I have named the Catholic Church in this discussion as they are by far the biggest serial offenders when it comes to the crime of institutional child abuse in Australia, but they are not alone, and they are not the only organisation to be involved in these heinous acts of physical, sexual and psychological abuse of children, over a very long period of time, there are others. However, along with these proven disgusting criminal acts by so many members of the church clergy, there has been the serious offence of lying, denial and cover up by the Catholic Church hierarchy. The latest allegations of attempted bribery put before the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse centers again on Cardinal George Pell, who until recently was the most senior member of the Catholic Church in Australia.
If more is proven, and given the past findings of the systemic culpability of the Catholic Church in Australia in relations to these matters, would it be appropriate for the State to take punitive action against the Church and suspend its “license” to operate within Australia? In my opinion there has been enough proven to justify such action, what do others think, and if in agreement what action could be taken? If they were a company, or a union committing serious crime action would have been taken long ago in the form of fines, jail for directors and officials and deregistration etc, what makes the Catholic Church so different!
To given an analogy; If many of the XYZ Motor Companies employees were purposely interfering with the safety of the vehicles manufactured, and if the company management to the highest level had covered this up, allowed it to continue, and engaged in criminal activity, even after it had been publicly exposed, would you expect the government to take punitive action against the XYZ Motor Co, or would you expect them to be paid to supply more vehicles to the government. Like we pay the Catholic Church to educate our children

I absolutely agree that the Catholic Church should be made to pay for the collusion within it's ranks with the paedophiles it hid.
Why should criminals get away with such crimes just because they say they are the head of a church that preaches about supposedly good invisible gods?

No one is above the law, least of all those who put themselves out there as being morally above everyone else.

I suspect abuse of children began shortly after the Catholic clergy first arrived in Australia, not only did they bring their bibles with them from overseas, they most likely brought their disgusting practices as well. My own father who was born before WWI, spoke of the abuse of children by Catholic nuns, brothers and priests in schools and other institutions with nothing ever done about it. Like communism in Russia, Catholicism in Australia is a failed experiment, because like Russian communism, it has not adhered to its own principles and therefore failed itself.

Paul1405, "..because like Russian communism, it has not adhered to its own principles and therefore failed itself"

So you still harbour a fondness for communism, believing that it might work? There must be some interesting discussions among those 'Watermelon' Greens, including your leader Lee Rhiannon and her shadow, Rhiannon's featherweight Xerox machine, David Shoebridge.

It is also intriguing that while you castigate the Roman Catholics for introducing a culture of pedophilia to Australia, you are silent (along with other apologists) where Islamists importing toxic political systems, values, beliefs and practices to Australia and other Western democracies are concerned.

What is there to say that the political correctness of multiculturalism and the cynical ethnic vote-chasing by the Labour Party in the UK that concealed and shielded the child sex exploitation, drugging and trafficking by Pakistani migrants isn't inviting and introducing similar problems in Australia?

Rightly, the Catholic Church is due a clobbering with a chain-mail fist, but you and other leftists would never do the same where Islam is concerned and you duck the obvious lessons of Rotherham's (UK) 1,400 child sex victims and thousands more in other centres.

It is crucial that the power structures that allow child abuse, molesting and trafficking to occur and protect the offenders from prosecution be properly identified and examined. Rock spider celebrity to imported grub, they all likely share similar tactics to conduct and conceal their activities. It is possible there is communication and cooperation among them where child sex abuse and trafficking is organised, which is the greatest threat of all.

Enough of using pedophilia to serve the apparently more important secondary agenda, the leftist aim of trashing the Christian churches. That is bent.

If you really want to identify and treat the risks you and your Greens would not be playing favourites and would be relentless and resolute in identifying and dealing with child abuse without regard for and without the limitations of your political ideology.

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

Cardinal Pell needs to come back to Australia and face
the problem he left behind. Trust is going to have to be
built from the bottom up by bishops and priests before
their pronouncements on morality from the pulpit will be
taken seriously again. Cardinal Pell needs to set an
example and face the mess he's denying squarely in the face
and answer the many accusations being levied against him.
He owes his church (and the victims) in Australia
at least that. Denial or memory lapses no longer cuts it.

strange how the Greens seem to be the biggest champions of leaving young Indigeneous kids in abusive environments.

Paul,

"I have named the Catholic Church in this discussion as they are by far the biggest serial offenders when it comes to the crime of institutional child abuse in Australia, but they are not alone,...."

Do you man biggest by the number of abusers or the biggest by proportion to the number of clergy overall?

Or perhaps you mean the biggest in proportion of the offending clergy to the overall number of Catholics?

A little clarification would be helpful and just for the record I think that serial paedophiles, that is two proven offences, should be put to death regardless of their religious, political or other affiliations, and those that protect them should do prison time.

When one says 'Catholic Church' it would be well to remember that the Church is the whole membership regardless of their standing within that body.

Abstinence makes the church grow fondlers.

mikk,

Good one, LOL!

How strange that the 'Usual Suspects' on the forum not being able to defend the indefensible, try and deflect the argument onto something irrelevant to the topic.
OTB, wants to divert attention away from the Catholic Church in Australia by firstly associating communism with the Greens, then somehow its more to do with Islamists importing toxic political systems and the political correctness of multiculturalism. A bit of a sop with the CC deserves a clobbering with a chain-mail fist, but, there is always a BUT, in this case the BUT is another irrelevancy, leftists and Islamic behavior in Rotherham's (UK). To soften it all OTB finishes with "the leftist aim of trashing the Christian churches. That is bent." Now we have it, there really is nothing wrong in the Catholic Church in Australia, its those leftists wanting to do a bit of trashing! Can you also put the blame onto the Labor Party? if not, why not?

Paul,

Could you make an exception and answer my questions?

There is one school of thought that in proportion there are more paeodophiles in the Greens than in the Catholic Church.

Is Mise, the main point raised re the Catholic Church is the dreadful realization that a supposedly moral organization who puts itself out there as morally above everyone else has been hiding paedophiles within it's ranks, and thus aiding and abetting their activities, for years.

Somehow, this makes those particular paedophiles, and their employers, somehow worse than other disgusting creatures.

They are still protecting them too, with Pell denying all knowledge and developing memory problems, while all the while supposedly being able to run the churche's finances in Rome!
What absolute rubbish!

Pauk1405, "OTB, wants to divert attention away from the Catholic Church in Australia"

No, as you very well know because I stated it quite clearly, what you and the Greens are guilty of is reserving your criticism for the Catholic Church. You are silent about Islam for example and would even divert attention away from the child abuse risks of immigration policies that value the leftists' definition and goal of diversity above the safety, culture, good sense and even law when it suits your extreme multiculturalism.

That leaves you open to the charge that you are only hopping on the bus to worry about child abuse to serve your secondary and priority agenda which is to slag the christian churches, starting with Roman Catholicism.

The Greens don't value the inherited traditions, culture and way of life that was inherited from the UK and from Europe.

What you should be doing is trying to convince those middle class 'Progressives' aka International Socialists who determine Greens 'policies' (such as they are!) that above all, we don't want to be importing lasting toxic political systems, traditions and attitudes from places like Pakistan, that got British Labour into so much trouble.

That is if you can find it in your heart to pity the thousands of children whose lives were and are continuing to be seriously harmed forever by those Kashmiri men imported to the UK as part of the diversity push by 'Progressives'.

But still British Labour and the social reengineering 'Progressives' refuse to be accountable for the negative consequences of their diversity 'initiatives'.

Strange how the rock-spider celebrities like Rolf Harris are pursued by police (and they should be!), but ethnic lobbying was and is so strong that hundreds of Pakistani (the PC term is 'Asian') men and their thousands of school children victims really don't seem to matter to Labour administrations.

I repeat, enough of using pedophilia to serve the apparently more important secondary agenda, the leftist aim of trashing the Christian churches. That is bent.

Suse,

I agree but what is the position proportionate to all other organizations?

Does the Catholic Church attract more homosexual and bi-sexual paedophiles than other organizations?

These traitors to Catholicism and society need to be rooted out and punished, preferably by a long drop on a short rope.

Paul,

"I suspect abuse of children began shortly after the Catholic clergy first arrived in Australia." Even as an atheist with no love for the Catholic, your unhealthy obsession points to personal problems.

Secondly, given the rampant child abuse in Aboriginal communities, and other communities where the rule of law is weak, I would suggest that these practises existed long before the white man arrived.

Dear Shadow Minister,

It's only relatively recently that legal and
land rights, education and health care, for
our Indigenous people have become the important
issues for government Aboriginal Affairs departments.

Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal
Australian, and perhaps through ignorance, their
plight has often been overlooked. Progress is being
made in many areas in the "Indigenous" fight for the
chance to survive in today's Australia, and although much
still needs to be done, perhaps the outlook is more hopeful
now than it has been in the past when Indigenous aid
schemes were run by "whites" who adopted a paternal
attitude to the Indigenous treating them like children and
considering that only they knew what was best.

Let us not forget that it was the white settlers who
introduced our Indigenous people to "the dole, grog,
and the protection of the white man."

"even as an atheist with no love for the Catholic, your unhealthy obsession points to personal problems."
Shadow, please elaborate, what you mean by "unhealthy" and "personal problems", and don't simply cast aspersions on me and then hide behind the anonymity of this forum. I have no problem with anyone who wants to practice Catholicism, they are welcome to it. Over to you.

Beach, you are all over the shop trying to marry a disgusting bunch of people in England with multiculturalism in Australia and a hotchpotch of isems along with Islam and leftest, Greens, progressives, all your favorite hates. Somehow you hope that by muddying the waters with this nonsense, the sins of the Catholic Church in Australia will be absolved on this forum and the attention will be turned onto those you hate.
I'll put it to you that since two witnesses before the Royal Commission this week have, in your word "slaged" the Catholic Church, and as far as I am aware, have failed to denounce Islamic abuse of children in England then their evidence is suspect to some degree, and like Pell said he is "sorry for their misunderstanding of him" Tell me what in your view motivates these witnesses. Do they also have a secret agenda?

IS Mise, just as I have assumed, without evidence, without any survey being conducted on my part, that you are a male of average intelligence, and not a person of indeterminate sex, and of below average intelligence. I believe I can safely say if you were to put the question: 'Which church in Australia do you most associate with pedophile acts being committed by its clergy?' The overwhelming answer from Australians would be "The Catholic Church", does that answer your concerns.

<<There is one school of thought that in proportion there are more paeodophiles in the Greens than in the Catholic Church.>>
Is Mise I must admit I don't have any evidence that you are of average intelligence.

Would all the defrocked priests on this forum please fess up! and those still in the habit as well. It not a sin, god will forgive you.

Thanks Foxy and Suse for your posts, they make for refreshing reading after wading through all the bilge water from the 'Usual Suspects'. Beach in particular, I beg you to limit you posts to 50 words, it's inhuman to expect a person to read 350 words of absolute nonsense, it must be against the Geneva Conversion or the Magna Carta or something, even Vlad The Impaler had the common decency to spare him victims from reading your posts before he stuck em' on the stick! Shadow, Runner Is Mise, could you please set your browsers to English (UK) I am having great difficulty interpreting what you are saying, it must be in ancient Hebrew, or some such undecipherable forgotten language! Makes no sense at all.

Fox, "Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian"

Say what?! What absolute garbage! LOL

"Absolute garbage," is one of the many stereotypes
that are floating around about our Aboriginal people.
And these stereotypes as research has found can take
many forms and shapes.

Here's just a few about our Indigenous People:

1) They are primitive and nomadic.

2) They are drunks.

3) They are violent.

4) They are un-educated no hopers.

5) They receive too many hand-outs.

6) They don't use the land they get "for free."

7) They get treated too leniently by police and courts.

8) They don't want to work and are lazy.

These stereotypes are myths that are copied from others
without inquisitive verification.

Besides individuals focusing on these stereotypes the
mainstream media's focus on negative Indigenous issues
also creates much hurt when it presents the problems
of individual Indigenous people as being the problems of
all Indigenous Australians.

Of course there's also the fact that some Australians
believe that they are not responsible for the past and
do not owe Indigenous people anything. A view advocated
for many years by some former political leaders.

There are even some people who would deny the distressing
Black arm-band history despite the archival and primary
source records that are available. These people prefer to
shirk the evidence and live in ignorance. It's easier.
They don't want the burden of knowing. Ignoring and
denial, is a much easier matter to deal with.

The Catholic Church seems to have the same idea regarding child
sexual abuse. Ignore and deny and shirk the evidence.

Hi Foxy, it might be truer to say, If they have seen an Aboriginal Australian, many have never had a deep and meaningful discussion with Aboriginal people.
Just off the topic, my partner "T" is involved in a project to establish closer cultural ties between Maori people in Australia and Aboriginal people. Although both are different they have many similar beliefs and things in common, it is good to be able to experience both cultures. It is planned to hold a gathering later this year where such things as foods, song and dance, music, story telling, art etc can be experienced by both. Later we would like to see Aboriginal and Maori exchange visits between Australia and Aotearoa. A friendly exchange of sports, what the Maori call 'pa wars' is also envisaged.

Hi again Foxy, I did say Maori people and Aboriginal people have a lot in common, your 8 points of stereotyping above, many Pakeha wrongly stereotype all Maori in exactly that way. LOL.

Dear Paul,

The exchange and
sharing of ideas and cultures is such a positive step.
Your partner sounds like such an awesome lady.

As far as the Catholic Church in Australia and its
problems are concerned Paul Collins in his book
"Believers: Does Australian Catholicism have a Future?"
states that:

"Nowadays the requirement of celibacy is seen for what
it is: a requirement of church law that could be changed today.
But despite the massive shortage of priests and the fact
that a large majority of the Australian bishops would ordain
properly trained married men immediately, they are hamstrung
by popes and Roman authorities who stolidly refuse to
face up to the problem of the shortage of clergy."

"...And they do this in face of the fact that the fast
majority of Jesus' apostles and disciples were married, including
the first pope, Saint Peter, as were by far the greater number
of priests and bishops in the first 1100 years of the church's
existence. So while it is clear to the vast majority of
sensible Catholics that the church must change its policy
on celibacy, church authorities still resist the patently
obvious."

Experienced church lawyer and former Sydney Auxilliary Bishop
Geoffrey Robinson explains why:

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

Robinson was speaking within the context of sexual abuse.
This imprisonment in the past has been reinforced by the
doctrine of infallibility, which also conveys a sense that
the church can never be wrong.

It's precisely this according to Collins that the church
needs to confront.

Fox,

That is sure a lot of words but not a single one admitting that what you said was demonstrably wrong, absolute rot. You are making things up.

To quote you again,

Fox, "Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian"

It is quite impossible for you to admit it when you are wrong.

I have worked with Indigenoeus people for many years Foxy and what you write is nothing short of nonsense.

Never a truer quote

'Progressive culture is filled to the brim with rapists, molesters, and deviants, but they never seem worried about any of it until some well known Christian crosses the line.'

Was that a quote by you Saint Runner?

Is anyone truly denying that the list above by Foxy is not what many Australians with foreign ancestry think about Aboriginals?
Come on!

Paul,

You claim not to have a problem with Catholicism, but your history betrays you.

Secondly, you failed to deal with the rampant child sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities which are not Catholic.

Foxy,

I highly doubt that aboriginal communities were immune from sexual crimes before the arrival of the English.

Shadow, I can only assume you are a practicing Catholic, and as a church apologists wishes to mitigate the heinous crimes of many Catholic clergy within Australia. That is understandable, being a devote church member, if you are. Very similar to the way you perceive no wrongs within The Liberal Party. Your loyalty is commendable, but misguided.
As for me, I find crimes committed against children, in any community, Aboriginal, Islamic, Catholic, any community what so ever, abysmal and sickening, and demands the full extent of the law be applied to perpetrators, and supports alike.
What makes the Catholic Church in Australia unique, besides the crimes, the lies, the cover ups, we actually pay this mob many millions of dollars to take charge of, and educate our children in the hundreds of schools they operate everyday! In the very schools where many of these vile acts were committed. Something to me is not quite right about this. On one hand we are rightly condemning the Catholic Church, but on the other hand we pay them millions of dollars of taxpayers money to possibly carry on just as they always have, with question.

Paul,

How about a few of the clarifications that I asked of you?

Foxy,

"Of course there's also the fact that some Australians
believe that they are not responsible for the past and
do not owe Indigenous people anything. A view advocated
for many years by some former political leaders"

None of us are in any way responsible for the past,
I am not responsible for my English ancestors' crimes against the Scots nor for my Scots ancestors' reciprocal crimes.

I feel no remorse for my Viking ancestors crimes, nor do I feel the least bit guilty about William the Conqueror.

Nor do I feel the least bit unhappy that the Irish have just voted "Yes".
Patrick Fitz Michael and Michael Fitz Patrick will now be happy, one hopes.

Dear Is Mise,

Our views are shaped by what our past experience
has prepared us to see and by what we consciously
or unconsciously want to see. Knowledge and belief
about the world do not exist in a vacuum; they are social
products whose content depends on the context in which they
are produced. Inevitably, you like anyone else, will be
guilty of some measure of bias - the tendency, often
unconscious to interpret things according to your own values.
This becomes particularly acute in subject matters which involve
issues of deep human and moral concern.

Foxy,
That has nowt to do with
"Of course there's also the fact that some Australians
believe that they are not responsible for the past...."

So in your book the Jews of today should believe that they are responsible for the death of Christ; or that Muslims should believe that they are responsible for the deaths at the Battle of Badr?

Are my English neighbours not correct in thinking that they bear no responsibility for the death, in 1920 whilst a prisoner of the British, of Terrence Mc Sweeney, Lord Mayor of Cork?

Blaming people alive today for things that were done before they were born is a primitive and dangerous line of thought.

Fox,

Then you are off to a particularly sad start in this discussion, irrationally believing as you do that,

(Fox),"Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian".

BTW, while some leeway is expected in public forums on the Net, where whole slabs of original work are copied and posted, quotation marks are only polite and credit given by citing the sources. 'Forgetting' the source is a phony excuse where there are whole paras word for word.

Dear Is Mise,

Nobody is telling you how or what to feel on any
issue. That is entirely up to you. People tend to
see the world from a viewpoint of subjectivity based on
personal values and experiences. You don't feel
guilty about our past - that's your business.
Many people do according to many authors,
journalists, media stories, and political figures.
You see things one
way, others see them differently. Kindly do not
read into my posts what isn't there or make assumptions
about me what you think I am saying.
Read what I actually have said.
Anything else - is not relevant.

otb,

I shall repeat again. Addressing posts to me is
a waste of your time.
I normally do not read past the first insult
or attempt at stirring. Baiting me is a waste of time.

Fox,

You are forever getting bent out of shape and playing victim when challenges to your opinions arise.

It is ridiculous of you to sledge Australians but claiming,

(Fox),"Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian".

Fabrications like that must be corrected lest repetition makes them appear to be fact.

Likewise it is fair to remind that where another's original work is copied and pasted there should be quotation marks and the source cited out of respect and for readers to check.

"Most Australians live in the cities on the east
coast, where contact between black and white
occurred as much as 200 years earlier than on the
West Coast - and where 95 per cent of Australians
are able to live 95 per cent of their lives
without ever seeing an Aboriginal face."
(Phillip Noyce).

Paul,

By the same foggy green logic you use, I can only assume that you are a gay aboriginal refugee.

While I have been scathing in the past with respect to the "celibacy' requirements and the secrecy that I believe enabled much of the child abuse, I also recognize that the Catholic Church contributed more than everyone else together in providing schooling and community support, and thus were more exposed to these outcomes, which leaves me puzzles as to the causes of your over the top hatred of all things Catholic.

Foxy,

You just said "You see things one
way, others see them differently. Kindly do not
read into my posts what isn't there or make assumptions
about me what you think I am saying.
Read what I actually have said.
Anything else - is not relevant."

What you had previously said was ""Of course there's also the fact that some Australians believe that they are not responsible for the past...."

No one can in any way be responsible for something that was done before they were born; they may be sorry that it happened, they may even, in their ignorance, believe that they are responsible but they are not and cannot be.

"responsible
adjective
1.
having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.
"the cabinet minister responsible for Education"
....
2.
being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it...." (from Google).

Hope that this eases your confusion.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Catholicism has remarkable staying power,
an ability to survive unmatched by any
contemporary institution. It's been around
for a very long time and it has survived I
suspect because it is adaptable and able to
change. This doesn't mean of course that
parts of it won't wither and die, or that it
won't make mistakes. However, if it wants
to survive it requires genuine local leadership and
a willing ness to confront both the difficulties and
the opportunities that it now faces.

You're right about Catholicism in action. The work
that Vinnie's does is commendable, as is the work
of Father Chris Riley who founded and developed -
YOTS (Youth Off The Streets) in Sydney. They
represent Catholicism at its best.

Paul can speak for himself of course, however, I
don't think that Paul hates Catholicism. I think he's
critical of what some do in it's name. What some have
done in the name of religion, projecting their neuroses,
even perpetrating evil deserves criticism and a demand
for changes to be made.

Dear Is Mise,

I am not confused.
On the contrary, I am quite sure of my beliefs.

What I find puzzling is why are you so
hellbent on wanting to impose your
views onto me. I've made it clear that you're
entitled to your views, and I have no wish in
trying to change them.

I would appreciate it if you would return to me
the same courtesy.

I get the fact that you do not feel any guilt
about the past treatment of our Indigenous people.
That is your choice.

My views are different to yours.
They have changed since I began exploring the
past, and learned about the history of Indigenous-settler
relations.

Anyway, the past for me weighs heavily on the present
and I know that it will continue to perplex me
for many years to come.

Now back to the topic of this discussion...

Something that is very easy to observe is when people from varying backgrounds arrive in Australia are then forced to live in the regions for work opportunities. Many of them have been taught 'group think'on Indigeneous issues. Then they get some first hand experience and they can't believe what they see and the lies they have been told.

I remember one day a man doing the usual cultural beating of his woman. A concerned bystander called the cops. When the cops arrived the man and woman turn on the cops. Oh but it was the cops fault.

Foxy,

"I get the fact that you do not feel any guilt
about the past treatment of our Indigenous people.
That is your choice."

Whether I feel a sense of guilt or not doesn't alter the fact that neither I nor any person my age or younger or older cannot be responsible for something that happened before they were born.

Do you think that a German girl, born tomorrow will in 18 years be responsible for the crimes of the Gestapo?

Dear Is Mise,

The following article explains things much
better than I ever could:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/24/3488313.htm

If you wish to continue to discuss this subject -
start your own thread. I am sure that many people would
be interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject.
I've said all that I have to say on the matter.

<<I can only assume that you are a gay aboriginal refugee.>>

How perceptive of you Shadow, you got it in one. You application of labels is remarkable. You must have a draw full of them, and pull them out at will, very interesting approach. Combined with your crystal ball, a definite winner.
Also interesting is how you apply your value logic, in this case to the Catholic Church in Australia. It goes like this;

Child abusers, a no no, minus 20 points
Educate children, a yes, plus 20 points
Doing charitable works, a bonus, plus 10 points

So at the end of the day we calculate the Catholic Church is a positive 10 point institution and therefore should not be subjected to any criticism in relation to its negative areas of behavior. Very interesting concept, if it was only true.

To say I hate all things Catholic is untrue. Numerous times on the forum I have praised the good work done by the Catholic, Father Chris Riley in Sydney. However there is nothing in the good work of Fr Chris which in anyway can be taken to diminish the child abuse crimes within the church. A good Father Riley does not balance a bad Father Denham.

Shadow, you seem to think very much like Archy Pell. Are you a Cardinal?

Foxy,

A very good article, i am tempted to say brilliant, and I thank you for the reference; but perhaps you will bear with me when i quote from it?

"....if we give up on citizenship and try to hold responsible the actual descendants of those who went along with odious regimes like Hitler's Germany,....trying to hold people directly responsible for the sins of their ancestors: it comes down to "guilt by blood," a principle that we strongly reject in other places. (Just think of the claim that contemporary Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus - a claim that is rightly considered both ridiculous and evil.)"

The author goes on to place things in perspective and talks of 'Honour"; I agree with him on that and that no one alive today (as quoted above) can be held responsible for anything that happened before they were born.

May we presume that as you linked to the article that you agree with both the author and me?

Further to the subject:

"Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males
BY PAT WINGERT 4/7/10 AT 8:00 PM

FILED UNDER: Culture
The Catholic sex-abuse stories emerging every day suggest that Catholics have a much bigger problem with child molestation than other denominations and the general population. Many point to peculiarities of the Catholic Church (its celibacy rules for priests, its insular hierarchy, its exclusion of women) to infer that there's something particularly pernicious about Catholic clerics that predisposes them to these horrific acts....Yet experts say there's simply no data to support the claim at all. No formal comparative study has ever broken down child sexual abuse by denomination, and only the Catholic Church has released detailed data about its own. But based on the surveys and studies conducted by different denominations over the past 30 years, experts who study child abuse say they see little reason to conclude that sexual abuse is mostly a Catholic issue. "We don't see the Catholic Church as a hotbed of this or a place that has a bigger problem than anyone else," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "I can tell you without hesitation that we have seen cases in many religious settings, from traveling evangelists to mainstream ministers to rabbis and others."
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

Just thought that I'd throw that into the mix for a better texture even if it doesn't alter the flavour.

Is Mise,

As an apologists for the Catholic child abusers, your 2010 American Newsweek article is laughable. It is full of nonsense of unnamed experts, with no relevance to Australia. Trying to equate Catholic clergy abuse in Australia to "normal" male levels of child abuse in the community is ridiculous and patently wrong.

A relevant study as reported in 'The Age' 2012.

"AT LEAST one in 20 Catholic priests in Melbourne is a child sex abuser, although the real figure is probably one in 15, the state inquiry (Victoria) into the churches' handling of sex abuse was told yesterday.

RMIT professor Des Cahill said his figures, based on analysing conviction rates of priests ordained from Melbourne's Corpus Christi College, closely matched a much larger American analysis of 105,000 priests which found that 4362 were child sex offenders."

"The intercultural studies professor also told the inquiry that the Catholic Church was incapable of reforming itself because of its internal culture. He said the Church's Melbourne Response abuse protocol had to go, and the state would have to intervene to achieve it."

Are you going to claim, 1 in 15, or 1 in 20, adult males in Australia are child sex abusers and the general populace is trying to cover it up?

10 years ago I finally made a complaint against the Catholic Church for abuse against me in 1958 as a 12 year old.

I was "channeled" into a complaint system called Towards Healing that was more abusive than the original complaint. The system had been "stitched up" by Howard's "cleaner" Prof Parkinson so that nobody got a cent [as far as my experience told me] out of it but those who were free to use Pell's system [was it Victoria only?] were treated a lot more fairly. I simply let my own case slide knowing how ruthless the legal system is in protecting their "own" as we saw with Justice Yeldham

Once we were rid of Howard I stopped listening to the news and "retired in peace" but I hear there was yet another Pedophile Inquiry a few years back, so did anything come of it?

Was it just another talk fest?

Paul,

You've finally responded!!

I thought that that article might stimulate you; so how about doing the comparisons that are missing from your OP?

Dear Is Mise,

I am glad that you read the article and
got so much out of it. Do I agree with
you? Well I certainly don't disagree with
you and I understand your feelings.
However as far as I'm concerned this is an
issue that will continue to perplex me for
many years to come. As I've cited in the
past and as the historian Henry Reynolds has
pointed out in his books -" many things have
changed since the past. Much has been achieved.
Tolerance and understand has been broadened out.
Bigotry is in retreat. But the racist past
still weighs heavily on the present. And Black
armband history is often distressing, but it does
enable us to know and understand the incubus which
burdens us all." (Or I should say - some of us).

Dear Is Mise,

There are a couple more websites on this
subject that you may also find interesting:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/26/sorry-history-australia-apology-indigenous

http://theconversation.com/sorry-isnt-the-hardest-words-say-it-for-the-stolen-generations-7079

Among the explanations offered the following especially resonated with me:

"For many Aboriginal people, their lives are still controlled
by government and various authorities - just like they were
in the early days... Personally, I believe we are all
connected by a common thread - some of us recognise this and
others don't. Some of us acknowledge that the pain of others
is the distress of all, just as the happiness or contenment
of others can be our own satisfaction."

"...When someone dies, we go to a funeral, we mourn the passing
of a fellow human being who had a place in this world, and
we tell their loved ones we are sorry for their loss. This
"sorriness" does not imply responsibility," but it extends
remorse that someone is experiencing grief and loss."

"It isn't hard to understand really. The other thing I like
to point out about 'Sorry Day' and the Stolen Generations is that
it is not an event buried in history. Removal of children
happened as recently as the early 1970s.
The 1970s."

Just as in the past when the Catholic Church seen fit to move errant priests from one diocese to another, as things got too hot to handle. All to protect the "good" name of the church, could it be that George Pell has been moved from the diocese of Sydney to the diocese of Rome, for the very same reason. As the saying goes; "You can run, but you can't hide." Pell has many more questions to answer, before this will go away.

Paul,

Actually I'm the Pope.

Also please don't confuse my criticism of you with criticism of the Catholic church. Your over the top statements are patently ridiculous and make it difficult to take you seriously especially when embark on one of your vendettas.

A quick guideline:
1 Criticism of the Catholic Church's criminal negligence wrt child abuse -- OK
2 Assigning them responsibility for all child abuse in Aus ever -- Stupid.

"9 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

The horror and tragedy of priests involved in the sexual abuse of minors can hardly be overstated, but some of the reporting has contained falsehoods and downright fabrications. So Crisis has put together a list of the ten most common false media claims along with fact-filled responses to them.

1. Catholic priests are more likely to be pedophiles than other groups of men.

This is just plain false. There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children. (updated information by the editor: In a recent interview (July 2014) Pope Francis said that 2% of clergy in the Catholic Church are paedophiles, information the Pope said he received from advisors)"
http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/common-misconceptions/9-myths-about-priestly-pedophilia.html

Now this coming from a Catholic source will be seen by many as biased, but let's not have the usual dismissive nonsense but a rebutal of their statements with references.

References are missing entirely from the OP.

when did facts ever count for anything with regressives Mise? Just look at the abuse in the homosexual community. It just does not fit their narrative.

Fox,

Referring to your post of Sunday, 24 May 2015 5:59:49 PM, wherein you quote an actor as your source of fact and expertise on Australian society.

(Fox quoting an actor as her 'expert' source), "Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian".

It is still a load of horse manure of course. Even people such as yourself, who must lead very sheltered existences in some 'higher' tone, secluded, gated community MUST rub shoulders with indigenous when they go into the street and shopping centres.

Very likely your problem of not coming across indigenous people in your life is that you have a mental image, a stereotype, of what an Aboriginal looks like and how they act too.

Again folks, more insults, wrong assumptions, and
persistent baiting from otb. This time I shall respond.

Phillip Noyce is a world famous, award winning
Australian Film Director whose knowledge and
experience is celebrated and recognised
internationally. When he speaks, he speaks
from experience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Noyce

As for much of my knowledge of our Indigenous People?
This comes from not only my wide and varied work
experience (both in this country and overseas) but
also from the research of primary sources and
archival records, as well as large numbers of books,
articles, films, novels, and other sources.

Henry Reynolds tells us that we can know a great deal
about the history of our Indigenous-Settler relations,
and Aboriginal people in general. But knowing brings
burdens which can be shirked by those living in
ignorance. With knowledge the question is no longer what we
know but what we are now to do, and that is a much harder matter
to deal with. As I cited earlier, this will continue to
perplex some of us for many years to come. Others not so much,
and still others - not at all.

Dear Paul,

Thank you for this discussion.

I look forward to more in the future.

For me this one has now run its course.

Fox,

You are looking very shaky indeed on that podium of superior morality that you are forever mounting to judge, lecture and admonish others, when you claim that,

(Fox quoting an actor as her 'expert' source), "Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian".

It leaves you open to the charge that you yourself have such a stereotypical image of Indigenous people that they must fit, otherwise you don't recognise them as being Indigenous.

Just a reminder that National Reconcilliation Week (NRW)
is on this month.
There are some very interesting Exhibitions on
display.

In our area - We Opened with our first Exhibit on Wednesday 20 May,
6.00pm - with a provocative series of works engaging ideas
of Aboriginal sovereignty and identity. Then from the 27th May
(this Wednesday) until 3 June we are proud to present a
range of free programs that acknowledge and celebrate
Indigenous culture.

The launch features a traditional smoking ceremony,
Welcome to Country and performances, followed by morning tea in
the Art Gallery, with floor talks by exhibiting NRW artists.

Check the details for program information and bookings in
your local area. It will be worthwhile. I highly recommend
it.

With the Australian public - in this case the rate payer and the taxpayer funding the events (and obviously intending to participate) - that makes your earlier sledging of the Australian public, viz., "Many Australians have never seen an Aboriginal Australian" entirely unwarranted wouldn't you agree?

Dear Paul,

One final link before I go which may be of interest:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/comment/that-thinking-feeling/imagine-if-george-pell-was-a-teacher-ceo-or-scout-leader-20150520-gh67gh.html

Take care.

Foxy,

National Reconciliation Week seems to have escaped the attention of the local community around here, European, Asian and Aboriginal.

Is Mise,

Those dips from the bucket of taxpayers' hard earned money will be getting spent somewhere on knees-ups for the invited. Not on roads, bridges or anything like that though.

Thanks Foxy,

I had a read of your article, and yes Pell has escaped for the moment, but only for the moment. I believe those, as the Church apologists Shadow Minister describes me, people with an over the top hatred of all things Catholic, politicians, judges, police officers the majority of Australians, pursue these vile church deviates and their supporters, in the long run Pell will be made to account for his part in all this perverted mess.
What am I saying? As another church apologists, Is Mise claims, all is normal with the Catholic Church, these perverted priests are normal, in fact no better or worse than the rest of the community! Well, they might have strayed a little, from time to time, buck heck, please remember when they are not molesting children, they are doing good works, tending the sick and helping the poor, as Shadow is quick to point out. Then to divert attention OTB posts his well worn list of wrong doers Greens, Trotskyists, etc etc. A list that has become such a cliche on the forum, no one can be bothered reading it.

Shadow, you claim I am saying "Assigning them (the Catholic Church) responsibility for all child abuse in Aus ever -- Stupid."

Obviously you did not read my opening post.

<<when it comes to the crime of institutional child abuse in Australia, but they (The Catholic Church) are not alone, and they (The Catholic Church) are not the only organisation to be involved in these heinous acts of physical, sexual and psychological abuse of children, over a very long period of time, there are others.

STUPID, is the one who can not read! Shadow Minister.

It is plainly stupid to try and mitigate the crimes of the Catholic Church by pointing to the crimes within the Aboriginal community, one bears no relationship to the other.

Paul,

"....As another church apologists, Is Mise claims, all is normal with the Catholic Church, these perverted priests are normal, in fact no better or worse than the rest of the community...."

That is not what my quotation implied and well you know it, but with typical Green tactics you attack the messenger and not the content of the message.
The post claimed that the proportionate number of sexual deviates within the Catholic priesthood was not greater tan in other similar organizations.

In my first post in this thread I stated that I favor the death penalty for serial paedophiles, that is hardly considering them normal, clergy or lay.

What do you think would be an appropriate penalty for a homosexual priest who buggered young boys?

To quote you Is Mise

"This is just plain false. There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men"

Obviously and fairly I extrapolate from that, men in the general community.

"Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy"

Totally ignoring RMIT Professor Des Cahill figure of 1 in 20 or as high as 1 in 15 about 7% or 20 times greater than your nonsense figure for Australia. Why so much on the Catholic Church if its all "normal" and not a Royal Commission into perverted plumbers?

And this from the ABC;

In an interview with Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Pope Francis said 2 per cent of clergy, including bishops and cardinals, were paedophiles.

That would equate to 8,000 of the 400,000 Catholic clergy worldwide.

In Australia, the Truth, Justice and Healing Council is compiling statistics on abusers for the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

"It's 4 per cent of men who have been a priest in the Catholic Church at some point in Australia have been sex abusers," Mr Sullivan said.

He emphasises the statistics are historical and do not include serving priests.

Again even your wonderful pope puts the figure at 6 times times your figure.

As far back as 1999 the Catholic Church's independent commissioner, Peter O'Callaghan, QC, had referred about 65 complaints about clergy in the Melbourne archdiocese to the Towards Healing compensation panel in a 2.5 year period. I stree 65 makes you 0.3% figure look rather pathetic indeed.

Its not what you and others say about penalty that is important so much, but rather the way you try to minimise the church's culpability.

George Pell may never have actually abused any children physically, but he has done a good job of abusing many of them as adults, emotionally and psychologically, through his handing of their complaints.

Here's a supplementary fact for those who are trying divert this discussion to pedophilia practiced in spheres other than the Catholic church.

"A spokesperson for the Sydney archdiocese confirmed Archbishop Fisher was referring to the church's Towards Healing protocol and Melbourne Response, initiated under Cardinal Pell's leadership.

The Towards Healing process encouraged victims to go to the police but also contained provisions to relocate clergy who had been implicated in child sexual abuse to other positions within the Catholic Church.

Under the Melbourne Response, a panel provided ex-gratia compensation payments to victims, but once victims went to police they were no longer eligible for compensation."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/sydney-archbishop-anthony-fisher-defends-catholic-church-and-cardinal-george-pell-over-response-to-child-abuse-claims-20150525-gh9b30.html

So who can point me to any other organisation which institutes a protocol that purposely denies victims compensation if they report the "crime" in question to police?

Wow!! A considered response from you, Paul.
Where has the wit gone?
Am I getting to you?

I'll just ask are we using the same terminology?

A common mistake by people who have not delved deeply into the subject , is to be unaware of the terms ephebophilia , which refers to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents and hebephilia which refers to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals.

Another common mistake is to use 'paedophilia' to erroneously describe the whole spectrum of sexual contact with the legally underage.

This misuse will obviously skew statistics.

Is Mise,

No, I have not lost my wit, and no you could never "get to me". I enjoy our discussions, not withstanding the fact you are yet to win an argument with me on this forum, but that's life. That has more to do with the fact you support the ridiculous side of the debate, be it killing our furry friends of the forest with your high powered artillery, or be it your pathetic apologist approach to the child abusing Catholic clergy on this discussion.

Now having be boxed senseless, metaphorically speaking, on the subject, you now embark on a new tack. We have all be wrong, those pedophilic, pedophile priests of the perverted Catholic Church are not pedophiles at all, they are something entirely different. Lets play semantics, call then ephebophilia's or hebephilia's we could even call them teddy bears, if that's what you want. No, lets call them what they are, dirty rotten child molesters, protected by the hierarchy of the Catholic church! Just so there is no ambiguity.

Poirot,

>>So who can point me to any other organisation which institutes a protocol that purposely denies victims compensation if they report the "crime" in question to police?<<

I am not a lawyer but I thought the offer of an out of court settlement, as the name suggests, usually has a condition that the victim would not sue, (because it assumes that if the victim did, the organisation would be sentenced to pay anyhow, in addition to bad publicity).

This, of course, is just my answer to your question, and disregards the suffering and mental damage inflicted on the childhood sexual abuse victim which cannot be financially compensated for, be it in the form of an out of court settlement or a penalty payment ordered by the court.

George,

"....in addition to bad publicity)."

Which, of course, is the crux of the matter.

The lack of "bad publicity" being integral to the Catholic church's practice of shifting perpetrators to new parishes where they can ply their perversions to other "unsuspecting" victims.

And it's not just about avoiding being sued. This part of the protocol is designed to actually dissuade victims from reporting crimes to the police.

In that case, the offer of compensation acts as a lure to victims to be complicit in hiding these crimes from public view - to protect the reputation of the church and to allow abusive priests to evade the consequences of their actions.

The Towards Healing process encouraged victims to go to the police but also contained provisions to relocate clergy who had been implicated in child sexual abuse to other positions within the Catholic Church.

---

Well as I say I tried the Towards Healing process but AFTER the Prof Parkinson amendments to the protocol and as I say it was simply a kangaroo court where nobody was going to get anything but "LEGAL" abuse to replace the sexual abuse.

You had to sign a paper up front to say you understood the process did not prevent any court action and that (being a Parkinson amendment) smelt of the same stuff he did to the Child Support Acts but to actually BLOCK the right to "your day in court"

I let it all go after that but I was wondering if others made complaints about the legal abuse to the recent Inquiry.

Poirot,

I agree, I indicated in my last paragraph more or less the same thing. I only wanted to point out that the Church acted as any other organisation or institution in self-defence, including avoidance of bad publicity, as much as the circumstances allowed (and in the past the circumstances in this particularly painful case allowed a lot).

The sad - at least from a Catholic point of view - point making the whole affair so outrageous, is that the Church was not just “any other institution or organisation” although the lawyers who advised her e.g. with recommending offers of out of court settlements. saw, or pretended to see. her as such.

In real life the Church saw herself and was seen by many others as a moral authority , even more so by the child victim and (thus?) had a special psychological leverage on the victim or his/her parent to whom she made this offer; a leverage that other organisations even educational institutions do not have. Nevertheless, an out of court settlement is what it is , and today I presume the victim will have his/her own lawyer who cannot be put under such pressure.

I think offering out of court settlement is not criminal. Transferring the unfortunate perpetrator to other venues where he can continue with his malpractice, - if done KNOWING that he was incurable, and mere good intentions and promises cannot work (OK, today everybody knows) - should be a criminal offence. Nor reporting a mere suspicion is a more complicated matter.

Paul,

The only arguments that you have won have been in your imagination.

There are still a raft of questions out there about the lies told by Greens MsP using Parliamentary Privilege to protect their gutlessness that you have refused to answer.

However let us use the term 'dirty perverts' if you will, we will then be on a level playing field

Among the dirty perverts in the Catholic Church there would seem to be a higher proportion of homosexual molesters of boys, would you think that there is any significance in this?

although the lawyers who advised her e.g. with recommending offers of out of court settlements. saw, or pretended to see. her as such.
---

Are you saying there HAVE been out of court settlements for those taking the Towards Healing path?

I don’t know who in which particular case was offering or following what legal advice involving or not a financial “compensation”. I was just reacting to a remark which seemed to refer to out of court settlements in general.

I wonder sometimes whether the producers of the "Exorcist" films weren't trying to tell us something ey:

" Let Jesus *&$% you! Let Jesus *&$% you! "

It is also a shame that we didn't hear more from "Ridzdale" as one of the pedophiles themselves, as we must remember that pedophilia and the aiding and abetting of same is not the only crime of these twisted individuals.

Importantly, and we must thank Foxy for her ongoing efforts into the study of the historical record, bent priests also did much in the way of absolving individuals for all manner of genocidal practice in the past and may be a considered a debt not soon forgotten by some.

If Pell attends and is subsequently found to have been well aware of the pedophile problem (and then some) I suspect that he may then also be found to have purgered himself.

I wonder whether there is trouble brewing in some parts. Remember how some frothed at the mouth over the painting "Piss Christ?" ..

Thereafter, as the commonwealth itself is, rightly in my view, accused of orchestrating what amounts to institutionalised child abuse then it should be no surprise that their supporters seek to play down child abuse more generally. It is as the Greens leader said today, the guvment fears the judgement of the public at large if the full horrors of the detention system are brought into focus.

.. and now, the ABC notes that an unnamed vatican observer notes that popey won't protect Pell, but also that we have an open letter of support for Pell from the Archbishops.

Sounds like the making of another good Exorcist movie to me. ;-)

". and now, the ABC notes that an unnamed vatican observer notes that popey won't protect Pell, but also that we have an open letter of support for Pell from the Archbishops"

The ABC named the observer and had him on camera.

Pell is a nothing but has been conveniently used as the fall guy to save the rest.

Same thing happened in Yeldham case as Carlton mentioned in his column in SMH - "as Arena rose in Parliament to say 'what about Justice Yeldham?', the whole of Phillip St ducked for cover"

Understand?

And understand why Yeldham does not spell check here nor are there any Google Images of him?

And have you seen Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut"?

Yes indeed the Catholic Church in Australia and the pedophile supporting George Pell in particular has a lot to answer for. Pell went as far as claiming he did not know what Ridsdale had been charged with on 27th May 1993 when he accompanied him to the Melbourne Magistrates Court, as his support person, to face the charges. Normally one can commend a persons loyalty, but not Ridsdale , as he used selective memory before the Royal Commission to protect his friend George Pell.

Ridsdale horror story, unfortunately it is far worse than any movie for his victims;

http://brokenrites.org.au/drupal/node/55