http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm

Now that the pope himself has been directly implicated in the protection of a convicted paedophile, what action can and should be taken against him?

Should he be banned from entry to Aus?

<< Should he (the Pope) be banned from entry to Aus? >>

With political leaders like K Rudd and T Abbott?

You're dreamin'.

I wish Shadow- it would save us another fiasco like his last visit was.
But as Severin said- with Rudd and Abbot- we're dreaming!

'Should he be banned from entry to Aus?'

I did not know that he was planning to visit.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Thank You for the link you gave.

I did a bit more research and
according to other websites on the offending priest
Stephen Kiesle. He was relieved of all duties
after the 1978 charges.

I believe that the then Cardinal Ratzinger's letter
to Bishop John S. Cummins reflects the outdated
belief of those times - that sexual abusers could
be cured. This incident happened thirty years ago.
Hopefully, circumstances would differ today.

I'm not trying to make excuses - please don't get me
wrong. However, we need to look critically at motivation,
circumstances, context, or any other consideration before
judging. I realize that explanations to many would seem
tantamount to sympathizing and excusing - however, we
can also jump in and make judgements all too easily, and
this can lead to the questionable practice of
stereotyping people. In this case that of the current Pope,
being judged for what he did as a Cardinal thirty years ago.

Should he be banned from entry to Australia?
On what grounds?

George W. Bush wasn't banned. Neither were Chinese leaders
whose human rights records left much to be desired.
If we start banning world leaders (religious or otherwise)
- I wonder how many
would come out squeaky clean when placed under the
microscope?

Perhaps the Pope could be made honorary Governor General?

Foxy love of my internet life.
All the afore mentioned people represent(ed) countries.
The pope, god love his pope socks to his cute pope coloured skull cap is simply the leader of a religious grouping.
The rules should be different.
I would consider banning Tom Cruise as the 2IC of Scientology, and if I see one more article about he and Katie breaking up I'll........

Jokes aside, comparison is bogus and coloured by your view of your religion.

Should he be banned? on the basis of the evidence? IMO no. Neither should he be treated with any more public money than that....that....Scientology thingy.

Dear Examinator,

First you flatter me (Love of the internet?),
then you call my arguments "bogus."
Thank You (I think).

But to set the record straight ...

All of our points of view are coloured by
who we are, and where we come from,
our education, culture,
religion (or lack of), friends, profession,
workplace, family, environment, and by
comments on the internet...(joke).

No one is an island... we don't live in a
vacuum and we have to respect the views (no
matter how glib), and
opinions, origins, and culture of others, if
we are to survive on this planet.

And if you don't believe me - ask the Pope!
After all he is infallible! (joke).

Seriously though - my previous opinion came out of
the little research that I had done on the topic -
and the fact that I felt that this was growing
into a case of "pope bashing," without the full
facts being known in this particular case.
I'm sure they will all come out in due course.

As for my presenting a bogus argument?

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't happen to
agree with it. Leaders, are leaders, be they of
countries or religious institutions. People are people.
Who we allow into this country - is of course a
judgement call. However if we are going to judge on
moral conduct - then I simply gave a few examples -
of past visitors - all of whom were could be considered
morally suspect -
so that we're not guilty of a double standard here.

But if you think that's "bogus," all I can say is -
Fair enough!

You cannot be put her in a box,
She speaks her mind with consistent vox,
She’ll challenge you to pull up your sox,
But she has no time for hard-nosed jox,
She bounces back from others knox,
Yet she’s as fragile as a crystal fox.

Foxy, I did quite a bit of investigation on line and in newspapers recently about the Vatican and child sex abuse scandals.

What I found was quite damning about the then Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger and the Catholic church hierarchy in general.

Apparently in 2001 he issued a secret Vatican message to Catholic bishops all over the world telling them to guard the Catholic Church against any child sexual abuse scandals by hiding the details and moving the perpetrators on to other parishes.

In 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger sent out a newly written version of the infamous 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which gave strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal of any sort.

This document was regarded as so controversial that it came with strict instructions that bishops had to hide them in a locked safe at all times.

Should we keep him out of Australia?
He is probably no worse than many other religious or political leaders we allow in, and I can't see the current crop of God-fearing pollies banning him!

He should spend some time playing mummy with bubba(you know the joke?), fitting I reckon!
Slimy pieces of sticky brown stuff that they are.

This breaking news seems relevant:

<< 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

Should the pope be,just that should any church have an infallible leader?
Even catholics say no if it is a cult but what is this church?
Such as Philo confront non believers such as myself with the atheist tag, blaming us for baby murders a whole host of sins/crimes.
The alleged very holiness of this man stands between him and justice.
I ask truly those who dislike me for my belief to tell me why they think this man is unlike any other if he hide these crimes.

I came across this website which gives
another perspective to this matter:

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2010/20100407112508.aspx.

The question that I have is why are these matters
being raised at this particular time, and by whom, to
what end? It seems that the focus has come as a result of
articles in "The New York Times."

I'll quote just a little from the website:

"ABC, CBS, and NBC featured 26 stories during Holy Week
about Pope Benedict's perceived role in the sex abuse
scandal the Catholic Church is now facing. Only one story
focused on the measures the church had adopted in recent
years to prevent abuse.

In 69% of the stories 18 out of 26 reporters used language
that presumed the Pope's guilt. Only one made specific
mention of the drop in the incidence of abuse allegations
against the Catholic Church...

These stories failed to paint the whole picture of what
actually occurred, of Benedict's role in the decision-making
process about these priests and allowed the media to depict
abuse in the Catholic Church as a growing problem when the
evidence indicates the reverse is true...

It's not the problem of abuse that's "growing" but rather
the media interest in the story, conveniently giving
broadcast networks the opportunity to disparage the
Catholic Church during its most holy time of the year..."

I can't help but wonder why? Is this a ploy
to deflect from other political
global events currently taking place?

Thanks for bring pellucidity to the debate Foxy.
I have previously said much the same thing,
albeit not so eloquently as yourself:
"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."

Foxy, I didn't find any info on any growing numbers of abuse cases caused by Catholic Clergy at present.

As far as I can see, the outcry is about the continuing protection of Catholic Priest paedophiles, and the Bishops who hid their crimes in the past.

If the Pope and the Vatican would only come out and say they will now give over to Police the files of names they must have of paedophiles still harboured within the Catholic Clergy, it would go a long way to resolving the situation.

Dear Suze,

Why don't you read the website I've given
in full. It may answer your questions
concerning what the current Pope has done
regarding the sexual abuse situation.
The facts are there to be had.

The website you gave made it clear as Crystal Fox y.

Foxy, I did read the whole article in that website.
I also looked at the authors and the organisation called CMI who 'looked into' the situation. Here is their mission statement:

"The mission of the Culture and Media Institute (CMI) is to preserve and help restore America’s culture, character, traditional values, and morals against the assault of the liberal media elite, and to promote fair portrayal of social conservatives and religious believers in the media.
CMI, the cultural division of the Media Research Center, is dedicated to correcting misconceptions in the media about social conservatism and religious faith."

I am quite skeptical about that obviously biased site I'm afraid.
The above mission statement could also be included in a Ku Klux Clan or Scientology mission statement quite comfortably.

If Proxy is happy with it- then I rest my case!

The issue with what the pope is guilty of is the covering up and protecting some of the worst offenders. If any Western leader had been found guilty of the same, their political careers would be very short.

For example Kurt Waldheim, then president of Austria, was found to have links with the Nazi army after a forced conscription, and was banned from travel to the US.

Making this worse is Western leaders while needing to keep a clean image, do not pretend to be the pinnacle of morality.

What is happening is that the world's eyes are opening and "the pope has no clothes"

Dear Suze,

Biases can come from all directions can't they,
including newspapers and TV networks?

I read the mission statement of the website as
well - however, I still thought the facts that
were presented were worth mentioning - to give
another perspective to the issues involved.

Nothing is ever black and white. And until ALL
the facts are fully disclosed its very easy to
jump onto the bandwagon and make judgements.
Especially when the past record has been so
atrocious. As another poster stated once on
another thread, we need to look not only on
one side and the other, but around the edges as
well.

Anyway, that's only my point of view - and of course,
it's not set in concrete.

One has to ask why successive Popes have not been as opposed to paedophiles as they have been to (say) condoms or birth control.

Over the years I have heard many allegations of cruelty and sexual molestation of children against certain Orders of the (Roman) Catholic Church and these complaints lead me to wonder if such behaviour was/is systemic in some Orders.

Allegations are often heard concerning Christian Brothers for instance. Similarly one of the Orders of nuns comes up quite often mainly with allegations of cruelty but of sexual molestation as well. It is no surprise though that women who were affected as children are reluctant to come forward.

The Catholic Church is doing well with its spin and through efforts of its embarrassed flock to confine the discussion to 'unfortunate acts, long ago, of a random few priests'. Frankly I find it very hard to believe that.

IMHO, all that has reduced the number of complaints is that there are now large numbers of lay people involved in Catholic schools and so on. However the involvement of lay people was through necessity - a dearth of religious people to recruit as clergy and nuns - and if the Pope and priests had their way it would still be a closed system and the incidence of sexual molestation would escalate.

Should the Pope be allowed in Australia? My heart says no, but diplomacy means continuing to deal with despots and tyrants in the hope that one day either they might change or their people might rise up against them (yes, present-day children are not quite so brainwashed in Catholicism as in days past).

The Pope is a dope... but then so are the mugs who keep clinging to the Vatican belief system, and supporting dopes like the Pope.

Why do gay and lesbian people persist with their support for the Vatican, when they are clearly loathed and despised...unless they are clergy of course, in which case they are tolerated, supported, hidden from view and promoted.

Why do women who want to become Catholic priests persist with their support, when the Vatican clearly despises them and their ambitions?

Why do couples who refuse to follow the edict to not use contraception bother with continuing their sham membership of this outdated horrible empire?

By all means, let's ban this Sodom and Gomorrah supporting character, and all other religious nitwits that try to impose themselves on us all, but that might be seen to be 'censorship' and opposed by many.

Better than banning him, and his ilk, why not ask his blind followers to send him a very clear message, by abandoning all their churches, stopping their tithing, and withdrawing their support when they are clearly 'in breach' of what the Vatican stands for.

It is the blindness of the followers that allows all this to keep going.

Abandon ship, you blind people, and you will find there still exists an entire world of decent people ready to help.

These, invariably, do not seem to include Australian politicians, but there may be one or two lurking silently in the background, too scared to own up to a contrary view.

I doubt it myself, but there may be.

Perhaps others can name one or two and we can start to build an OLO list of 'honest Pollies'?

Shouldn't take too long.

Thanks Foxy. I am embarassed to admit that I knew that the Pope's office waived reliance on the statute of limitations in the Murphy case. I didn't think of that in my earlier posts when I was pointing out his real history cf. speculation and that is a very significant fact.

I think a quote from your website is a good summary:
"He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues."

You'd almost think that the media are paedophiles who hate him for what he has done to make such huge inroads into the problem given the timing but I'm certain that they are displeased for other reasons.

I can't help thinking that many in here should just say "why let the facts get in the way of a good story"? Media speculation becomes fact even to the point of assumed criminal culpability.

You made reference to the presumption that most media comment is reliable but your website may be biased can cut both ways. Noone has questioned the motivation of Hitchens and Dawkins for airing the view that the Pope can be prosecuted either? Is it possible they might be being optimistic knowing that whether or not it is possible the media will go wild reporting that the lawyer they are paying says it might be possible?

Dear mjpb,

As I've stated previously (while quoting from
the website):

"These stories failed to paint the whole picture of
what actually occurred, of Benedict's role in the
decision-making process about the priests, and allowed
the media to depict abuse in the Catholic Church as
a "growing" problem when all evidence indicates the
reverse is true..."

Of course no one is going to tell the flip-side to
these stories or paint an accurate picture. That
doesn't sell. As stated in my previous post,
"It's not the problem of abuse that's "growing,"
but rather the media interest in the story -
conveniently giving broadcast networks (and newspapers,
TV outlets) the opportunity to disparage
the Catholic Church during its most
Holy Time of the year..."

A bit limp Foxy... "or paint an accurate picture".

So, are you trying to suggest that the sexual and mental abuse that the Vatican, and other churches, are so good at is not an 'accurate' picture?

If so, does that mean you think the exposure to-date is but the tip of an iceberg, or the full extent of it?

Frankly, it has nothing to do with newspapers being 'unfair' and selecting the great Pagan festival of Easter to expose further cracks in the corrupt facade, but in fact, far more to do with a greater awareness by punters that the churches are all too frequently scammers and are not to be trusted.

The 'magic', in short, has been seen to be that...an illusion, and a dangerous one at that.

Dear BC,

May I suggest that you go back and re-read
my posts on this thread - then you can
react appropriately. At present it seems
that you're not aware of what's being discussed.

It would also help if you were to read the website
that I cited as well.

Foxy,
Thanks for the link. I have been following many articles on this issue, but this one apparently escaped me.

Those interested in the other side of the story might do worse than follow the links collected, and steadily updated, on http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/. Never mind the articles or comments themselves - I know the mercatornet.com point of view is not popular with most of the people on this OLO: I am referring to the LINKS to the original articles. Nevertheless, the most recent article here offers a comment (explanation?) on the Kiesle case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm) which started this thread.

Those who can read German (remember, the scandal disclosures peaked lately in Germany) might also be interested in the interview given by the best known German forensic psychiatrist Hans-Ludwig Kröber (atheist of Lutheran family background) about pedophilia and the Catholic Church: http://cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=9&item=4907.

suzeonline,
>>I also looked at the authors and the organisation<<
You might also wish to look at the author and the paper that published for instance this:
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/koch/entry/he_that_is_without_sin.

If anyone in Australia deliberately obstructed the police in an investigation of a serious offence like paedophelia and concealed the suspect or hid him that person is culpable before law and is deemed to be guilty of the offence of obstruction of justice. Such a person should not be allowed to enter the country or at least should be prosecuted and if guilty should be imprisoned.
There is on the record from many countries around the world evidence of priests,bishops,cardinals and the pope himself who are guilty of such offences, such acts of heinous pwrversion. These are criminal acts of the most disgusting and perverted criminal acts . Why do we pussy-foot about when dcealking with them? Is it just that they like to dress in flagrant drag and silly hats and put on solemn and superior-than-thou expressions that we hesitate?
Is it enough that they reluctantly having been dragged protesting to say sorry?

socratease

"He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues."

The obvious question is whether he has done what he has because he was forced to do so by the outrage of the public, or whether he has done so from the goodness of his own heart.

The answer lies in some of the actions or lack of actions taken during his tenure. For example the inquiries by the church in Ireland are still sealed by papal decree, and the priests involved sworn to silence at pain of excommunication. In spite of several requests to the present pope, this has not been reversed.

It would appear that the pope is doing the minimum he can to deflect serious condemnation. There has been no effort to uncover any more than the journalists and courts have already done.

This pope is as corrupt as those preceding him.

Shadow,
I could be argued, that you are a little harsh. You are assuming that the pope actually has absolute say.
I would posit that he is merely a reflection of the politic.

I think you are forgetting or disregarding a number of factors:

Organizational theory in that "The first priority of any on going organization is its own survival"
Group dynamics and the politics involved.

He was voted in as an arch conservative (i.e. he supported the status quo) Clearly he was never going to be a reformer.

Clearly Ratzinger is/was simply an ambitious fallible human, now a CEO, if you like and the Catholic church is simply another inanimate corporation selling a product.

Like every other Corporation it is the means of self actualization and acquisition of power, for people.

A corporation where the executives use what ever means it takes to maintain personal and corporate power (human nature). As in every Corporation it attempts to manipulate/control it's market place.

One should therefore, not be surprised when they use the well worn justifications "that was the views of the time", "it was within the law" or "it was for the overall good of the church (corporation)".

One is only disappointed, if one sees the Church as anything more than a glorified corporation. Like all corporations, it by the mean above is or tries to become a law unto itself. We would be wise to remember Lord Acton's dictum.

To those justice obstruction commentors,

You probably aren't interested but the media are using the term "cover up" rather rhetorically. It is meant to sound dramatic and may help sell papers but don't take it so literally. For all the faults of Bishops handling priests in the past don't jump to the conclusion that criminal behaviour must be involved simply because the media refer to it as a "cover up".

BC,

The coverage to date picks out one organisation and hunts back for 50 years to dig dirt. Any criminals within the organisation get a multitude of media coverage any time they go to court for offences from many decades ago. In the meantime 1000s of criminals go to court for current offences each year in each state without mention and media don't dig up the dirt from 50 years ago from other organisations. This does tend to misrepresent the picture.

SM,
*sigh*
The public had no idea about what he did in his previous role. He wasn't blowing his own trumpet when he took the actions. At best the media raised awareness but this guy took the ball and ran with it. The question is whether the Vatican spokespeople gave the information we are now discovering about the Pope's demonstrated devotion to eliminating child abuse but were censored or whether the Vatican hires useless PR people.

The Pope can't reverse what doesn't exist. The bloody BBC and Doylie have a lot to answer for. Now that is out there nothing will kill the rumour - not even Doylie's subsequent 'clarification'.

Foxy,

Definitely. Do you get the feeling that noone is reading all your posts or that many in here are being disingenous because they don't like the Catholic Church? The expression talking to a brick wall comes to mind. The facts are on the table. In amongst the mud (dramatic negative inferences based on little evidence) we have a proven record of action of a man who has been a prime mover in trying to "sweep the filth" from the Church. However he is being constantly barraged by mass media and depicted as a friend of paedophile priests to the point that some in the public are talking about a need for his criminal prosecution (driven by Hitchens and Dawkins). I've said it before: it is almost like many journalists are paedophiles trying to get him removed so that the 'good 'ol days' can return.

I value your research efforts and integrity on this issue.

Thanks for the links George.

Wow! Compare the report CJ linked to with the background of the letter:

"Vatican officials pointed out that Cardinal Ratzinger was responding to the priest's own request for dispensation from the vow of celibacy, and at the time had no authority to impose dismissal from the priesthood as a penalty for sex abuse."

So the letter being quoted didn't even relate to abuse. That is a great trick to get damning quotes. The media are stooping pretty low.

Dear mjpb,

All that can be done in emotive issues such
as this one is to keep on presenting
more balanced views on the topic so that
hopefully it would make people think about
what's being circulated by the media.

I'm extremely grateful for your knowledge on the
topic which is far superior to mine, and for your
expressing it on this Forum. The same goes for
George, and other voices of reason.

Perhaps these "voices of reason" should indicate where the church has exposed any of their clergy in abuse, where the media or police have not done so already.

Without any proactive steps, all we are getting from the Vatican is words.

Shadow Minister,

I can give some extremely relevant insight into the current situation via Dr Collins. It doesn't give names and dates but it is definitely relevant:

"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'"

I hardly see this as a legal issue in terms of the pope. Surely this is a moral issue. By seeing the catholic church as a company and the pope as a ceo we are letting them off the hook. the pope is the spiritual leader to millions and there fore carries a moral responsibility irrespective of when it happened and the community values at the time. The excuse that times were different and we should consider this in our judgement is like excusing the church for the pain they have inflicted on the inhabitants of so many countries around the world. "Surely you see they were just savages". It was wrong then and it is wrong now. Even in the 16th and 17th century there were people who spoke out. The pope is guilty of moral indifference toward these people who were so systematically abused by his church. He should resign in shame or the catholic church should loose its status as a charity and church for it surely will only be a business. Our tolerance of the church machine is appalling, simply because we fear for our mortal soul? The church is the corrupt system that must answer for its behaviour.

>>Perhaps these "voices of reason" should indicate where the church has exposed any of their clergy in abuse<<
For instance, the scandal concerning the abuse of pupils at the all-male Canisius College (Kolleg) in Berlin - that in January started the snowballing of accusations, directed at teachers at not only Catholic-run institutions in Germany - were brought to public attention by Klaus Mertes SJ, the present director of the Jesuit College, after five former students notified him and named the two accused (who no longer work there). By the way, the students were 13-17 of age at that time, so technically at least some of the misdeeds look more like pederasty than pedophilia.

[If you can read German, here is the open letter addressed to about 600 former pupils (years 1970-1989) at the College: http://www.canisius.de/aktuelles/anhaenge/newsticker/anhaenge/missbrauch30.pdf. There Mertes explicitly admits there that “the scandal could not have remained undetected at the time, had a number of people in responsible positions not looked the other way”. ]

Our tolerance of the church machine is appalling, simply because we fear for our mortal soul? The church is the corrupt system that must answer for its behaviour. [Nairbe]

Spot on Nairbe with the exception of two points you expressed. I strongly disagree with the 'fear for our mortal soul' idea. The catholics I was raised with and do know, and have known for 40-50 years would never tolerate or hide sexual abuse if they had known about it in order to 'save their mortal souls'. Srike a light! Give the catholics who do possess morals and values and who are law abiding christians some credibility.

All posters here on OLO agree vehemently and/or strongly that the Priests Bishops and ArchBishops along with the Pope should be investigated and prosecuted if these individuals are found guilty
of paedophilia or coverups/protection. And rightly so!

For those not catholic and not knowing any catholics personally; use your common sense and intelligence realising that most catholics attending mass on sundays throughout their lives were totally unaware of the paedophilia until the media disclosed it after victims were forthcoming.

I would be stating these facts of any 'law abiding church goers' who were raised in a religion attending church on Sundays to use a dwelling to pray and receive some christian guidance and reassurance.

No,but they can try but will fail,as he is the head of millions of true believers in the RCC,,many have tried before,kings queens Dictators but have failed

George,

Even your example is a case where the head of school was simply extending the inquiry to other possibly effected parents. The issue was brought outside the school by the media.

Mjpb,

Compared to previously some the clergy are be dealt with severely, but no more so than else where in the community.

Shadow Minister,
You asked for an example I provided one, where the five victims (for whatever reasons) preferred to contact the headmaster of their old school instead of the media (police was probably out of question because of the statute of limitations).

>>The issue was brought outside the school by the media.<<
Of course, the media had to play a role. Having sent (and published on the internet for you and I to read) a letter to 600 former students (no need to involve parents of now 35-55 years old people) the headmaster naturally knew the media would get involved. Even irrespective of this, you will not send such a letter to 600 various recipients if you wanted it to remain confidential. Not all of these 600 people could have been expected to be interested in a “cover-up”; and probably many of them had renounced their Catholicism anyhow

George, your example is the exception that proves the rule.

With the thousands of abuse cases, this single example, while not covering up the cases, did close to the absolute minimum required.

While the statute of limitations may apply, the predilection of pedophiles to re offend should require that the police would be notified.

Mjpb claims that the church is pro active. I still remain skeptical.

Well here you go, you apologists for Popes, Archbishops and 'decent Catholics' in this thread.

Toowoomba enjoys more than its share of religion-related sex scandals.

The Toowoomba Prep one saw the end of the GG, ex-Archbishop Hollingworth... remember that sexual interlude?

Now a Catholic one is in court, complete with cover-ups at the Bishops place there.

Do visit these links from their local paper:

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/04/15/principal-at-centre-of-sex-scandal-fired-school/

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/story/2010/04/15/dementia-raised-in-child-rape-case/

Not only did the Catholic office do its best to 'cover up' but also the local police force. Seems they are not all Masons after all!

Also going through the courts in an unrelated case is a scout master, naturally an evangelical Christian, who forced two of his pre adolescent charges to have sex in front of him, so he could 'teach them' how to do it properly... allegedly.

On top of that, Brisbane had a mad bike path rapist who molested and raped women over a number of years, was caught eventually, went to court, and was given a slap on the wrist because he had 'never done this before' and was 'a good Christian'.

There is no end to the rubbish that gets trotted out under-cover-of-religion, but with our law benches full of hardnosed 'believers', and state premiers falling over themselves to weld state-and-church together, as Keneally is doing by giving Pellpot and Jensen a favourable hearing in the St. James Ethics Centre imbroglio, what chance does 'reason' and 'the secular state' have?

The Toowoomba Bishop, no doubt, will vow 'this will never happen again', and 'much has been learned', and maybe even, 'we have a no-tolerance policy', but the reality is that, unlike someone in the thread here who declared that no Catholic that knew this was going on would remain silent, clearly, people 'remain silent' and in awe of the Church ALL THE TIME.

Of course, 'ordinary people' also commit these sorts of crimes, but they do not have a massive, state funded, protected organisation to cover things up, get favourable hearings in courts or come across meek coppers not prepared to be the one to do their own job.

I remain highly sceptical that much will change in the Catholic church:

http://imgsrv.gocomics.com/dim/?fh=5e60ed80a853c203885e733e70aa0a3b&campaign

Blue Cross,

"Now a Catholic one is in court, complete with cover-ups at the Bishops place there."

Interesting to note that anyone found to fail a zero tolerance approach got sacked by the Bishop. Shouldn't the Bishop be protecting them? Ísn't that what people keep saying?

Have you got any links relating to the local police force situation?

"On top of that, Brisbane had a mad bike path rapist ... was given a slap on the wrist because he had 'never done this before' and was 'a good Christian'."

Crims always make up stuff to get a lighter sentence. Are you sure you can take his word for it? Was his slap on the wrist a 25 year jail term reduced on Appeal to 16 years behind bars? Don't you realize how lightly all crims get punished? It is interesting to note that his claim to be a good Christian wasn't taken into account in sentencing:
http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QCA10-026.pdf

"...clearly, people 'remain silent' and in awe of the Church ALL THE TIME."

In awe of the Church? The Church boots them out if they are found to have failed to report crimes. I don't get it. Or do you mean the victims? The first offence was apparently in 2007 and the offender was behind bars by December, 2009.

"Of course, 'ordinary people' also commit these sorts of crimes, but they do not have a massive, state funded, protected organisation to cover things up, get favourable hearings in courts or come across meek coppers not prepared to be the one to do their own job."

So what organisation got a favourable hearing for crims in court? A crim claims to be a good Christian to make out he is a good bloke (without apparent effect) and gets a light sentence and that is somehow controlled by the Catholic Church? BTW the offender was an ordinary person - a teacher - who just happened to work in a Catholic school.

Severin,

I can't think of anything relevant left that they could change.

The older stories are not to be found on the web.

The parents complained to the Bishops office.

Had the newspaper not exposed the story, the chucrh was not going to discipline anyone.

There were even parents from the school supporting the teacher!

AS for the teacher not being a Catholic... so what?

The Bishop-Pope is the employer (or is God?) and has a duty of cre that extends to all in the school, staf, students and parents.

It is very sad that you, and people like you, bother to spruik for the unsupportable behaviour of those who pretend to 'know better'.

They are just human, like the rest of us, but they believe in something that has yet to appear to anyone, other than dead saints of course.

Grow up a little.

The solution is largely in the Catholic Church's own hands as suzeonline's comments allude. Full cooperation with authorities, beyond apologies and vague directives are required. Moreover, lay Catholics have to lead their leaders, to purge the Church of those guilty of cover-ups, not only the active criminals. If that course leaves the pruned rose bush bare, so be it.

The main obstacle is bishops will place the "universal church" in shelter mode, perpetuating the problem. Secular jurisprudence could be the Church's best friend, but these guys are too insular to recognise this fact.

Though a religious skeptic myself, I feel those whom chooose to believe deserve to be able to worship in a respectable organisation. I am not sure the Catholic Church meets that standard, yet it can be, if makes hard decisions and takes the firmest action.

Shadow Minister,
Let me repeat, you asked for an example I provided one. I don’t know what rule it proves since you did not spell it out. Neither did you say by what criterion legal (in what country) or moral (with respect to what code of conduct, Catholic or what) was it “close to the absolute minimum required”.

Of course, I agree that by far not all abuses of minors came to the light this way. Without quoting comparative statistics, the “cover-up” reaction - I think the term “wegschauen” (looking the other way) used by the Canisius headmaster is often more appropriate - was not worse, if not better, than in other educational institutions and family situations where abuse of children unfortunately occur, and the family or institution is more interested in the protection of its own reputation, than in doing all it could - including filing charges and thus going public - to alleviate the suffering of the victim(s).

This is a fact, not an excuse: The outrage over this sort of thing happening under the auspices of an institution that claims to stand for higher moral standards is justified; and the more so from those of us who have been, and are, granting them this claim

George... "lay Catholics have to lead their leaders" this, sadly, applies to all of us, never mind 'the Catholics'.

The truth is, 'leaders' cannot be trusted to lead.

It is, in fact, the role of the led, to police the leaders at all times.

Being cast into the role of 'leader' is but to be given a sub-contract to deal with a range of issues on behalf of others.

It is not, in fact, carte blanche to invent 'new things' to impose on everyone.

Sadly, that is how 'the led' view it, not to mention those ego-blown nitwits who believe their own bulls..t and then lead us all, not into temptation, but a bloody great chasm, which is where we seem to be now.

But... who to 'blame' and cast the stones at?

The pyscho-socio pathetic leaders... or the dimwitted and lazy led?

My money is on the led, because anyone who believes they are 'a leader' and behaves in that manner, needs to have a close eye kept on them.

Funnily enough, I gave a P&C presidents speech on exactly this theme, at a Y12 'badge giving' nonsense, and warned the rest of the school, the 'unbadged', that their work as school leaders had just begun... their task was to keep an eye on the exalted ones (one of whom was one of my sons), selected for an easy life by the school admin', and that they should not just abdicate their 'thinking' to the leaders... just look around to see what happens.

Parents were outraged! But my son told me that a few students spoke to him the next day and said they had never thought about things like that, and appreciated being told by an adult, by a 'leader', that all was not so simple.

Ah, who can imagine a Rudd, Abbott or a state premier, never mind a power-seeking clergyman, doing that?

It seems that only TV style 'Current Affair' nonsense, commercials, bad newspaper reporters, shockjock nitwits, and celebrity personalities are able to resonate in the empty heads of our national citizenry though.

TBC,
>>George... "lay Catholics have to lead their leaders" this, sadly, applies to all of us<<
I never said/wrote that.

George..indeed, apologies to you, it was Oliver.

"Moreover, lay Catholics have to lead their leaders, to purge the Church of those guilty of cover-ups, not only the active criminals."

I am sorry about my mistake.

The Blue Cross:

This 'someone' is myself who stated in an earlier thread, that the Catholics I know and have known back in my city/large country town of 54,000 never knew of paedophilia being present in the city with 2 large catholic schools of at least 1,000 in each plus over the years. Further, the majority [having known many catholic families over 40 years], would not be the type of catholics to sweep paedophilia under the carpet.

It was not stated 'TBC'that 'no catholic knew this was going on would remain silent'. Not my words or thoughts and no-one else's in this thread either. Why would a person declare such a generalised statement The Blue Cross? Obviously an Australian cannot speak for the whole catholic population around Australia.

In awe of the church ALL THE TIME! You exclaimed The Blue Cross.
No, TBC, 'some' catholics or people may be in awe of the Church all the time; not the catholics I grew up with in my city/large country town. They were the most down to earth humorous outgoing people who did not hold the priests and catholic fraternity on a pedestal. These catholics never took religion seriously as they were out the door before the priests concluded the masses on sundays. They would prefer a beer and chat or recommence their week breaking the commandments. By far, I have met and mixed with many other denominations through my life who take religion seriously and are in awe [of religion itself]! Best wishes and respect to them having said this.

Best look up the Australian catholic population, the numbers in the educational arena and acknowledge how many people around Australia catholics or 'catholic raised' you are trying to cast under suspicion. Friends? Work colleagues? A doctor who assists you in being healthy to enjoy your life? Your dentist?

Yes, there will be people investigated caught and charged within the catholic system down the track who covered up for these paedophiles, which in my opinion, will not be many 'out of catholic office' catholics.

Main priority: every Australian paedophile caught and charged.

Yes, The Blue Cross, some of these people who assist your life and health may just be the 'dimwitted and easily led' individuals you have previously referred to in your rant against people of catholic faith.

Get real and look around prior to your generalisations and emotions assuming people of catholic faith are easily led and non-supportive of investigations and charges brought against paedophiles who are catholic. Stop #@$$%%%^ generalising.

You are generalising about every day people who you work with, are friends with, who heal you in your life. How much experience socially do you have with people socially, through charities and organisations apart from your work or homelife?

Start thinking laterally The Blue Cross to avoid your tunnel visioned narrow minded ignorant viewpoint based entirely upon 'emotion' and your upbringing.

That is why when religion is raised every person's opinion is emotive including mine; however there is a difference between you and myself.

I have respect for other people's individual beliefs and religions if not involving murder and crime. I do not generalise as you do about catholics or any other religion's general participants being dimwitted or easily led.

Only a totally narrow minded individual who needs to get out there in life and mix with a few more people, in order to educate he/she more would generalise and assume that people with christian faith are dimwitted or easily led.

George,

The term "the exception that proves the rule" means that the exception that supposed stands out, is still so weak that this implies that if the exception is still sub standard, the rest must be awful.

The head master only tried to communicate with the parents of boys that might have been affected. He did not communicate this to the rest of the school community, or to the public, or to the police. To do any less would probably attract criminal liability.

Where you provided an example where there wasn't a direct cover up, it is by no means an example of pro actively tackling the problem. If this is in the entire world the one beacon of Catholic transparency, then the rest must be pretty shocking.

Shadow Minister,
>>The head master only tried to communicate with the parents of boys that might have been affected <<
I still do not understand why you think that by writing the letter the headmaster "tried" to communicate, and why with the parents of grown-ups (former students).

Neither do I understand why you think writing a letter to 600 recipients, publishing it on the college's official website, and later also a “personal statement” in response to various letters (apparently of support) from parents of present pupils (www.canisius.de/aktuelles) does not constitute “communication to the rest of the school community, or to the public”. After the five spoke, the headmaster knew that among the 600 there must be former victims who would show the letter to the media.

>>If this is in the entire world the one beacon of Catholic transparency, then the rest must be pretty shocking.<<
I agree with the implication; the problem is with the number “one” in the premise.

I can only repeat what I wrote before, namely that as “shocking as the rest must be”, the urge to protect one’s own reputation (until forced by external pressure to go public), combined with naive, outdated ideas about the psychology of pedophiliaand pederasty, was the same in other family and educational situations where pedophilia occurred. And let me also repeat that I do not state this to exonerate Catholic institutions.

Have a gander at this lot:

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=546

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=545

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=544

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=542

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=541

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=540

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=539

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=538

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=537

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=535

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=534

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=533

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=532

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=531

http://www.molestedcatholics.com/index.php?id=530

and there's much more.

The Blue Cross,

Have read my posts heer and other threads you would have realise that first and foremost I agree with you the police have to be informed and invetsigatoe matters. Super-added this requirements is that cover-ups are addressed from the inside-out. The laity must pressure priests to report their bishops to report the cover-ups to police. The Police are outsiders and can only act on what they are told. If clergy are too tight lipped, Catholics have to save their Church against the foolsh and sometimes criminal activities of the clergy. The ultimate arbiter is the judicial process, wherein there is a presumption of innocence, but that doesn't that clerics should not face their civilian peer in a trial.

Like with the tabacco industry the police need "insiders" rat-out the peers. Ratting-out paedophiles and their minders is okay in extreme circumstances.

A Royal Commission is warranred, unlike any previous Commission. This the powers and terms need be very wide and if a priest one he knows about a bishop, he is jailed at the Governors please. If thats means half the clergy end up behind bars, that is acbeptable, where they are covering for paedophiles.

If the Catholic Church cooperates it can a establish a vital, relevant religiuos body. Maybe a much smaller niche, but one more consistent with its alleged humanist founder.

The Blue Cross,

I just looked at your first link. However it made me immediately curious. Are you jumping on Proxy's bandwagon?

I'll bite. Most of the paedophile crisis involved post pubescent male victims. So there is a fact that has been extrapolated into the homosexual molestor argument but what if the explanation is simply overrepresentation of homosexuals in the priesthood skewing things?

Proxy,

It does sound like you are venting something regarding homosexuals. You may be claiming that homosexual/paedophile are interchangeable and at the least seem to be claiming that homosexuals are more prone to paedophilia. Any association with paedophilia is obviously insulting to homosexuals. If instead you simply point to one of the media misrepresentations regarding the Catholic clerical paedophile crisis it might attract less claims that you are getting off the thread. In fairness many of the apparent tangents that you pursue are responsive to the comments of others eg. your historical discussion of the APA premature change in DSM specifically to change the situation for homosexuals.

Many cases of homosexuals abusing their clerical position were reported as part of the "paedophile crisis" by mass media. This misrepresented many situations for those who don't go much past the title. It overinflated the perception of extent of the paedophilia that used to occur. If I recall correctly I responded in olo to contributors' alegations that Cardinal Pell failed to appropriately assist a victim of paedophilia by noting that the 'paedophile victim' was aged 29(?) at the time of the alleged incident (I note that most victims weren't that old).

Rather than wield the situation against homosexuals you could simply raise awareness of a further level of misrepresentation by mass media if that is the point you are trying to make. I recall Peter Jensen's investigation resulted in him commenting in his book Paedophiles and Priests that, of the 57 accused priests in Chicago, only one involved paedophilia being a priest uncle molesting his 6 year old nieces. He pointed out that without that priest the "paedophile crisis" in Chicago would have lacked paedophiles.

No, I have no idea what Proxy has said, and I have not found a 'proxy' in the more recent posts.

My concern is that churches profess to believe in certain values, but neither the organisations nor individuals within them seem to live by these values.

But of course, neither does anyone else.

And nation-states are the worst offenders, always sidling up to the most disgusting nations and pretending they are our 'natural allies' while condoning all the aspects 'we' abhor.

But churches hold an exalted position, above that of sovereign states, so some believe, which is why I find it very odd that any person professing to be 'of the faith' would ever tolerate any hint of backsliding...as in... the latitude many posters here give to the Pope/Archbishops/Bishops/priests and so on...and from well beyond the Vatican crew of no-hopers.

It is because the followers tolerate wrong behaviour, all the time, and make excuses for it, that it continues.

But while it continue, I see no reason to allow any church to be placed above the expected behaviour of the rest of us.

Should the pope be...

Held accountable for the cover-up, both current and historic, of child abuse?

Absolutely.

Would not a Scoutmaster who turned a blind eye to his/her subordinates behaviour be held to account?

Absolutely.

A school Principal?

Then please explain:

Why do religious people expect exemption for religion from behaviours that are either immoral or outright illegal?

Blue Cross,

My apologies Proxy is in the other of two threads concerning this and I got them mixed up.

The old saying is that there is good and bad in every race. The same is true for many things as you said believers and non-believers.

...I find it very odd that any person professing to be 'of the faith' would ever tolerate any hint of backsliding..."

Perhaps read the posts more closely. It isn't tolerance of backsliding but correcting false allegations.

Unlike Hollywood celebrities noone argues on behalf of paedophiles.

Shadow Minister, the pope should be definitely banned from coming to Australia. Here we have laws agsinst obstruction of justice. If the government has in the past denied entry to men who have form then it must be consistent and apply the same criteria to everyone, be it a mad hate-crazed imam or the pope himself.
No,keep the pope away.

socratease

Why do religious people expect exemption for religion from behaviours that are either immoral or outright illegal? [Severin]

Q: Who are these 'religious people' in general you are referring to Severin?

All of the catholic family, friends and colleagues I communicate with regarding paedophilia in the catholic church do not expect exemption for religion in relation to paedophilia.

Are you and others only using the internet/media articles or do you mix and converse with practicing catholics? Of the people you communicate with during your life, how many are practicing catholics you know well [enough] to raise the subject of paedophilia in the catholic church?

A great deal of news/media items are available on this dreadful crime and issue, please be aware that a few peoples viewpoints on the net is not to be taken as the opinions of practicing catholics around Australia.

George,

Reading further into the story, it would appear that the head master's "openness" was primarily due to the fact that the xxx was going to hit the fan anyway. The staff had knowledge of the abuse for decades,

http://www.rational-skepticism.org/christianity/catholic-church-protects-paedophile-priests-germany-t780.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/120bev03-05-2010.htm

Shadow Minister,
Thanks for the links. Those writing on the website called “rational skepticism” are entitled to their point of view the same as those on the www.vatican.va/. Both sources can be used as providers of information and opinion as long as one is aware of their a priori bias.

Your second link contains the following:

“The facts follow. Last December five alumni went to the principal of the Jesuit-run Canisius School in Berlin, Fr. Klaus Mertes, and told him that they had been sexually abused by priests of his institution. In January several more told him the same. On January 28 headlines appeared in the press about the continuous pedophile abuse in that school.”

The open letter by the Canisius College headmaster is dated 20th January, and according to your source, “headlines appeared in the press” on 28th January, which confirms my point that the media got hold of the story and published it only AFTER the headmaster notified the world.

I think this is essentially the only point concerning FACTS where we two disagreed (in distinction to when and what the headmaster knew, and when and what he should/could have done about it before 20.1.2010).

[On the other hand, your source also mentions “five” alumni who contacted him “last December”, which was what I said. However rereading the letter I see that it starts with “During the past years a number of you have contacted me as victims of sexual abuse by individual Jesuits at Canisius College …”, no figure five, no December. I tried in vain to find on the internet an English translation of the open letter which is almost two A4 pages long. ]

Severin..."Why do religious people expect exemption for religion from behaviours that are either immoral or outright illegal?"

Well, auld chaps, that is very simple.

Christians believe that God sits above our Parliaments, and guide the hands and minds of our glorious politicians to do His work.

But Catholics believe that the Pope is actually the Voice of God, on Earth, and can say and do no wrong, on the basis that he is inhabited by Him.

How can God's word be wrong?

Ever?

So, it goes without saying, that when the Pope utters a word, it is direct from God, and therefore The Truth, not to be challenged at all, and least of all by our politicians, who serve God's will (God swill?) and are therefore unable, incapable even, of questioning anything concerned with 'religion'.

Some of us have read the Golden Book series of fairy tales, particularly the hilarious one concerning the oafish emperor and the fast talking tailor, but clearly many on OLO have not quite reached that high level of awareness, and still hanker, deep in their hearts, for a solid stoning to be meted out to that horrible child who spoke up.

(No doubt his cousin was the Dutch boy who fingered the dyke).

The world would be so much better off, if little boys stopped seeing through the glorious myths of adults.

we are unique,

"All of the catholic family, friends and colleagues I communicate with regarding paedophilia in the catholic church do not expect exemption for religion in relation to paedophilia."

Yet, would the said (lay) catholic family, friends and colleagues, really get in the face of the Bishop and parish priest about these crimes, telling them to be whistelblowers to the police? Say, would Carndial Pell cooperate with Crime Stoppers, so quinine priests could dob in their leaders and peers?

In 1955, an African Amercian women, Rosa Parkes was arrested in Montgomy, Alabama, for not letting a white person take her seat. A Baptist Minister, Martin Luther King, insisted there must be a "protest". Subsequently, it was decided that the Afican-American community should boycott the buses. An even that spear headed race reform in the US.

Herein, if those same family, friends and colleagues of yours' boycotted Church services (or not giving donations), until the paedophiles and their minders are thrown to wolves, we might get somewhere.

There is no biblical justification for only clergy presiding over Communion. (Although, baptised a Catholic), I put an argument along these lines to then Anglican Archbishop of Sydney and he agreed.

There must be a protest against the Catholic Church until such time as it acts, really acts. No secular amesties as regretably happened with Royal Commission into the NSW Police. If 50% of the Catholic clergy have been silient over 1% of bishop-priest paedophiles, then 51% of the Catholic clergy should be behind bars.

we are unique... "They were the most down to earth humorous outgoing people who did not hold the priests and catholic fraternity on a pedestal. These catholics never took religion seriously as they were out the door before the priests concluded the masses on sundays. They would prefer a beer and chat or recommence their week breaking the commandments"...

Hmm, seems that these people you refer to are not the least bit serious about 'being a Catholic'. They are really 'secular' people with a cultural connection to some vague notion of 'religion' and 'faith' who attend the Sunday gatherings as social events to assist in the social life within the community in which they live.

In fact, this can be done without pretending to have it attached to 'religion'.

You assume that only those with 'the faith' work in jobs that offer a public service, a very narrow minded view indeed.

How would you know whether there was any sex scandal going on in your gloriously peaceful Catholic country town anyway?

We all know, from a long and painful history, that these things are covered up, by the Catholic church, by the police, by the local town leaders, by teacher colleagues, by the victims and their families.

You are kidding yourself when you say that Christians are beyond being 'easily led'..."assume that people with christian faith are dimwitted or easily led."

The German nation fell for the 'perfidious Jews' line, as espoused by the Vatican for two thousand years and gave us the Holocaust.

US Christians are praying for the end of the world and 'guiding' American politicians to bring this about.

Look at the Teaparty mob of faith-seeking Xtains to see how stupid, dangerous and easily led Christians can be... or would you suggest these people are in fact filthy atheists?

Or better still, the old standby line 'not real Christians'?

Let's face it... people are easily led by powerful voices, religious ones or not, so it's just a little bit daft to pretend that, somehow, Christians, particularly Catholics, are immune from this very human failing.

@we are unique

What Oliver and TBC said.

Perhaps you could consider that if your "down to earth humorous outgoing people who did not hold the priests and catholic fraternity on a pedestal" took action against the excesses of the Catholic Church none of us would be here now disgusted and horrified by the actions of your church's leaders.

Not so bloody unique.

Dear Severin,

POBODY
IS
NERFECT!

Sheesh Foxy

Gonna hafta trot out an old truism for you.

_______________________________________________________________________

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

_______________________________________________________________________

No one, here, least of all yours truly, is claiming that all people should behave perfectly all the time.

To remain silent on the issue of child abuse? No excuse, none whatsoever.

Severin...maybe Foxy was pointing to the fact that while Catholics believe their Pope IS the Earthly voice of their god, and can say-do no wrong because, 'really', the shell of the man houses the actual God, she realises that this is a total fraud played upon the gullible who need 'faith' in something, anything, to continue living, because, in reality, no one is perfect.

The question then.... is their god perfect when housed in an Earthly shell?

Or does the inhabiting of the shell somehow upset the 'magnetic forces' and inevitably turn good to ill?

The sad and sorry history of the long line of linked Popes would indicate so.... mind you, all these Earthly housed gods seem to have the same track record no matter which human-granted franchise they inhabit.

There is a Dalek quality madness, with an irresistible urge to do harm all the time, that seems to ooze from every pore of the Vatican, and ilk.

Maybe the Doctor could let us know how it all ends?

But would the Bush-Palin god be any more attractive, I wonder?

TBC

Not for a nanosecond do I think that Foxy believes the pope is infallible.

I am commenting on the resounding silence of the majority of mainstream Catholics. Similarly, I wish more men would condemn those men who rape adults or bash homosexuals - loudly, frequently. A few do - but not enough.

Severin, "I am commenting on the resounding silence of the majority of mainstream Catholics. Similarly, I wish more men would condemn those men who rape adults or bash homosexuals - loudly, frequently. A few do - but not enough."

Fair dinkum, will you ever resist an opportunity and give it a rest? That is the sort of bigotry and bucket-load of bile that so often spoils your argument.

It is foolhardy to believe that Catholic parents are any less caring than other parents or that they do not do everything in their power to protect their children and those of others. Just because they do not react in Severin sanctioned ways or answer you questions the way you like does not mean they are any less concerned.

There is no rational basis for splitting the people around you into the forever-separate camps of perfect and damned rotten and never the twain shall meet.

Goodness, what have I done, I am now to be regarded as being on the 'other' side notwithstanding my calls for the RC church to modernise, be accountable and make its decision-making transparent for the good of its flock?

Cornflower

Severin's calls are just, calm, reasonable... measured.

I was with some Catholics yesterday, discussing the evil of the Toowoomba Catholic school teacher that the Bishop there has 'promised' will never happen again (change so swift after 2000 years?) and they were not about to undertake any actions to bring their Archbishop to heel, nor Pell, nor the Pope.

Church on Sunday, same as usual.

It is time 'good Catholics' stopped being so aquiescent, stopped supporting by keep silent, stopped going to their local churches on Sundays until the message got through, stopped their tithing...and took their own church back from the heartless animals that run it now.

They will not, I know, because that would require thinking, and action...direct action, and that is not 'the way' of the church led people is it?

They are 'led', they do not 'lead'... that would be too foreign for people with 'faith'.... that would require fire and zeal, vision, cooperation against the status quo, a challenge, some biffo with the Bishop... a call to arms,an undermining of the powerful, and so on.

These caring shattered bystanders you plead for Cornflower, "does not mean they are any less concerned"... being 'concerned' is never enough...action Cornflower, action!

Where is it?

Have Greg Sheridan, Christopher Pearson and other DLP-Vaticanite reps who spruik on behalf of your church said boo! yet?

Has Conroy taken off his Opus Dei underwear and thrown it back at Pell yet?

Did I hear a squeak from that great Catholic feminist in NSW, Keneally? (how does that compute? A feminist in the Vatican? Has she not heard about the lack of female priests?).

Are the pages of the (Catholic) Oz running with Papal blood?

Never.

All quiet on the Western front... this will all blow over, and soon be forgot.

Till next time, of course, then the apologies will pour forth again...'sorry' 'never again' 'who'd a guessed?' 'instructions were issued'... 'this will never happen again' 'our thoughts are with the victims'... meanwhile, back in church, the real issues are back on the agenda "no foreign coins in the collection plate please."

TBC

Well said.

Cornflower is my OLO shadow - reflects very little truth of what I am trying to say.

I have no doubt we are all guilty of remaining silent sometimes. I did in the past - to keep a job, to avoid being attacked myself.

I no longer care. I always feel better expressing myself as honestly as I can - I don't always get it right, sometimes I misunderstand but unlike some, I am not into mind-fluk games.

I like to play but not on a forum about abuse be it children, gays, men or women. If I have a button that is easily pushed it is bullies - they exist in many guises from the relatively mild "I was only joking" variety to the psychopath heading a corporation, government or church.

Dear Severin,

I guess that I should have explained what
I was trying to say with my "pobody is nerfect,"
(nobody is perfect) comment.

I was thinking ahead to what I hoped would be the
future of the Church in that - the Church will
change for the better. That it will provide
genuine leadership and a willingness to confront
both the difficulties and the opportunities that it
faces. This doesn't mean that it will be perfect or that
parts of it won't wither and die, or that it won't make
mistakes. I was hoping that the magnitude of the task
facing the Church won't engender a sense of
pessimism and hopelessness - which might result in
inaction. Action is so very necessary, as you and others
have pointed out. Hence my comment.

I'm not sure if I've explained it properly even now.
But I hope that you will understand.

I had always entertained the hope that out of all the mess the Church has found itself in that good will grow out of evil, that there would be a truth and reconciliation born out of openness, and the Church would grow strong again because innocence and truth would be accepted over the need to protect position,office, power and authority, but it seems that the latter four are highly addictive. The pope has gone public with his policy to bring new life to his community. What is that new policy? He has called on the Church everywhere to do pennance. It doesnt go beyond that. It is the feeblest response he could have made and it is very disappointing.
Every time the Church admits to more instances of paedophilia (because that wont stop.) the loyal and faithful will be called to do more pennance. At the rate at which priests offend a numbness will attach itself to the offences till there wont be any genuine remorse. Pennance would be prescriptive instead. They will soon lose sight of innocence. They will soon cease seeing evil where it appears again as it too frequently had appeared in the past. They would turn to their threadbare coverings of pennance.

The institution is far too important to the office holders to allow a genuine response. More new pennances will be invented. Is the Church entering a period of creative responses? What does that do to their spirituality?
If Jesus Christ were alive today he would probably denounce them all as he once did in Galilee. He'd shout out loud:"You hypocrites.You whited sepulcheres.! You snakes and hypocrites."
And the pope would act swiftly by ordering another round of pennances.

socratease

Foxy

I do. I got it. Perhaps this current scandal will be the one to start a change for the better.

Hope is something we can all hold to our hearts and minds.

Cornflower,

What cost should the RC clergy pay to fix* the Catholic Church? Do you agree with my earlier comment that if 50% of the clergy have covered-up (or were silient) for, say, 1% of their peers, who are paedophiles; then 51% of the clergy should be behind bars? Appreciate that for every active cover-up Bishop, there will dozens of others who know exactly what is going on. Do the aides that type Cardinals' and Bishops' letters go to the Police. I suggest they don't. Clergy study sin for a living, they know many of their kin are criminals and probably know names.

How many Catholic typists or filing clerks are going render their Cardinals unto Caesar?

* Maybe, not the correct word, becaue the Pauline-Constantinian Church of the Holy Roman Empire has always been broken

Dear Foxy.... "...I hoped ... the
future of the Church... will
change for the better.... it will provide
genuine leadership and a willingness to confront
both the difficulties and the opportunities that it
faces", and so on.

As the fella in The Castle says, 'tell her she's dreaming'.

Why would any church change the habits of a 2000 year lifetime, for a mere 'hope'?

Socratease understands very well "The institution is far too important to the office holders to allow a genuine response" but as with yourself and Severin "Perhaps this current scandal will be the one to start a change for the better" there is no harm at all in that hope.

I even share it, to some limited extent...knowing full-well that nothing will, or can, change for the better.

If that happened, the entire edifice would fall away, to dust, where it belongs.

But beyond this particular sex-shame of the last 2000 years, let's go away from the direct priestly scandals and cover-ups to see what happens under the guise of this and other churches elsewhere, and this is why I, and clearly others here, view 'religion' as a toxic brew of anti-humanity.

Let's all trip to the latest Pew info here:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=515

Now, I am not suggesting that 'the church' is suggesting that its 'Christian' followers have their female children 'circumcised' at all. But just what clear and unambiguous message is it delivering here?

I suspect, reading through this horrible report of gloom-doom for Africa, and by extension us, and all of 'humanity', that the various so-called 'Christian' churches and Islamic muftis are more engaged in powerplay here and recruiting in the face of each other than they are the least bit interested in calling a halt to their collective barbaric rituals.

After all, religion is built on barbarous rituals, myths and fairy tales.

But I was rather amused by this line:

"Large numbers of Africans actively participate in Christianity or Islam yet also believe in witchcraft, evil spirits, sacrifices to ancestors, traditional religious healers, reincarnation and other elements of traditional African religions".

So, what's new

Dear Blue Cross,

I've written this on the Forum many times
but I'll do it again hopefully to help
you understand where I come from:

" I come from a tribe of nature worshippers,
pantheists, believers in faeries, forest sprites,
and wood nymphs. Who heard devils in their
windmills, met them in the woods, cloven-hoofed
and dapper gentlemen of the night.
Who named the god of thunder, who praised and
glorified bread, dark rye waving waist-high out of
the earth, and held it sacred, wasting not a crumb.
Who spent afternoons mushrooming in forests of pine,
fir, and birch. Who transformed Jesus from his wooden
cross, transformed him into a wood-carved, worrying
peasant, raised him on a wooden pole above the
crossroads where he sat with infinite patience in rain
and snow, wooden legs apart, wooden elbows on wooden
knees, wooden chin in wooden hand, worrying and sorrowing
for the world...

These people who named their sons and daughters after amber,
rue, fir tree, dawn, storm, are the only people I know
who have a diminutive form for God Himself, "Dievulis," -
"God-my-little-buddy."

Any wonder I catch myself speaking to trees, flowers, bushes -
these eucalyptus so far from Northern Europe. Or that I bend
down to the earth, gather pubbles, acorns, leaves, boles,
bring them home, enshrine them on mantelpieces or above
porcelain fixtures in corners, any wonder I grow nervous
in rooms and must step outside and touch a tree, or sink
my toes in the dirt, or watch the birds fly by..."
(A. Zolynas. LITUANUS - Lithuanian Quarterly Journal of
Arts and Sciences. v.49. No. Summer 2003).

I hold the conviction that the heart, not the brain,
is the light of the world. The mind goes insane
without the guidance of the heart. The intellect for me
must bow to the spiritual impulse. Hatred is the cancer
that threatens the survival of the species. The only
antidote is spiritual. That is the hope for mankind.

Well, that's a steaming revelation indeed.

I've never seen any of that on OLO before!

Just an overwhelming overture to 'the reasonable' that sometimes sounds just a little too contrived, or maybe naive... from my jaundiced perspective Foxy, of course, I hasten to add.

I, on the other hand, come from a long line of county clod hoppers, who have grasped their way to the light, fighting off the fools who have surrounded them in higher positions, struggled with the slate, and 'made good' in trade, rising ever upwards as the generations unfold, until... the peak... my generation of ingrates comes along.

My forebears fought for the Lairds, did their turns in Europe during the 100 years, died in industry, raised the stakes in delivering the world a system of writing still in use today, cut meat, delivered goods, taught, expanded horizons, dug for gold, played music for the masses, suffered for Gods, Kings, Czars and countries, fought on both sides, were driven from some states, and delivered into others, were hated, despised, shunned, and made use of, as are most simple people, hid when need arose, and of course, suffered the cutting silence of families split asunder when the 'wrong faith' was chosen temps de temps... in short, a fairly normal Anglo-Saxon family, albeit injected with alien blood from Europe, during the last few hundred years.

Religion... played its required divisive role throughout, nurturing no one, pleasing the leaders, splitting families and communities, and worlds at times.

"The only antidote is spiritual. That is the hope for mankind"... strikes no chord here.

Blast... the blue pencil cuts in on the Blue Cross... TBC in Pt 2

Aha... foiled Graham... Pt 2.

For what does 'spiritual' mean?

A 'look' of the sky at night?

A 'feeling' ill defined and uncertain?

An individual pondering in a world possessed?

Perhaps, but it must be divorced entirely from any monolithic power structure, for that is no 'spiritual' avenue at all, at all.

Define it, describe it, so it may be known, expand on it, colour it, make it tangible... but it cannot be so, can it?

A dream, a hope, an 'aspiration', to coin a much degraded Howardism?

Dust, Foxy, mere dust... from whence we came, and return to.

By all means, believe in 'the spiritual', and good luck to you too, after all, you neither need nor ask my permission to do so, but if that is the 'only hope for mankind', then we are done for, for sure.

Without stretching my mind too far... as I think about who in the public domain who might be on 'the list' of 'the spiritual', in this nation alone, who claim to be 'in touch' with 'the next phase' represent the most unholy alliance of vagabonds, dunces, fools, charlatans, shysters, carpetbaggers... need I continue?

The recovering ex-Hippy from Nimbin probably represents a better bet than any Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or 'vicar', never mind the prosyletising and evangelising fake politicians we suffer from, or the would be academics trying to make sense of Kant, Hegel and others, with their ponderings of 'the thing'.

On top of this all, are the absolute and total frauds, such as the Pope, and his ilk from other faiths.

If our fate was left to them... well, it has been so far, and look where we all are.

Up some creek, in an Opus Dei barbed wire underpants canoe, with Pell, Jensen, Rudd and Abbott 'leading the way'.

Hossanah!

Dear Blue Cross,

I used to think that I wasn't religious,
and perhaps I wasn't. I didn't like what
organized religion had done to the world.
I still don't. I've come to see however,
that true religion is internal, not external.
The spirit within us can't be blamed for the
blasphemies carried out in its name. What
some have done in the name of religion, projecting
their neuroses, even perpetrating evil on the
world, does not however make religon invalid.

Secularized organized religions have become, in
many cases, as calcified as other institutions that
form the structure of our modern world. Our religious
institutions have far too often become handmaidens of
the status quo, while the genuine religious experience
is anything but that. True religion is a force by which
we burst out from what is old and calcified, into a
higher mode of being.

Religious institutions, as such, are not the only
arbiters of religious experience. They do not own
the Truth, for Truth cannot be owned. Nor should
they think they hold some franchise on our spiritual
life. They are consultants and frameworks, but they
are not God Himself. We should not confuse the path
with the destination.

Organized religion will not be the same; it will
step up to bat, religiously, or it will wither away.
Organized religious institutions are in for a huge
transformation, for the simple reason that people
have become genuinely religious in spite of them.

Spirituality is an inner fire, a mystical sustenance that
feed our souls. The mystical journey drives us into
ourselves, to a sacred flame at our center. The purpose
of the religious experience is to develop the eyes
by which we see this inner flame, and our capacity to
live its mystery.

Religion means "to bind back." Its purpose is to turn
back into ourselves, to the well inside from which we
are endlessly creative.

Returning to the theme of the thread:

"Priestly abuse of children is nowadays taken to mean sexual abuse, and I feel obliged, at the outset, to get the whole matter of sexual abuse into proportion and out of the way. Others have noted that we live in a time of hysteria about pedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witch-hunts of 1692… All three of the boarding schools I attended employed teachers whose affections for small boys overstepped the bounds of propriety. That was indeed reprehensible. Nevertheless, if, fifty years on, they had been hounded by vigilantes or lawyers as no better than child murderers, I should have felt obliged to come to their defense, even as the victim of one of them (an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience). … The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue, especially in Ireland and America… We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers. The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has shown great courage, in the face of spiteful vested interests, in demonstrating how easy it is for people to concoct memories that are entirely false but which seem, to the victim, every bit as real as true memories. This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses."
(Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, pp. 315-16)

Severin
I quoted you word for word. 'Shadow'? What was that all about? Please don't play games in reply as part of your win/lose, even if that proves my point.

Oliver,
I think my post of Monday, 12 April 2010 9:01:40 AM makes it clear where I stand. Did you see it because one of the issues I raised as a 'sleeper' is the possibility of systemic corruption?

Hans-Ludwig Körber, Germany’s most prominent criminal psychologist (an atheist of Lutheran upbringing) is the director of the Institute for Forensic Psychiatry of the Free University of Berlin. His response to the recent revelation by DER SPIEGEL that 95 cases of abuse by clergy and lay people in Catholic institutions have come to light since 1995:

“Well, if DER SPIEGEL comes up with 95 suspects in 15 years, for someone who knows a bit of a criminology, that’s a surprisingly small number. It means that the current risk of sexual abuse in institutions of the Catholic Church is even lower than I would have suspected. On average, about 15,000 cases of child abuse are reported to the police annually. The church itself has about 600,000 employees, or about 1.8 percent of the population. So 94 cases since 1995 seems to be a dramatic improvement of the situation since 1995. In any case more than half of sexual abuse occurs within families. This is even more true of violence. In the current debate about the Catholic Church, sexual abuse and pedagogy through corporal punishment – which was common in all schools -- are so mixed up that one has the feeling that people want to stretch the numbers” (http://cicero.de/97.php?ress_id=9&item=4907).

Ahh...Severin, you are now blaming catholics in general for the paedophilia cover-ups including myself as originally indicated. I take exception to this factually not emotionally. As I stated in previous posts I have not practiced the catholic religion since the 90's. Read my posts. Further, I am not exonerated nor yourself as a fellow Australian who is now able [after being educated by the media] to assist in addressing the coverups made by other Australians regarding paedophilia and lies. The law will play a minor part as it usually does; the rest is up to fellow Australians and God "Our" Father.

Well TBC, what action do you intend taking also as a fellow Australian to stand up for the rights of all our Australian victims?

Severin, apart from your posts, what are your plans in ensuring that the law comes down hard on these paedophiles and catholic hierarchy who condoned and accelerated their crimes with the exception of labelling every catholic a knowing participant and/or condoning the inaction of investigations and charges?

Lets face it, both of you are Australians, taxpayers? and voters who should feel a moral responsibility to all of our Australian children and adults molested.

Apart from suggesting catholics take a stand TBC and discontinue using the church to pray and continue their religion, suggest a few other steps Australians, including yourself, are able to do, in order to bring the appropriate justice to those who covered up for the paedophilia within the catholic system.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ [Severin].

Most Australians are well aware of their responsibilities raising their children, going well beyond, assisting other children and teenagers from other families, where molestation has taken a great part, inflicted by adults, in their families and extended families. These issues are addressed by other Australians, including myself in the roles I have taken, in our Australian society. Unpaid roles by the way, to ensure kids are not returned to their paedophile abusers. How many victims of Adults and families I have assisted is countless. I am only one of thousands of Australian people who assist children and families across Australia.

Many catholics who are assisting children in many ways, including abuse and paedophilia.

This is the reason I am upset on behalf of many catholics you are generalising about.

How would you both know, that somewhere, sometime during your lives when young, catholics did not have a hand in assisting your lives or family's lives in some way.

The above is outlined for another reason TBC and Severin.

Q: What strategies and 'action' do you intend taking to address the crime of children and adult victims caused by paedophilia within the catholic system?

It is every Australian's responsibility to ensure justice is taken.

Btw Severin: Many other Australians [catholics included] soldier on and address abuse issues on behalf of victims regardless of whether or not we are ill or dying. My illnesses in all probability would not be evident today had I not sacrificed most of my life assisting abuse victims. As I stated, am only one of thousands or millions of Australians doing this over many years.

I hope you recover and rest in all sincerity and spend quality time with your mother.

I am commenting on the resounding silence of the majority of mainstream Catholics [Severin]

Severin, your above generalisation is yet another in which you continually non-factually state that the majority of catholics either are silent on the crimes, are part of them, disgust you, and/or inactive [about the crimes].

Please answer my following question [for a change] given you avoided today answering my other queries relating to the crimes and cover-ups; yet are quite happy to continue slandering and generalising catholics' lives thoughts and actions; fellow Australians lives you know nothing about.

Q: How would you Severin know, what is occurring at present, within the lives of catholics, in relation to the crimes committed by those working within the catholic system; hence, state facts, not generalisations based upon emotion. Media coverage is not gospel/truth or non-media coverage via the internet television/news, current affairs programs are no indication as to whether or not 'the majority of catholics are silent'.

How do you hope to influence OLO posters with your anti-christian, 'verbal bash ALL catholics and christians campaign' using children and adult victims of paedophilia?

Give up slandering and blaming catholics generally Severin. Credit Australians with a little more intelligence as to your motives. A good deal of your posts are filled with anti-christian and anti-catholic generalisations and slander. Emotion based contempt towards Australians you know nothing about; yet slander and put in the same basket.

Cornflower,

Thank you. Sorry, I missed your earlier post. So, I hope I am not misrepresenting you in saying you do believe that there are guilty minders who keep things in-house, placing the Church above secular authorities. Should not the laity be more proactive? Should there be whistleblowers to inform the police? As I mentioned before, the bishops have typists and filing clerks, who must see things.

Hello George,

Even if priests show no statistical deviation from the general population regarding paedophilia, we are still left with issues of protection after-the-fact and the possibility over re-offence, where bishops act to over things up.

Before I entered academia, I worked with a Bank, wherein, I recall a branch manager agreeing to a personal loan to customer to pay $1,000 bribe to a policeman. The instant the paper work hit the system, the whole process stopped, the Bank called in the authorities; thence, the borrower, the manager and the policeman were all prosecuted. Likewise, I saw no cover-up for thieves on the staff. Yet, I suspect there are cover-ups in tobacco companies, churches, police forces and the military: Here there are industry interests and brotherhoods.

What does the much publicised copy of the Pope’s letter say to you?
If a CEO of a pharmaceutical company protected a serial killer chemist, arguing we must save the Company, what would you say?

Dawkins engages in a logical fallacy to assert that if memories “can” be implanted as is known as fact, that memories “were” implanted in fact.

WAU

Your claim that I am:

>> anti-christian, 'verbal bash ALL catholics and christians campaign' <<

I have never written anything approaching your claim above. You mistake criticism for attack. A common response by many people who feel their belief system is under question.

1. If the majority of mainstream Catholics have taken action against the excesses of their leaders - why are children still being abused?

2. I am also critical of bullies - many organisations including religion attract people who see opportunities to control others.

3. There is no place for the special exemptions that organisations receive just because they are religious - they need to be judged on the same criterion as any other human configuration.

4. Nowhere have I "slandered" anyone.

WAU

If you genuinely think I have overstepped the rules of OLO then please complain to the moderator.

Further:

I find your comments vis a vis my personal issues regarding my mother as utterly disingenuous and not required given your excessive rant against what is simply my opinion.

You are guilty of bullying Christians and catholics via your generalisations and slander, placing every catholic in the same basket from previous postings Severin.

You still fail to answer questions and challenges; instead choosing to chant your anti-christian and catholic lines based upon ignorance and media coverage.

Your view regarding 'catholics' in general is grossly unfair, inaccurate and I daresay hurtful to many christian and/or catholic OLO readers around Australia who are 'out there' in both their working professions and personally, greatly assisting people such as yourself and mother.

I indicated in earlier comments on both threads, one of which, was to TBC: the Australians you are generalising about may be your doctors, nurses, people who are looking after you people generalising about christians and catholics.

This is in a nutshell my point and stance on Australians who bully christians and catholics slandering and generalising and making assumptions about other peoples lives and thoughts not knowing them.

I ask you for the third time Severin:

Q: what actions do yourself and TBC propose to take, as fellow Australians, in relation to addressing the cover-ups alleged of the catholic system

WAU

Was this written in haste, or do you mean what you seem to say?

"Many catholics who are assisting children in many ways, including abuse and paedophilia".

I am not sure that abusing children is the same as assisting them, but what would I know?

Maybe it is just 'the Catholic way'?

I am engaged in many things to at least attempt to bring a halt to the steely grip religions have in and on our lives.

Each quite small, but with luck they will grow as others join in, which they are.

A very simple step, perhaps you might like to join in too?, is to write to the 'devout Catholic' premier of NSW and request that she keeps her nose out of the St. James Ethics Centre trial, already approved by her predecessor.

She says she is 'nobody's guuuuurl', but she seems to have something going with Jensen.

The grubs from the ACL, Jensen and Pell are protesting that their market-share of raw new recruits is being knicked from them in schools by a group trying to impart something about 'ethics'.

Now, clearly the Vatican have little idea what the word means, but neither does the Sydney Anglican church.

Paedophilia comes in different shades, and one of them is the brainwashing of young children into the 'arcane mysteries' of religion.

Let us reform our society by starting here, and ridding our public schools of the mumbo-jumbo the Jensens and Pells wish to impose on all.

This does not prevent any parent from distorting their child's mind, at home, in the church, where ever they wish to have their child abused.

Sadly, it is not only legal, many see it as being required to make a 'full person'.

Hmm, doubtful at best.

Now, what are you doing, apart from supporting the corrupt structures you so love?

WAU

>>> Q: what actions do yourself and TBC propose to take, as fellow Australians, in relation to addressing the cover-ups alleged of the catholic system <<<

What I have been doing for years; writing, speaking out and urging people to take action against child abusers - much as I am doing here.

All of which amounts to a mountain compared to your molehill of whining and insult.

Ah, we x-posted WAU, although yours sounds like a cross post to me.

I have no idea who Severin is, and neither does Severin know me, as far as I know anyway, so 'we' are doing nothing together, because we only have an e-meet here on OLO.

You raise an interesting point of view.... should I be looking at people around me trying to determine whether or not they are Catholics?

What if my dentist is a Sikh? Does that affect her ability to help me?

Or my GP, who is a Buddhist, should she be dropped so I can get better care from some Catholic GP?

My protestant newsagent, does he serve me as well as a Catholic one might?

Look, I am not interested in what religion people claim, or if they do, or do not.

It doesn't get factored into my thinking about them. And I am not interested in 'saving' people who suffer from 'religion'...it simply does not concern me... until I find that 'the religion card' is being played on or against me.

I shoo those horrible door knockers away but that is about as aggressive as I get.

Now, you have no idea if Severin and I are Australian do you?

"what actions do yourself and TBC propose to take, as fellow Australians, in relation to addressing the cover-ups alleged of the catholic system".

Well, I am not a playing member of the Vatican team, so can do nothing from within.

But you can, and no doubt are, and will detail your strategy to us all, while recruiting your fellow Vaticanites here to assist you, will you not?

Severin and I may wish to extend a helping e-hand, or not, we'll all see what your in-house plan is first.

As for outside, well, I am engaged in my own work, 'don't you worry about that', but it deals with the imposed powers of religions, including that of your mob.

I see no profit in dealing with one part of the corrosion, when all of it needs a spring clean.

WAU,

Severin has said nothing like you clim from my reading. I somehow think that some right-brain emotional attachment can at times make one too inclined to turn-off left brain processes.

Working on the assumption skeptics, atheists, Catholics and religionists in general agree on one thing, paedophilia must be stopped, we should unite to do so.

From this particular skeptic's point of view, belief in gods is an anthropoligical-sociological phenomenon, aided by high brain-low brain relationships, reinforcement schedules and "indwelling" in the performances of communities of practice & rites. However, it does not follow, I would like to the world crash down on little old ladies who go to church and find comfort in their faith. Yet, in our historically, every since the teachings of a humanist mendicant were usurped over three century centuries later, to create the Holy Roman Empire, which spans the persecution of the pagans to the covering-up paedophilia; we have a sick institution.

If Christian people whom wish to believe is/was Jesus divine (noting not all traditions maintain this claim) and if parishioners do not condone Christian History up until the present, there should act now, to protect moral fundamentals that go beyond the Pope and his agenda.

Secular law and non-religionists would I suspect work with religious reformers to cleanse Christianity of its old baggage

TBC

Following your train of thought, I was absolutely grateful that my dentist was a Muslim when I needed urgent root canal work one Easter a few years back. Not because he believed in Allah (couldn't give a rat's) but his surgery was open.

Which is a part of the point WAU keeps missing, atheists don't really care what a person's religion is; what we take issue with is when it crosses into politics, education, tax-exemption, health and the well-being of others - children being a priority on that list.

For the final time: ANY organisation that covers-up illegal activity is not above the due process of law.

I think Severin, you and I, and Oliver maybe, have forgotten that great machine owns Canon Law, and that comes direct from their god, so it must be more powerful than the mere law of we mortals.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Canon Law had been invoked somewhere/how to 'deal with' these in-house outrages.

This dual legal system gets a boo! when it's called Sharia Law (good thing too) but because the West 'is Christian' and 'so are all of us', it is seen as being 'commonsense' that this organisation should own its own set of 'laws' and exist as a parallel state-within-a-secular-sate...along with its exalted privileges that allow it to run as an international, mafia like, tax rort.

Hello Oliver,
I included the two quotes because I thought they were relevant and interesting. Sorry, if they were not. As for my own opinion, it is spelled out in my former posts (concerning the Canisius College case).

That is all I can say; I certainly do not see any point in countering sweeping statements with other sweeping statements.

If you have evidence of a PARTICULAR case of criminal cover-up (involving or not a bishop), you should report it to legal authorities since only they (not the media) are entitled and able to decide whether there are genuine reasons to prosecute.

[As I said before, he moral - i.e. not legal - perspective is different, and the vast majority of Catholics agrees that the Church - because of its position as a moral authority - is more in a need of penance and atonement than other organisations in a similar situation.]

The letter is a reaction to shocking revelations that the pope apparently was not aware of before, certainly not to that extent. You might look at it as damage control, but it is not important what it says to me since it is not addressed to me.

I usually do not defend Dawkins, however when he says “We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories” he certainly does not want to imply that all memories are false.

Left out the 'addressing issues of' abuse and paedophilia obviously TBC.

You are another poster on OLO who never seems to respond when asked questions. Surprise! On this occasion you do yourself justice. In all fairness, you are raising one or two innovative concepts in addressing the cover-ups involved in paedophilia which may give some OLO posters incentive to ponder your suggestions.

Best commence another thread if both yourself and Severin wish to continue your anti-christian campaign though......this one may well expire shortly!

WAU

I can assure you, that as far as I am concerned, although most OLO threads deal with 'Christianity', a reflection of the dominant religion in this nation-state, I have no time for any of the religions imposing their views on us all.

I do not single Christianity out for the 'special attention' it does for our children, and 'the unchurched' among us.

Whatever slim good may come from religions, much 'evil' squeezes out too. Inevitable really, since it is all 'man-made' and subject to the foibles of humans.

There is nothing 'mystical', beyond the blindness people elect to impose on themselves.

I thought I did answer your question.

Still, life and OLO threads are indeed brief,and I am sure this will expire and we will all move to the next 'major issue' and repeat ourselves there.

Joseph Ratzinger is the CEO of an organisation that harbours employees who are paedophiles. He should be brought before an interenational court to account for his abuse of power.

And while he's there he should face interrogation for promoting the greatest fraud on earth. Covering up paedophilia is a bad one. Fraud is the big one.

Indoctrinating young children into the belief that the mythic Yahew, the brutal, mysogynistic, unforgiving god of the ancient Israelites and his son, Jesus Emmanuel and a ghost are going to save them from an eternity in hell, must go down as the biggest crime in history.

This fellow is the dangereman of humanity.

Frank Blunt

Dear George,

“I included the two quotes because I thought they were relevant and interesting. Sorry, if they were not. As for my own opinion, it is spelled out in my former posts…”

This is a forum. The purpose is to exchanges ideas. Sometimes the synthesis of several points of view can be more valuable than a personal view conscientiously held. In this context, your points of view are highly relevant, owing to the nature of a debate and the intent of free expression.

I feel I raised two key points, (1) that a Bank did not act like a Church regarding the bribery loan and (2) that Christians look to the Pauline-Constantinian church more so than the first century mission, demonstrating the danger of protecting an institution vis-à-vis morals. Else put, (1) the Church is acting as if it has special privilege above secular law and (2) parishioners do not apply the standards of Jesus to the Church.

“If you have evidence of a PARTICULAR case of criminal cover-up (involving or not a bishop), you should report it to legal authorities...”

I do not need to have the internal records of “big tobacco” to believe, with confidence, press accounts of cover-ups. Besides, the media’s account of a past Bishop of Boston seems valid and US police are being thwarted by the Church. Why?

The connections between Confession, penance and secrecy are problematic. Determinations of secret ecclesiastical courts over the false penance by priests makes it hard for the Church to turn-in paedophile priests. While the priest can be punished, the deliberations of the Court are not revealed to secular authorities. A change in church procedures could have Absolution withheld, until “after” the priest/brother surrenders to police.
Dawkins:

The implication was that the memories of claimants “are” false. The extrapolation was too great. The reality of planted thoughts in experimental situations and confabulation in age regression hypnosis is well known. Yet, I would dare to say, that much testimony about crime, say, a witnessing a robbery, usually does have some basis in reality. Else, our justice system is a sham.

The skill of posting (i.e. writing) is the skill
of using words. Sometimes the words are acerbic,
sharp as a scalpel, or they may work a special
magic of their own. I guess it's the skill of
the poster that welds the words together. Some
have qualities that widen the mind's eye - which make
one think new things; it can be of an emotional or
moral kind in which one feels and understands new
perspectives. Or it can be one that closes the mind,
by it's nastiness. Finally, I guess that we take what we
want from various postings and our responses may not
always be searching or comprehensive. If a post
however is a good one - it will create enjoyment at
many levels, in may ways, and it will bring a light to
one's eyes. Or it will be depressing and a total turn-off
because of the way it's been posted - and the choice of
words.

I guess it's up to us - how we choose to express ourselves.
It's important to remember however that there are people
reading what we post - we're not just talking to a computer
screen.

Oliver

"I do not need to have the internal records of “big tobacco” to believe, with confidence, press accounts of cover-ups. "

I have a 1/6d edition of PIX. 7 July, 1962.

On the cover is a headline "New hope for all smokers".

Inside, just prior to the ad' for 'Kool' fags, featuring a head shot of a ships captain with a worried look on his face and the statement 'Clear-headed men smoke Kool', is a nonsense article challenging the findings of the 1959 started UK Royal College of Physicians report that declared smoking to be a health hazard.

In a rerun of the ID-Creationist arguments, PIX claim they just want to show there are 'two sides to this debate', oh yeah?

Mind you, in 1959, scientists who doubted smoking was a cause of cancer, were hot on the trail of airborne pollutants, including bonfire smoke and exhaust fumes.

Shame the airborne polluters we all drive were not chased with as much vigour as fag companies have been.

Foxy...is this a mea culpa?

The start of a new style?

I await the new look with eagerness.

“If you have evidence of a PARTICULAR case of criminal cover-up (involving or not a bishop), you should report it to legal authorities...” - George

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=6048

- Should have John Paul II gone to the Police?

"In September 2001, Bishop Pican received a three-month suspended sentence for failing to report the abuse." - from above link

- Why not three years in prison? Pican isn't a teenager, who took a car on joy ride, wherein in a Court might be lenient given the defendant's youth and a minor first offence. We have a mature man, a serious crime and institutional cover-up, here. I wonder if the judge was influenced by the criminal being a bishop?

If we are to allow the Church and State to protect each others' accountability for transgressions, we might as well jump in a time machine and go back to the eleventh century. I trust the Australian courts are not as whimpish as the French over cover-ups after-the-fact.

Catholic clerics and parishioners are doing little to protect their Church. Ironically, it could be skeptics and atheists advocating secular legal involvement that has a better chance of protecting the Church and the high morals of a first century mendicant and teacher.

Dear Blue Cross,

No. Just trying to lift the bar of our
styles in posting. Frank Blunt's post
(and a few others) -
depressed the heck out of me.
Not on what they wrote but the way it was
expressed.

I've go to confess also - that I've been influenced
by reading stories to children during my
Storytime Sessions at the Library recently -
that's what gave me the idea.

Why can't our posts be a bit more inventive?
(not sure if that's the right word - but you
know what I mean, I hope).

Like Roald Dahl's:

"It's disgusterous!" the BFG gurgled.
"It's sickable!" It's rotsome! It's maggotwise!
Try it yourself, this foulsome snozzcumber!"

Or -
Kenneth Grahame's description of Mole's walk
beside the river in "The Wind in the Willows." :

"The Mole was bewitched, entranced, fascinated.
By the side of the river he trotted as one trots,
when very small, by the side of a man, who holds
one spellbound by exciting stories; and when tired at
last, he sat on the bank, while the river, still chattered
on to him, a babbling procession of the best stories in
the world, sent home from the heart of the earth to be told
at last to the insatiable sea..."

I'm probably babbling - but I hope it makes sense.
Or perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part.

George,

I am amazed that Dawkins includes those comments. The analogy with the Salem witch-hunts is a good one. I personally wouldn’t leap to the defence of a paedophile but he otherwise makes some good points.

" The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium. For all sorts of reasons I dislike the Roman Catholic Church. But I dislike unfairness even more, and I can’t help wondering whether this one institution has been unfairly demonized over the issue …”

The less than 2% thing that you mentioned in another post seems typical of what has been uncovered. Clearly an institution that teaches morals is vulnerable for criticism of the immoral conduct of certain members and rightly so. However it is naïve to think that any institution can completely avoid such problems and the lower than general population rates should be taken into account in the criticism.

More importantly it is reprehensible that Bishops failed to take action and they deserve due condemnation even if it was the norm at the time as they were duty bound to be more morally proactive then others. Comparison of rates of inaction between them and other organizations is difficult but presumably the rates would be commensurate with the rates of the offenders they failed to hand over to authorities and thus also lower than other organizations of the time. Condemning they and their successors now who have demonstrated more proactivity than other organizations in the present should have a reasonable limit. While many would like to keep their fingers firmly inserted in their ears and accept only sensationalized media misrepresentations it is always good to discover those (eg. Dawkins)who are not Catholic and oppose Catholicism but are nevertheless willing to identirfy something clearly unfair to the point of a witch hunt.

CONT

“We should be aware of the remarkable power of the mind to concoct false memories, especially when abetted by unscrupulous therapists and mercenary lawyers. The psychologist Elizabeth Loftus has shown great courage, in the face of spiteful vested interests, in demonstrating how easy it is for people to concoct memories that are entirely false but which seem, to the victim, every bit as real as true memories. This is so counter-intuitive that juries are easily swayed by sincere but false testimony from witnesses."

I would never raise this issue as it could easily lead to an incorrect assumption (real or disingenuous) that I don’t believe that due recognition should be given to genuine victims. However now that it is on the table it has always niggled at the back of my mind that many of the worst cases of paedophile priests involved primarily victims who ‘forgot’ about the crimes and only ‘remembered’ after hearing media reports or undergoing recovered memory therapy. Recovered memory therapy appears to be at a minimum controversial and concocted memories have been shown to be implantable but for Catholic priests the accuracy is always assumed and the perpetrators identified by the memories are behind bars and their crimes given phenomenal publicity. Without wanting to distract from a real problem I simply note that that has niggled at me.

mjpb,

The issue of "recovered memories" is red herring. Virtually none of the reported cases involve this technique, rather what is happening, is that the victims felt unable to report the abuse through shame and self loathing. The attitudes of society have changed enabling them to come forward without suffering the consequences they would have previously.

Foxy... I am disappointed, and I 'sort of' guessed you were not really apologising but still thought it worth a try.

I thought you might even see the humour therein.

Never mind.

If it's all the same to you, I am not sure Cornflower and Severin, myself and George, or 'others' could pass off our pointed comments, jibes when required, factual observations, and mere unsolicited opinions in quite the same vein as Toad and Ratty, or Christopher Robin, although our content may be no better than a bad fairy tale on a Thursday arvo.

As for Frank's contribution, I rather appreciate the cut-through clarity of such plain speakers myself.

If only Rudd and others could do so well and say what they really mean, we'd all be better off.

I drew the line at reading Roald Dahl to my children, and left that stuff to my wife, who didn't seem to mind his style.

I did 'other' books, including WITW.

Our poor 16 year old has only just lost the WITW curtains from his bedroom, a great aide to the story when it was time to go to sleep.... with Toad's caravan and horse only feet away, and Ratty still rowing his boat, endlessly, from drape to drape, over many, many years.

You might do well in The Greens though, since they seem to have very 'Willows' type members, and I am sure your local branch would elevate you to 'leadership' status, not that they have 'leaders', far too heirarchical for them, on the strength of a policy writ in poetry.... although maybe not in the Dennis Kevins style of 'worker prose'.... too much like Franks effort.

Part 2

Still, I look forward to a 'rollicking good yarn' from you, perhaps in the Cap'n W. E. Johns style, on the topic of 'Should the Pope be put to sleep', or whatever this thread has degenerated into.

I look forward to reading Algy and Ginger's parts in the tale of 'How Biggles tackled the Papal Predicament'.

Perhaps Biggles could be had landing his purple DH Dragon Rapide in St. Marks Square, secretly, at night, but on a full moon so he could see the cobblestones properly, and over the heads of the drug induced Swiss Guard, most of whom had sneaked off to a local gay bar for a night on 'the drugs' and were just repositioning themselves in their nooks and crannies in case the Pope opened his windows to let some air into the overly heated bedroom and noticed his 'boys' were missing?

What was Bigglesworth doing in St. Marks?

He was about to kidnap the man, Mossad style, and take him to The Hague, to be prosecuted by QC Lord Geoffrey Robertson DCM and Bar (public) on the strength of Prof. Dawko's citizens assault on The Good Man.

Sadly, as the need for Sopworth Camel air-aces had waned, post 1919, Bigglesworth found he had to adapt a little, so he became a bounty hunter.

Can you build on that lot Foxy?

The crocodile has landed in Malta.

Victims of sexual abuse by paedophiles in priestly disguises have been crying for much, much longer and the pope's belated tears wont put an end to that,I'm sorry to say. Some have commited suicide, others will continue to suffer nightmares and depression after that last tear drop evaporates.

One old dear said, "It is so sad tosee the poor dear actually crying. He is so sorry and ashamed."
She stopped short of saying that now he wont tolerate cover-ups and child rape any longer.That would really piss off the pro-pope offenders wont it. They depend on him so much.

socratease

Dear TBC,

Well, as Examinator would say -
It's time for me to go and sit in the naughty corner
wearing the dunces hat!
I've been rightly admonished.

Seriously though TBC - you're right of course.
I shouldn't have tried to lighten up a subject
as serious as this thread. And my giving children's
books as an example didn't help matters either.
However, it has shown me a different side to you
which I'm pleased to have learned. Children who
aren't told stories and who aren't read to will have
few reasons for wanting to learn to read. I'm glad
that yours were read to. I can just imagine you as
a child:

"This is young TBC
Who lives in Australia,
With his toys ,and his pets
And his paraphernalia."

Anway back to the subject of this thread.

Of course the Catholic Church must create structures
that assure prompt reporting, a zero-tolerance policy,
and quick action. 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. There's no doubt that the clerical profession
has taken a severe battering and the respect for the
priesthood is, understandably, at an all-time low.
The Pope needs to provide the leadership so that trust
can be restored. This is a problem that isn't going to
go away. And a do-nothing policy won't achieve anything
positive. Action is required.

Hey Foxy,

"There's no doubt that the clerical profession
has taken a severe battering and the respect for the
priesthood is, understandably, at an all-time low."

No question at all.

"The Pope needs to provide the leadership so that trust
can be restored. This is a problem that isn't going to
go away. And a do-nothing policy won't achieve anything
positive. Action is required."

My attention has previously been drawn to a report that stated:

"Pope Benedict has repeatedly apologized for the shame of the sexual abuse of children in various venues and to a worldwide audience. This has never happened before. He has met with victims. He has reigned in entire conferences of bishops on this matter, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland being the most recent. He has been most reactive and proactive of any international church official in history with regard to the scourge of clergy sexual abuse of minors. Instead of blaming him for inaction on these matters, he has truly been a strong and effective leader on these issues."

http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/articles/2010/20100407112508.aspx

and

http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

Also, you quoted from Dr Collins book previously. What else does he say about the situation in that book?

Dear mjpb,

I'm not going to quote any more from
Dr Paul Collins or anyone else.
It's all been said and done several times over.

For me, this thread has now run its course
and I've said what I wanted to.
I'd only be repeating myself from now on.

Thanks for your constructive input.
I'll see you another thread.

I am deeply saddened by the paedophilia acts crimes and grief
Adults minds and hearts as kids, robbed by certain members of the catholic fraternity unlike that of a common old thief.

Who knows, many victims a casualty of Oz's high divorce rate mate
a good many of these kids not only abused by priests, lay teachers, adults under oath to God, the pope and the vatican, ye souls of hate,
don't forget an odd brother in boarding schools, what of their fate?

As time goes by and victims take action 'Severin',
dont be surprised by the odd still christian reaction
as blokes come forward with pain in their minds hearts and chest
do not chant out "you christians and catholics all supported paedophilia" as you and TBC do best.

Lest we not forget Australia most of these adult victims christians, ex-catholics and catholic husbands and men
Now Aussie ocker blokes in their 40-60's told by brothers and teachers back then: 'we dont believe you, shut up, get on with learning, you crowing rooster or scared little hen.

Too ashamed to tell family for fear of being ridiculed
"Dad something terrible at boarding school happened" Son says to inebriated Dad during the holidays
"What's that son, you made the footy grade, got A's or laid?
Dont forget son, your boarding fees last term already paid.

"Where's Mum? Can I talk to her about something serious?"

Dad laughs, downs another beer and says "On the lounge drunk and delirious".

And what of the loving wives and ex-wives of these victims as men?
Well, profound pain pushed far too deep for too many years
not discussed with psychologists, family or peers.

These guys hold it all within, until the media stories break,
some of their mysoginist traits buried for a time, escape,
targetting those close to them, wives, children and family,
completely unaware of their christian catholic Dad's childhood assaults and rape.

Oliver,
>> … the Church is acting as if it has special privilege above secular law and …parishioners do not apply the standards of Jesus to the Church.<<
As I said I see no point in responding to sweeping statements with sweeping statements.

>> the media’s account of a past Bishop of Boston seems valid and US police are being thwarted by the Church. Why? <<
As far as I remember, this indeed was a nasty case reported some years ago. Nevertheless “thwart” in my dictionary means “prevent (someone) from accomplishing something…”. Well, I do not believe the Church in USA has this power to prevent the course of justice; it would sound more like a conspiracy theory. But then I do not have the details, and not being legally qualified, probably would not understand them anyhow.

If you deny any special privileges to the Church (here I agree with you) then you cannot deny it the right to seek legal and psychiatric advise, like everybody else, influential or not, as ill-advised as they often were by both kinds of speclaists ("pay compensation" and "pedophilia is curable").

Ditto about the case of “Bishop Pican receiving a three-month suspended sentence for failing to report the abuse” you linked to. In anti-Catholic France even more than in USA to think that the Church can influence the judge seems to be ill-informed, to put it mildly. On the contrary, the mild sentence indicates to me that there must have been some extenuating circumstances, but I could not find any details (I cannot read French).

On the other hand, today everybody - within and without the Church - agrees that the letter by Cardinal Hoyos was most inappropriate and “this is the first time the Vatican has conceded that a senior Vatican official committed an error in judgment on the sexual abuse crisis - albeit one later corrected by the future pope” as John L. Allen in your link puts it.

>>The connections between Confession, penance and secrecy are problematic.<<
I agree. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> Absolution withheld, until “after” the priest/brother surrenders to police<<
This indeed seems to be the solution. If you confess stealing $100 from your neighbour the absolution is subject to you returning the money. It is more complicated when larger sums, or other crimes (as, indeed, pedophilia) are concerned.

I am an expert on neither the Canon nor the Common or Civil Law, but it is obvious that a solution must be worked out. This, I believe, is one of the things that e.g. the German Minister of Justice and the Chairman of the German Episcopal Conference are currently looking into.

>>The implication was that the memories of claimants “are” false<<
I did not read that absurd implication about ALL memories of claimants into what Dawkins wrote.

mjpb,
I brought up this quote not so much because of what it says about pedophilia, but because of what it says about Dawkins in light of e.g. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341. He either changed his mind since 2006 or his problem is not so much clerical pedophilia as the pope himself.

>>I would never raise this issue as it could easily lead to an incorrect assumption (real or disingenuous) that I don’t believe that due recognition should be given to genuine victims. <<

I agree that one should not raise this issue when considering any particular complaint. However I think this might be relevant if one wants to make conclusions about the NUMBER of accusations (followed or not by prosecution), e.g. in the media .

There are all sorts of misleading factors involved. For instance, in Germany in the middle of the pedophilia revelations, a bishop was accused of abusing minors. It turned out it was about a few harsh slaps he administered as a young priest some thirty years ago. That was wrong, and he admits that, but one should not confuse such things with horrendous sexual abuses (the confusion not always being unintended). The outcome might be that people will not take seriously genuine accusations.

The message conveyed to any who generalise about christians and catholics having knowledge of and assisting in these crimes
Is that every victim now adult, was also a 'christian and catholic victim' of their generational times
many catholic boys and girls, away in boarding schools,you'll find.

Unless a person has been a victim physically and mentally
you will never truly know or understand the many aspects involved
Paedophilia and the covering up issues yes bring out into the open
though not using condemnation and ridicule of all catholics and christians, many victims, degraded yet again, by anti-christian people's words spoken.

We Are Unique, I would like to respond to your post of April 20th.
Just as I was thinking of quitting the OLO on this subject along came your lovely email. All the others were making the usual clucking intellectual arguments with easy sophistication I was growing disenchanted with.
Then there was you and what was a quintesential existential poem with its quaint idiom but loaded with angst. It stood out as something genuine ...no posturing and smart-assing. I was very moved by it. It offered me an insight into a poem of my own on your position. My poem resonates with the emotional argument you put forward.
Maybe the other posters who regularly contribution to this OLO topic may out of curiosity go to your previous post and re-read it.

socratease

Dear George,

If you read Gibbon on the first three centuries of the primitive church, one readily sees the transition of the church leadership from simple fisherman to presbyters of equal status to the congregation, to provincial bishops as administrators, to bishops usurping secular powers, privilege and authority over the congregation. As late as the 1870s (if memory serves), there were secular Papal States. In no way do I believe that saying the Church regards itself in special position, to be “sweeping”: Overarching, perhaps, but neither vague nor untethered. Some people have bad hair days. I think you had right brain day.

It was the Boston police who were “thwarted” by the Vatican. The police wanted to detain the Bishop but he found sanctuary in the Vatican.

As I noted, a Bank (I know this having been there) will quite ready involve the police not only over theft, but also the police bribery case. The Vatican and the Bishops don’t act like Banks, as if, they are special and above secular authorities.

I was not saying that clergy should be denied access to legal advice or psychiatrists. If a Bank Manager took a child from the Banking Chamber and raped the child in his offie, no way any Australian bank would manage the criminal’s defence. The police would be called. Presumably, the civil lawyer and the Court would appoint two psychiatrists.

It might surprise you that I believe, except in case where a duty of care has been breached or there is a cover-up or similar, the Church should not be pay compensation. The Church should pay only if has done wrong. Protecting priests/brothers is wrong.

I agree that after-the-fact criminality is a difficult issue. After the Lincoln assassination, I believe that I am correct in saying that some people who helped John Wilkes Booth were unaware of the crime and the issue hanging or not them was debated. Three months suspended sentence seems very light for covering-up a major crime. Any extenuating circumstance would need to significant. I put protecting the Universal church is insufficient reason for clemancy.

Oliver,

That is a remarkable statement.

"It was the Boston police who were “thwarted” by the Vatican. The police wanted to detain the Bishop but he found sanctuary in the Vatican."

That rumour relates to Cardinal Law doesn't it? Can you substantiate that the police wanted to detain a Bishop? Wasn't he investigated but the Attorney General determined that criminal prosecution was not available?

http://www.snapnetwork.org/legal_courts/stories/boston_weak_statutes.htm

Of course from prior experience in this thread and related ones no doubt you or someone else will simply repeat it again irrespective of evidence.

Thanks mjpb for providing a link to the Boston Globe article.

Most illuminating.

I hadn't realized before that:

- the Attorney General entrusted with the task of laying criminal charges against the Archbishop was a Catholic. But then again, it is Boston...

- the weakness of Massachusetts law concerning obstruction of justice was given as one of the reasons for the lack of charges laid. In other States, the cover-up itself would have been sufficient to prosecute, but in Mass. they needed to show intent, "to interfere knowingly with the investigations".

- similarly, he was reluctant to prosecute for "accessory after the commission of a felony", given the apparent lack of intent "of helping an offender escape prosecution or avoid detection" when the offenders were moved on to another diocese

- finally, he decided against prosecution of the archdiocese as a corporation, for the abuse performed by their employees. Although the State allowed the corporation to be held responsible for the acts of its people, he decided that he could not prove "that the archdiocese had benefited from the abuse by their priests"

They seem to me to be extremely thin grounds for holding off. Almost as if... no, surely the fact that the Attorney General was a good Catholic boy didn't influence him in the slightest?

Heaven forfend.

I would suggest that a competent jury would decide... ah, but they'd all be good Boston Catholics too, eh.

Compelling raw material, though.

[Please excuse unintended earlier cross-post to Creationist thread. I apologise]

mjpb,

It has been some time ago, challenging my keyword searches. However, I did found the following BBC report and Time Magazine Article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2573723.stm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,400020,00.html

Also,

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/stories3/121202_jury.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2479&dat=20021215&id=B1k1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=iyUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=185,35426531

Please refer to December 6 in BBC Report. My memory of earlier claims involved the Police, not the Attorney General. I Agree, perhaps, I need to look more closely at the matter . Any pursuit by police might involve Law being in Contempt of the Grand Jury, not protecting paedophiles?

He does seem to have left for the Vatican to avoid questioning. Do you agree?

- What did the Pope do? … Promote him:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/international/worldspecial2/08cardinals.html?_r=1

Pericles.. the entire police force there would be Catholic wouldn't it?

Wasn't this the town that supported Irish terrorism so happily, until 9/11 killed a few of them?

No prosecutions there I bet for years of supporting and funding the IRA.

Now you can understand how Qlders felt when the Joh trial was abandoned because.... oh dear.... the jury foreman turns out to be a National Party drone.

Who knows what the judges here were in those days?

Pericles,

I don't know about the inferences based on religion and am rather skeptical. You say they are thin grounds and morally they are (the term technicality comes to mind) but either the law has the power to prosecute or they don't. The Attorney General can't spend public money on something that Law's lawyer could get him off on those grounds. That would be a waste of time.

Oliver,

He had already been questioned by a grand jury I believe before the AG decided that there weren't any grounds to prosecute. There was nothing to protect him from. It was all over. That is the point I am making in an attempt to quash the rumour. In the process obviously I'm digging up the dirt on Law but credit given where it is due.

That's precisely the excuse the Attorney General provided himself with, mjpb.

>>either the law has the power to prosecute or they don't. The Attorney General can't spend public money on something that Law's lawyer could get him off on those grounds<<

But that isn't quite the full case, though, is it?

It was entirely within the AG's power to prosecute. He could quite easily, on the material outlined in the article, have made at least a prima facie, case that would require a jury to decide the issue.

He most certainly did not have to decide ahead of time, whether "Law's lawyer could get him off on those grounds".

He only had to decide whether there was sufficient grounds to formulate a charge; not pre-judge whether it would be shot down by the defence lawyer. He could just as easily have decided that the public interest would be best served if the accusations, and accompanying innuendo, were given a full airing during their day in court.

Given that he presented a picture of breast-beating regret in the newspaper article, I'm pretty sure he could have summoned up enough potential misdeeds that would have brought the evidence out in front of twelve "good men and true".

Whether or not they might be wall-to-wall, died-in-the-wool Micks.

But he didn't. So we'll never know, will we.

Don't forget also, that the Attorney General's is and elected position.

So he would have been risking a cushy salary, as well as an extended stay in Purgatory...

Thank you from my heart Socratease. I wish you would start a poetry type thread for OLO participants to read and share any poetry you have written [great if you could put in some humorous and hilarious ones to lighten all of our spirits]too! Love, romance, country, politics for those who enjoy the topic, climate change. Any poems I'd love to read!

Your postings I have followed since joining and I would be extremely sad not to read any more. From all of your postings you are highly intelligent, you think outside the square which I LOVE in you and people, [really do], and at the same time you are highly fair and say things how they are Socratease [factual].

Am going to keep posted for a poetry thread and I can see Foxy delighting in it and contributing beautifully.

xxx.

Dear Oliver,
OK, so I should have written “no point in responding to sweeping accusations by sweeping defence”.

As to the Boston case, you certainly know more about it than I ever did. I think you are right there with your principles if the details and explanations provided by mjpb are taken into account. Thanks for the links. Whatever happened or should have happened to Law, I do not think that being made "one of nine prelates who will have the honor of presiding over funeral Masses for Pope John Paul II” is a promotion. But I agree that if not prosecuted, and if his doing can be found as morally wrong - while his wrongdoings cannot be proved to be illegal - the Church should have stashed him away in a convent or so. However, to repeat myself, I do not know (or understand) the details.

I also think that if you want to compare cover-ups of pedophile offenses in Catholic institutions, other educational institution - religious or secular, like e.g. the German Odenwaldschule (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,686190,00.html) - offer a better yardstick than banks.

As to paying compensation, I am not a lawyer but it happens in many cases either as an out of court settlement or after being ordered by the court, apparently also where the Church was involved. For instance, the Los Angeles Archdiocese paid out USD 660 million to 508 people - i.e. on average almost USD 1.3 million per victim - in 2007.

Dear George and mpjb,

Thanks for your posts.

As best I can make out Cardinal Law did skip town in December 2002, according to the BBC, Times and Boston Globe. This action appears to be the source of the publicity: The story of a Bishop ignoring a Grand Jury subpoena, after serious allegations of a sex abuse cover-up.

However, the Bishop returned in February, 2003, when it is clear that it is hard to build a case under Massachusetts Law.

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&rlz=1I7GGLL_en&q=%22grand+jury%22+archbishop+law&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

The claims of a cover-up seem valid even given the AG’s response.
The media reporting was more subdued on the second matter. Critics of the Church know of the first subpoena and the Faithful of the second. Only parts of the elephant.

As previous noted Law appears to have been promoted by John Paull II, receiving a new important mission, a “palatial apartment” and a US$120,000 p.a. stipend:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-122027984.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-122027984.html

I see abuse of power here and further see inappropriate responses.

Herein, I quote Gibbon:

“Our serious thoughts will suggest to the apostles themselves were chosen by providence among the fisherman of Galilee, and that the lower depress the temporal condition of the first the Christians, the more reason we shall find to admire the merit and success. It is incumbent on us diligently to remember, that the kingdom of Heaven was promised to the poor in spirit and that minds afflicted by calamity and the contempt of mankind, cheerfully listen to the divine promise of future happiness; while, on the contrary, the fortunate are satisfied with the passion of this world; and the wise abuse in doubt and dispute their vain superiority of reason and knowledge” – Gibbon (1776)

Hello Pericles,
Also, there is the issue of not attending to the first subpoena. I suspect if a labourer ignored a Court order it would not have been overlooked.

-- “Blessed, he said, are the persecuted. Persecuted? Law wasn't even prosecuted, despite knowingly transferring serial predators from parish to parish rather than removing them from ministry and despite dodging his responsibility for the coverup under oath in depositions that prolonged the pain of the victims.

The cardinal did apologize, we are sure to be reminded. Tell that to Patrick McSorley's family and friends. They didn't see Law at the funeral for Patrick, who died of a drug overdose in February. The last Patrick saw of Law, the cardinal was sitting across a conference table, stonewalling lawyers during the civil lawsuit against the church that tolerated the abuse that John J. Geoghan meted out to Patrick and to so many others in three decades as a Catholic priest.

Law could have been meek, merciful, a peacemaker. He could have spared Patrick McSorley and the other victims, but "settlement" was synonymous with "surrender" to the embattled archbishop. He gave no ground. The case did not end until he was gone. The pain still hasn't.

The Vatican's appointment of Law as head priest at the Basilica of St. Mary Major is an affront to every immigrant whose hard-earned nickels and dimes built the churches that will now be razed or sold off for condominiums to ease the financial burden brought by the clergy sexual abuse crisis. It does not matter whether the proceeds are used directly to pay the multimillion-dollar settlements to abuse victims. The coffers are empty because the scandal emptied the pews of the people and their checkbooks.” – Eileen McNamara (Globe)

--“Anyone who reads through the relevant and extensive correspondence of not only Law but his auxiliary bishops -- many of whom went on to positions of greater responsibility -- as well as through the depositions he gave can only conclude that Law was fortunate to get out of Boston and the United States without facing greater legal consequences.” – National Catholic Reporter

Should the Pope resign? Yes. Jailed. Probably.

John Paul II appears to have been equally guilty of protecting clergy.

Cardinal Law eh?

Whatever happened to Cardinal Sin?

>> Should the Pope resign? Yes. Jailed. Probably.<<
Sorry Oliver, I thought you were more serious than that, therefore I replied to your posts also on this thread. Nixon resigned because he lost the trust of those who voted for him; those who want Benedict to resign did not vote for him, and would not vote for his successor; actually some Vatican watchers claim that today Benedict would get even more votes than in 2005.

Nobody denies that many pedophilia crimes were committed under the protection of Catholic educational institutions and parishes, and some of them - well, too many - were covered-up or even negligibly (never mind unintentionally) abetted by those in positions of responsibility. However, nobody in the Roman Curia did more to start cleaning up the mess - both on his own initiative and under outside pressure - than Ratzinger/Benedict. Resigning under external pressure in the middle of the cleansing job would probably be beneficial to the 83-year old pope, and his health, but not for solving the problem by both accepting institutional responsibiliy and issuing clear directives for the future.

As to “probably jailed” (according to the principle “guilty unless proven innocent”?) this is beyond comment, but let me assure you, that nothing would help the Church more than if that happened, judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.

I have often found your logic a little difficult to get a grip on, George, and I'm afraid this is one of those times.

>>Nobody denies that many pedophilia crimes were committed under the protection of Catholic educational institutions and parishes, and some of them - well, too many - were covered-up or even negligibly (never mind unintentionally) abetted by those in positions of responsibility.<<

You stop short of saying "...and those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law".

Do you agree with this corollary, or dispute it?

If you agree, then we have a mismatch at this point...

>>nothing would help the Church more than if [the Pope were to be jailed], judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.<<

What if - and this was the original direction of this thread - it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?

Are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?

I certainly get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities".

But would the public, "not only Catholic", actually express support for a human being who would do such a thing?

More to the point, would the Catholic faithful continue to venerate him as God's representative on earth?

George,

“Should” was the keyword. As I noted in examples no Bank Manger or common labourer would get away with what the Popes (Benedict and JP II) and bishops did. These people are treated as “special”.
By “jailed”, again, I mean equivalent justice to others, given criminal deeds. The Catholic Church is not alone; Muamma Gaddafi and Idi Amin are in the bucket of leaders who have/were not held accountable. That is the point, I feel Gibbon makes (see quote): Privilege has become the order of the day, usurping “the shoes of a fishermen”. Herein, the College of Cardinals, I suspect is every bit as political as any Board Room.

Do I feel that I am especially targeting the Catholic Church? No. I accept your examples of similar behaviours in Boarding Schools. Likewise, I would have liked have seem those in Big Tobacco to have been run through the same legal wringler.

Probably, “tried and if found guilty, jailed” would have better recognised Western legal processes. I agree.
The current examples receiving attention do not appear to “blown-up” charges. Because the Communists jailed bishops on feigned auspices, it does not follow that bishops should not be charged, tried and perhaps jailed, if they engage in paedophilia and/or covering-up criminal activity.

The practice of a Conclave voting in the Pope is not in accordance with the primitive Church. The Anglicans are closer to the original more democratic practice of voting in leaders.

As for Benedict, I think it would cause riots (and deaths) if he was arrested. Instead, he could be invited to “come-in”, as they say. If he chooses to evade, he could tried “in absentia” as was Martin Bormann at Nurnberg. The symbolism would be enough.

Law appears to have been guilty of a cover-up and costing the Church millions in damages suits. Yet, the Catholic Church promotes him. If everything, Law should have been demoted to a humble appointment.

“Look at what I am doing now” and not “what I should do”, is a bit like the magician’s trick of using the attractive women to distract the audience.

nothing's gonna change.que cera cera

socratease

Hi Pericles,
Here we go again.

>> I have often found your logic a little difficult <<
As you know, as mathematiian, logical thinking was probably the only thing I could do to earn my living with. So it must be my fault if I cannot express myself clearly enough for you to follow.

On the other hand, jurisprudence or legal practice is not my field, so I can speculate only to a limited extent, lest I look like those who pronounce judgements about evolution (or theology, etc) without properly understanding what it is about.

>> “and those involved should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law". Do you agree with this corollary, or dispute it?<<

I do not know how (and in what legal system) the term “involved” (e.g. in murder) is to be defined, but, of course, I agree that those against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of having committed … (insert an item from the official list of crimes prosecutable in the particular country) “should be prosecuted to the full extent of law” in that country.

>>if … it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime … are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?<<
Well, if it is proven that he e.g. murdered a person then this would certainly not be beneficial to the Church. Only the impression, should it arise, that he is being hounded or prosecuted not so much for what he has done but for what he stands for, could lead to the lifting of the public image of him, and his supporters, albeit not overnight. So I do not question your implication only your premise, with all the legal (and factual) ambiguities in it. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>I … get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities"<<
It would never occur to me to use such language when referring to the suffering of victims - be it of sexual abuses by pedophile clergy, or of incarceration and torture by an oppressive political system. I think this is where we differ more than in our “logics”.

As to the legal (in distinction to moral) aspects of the case, I do not know how is “aiding and abetting” pedophilia (I presume this is the crime you have in mind) legally exactly defined in this or that country. Also, the pope is the Head of a State officially recognised by 177 countries, so - as I see it - at most the International Court of Justice in Hague would come into consideration.

Let me repeat that I am not an expert on any law, international included. I only suspect that should he be explicitly charged with the aim to prosecute, he would be defended - at least in the media - not only by “pious” Catholics defending their “Holy Father”, but also by atheist or Jewish attorneys defending the integrity of their profession (see e.g. Alan Dershowitz in http://frontpagemag.com/2010/04/13/in-defense-of-the-pope/). Thanks God (if you don’t mind) this is still an open society.

Oliver,
Please read my response to Pericles as an indirect response to the views expressed in your post. There is only one exception:

>>he could (be) tried “in absentia” as was Martin Bormann at Nurnberg <<
I am not Jewish but I could understand their outrage at comparing, even indirectly, the reasons for which the Nürnberg trials were held with those the pope could even possibly be accused of.

George,

One does not need to be in the legal professional to appreciate Arch Priest Law should have faced a jury, when a Bishop. I think that Boston Globe and Catholic National Reporter presented strong arguments. Do you disagree with columnists?

There are at least two issues here.

1. There was enough evidence to investigate a crime and detain Bishop Law. Moreover, it seems odd, that Law who was being investigated for an indictable offence and the capacity to flee the Court’s jurisdiction was not ordered to surrender his passports.

2. The Church is using its status to avoid the accountability of its leaders to secular authorities. If it does so by claiming sovereign immunity and the status of State, it joins the likes of Pinochet.

Albeit, the Papal States were lost in the nineteenth century and the autonomous territory within Italy was declared by Mussolini, without international sanction. Although, there are “diplomatic” personnel exchanges, the UN does not recognise the Vatican. Although, the Vatican is allowed to observe UN debates on key moral issues. Yet, all this is digression. Even, if the Pope was a Head of State and the Vatican was recognised by the UN, Benedict and JPII were still wrong regarding covering-up crimes to protect the “universal church” .

What the Pope (in part) stands for is, promoting Law, rather than demoting him to a common priest; even if stay within the domain of the Church.

It would seem the Pope and Church act as if “above” answerability for their actions. Edward Gibbon seems to make a similar point, when contrasting the temporal high and mighty with meek and spiritual fishermen. Please go back and read the block Gibbon quote. What do you feel is Gibbon saying about the Church of 1776?

My comment regarding Bormann as a “Judgment at Nurnberg” parellel was on judgment made in absentia of a leader. Here, the locus was on the means of jurisprudence: Nothing to do with the Jews (or Poles).

A Pope or Bishop “in the dock” would deserve a defence lawyer, of course.

-cont-

George,

Is it rational to defend the “Holy Father” when said Father protects wayward clergy from secular justice? He does not even act in the more limited manner within orbit of his control over a subordinate, by demoting Law, for example.

I think part of the problem could be the Catholic Church sees itself as God’s agent, rather than a temporal functionary and conduit to understanding the God in question. If some people believe the Church’s self-referencing proclamations, we could have the same people believing, “my Church, right or wrong”. Perhaps, the Church needs to become more “grounded”, before it can in a more morally responsible manner.

The Alan Dershowitz article provided more reasons than excuses for the way the Catholic Church behaves, even in the 21st century. Being secretive, backward, authoritarian and self-serving are not justifications.

I have met three cardinals (one while still a priest). All were very civil and engaged in activities. None struck me as being particularly meek and humble. Along similar lines, I recall at my Confirmation, where the Bishop arrived in a chuffer drive limousine. It didn’t gel well with the “vow of poverty”. Nor do palaces, I put. It seems, there is spin and there is reality. Herein, the larger reality is the Pope and Bishopric see themselves as esteemed and elevated Excellencies. I doubt, the Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, had that product in mind.

Regards,

O.

It's very simple stuff, George. Really it is.

>>I do not know how (and in what legal system) the term “involved” (e.g. in murder) is to be defined, but, of course, I agree that those against whom there is a reasonable suspicion of having committed … (insert an item from the official list of crimes prosecutable in the particular country) “should be prosecuted to the full extent of law” in that country.<<

That's a "yes".

Why do you find it difficult to say?

>>Well, if it is proven that he e.g. murdered a person then this would certainly not be beneficial to the Church. Only the impression, should it arise, that he is being hounded or prosecuted not so much for what he has done but for what he stands for, could lead to the lifting of the public image of him, and his supporters, albeit not overnight. So I do not question your implication only your premise, with all the legal (and factual) ambiguities in it<<

Most would say "no, it would not be a good look".

The premise, by the way, was neither legally nor factually ambiguous...

"that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime"

>>As to the legal (in distinction to moral) aspects of the case, I do not know how is “aiding and abetting” pedophilia (I presume this is the crime you have in mind) legally exactly defined in this or that country.<<

Nor I. That is best left to the Attorney General.

Oh, I forgot...

George, your propensity for extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation indicates, more than anything else, an attempt to derail the conversation.

Do try clarity. Short, precise sentences. Simple ideas. Straightforward statements.

As a mathematician, you must know that it makes sense.

Dear Oliver,

>>My comment regarding Bormann as a “Judgment at Nurnberg” parellel … (had) … nothing to do with the Jews <<
I understand and agree; it was just too much of a temptation, since similar objections are often raised when some injustice (e.g. under Communism) is somehow mentioned in the same sentence as the suffering of Jews under Nazism, although no comparison was intended: there are no rational only emotional justification for such objections.

Remember, I originally wrote about the Canisius College case, that I thought I knew something about, you butt in with the Cardinal Law case, where obviously you were better informed. Only when you claimed that the pope should “probably” be jailed did I object, and offered my doubts about the feasibility and appropriateness of even officially charging him. You disagreed, fair enough.

Should I be wrong in assessing the situation, and it will actually come to a trial, I think the pope's attorney for defense would have no problems in getting the jury dismiss the case, unless there are found more convincing charges than what the sensational media have so far dug up.

Whichever way you look at it, I see no point in conducting a trial of the pope on this OLO. So we have to again agree to disagree as we did a couple of times before, remembering that a number of times we could also agree.

Pericles,

>>your propensity for extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation indicates … an attempt to derail the conversation.
Do try clarity. Short, precise sentences. Simple ideas. Straightforward statements.
As a mathematician, you must know that it makes sense.<<

Thanks for the advice, including how to be a better mathematician and write simple sentences (in response to loaded questions) that you can understand.

However, if you expect me to respond to such condescending exhortations and personal attacks with condescending exhortations and personal attacks, I am afraid I am too old and polite for that.

So please let us just remember our differences and leave it at that.

There's a new take on this.It'sd been put to me that the Church, and consequently the pope, is caught between a rock and a hard thing. They have to uphold the teachings of Jesus. The Pope tries to do just that.
But
The Bible has Jesus saying that we should forgive those who offend "seventy times seven" times if necessary. His disciples had just asked him how forgiving should one be against transgressors.What if he should offend seven times? tHEN jESUS GAVE HIS FAMOUS REPLY QUOTED ABOVE. What he meant was that we need to persist in helping an offender mend his ways. Not a word about what should be done to protect the vulnerable in the meantime. As always the rights of the vulnerable are overlooked.
What do you guys think about the inference made by the Gospel story?

socratease

“Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. “ (Mt 18:22-23).

So this would be applicable to the pope only if somebody “sinned against him”, no “vulnerables” (except for the pope himself) involved here.

The scandal is not about whom the Church should or should not have forgiven but that they did not always follow the proper procedure - in the moral as well as legal sense - that is, that they put self-interest before the interests of the “vulnerables” in their care (and of the society at large).

Which ever way you want to put it,The pope and his cohorts all sinned one way or another.They acknowledge this and that is why they have been going about asking for forgiveness of the victims. Sure,they should have thought about this a long time ago,George, but Jesus didnt put a time limit on this,did he? It is never too late, as it has often been said. I understand you find it hard to apply this to the beleagured Pope and his honchos.Understand.
Im not sure.

socratease

Of course, you are right, socratease. Mt 18:22-23 would also apply to the victim if he cared to ask Jesus (like Peter did) how many times he should forgive the person (or persons), who “sinned against him”.

Of course, it is not up to the “sinners” to tell the victim they have to forgive, and how many times. I am sure nobody involved interprets MT 18:22-23 this way.

Hello George,

The Bishop Law Case was carried-forward from a recent thread on the Church wherein mjpb and I had discourse and the citation was not intended as a direct response to your Canisius College case. The Law case is interesting because it seems that the Bishop was treated preferentially over say a common labour by the Attorney General. Subsequently, Law is promoted by the Pope. It appears that high status of the Church and a Bishop are being taken into account, but should not be.

The Boston AG acted insipidly and JP II rewarded him. Law didn’t seem to have to dodge bulletins, even. No one with power over Law would fire their guns.

Apologising and saying “we will change and have no tolerance” does not go far enough. Several people, including Benedict, who have acted to protect the “universal church”, have not been held accountable. Moreover, in-house, their careers have advanced, when they have covered-up crimes.

Why I keep coming back to the Edward Gibbon quotation is that since c. 250 CE through to Constantine until now, the Church has become powerful and wealthy in a manner somewhat different the apostolic era preceding it. Likewise, I doubt Jesus, would be one to come to Confirmations in a limousine.

“The Church is not meant to be master of the State” - Martin Luther King Jnr. Herein, I feel that Jesus one have no problem with criminals and their minders being rendered unto Caesar. The catch is the Papacy, sees itself as Caesar.

Ultimately, the issue of forgiveness of sin has to do with afterlives, for those who believe. Criminality is temporal and its redress for serious breaches in the Court room. Mehmet Ali Acga was “forgiven” for his attempt on JPII’s life, yet, he still faced secular justice. So let it be with paedophiles and their minders.

The overarching issue is: Does the ends justify the means? Does acting to protect the Church justify acing immorally to achieve that end?

Well, I guess Law did have dodge "bulletins", but he didn't have to dodge "bullets": i.e., legal and career consequences. - Please ee above.

"The scandal is not about whom the Church should or should not have forgiven but that they did not always follow the proper procedure - in the moral as well as legal sense - that is, that they put self-interest before the interests..." - George

Agree. But the Church still needs to prune the rose/itself. It has to come clean, including exposing the "minders" not only the paedophiles and bashers. In a sense, the Church is infected and needs a good dose of legal anti-biotics.

George and Socratease,

Perhaps Mark is more relevant:

"whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if your hand offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your foot offend you, cut it off: it is better for you to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched. And if your eye offend you, pluck it out: it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched". Mark 9 42:48

Herein, what holds for an immoral individual; I put; must hold for an immoral Church. The Catholic Church (or any Church) must not assault innocent children; and, metaphorically speaking, not retain, those the eyes and limbs being criminals. Even if the Church "forgives" these criminals, it still must cleave them from the institution, popes and bishops included.

Oliver,
Thank you for a further elaboration on your views and sermons. I am afraid you are again mixing up at least four related but not equivalent issues:

(i) the fact of sexual abuse in Catholic institutions;
(ii) the fact of some bishops being guilty of cover-ups (apparently including Cardinal Law) and the questions of which bishop and to what extent;
(iii) the question of in what sense and to what extent can JPl II be blamed;
(iv) the question of in what sense and to what extent can Benedict XVI be blamed.

I think emotions (as distinct from facts referring to concrete cases) - whether exhibited by those who have been known to be a priori anti-Catholic (even anti-theist) or from those who have always felt the need to defend the Church and the Pope, as understandable as they might be in both cases - do not help to clarify the issues.

By now you must know where I agree with you, and where I disagree, so - as I already said - let us just be happy about where we agree, and agree to disagree where we don’t.

Dear Geroge,

Thank you for your reply.

I would certainly agree (i)-(iv) are not equivalent issues yet there are interrelated and overlap like Venn Diagrams. Moreover, through a skeptic, I would argue that Catholic Church should address the systemic issues discussed, if the Church is to be true its own creed. I suggest that this puts the “minders” in the cross-hairs. Benedict seems to have moved to some extent against the perpetrators with regards to “future” intent.

I put, the Church will survive. The matter under the microscope is; in what guise will it survive? For centuries that Church has had problems of what sort or another. The twig was bent, I believe, because the values of institutionalisation were substituted for the values of the “very” early church. Empires act differently to missions.

I think I understand where you stand on (i) and (ii). (i) The Church is guilty, but not to a greater extent than any other large organization of a similar kind. (ii) You acknowledge some bishops (and higher ups) have been involved in cover-ups; maybe, feeling cover-up s are rare. Regarding (iii) and (iv), you see, the two popes have been handed a poisoned chalice and they have performed in a rightful way, to defend the Church in a spiritual and institutional sense, rather being pulled into a street fight in the public domain, which could be very damaging.

As for (i); we agree. I would tend to intertwine (ii) - (iv), which goes to the issue of “priests protecting priests” to save peers and the Church (not unlike some secular brotherhoods).

I wish the Church would address more fully these matters and if can’t the secular authorities do the job. Hence, my comments made on putting popes on trial and jailed (most likely symbolically; “ ‘guilty in absentia’ or ‘jailed until the rising of the Court’ ”).

I suspect you might wish to bring the current discourse to a close but before we do:

How would you have Benedict XVI deal with the bishops? What message did JPII promoting Law send to other bishops?

soctratease,

"Which ever way you want to put it,The pope and his cohorts all sinned one way or another.They acknowledge this and that is why they have been going about asking for forgiveness of the victims. Sure,they should have thought about this a long time ago,George, but Jesus didnt put a time limit on this,did he?"

Circa 200 CE, there issue of how many times one could be forgiven was associated with baptism and that matter was one of concern for the early Jesus sects. You see, it was first felt that people could only be forgiven once. On one hand, this tended to push baptism towards the deathbed... no opportinty re-sin. On the other hand, because of high infant mortality, there was a a lean towards infant baptism. A few centuries later, adult baptism became a problem for Roman authorties, because the Christians would go on a sin fest before final baptism, preparation for which took (if I recall correctly) three years.

(Apostles aside) The forgiveness of sin was oringinally associated with Martyrs and Confessors (people who almost became martyrs but released) not the priesthood. Then justifications for Jesus sect priesthoods had Jewish origins, not Apostolic suscession from Peter, which came later. Recall, until Hadrian, the leaders of the Jesus sects were Jewish.

Oliver,
>>How would you have Benedict XVI deal with the bishops?<<
You did not name any bishop, and if you did I probably would not know the details. Nevertheless:

As far as criminal liability of this or that bishop is concerned I would leave it in most cases (countries that can be seen as having the judicial separated from executive) to the corresponding Attorney General or other legal authorities.

[I know, somebody here wrote “the Attorney General entrusted with the task of laying criminal charges against the Archbishop was a Catholic”. Well, how would you regard a statement like “the Attorney General entrusted with the task of laying criminal charges against this homosexual, Afro-American, female, etc. was a homosexual, Afro-American, female etc. respectively”?].

I think - but here I am on unsure territory - the pope cannot make the bishop “turn in” the culprit if the victims (or their parents) themselves are unwilling or unable (for whatever reasons) to lay charges leading to prosecution.

Only the national Conferences of bishops in particular countries can instruct their bishops to cooperate - as far as abuse of minors is concerned - with “secular authorities” . (This cannot be done universally in all matters and valid in all countries, since not all countries have a legislative and judicial system that the Church can accept and respect, see e.g. the Communist countries in the past).

This they did explicitly e.g. in Germany recently, which does not mean that before they discouraged such cooperation; they apparently only did not see a reason to make it that explicit. There is enough evidence that in the past not only the Church was very naive and negligent concerning pedophilia occurrences, psychological impact on victims and available “remedies”. (ctd)

(ctd)
If only error of judgement on the side of the bishop was involved - acting not with “criminal intent” but through negligence with “unintended consequences” leading to further victims - he should reprimand him. And in extreme cases - where “trial by media” becomes unbearable in his home country - offer him “asylum”, like the Vatican did with a couple of bishops in the past who were sentenced not only by media but also by the judicial in former Communist countries.

>>I suspect you might wish to bring the current discourse to a close<<
Yes, as I said “I see no point in conducting a trial of a pope (dead or alive) on this OLO”. I nevertheless responded, because I value your insights on many topics, but now please take my last contribution as it is, and let us leave it at that.

Dear George,

Thank you for your views, which I appreciate are sincerely held. I will agree t disagree with you, once again, for this thread. I appreciate your pastcomments.

Best wishes,

O.

Others,

Regarding the points made by George:

1. I believe several “minder” bishops have been identified on OLO paedophilia thread. It is easy to test. Just look.

2. One belief seeminly being held by the Faithful is that, “only the national Conferences of bishops in particular countries can instruct their bishops to cooperate - as far as abuse of minors is concerned - with “secular authorities” (George). Here we have canonical authorities vetting themselves in relation to whether or not to cooperate with secular authorities:

When I worked in the Head Office of a Bank oberved after several years of collecting Financial Institutions Duty, an error was found in the original computer programme used to collect the tax, when business analysts wrote a new programme. When it was discovered the Bank owed the ATO a significant sum, a Conclave of the Australian Bankers’ Association was “not” called to see if Banks would vote on whether Banks should declare or not declare errors and pay the tax. Instead, an actuarial committee was formed and the Bank itself it had made the error known and made voluntary restitution. Catch is, the Church sees itself able to operate independent to secular law, a power it lost centuries ago. Point: The Church is acting as if is special and must not operate to good moral/legal accepted in the broader community. In a sense it is exclusive and antisocial, some thing the Ancient Romans accused the Judeo-Christian religions of being.

The Catholic Church's “Cremin Solliticiations” (Soliciting Crimes) though not directly relevant to the sex abuse scandals (mainly covering-up false confessions, I think), does shine a light on the inner secretiveness of the Church and the use of papal and bishopric powers to keep sinful matters in-house, threatening things like excommunication and making redemption/absolution possible only be the Pope, for broken oaths and the telling of Holy Secrets.

Shadow Minister,

Having reviewed this thread, thus far, what are your thoughts?

Oliver... you are far too generous.

Those who 'believe' believe they serve their god, who sits above us all, and so have no need to comply with 'our' human made laws.

It's simple. Belief absolves any notions of responsibility to others... the complete opposite of what they claim it drives them to do.

Of course, it never occurs to these goons that they cannot possibly know what their god wants them to do, otherwise they would be as wise as their god, and that cannot ever be allowed to happen or it would diminish the 'special status' of their god, rendering it to 'human' sized status.

They certainly 'think' they know what it wants, they certainly tell each other various fibs to back it all up, but they simply cannot 'know'.

So, playing games with meetings about obeying the law, the human made law, is just a part of pretending they are 'special'.... even Popes die but you'd think if they were so close to their god they'd be spared such degrading situations as death....made into angels maybe?

It is simply astounding that so many people feel so insecure that they need to grasp onto lies to be able to exist, and then feel the need to make those lies even more complex by mixing in rituals, myths and miracles.

The Blue Cross,

What is also curious and I have touched on it several times over many threads: The early Jesus sects leading up to c. 250 would not have a bar of the teaching of the institutionalised church which grew between c.250 CE - 325 CE. Reading Edward Gibbon and Robin Lane Fox, suggests that the very early Christians had bishopics close to the laity and that power distance as avoided.

Moreover, the early bishops were Jewish not Latin and, the authority of bishops does not come Peter, rather the establised Jewish rabbanical traditional. Confession, historically, is related to martyrdom. Sinners would be absolved by the righteous, who were about to meet the God. I have never heard the clergy point this history out.

The persecutions of the Jews actuall helped Christianty by pushing them into the country side spreading the Faith. When the religion was small there letters sent between the local communities. As the faith grew administraive leaderships were put in place. Still there was no social mobility attached to being a Christian.

Constantine (325 CE)acted to institutional creeds and select preferred Gospels forming basis from Canon law could evolve, commencing with "Holy" Roman Empire up untii today's issues, wherein the modern church is nothing like that started by the applauded mendicant and humanist, Jesus Christ.

I have only rearely been successful on drawing direct discussion on matters like these, which is odd, because, my citations are historical. One the other hand, a "made-up" church would have no justification for Canon Law in the first place, even if Jesus was a god. Their Jesus might not wish to know them.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

As with most threads, this seems to have drifted into looking at some of the more obscure points.

A recommendation I got from someone is that Catholic priests should have the following warning tattooed on their necks "not safe for children under 13"

Oliver.. I have noted your historical bent. I find that informative, and handy to know. I would have thought the tale of the tables-in-the-Temple might have been capable of being extrapolated to include the power structure of the modern churches, but that would be too easy for these 'believers', maybe?

I am signed up to a US Xtian 'wineskins' newsletter. Last week we exchanged views on his latest guff, the forthcoming return of Jesus and 'all the signs' pointing that way 'for the last 15 years'.

I asked what the 'signs' were, and when/how he realised this.

The GFC was not listed as a 'sign', unusual because Xtians are right into greed and 'wealth creation' as a sign that their god loves them (the talents tale).

He told me the signs were the problems within the church... and the drop off in attendance.

I ventured deeper, suggesting that 'God' might in fact be readying to reward those who saw the falsehood of the established churches and left them by the side of the road to follow a more enlightened path on their own.

I suggested that the rise of 'atheism', as described by 'the fearful ones' anyway, was a sign too, and that it was these people, who saw through the sham of Popes, Bishops, Priests, Deacons,Vergers, Vicars, and particularly the charlatans who self-anoint as 'pastor', who might just make it through the needle's eye hole, and the rest who might be about to burn in their own Hell, with their excessive wealth.

Funny... I've not heard back from him for a while.

'A Sign'?

Frankly, it seems that all organisations that grow too big end up corrupt, and I see no reason why this man-designed nonsense should think it is any different to any other man-designed power structure.

After all, even DOCS must do some good somewhere, or the numerous education departments, but that does not mean either is a tower of strength and virtue does it?

I think what Shadow Minister meant to write was for the tattoo to read 'to be taken with a pinch of salt'.

Pericles,

I will read the intervening posts in due course but I note that on Thursday, 22 April 2010 9:16:44 AM you seem to be critical of George as follows:

">>nothing would help the Church more than if [the Pope were to be jailed], judging from my own experience with the public (not only Catholic) reaction to the jailing of bishops by Communist authorities on blown up charges.<<

What if - and this was the original direction of this thread - it is proven in court that the Pope was indeed guilty of aiding and abetting a crime?

Are you suggesting this would be beneficial to the Church?

I certainly get the allusion to martyrdom inherent in your reference to "Communist authorities".

But would the public, "not only Catholic", actually express support for a human being who would do such a thing?"

Many in here have suggested that the Pope is guilty of aiding and abetting a crime in spite of the media rhetoric they rely upon only hinting that we are getting closer to discover that. That has been the flavour of the thread not your hypothetical. Even the title suggests something stronger than a hypothetical. George has rightly pointed out that there is no evidence suggesting that the Pope is guilty so he would be a martyr if he is wrongly prosecuted for political reasons.

You then criticise his attempt to respond to that criticism, for "extraneous verbiage, impenetrable subordinate clauses and outright obfuscation". How would you communicate if someone levelled something so inaccurate at you? He obviously isn't attempting to derail but instead is communicating in the imperfect manner that anyone unfairly facing such criticism could be expected to. He is also trying to avoid misrepresenting himself as a legal expert which complicates thing further. I'll read on to see whether he gets it together or you win the game.

I have now read them all. Good to see the outcome.

Shadow Minister,

There must be some reason that a group with pre-pubescent abuse well below population norms should have a warning like that tattooed on their necks.

What was that rule about the length of a thread ...?

Your suggestion naturally reminds me of this article which was cited in another thread:

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/how_the_nazis_engineered_a_paedophile_priests_scare/

MJPB,

While I note that you restrict your defense of the church to pre pubescent (as the assaults are usually on pubescent children), the issue is more about the reaction of the church to these abuses.

Until very recently they adopted the three monkey approach.

Whilst the individual actions are the fault solely of the individuals, the cover ups are the fault of the church. The continued decades long abuse by some priests could have been nipped in the bud by any organisation that cared more for its flock than its reputation.

Shadow Minister,

I don't think there were any other organisations in those days that cared more about their flock then their reputation. However clearly at the time those Bishops in the Church that took that approach should have not blended in with other organisations. That said though that characterisation is an oversimplification. The main problem was the reluctance of the Bishops involved to take the responsibility and treat the issue as a religious one rather than a secular one. Yes the mental health profession claimed to be able to cure paedophiles but a priest willing to go with secular norms at the time should have been booted out. It wasn't the tendency that was the problem it was the fact that they acted it out.

More similar news on another of these cases:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jQWrzPjAEtxgfa_tARqu5413A4PAD9FGJSKO1

MJPB

Secular norms even at that time did not include moving an offender from one institution to another unsuspecting one.

Whilst everyone is trying to hose down the Vatican's ignominous record of child abuse and working hard on minimizing the fallout by strenous damage control measures, have we forgotten the victims who still hurt from the shame they feel, their recurrent nightmares and the temptation to commit suicide to end their travail? And all the while these monsters of the Church and those who are shielding themselves continue to eat delicate meals, quaff their rich wines, swan around in their expensive cars mostly chauffer driven and go about in drag with the most outrageous hats and mitres whilst working hard at making pious and repentant faces to fool us all. They have decided to tough it out and wait for memories to grow faint.

socratease

But most of them are dead...or booted out by the current Pope.