioned and he was not studied for examination. The Hite Report into human sexuality is produced every now and then, with media taking it up. Philp Zimbardo, reworked one Hite Report with true academic methodological rigour and came up with totally different results.

I recall the Kinsey movie but unsure whether watched it through. Sometimes, I give Law and Order SUV the flick too. A little too yuk for me.

(My three post-grad. degrees are in business studies and culture studies. I don't practice as a psychologist.)

Could the inordinate focus by the media on child sex abuse and the Catholic church have anything to do with the fact that the media and the church are ideological enemies on most matters?
As exemplified by Obama's sanctification and Palin's demonisation during the US presidential elections, the media seems intent on destroying anybody or anything that doesn't lean as far left as they do.

Whoa mjpb,

WOW...using Moses to justify the confessional?....Is this the Moses who:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29...says the sin of raping a virgin can be washed away as long as the man pays the father fifty shekels of silver?...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=KJV

NUMBERS 31:13-19...where he orders the killing of all women and boys but his soldiers can keep the virgins and girls for themselves?...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=NUMBERS%2031:13-18&version=KJV

Moses wasn't a nice man!

When you quote Numbers 14:19-23 & Numbers 16:46-48 it isn't justifying the confessional.

Numbers 14:19-23...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2014:19-23&version=KJV

Numbers 16:46-48...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2016:46-48&version=KJV

Wasn't the confessional created as a mechanism of control, by allowing priests...(using Moses-like threats)...to know what was going on in the community?

Surely God would be smart enough to know that putting it in the hands of man it would be misused?....Or isn't he that smart?

I'll let this site argue the Peter was the first Pope question....http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm

Now your quoting John 20:23 was a good selection except it doesn't justify the confessional...surely GOD/JESUS would have mentioned the confessional more precisely...they/he/she/it knows all things past, present and future.

And if any of what this link alleges is true...the confessional came about much later than Peter...and wasn't it misused very early on?...http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/380995.html

But I gather priests...(who have committed these crimes)...have also had the power to hear confessions and have also forgiven people's sins...How does that work?

If the above article is correct and if you answer Yes to the above question hasn't the confessional got a lot to answer for?

I don't agree that questions about the confessional have been answered...but run if you must...lol

What do you say about Papal Infallibilty?

The Catholics say under the heading of The Pope quite a deal....http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB and doesn't the Catholic Encyclopaedia make this a falsehood?

Here's one Pope's alleged infallibility...JOHN XII (956-64)...http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm

or the Catholic view....http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08426b.htm

Do Catholics know the history of the Popes?

Is remaining "in the church" if so many crimes against children have been allegedly covered up..."tacit approval"?

I'd be the first to leave any organisation that covered up crime!

This alleged victim in the USA asks a very pertinent question...http://blogs.alternet.org/cityofangelsonalternet/2010/03/11/the-catholic-church-just-got-away-with-50-years-of-sex-crimes-against-children/

What do you say to this?

Why do people persist in this religious nonsense. Surely in this day and age it is obvious to everyone it's a load of crap. Read all the history of the bible which is simply a mishmash of gospels written 50 years after the events. A lot of them are missing after constantines spin doctor left them out and no doubt altered others to suit their purposes. Some are obviously made up particularly the miracles.
There is no god , jesus existed but so what. When your dead you'll never know you were alive. Your dead for good. 'For no man lives forever and dead men rise up never.......' Get over it.
And priests didn't have sex with boys,they raped them. There was no consent. exterminate.....exterminate....

I had an interesting discussion about this subject with my Irish brother-in-law last week- he is a psychiatric nurse who has worked in Irish mental hospitals for more than 40 years.

Ireland (Southern Republic of Ireland) is about the most Catholic country I have ever been to. Right up until a few years ago there was no divorce, single-mothers (they gave up children for adoption), contraception or abortion legally allowed in that country.

My brother-in-law says he worked with psychiatric patients who were sexually abused as children. Most of the mentally disturbed patients he cared for had been sexually abused by someone.

There were patients who had been abused by priests, but the bulk of the patients, by far, had been abused in the family home- or in another relatives home- by male relatives.

Unless a male relative had died and his wife married again, stepfathers or 'mummies boyfriends' weren't that common.
You didn't get to have sex much unless you were married!

How were these paedophiles 'encouraged' to take up that behaviour?
They were all supposed to be living with their wives and family in a God-fearing strict Catholic society. They weren't celibate.

Were these paedophiles born with that deviation, or was it 'learned' when they were abused by relatives as kids themselves?
I believe they were born with some sort of genetic or chemical imbalance.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 8 April 2010 8:27:53 AM

" ... Some people take whatever they can get, it's not about orientation. ... "

Some memories ..

prayer can be a very soothing .. and if one were to say bathe themselves in a concept of say Luv UnConditional in the 1st instance, Forgiving and being Forgiven, Accepting and being Accepted ..

a plutonic caress, a kiss on the hand, and the fire of intamacy is quickly lit ..

and I recall being a 13 year old school boy softly groaning inwardly at the gentle brush of the hair of one the girls and her fragrant odour as she flitted by ..

So why is it now as a "mature" adult I and others choose not sate our desire purely on the lustre of young firm flesh, albeit emotionally immature, whereas others clearly do?

mjpb

Claimed:

>>> Confession isn't like the Catholic jokes suggest. It doesn't sound like a genuine confession. <<<<

This is sounding rather like the argument used by many Christians on this forum, that if a Christian commits a crime they aren't really a true Christian.

And then mjpb goes on to say:

>>> Although I don't believe the priest hearing the confession is empowered to make that assessment. <<<

I would point out that in all matters of crime and psychological illness, no priests are empowered to make such assessments - that's why we have a system of law, law enforcers, psychiatrists, doctors and so on.

Paedophile priests are criminals and the Church's attempts to cover up their behaviour is aiding and abetting the criminal.

Suzie, "Were these paedophiles born with that deviation, or was it 'learned' when they were abused by relatives as kids themselves? "

I suspect that social conditions have impacted a lot. I don't think any single factor explains the whole picture but there are things which can be done to reduce the risks.

My understanding is that the worst of the abuse happened many years ago and there were a lot of aspects which might have contributed to individuals making very bad choices.

From what I understand the church dominated most aspects of life. Schooling was predominately church schooling, almost everyone attended church, other than drinking and work most other social structures revolved around the church. Those leading the church (and in most significant roles) were people sworn to celibacy with little genuine opportunity for intimacy in their lives. There was significant pressure in some families for people to enter the church as it brought some prestige to the family.

It's not a big stretch to assume that many of those who had teaching and or pastoral roles in the church and church schools (the main points of formal teaching) had some significant personal issues regarding sexuality.

I don't know how universal it was but there was certainly some teaching that sex was for procreation and was otherwise to some degree dirty. Access to contraception was limited and if it was available there may have been a good chance that an adult partner would have been unwilling to use it.

Having sex with an adult partner of the opposite gender could all to easily lead to another mouth to house and feed at a time when Southern Ireland was very poor by European standards.

Access to pornography was extremely limited.

Heavy drinking appears to have been widely accepted.

All in all a very potent mix for creating a lot of sexual frustration and very mixed up values. None of that excuses individuals from sexually abusing children but it does create an environment where the risks are increased significantly.

R0bert

Suzeonline,

I also suspect that paedophiles have some type of genetic issue combined with bad experiences which might not be confined to abuse but might be - even if the genetic contribution might be nothing more than a sensitive/delicate personality or something and that makes them susceptible to getting their sexuality screwed up.

Anyone I’m not answering,

Sorry, if things were slower I wouldn’t miss you, but the conversation with opinionated is going to require a lot of words.

Opinionated 2,

Are you are a Jehovahs Witness or something? It would be surprising that a secular fundamentalist would take so much interest in scripture. However, if so, keep at it. As a Christian I have no problem with it.

I may be a Catholic fundy as someone who might attract the pejorative label of course as literally there is no such thing and I do not work for the Church.

Like you I can only offer an opinion on the problems with the Catholic Church so I don’t think we can get much value from arguing the toss about Biblicalness on that basis.

Cardinal Pell became a Cardinal because he presumably suitably qualified. Did he fail to consider the feelings of the victims when he attended court? Was he a support person? Were the victims who had been raped as kids willing to have someone in the clergy accompany them? I don’t know and broken rights may not either. Given their attitude toward the Catholic Church they may not be trying to express a police report type fact as much as a feeling.

I believe that Pell was the auxiliary Bishop in the Diocese where Ridsdale was when he was brought to Justice. I would expect that someone’s boss would take a keen interest in whether or they are guilty in his first court matter and I also believe that they lived together at one time so I’m sure he would want to know what was going on for that reason also.

CONT

Beyond the fact that he went to court with Ridsdale we can only speculate. Broken Rites hate the Catholic Church and will tend to speculate in a negative way. I am a Catholic and will tend to speculate in positive way. In any case the worst case scenario of an occasion of thoughtlessness probably wouldn’t disqualify a Cardinal.

However it is timely to give credit to Pell for what we do know. In addition to the work that has been done to attempt to prevent reoccurance the Church has focused on past victims and assisting them. The standard program is called Towards Healing. This apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling. Pell introduced a program that some victim organization (I don’t recall which) described as better than the Towards Healing program. He is hardly the arch enemy of abuse victims.

”This list http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html gives the names of 117 Catholic priests, religious brothers and seminarians who have been sentenced in Australian courts in Broken Rites cases.

The questions that needs to be asked are....what did the organisations do?”

What didn’t they do. Every base I can think of has been covered.

”Have a read for yourself of this case http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page137-baker.html”

The judge was right “in the past” priests did work in other parishes after abuse. I think that theme has been done to death already in this thread.

”But has this Pope got a record for poor decision making?”

There is a huge following of SSPX who could enrich the Church with their beautiful liturgies and enthusiasm if they would join up so the Pope’s diplomatic move was a great idea. The head of the society Bishop Fellay had requested in a letter that the excommunication for 4 Bishops be removed. Indeed it was a key condition for talks with the Vatican. The fact that one of the 4 Bishops that they wanted excommunication lifted turned out to be a dud certainly would be good grounds to exclude him if that had been known. Even the SSPX was shocked to discover he was a holocaust denier:

CONT

From a "Statement of Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X" issued on 27th January:

"The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.

We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission."

Williamson first expressed the views in a public forum (Swedish TV) on the evening of 21 January, 2009. By 25 January, 2009, a Sunday, the news reports were flying that the Pope had reinstated a Hollocaust denier.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39269

Therefore the reinstatement must have happened on or before the 25 January, 2009. Unless the Pope was visiting Sweden and curled up in front of Swedish TV on the night of the 21st is it reasonable to jump to the conclusion that he knew about Williamson? Do you have any reason to think he was in Sweden? Otherwise Williamson was some crank interviewed from a society that most would never have heard of. I know I didn’t read any media reports about the event until the Pope reinstated him and I’m not buried away in the Vatican managing an organization of at least 1.1 billion. Of course Australian media gave the impression that the Pope was silent after the revelation when in fact he immediately made it clear that he condemned holocaust denial:
http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9a0f5291-1c76-486c-a458-7f60e06ea6e7

”Do the Popes have a good record?”

No. The first Pope denied our Lord and Saviour 3 times before the morning after he was arrested. They got off on a bad start and I’m sure that the hundreds of subsequent ones weren’t all perfect. My understanding is that many were far from it.

Opinionated 2,

”How many times has the Catholic Church reported one of it's members directly to the Police?...OR Is that the job of the victims? “

I don’t know and suspect that is now moot. To quote from Paul Collins book:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

Re: Moses

I’d better clarify. I said that certain actions by Moses apparently with God’s blessing prefigured the confessional.

”Wasn't the confessional created as a mechanism of control, by allowing priests...(using Moses-like threats)...to know what was going on in the community?”

That is a convenient theory. But Christ created it and I’m sure that is not why He did it. It doesn’t bind people with control but instead frees them from their sins.

”Surely God would be smart enough to know that putting it in the hands of man it would be misused?....Or isn't he that smart?”

That He is infinitely smart suggests that your theory is wrong. it is a little premature to go there before you consider my New Testament quotes.

Opinionated 2,

”I'll let this site argue the Peter was the first Pope question....http://www.bible.ca/cath-peter=pope.htm”

The term straw man comes to mind. It makes all manner of inferences and presumptions but doesn’t even address the scriptures Catholics understand to give the authority.

”Now your quoting John 20:23 was a good selection except it doesn't justify the confessional...surely GOD/JESUS would have mentioned the confessional more precisely...they/he/she/it knows all things past, present and future.”

Why? What He said works for me. The Church still does it and the early Christians obviously understood Him. Even if He had just for you you would simply focus on other perceived faults.

”And if any of what this link alleges is true...the confessional came about much later than Peter...and wasn't it misused very early on?...http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/380995.html”

Read it again. It only refers to the practice in 1215 where Catholics were told they should confess sins at least once a year. It doesn’t assert that there was nothing prior to that. St Cyprian of Carthage in The Lapsed (251AD) wrote:

“I beseech you, brethren, let everyone who has sinned confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession is still admissible, while satisfaction and remission made through the priests are pleasing before the Lord.”

”What do you say about Papal Infallibilty? etc”

That is a funny one. You have got to be assuming that Papal Infallibility means that Popes are perfect people. That our first Pope was Peter should give that one away.

”Is remaining "in the church" if so many crimes against children have been allegedly covered up..."tacit approval"?”

I believe that love of God and acceptance of the denominational take on Christianity rather than tacit approval for anyone from Judas to Father Murphy is the motive.

”I'd be the first to leave any organisation that covered up crime!”

Then dig back 50 years on all organizations you are in and see. The media won’t be doing it.

ABC Radio National today had yet another story dealing with this subject .
It harshly and rightly so, judged this church and the pope.
Calling for true crime status for those who offended and those who will in the future it added weight to my claims.
The Catholic church may not survive, but for far too long we see little contrition and justice.
Australian Catholic leadership is no better than Ireland's

Male on male sexual abuse but none dare call it homosexual.
4% of clergy involved but the whole institution is tarred.
Sexual abuse in schools is higher but doesn't rate a mention.
Female genital mutilation.
Honour killings.
Forced child marriages.
All being exported to the West by other religions but these are rarely talked about.
Do I detect agenda being played out?

Start your own thread about all those other issues why don't you Proxy?
This one is about Child Sex abuse and the Catholic Church.

Check the title of the thread before you comment- it holds some hints as to the contents.....

Hi Suze [gathered someone would raise the query relating to whether or not some paedophiles sickness may commence at a younger age and/or are born with it].

My opinion from a couple of personal experiences is yes. I do believe that in some paedophiles that their sickness commenced through adolescence and worsened in their twenties. Both paedophiles where I grew up: one died in his late thirties, the other lost his child.

Just realise Suze that each and every one of these evil conniving selfish murderers [for that is what they are] mentally and physically taking away childrens/peoples' lives will be answerable, be rest assured of this fact, to God and his ilk later on. They will be more sorry than imaginable. For that thought is what I and my sister have believed since we were victims [she at five years old and myself as a kid]. We are all victims at one time or another in our lives regardless of age and not feeling sorry for ourselves and keeping busy throughout life doing things for other people in their unfortunate situations has assisted my sister and self. Its interesting to note here too, that out of the family, we were the two abused and give 100% more to people from our hearts and are more compassionate and tolerant of other people, than our other two siblings. A positive out of the abuse.

Some paedophiles are taught morals and values in the home, at school, at work. This does not deter many of them. Some can wait years until they commit acts and ruin a victim's life and that of their immediate family, others upon reflection have exhibited telling signs at an early age; the parents of the paedophiles and rapists reflection arriving too late.

So...another aspect to paedophilia is this. Parents, please spend a great deal of time with your children communicating, particularly your children through puberty. Be open and discuss everything show your love and raise their self esteem regularly

Catholics, no not Priests, not anti Catholics, just true followers of God who are Catholics.
Can I ask are you as concerned as the community?
Are you aware of the Stockholm theory?
It is said to show victims of criminals held hostage often support their captors.
Loving you God , your Church as you would is it not true some in the past hide crimes against children?
Far too many crimes far too often for far too long?
We all known this is also humanity's problem, but you must not forget, please never, those children.
Placed in the care of your church their for your God and his servants.
And this is no better than the very worst act of ANY followers of ANY God.
Defense at any cost is not fixing but entrenching and hiding the problem.
It is in the powers of church followers to change to uncover the full facts and one day rebuild your faith but first this shambolic building needs to be harshly renovated or it will surely fall.
Proxy you temp me again, but you are not worth the effort.

It is said to show victims of criminals held hostage often support their captors.

All true and factual Belly, however, not in relation to children victims supporting their captors. Adults living in fear yes. The point I have made Belly is that yes the catholic structure should of course be addressed and my point of reassurance coming from someone with faith, that all perpetrators will be accountable at the end of their day. You would be quite surprised Belly that in most families over generations has lurked a paedophile or rapist. Most people discover it all too late [was my other point]. No support given to these criminals whatsoever.

suzeonline
It's perfectly relevant to provide a broader viewpoint on Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church.
Keeping it in perspective, only 4% of clergy were perpetrators.
Why do we tar the 96% who were not?
Easy: they're the white male dominant majority in the dominant majority religion.
Of those 4%, 80%+ were male on male, where homosexuals represent only 2% of the population.
This is gobsmackingly relevant and it points to a solution.
A solution which the church is pursuing, to its credit.
ie increased vetting for male on male sexual tendencies in applicants.
Furthermore, how is it that other forms of sex-related abuse in other religions have no relevance?
You just want to quarantine debate on your own narrow terms.

Hi KMB/Herman :)

Proxy

>> You just want to quarantine debate on your own narrow terms. <<

WTF?

This debate, as Suze has patiently pointed out to you, is about "Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church".

I agree with Suze that if you wish to discuss abuse of children in general then you are free to do so on a topic of your own creation.

While I'm on a roll:

we are unique

I am sorry to hear of your personal abusive treatment as a young child.

However, that there may or may not be a vengeful god is an open question.

We urgently require to attend to child abuse in the here and now. And I suspect any reasonable deity would agree.

PAX

Severin: No-one on the OLO Forum Severin has disputed otherwise [myself included as a catholic] the fact that child abuse in the catholic church is being addressed and should be addressed.

Belly: I have stated no-where that I do not support investigation of the catholic church crimes [ie paedophiles detected and dealt with]. If you knew me personally, you would not have queried this.

Facts: It takes years for abuse victims to come forward and come to terms with abuse, some 20 yrs later in their adult lives. By this time, the abuser has either died or retired. Fellow priests and the congregations totally unaware of the crimes. Not all crimes are known by other people. For instance, look at how Ivan Milat got away with so many murders for a long time recommitting. My point being Belly that few if any people aware of the criminal behaviour in a paedophile or murderer until it is too late. This is the tragedy and frustration that exists for many people victims included. Far too painful at a young age to come forward and express to another their experience. Yes, it would be wonderful if children and adults could bring it all out in the open when it happens [ie the year it occurs] but in reality this does not occur. Which in turn, of course, led to innocent support to paedophiles and their future crimes.

Having given profound thought on this issue I wish to also mention some words my mother uttered to me growing up along these lines [a wise woman during her life].

"watch your behaviour and treatment of others along with looking at your own family and extended family members".

Belly you and Severin are targetting and crucifying the catholic church and catholic church people yet one never knows if their own family member may partake in criminal behaviour paedophilia rape and other lesser crimes. Some of these criminals die; others not.

People need to look at their own families and interact closely with them; priests and the non-religious.

Never be too quick to condemn using generalisations regarding the catholic church and its congregation. For one may find in their lives down the track a criminal in their own family.

Have seen in many people that those who swiftly judge via generalisations made about certain groups or individual people are shocked at a later date when one of their own family members or extended family members are paedophiles/rapists criminals.

Opiniated2,

“Suffer” in context with the first century mendicant, Jesus, and “suffer little children” means to allow proceed without hindrance. It is the archaic use of the word which is used in the Bible.

Mjpb,

“psychiatrists don’t clam to cure paedophilia..”

A very good point: Transferring the priest/brother to a new parish/school will not work.

Belly,

"Far too crimes for too often for too long."

From the persecution of the pagans form Constantine, through the Crusades, bleeding children to death for blood tranfusions for the Pope, the witch and monkey trials, child bashings by nuns and paedophilia; across cities, across countries and across continents.

What I find hard to understand is why good people who believe in the civil behaviours of emphasised in the ten commandments and the values posited by a teacher during Sermon on the Mount, would have a bar of the Pauline-Constantine Church, its history and leagacy. If they wish to believe, why not follow the teachings of Jesus, rather the residual institution of the Holy Roman Empire?


All,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612457.stm

Should Australia make its displeasure known through diplomatic channels, if it shown that Benedict did protect the church/clergy? I beleive we should. If the allegations were found to be true, having Australia recall Tim Fisher with the view of downgrading the Vatican’s full embassy would surely gain international attention.

The Pope could turn himself in Californian authorities to make secular amends and show spiritual contrition and "substutionary ransom" for the Sins of the Church (Something a true Vicar of Christ might do). Of course, that would never happen, even if he was guilty of a cover-up.

severin,

"WTF?
This debate, as Suze has patiently pointed out to you,
is about "Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church"."

Why are we not surprised to find that your "WTF'ing" contradicts your own earlier contribution:

"Excellent topic - particularly at a time of self congratulation by the Catholic Church and Christianity in general."
Christianity in general?
I thought this topic was about the Catholic Church.
If it's valid for you to broaden the scope to non-Catholic religions,
why can't I broaden the scope to include other religions?

“paedophiles will align themselves in organisations that give them access to children be it religion, teaching, scouting, sports or other venues where children congregate.”
Your comment puts an interesting perspective on the current fight in the USA where homosexual activists are trying all manner of strategies to circumvent a Supreme Court ruling which determined that the Boy Scouts could legally exclude homosexuals from becoming Scout Leaders.
Anyhow, why did you bring it up?
What is the direct connection between these other organisations and "Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church"?

Yet again...
“However this hypocrisy extends into other Christian denominations, Father Peter Jensen used his Easter address this year to condemn people for not believing in god”
What do other Christian denominations condemning people for not believing in God have to do with "Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church".

I'm sorry, I seem to have strayed off-topic again.

The acts themselves are among the nastiest examples of abuse.

Physical abuse, mental abuse, abuse of trust, abuse of a position of trust.

But equally distressing is the handling of these cases , and the apparent inability of secular law to prosecute any of the religion's hierarchy, for obstructing the course of justice.

We seem to accept that these people can behave more badly than the rest of us, and get away with it.

Shouldn't they be held to higher standards, rather than lower?

I bet Roman Polanski wishes he had become a priest.

If the authorities were serious about cleaning this pedophile mess up, it would bring down the whole church and half our politicians world wide. And that will never happen! They all stick up for one another and make the rules to protect themselves as they go.

Apologies for the cross-posting, but this seems relevant here too:

<< Fresh allegations made against Pope

Pope Benedict is facing new allegations about his handling of cases of child abuse by paedophile priests.

The Associated Press news agency says it has obtained a letter signed by the future Pope in 1985, when he was a senior Vatican official, in which he resisted appeals for the dismissal of an American priest who had sexually abused two boys at a school in California. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869180.htm

I am sure many have noticed the extremism some show in defending this church its leader and belief in God its self.
Look first at the victims.
Then those who did it.
Look at the reason Church's exist.
This dreadful crime, a million crimes over centuries must end.
I am afraid if that old road block to real change real improvement defense,, is not pulled apart the Catholic church will be.

It's interesting that Roman Polanski has been brought into this debate.
Many in Hollywood have defended Polanski's actions.
What makes them different from those who covered up the actions of 4% of priests?
Is anybody in the church publicy defending the actions of abusive priests?
It's comforting for those on a mission to single out the Catholic Church but this phenomen transcends any single institution.
Deviant sexuality is the problem.

CJMorgan,

Please refer my earlier post/link on Benedict (page 14).

Given Benedict is a temporal leader as well as a religious leader, should governments respond diplomatically? I think it is fair to say that most Australians would want a Australia to send a diplomatic rebuke to a president or prime minister of any other temporal leader under these circumstances, if the allegations are confirmed. We recently opened a full embassy in the Vatican (Tim Fisher appointed). Should we reverse the Emabassy decision, if the Vatican State is giving comfort to heinous criminals? Should people who cover-up for child molesters be welcomed as State guests in Australia

Good point, Oliver. If our ambassador to the Vatican isn't able to convey the views of the Australian government to the Pope, then what is the purpose of his junket?

KMB/HermanYutic/Proxy: << I seem to have strayed off-topic again >>

Trolls invaruably do.

>> the views of the Australian government <<

Which are what exactly? Rudd is an Anglican/Catholic (I think), has yet to express a definitive position on the cover-up by the Catholic Church in general and the actions (paltry) taken by the Pope thus far.

"Any mug could tell the Pope he cannot repair
the damage by dressing in flash vestments,
chesting a microphone and uttering a few bland
words of regret. It's not that easy.

It might soften the blow if our community was
to witness some expression of genuine remorse,
some powerful act of sorrow, a dramatic and
public proclamation of conversion."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/pope-must-grovel-and-beg-for-our-forgiveness-20100406-rpag.html

I can for-see a major conflict of interest between our Prime Minister demanding both a sincere apology and his penchant for subsidising religious schools.

Interesting times indeed.

Severin,

Governments I suspect would not have to push too hard to receive an apology. The Vatican has done that in the past.

The Catholic Church is like Dynastic China, it expects to be differred to. Countries sending the Vatican to diplomatic Coventry, I think might bring the Church down a beg ot two. And that is where it should stay until it is prepared to hand over priests/brothers (paedophilia) and nuns (bashing children) and the Bishops and Cardinals who are guilty as accomplices after-the-fact.

As for the politicians, they lead a secular society. Parishioner Rudd and Parishioner Abbott (not as secular leaders) and millions of other Catholics should say, "enough is enough", maybe having a protest Sunday, where they stay at all home.

The Vatican, I have read, is giving shelter to a past Bishop of Boston, protecting him from secular authorities. Why not confiscate/impound some US Church land, until such time as any arrest summons is answered? Govenments take these kinds of actions against drug cartels, even hoon drivers, why not the Catholic Church?

Posted by Severin, Friday, 9 April 2010 9:30:35 AM
" ... Paedophile priests are criminals and the Church's attempts to cover up their behaviour is aiding and abetting the criminal. ... "

..

Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 10 April 2010 8:14:29 PM
" ... But equally distressing is the handling of these cases , and the apparent inability of secular law to prosecute any of the religion's hierarchy, for obstructing the course of justice. ... "

..

Posted by CJ Morgan, Saturday, 10 April 2010 11:51:46 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869180.htm

" ... The Associated Press news agency says it has obtained a letter signed by the future Pope in 1985, when he was a senior Vatican official, in which he resisted appeals for the dismissal of an American priest who had sexually abused two boys at a school in California. ... "

..

Mmmm .. now how does it go?
(Gimana *Boazy* Apa sudah pindah dari melayu selatan belum?)

Something like this:

" ... No, the Lord Will Not repent, you are a Priest/ess forever after the Order of Melchizedek. ... "

Significance being that some religious beliefs hold that whilst an ordination ceremony may be held by mortals, that fundamentally it establishes a Covenant between the Ordained and the Living God, thus some are very reluctant to interfere with it.

Is this relevant to catholicism? I'm not sure. Perhaps someone else can elaborate?

As far as I am concerned, if the Pope and the Vatican would only come out and say they will now hand over the files of names they must have of paedophiles still harboured within the Catholic Clergy to Police, it would go a long way to resolving the current situation.

The Pope and all Clergy within the Catholic Church are all human and thus must answer to the law authorities here on Earth before they do to any supposed God they worship.

They're attempting to purge their ranks of homosexuals.
What more can they do?

Writing slow Proxy.
Pedophiles can be male of females as can be their victims and homosexuals are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone.
Look back in ten years and see either the catholic church will have addressed this issue or be well on its way to death.

Ayo *Boazy* Tidak usah malu sama Saya.

..

I've been listening to some Oz Hip Hop and thought to share some lyrics.

..

An Audience with the Devil
Copyright © HillTop Hoods - All Rights Reserved
Hard Road - Restrung

(M. Lambert/D. Smith/B. Francis/D. Rankine)
Produced by Trial for Peepshow Entertainment
Written and performed by M. Lambert

Verse 1 Suffa
I was granted an audience in the Devil's maze,
I sat by his throne and we talked for days,
He told me about his ancient battles with arch-angels,
He told me loneliness was a torture most painful,
He said if I filled my lifetime with sin,
I could earn myself a seat that was right by him,
And if I didn't, that was fine by him,
Cos everyday a million souls just fly right in,
He could barely keep up with the souls of all the people,
Its not easy being sole controller of all Evil,
He said So many people want to burn with me,
I swear free wills a b!tch and so's eternity,
So what you learn from me might save you from suffering,
You don't want to see the bowels of the earth rupturing,
Take a breath, suck it in, I got more to tell,
And times of no consequence when you're in Hell, when you're in Hell, you're in Hell! you're in Hell!

..

The Devil:

" ... Mankind has progressed to a point in its dimwitted history, where life has been drained of all its enchantment. ... "

..

Verse 2 Suffa
I had a lot of questions
I asked the devil to explain
Why do I always think that people have it in for me?
And why do I always feel like the sky's closing in on me?

..

Chorus
Sitting with the devil, this is what I learned,
Apart from the ways a human soul can be burned,

It's if we don't learn from our mistakes were condemned,
To make those same mistakes, again and again,

And time keeps, time keeps slipping away,
Like I keep, I keep slipping away, ...

I'd be ashamed too.

You missed the point, Proxy. Probably deliberately.

>>It's interesting that Roman Polanski has been brought into this debate. Many in Hollywood have defended Polanski's actions. What makes them different from those who covered up the actions of 4% of priests?<<

Those in Hollywood who have "defended Polanski's actions" (who might they be, by the way?) do not have the power to shield him from the authorities.

Or, looked at another way, the authorities do not consider Polanski's defenders to be sufficiently influential to prevent his extradition.

>>Is anybody in the church publicy defending the actions of abusive priests?<<

Not as far as we can see. But privately, they clearly didn't see the priests' abuse as meriting prosecution. Which is why they kept moving them around.

Which is the more honourable course of action? To state publicly what you think, or act privately to prevent the abuser from being tried for his actions?

>>It's comforting for those on a mission to single out the Catholic Church but this phenomen transcends any single institution.<<

Don't forget it was the church that singled itself out, by protecting serial sexual abusers from prosecution.

"Comforting" doesn't enter into it.

And the only "mission" should be the church putting its house in order.

>>Deviant sexuality is the problem.<<

Believing that deviant sexuality doesn't warrant trial and incarceration, is the problem.

Denial is not the answer, Proxy.

mjpb,

Nope I'm not a JW...are you for real?...lol. And I am not a fundamentalist of any sort although you are starting to sound like one...lol.

Now back to the good old Bible.

Notice how I put links to the passages I quote...if you have time please try it...It saves me time....I follow the rule "Do unto others..."...lol

Matthew 7:12....http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:12&version=KJV

You stated in relation to John 20:23 and the confessional "Why? What He said works for me" BUT that is the crux of the problem...God gave precise instructions on Noah's ark Genesis 6:14-16...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genisis%206:14-16&version=KJV

The Ark of the Covenant Exodus 25:10-22....http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2025:10-22&version=KJV

but he neglected to give instruction on the Confessional...amazing. Jesus might have had a bad day that day.

It seems to me that on one hand Christ is all knowing and all seeing, and yet when people are in desperate need of help he appears not.

Where was he when the victims of all these atrocities against children occurred? Did the children who were abused pray for his intercession? Surely a child in so much pain must pray earnestly!

So what can be said now about prayers for intercession? They don't seem to work!....John 14:14 “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it”

You didn't reply to the question of a criminal priest (not yet caught or worse known but hidden) hearing confessions...How does that work?

Does a criminal priest have the ability to absolve sin?

Infallibilty...the Catholic Encyclopaedia sure is long winded about this topic...lol...http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

And now this…If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck…Is it a duck?

http://player.sbs.com.au/naca/#/naca/wna/Latest/playlist/Pope-s-letter-scandal/

Is this Pope damaged goods? Is the organisation more important than the victim?

Are you surprised that an organisation, who represents sexually abused people, like Broken Rights is a little anti-catholic?

Are you sympathetic to these victims or is your attitude part of the problem?

"by the standards of the time..." - Vatican Lawyer

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-acted-expeditiously-on-molestation-vatican/story-e6frg6so-1225852463752

What a lame excuse. Protecting child molesters is a crime now and was in 1985.

Moreover, secular authorities seem to be not without blame:

"Kiesle, who was arrested in 1978 and given three years' probation after pleading guilty to molesting two boys, was defrocked in 1987." -Australian

Seems the State gave a very light sentence indeed. Meanwhile, Kiesle, retained in a job of a position of trust for almost ten years, which no doubt many a paedophile with would be envious of. The State should not be giving these vile people "get out of jail free" cards, because they are clergy.

Religious skeptics aside, the religious laity really need to be proactive and not be the Sheep, their Churches would have them be.

Theologically, the idea that Christians cannot be held responsible to secular authorities could be link the concept of "justification be faith alone" or "antinomianism". That is, if God has forgiven their sin, how can mere mortal man punish them for a crime? Maybe, some neo Lutherian would be happy this case. I prefer, "render unto Caesar".

This could be interesting:

<< Leading atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seek Pope's arrest

Two leading atheists are investigating the possibility of arresting the Pope for "crimes against humanity", lawyers have confirmed.

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are paying lawyers to investigate whether Pope Benedict XVI should be arrested when he visits Britain in September.

Mr Dawkins and Mr Hitchens, according to The Guardian, believe the pope should face charges for the alleged cover-up of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

The Guardian reports that a letter written by the Pope in 1985, when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, urged that a paedophilic priest in the US not be exposed for the "good of the universal church". >>

http://tiny.cc/f5lnn

Interesting CJ.

Now watch as the atheist camp is villified for their calls for justice.

Some powerful religious folk, who care more for the reputation of the Church due to a warped view of the 'greater good', have knowingly allowed these predators access to children.

In any other sphere those who aid and abet child molesters are subject to the criminal justice system, it should be no different for the Church. And particularly since some in the theist camp continue to hold themsleves up to a higher moral calling.

Pericles,

"You missed the point, Proxy...

Those in Hollywood who have "defended Polanski's actions" (who might they be, by the way?) do not have the power to shield him from the authorities.

Or, looked at another way, the authorities do not consider Polanski's defenders to be sufficiently influential to prevent his extradition."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdQiQfxvJ8s
http://tizona.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/the-indefensibility-of-defending-roman-polanski/

Is that the point? I took it to mean that noone in the Catholic Church defends paedophile priests. Yet in Hollywood celebrities are willing to go public and downplay the rape of a minor.

I didn't take it as a reference to the actions of Bishops decades ago but to what is happening today. Perhaps Proxy can clarify what was meant.

"Not as far as we can see. But privately, they clearly didn't see the priests' abuse as meriting prosecution. Which is why they kept moving them around."

I still think Proxy isn't talking about historical norms and the actions of Bishops decades ago. Is anyone defending the actions of the paedophile priests in the media? The Pope describes them as "filth".

"Don't forget it was the church that singled itself out, by protecting serial sexual abusers from prosecution."

Do you seriously believe that only the Catholic Church did that back then? That is just one step away from thinking that most paedophiles are priests.

"And the only "mission" should be the church putting its house in order."

I know! Why don't they install someone at the head of the Divine Congregation of Faith who will change the policy on dealing with these matters and have them all immediately referred to the Congregation to handle so that they get actioned. Then the head could change the rules to make it easier to immediately defrock priests. Then definitions could be broadened to increase power to prosecute. A zero tolerance of paedophilia allegations could be adopted and policies to assist the past victims of abuse could be concieved and implemented. These could include an apology, free counselling, independent investigation, and compensation. How about then installing someone as Pope who is committed to "sweeping the filth" from the Church?

At least one country (how about US of A as things were uncovered there first) should have Bishops order their staff that all records of complaints be made available to University researchers to determine what exactly did happen in order to learn from the past. Then an apology to victims from the top might be in order.

Sorry that has already been done so you are obviously thinking of something else. What did you have in mind?

"Believing that deviant sexuality doesn't warrant trial and incarceration, is the problem."

I would have thought that abusing other people would warrant that but in any case I don't believe the Church supports either.

*How about then installing someone as Pope who is committed to "sweeping the filth" from the Church?*

Ah, I always thought that Paul Collins would have made a great pope!
But he would be far too honest for the Vatican hierarchy. So
the RCC muddles on regardlessly, losing significance in the West,
day by day. Given that they have loaded coffers, I doubt that
they are even concerned.

MCMorgan et al.,

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens should know very well that Pope would claim both sovereign and diplomatic immunities. The Vatican is unlikely to be a signatory to the Haig Convention.

The response instead should be diplomatic, internationally. Downgrade representations to the Vatican. Don't invite the Pope to visit. Domestically, be more rigourous with police investigations and confiscate Church land (for contempt), if given the silent treatment by Bishops: That could be leglisated, if the pliticians have the intestinal fortitude.

More significantly, there needs to be a bottom-up movement from parishioners, whom must overcome superstitious inhibitions about getting in the face of so called "holy men" about these crimes.

Please see post my previous (page 17) regarding "justification be faith alone" or "antinomianism" in context with possible clerical attitudes towards handing forgiven sinners to secular authorities.

The Vatican notion of not defrocking priests (reporting crimes?) because there is a staff shortage emphasises the urgent need for the subordination of Church to the State. These people were given special latitudes but abused the trust. Perhaps, given there behaviour, the Churches should demoted to the position of ordinary NGOs.

Yabby,

Losing significance? It seems to be in the news every day and triggering off countless forums. They might not get the facts right but they get the name right. Isn't that the important thing?

Oliver,

Bring on the legislation if to root out any Bishops who protect such priests. However I don't see the point. There is no reason to think that Bishops these days will dare violate Church policy and police these days take action. In addition to the other things I mentioned earlier to make it easier to sweep the filth in the Murphy case (where the BBC claimed that the Pope was covering up) he waived rights under the limitation period and had Murphy prosecuted anyway. Thus I don't think the Pope will have a problem that approach if it could help further and given the committment to zero tolerance and transparency the Church would probably support it.

pelican,

"In any other sphere those who aid and abet child molesters are subject to the criminal justice system, it should be no different for the Church. And particularly since some in the theist camp continue to hold themsleves up to a higher moral calling."

Police these days are happy to prosecute the clergy. There could be some difficulties as most of the clergy involved are in jail or dead. The problem is that a crime has to be committed other than in the imagination of those swallowing media sensationalism.

In the meantime paedophiles will be raping children elsewhere confident that all the attention is given to actions in the Catholic Church almost exclusively decades into last century and noone is looking for them.

The only losers are victims. The Church gets lots of free publicity which will guarantee its significance, the media can just keep digging further and further back last century to get stories, people who hate Catholics can condemn us and Catholics can defend the Church. Everyone wins out except the victims particularly those currently getting molested wherever that might be happening.

'Leading atheists Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens seek Pope's arrest'

so so funny from the god deniers who have any basis for determining what is right from wrong. It shows itself in their amoral behaviour. No doubt they will soon be trying to employ Tiger as their family spokesperson. When anyone looks at a 13 year old naked girl they are perverts. When leftist academics view it is considered art despite their atrocious record with any sort of morality.

*It seems to be in the news every day and triggering off countless forums.*

Much the same is achieved by Paris Hilton!

I think you are confusing publicity with significance.

Yes the RCC gets lots of publicity, about people leaving the
church and about losing any shred of credibility which they
once had.

There is an interesting trend emerging from all this "pope shields molestors" malarkey.

Apologists for the church are starting to get behind a movement whose motto is "hey, why are you picking on us?"

mjbp, you are obviously a fully signed-up member.

>>Do you seriously believe that only the Catholic Church did that [protected serial sexual abusers from prosecution] back then? That is just one step away from thinking that most paedophiles are priests<<

Can you suggest any other group that acted in the same way, mjbp?

No-one, as far as I am aware, has suggested that most paedophiles are priests, nor that most priests are paedophiles. But most people are concerned that the church does not hide the crimes within its hierarchy.

>>Then the head could change the rules to make it easier to immediately defrock priests<<

It's not de-frocking that is at issue here. It's the reluctance to surrender to the legal system that the rest of us support.

Add to this the neat side-step...

>>There is no reason to think that Bishops these days will dare violate Church policy and police these days take action<<

"These days", the eyes of the world are upon them. Unlike in previous times, where the idea that a priest actually held to a higher moral philosophy, was widely accepted.

"These days", I suspect that there are far more children prepared to tell their parents that the priest fiddled with them. Unlike in previous times, when their word against that of a priest would be less heeded.

Times have changed, mjbp. If you cannot accept that concealing wrongdoings of this nature is reprehensible, then you are always going to be part of the problem.

Sure, its good to see that the church itself recognizes the problem, and is taking steps to ensure the practices don't continue.

But that does not absolve them from i) admitting to their previous criminality and ii) facing the music for it.

Yabby,

Paris seems to be doing better than she should be.

Pericles,

"Apologists for the church are starting to get behind a movement whose motto is "hey, why are you picking on us?"

I wonder if Proxy is a Catholic. Are the authors of the article that Foxy linked to all Catholic. I'm just pointing out the distinguishing characteristic. As Suzeonline has pointed out Bishops deserve more condemnation due to their role but the same could be said about the psychiatrists who were relied upon by the Bishops.

"Can you suggest any other group that acted in the same way, mjbp?"

I'm sure a lot did in those days. Back then image was prioritised. Now transparency is seen as more important. Anyway an example:
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1005-clifford
I'll add on to the bit that can't be read without paying in the next post.

"But most people are concerned that the church does not hide the crimes within its hierarchy."

But concerns needed to be grounded. What other organisation has gone to so much trouble to root out the problem?

"It's not de-frocking that is at issue here. It's the reluctance to surrender to the legal system that the rest of us support."

I'd suggest it is a contributing issue. However all bases are covered and as you said children molested by Catholic priests would be prepared to tell their parents so the zero tolerance policy may be moot.

"These days", the eyes of the world are upon them. Unlike in previous times, where the idea that a priest actually held to a higher moral philosophy, was widely accepted."

True. And to a degree some media attention to raise awareness may have been a blessing for the Church. However when it became a sport and the organisation was singled out it isn't such a positive.

"Times have changed, mjbp. If you cannot accept that concealing wrongdoings of this nature is reprehensible, then you are always going to be part of the problem."

I don't accept it I am just trying to make the point that times have changed particularly within the Church.

"Sure, its good to see that the church itself recognizes the problem, and is taking steps to ensure the practices don't continue.

But that does not absolve them from i) admitting to their previous criminality and ii) facing the music for it."

The Pope is working to sweep the filth. Criminality isn't tolerated. Anyway most criminally involved are dead or in jail.

Rest of article linked to above
"Teachers, who have charge of children, seem to have escaped unscathed in the media. The profession had this apparent immunity despite the fact that we all have to pay taxes for public schools. (No one is forced to support a Church.)

When the priest scandal took off like a rocket, I expected the teacher troubles to follow the same path. After all, school dealings are usually a matter of public record and open to press scrutiny. What I saw was a double standard growing and growing....

Oh, yes, there would be the occasional well-covered titillation story about a woman teacher having an "affair" with a student...

I witnessed this while at the AP and kept my mouth shut. At my age and a retread, I was lucky to have a job. Now I am free to speak. If you want, do your own search on the Net. As far back as December 1998, Education Week was reporting on "Passing the Trash," recounting how school districts freed sexual predators "to hunt again." Education World followed a year later...

I hope I have connected dots so well that some reporter will run with this and win a Pulitzer. Why not? The Globe did when the dots were priests"

Fascinating source material, mjbp.

"The New Oxford Review is an orthodox Catholic magazine that explores ideas concerning faith and culture... Like the Movement’s leading luminary, John Henry Newman, the NOR converted to Roman Catholicism in 1983, inspired by the dynamic, thoughtful papacy of John Paul II. The New Oxford Review has earned a reputation for addressing head-on the full range of issues confronting Holy Mother Church, and doing so with unswerving loyalty to her Pope and Magisterium.<<

Unswerving loyalty, eh?

Hmmm.

But a good diversionary tactic, nevertheless. Point a finger, cry "look over there, look over there", and hope that people will forget about you.

The recommendation that the NOR correspondent makes to research "Passing the Trash" was a good one, though.

It led straight to a Readers Digest article on the topic.

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/sexual-predators-being-allowed-to-teach/article31756.html

Wikipedia says:

"According to Mediamark Research, Reader's Digest reaches more readers with household incomes of $100,000+ than Fortune, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week and Inc. combined. Global editions of Reader's Digest reach an additional 40 million people in more than 70 countries, with 50 editions in 21 languages. It has a global circulation of 17 million, making it the largest paid circulation magazine in the world. It is also published in braille, digital, audio, and a version in large type called Reader's Digest Large Print.

So much for the press not following up.

Incidentally, I don't think you should emply this particular tactic.

>>Anyway most criminally involved are dead or in jail.<<

That should not be an excuse for not following up on those who are not dead, not in jail, and who so far have escaped scot-free.

Would you not agree?

You people defy understanding.
You claim to be concerned with Child Sex Abuse by the Catholic Church,
which is overwhelmingly a historical problem.
But which part don't you like:
the Child Sex Abuse part or the Catholic Church part?
I'm coming to the conclusion that it's the Catholic Church part and not the Child Sex Abuse part.
What else can explain your total indifference to the fact that homosexual activists in the USA are currently prepared to destroy the Boy Scouts association rather than let them continue with their Supreme Court sanctioned policy of excluding homosexuals as scout leaders.
Homosexual activists are putting unrelenting pressure on cities throughout America to kick boy scouts out of premises that they've been renting at peppercorn rates for many years unless they lift their ban on homosexual scout leaders.
This has seen their funding dry up and their ability to provide services to troubled inner-city youth erode.
All with the end goal of getting homosexual scoutleaders into the scouts.
Male-on-male-sex preferring Scout leaders in tents with boy scouts.
Male-on-male-sex preferring Priests in confessionals with choirboys.
Ring any bells?
If not, then you must be more delusional than I already thought.
To prevent history from repeating itself the boy scouts must be left alone by these predators.

Relevance to Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church?
- by authority of severin who referred to scouting here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3556&page=0#84934

Proxy again off topic - feel free to start another thread. For your reference you might look at http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/10/dad-leads-girl-scout-troop-1444/

Without giving the issue deep consideration the issues appear to be similar.

R0bert

Nice try Proxy.

>>You claim to be concerned with Child Sex Abuse by the Catholic Church,
which is overwhelmingly a historical problem<<

The bigger problem right now is the extent of the cover-up, and the culpability of members of the church hierarchy in not calling in the cops.

>>But which part don't you like: the Child Sex Abuse part or the Catholic Church part?<<

The aiding and abetting criminals part. Did we not mention that?

Acceptance is the first step to redemption, Proxy.

Alleged points in this article

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pope-acted-expeditiously-on-molestation-vatican/story-e6frg6so-1225852463752

1. That the current Pope acted expeditiously - do the allegations vindicate this position?

The article alleges Kiesle was arrested in 1978, pleaded guilty (the AP News link alleges he pleaded NO CONTEST see below) and was given three years' probation on the charges of molesting two boys, and was defrocked in 1987. The alleged crime was allegedly reported to John Paul II in 1981. Is this expeditious?

Wouldn't expeditious handling be the defrocking of the priest after the "no contest" plea in court?

Are the alleged terms "expeditiously...by the standards at the time" and there had been a "rush to judgment going on here" reasonable, when Kiesle allegedly pleaded "No Contest"?

2. The article alleges Bishop Cummins wrote a further three letters to Cardinal Ratzinger (the senior Vatican official disciplining priests) regarding this matter, receiving a reply 4 years after the initial letter to JPII written by Bishop Cummins in 1981. The time-line below also complicates this claim because allegedly the file couldn't be found.

3. Have these alleged decisions been for the good of "the universal church"? Is this putting the organisation over the victim? What would Jesus say about such a decision?

4. Has the Pope acted decisively since becoming Pope in 2005?

Would a decisive move be to order all records to be handed over to the Police in all countries, to insist that from now on all future allegations be immediately handed over to the Police, and to punish all those who have been involved in the alleged cover-ups?

TIME LINE…..http://www.politicalscandalnews.com/article/Timeline%20of%20defrocked%20priest%20Stephen%20Kiesle/?k=j83s12y12h94s27k02

The August 1978...entry is most interesting. "No Contest" effectively means he did not contest the charges...and he was sentenced to 3 years probation ONLY and then his record was later expunged. How can this be, considering the alleged acts? Who did the expunging and why?

Dawkins article….http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/richard-dawkins-promises-to-arrest-pope-benedict-xvi/story-e6frf7lf-1225852600931

Here is some more information regarding the Pope's current dilemma...if you have time watch the videos…..http://www.news.com.au/world/pope-benedict-xvi-resisted-removal-of-pedophile-priest/story-e6frfkz0-1225852086086

Let's hope for the sake of the honest, law abiding majority of practising Catholics that someone finally makes the right decisions.

And now today’s controversy….http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T2

Dear Opinionated2,

I've just come across an article by Alan Dershowitz,
Lawyer and author, that may shed some light on this
subject. I'm going to use his words, as
he explains it far better than I ever could.

Dershowitz claims that regarding
sexual abuse and the Catholic Church - the issue is
a complex problem due to the fact that there are five
important traditions that make it difficult to move
quickly and aggressively in response to complaints of
abuse. He lists the traditions as follows:

1) The first tradition involves confidentiality, especially
the confidentiality of the priest with regard to the
penitent. There's also a wider tradition of confidentiality
within the Church hierarchy itself.

2) Secondly there's the tradition of forgiveness.
The previous Pope immediately forgave the assassin
who tried to kill him.

3) Thirdly there's the tradition of the Church regarding itself
as a state. The Holy See is a sovereign state. The Catholic
Church isn't big on the separation of church and state,
as are various Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church
like Orthodox Judaism believes that matters affecting the
faithful should stay within the Church, without recourse
to secular authorities.

4) Fourthly the Vatican prides itself on moving slowly,
and seeing the time frame of life quite differently than
the quick pace at which secular societies respond to
crisis of the day.

5) Fifth, the Catholic Church has long had a tradition of
internal due process. Cannon Law provides for scrupulous
methods of proof. Every T must be crossed and every I
must be dotted,
even when it comes to selecting saints.

Of course Dershowitz also tells us - "None of these
explanations justifies the long inaction of coming to
grips with a serious problem... But it may explain why
good people could have allowed bad things to happen for
so long." However, Dershowitz stresses, " Singling out the Catholic
Church and stereotyping all priests is wrong."

cont'd ...

mjpb <"Police these days are happy to prosecute the clergy. There could be some difficulties as most of the clergy involved are in jail or dead."

Really? Where did you get those ideas from?

"In the meantime paedophiles will be raping children elsewhere confident that all the attention is given to actions in the Catholic Church almost exclusively decades into last century and noone is looking for them."

Really? Have you spoken to the many Police working on child sex abuse cases around this country?
Do you honestly believe they are only concentrating on paedophile priests?
Of course not.

As it has been patiently explained many times on this thread (called "Child sex abuse and the CATHOLIC CHURCH" by the way), this issue is not just about all the paedophile priests who have got away with child sex abuse over the years, but the church hierarchy that turned a blind eye to it and covered up their crimes.

It is certainly true that these priests weren't the only paedophiles around, but the other paedophiles didn't work in a profession that says they work for the Lord now did they?

The Catholic faithful can apparently expect that their religious leaders should be above reproach in most areas shouldn't they, especially as far as dealing with children is concerned?

This fact alone makes them the worst sort of paedophiles as far as I am concerned.

cont'd ...

Dershowitz then tell us that:

"Pope Benedict, both before he became Pope and since
has done a great deal to confront the issue. The Pope
changed the policy that kept allegations of abuse
within the authority of local bishops, and he
acknowledged that the shifting of abusive priests
from parish to parish, thereby giving them potential
new victims must not be allowed. He also met with
abuse victims and recognized their victimization.
He was the first Pope to do this..."

Finally Alan Dershowitz sums up:

"It is obvious that despite Pope Benedict's good efforts,
MORE MUST be done, and not only by the Catholic Church
but by all institutions who have experienced hierarchical
sexual exploitation. They must create structures that
assure prompt reporting, a zero-tolerance policy, and
quick action, so long as these processes are consistent
with due process and fairness, not only to the alleged
victims but the accused as well. It's easy to forget, in
the face of real victims with real complaints, that there
have also been false accusations as well. Processes must
be put in place that distinguish true complaints from
false ones..."

"Most importantly, this tragedy should not be used as an
excuse to attack a large revered institution that does
much good throughout the world. Blame must be placed
with precision and praise should be given with precision
as well. The eleventh Commandment, thou shalt not
stereotype, must never be forgotten..."

Proxy

You hit on a raw nerve because you speak so much truth on this topic. Ban the employment of priests with homosexual tendencies and you reduce the problem dramatically. It is however not what people want to hear despite being 100% right.

Runner and Proxy seem hell-bent on having us believe all homosexuals are paedophiles because apparently paedophiles only have sex with children of the same sex to themselves? Am I right?

Further, they would have us believe that the Catholic Church are dealing with child sex abuse by these 'homosexual paedophile priests' by 'stopping' them from entering the priesthood in the first place?
Am I right?

So, when young men line up to take on the priesthood training, they will be asked "Are you homosexual?" as a first line question?
Naturally, if they are gay or have paedophile tendancies, they are bound to admit to this of course.

Meanwhile, those male paedophile would-be priests who have a preference for female children will get through the selection process with no problems?

ROFL.

runner:

Child sexual abusers are by far and away most often of heterosexual orientation - that's because a child's body of either sex is closer to feminine than masculine. Male homosexuals, by definition, are attracted to masculine characteristics - ie: other men.

Of opportunistic child abusers; the greatest amount of child abuse is carried out by adult heterosexuals who simply use the child's body like an object in place of a more suitable and perhaps desirable alternative.

Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 12 April 2010 11:47:51 PM

" ... Child sexual abusers are by far and away most often of heterosexual orientation ... "

ThankU for that PynchME.

..

Posted by Proxy, Monday, 12 April 2010 4:35:52 PM

" ... [Beautiful Gay People] ... "

*Boazy* u r a disgrace. I've said that before. U r keen as mustard though and we can work with that. We shall have to see about a conversion.

..

Posted by R0bert, Monday, 12 April 2010 4:51:39 PM

" ... . ... "

;-)

..

Quote: *Our Patron Saint of Luv Making*

" ... U'll know the catholic church has changed when they have a Black Female Pope. ... "

..

Personally, I fear the catholics have created much hate & despair, and continue to re-inforce it with their obstinate obstruction, misplaced idealism and religious fervor.

Pynchme you write

'Child sexual abusers are by far and away most often of heterosexual orientation '

That may well be true however you ignore that the topic is about perverted Catholic Priests who predominantly fiddle with and sodomize young boys. This is homosexual not heterosexual behaviour by anyone's definition. One perversion leads to another and unfortunately many kids are the ones to have their lives ruined.

There is no room in decent and civilized communities for pederasts and those who have shielded them from prosecution. Castration is the least that they should be inflicted on them.

socratease

Child sexual assault.
In the Catholic CHURCH.
Yes it happens in other Church's
Other walks of life.
But here it is those who serve A God, who inflict so much on children.
You will find, in threads touching on the subject those who first note it is not all.
But it is far too many,when defense becomes first reaction answers to problems get lost in the battle to protect.
Not the child victims but those who victimize them.
No longer a believer I ask those who are to look at the teachings of their God.
These acts are indefensible.

>>> the topic is about perverted Catholic Priests who predominantly fiddle with and sodomize young boys <<<

Yes, Runner, because alter-boys tend to be, er, boys.

For the kazillionith time Runner (and Proxy) paedophiles target children of either sex, they are mostly heterosexual in their sexual orientation - coincidentally just like the rest of the human population. Catholic Priests in their positions of authority, trust and protection of the Catholic hierarchy will abuse little girls if given the opportunity. However, ironically, because greater worth is placed in males it is mostly young boys who are targeted as they are more 'available' being encouraged to work with priests.

Proxy, that you used a post of mine to illustrate that paedophiles are indeed attracted to professions where they have greater access to children, is entirely moot as this topic is about the top-down cover-up by the Catholic hierarchy preventing justice and law to be enacted as it would be in ALL other institutions EXCEPT for religious ones.

As Oliver has stated the church believes it is above the law: antinomianism.

NO MORE EXCUSES

The discourse on orientaion is interesting and perhaps certain groups/institutions attract homosexuals: e.g., the Catholic Church. That said, if there are honosexuals in the Church these priests, brothers and nuns should find relief from tension with adults, not children, which brings us the intended topic:

The "cover-up" of child abuse by the Church and the associated criminality of Bishops whom will break secular laws to prevent be caught. The Church knows a cime has been committed takes no secular action, transfers the priest and in the mean scores of other sex crimes are committed, which otherwise, would not have happened. Thus, further emphasising the secular guilt of the Church hierachary.

Some posters suggest that these criminals are all dead and that all was in the past. What worries me is that in the 1960s they would have daid the same of the 1940s, and in 1990s of the 1960s and now of the 1980s. When the current cohort are pusing-up daisies, we don't want the Church in 2030 saying, "well that is well and good, but it was back in in 2010. We have all changes now".

The Church must be ordered to hand over all Benedict-like letters, under police search by summons, if necessary. Offenders and their minders must face trials. Tough, if the Church looses, a high percentage of clergy.

If memory serves there has been a commission/investigation into the matters a few decades ago. We al know that embarrassing finds can be avoided by over tight terms. If a Royal Commission is to work investigators must have wide powers such as entering seizing church weapons and jailing even cardinals for pergory.

"seizing weapons" - above

- Don't what neuron misfired. Should read, "seizing records".

Geoffey Robertson has suggested that the Pope be arrested during his planned trip to England. Relatedly:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gcxiBTY31XjpK5oDY9h3emUID9FwD9ESAVU80

Robertson argues that the Vatican is not a State because it was established by Mussolini outside international law. The Vatican counters that 179 have diplomatic relations and therefore the Pope would have soverveign immunity from crimes he committed, if he did commit a crime.

No-way can I see England arresting him. However, he could be denied entry as an undesirable in the first place. I wonder if the Haig could hear Robertson's case in absentia?

That's an interesting point that Dershowitz makes, Foxy,

>>Secondly there's the tradition of forgiveness. The previous Pope immediately forgave the assassin who tried to kill him.<<

Maybe he did.

But Mehmet Agca spent the next nineteen years in Rome's Rebibbia prison, having been convicted of his crime.

Forgiving is all very well. But without the appropriate punishment, it's all too convenient.

Dear Pericles,

The case of Mehmet Agca is a complicated one.
He's been released from the Turkish prison
in Ankara for separate crimes committed in
Turkey. Apparently he had received a life -
sentence, 36 years under Turkish law, for
murdering Abdi Ipekci in 1979. Mehmet Agca
escaped from a Turkish prison less than 6 months
into the sentence and shot the Pope in Rome 2 years
later.

He's still a very troubled individual. The following
website gives the story:

http://www.theledger.com/article/20100118/news/1185022?p=3&tc=pg

However, I doubt if the Pope held any responsibility for the
man's sentencing.

Here's one for Runner:

http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/news/articles/1038851.html
regarding sexual relations with 13 year olds.

Again, as said, as a young school boy I (&and my scaly mates) were all too keen for sexual relations with our Sister school girls, or any other girls for that matter, but being of an equivalent emotionally immature age, would this not only constitute a case of mutually consentual underage sexual relations?

Of course, were it a year 11 or 12 student with a year 8,9 or 10, perhaps some would argue otherwise.

And different cultures have different views on this and verily, I grew up in the Perth school environment commonly hearing the crude expression:

" Old enough to Bleed, Old enough to Butcher. "

Underage marriage is common here in Indonesia as is circumcision both of the males and the girls, though in the cases that I have examined, only the more prominent part of the clitoris is removed, still leaving a sensitive stub.

So dear *Boazy,* O ye who are overdue for a symbolic "Road to Damascus" experience, whilst I share something of your disgust in regards to this, not all female circumcision constitutes "genital mutilation."

Indeed, equally shocking to me was the fact that the girls remain largely clueless about all this, being too young to remember and not adequately educated about sexuality.

..

Oh and *Boazy,* they are here, now, with us, in this very thread, so if you and *Runner* wish to persist with your homophobic rants, do feel free to get it all off your chest in a more direct manner. I'm sure the fine minds present will assist in a positive and uplifting way to examining your views.

..

A word of Spiritual caution:

Are you so certain that you do not bare "False Witness" against those of the Gay persuasion?

AND

hold yourselves up to be more equal than others in the light of your "God Concept?"

..

Re arresting his popeiness, ABC reports that they are considering using the same mechanism that they used against Pinochet.

Hi Pericles,

"Unswerving loyalty, eh?"

Yes. I am sure they were thrilled to publish the article of that retired journalist. Do you doubt its content?

"But a good diversionary tactic..."

Not diversionary. No group (or individual) should be singled out and treated differently to all others. It is like taking a few criminals from one race and saying the entire race are bad while ignoring the fact that there are just as many criminals in other races.

It is a well distributed publication. But given the world's population it doesn't exactly cover the board and not all readers would read every article. Would it be fair to say that most people have never heard of that but you'd have to be just back from an extended vacation on Mars not to have been inundated with similar stories about the Catholic Church? Of course in the Catholic Church it is always about long past events.

I agree completely. Any remaining criminals should get their just deserts. Again:

"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

Hi Foxy,

TY for providing Dershowitz’s comments.

Let's take the points one by one.

1. Confidentiality of Penitents - This should never be allowed to override the law of the land. This is why I have so much trouble with the confessional. Jesus in his teachings gave us the route to forgiveness...DIRECTLY TO GOD...THE LORD'S PRAYER...Luke 11:2-4"...forgive us our trespasses...(sins)..."...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+11%3A2-4&version=NIV

Surely Catholics can see that the confessional puts a man in between God and the penitent but worse it puts a man, between a serious lawbreaker and the law. Priests forgiving priests and keeping child abuse a secret is outrageous.

2. Forgiveness...whilst a wonderful concept it is not for a priest to forgive. I can forgive Runner and Proxy for being misguided, but forgiveness of the abuse of innocent children, by a priest is unacceptable. The victim might choose to forgive the perpetrator but the Church doesn't need to be involved whatsoever. Either way we are talking about serious criminal conduct and forgiveness given by priests to paedophiles who in the past go unpunished.

3. Sorry but the Church in "seeing itself" as a state, it is putting itself above the law. What would motivate them to do this? Jesus subjected himself to the law and was crucified because of the Pharisees misrepresentation of the law.

4. The Vatican's priding itself on moving slowly has proven now to be a false pride. We are talking about children who have been tragically harmed and through the Vatican's pride have suffered unimaginable hurt through ongoing cover-ups. Not very Christian one would think. It's like Jesus touching a person's eyes and saying "Your sins are forgiven, you will have your sight back in 20-30 years, maybe."

5. Now "internal due process" seems to be a contradiction. If priests were moved from one parish to another there was no due process. Isn't doing little at a snail's pace when innocent child members of the Churches congregation are being harmed and more are being put at risk like Pontius Pilate washing his hands? I can't accept the internal due process argument whatsoever.

Continued....

Isn't the mounting evidence, which alleges continued failings, indicate, that the management of the organisation is severely flawed?

Has it been seriously flawed for centuries? Read the histories of the Popes.

What has this Pope really done to improve things? Until all records are handed over to the Police in all countries hasn't he just fiddled whilst Rome burned? "Sorry" is a minimalist response.

Could the real problem be the "indoctrination processes" allegedly employed by churches and institutions that lead members to be less worried about the victim and more concerned about the organisation? Foxy, in no way do I think that you are less worried about the victim, this is just a general point on this topic)

If a child is brought into the fold at the earliest possible age, is taught that this is the only group that represents God, is the only route to heaven and salvation, is taught the Pope is infallible, is taught to go to a priest for forgiveness, is taught that only a priest can provide absolution of those sins, etc. etc. then the child is put at great disadvantage.

Didn't some parents believe the priest over their victimised child? Now that is the power of indoctrination!

The Catechism of The Catholic Church is quite specific here

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm#I

CCC1497 is indicative of the problem...Jesus said pray to God for forgiveness (The Lord's Prayer)...the Church gives man the power of absolution...

But look at the carrots that are dangled in front of the penitent in CCC1496

Recovery of grace, Remission of eternal punishment, Peace and serenity of conscience etc.

The perpetrator sure gets off lightly under this system and with a clear conscience to boot.

If many of these cases were never reported, once known by the Church, they can’t just be talking about spiritual forgiveness, can they?

Lastly in our family, we had a rule…NO SECRETS…as a preventative measure to protect our children.

As the Church is a family, made up of many families, shouldn’t the NO SECRETS rule be even more important and stringently applied?

Surely Child Safety must come first!

Breaking news:
SANTIAGO, Chile, April 12, 2010:
"Vatican's Number Two Official: Homosexuality is the Cause of the Sex Abuse Crisis"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041215.html
Hey, I could have told them that.

Proxy

You will soon learn that the deniers really care more about their pet dogmas than protecting children. That is why they ignore obvious links between homosexuality and child abuse. The same people deny the obvious higher rates of child abuse from non natural fathers in the home. They like to focus on the lesser cases in order to cover up the majority. Another area of denial is the link between porn and child abuse.

Posted by Proxy, Tuesday, 13 April 2010 1:38:58 PM

"Vatican's Number Two Official: Homosexuality is the Cause of the Sex Abuse Crisis"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10041215.html

..

Ah yes, most excellent *Boazy* Do please bring them into the *OLO SpotLight* for us so that we may all have a good look at them.

Well done, good show, pintar sekali.
;-)

I was invited to witness a spiritual renaissance at work within the RC church.A priest specialist mediator and counsellor was visiting a group of some 30 - 40 assembled in the home of a devout catholic family that had icons and statues in every room. He said that God was working a spiritual awakeninmg in the hearts and souls of his people by making them understand how to forgive. This was the start of a pastoral offensive to re-capture disgusted sceptics in the fold. The people go to church but get nothing from it, he said, and have forgotten how to love and forgive. This was a new beginning.He pleaded with them in breaking voice and quavering voice to forgive all errant priests and to let them make a fresh start.

So God had set up innocent children to be sodomised and made sex objects to horny priests,bishops cardinals and the pope in order to work a secret new renaissance and spiritual awakening.

I dont know how I didnt vomit there and then.
It gets worse and worse by the day.

socratease

It's not a cover-up: It's Gays and the Jews:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gnpDKs8IpZ8wQ3_kz6yCg3UoyPKAD9F1Q5C00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7095471.ece

Parishioners should press parish priests (most of whom I trust are at some level are disgusted with the Church)to have a Protest Sunday and not say Mass. They can say two the next week, if they like. But the point is, that everyone religionist and skeptic alike, must be fed-up with this rotten element in the Catholic Church. Forget vows of obiedence. If genuine priests believe in their God, surely protecting children must take precedence over covering for their Bosses and wayward peers.

If the Church has any documention that will help the police on cases authotities have missed, the Church must be proactive and hand over all records ASAP. The police can drag 80 year-old past offenders out of their retirement homes, for all I care.

Courts will give priests fair trials. More justice that paedophile clerics gave their victims.

Has any one noticed Sells has made no comment?

Oliver

Agree totally with your post. Sexual offenders must be brought to justice before the law. Now. Irrespective of whether their crimes against children were last week or last century.

<< Has any one noticed Sells has made no comment? >>

I suspect that this topic is not abstract enough for the sophistry of Sells. Too much reality not enough dogma.

'Agree totally with your post. Sexual offenders must be brought to justice before the law. Now. Irrespective of whether their crimes against children were last week or last century.'

Be quite a few judges trembling at the thought especially those with a bent for boys.

Lots more priests than judges.

Of course, studying the law is difficult and judges decisions are minutely examined. Pastor just has to entertain the crowd, so I don't expect the same high standards from the church.

Just on the numbers, a thorough auditing of all churches will probably expose more child molesters. How about removing the tax-free status of any church unwilling to be audited? I bet money will ultimately speak louder than "god", to all the churches.

Rusty

Dear Opinionated2,

Thank You for your civilized reaction
to my post, and for equally understanding the fact
that I am merely trying to make some sense of this complex
problem and the reasons why the Church had difficulty
in moving quickly and aggressively in response to
complaints of abuse. Hence the Alan Dershowitz article.

Dershowitz sums it up rather well when he says:

"... MORE MUST be done not only by the Catholic Church but by
all institutions who have experienced hierarchical
sexual eploitation. They must create structures that assure
prompt reporting, a zero-tolerance policy, and quick action...
so long as these processes are consistent with due process and
fairness, not only to the alleged but to the accused as well.
It's easy to forget, in the face of real victims with real
complaints that there have also been false accusations as well.
Processes must be put in place that distinguish true complaints
from false ones ... "

*Foxy Loxy*

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there is a "Master File" containing the names of all of those whom the Vatican considers have had legitimate allegations of sexual abuse and or misconduct made against them.

Thus, there is in my opinion no need for a whole lot of the usual pontification and legal rigmarole, but merely one quick phone call to Plod, and a meeting with a copy of the file being handed over.
(That should include the rest of the mob whom the Vatican believes have had illegitimate charges brought against them incidentally)

..

Of course, the consideration of what happens to those gaoled needs to be carefully considered, and perhaps *Suze* can elaborate on what she may know about the fate of child abusers in prison.

..

and *Boazy*
why not consider leaving matters of
*Luv*
within
*GoddO's Soul jurisdiction?*

It is a great sadness to me, and I am sure that I am not the only one, that this schism exists between "us."

Dear Foxy, I have no problems with your comments re making the Catholic Church accountable and transparent in their dealings with allegations of sexual abuse or any other criminal behaviour, now and in the future.

What I also want to see is the alleged Catholic Church clergy child abusers FROM THE PAST made accountable and have a trial and get sent to jail if guilty.

I don't care how old they are now or how long ago it happened.
Do you agree?

runner: <"That may well be true however you ignore that the topic is about perverted Catholic Priests who predominantly fiddle with and sodomize young boys. This is homosexual not heterosexual behaviour by anyone's definition.">

Yikes the glee in use of those verbs! Homophobia is leading your gaze away from the bigger problem. IMO any child abuser in the Church should be subject to the same (inadequate) laws as child molesters anywhere.

However one of my concerns with the paedophile priests biz has been that the bigger and more newsy the issue becomes, the more people will cling to the comforting idea that child abuse is something rare that happens 'out there' and not right amongst us all irrespective of religious affiliation.

Runner, regardless of what you want to believe about homosexuals, child molesters with a penchant for children will molest whatever child is most available to them. Don't forget that girls were molested too; or that priests had most access to male children.

Recent studies have shown that, when fear of further charges being laid is removed, child molesters have admitted under polygraph (repeatedly) that they male and female victims are close to 50/50.
(You can find the Hindmarsh (?Hindemarsh) study online - US Correctional services site or something like that).

You can't tell the sexual orientation of an abuser by the sex of the victim. A dozen elderly men yearly are raped; male on male rape and abuse is far from infrequent - yet the vast majority of those rapists identify as heterosexual. Same with child abusers. Rapists and abusers will generally make do with anyone they can get to who is vulnerable.

There are clinical aspects of the use of definitions and debates about the finer points, but however it's summed up - homosexuals are less inclined to child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals. Also, strictly speaking, a paedophile doesn't have a hetero or homo sexual orientation. Anyway, it's better explained here:

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

Btw: Are you as fervently opposed to child sexual abuse that occurs in families of all social stratae ? What are you doing towards that?

I have stumbled on a possible solution to the abuse of children by so-called "celebate" priests. Wanna hear it?
Well,you are gonna whether u want to or not.
Ready?

Why not encourage mass masturbation. Special courses could be run in seminaries then at least the poor little and not so little innocent children could be spared.
Take it off the list of sins.It isnt a sin,anyway.
Or are they already doing it,anyway.
Just a long shot.

socratease

*That is why they ignore obvious links between homosexuality and child abuse.*

Runner, I guess the really interesting question is the link between
religion and child abuse.

When I was at school, it was Baptists doing the fiddling. More recently I recall
a Channel 9 documentary about Jehovas Witnesses covering up,
commonly young girls were the victims.

Think of all the Christian cults where young girls have been
the victims. Claiming its "gods will" is how they get away
with it.

It could be happening right there in your cult, runner

pynchme,
"however it's summed up - homosexuals are less inclined to child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals"!
In the face of overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary you can rattle off a baseless lie.
Your chutzpah is breathtaking!
But I suppose you think you know better than Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone, who has had to look at more than 10,000 cases which overwhelming involved homosexual assault by clergy on adolescent boys.
And what does he have to say?
"many (psychologists and psychiatrists) have demonstrated, and have told me recently,
that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia".
But what would he know?
He just has access to the relevant facts on a multitude of cases and advice from multiple experts,
whereas you...
have the blog of Gregory Herek, homosexual activist.
Those rainbows in their URL's give them away everytime.

Proxy, no I would never believe a lay-person who tries to dabble in psychiatry- no matter whether they are a Bishop or whatever!
I would rather believe the words of the American Psychiatric Association, because they have studied their field for many years, with proper scientific detail that is not determined by religious beliefs and bigotry.

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#mentalillness

"In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance
of the new, better designed research and removed homosexuality from
the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two
years later, the American Psychological Association passed a
resolution supporting the removal. For more than 25 years, both
associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel
the stigma of mental illness that some people still associate with
homosexual orientation."

"Pedophilia, on the other hand, is considered by these scientists to
constitute a mental disorder:
The American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR)
criteria for Pedophilia (302.2):
" A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually
arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual
activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years
or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or
fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older
than the child or children in Criterion A."

This criteria for Paedophilia says nothing about paedophiles having homosexual thoughts or tendencies at all Proxy.
Why not look up and read scientific, knowledgeable sites on this subject that are untarnished by religious beliefs?
You might be enlightened.

Dear Suze,

I agree - " as long as the process is consistent with
due process and fairness not only to the alleged
victims but to the accused as well..."

suzeonline,
“The A.P.A. at that time had adopted a new set of criteria for defining psychological disorder. To be disordered, a condition must:
1. regularly cause distress, or
2. interfere with social effectiveness.
The Psychiatric Association pointed to the excellent occupational performance and good social adjustment of many homosexuals as evidence of the normalcy of homosexuality. But such factors do not...exclude the presence of psychopathology. Psychopathology is not always accompanied by adjustment problems; therefore, the criteria are in reality, inadequate to identify a psychological disorder.
....psychopathology can be ego-syntonic and not cause distress; that social effectiveness--that is, the ability to maintain positive social relations and perform work effectively--may in fact coexist with psychopathology.
A task force was set up to study homosexuality, but the members chosen included not a single psychiatrist who held the view that homosexuality was not a normal adaptation. There followed riots at scientific meetings by gay activists who increased the pressure on the Psychiatric Association.
………is it the proper domain of psychiatry to remove diagnoses to eliminate prejudice?
Dr. Bieber pointed out that there were several other conditions in the DSM-II that did not fulfill the "distress and social disability" criteria: voyeurism, fetishism, sexual sadism, and masochism. A.P.A.'s Dr. Spitzer replied that these conditions should perhaps also be removed from the DSM-II -- and that if the sadists and fetishists were to organize as did the gay activists, they, too, might find their conditions normalized.
Summary
The factors that determined the decision of the APA to delete homosexuality from DSM-II were summarized as follows:
1. Gay activists had a profound influence on psychiatric thinking.
2. A sincere belief was held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act.
3. There was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

cont...
Interestingly, and consistent with the above:
"In DSM-IV, the APA changed its criteria in a way that made room for the psychologically normal type of pedophile. A person who molested children was considered to have a psychiatric disorder only if his actions "caused clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning." In other words, a man who molested children without remorse, and without experiencing significant impairment in his social and work relationships, could be diagnosed--at least theoretically--as a "psychologically normal" type of pedophile."
I guess that's progress!
however..
"Public outrage from the (American) (P)sychological (A)ssociation's (publication of a controversial study by Rind, et al. which concluded that man-boy, "consensual" sexual relationships were not necessarily harmful and might even be positive.) must have touched the American Psychiatric Association as well, because psychiatry ... instituted a change in its most recent diagnostic manual--the Text Revision of the DSM-IV--regarding the definition of pedophilia. Now, as before, merely acting upon one's pedophilic urges is sufficient for a diagnosis of disorder."

Proxy, I am not really sure what you are getting at?

I guess we could pretend that there were enough homosexuals in the world who could sway the thoughts of psychiatrists, but I very much doubt it. Homosexuality is not that prevalent.

However, at the end of the day, any civilised society still lists paedophilia as a criminal act, while homosexuality is not.

The latest twaddle from the Catholic Church hierarchy suggesting it is not celibacy that has caused priests to commit child sex abuse, but homosexuality, made me laugh out loud!

Suddenly, the Catholic Church are saying they had many homosexual priests in their ranks over the years, because that is far more preferable to saying they were just the same dirty little run-of-the-mill paedophiles that are present in the wider community, only they were preaching goodness to the faithful on Sundays!

Well said Suzie.

The Church (and others) trying to pin the blame on homosexuals didn't make me laugh though; it made me sad. The persecution of homosexuals is a red herring and something where the Church may have the notion that it can bond again with the wider community, sad to say.

I want to add a comment that I read elsewhere, saying that it doesn't make any difference to a child victim what the offender's sexual orientation or preference is - the child suffers anyway.

*Boazy* U are to be commended for doing a sterling job.
Please do keep up the good work at digging all this claptrap up.

..

Now, I would say that catholic psychiatry is exemplified by the Exorcism room.

"What a wonderful day for an Exorcism."

..

So, let us consider the basis for one of the more Hellish psychiatric conditions like "Paranoid Schizophrenia." As a matter of medical fact, we know if we treat the D2 strand of the dopamine transporter, we can largely eradicate the positive symptoms of hallucinations. And if we treat the 5HT2A strand of the Serotonin transporter, we can largely eradicate that altered state of consciousness commonly referred to as psychosis.

..

"Do not despise my command because you know me to be a sinner!"

..

Thus, I ask you, what is the underlying medical basis for homosexuality in "catholic" psychiatry? Hmmm? Let me help you out here, there is no basis in medical fact and that is why the bigoted idiocy has been removed in modern understanding and teaching.

..

"The Blood of the Martyrs compels you!"

..

I guess for all your complaints about the Muslims in Malaysia you at least share their views when it comes to Homosexuality.

..

"And Christ HimSelf compels you!"

..

Not only did the Nazis attempt to exterminate all Gays, but also all Schizophrenics as well.

..

Activists is not the way I would refer to "our" Gay friends. I rather see them as acting out of necessity due to a state of being unnecessarily aggrieved by others.

And the propensity of catholics to inflict themselves on others is clearly demonstrated in those cases where they abuse children, both young, innocent, immature girls and boys, and no doubt in principal accounts for something of the horrific history of your Church of Lies, what with the witch hunts and all of the rest of it.

Hi Foxy,

You always approach topics with a very responsible and caring attitude...I fail in that area sometimes...(often)...(always)...lol but I am trying to learn.

I was going to get to Dershowitz's conclusion but I thought I only had two entries in 24 hours of 350 words each. I must remember to read the rules occasionally.....OOps.

I agree with the basic conclusion even though it is somewhat lacking, and as this topic heading mentions the Catholic Church I have tried to stay on topic. The Catholic Church has been singled out often, possibly enabling other organisations and Churches to silently make similar mistakes.

I hope Dershowitz means the prompt reporting to external authorities including the Police and not a continuance of the internal reporting system that still prevails in many countries. The Police have many well trained people with expertise in this area to properly investigate all allegations.

Further to your approach on this topic I did a small amount of investigation into the current Pope. He has detractors and fans so it is difficult to find a balanced view.

I found this article (yes critics may say it is Catholic) but it seems to be balanced in it's approach. It at least gives several perspectives.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present

The 2001 letter in Latin which may or may not have been misinterpreted or selectively interpreted I think is this one...Not sure how well you read Latin but I failed the test. If anyone can translate it I'm sure we would be most appreciative.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html

Here is an opposing view but be warned there is certainly a strong current of anti-ratzinger feeling on the blogspot link.

http://pope-ratz.blogspot.com/2010/03/benedict-xvi-then-cardinal-ratzinger-in.html

The bottom article alleges that Ratzinger ordered all Bishops to keep absolute silence on matters of priest pedophilia within the Church.

If we step back a little from the Church and suppose this was a large company, it would probably act the same way, keeping the evidence close to their chests. This would at least, in the short term, allow for a full analysis of what might or might not have been occurring.

Continued....

Would the Police have been notified if it was a company?...probably not, the reputation and bottom line would be dealt a severe blow if the news got out. But such a non-reporting would be an outrageous mistake.

Churches however aren't companies. As a Christian organisation they should hold the values of Jesus Christ uppermost. Under Jesus the victims should come first and openness and honesty should rule the day.

This article (if accurate) illustrates the problems a Church Leader faces when dealing in such matters...http://www.search.com/reference/Peter_Hollingworth

Does this mean that by trying to protect the bottom line of the Church or the Insurers of the Church that they are acting in an unChristian manner?

Jesus answers this himself....Afterall You can't serve two masters...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%206:24&version=NIV

Here is a criticism of the Pope from a Massachusetts priest

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/priest-pope-truthful-sex-abuse/story?id=10354275

and a story regarding the storm occuring in the Pope's homeland of Germany

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/papal-silence-crisis-troubles-german-catholics

The Church should now realises that the truth will out, so shouldn't they clean out the organisation quickly and forget the culture and practises that have helped create these allegations?

AS I have stated, whilst I am not Catholic I have many Catholic friends. The vast majority of Catholics are great people. It's so sad that so many have been let down by the alleged inaction over time.

suzeonline,
You are willing to use the imprimatur of the APA to lend credence to your argument but you are unwilling to see that it was a political decision and not a scientific decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM.
Apart from the historical evidence from Bieber, there was the fact that the APA used the same flawed logic (which they used to justify homosexuality's removal) to create a class of paedophile who could also be removed from the DSM.
ie The paedophile whose actions did not "cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning" was "psychologically normal" according to DSM-IV.
This stance was later recanted, again due to political pressure.
In other words, the APA's stance on homosexuality is based on "proper scientific detail;
it is a political stance.

Opinionated2,

Before entering academia, I was a national product manager with a Bank. While I would concede that a Bank (a company) might cover-up an embarrassing accounting error, after the fact. There is no way that staff would protect staff, as in the Catholic Church, had someone been caught committing paedophilia in an Office. The Police would be called, and, I suspect the culprit heavy-handedly restrained. I think cover-ups of serious crimes against people are more likely to occur where there are “brotherhoods” with codes of secrecy, such as, the military, police and the churches. Of course where the offender has power, there might not be an attempt to cover-up. In medieval England Lords would take brides of their serfs, before the husband-to-be. Likewise, if one reads Numbers 31: 17-18, the God fearing army raping the virgins are likely to assaulting girls 12-13 years of age or younger, given Midianite marriages would have normally taken place in the early teen years.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31&version=NIV

Also be careful not consider confuse Christianity and with Christ, even if most of the letters are the same. The former is a Pauline-Constantinian institution framed using “selected” histographies about Jesus. Whereas, Jesus seems to have been a first century mendicant with political ambitions, who was a loyal Jew with some reservations about obedience to the Law of the old covenant. That said, the Catholic Church would do well to recall Jesus cited in Matthew 7:5; “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.

All,

Please view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oFp21ryzs4

As covered a few times in this thread, there is some debate over whether the Vatican is a State under international law, despite 179 diplomatic missions to the Vatican and its observer only status at some UN meetings. I have Chaired some Australian Bankers’ Association meetings and the Vatican is a bit like the RBA, it is a Bank but has a special interest with Banks.

Benedict will not be arrested but he could be sent to diplomatic Coventry if he covered-up paedophilia.

typo correction:
In other words, the APA's stance on homosexuality is NOT based on "proper scientific detail";
it is a political stance.

Opinionated2,

Before entering academia, I was a national product manager with a Bank. While I would concede that a Bank (a company) might cover-up an embarrassing accounting error, after the fact. There is no way that staff would protect staff, as in the Catholic Church, had someone been caught committing paedophilia in an Office. The Police would be called, and, I suspect the culprit heavy-handedly restrained. I think cover-ups of serious crimes against people are more likely to occur where there are “brotherhoods” with codes of secrecy, such as, the military, police and the churches. Of course where the offender has power, there might not be an attempt to cover-up. In medieval England Lords would take brides of their serfs, before the husband-to-be. Likewise, if one reads Numbers 31: 17-18, the God fearing army raping the virgins are likely to assaulting girls 12-13 years of age or younger, given Midianite marriages would have normally taken place in the early teen years.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+31&version=NIV

Also be careful not consider confuse Christianity and with Christ, even if most of the letters are the same. The former is a Pauline-Constantinian institution framed using “selected” histographies about Jesus. Jesus seems to have been a first century mendicant with political ambitions, who was a loyal Jew with some reservations about obedience to the Law of the old covenant. That said, the Catholic Church would do well to recall Jesus cited in Matthew 7:5; “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye”.

All,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oFp21ryzs4

As covered a few times in this thread there is some debate over whether the Vatican is a State under international despite 17o+ diplomatic missions to the Vatican and its observer only status at some UN meetings. I have Chaired some Australian Bankers’ Association meetings and the Vatican is a bit like the RBA, it's a Central Bank having a special interest with Trading Banks.

Benedict will not be arrested. Yet, he should diplomatic Coventry, if he covered-up paedophilia. But politicians are too weak.

Posted by Oliver, Wednesday, 14 April 2010 9:45:20 AM

" ... Benedict will not be arrested. Yet, he should diplomatic Coventry, if he covered-up paedophilia. But politicians are too weak. ... "

Well, that is your opinion *Oliver* but as in the case of the likes of Pinochet, there are legal mechanisms to arrest Heads of State. And of course, it is easier yet again to arrest those who are not afforded the full protections of a Head of State.

I note further that your UTube link also indicates that these same legal mechanisms are being seriously considered for invocation.

Thus, in short, you cannot "know" that he will not be arrested. I hope that he will be, but I do not know.

..

And my dear *Boazy,* whilst you can say I thing a million times with great zeal, it does not necessarily make it factually so.
So again I would ask you, if Homosexuality in the view of the catholic church is a disease, then what is its underlying pathology and how is it treated?

..

Oh, by the way, did I hear correctly that *RatSinger* was a member of the Hitler Youth? If that is the case, in some ways I would assume that a form of abuse in the form of indoctrination was perpetrated upon him when he was a child.

Thus, it leaves me wondering whether he has or would try to cover up for the Nazis as well?

And now even as an adult, his "I" and "Intellect" appear to remain weak in that he has also succumbed to catholic indoctrination, leading him to aid and albeit pedophiles by way of covering up of the facts pertaining to one of the most heinous of crimes, that being the rape and sexual molestation of minors.

Suzeonline,

"Further, they(Runner and Proxy) would have us believe that the Catholic Church are dealing with child sex abuse by these 'homosexual paedophile priests' by 'stopping' them from entering the priesthood in the first place?
Am I right?

So, when young men line up to take on the priesthood training, they will be asked "Are you homosexual?" as a first line question?
Naturally, if they are gay or have paedophile tendancies, they are bound to admit to this of course."

I have read that they use psychology tests to screen them before entering the seminary to avoid paedophiles from being admitted. Personality tests typically include scales to check whether or not people are responding honestly based on group norms for answering the scale questions. If the instruments merely used direct questions on personality items of interest people would do exactly what you suggested. The main instruments are well researched so hopefully they do their job. Otherwise the Church will no doubt face future harsh condemnation for admitting more paedophile priests.

Oliver,

Ah yes such a lovely, spiritual and inspiring passage of the Bible Numbers 31. NOT! How can anyone accept the listing of virgins along with animals.

"The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man"

Beautiful stuff, they didn't even list the virgins first!

Most Christians don't read that one though...It conflicts with Jesus' teachings. AS I said earlier "Moses was not a nice man!"

Please be assured I never just lump people together, I don't have anything against Christians at all BUT I do heavily question most Christians understanding of their Bible.

If what was alleged in the You Tube video link you gave are true, then should the Pope and others who knew about the scandals just resign? OR Is it way past time and the law should intervene?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/pope-must-answer-for-crimes-against-humanity-20100403-rkro.html

What possible act or gesture can the Pope do or take to redeem the situation if he was, as alleged in the video, "an accessory before or after the fact"?

It will be interesting to see how Governments act on this matter. I think that the world's population is demanding swift and stern action.

I wonder what Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd will say and do?

The world is watching....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7077196.ece

and the legal too-ing and fro-ing begins

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/should_the_pope_be_tried_for_crimes_against_humanity/

And the Pope's willingness to meet victims. Is this a little too late?

Remember World Youth Day 2008?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/10/2869180.htm

and did Anthony and Christine Foster get to meet the Pope after Bishop Anthony Fisher allegedly said as quoted in this article "by saying a few people were ...dwelling crankily on old wounds"."....http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/17/2306490.htm

or "...rather than dwelling crankily, as a few people are doing, on old wounds" as this article alleges..http://www.theage.com.au/national/outrage-over-bishops-abuse-remarks-20080716-3gcr.html?page=-1

afterall the Pope found it in his heart to meet some victims...http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSYD21881620080720

If not why not?

And did Cardinal Pell, really say "if you don't like it, take it to court" as the article alleges?

What would Jesus say to this?

Proxy, you say that removal of homosexuality from the compendium of psychiatric disorders (DSM) was a political act.

Don't you think that including it in the first place was a political act too?

Here's another example, amongst many (like hysteria or dementia praecox - where the definition and criteria have changed over time).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania

Mental health diagnoses are based on a mixture of what the client says (and deems problematic); opinions of others like family; observation; science (where available and it's never final) and prevailing socio-cultural values. Diagnoses are always provisional.

I wonder why all the State and Federal Ministers for aboriginal affairs have not been sacked. I am no fan of the Catholic church but any one with any honesty knows that child abuse among aboriginal communities has been going on for years at much higher rates than even State school teachers and catholic priest and yet the only casualty (Hollingsworth) was a political one. Seems like another political witch hunt with the lefties again trying to draw attention away from their own backyards.

pynchme,
Your drapetomania example is just an extension of the already bizarre sexual orientation/race analogy that homosexuals have disingenuously employed to portray homosexual activism as a civil rights issue, in the same vein as equality for African Americans.
Interestingly, blacks don't buy this false analogy either.
70% of them voted against California's Proposition 8,
making them, overwhelmingly, the demographic most opposed to same-sex marriage.
Only bleeding heart liberals buy the lie.
Blacks can't change their race.
Homosexuals can change their sexual behaviour.
This is evidenced by the existence of ex-gay organisations and the "coming in" stories of former homosexuals.
There are no ex-black organisations or stories by former blacks.
Blacks are genetically black.
Homosexuals are not genetically homosexual.
The mutable nature of homosexually is sufficiently demonstrated by the very existence of reparative therapists for homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle.
There are no reparative therapists for blacks who want to leave the black lifestyle.
It is further evidenced by the hatred of homosexuals toward ex-homosexuals and reparative therapists,
because they reveal the lie.

Dear Proxy,

You wrote that "Blacks can't change their
race." Two words - Michael Jackson!
(died trying).

As for gay priests?
Well Dr Paul Collins knows more about that
issue then any of us. He tells us in his
book, "Believers: Does Australian Catholicism
have a future," :

"It is clear that the accusation that gay priests
are more likely to be child molesters is totally
wrong, and lay Catholics have no problem with gay
clergy whether they are "out" or, more likely,
quietly integrating their sexual preference.
What people find intolerable are the "closet queens"
who, in bouts of self-hatred and denial, are often
vicious in their attack on other homosexual persons
demanding all types of punitive measures against
them. Self-hating clergy not only destroy themselves,
but are much more likely to project their venom
outwards and that can lead to extremely rigid and
destructive behaviour, especially for vulnerable
people in pastoral situations.

What the Church needs to guard against specifically
is admitting this destructive type of person into the
seminary. Their rigidity and claims to pseudo-orthodoxy
are extremely dangerous and detrimental in pastoral
ministry..."

Hope this helps.

Foxy,
I can't work out why you would give Paul Collins more credence than Vatican Secretary of State Tarcisio Bertone.
Surely Bertone would have more insight into the "Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church" problem than a dissident priest?
He would have had access to all the case files and psychiatric reports.
Or are you suggesting that Bertone is one of Collins' "self-hating closet queens"?
This surely is just the standard homosexual ad hominem attack, designed to shut down debate:
anybody who is criticises homosexual behaviour is a repressed homosexual.
I've seen it used in this forum.
I've had it used against me.
It is as logical as claiming that anybody who criticises Islam is a repressed Muslim.
I can't believe that a person of your intelligence cannot see through this tripe.
As Bertone says, statistics demonstrate the homosexual-paedophile link over and over again.
In the US Catholic Church:
More than 10,000 cases > 81% male > 90% of those being adolescent boys ranging from 11-17 years old.
Was it Collins' "self-hating closet queens" perpetrating these acts?

As for Michael Jackson:
Surely you were being tongue-in-cheek?
(if you'll pardon the homosexual allusion)

Proxy while well aware you are unlikely to listen I must address yourr postings.
Why are you trying to divert every thread to homosexuality?
And on what evidence do you claim those who you speak of are closet homosexuals?
Is it so very hard to start a thread.
This subject does not need you trying to stop debate about dreadful crimes commited by men against children.
IF those who do such things are still believers the Church must confirm its view on every one of them.
if forgiveness can be given for this no crime anyone commits is not forgivable.

Proxy

Deliberate ignorance such as you are displaying at OLO is unforgivable.

This topic is about paedophilia in general and the reaction to said behaviour within the Catholic Church in particular.

You are free to start a topic concerning sexual orientation any time, however to deliberately equate paedophilia with homosexuality as you continue to do so is reprehensible. Your attempts at obfuscation of this issue indicates that you do not care at all for the victims, many of whom are little girls as well as little boys. Nor will I be drawn into an argument about lesbian nuns. While I am sure a minority have abused their positions of trust the abhorrent truth is that most of the abuse of girls and boys has been by male clergy whose rank and interaction with children remains prevalent.

Severin - "Proxy" is just the latest sockpuppet alias of the serial troll formerly known as "KMB", "Herman Yutic" et al.

Best outed, then ignored, I reckon.

Ah...all is made clear CJ.

Severin is right. This sort of blatant prejudice is unforgivable for one who claims some sort of moral superiority merely by virtue of belief rather than by actions.

Man makes up his own rules as he/she goes along - one set of rules written on behalf of a supernatural being by one set of people does not exclude another set of people in future years acknowledging misdeeds and mistakes that can be rectified and the rules rewritten.

Who are we to play GOD with any other persons sexuality?

Anyway this is about pedophilia and as has already been stated most acts are committed by heterosexuals many of them married with their own children.

Sheesh you would really think in an advanced secular world we would be over this whole sexual preference insecurity.

Thankfully there are some Churches and religious folk who are pushing to embrace and accept homosexuals into not only their ranks but into their congregations.

runner,

The issue Suzeonline has brought to the Forum for discussion is, “Paedophilia in the Catholic Church” not the universal condition. Besides, by way of comparison, because there are axe murders in town X it does not justify the actions of axe murders in town Y. Else put, if there are paedophiles in indigenous communities that does not justify the behaviour of non-indigenous paedophile priests. Let’s stay focused on the topic. Thanks.

DreamOn,

Of course, I cannot say with absolute certainty that the Pope will not be charged and arrested. Yet, I suspect it highly unlikely, even given several issues regarding the legitimacy of the Vatican as a “State” and the Pope as a “Sovereign Leader” in international law. Even the more mundane matter of “where” he is alleged to havebroken the Law, say, Germany or/and the Vatican cum Italy. Would the offence(s) fall under UK jurisprudence? I suspect not.

I suggest that Dawkins, Hutchens and Robertson are making their claims to keep the topic hot.

Opinionated2,

- “It will be interesting to see how Governments act on this matter. I think that the world's population is demanding swift and stern action. I suspect “

Messrs Rudd and Abbott would avoid commenting on the Pope.

Personally, I would like to see some diplomatic rebuff of the Church, because of its inaction. Moreover, many practising Catholics need to realise that they should overcome their Pollyanna Syndrome and reform their Church, even again resistance from the clergy.

All,

The Catholic Church must cooperate with secular authorities and open its doors to outside investigation, including the “proactive” interviewing of priests, brothers, nuns, lay staff and school children. We must learn what is happening and by whom.

Oliver

I take your your point however when there are 1000 murders in one town and 100 in another surely the town with 1000 murders should get at least equal press.

Runner....Child abuse is...WRONG...in every community.

Have you recently just learnt the words left and right? Good boy... well done!...Take a Nanna nap old fella.

Which are you Right, Left or Wrong?

Isn't he argument against homosexuals is just bigotry...and a deliberate diversion?

Isn't the traditional religious motto..."If in trouble blame a homosexual?"

Some very reasonable people on here have given you guys your 5 minutes of fame...

I have no problem with gay clergy whatsoever...hey, it's probable that after being persecuted for so long, they may be more full of Christian compassion than most, if given a fair go.

Afterall they at least know what it is to be oppressed!

Jesus was totally silent on homosexuality and maybe you two should follow your leader...lol

Do you two represent Jesus well?

If you are representatives of Jesus' followers GOD help us all...lol

The Hollingsworth case was a terribly sad affair....he is a good man...BUT...Hollingsworth by getting it wrong chose to go.

In the end, he did the right thing...Could that have been his role in life to show others how a dignified person, can regain his dignity, by taking the correct decision after erring?

Isn't this what people are calling for in this debate?

If people have erred on the side of protecting institutions, instead of the victim, shouldn't they do the honourable thing and go? Don't they owe it to their congregations?

Aren't there too many good people of faith, to be continually let down by the institutions through which they worship?

Matthew 7:16-20....http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207:16-20&version=NIV

is very pertinent to this debate. If this is Jesus' instructions then isn't it is time for the good trees to bear good fruit?

Isn't it time for those leaders of the Churches to admit they have failed their congregations, and to cut themselves from positions of authority?

This quote might help these leaders who have failed their congregations

Buddy Robinson...."Pride is the only disease known to man, that makes everyone sick except the person who has it."

Could it be pride, that stops them taking the Hollingworth decision?

Is this another Pellism?...http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/551237/Cardinal-Pell-denies-cover-up-over-sex-abuse-claims

runner,

The Australian government has acted against child abuse in indigenious communities as I guess most OLO folks would know from the meadia: e.g.,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/19/1955528.htm

Likewise, the Australian government can make its concerns about paedophilia in the Catholic Church felt diplomatically. If nothing happens then downgrade the relationship and pull out Tim Fisher.

*Oliver*

This was posted earlier by *Opionated2* I believe:

Geoffrey Robertson, QC, is author of Crimes Against Humanity.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/pope-must-answer-for-crimes-against-humanity-20100403-rkro.html

" ... But head of state immunity provides no protection for the Pope in the International Criminal Court. The ICC statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and sexual slavery and similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. ... "

..

And a recent article on Australian ABC:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/14/2872943.htm

" ... Vatican distances itself from prelate's gay remarks
By Brendan Trembath
Updated Thu Apr 15, 2010 12:47am AEST

The Vatican has distanced itself from remarks by a top prelate who stirred anger in the gay community by blaming homosexual priests for the child sex abuse scandals rocking the Catholic Church. ... "

..

Indeed, according to some Christian Teachings, the metaphysical experience for want of a better term of the "Garden of Gethsemane" and subsequent "Road to Golgotha" is a terrifying one in Christian Initiation.

*Boazy* to me, at least in part, is like He who according to the Biblical account took up his sword, and sort to defend his Lordy with violence.

Verily, the path to Hell is paved with "good intentions."

But this, with such travesties being committed, surely if the children were the most important thing then their defence even at one's personal expense would be of the utmost priority.

But as demonstrated by the behavior of the catholic church it appears quite apparent that they are primarily motivated by self interest.

As their Christ concept is alleged to have said:
"Know the Tree by the Fruit."

..

I imagine that RatSinger will come out with a raft of measures but to me at least, he has already fallen from Grace and it would be best if he voluntarily left and turned himself over in acknowledgment of the fact that he part way ascended the mountain, was tried and found wanting.

..

Chancellor Palpatine:
"All those who gain power are afraid to lose it."

Oliver the headline of your article reads ' Rudd wants national effort on child.' You could just as well say Gough, Malcolm, Bob, Paul and John wants a national effort. In fact every State Premier for the last 50 years would state the same rhetoric. The point is that it is still going on far more than other areas in community. If the pope or any other leader puts institutions or politics before the protection of kids they should be charged or removed. The Government is just as responsible as the Vatican as they are more concerned about how others view them (UN) than they are of removing kids in abusive situations. Repeat child molesters should be castrated

Opinionated2,

"Runner....Child abuse is...WRONG...in every community."

That is true for those of us who are concerned about the children. One has to wonder how concerned about children are those who seem only concerned about one community that has left no stone unturned to avoid child abuse while completely disinterested in any other.

Dear Proxy,

I was taught as part of my training - to
always look at more than one source when
investigating or researching any topic.
Dr Paul Collins is one of Australia's
most respected commentators on the Catholic
Church. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School
and the Australian National University. You
referred to him as a "rebel" priest. However,
that description doesn't fit. Yes he is a former
priest but he's also a historian, author, and
broadcaster. He knows his topic as an insider.
I quoted merely one small paragraph from the book
that I cited simply to give you another perspective
on the topic you were trying to present. That of
gay priests. I assumed you would be interested in
hearing another point of view on the topic.

Dr Collins doesn't shy away from the difficult questions
that must be asked about the church - including sexual
abuse scandal. However, in order to really get the
full picture before you sweep this man under the rug,
so to speak - all I can suggest to you is - read the
entire book for yourself. You shall then understand
his clear program for reform. With a word limit in posting
I can't go into all the details here. Anyway, the book
is an excellent read, extremely informative.

As for my reference to Michael Jackson - no I wasn't joking.
The man did everything he could to physically change his
appearance, and appear as a white male. Even his children
were selected to be - "white".
He was an extremely troubled individual.
Denying his race was only one of his problems.

The sad thing about this debate is the fact that it had to be had at all.

If these were teachers or Principals abusing children or an Education Minister protecting the reputation of teachers and education they would be arrested for obstruction of justice and for aiding and abetting criminals. Same if it was a scout leader or a father downloading child porn.

Why has the Catholic Church hierarchy been allowed to get away with it?

Pelican no one will write a post more meaningful than that in this thread , congrates

Dear Pelly,

Hierarchical institutions
tend to move rather slowly and often get bogged
down with red tape - with one department not always
communicating with another. Then there's also such
a thing as ambitious and ruthless people, who
have their own agendas as in any institution.

Of course none of that explains the long inaction of
the church in coming to grips with a serious
problem. Alan Dershowitz tried to explain it in the
article I cited in one of my earlier posts and as he
said:

"The Catholic Church is not the only institution that
has faced problems of sexual abuse. Every hierarchical body,
has faced similar problems. This problem of hierarchical
sex abuse has long been hidden in the shadows. However
singling out the Catholic Church and stereotyping all
priests is wrong..."

He goes onto say: "...all institutions who have
hierarchical sexual exploitation must create structures
that assure prompt reporting, a zero-tolerance policy,
and quick action... so long as these processes are
consistent with due process and fairness, not only
to alleged victims but to the accused as well..."

We can only hope that the church will heed public
pressure and will act must faster in the future.
Catholicism has remarkable staying power, an ability
to survive unmatched by any contemporary institution.
If you've been around for 2000 years its because you
were able to adapt and change. Often this change
may come late in the piece when everything seems to be
in dire straits - and it may well come from the most
unexpected source. But I trust that the church will
confront both the difficulties and the opportunities that
it now faces.

Foxy,
Dissident - characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards.
This accurately describes Collins.
You used the word rebel, not me.
Furthermore, your Michael Jackson story only proves what I said:
Blacks can’t change their race – he “died trying”, according to you.
Or were you trying to take the already disproven analogy to an even higher level of absurdity –
“Michael Jackson couldn’t change his race, which proves that homosexuals can’t change their sexuality either”?!

pynchme:
“Child sexual abusers are by far and away most often of heterosexual orientation”
“the greatest amount of child abuse is carried out by adult heterosexuals”
“male on male rape and abuse is far from infrequent - yet the vast majority of those rapists identify as heterosexual”
“homosexuals are less inclined to child sexual abuse than are heterosexuals”

severin:
“paedophiles target children of either sex, they are mostly heterosexual in their sexual orientation”

pelican:
“most acts are committed by heterosexuals many of them married with their own children”

Let’s be equitable and assume that the capacity for evil does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality.
One would reasonably expect there to be 98% girl victims of heterosexuals and 2% boy victims of homosexuals.
One could then legitimately claim that most child sex abuse was perpetrated by heterosexuals,
even though both groups exhibited the same propensity toward this sort of behaviour.
However, 20% of victims are girls and 80% of victims are boys.
This fact skews the expected statistics by a factor of 40.
However desperately you spin it, such a discrepancy is not easily explained away.
This can only by achieved by casting away the science of statistics and replacing it with personal bigotry.
This is not progress. This is a return to barbarism.

Opinionated2

'Runner....Child abuse is...WRONG...in every community. '

Hooray its amazing that you and others who claim to believe in moral relativism can come to that conclusion. Congratulations their is hope for you yet.

Aww shucks Belly - thanks. Tis common sense really isn't it.

Proxy
All I can say is we are agreed that all child abuse is a bad thing regardless of the sexual preference of the perpetrator. No group in society is completely free of evil as you put it.
Your statistical analysis is however inaccurate. You are assuming that all abuse of boys is carried out by homosexual men. This is untrue. Sexuality is a complicated issue, and it is why some men in prison will have sex with another male where there is no choice. They are not homosexual although I don't fully understand this syndrome myself - it is probably something along the lines of opportunity and any port in a storm (if you will excuse the terminology).
Being attracted to someone from the same gender is not the same as being attracted to children. One does not necessarily go with the other.

Foxy
Yes I think the Catholic Church is at a turning point and with constant public and media pressure we may see positive change within the next few years. At least child abusers will feel less protected by the institution than years past and may think twice about abusing their position or seeking help for their tendencies.

Indeed *Pelican* & *Belly* it is a sad thing that we even need to be having this debate.

And no need to apologise:

" ... Any port in a storm ... "

is quite apt.

From memory *RObert* earlier said something similar to the effect that some people like it any which way.

And that dear *Boazy* is where the underpinning of some of your assertions falls down. That is to say that to immediately make a leap of logic and state that male priest -> male altar boy -> therefore homosexuality, is a flawed posit.

To look at the history of the marching army for example, even the likes of Alexander the Great, in the absence of the fairer sex, were quite happy to indulge in the pleasures of the flesh amongst themselves, and then revert to their chosen sexual preference when circumstances permitted. Point being, sexual engagement and relief, a therapy in and of itself, appears to be the prime motivator, not the gender of the partner.

I suspect that even within the Vatican itself, if and when they unburden themselves of the "web" of their own making, that more than 2 will come out of the shadows and seek a *Blessing of their Union*

..

And yes *Pelican,* there are Gay & BiSexual Priests practicing in Australia, in places where they are Luved and cherished no more and no less than any other in this "our" Australia.

..

Oh, and I quite agree with *Runner,* in that all of the victims must be drawn back unto "our" bosom, and all the abusers must be tried and bound.

pelican,
You said that I am "assuming that all abuse of boys is carried out by homosexual men."
This is a reasonable assumption.
You cannot arbitrarily claim that abuse of boys is carried out by heterosexuals without running up against the counter proposition that abuse of girls is carried out by homosexuals.
In other words, if some abuse of boys is carried out by heterosexuals then it is equally likely that some abuse of girls is carried out by homosexuals. This is an equitable assumption in the absence of any data to the contrary.
There remains the 40 fold discrepancy in the hard data.

pelican,
Your "prison syndrome" analogy is also weak, at best.
Paedophiles are said to be cunning and calculating, and one could imagine that they would have to be, to first capture their young prey, hide their activities and then escape detection.
It would seem strange then that all those heterosexual paedophiles didn't think far enough ahead so that they would end up in a girls (or at least co-ed) school, rather than having to make do with "any port in a storm" in the confessional.
Couldn't they foresee that they would end up with altar boys and not school girls?
It seems reasonable to assume that heterosexual paedophiles would seek out young girls and homosexual paedophiles would seek out young boys.
From a sexual point of view, wouldn't heterosexual male prisoners rather be incarcerated with women if they had the choice?
In other words, free people have the freedom to choose the vocation which presents them with the most attractive opportunities but prisoners can't choose with whom they are incarcerated.
In which case, we are still left with a forty-fold discrepancy in the statistics.

Proxy, give it a rest and go talk about your favourite homosexual subject on another thread!
I wonder why you have such a fascination about gay men?

I think this discussion has run it's course for me now.
Thanks to all other people who have contributed to a subject that I also wish we never had to discuss in the first place.

I just hope that all priests who did molest children are brought to justice as soon as possible, and that all those who tried to shield or hide them are prosecuted for this action too.

Dear Proxy,

Dr Paul Collins is not a dissident.
He does not depart from the accepted
beliefs or standards at all. On the
contrary, he explains and analyzes
them. As I suggested to you earlier,
read the book.

As for Michael Jackson? I wasn't trying
to prove that blacks can't change their
race. I merely cited an example of one
who tried. There was no other hidden agenda.

However, as you seem to be interested in the
topic of homosexuality I can recommend another
text for you to read and that is, Ian Robertson's,
"Sociology." He's got a whole chapter on
sexuality and society. Robertson explains that homosexuality
as the principal variation on the norm of heterosexuality,
presents a recurring issue for both society and
sociology. The behaviour occurs all over the world and
throughout history, although its form, acceptability,
and apparent extent vary greatly from one society to
another. Fascinating reading for anyone interested in the
subject.

Dear Suze,

Thanks for this thread.
It has produced a wide range of reactions.
And, it's certainly been an interesting
discussion. You're to be Congratulated for
a job well done. My goodness look at how many
posted - nearing the 200 mark, and I suspect
it may even go over that. That's got to be
some sort of a record.

However, for me as well - this thread has now run its course.
Thanks once again.
I'll see you on another thread.

It has been a good thread suzeonline I must see it gets its 200.
While my thread would have been about pedophiles and the catholic church, surely most know its a problem for all?
This thread highlighted one church, those who want to confuse the issue baffle me.
Nothing can hide the failure to fix this, the hidden cases the lack of action over century's.
The more exposure this gets the more likely it will at last end.
In such threads as this, we have had many too many, I said we would again talk about it.
We have and we will yet again, this thread has seen contributors who appear not to care about the crime or the victims.
Tomorrows and even the year after next newspaper headlines will remind us it is not yet fixed.

Well done Suze.

Belly: >> ... this thread has seen contributors who appear not to care about the crime or the victims. <<

That's correct they would rather vilify adults who prefer other adults of the same sex.

Another point that evades the reasoning ability of the homophobes is that even if every homosexual was removed from religions, schools, wherever children congregate, paedophilia would still occur for the simple fact that most paedophiles are not same-sex oriented. It is the child that attracts them, not the gender, it is the ease with which they can control a child compared to an adult partner.

suzeonline,
You ask "I wonder why you have such a fascination about gay men?"
This is just the same, tired old homosexual canard, dripping with negative innuendo.
It’s the one that people pull from their bag of ad hominem insults when they have no logical argument to support their views.
It’s the baseless accusation that Paul Collins draws upon when he implies that only “closet queens” in the church criticise homosexual clergy.

On a more positive note.
Anyone can play the game. It’s easy.
I wonder why you, suzeonline, have such a fascination with child sex abuse?

Dear Proxy,

You need to stop twisting things around to suit your
own agenda.

Kindly re-read what Dr Collins actually said:

"It is clear that the accusation that gay priests
are more likely to be child molesters is totally
wrong, and lay Catholics have no problems with
gay clery whether they are "out," or more likely,
quietly integrating their sexual preference.

What PEOPLE find intolerable are the "closet queens"
who, in bouts of self-hatred and denial, are often
vicious in their attacks on other homosexual persons
demanding all types of punitive measures against
them. Self-hating clergy not only destroy themselves,
but are much more likely to project their venom outwards
and that can lead to extremely rigid and destructive
behaviour, especially for vulnerable people in pastoral
situations.

What the church needs to guard against specifically is
admitting this destructive type of person into the
seminary. Their rigidity and claims to pseudo-orthodoxy
are extremely dangerous and detrimental in pastoral
ministry..."

I'm extremely perplexed by your inability to comprehend
what Dr Collins is saying.

However, I shan't be responding to you any further.
It seems that you prefer to view things through a
very narrow lens so there's no point in further
discussion.

As Suze suggested - start your own thread on the subject
of homosexuality.

Proxy

Are you just running a diversionary tactic by continually harping on homosexuality?

Too many good people have wasted too much time trying to be reasonable to you.

Runner,

I’m amazed at your amazement…and yet I’m not amazed at it either…You have been so busy attacking homosexuals that I thought you might suffer from some sort of amazing comprehension disability.

Mjpb

Many institutions have been mentioned here…however the topic is headed “Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church” and we are supposed to stick to the topic.

Which organisation has “left no stone unturned to avoid child abuse?” If you are saying the Catholic Church then I think you should re-read many of the posts.

Isn't the world's media overturning many previously unturned stones that organisations have neglected to overturn?

Others

The LATIN 2001 letter allegedly from the former Cardinal (now Pope) Ratzinger ”DE DELICTIS GRAVIORIBUS” is found here in Latin…http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html

I found this alleged translation in English….http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

Some Key words in the translation are

1. “Cases of this kind are to be subject to the Pontifical Secret”

Here is a definition of “Pontifical Secret”…. http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Pontifical+Secret

Does this mean that a person can be excommunicated for even discussing these issues?...What does this say about free speech, openness and accountability in regards to child abuse cases?

OR

Is does this mean that a victim who communicates outside the Church can be ex-communicated?

OR

Does this mean that the details of serious offences must be kept in strictist confidence for the protection of all parties?

Does it say "ALL cases MUST be reported to the Police?

2. Here is an alleged English translation of Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela issued by John Paul II…..http://www.september12009.com/images/pdfs/Sacramentorum%20Sanctitatis%20Tutela%20English.pdf

And here is the alleged Latin version…..http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_20020110_sacramentorum-sanctitatis-tutela_lt.html

Here is a list (in near chronological order) of the Lateline articles on ABC 2 where certain allegations were raised regarding one particular case.

http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?query=Anthony+Jones&sort=date&collection=abcall&form=simple&meta_v=lateline

Suze TY for this thread...

Proxy,

I accidentally responded to you in Should the Pope be thread as someone raised similar issues. I refer you there if you are interested.

Belly,

You don't seem to be reading posts in here. Some things you should be aware of:

2001 document myth
A BBC documentary referred to Crimen Solicitationis extensively and allegations concerning same appear to be the crux of it. Doylie is quoted as saying “What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.” This seems to be the central thesis of the documentary. Doylie however later blamed the documentary producers for misunderstanding him. He said “I do not believe now nor have I ever believed it to be proof of an explicit conspiracy, in the conventional sense, engineered by top Vatican officials, to cover up cases of clergy sexual abuse.”

Current procedures
The former head of the Divine Congregation of Faith changed procedures so that (from 2001) child molestation is referred to the Congregation to handle so that they get actioned (the judge in the Murphy case indicated it now happens quickly), changed the rules to make it easier to immediately defrock priests, broadened definitions to increase power to prosecute, and in the Murphy case (where the BBC claimed he was covering up) he waived rights under the limitation period and had Murphy prosecuted anyway. A zero tolerance of paedophilia allegations was adopted and seminarians take psychology tests to avoid admission of paedophiles. The Pope has been described as the "most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors." He has repeatedly apologised to victims.
TBC

And as Dr Collins puts it:
"Nowadays, however, ecclesiastical superiors are proactive and move with alacrity when accusations are made. Some priests now feel authorities have moved too far toward the other end of the spectrum... the rights of accused priests are often 'overlooked or ignored', ...often not been given legal advice or experienced support persons. They were frequently cajoled into making admissions and agreeing to resign... Priests are assumed to be guilty, their rights to fairness and a presumption of innocence ignored, and they are dismissed from ministry by bishops or superiors without any legal process, often before they have been afforded the opportunity to defend themselves. Accused priests have been kept in the dark by bishops witholding accusations or aspects of accusations. There is confusion between what are actually 'boundary violations', that is consensual adult sexual encounters, and the sexual abuse of children, which falls under the jurisdictions of criminal and canon law...A similar situation has emerged in the UK where a church lawyer who defends accused priests said that 'bishops cannot be trusted to help priests accused of child abuse'"

Past Victims
The standard Australian program is called Towards Healing. This apparently includes an independent investigation, apologies, compensation, and free ongoing counselling.

Past records
In the US of A where the scandal started Bishops ordered their staff that all records of complaints be made available to University researchers to determine what exactly did happen in order to learn from the past. Then an apology to victims from the top might be in order.

Yabby,

"...link between religion and child abuse.

When I was at school, it was Baptists doing the fiddling. More recently I recall a Channel 9 documentary about Jehovas Witnesses covering up,commonly young girls were the victims."

No link it just gets reported. The thousands of other cases in each state each year don't make the news unless there is something particularly unusual.

To all,

Thank you for the discussion and thank you Suzeonline for starting it. It enables discussion beyond the media reports.

Opinionated2,

You seem pretty keen on that document. Perhaps the following URL will explain what the Church understands it to mean then you won't have to guess based on a translation from Latin on an anti-Catholic website.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0325.htm

I think it's a bit premature to end the thread don't you dear *Boazy of PolyCarp?*

Ayo pakai bahasa sm ak biar "surreal" lg.

Now that his popeyness has distanced himself from comments made by the secretary, don't you think you should do some ala *Opus Dei* flogging?

HaHaHa

Oh, incidentally, BBC Knowledge is doing a series of shows starting Sunday based on the true stories underpinning certain famous movies, starting with "The Exorcist." Its my favorite scary horror movie of all and I miss the old black and white Dracula movies too. Now what do we get - Kenneth ....... Copeland - JESUS! and home ....... shopping - CHRIST!

Which brings me to one for BJMP:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2297016.htm

" ... CONNOR DUFFY: But if the Church had hoped to close the matter with that letter, it failed. Jones took his allegations to the Criminal and Civil Courts. Those proceedings resulted in a dramatic discovery. The Church, forced to produce a range of documents about Father Goodall, handed over material that now raises questions about the conduct of Cardinal Pell. Lateline has now obtained those documents.

..

ANTHONY JONES: He had to know that there were other complaints because he wrote to the man who as an 11 year old boy was assaulted by Father Goodall on the same day. His signatures are on the letters. So he had to know. Cardinal Pell misrepresented the truth.

..

So far the Church has not responded. Connor Duffy, Lateline.

TONY JONES: We offered Cardinal Pell the chance to join us tonight to put his side of this story in addition to those questions in writing.

And as we go to air we've received no direct answer to any of our questions and the only response has been in the form of a letter from the Church's lawyers suggesting that for legal reasons the ABC should not reveal the documents.

Suze,

Thank you for your efforts and the thread.

Regrettably, I suspect we will end up returning to the topic in the future, as more sickening facts are revealed.

Several apt suggestions have been made as to how to best address the situation, but we are are long way off having the many necessary change manage management recommendations heeded.

Regards,

O.

Yes, O.
Some facts are revealed.
Some facts remain hidden.
Some facts are denied.
And yes, it is sickening.

The churches must know the mood in the community is such that we will brook no more lies,prevarications and delaying tactics.We want the truth and will keep on asking and digging away till we are satisfied that all is out. The churches might just as well make a clean confession of everything ,every misdemeanour, every poor judgement, every thing once and for all and then hope for some peace and an end to the digging and revealing and hope to be forgiven and put into place procedures that will act quickly and decisively and very transparently with future child abuse regardless who the perpetrators are.I believe that faith in the institutions can be renewed or lost forever. The churches must make a choice of conscience and not keep protecting the institutions; the truth alone can do that.
All we are asking for is the truth and transparency in their future dealings with perpetrators. The victims deserve it;the churches should value and protect innocence and not themselves and their power and authority anymore.

socratease

And May Peace be upon Ye *Brother Boazy*

...Dreamy...

MJPB,

Thankyou for the link....it is always good to get several perspectives....but can you show me where your link said....REPORT IT DIRECTLY & IMMEDIATELY TO THE POLICE!

Did you say “The standard Australian program is called Towards Healing?” Did you subconsciously use the word STANDARD?

Don’t victims of sexual abuse deserve more than a STANDARD program?

What would Jesus say? Remember he is watching you! Do you think he is proud of you?

What does this article allege about the payouts through “Towards Healing”? See a problem?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/penny-pinching-justice/story-e6frg6z6-1111114176456

Have you ever read this article? What does this poor victim allege about his treatment?

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/07/11/1215658130123.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml

Does this one mention "Towards Healing" also?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2298206.htm

Does this article allege Cardinal Pell wrote a letter to Emma Foster when she was 16?.....http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2304685.htm

See any problems here?

Would you like to change your recommendation on who people should contact after reading the above?

If what the first article alleges is true, would you accept far less than what a civil court might pay you, if your life, had been destroyed from childhood, by sexual abuse?

Do we ever think what Jesus may have meant here?

Matt 7:16-20....Jesus said...http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207:15-20&version=NIV

Or here?

Matt 7:12.....http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%207:12&version=NIV

Do you really understand Jesus' teachings and your Bible?

The thread was always going to be a big one.
We who take part knew we would see true revulsion and true wisdom within it.
I think we knew some would divert if they could, and remind us too often it is not every Catholic priest who is involved.
But we will read more about it in future press, past events and sadly future crimes not yet commited.
The next chapter will be from those priests sent over seas after being highlighted for such crimes.
The instant communications we now have will bring much more information than past century's crimes.
Knowing this the Church must uncover these things not cover them, true followers of that church will remain, IF TRUE ACTION takes place.

In summary then:
The fundamental problem is that the church's power structure is not aligned with it's moral hierarchy.
At the lowest level of this hierarchy are the heterosexual child molesters,
calculating paedophiles who sought a vocation where they could molest boys.
Almost as evil are their heterosexual accomplices who covered up the abuse.
One step higher up come the intolerable "closet queens", whose repressed homosexuality and resultant self-hate
causes them to vomit venom at those at the top of the church moral hierarchy -
the gay clergy who are either proudly out or quietly integrating their sexual preference.
The "closet queens" should therefore be outed so that they can
proudly integrate their sexual preferences with their liberated counterparts.
Furthermore, far from precluding applicants from the priesthood who fancy male-on-male sex,
these should be sought out and promoted to positions of power to ensure that
never again will a choir boy be abused by a heterosexual paedophile.

Dear Proxy,

It's not easy to overcome an
innate bias. However try letting go
of the mouse and turning off the computer.

Proxy

if you take Foxy's suggestion your mind would then be in harmony with your computer.

;-)

There's statistical evidence and there's spin.
I'll go with the evidence anyday.

Dear Proxy,

Statistics are not always accurate.
Reliable research findings can be
produced only by the use of reliable
research methods.

Cause and effect can be traced by
establishing correlations between independent
and dependent variables. It is necessary, however,
to apply controls to exclude the possibility that
some variable other than the one being studied is
influencing the relationship under investigation.

Logical analysis is also necessary to establish
that a relationship is causal, not spurious.

no proxy in fact you are a master of spin.
wonder why, Axe to grind?
silly question it shows out like a neon light in the out back.

Foxy,
For your information:
The covariance between heterosexuality and paedophilia is negative, giving a correlation coefficient between -1 and 0.
The covariance between homosexual and paedophilic behaviour is positive, giving a correlation coefficient closer to 1 than 0.
Homosexuality is the standard deviation and paedophilia is a variance on the abnormal distribution.
Observers with a negative (ie leftward) skew are sometimes unable to correctly interpret the observable results.
This can lead to a Type 2 error, resulting in the incorrect rejection of the hypothesis that homosexual and paedophilic behaviour are statistically linked at the 95% confidence level.

Dear Proxy,

We all get frustrated when we try to communicate
with people of any generation who don't
comprehend what we're trying to say
or who don't seem to consider our point of view
as being valid.

Therefore start your own thread on homosexuality.
You may have greater success.

Foxy,
I don't know who you think is feeling frustrated, but it isn't me.
If this thread is about Child Sex Abuse and the Catholic Church,
then it's about homosexuality.

Aah *Boazy* I thought maybe you had turned the corner but you've relapsed again.

..

How do you know that some aren't Bi-Sexual?

..

And, I think that it is worth while considering that mature HomoSexual individuals crave relationships with mature, consenting, Luving, adult partners AND DO NOT get off on twisting the minds of little ones to gratify their sexual urges, or otherwise DO NOT get off on raping or molesting little ones and DO NOT get off on fiddling with an immature body with immature emotional responses.

..

So let's be clear about this, we a re talking about pedophiles, who perhaps not wanting to lose their financial security solution or status with the Church by openly having an open adult sexual relationship, and being unsatisfied with w_nking and fantasisation, elect to use the ones closest to them, thinking perhaps that the children have not the competence to file complaint or are otherwise unlikely to be believed.

I seem to recall someone knowledgeable in the area stating that the majority of sexual abuse, in particular of minors, occurs at the hands of someone very close to the victim.

..

And to follow your reasoning *Boazy* in the case of an adult male abusing say the immature daughter of close relatives or friends, it would be an error in my view to say:

"Well, it is a heterosexual act."

In the first instance it IS NOT. It is rather the act of a peadophile, child abuser,

AND THAT is what this thread is about.

..

So, if they choose to with hold the evidence from the authorities, would you think it surprising or unreasonable for "someone" to make war upon the vatican?

If it came to it and blood was spilt by someone seeking vengeance or otherwise, I should think that they would have no one to blame but themselves.

proxy are you in fact boaz David?
are you any one who once posted here under another name?
Or have you just made up mind to annoy as many as you can.
you surely can start a thread?
you appear to want to sideline our concerns that within a church those who teach of God, cruelly ruin the whole life of children.
I doubt ,using your posts as evidence,you care as much about the victims as your own wheelbarrow you push.

Belly - you're right, Proxy is a serial troll who's had several identities so far at OLO, including KMB and Herman Yutic. He's not the late and unlamented Boazy/Porky.

Don't give the creep any oxygen, folks.

Dear Proxy,

Now Lesbihonest?
(joke).

Seriously though, here's a few thoughts
for you...

1) If God didn't make homosexuals - there
wouldn't be any!

2) If according to you the Church is protecting
homosexuals and they are guilty of child sexual
abuse, then, why not legalize gay marriage?

It may help solve the problem.

Not *Porky* you say *CJ?* Hmmm .. Well he hasn't responded to any prompts in Bahasa to verify his identity that's true. But then did we not see him break out not the serial *Boazy* rant about the "evil" sura in the Al Quoran?

IT matters not in any event I think. I would say though it would be unfortunate if we had no trolls though, as some of them are very representative politically speaking. And I am specifically speaking of the anit-asylum seeker, anti-Islamic, anti-Gay crew.

Perhaps some of them are probes of a sort, whether under the control of the "dog whistle" or not though I do not profess to know.

..

Of couse, OLO's security can IP block you, but that is easily enough scrambled, and once you have been registered, it does not check your IP again for the purposes of logging in, if nothing else.

..

A tender moment:

http://www.iinet.net.au/customers/news/articles/1041546.html
" ... Former swim star Daniel Kowalski is the latest elite athlete to reveal he is gay.

Kowalski, a four-time Olympic medal winner, told Fairfax he was "tired of living a lie".

"After what were literally years of torment, denial and very, very dark times, I couldn't live a lie to myself any more," he wrote in an article for Fairfax.

..

Kowalski told his family and friends that he was gay in 2006, three years after his career in the pool finished. ... "

..

I personally would draw exception to certain aspects of *Collin's* comments re so called "Closet Queens" *Foxy Loxy*

Dear DreamOn,

Dr Collins was speaking from experience
and he's a respected commentator on the
Catholic Church and a specialist editor
on religion. He knows what he's talking
about.

What I like about him is that he offers
a comprehensive account of not only
what's wrong with Catholicism but also what's
right.. He is an honest and expert insider,
an analist. He examines why there is
scepticism about the Church as an institution
and a movement for people to seek spirituality
elsewhere. He does not shy away from the
difficult questions.

You can't really judge from one paragraph -
perhaps you also should read the book as I
recommended to Proxy?

Dear Proxy,

I've over-stayed my time on this thread.
I should have left ages ago, along with Suze
and when I said I would.

Before I go I've just got these few words
that I'd like to add.

Homosexuality is considered by the Catholic Church
hierarchy (and the Catholic Encyclopedia and the
Catechism of the Catholic Church) as being -
"intrinsically disordered." Many religious people
would agree.

However,the American Psychological Association's
Statement on homosexuality, is the following:

"The research on homosexuality is very clear.
Homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor
moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority
of our population expresses human love and sexuality.
Study after study documents the mental health of
gay men and women. Studies of judgement, stability
and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that
gay men and women function every bit as well as
heterosexuals."

Pedophilia of course is a totally different matter.

Foxy, "He is an honest and expert insider, an analist."

Heh, heh, that is a good one. It helps me to find others who similarly draft in haste and make the odd boob or two.

Dear Cornflower,

I needed a good laugh, Thank You!

But if we look at the word "analysis,"
it's got the word "anal," in it for a
reason, perhaps? ;-)

I think you reveal your pro-catholic bias with your recent comments *Foxy*

I have seen collins on Late Line and in a few other media appearances, but he is not the sort of individual that earns my respect.

Reason being, catholicism is an abomination, guilty of some of the worst crimes in recorded history and EVEN NOW, the people who control it are as corrupt as ever. Not only are they riddled with pedaphilic filth, but they are riddled with those who obstruct justice and thereby aid and albeit these crimes. And here, we see a range of apoligists who are fond to quote from the books of catholic reformists.

As one friend asserts, the church puts the mafia to shame.

They discrimate not only against gays, but refuse to administer the sacraments to anyone who won't subscribe to their infantile non-sensical cosmology, including woman, the divorced and the list goes on, in a vein little better than any other despotic regime and its cronies.

I assure you, I would not waste my time reading a book by one who seeks to apportion blame on "Closet Queens" That in my view makes him no better than any other homophobe.

In fact *Foxy* I am reasonably sure that you do not want to know what I would do to the likes of pell and ratsinger and I am not at liberty pursuant to the rules of this place to elaborate further.

Suffice to say I would see to it that at a minimum, they suffered in incarceration for the rest of their days.