The Obama principle that a crisis is too good to waste is clearly being applied in the case of the clerical child abuse scandal in Ireland. A spin is being put on the shocking revelations in the report on abuse in the archdiocese of Dublin to implicate the “pre-Conciliar” Catholic Church in the wrongdoings of post-Vatican II pederasts. In the process, the name of a good man has been dragged into the cesspit, for political purposes.
The Most Reverend John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin (1940-1972) was a great Catholic prelate. Under his pastoral leadership, the numbers of clergy and religious increased by more than 50 per cent, he created over 60 new parishes and built over 80 new churches and 350 schools. But he was a Vatican II sceptic who implemented reform conservatively, in accordance with what would now be called the “hermeneutic of continuity”. So he is a bogey figure to radicals.
Click here to read the entire article
As always, Gerald Warner, a journalist who can think “outside the box”, hits proverbial nails on proverbial heads. Big time. At last, an article on the subject, written by someone of sufficient independence of mind to actually read the report, reflect on the data and come to a logical conclusion based on all the facts – not a politically motivated select few facts, that is, facts that fit the anti-Catholic agenda of the enemies of the Church. As our lead blogger, Athanasius, has already said elsewhere on this topic, to treat “the Church” as a “partner in crime” in all of this, is downright dishonest and insulting in the extreme. Those priests and bishops who have “apologised” for these crimes lend credence to the lie that it is “the Church” to blame. They should be completely ashamed of themselves. They are, effectively, useful idiots fighting the cause of the enemies of the Faith. My advice to them is to apologise for the wrongs of which they are actually guilty (starting with the destruction of our sacred liturgy) and keep their mouths shut on the crimes of others, at least until they’ve learned to distinguish between individual sinfulness and the holiness of the Church. For the Church IS holy. The Church is holy because Christ is holy and Christ and His Church are one. That they’ve forgotten such a basic truth of the Faith is testimony itself to their lamentable religious ignorance. Time they stopped trying to please the media and public opinion and started to think about pleasing God. Now, there’s a thought.
Gerald Warner is getting a lot of predictable stick over on the Telegraph site, so we urge all of our bloggers to post comments there as well as here. We must not allow the enemies of the Church to get away with using these terrible scandals as yet another stick with which to beat the Church.
Tags: gerald warner, irish child abuse, telegrah
-
Let us set the record straight. This filthy abomination was a scandal of the post-Vatican II, open-windows, relevant, touchy-feely (often, it seems, inappropriately so) Catholic Church. So let the ecumaniacs, the liturgical animators, the Easter People take ownership of it and desist from blackening the reputation of a decent prelate and, by implication, of the unchanging Church that sustained Ireland through centuries of oppression.
This is SO true. I grew up in the 50 and 60’s in Dublin, a time when a girl could walk home from a dance at any time of the night without fear of being molested. John Charles McQuaid was a great Archbishop and if his successors had followed his example, all those scandals would not have been possible. Of course, there has always been cleric abusers and there always will be (they are crafty blighters) but the laxity following Vatican 2 made it so much easier for them to abuse. I read some of the Dublin Diocesan Report and something I noticed was that some of these priests abused their prey in the Confessional. Now how on earth could that be possible with an old fashioned Confession box? It wasn’t. But with the advent of eye to eye Confession (in the wake of Vatican 2) anything was possible!
I think 46 priests were involved in this filth but what about the other thousands of decent hard-working priests? It was unfair in the extreme to implicate Archbishop McQuaid who had died by 1972. The Dublin diocese had a huge financial debt due to all the new schools and churches and this Archbishop had the brainwave of “a second collection” at Mass which finally eradicated that debt. However, it’s interesting that his plan was kept under wraps until he retired and then resurrected by Archbishop Dermot Ryan (a closet modernist) as his own idea.
I can confirm that society was ordered in those distant days and this was due mainly to the Catholic Faith of the Irish people who were LED by their Archbishop. Yes, stop apologising for other peoples’ sins and pay attention to your own.
-
Here are the comments I made on the Telegraph blog. I see Petrus has also made a great contribution there.
“I am, frankly, amazed that everyone is looking on this Irish abuse report as some kind of infallible document. Catholics especially are paying more heed to this revisionist piece of writing than to the dogmas of their own Church.
How is it possible to judge justly and accurately in a matter such as this when many of the accused have been deceased for several decades and in no way capable of answering for themselves? Furthermore, how can anyone accept, as unquestionable, testimonies that may well have been prompted by the possibility of financial compensation? Up to 2008, 7 million Euros had been paid out to Irish accusers. In what other criminal case have victims been encouraged with the lure of money to speak up decades after the event? What is this? Are we talking justice here, or Judas?
Now I do not doubt for one second that there have been priest abusers of children in Ireland, as elsewhere. What I do have reservations about is the extent of that abuse and the extent of culpability on the part of named prelates. I truly believe that the compensation element has greatly undermined any true investigation into this matter.
Furthermore, it is quite fallacious to associate the Catholic Church as an institution with the crimes of individual priests and/or prelates. The Catholic Church in no way espoused or condoned these horrendous assaults on children, they were first to last the evil works of fallen men who betrayed their Church as much as they betrayed the trust of children. How many men? Who can say with any real accuracy in a cash-for-claims climate?
Gerald Warner does make some significant points in relation to this unwholesome business. The first of these is the stature of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid. This was a prelate of outstanding accomplishment, a man well known for his personal holiness, and yet we are to believe, on the basis of a superficial report written up some 39 years after his death, that this man was really a criminal who allowed pederast priests to go unchecked. There has not been one shred of solid evidence put forward in that report to substantiate such an outrageous claim.
Gerald also speaks of a majority of abuse claims being reported as having taken place post-Vatican II. This is absolutely correct and it ties in, where claims are genuine, with the loss of spiritualty following that dreadful Council.
Here are the staistics from the report itself showing a huge upsurge in abuse reports following Vatican II.
Of the complaints, 3 were made in the 1960s, 11 in the 1970s, 64 in the 1980s, 135 in the 1990s and 112 in the 2000s.
Clearly, the pre-Vatican II Church in Ireland did not have a significant child abuse problem, if it had such a problem at all bearing in mind that those three compalaints are now been revisited some forty years on.
As for those of the 80s, 90s and 2000s, in particular, it comes down to a loss of priestly grace following the new Protestant Reformation (Vatican II), the introduction of financial compensation for claims (true or false), or a combination of both.
People really need to stop reacting emotionally to this controversy and look at the facts objectively. I know the Catholic Church is an easy target these days (Gerald makes the point well about the BBC), but a court of law would throw this report straight into the waste paper basket as amounting to mere hearsay at worst or circumstantial at best.
Now, here have been numerous reports of sexual abuse of minors in various Protestant denominations as well as some fairly serious allegations involving the Synagogue. Why, then, are the world’s eyes fixed solely on the Catholic Church, as though it were the only institution to have been infiltrated by perverts seeking access to children?
One last observation. By far the greatest numbers of crimes against children have been committed by lay people, quite often married men. Furthermore, the Internet is a haven for paedophile rings. So why is the Catholic Church the constant focus for media coverage of these kinds of crimes? Why have the authorities not decided to shut the Internet down to protect so many innocents who they know will yet fall foul of Internet-trawling perverts?
If the safety of children is paramount, as it certainly is, then why accuse Church prelates of not taking appropriate measures to ensure child safety while they allow a known haunt for trawling pervs (the Internet) to continue to operate?
I, for one, would be happy to surrender the convenience of the Internet if I thought it would save just one child from these paedophile rings. Let’s put the blame today where it belongs. It belongs at the doors of those who keep the Internet running because money is more important than child safety, and it belongs to all the liberal politicians who tell us how terribly inhumane it would be to introduce the death penalty for child abusers.
By the way, does anyone care to talk about the millions of saintly priests who have existed in the Catholic Church for two thousand years so that we can put in context this small minority of abusive ones? No, I thought not!”
-
semperfidelis
Great comments!
-
You two have made some great points; and my thoughts are congruous — There are many more good priest’s, than bad. And thanks be to God for all of the devoted ones!
Yet, I wanted to make another point. That is, for the bad priests, I don’t think the Vatican has acted sufficiently. In America, one of the biggest abuse scandals involved Cardinal Egan. Court documents revealed that New York Cardinal Edward Egan, while serving as bishop of the Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese., allowed several priests facing multiple accusations of sexual abuse to continue working for years.
Yet, Cardinal Egan was sent to Rome, perhaps to avoid prosecution. If it had been Saint Pope Pius X, he would have screamed, By God, none of my priests are going to abuse these little children and then he would have defrocked them all! Moving a priest abuser around from parish to parish is a crime. In my opinion, a child being abused by a priest is the epitome of vileness.
Also, Father Maciel Degollado, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, was not expelled by the Vatican for his sexual abuse of former members. I personally know someone who interviewed several of the priests who were abused by Father Maciel and their stories are heart shattering. The Vatican did not punish him because of his advanced age. That is morally wrong and any other member of society would have been imprisoned for such a crime.
-
Miles,
You make a very interesting point about Marcial Maciel. The allegations against him first came out about twelve years before he died, and stretched right back to the Fifties. I remember at the time thinking that they may be trying to tarnish the reputation of a saintly man, but some of the allegations did sean to make sense based on what I already knew of the Order, and there did appear to be a case to answer to. His health wasn’t that poorly then, as he was still able to jet off around the world, and it is still coming to light some of the things he was up to even at that time. But Pope Wojtila loved him and wouldn’t hear a word against the Legionaries of Christ. So it wasn’t until Pope Ratzinger took over that the allegations were taken seriously. By then, his advanced age made it too difficult to prosecute in court, but he was asked to stand down as general superior of his order, and retire. He died shortly thereafter.
They wasted no time at all, however, in dealing with Abp Lefebvre.
-
Grignion
I read that it was Pope John Paul II who dismissed Fr. Marcial Maciel from his position and sent him to spend the rest of his days doing penance in a monastery.
-
Ath,
You’re right enough. He was asked to stand down from his post as Superior General in 2004- late in the pontificate of Pope John Paul.
An investigation was opened by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then Cardinal Ratzinger. However, he was ordered to retire to life of prayer and penance in 2006, a year after Pope John Paul had died. Cardinal Ratzinger was pope by then. It seems he didn’t have as much admiration for Fr Maciel as his predecessor did.
-
“They wasted no time at all, however, in dealing with Abp Lefebvre.”
Grignion,
Exactly! Hopefully, when the crisis is over, Abp Lefebvre will be made a Saint.
-
Miles Christi Sum
There’s no doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre will be canonised one day and the cause of his mother taken off hold.
-
Athanasius,
I know that you are right!
I pray for that every day! — His Grace, SAINT Archbishop Lefebvre. Now that has a nice ring to it.
-
May I congratulate Athanasius, Grignion and Petrus for their excellent comments on Gerald Warner’s blog – all absolutely brilliant.
I’d also like to draw everyone’s attention to our latest newsflash which you will, I promise, thoroughly enjoy! There’ll be some episcopal red faces around, believe me.
And I do agree about the inequality (to say the least) of the treatment meted out to Archbishop Lefebvre compared to the hand-in-glove treatment of dissenters and even child abusers. Incredible.
I agree, too, that one day we’ll be praying for the intercession of St Archbishop Lefebvre – no doubt about it! Roll on!
-
Thanks, Editor. Gerald also has an excellent article in this week’s Scottish Catholic Observer.
Here are my comments from Gerald’s blog:
Gerald is absolutely correct in what he says. One can logically conclude that when the practice of the true religion declines, particularly in terms of Sacramental life and devotions, paganism increases.
Many priests stopped practising traditional Catholic devotions after Vatican II. In their great arrogance and pride, many of the clergy thought (incorrectly) that they did not need the devotional life that had sustained the Catholic faithful for almost two millenia. Thus, they stopped praying the breviary, offering Mass daily, praying the rosary, spiritual Reading, regular Confessions etc. The New Mass they did offer was, and still is, utterly devoid of the great graces of the Traditional Roman Rite. Couple with with an entirely novel concept of the priesthood and it’s not hard to see the great void that was left in the life of these unfortunate souls. So, as the true religion decreased, paganism increased.
Make no mistake about it, the conclusion Gerald comes to is absolutely correct. The ferocity of the criticism he has faced in light of his thread is indicative of the hatred of Catholicism, traditional Catholicism inparticular. One wonders if the Church’s enemies rubbed their hands with glee when they read the Murphy Report, sensing another prime opportunity to attack the One, True Church.
-
Petrus
Yes indeed, well said!
editor
I’m off to look at the newsflash!
-
Gerald Warner’s article is excellent, and I can only agree with the comments already made on this thread.
That there are priests who are devoid of the virtue of purity, who dare abuse children especially of a sexual nature is surely a terrible crime. More souls are lost to Hell for sins against purity.
-
Athanasius, that is it in a nutshell. Nobody mentions the thousands, millions even, of saintly priets in the Church for 2,000 years. Yet a fraction of that number dominate the news because they’re bad priests.
Gerald Warner’s article is really good and it is interesting to see how many people spew out hatred for the Church on his blog. The Catholic Truth bloggers gave them a run for their money, though!
-
I once had a very moving and instructive conversation with a priest who received his seminary training and was ordained a full 10 years before Vat.II. He professed himself aghast at the current state of the teaching in the seminaries, at the lack of prayer life and at the homosexual culture revealed in many of them which was completely unknown to him in his time (v Donald Cozzens: The Changing face of the Priesthood, ch.7 – a quite horrible and sad book, incidentally). I have no doubt, from another conversation with a priest who is a recent Anglican convert, that many young men have found the teaching and influences in seminary to be corrupting and have left in order to save their faith, and that the scandals that have been revealed in the last 40 years are symptomatic of the rapid corruption of the seminaries just before and immediately after the Council.
-
Naomi, nails on heads, again. The last time I visited Scotus (our only national seminary, now closed) the two things I saw laid out for the students to read were a copy of the Cozzens book you mention and a copy of the dissident journal Open House.
And they wonder why they have no vocations!
-
I can’t believe these comments. What a cop-out. What a pathetic, ridiculous denial of a long-standing institution of criminal abuse. You people have no shame at all. You are disgusting.
Editor: more sweeping and unsubstantiated generalisations. What is “disgusting” about analysing a report in detail and refusing to accept, uncritically, the word of every Tom Dick and Harry who sees a fat cheque in the offing if he names a long deceased cleric and accuses him of abuse? What’s “disgusting” about that. Facts, please, Lucky. Facts, facts, facts, to quote Charles Dickens… Oh and ‘long standing institution of criminal abuse’ – you are kidding? Don’t you know that more parents/family members abuse their children than any other group? You’re high on anger, Lucky, but very short on facts.
-
No-one has tried to deny that the abuse took place, or that it was in any way accepable. Most of us have agreed that it did indeed happen, and the cover ups were totally and absolutely shameful. So I don’t quite know what you’re getting at.
Is it that you WANT to call us all a bunch of perverts, so you’ve decided in advance that that was how you intend to interpret the posts. Did you even read them? Or did you not have to? I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how you were able to read in any of the posts above, “a pathetic, ridiculous denial of a long-standing institution of criminal abuse.”
-
Lucky
I take it that you’re another apostate Catholic whose conscience is troubled. You won’t find the peace you’re looking for by demonising the Catholic Church. You will find it by going to confession and amending your life.
Your amateur dramatics don’t impress anyone here. The fact is that a mere 2% of Catholic priests worldwide have been implicated in this business and most of these accusations are decades old. Get a grip of yourself!
If you truly care about child sexual abuse then do as editor suggests and get on to the question of the greater numbers abused by secular people. You may wish to start by petioning for the shut down of the Internet, a paedophile paradise, and ask New Labour why it houses sex offenders opposite primary schools and anonymously in housing estates. In fact, you may wish to ask why these people are released from prison at all.
Let’s have a little less feigned outrage against the Church please, and a little more genuine outrage over the government’s current failure to take the steps necessary to protect a far greater number of vulnerable children.
-
Lucky
Your selective outrage exposes you as yet another anti-Catholic bigot. Ever heard of the UN pedophile network? What, no outrage about this?
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php?t=7691
(or Google it for yourself. You will also find Planned Parenthood involved in this network)
-
May I remind bloggers, that if you write “Lucky” in your post, that will also go to moderation. If you want to avoid that yet still address our friend, best to doctor the name a little (politely!) such as L**ky – I think that would get through.
I thought I ought to post this reminder because I’m having to set out earlier than usual for the pubs and clubs tonight. It’s getting more and more difficult to get a parking space in town these days…
-
Torkay
A very interesting article via the link you provided. I must keep note of that web address. Thanks.
-
“Don’t you know that more parents/family members abuse their children than any other group?”
I must say, that was a pretty stupid answer to L***y. It’s as though you’re saying a little clergy child abuse is well inside “normal parameters” and so doesn’t count. Aren’t clergy supposed to be BETTER than ordinary people?
Editor: yes, priests ARE supposed to be better than the rest of us. In that you are right. But it doesn’t change the fact that those who have their own anti-Catholic agenda seek to make it seem that the Church is crawling with child-abusing priests, all the while forgetting, conveniently, to remind people that those dreadful priests who perpetrate these crimes are in a very small minority indeed and of recent vintage. After all, they don’t speak, the media, of “paedophile parents” so why “paedophile priests” giving the impression that it is a set category within the Church instead of an perverted minority? They have their own agenda, helped by all the useful idiots, to use the Communist expression for those who in ignorance fight the enemy’s cause, who believe every word of the news bulletins and biased “reports” without making any attempt to investigate the truth themselves – as we’ve done on this blog. Hence the shock horror reaction from you and a few others, that here we have a group of people who actually DON’T fall, hook, line and sinker, for the establsihment line.
-
“Oh and ‘long standing institution of criminal abuse’ – you are kidding? Don’t you know that more parents/family members abuse their children than any other group?”
Editor, you must know you’re losing it when you resort to a spectacular red-herring such as this. We are not talking about the abuse by family members, bad as that is. Likewise, Tomas de Torkay, we are not talking about a U.N. paedophile network (although why you’d choose to believe anything from that ridiculous far-right Zionist website is beyond me anyway).
We are talking about the institutionalised, systematic abuse of thousands of children by priests of the Catholic Church – abuses which have been going on for many decades, if not centuries, and which have been covered up by the church right up to its highest levels. It is readily apparent that church leaders not only turned a blind eye to this abuse, but were complicit in its continuance, as is evidenced by the substantiated revelations of the Ryan Report, and the Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8381119.stm).
Gerald Warner’s article is nothing but a continuation of this shameful attempt to absolve those who had authority in this matter, knew about the abuse, and elected not to do anything about it (except take out insurance against possible future claims, for God’s sake!)
And that is why I am disgusted by the comments here. Suffer the little children, indeed.
Editor: nobody here is defending abusers, priests or no. All we are saying is that it is unjust to identify deceased persons who cannot defend themselves and to seek financial benefit. That’s all. I know, personally, of one Irish woman who was actually praising her childhood experience of priests and when asked if she had ever been abused said “no, definitely not”. Then someone gently pointed out that there was £20,000 in it for her if she recovered her “memory” which she did, magically, within days. So, I have a serious problem with this business of making money out of it. For those who abused and those who covered up the abuse, rest assured, I have nothing but contempt. But I also have contempt for those who care nothing about whether the accusations are true or false, just want to believe them, irrespective of possible injustice to deceased individuals, because they hate the Church. That, too, is contemptible.
-
Athanasius et al –
Non-Catholicpriests are the biggest group of everything apart from Catholic priests.
Do you think 2% of parents rape their children?
Editor: since all the research shows that family members (not necessarily parents) are the largest group of abusers, it is very telling indeed that you are determined to prove that Catholic priests do the most abusing. Very, very telling.
Catholic priests are a lot worse than normal people.
Editor: that is an undiluted bigoted statement. If anyone said that “homosexuals are a lot worse than normal people” given the high ratio of homosexual abusers, you would be screaming “homophobia” from the rooftops. So allow me to scream “priestphobia” from this rooftop…
Is this really too hard for you?
Editor: it’s not about being “too hard” it’s about being untrue. You just are so full of hatred for the Church that you can’t – or won’t – see it.
-
Might I also mention, Athanasius, that your estimation of a ‘mere’ 2% of priests being implicated in child abuse adds up to a huge number of priests. Nobody, and certainly not I, is saying that ALL priests are implicated. That would be ridiculous. But the fact remains that systematic abuse by the minority, whether it be 2% or up to 20%, has been deliberately covered up and not dealt with by the Catholic hierarchy for a very long time. This is shameful, and to try to weasel out of it, and not face up to it, and lay the blame on post VII “ecumenicism”, is disgusting.
-
And I might also ask what is the typical caught-to-crime ratio? If you ask a criminologist what the true figure is what would he say?
But celebrate 2% by all means! I don’t want to spoil your party!
-
Now, folks, I have a lunch date today so won’t be around for a few hours. Moderated posts will have to remain in the box until my return. It is true that there has not been the same offensive language nor any blasphemy to remove in this morning’s post but I cannot risk a return to that, so apologies for having to keep the culprits in moderation a while longer.
And don’t miss the new thread just posted above the Manhattan Declaration thread.
-
That’s ok ed – don’t say ‘I do’ to the first one.
Editor: no way, REJ – I’m hanging on until I meet you!
-
It’s not Cathierophobia ed. It’s a fact.
More family members abuse than do Catholic priests.
Because everyone who is not a Catholic priest is a family member.
But proportionally more Catholic priests abuse.
Because they are worse than normal people.
-
Editor, is it not the case that both sides of this discussion are using robust language? I don’t mind a poster calling me a ‘bigot’, and people shouldn’t take offence if I say their beliefs are disgusting. Normal, healthy debate. You’ve shown some terrible bias in these threads, but I haven’t bothered picking you up on it, because I know where you’re coming from. You should do yourself the favour of removing this ridiculous block on me, which demonstrates nothing more than your fear of my reasoning. How about it? I’m not going to use any profane language, and if my posts are strongly worded, who cares? We’re all adults.
Oh, and “culprits”? Really – listen to yourself.
Editor: you are NOW using robust language and that is fine. In the past, you crossed some lines, but I’ll happily take it that is not going to recur. You’re released now!
-
REJ
I said 2% of priests had been accused since financial rewards were introduced for the accuser. I didn’t say 2% were guilty. Read my comments properly please.
L**ky
“We are talking about the institutionalised, systematic abuse of thousands of children by priests of the Catholic Church – abuses which have been going on for many decades, if not centuries, and which have been covered up by the church right up to its highest levels.”
No, we are talking about a revisionist report that was compiled from compensation-driven accusations against prelates and clerics, now deceased. This is by no means evidence of institutionalised, systematic abuse of thousands of children. You greatly exagerate the reality.
That certain priests have abused minors is beyond dispute. That some bishops wrongly tried to protect the Church against these scandals and thereby exacerbated the problem is also beyond dispute. That this adds up to “institutionalised, systematic abuse of thousands of children” for decades and even centuries, is merely the projection of a bigoted mind. Stick to court established facts, not circumstantial, and often invented, evidence.
By the way, do not so easily dismiss the article on the U.N. The author is actually anti-Zionist, not extreme right wing Zionist as you stated.
It is quite obvious by now that you guys really just hate the Catholic Church and are of ill intent. So if you’re not going to exchange objective comments in future posts, then I suggest you take your hatred elsewhere.
-
Gabrielle
“I must say, that was a pretty stupid answer to L***y. It’s as though you’re saying a little clergy child abuse is well inside “normal parameters” and so doesn’t count. Aren’t clergy supposed to be BETTER than ordinary people?”
What editor was doing was putting matters in context. You obviously missed that .
As to priests being better than others, we all like to think so but we know that they are fallen human beings like the rest of us. Why do you think the Church has always advocated praying for priests? It is because the devil tempts them more than the rest of us, in lots of things, hoping to bring them down.
Priests are no different in their human nature to the rest of us. Whatever made you think they were free from temptation and sin? I asked you before, and now I ask again: Are you sure you’re a Catholic?
-
Sorry Athanasius!
What percentage of Catholic priests abuse children?
What percentage of family members abuse children?
Are Catholic priests worse than normal people?
-
I’m baffled…
Let me first point out that I think you have every right to dissect and criticize any and all reports that are held up against the church. It should be a matter of course in every facet of an organizations’ existence…
This should also include criticizing of even the reports that uphold the church, and the same rules of critique need to be applied to both positive and negative, i.e. ulterior motives (malignant or benign) behind the scenes, for putting forward an idea as ‘fact’…
I just don’t see that happening here…
Or in any other religious group that I’ve encountered…
I find it contemptible and outrageous that you (as a group) seem to want to smear “liberals’ and even the ‘Vatican II’ as a cause for these despicable acts. And I believe the very ‘liberalism’ that you want to accuse, is the very catalyst that is allowing many abused to come forward, since ‘liberalism’ has shed the light of fact that unwanted sexual advances is not something that should be allowed and not exposed, with feint whispers of ‘shame’, or that it is somehow ‘your fault’, as it was in society and the church in pre-Vatican II days…
-
I’ve seen 4% for the United States.
There’s about 220million adults there.
So if normal people are as bad as Catholic priests that would be 8800000 child rapists.
Are there enough children to go around?
-
In the interest of good taste we’ll assume children aged 5 to 16.
There’s about 40million there.
So if each of our 8800000 averages 2.2 victims
That’s every child raped.
Of course this may not be the case – it could be that Catholic Priests are worse than normal people as someone suggested previously.
-
Make that 4.5 each my difference engine’s missing a cog.
-
BirdWatcher,
somewhere in my filing system I have a cutting from the Catholic Herald of some years ago, in which the ultra-popular and completely “liberal” (married man, into explicit talk about sex) Dr Jack Dominion very openly and shamelessly praised a book written by an author who argues that not all paedophilia is bad; children are “sexual” beings and we need to get to grips with this etc. It makes utterly incredible reading, yet I guess, tucked away in the book reviews, it may well have gotten missed. I didn’t see it at the time myself and was alerted to it some years later when a friend sent me the cutting, but I do not recollect reading any letters from Horrified of Haberdeen so I doubt if I was the only reader to have skipped the book reviews that week…
Trust me. Liberals are dangerous folk.
RichardEmmanuelJones,
You are being silly again. Please don’t. You know perfectly well that Athanasius said 2% (if even that – I’m not sure it is even as much) have been accused, not found guilty.
You are extremely unjust in your statements about Catholic priests. In the main, Catholic priests are men who have sacrificed quite a lot to become priests. If they were all rampant paedophiles, they could have married some daft girl (there’s always somebody who’ll marry anybody for the sake of it) and produced his own victims, so please do not be so unkind.
Only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction have been convicted of such heinous crimes, so let’s not get this out of all proportion…
Unless, to fit your own agenda, you want to do so?
-
I am silly, but I found 4% somewhere else……ah! here it is!
The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950-2002).
-
What did that Ryan report say? If you can show me the Priest percentage is lower than the non-priest percentage then I’ll give you the win.
-
Editor,
Tit for tat here…
Hitler was, by any standard, a conservative…
Trust me. Conservatives are dangerous folk.
Feels a bit awkward I hope?
You and I, have just done the injustice of equating an individual with a group, in EXACTLY the same way you rightly point out that it’s not fair to paint the catholic church with the broadbrush of paedophilia because of individual priests…
I have to go now…
-
I think it’s typically under-reported. Shall I look that up? I’d be very surprised if the priest percentage wasn’t higher. It could be that perverts – not sincere Catholics – deliberately signed up. What do you think?
-
Was the homosexual lobby in Britain not agitating a few years back for the lowering of the age of consent to under 16 years? Hmmm!
-
Athanasius – L*cky you don’t drop your aitches.
-
The Church itself seems to be officially going for 1%.
Wouldn’t that mean for normal people to be as bad as priests there would have to be 2 million American child-rapists?
That sounds a lot to me. Mind you their TV’s rubbish.
-
It must be pubs and clubs time – I’ll see you all tomorrow!
Nos da!
-
RichardEmmanuelJones – it’s worth noting that the vast majority of accusations against priests have been regarding older children. For the record, I’ll stress that this doesn’t make it right, but as a wholly secular friend of mine noted, maybe the problem was that gay men entered the priesthood thinking it would help them reconcile their internal conflict but found that the ready availability of teenage altar boys actually put a greater strain on them than they could handle. At the risk of sounding flippant, I doubt the gay lobby would mind terribly about much of it if the abusers weren’t priests. After all, the “partners” of the 15 year old lad in Queer As Folk weren’t abusers, were they?
I don’t really want to get into the grim detail of many of the accusations that have been made over the years, but the types of abuse involved tell an interesting story too. Almost no accusations of penetrative rape have come to light. There have even been relatively few of boys being forced to perform acts on priests. The majority of cases have involved priests performing sex acts on boys themselves or encouraging/forcing boys to watch them pursue solitary vices. Again, this is in stark contrast to the picture painted by the media and implies a radically different pathology to this problem than straightforward paedophilia.
Also, on the false claims issue, I know of at least one utterly shocking example of this. I’d love to explain it here, but it would be difficult without explaining so much detail that it would reveal identities, and that would be utterly unfair, given the situation. Suffice to say that when there’s money involved and odious lawyers to do the digging, there are a lot of people who will say almost anything.
-
That is a great post, Legion and I agree with what you say. At least 81% of the cases are with adolescent boys, so that is not paedophilia and there will no doubt be cases which were consensual – homosexuals do like younger lads.
Your friend is correct about gays entering the priesthood but I don’t think it was to fight the temptation. At one time in the States, it was practically impossible to get in unless you were gay. There was a book called Goodbye Good Men by Michael Rose that reveals the homosexual infiltration of seminaries
http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C5976There was also a shocking website called Saint Sebastian’s Angels which was taken down after it was publicised. There were homosexual priests and even a bishop on there, boasting about their “cute” new altar boys, that sort of disgusting thing.
There is no question but that these abuse cases have ruined the Church in Ireland. It is hard to see how it will recover, humanly speaking.
-
Legion and rebel
I agree with you both on all counts. As to the ruination of the Church in Ireland, the sex abuse scandals did some damage, no doubt about it, but the Godless media and the anti-Catholic bigots have done most of it by their quite deliberate sensationalism.
You know what they say about those who protest too much! I am beginning to wonder if this secular fixation with clerical abuse is down to titillation in many cases.
-
Legion, Rebel, and Athanasius – do you see why I find your attitudes disgusting? Read your own posts again. This is truly shocking, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. It seems we godless atheists have a far better handle on morality than the supposed pillars of Catholic Truth.
-
Athanasius, Legion and Rebel
I’m afraid I disagree with all of you on this one. We can argue all we want about percentages and degrees. The simple fact is that abuse on a massive scale has taken place, not just sexual abuse but physical abuse and psychological abuse as well. And it’s not just priests; nuns and laity (so called care workers) have been responsible too. I am old enough to well remember some of it and those memories are not altogether pleasant.
The issue here is complex. But at the heart of it is the simple truth that vulnerable young people have been targeted and victimised by people who represented both God and the Church. It’s a shameful fact. And that betrayal has wounded the Body of Christ to such a degree that peoples faith has been shattered.
To compound it all the Bishops, who should have been the protectors of the faith, protectors of the weak and vulnerable became instead protectors of the ‘good name of the Church’ and shielded these priests by moving them from pillar to post. And then tried to cover it up by refusing to release files.
All of this didn’t come from nowhere. I believe that there is a strong link between secular power and feelings of invincibility. The Church in Ireland and the US had such secular influence that priests thought they were above the law. And so did the Bishops who attempted to cover it up.
So numbers and percentages are a side show. What we can say with certainty is there has been enough to cause scandal and the Catholic Church as a whole has to accept that it has failed those who are victims.
Where I DO agree with Athanasius is that deceased clergy deserve their good name and that financial settlement should be barred in those cases. They cannot defend themselves and I can’t see what’s to be achieved by making an accusation against someone who has died.
We also need to remember that there are THOUSANDS of priests who are hard working, faithful and honest men. They deserve our support and encouragement in their calling.
It’s a timely reminder that while the power of the State needs to be kept in check the secular power and influence of the Church needs to be limited as well. The Church needs to be heard but not pulling the strings.
-
Guardian Angel – I was just trying to back up my ‘priests are worse than normal people’ with my abacus.
It is by definition a sample unrepresentative of the general population. The data we have suggests they behave worse.
If we factor out the self-selecting nature of the ‘calling’ I could go for ‘priests are no worse than normal people might be as priests’.
Do you think the strange unnatural lifestyle, the power structure, the culture of secrecy, the supernaturally captive ‘audience’ and the magic power of the priests to forgive themselves contributes to their being worse than normal people?
I think this diffusion of responsibility is dangerous, satanic even.
Does the church have to run this way? Can’t He hear you at home?
-
Guardian Angel,
“So numbers and percentages are a side show” Of course they are, if your aim is to “get the Church”, especially to savage the characters of priests; in that case, why not go with the deliberately created perception and who cares if it’s true or not?” You are totally wrong to say that abuse took place on a “massive scale” but then, coming from someone who isn’t interested in the facts and thinks the facts are a “side show” I’m not surprised at all.
As for the nuns – remember semperfidelis posted on another thread on this topic that she worked in the “Magdalen Laundries” and not only did she not hear any such allegations at all, she heard the opposite: girls saying that ONLY the nuns had believed them and cared for them. But, hey, that’ll be classed as another “side show”.
RichardEmmanuelJones, what is the “strange unnatural lifestyle” of which you speak? Is it the lifestyle of a celibate priest? Would you say the same to a lay person who lives alone and is celibate (there are quite a few, you know) And note, priests cannot “forgive themselves” if you are referring to Confession. Get a grip!
-
I would if they spent their time dressing up and talking to statues.
I think knowing they will be absolved whatever they do – apart from the ghost thing – is perhaps the most dangerous idea ever invented.
This diffusion of responsibility illusion is indistinguishable from reality at the subconscious level. Deflecting upwards is the ‘only following orders’ defence facilitating crimes that would otherwise have not been committed.
-
Ed – Did you like the video I sent you?
REJ have had a hectic day and not had time to check it out. Will do so and let you know – ed.
-
Editor
This problem has bankrupted several diocese and more will follow. That makes it massive enough in my eyes although the spiritual damage is much greater.
As for not being interested in facts, the only facts that matter here is the number of guilty verdicts and the shocking scandal done to the Church. Don’t lecture me in your usual arrogant fashion; it won’t wash. Do your research and see how many of the cases brought were eventually accepted by the Church as being valid in that there was a case to answer.
As for the nuns, yes I agree. The vast majority were, and are, good, holy people. But some were not. I thought that I made that clear enough in the sentiments of my previous post which I notice to chose to ignore. Perhaps I should have included ‘nuns’ but any reasonable person whould have understood what I was trying to say. For clarity I will add it here:
“We also need to remember that there are THOUSANDS of priests AND NUNS who are hard working, faithful, honest men AND WOMEN. They deserve our support and encouragement in their calling.”
You and your ilk do the Catholic Church no favours by trying to defend the indefensible. Thankfully you are few and far between.
-
Editor: I know how very busy you are, so here’s a little sample. I draw your attention to paragraph 8 (Vatican spokesman)…….and to the sentiments expressed by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedicy XVI through the Cardinal in the following paragraph. I will leave it to the readers to decide what they think……not unless of course the aim of both Popes is to ‘get the Church’.
LOS ANGELES (CNS) — The Los Angeles Archdiocese July 15 announced the largest church settlement of sexual abuse lawsuits to date, agreeing to pay more than 500 alleged victims a total of $660 million.
Before noon the next day, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Haley Fromholz had approved the settlement, calling it “the right result.” He said settling the cases was “the right thing to do.”
Los Angeles Cardinal Roger M. Mahony again offered his personal apology to every victim of sexual abuse by a priest, religious, deacon or layperson in the archdiocese.
“It is the shared hope of everyone in our local church that these victims, many of whom suffered in silence for decades, may find a measure of healing and some sense of closure with today’s announcement,” he said in a statement July 15.
“Although financial compensation in itself is inadequate to make up for the harm done to the victims and their families, still this compensation does provide a meaningful outreach to assist the victims to rebuild their lives and to move forward,” he said.
The settlement — reached by attorneys for the archdiocese and 508 people suing the archdiocese — came the weekend before the first of 15 civil trials in Los Angeles County courts was to begin July 16. With the agreement in hand, Cardinal Mahony and attorneys for both sides instead appeared in court to present the formal settlement to Fromholz for approval.
Following Fromholz’s action, Cardinal Mahony repeated his apology and his offer to meet privately with any victim of abuse who asks. “This particular day is a day for the victims to speak,” he said, adding that he would spend the rest of the day in prayer.
Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, Vatican spokesman, said July 17 that the settlement “understandably has garnered great attention both because of the number of cases involved as well as for the figure of the settlement.”
“But, as Cardinal Mahony — in line with what John Paul II and Benedict XVI said many times — the church obviously is pained mainly by the suffering of the victims and their families because of the profound wounds caused by the serious and inexcusable behavior of some of its members,” Father Lombardi said.
He said the settlement agreement, “with the sacrifices it requires,” is also a sign of the seriousness with which the church “has committed itself to doing everything possible to avoid a repetition of such wicked acts.”
During the hearing, Ray Boucher, lead attorney for the victims, thanked his clients for their resolve and courage, asking them to stand. “I think they deserve a tremendous debt of gratitude,” Boucher said, fighting back tears.
He credited Cardinal Mahony with taking steps that led to the settlement, which might not have occurred “if left to the lawyers.”
Michael Hennigan, attorney for the archdiocese, said in the courtroom that his views of clergy sex abuse had changed over the years he spent on the cases, largely through his private meetings with 70 plaintiffs.
“I’d like to say that the church would have been reformed without these cases, but I don’t know that’s true,” he said. “These cases have forever reformed the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. It will never be the same.”
Margaret Graf, general counsel for the archdiocese, thanked county courts personnel for their role in helping to bring about a settlement through mediation.
“This was the courts at their best,” said Graf. “We appreciate the enormous efforts of our Superior Courts in Los Angeles to deal with this very complex and sensitive litigation and the fact that they made the resources of the courts available.”
She thanked in particular Judges Charles McCoy, Peter Lichtman and Fromholz, as well as the hundreds of attorneys and other legal professionals who represented the defendants and the victims.
In addition to the monetary settlement, the Los Angeles Archdiocese tried to facilitate a pastoral response toward the victims of clergy sexual abuse when possible.
For more than a year, Cardinal Mahony has been meeting with victims and their families individually, and hopes to continue meeting with victims, said Graf. The cardinal has met with more than 70 victims. McCoy, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge participated in most of the meetings — sometimes lasting as along as three hours.
“Judge McCoy facilitated it so that there could be pastoral outreach and victims could tell the cardinal their story in a noncourt environment,” she said.
The archdiocese also has been paying for therapy and counseling for victims, regardless of whether they are involved in litigation, said Graf.
Last December, the archdiocese announced the settlement of 45 lawsuits for $60 million.
Under the latest agreement, the archdiocese will pay $250 million and the balance will come from a combination of payments from insurance carriers and religious orders whose members have been accused in the abuse cases.
According to a tally prepared by the Los Angeles Times, the previous largest settlement of abuse cases in the United States since 2002 was the $157 million the Boston Archdiocese agreed to pay to 983 claimants in several different settlement agreements. The Archdiocese of Portland, Ore., agreed to pay $129 million to 315 claimants; the Diocese of Orange, Calif., agreed to pay $100 million to 90 claimants, and the Diocese of Covington, Ky., settled with 350 claimants for $85 million.
Cardinal Mahony said the new settlement and the one for $60 million announced in November “will have very serious and painful consequences for the archdiocese.” He said the archdiocese will re-evaluate all ministries and services, “since we will not be able to offer them at the same levels as in the past.”
The archdiocese will sell “nonessential properties” to fund its portion of the settlement, he said, adding that no parish properties or schools would be affected.
In May Cardinal Mahony said the archdiocese would sell its chancery building to help finance the settlements. Archdiocesan functions would either move to rented space elsewhere or the archdiocese would lease back space in its current building, he said.
About 50 properties had been identified as available to sell to cover the settlement costs.
Teresa Kettelkamp, executive director of the U.S. bishops’ Office of Child and Youth Protection, told Catholic News Service that the Los Angeles settlement is a watershed for the number of victims it includes. She said she hopes the settlement is the key to enabling the victims to achieve greater healing.
Reaching a court settlement for damages “is just one of the tools of healing,” she said. “Hopefully time will tell whether it makes a difference.”
-
Guardian Angel
With respect, you really do need to pay attention! There has not been any substantial evidence forthcoming at any time to suggest that clerical abuse of children was an epidemic in the Catholic Church. That it did happen in certain areas is accepted, but that it has been proved to have gone on all over the place for fifty years is just garbage.
These compensation pay outs were made on the basis of multiple plaintiffs all crying foul decades after the alleged events so that they could get their grubby hands on a slice of the cake. Most of the accused were dead and there was no direct evidence to prove them guilty of anything. I have yet to see any real, solid, indisputable evidence to back these decades-old accusations up. There is none, it’s all on the word of the plaintiff.
Since the secular courts were, and are, of a mind, like the media, to find against Catholicism, the Church had no choice but to pay out. Besides this, when you have worldly prelates bowing and scraping before their enemies for a morsel of recognition, then it’s no suprise that they don’t question this vile business, and it is a business.
As for the Church apologising, this is patent nonsense. The Church regretted any pain caused to genuine victims, but it cannot apologise for the actions of another. The Church is the spotless bride of Christ, free of sin. She cannot err, or had you forgotten that. Churchmen err, but not the Church.
If you want to be a sponge, drinking in this exaggerated media garbage and court findings based on revisionism and bribery, then you go right ahead. I base my judgment on hard facts. The only facts I have are that SOME modern clergy have been guilty of child abuse. The cases against clergy of decades ago is not only not proven, but cannot be proven because the victims all miraculously waited 20 or 30 years to come forward, when money was on offer of course!
Here’s just one story to show how gullible you are:
One William Burnett, currently serving life for homicide, and who also has a history of bank robbery, adultery and the pistol-whipping of women, opened up in correspondence in 2002 about the sexual abuse he suffered at the hands of his uncle, the Rev. Raymond Page, as well as just about every other clergyman he ever came into contact with.
Ok, now we read what his brother had to say about this: http://www.massline.com/news/republican/index.ssf?/news/church/033105church.html
-
Guardian Angel
It seems my link is no longer available. The basic gist is that the brother, W. Robert Burnette, wrote to the parole board asking them not to consider his brother for parole.
He then wrote to ‘The Republican’ newspaper saying that his brother was a nasty piece of work who had a history of hurting his family, and that the priests he accused of abuse were completely innocent of the charge. He confirmed that he too was in the company of these priests when young, his uncle included, and never once did they behave inappropriately. They were holy and dedicated priests, he said.
So there you have it, the word of an upright citizen against the word of a convicted rapist and murderer. How far will these paople go to damage the reputation of the Catholic Church? Well, they’ll go quite far if they can get a majority of Catholics like you to just accept the flimsy evidence they put before you with their feigned outrage.
-
Athanasius
You really do astound me sometimes.
“If you want to be a sponge, drinking in this exaggerated media garbage and court findings based on revisionism and bribery, then you go right ahead.”
Do you see Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XvI as ’sponges’ as well? You see conspiracy everywhere. The Church paid up because it recognised that it had a moral duty to confront this issue.
All I will say to everyone else is add up the number of complainants in my post above. If this number of people had come forward with complaints about conspiracy against the Church I’m sure someone would have wheeled out the ‘no smoke without fire’ line.
Perhaps the link has been withdrawn because it’s….err….suspect?
Your mind appears closed on this subject so there is no point to continuing the discussion. As far as I’m concerned the facts speak for themselves.
-
Guardian Angel,
I think you proved on another thread that you quite definitely do NOT allow the facts to speak for themselves. Whatever you are about, it is not defending the truth. There simply ARE no reliable statistics and cannot be, mathematically/scientifically speaking, at this closeness in time to the alleged events but your anxiety to believe the worst, ties in with the discussion on the November edition thread when you defended your decision to vote against the motion that The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.
It is YOUR mind that is closed, not Athanasius’s mind. He, at least, has studied the data and taken the trouble to research precise dates, names and allegations. You, on the other hand, fall hook line and sinker for the establishment line. It is your anxiety so to do that makes me wonder what you are about. They say if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it usually IS a duck. Somebody with a username like Guardian Angel, who thinks and votes like an atheists, well, he ain’t no duck.
Your opinion on this child abuse issue then, doesn’t cut it at all. The fact that you can cite the daft apologies from modern popes as evidence of anything, reveals – at best – an ignorance of the nature and limitations of the papal office. Popes can hold mistaken opinions like anyone else and if, as these two you name have demonstrated, they are palpably keen to be popular, then who knows what they’ll apologise for next. Notably, just about the only group not in a receipt of a modern papal apology is traditional Catholics. Go figure.
I just can’t make up my mind whether you are a modern Catholic (with all the ignorance attached to that lamentable state of being) or an atheist in (very thin) disguise.
This, however, I do know: you proved by your words in defence of your vote (November newsletter thread) that you are more in sympathy with atheists than with Catholics. That is one fact that quite clearly speaks for itself.
-
Editor
You really should change the record and the strategy. It’s the same every time: righteousness followed by anger followed by nastiness when you don’t get your way. It’s you all over – and you should really get that seen to. As someone I admired greatly once said ‘When will these people understand that no amount of abuse adds up to an argument?” Recognise it?
You really would be better of with the Wee Frees – you have the same mindset. As you so often say ‘Sticks and stones…etc’….. How you decide to categories me is frankly of no interest to me whatsoever. And on the issue above I will happily stick with both Popes thank you very much.
Maybe it’s all those pubs and clubs. I’ll have a pint of what you’ve been drinking: it’s obviously affected your judgement!!
-
Guardian Angel
“Do you see Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XvI as ’sponges’ as well? You see conspiracy everywhere. The Church paid up because it recognised that it had a moral duty to confront this issue.”
These Popes lamented pain caused by genuine cases of clerical abuse. They have never stated that they believe all cases to be true, nor have they ever said that the Church was responsible for any of this. As I say, they merely expressed sorrow for pain caused by genuine cases of abuse by clerics. We should also weigh the words of the Popes with the universal media campaign waged against the Church in this matter.
“All I will say to everyone else is add up the number of complainants in my post above. If this number of people had come forward with complaints about conspiracy against the Church I’m sure someone would have wheeled out the ‘no smoke without fire’ line.”
I never said there was an absence of fire in this clerical sexual abuse controversy. What I did say was that there is a lot more smoke than fire, the smoke of Satan in fact.
As for your number of complaints, these are inadmissible given that most of them are about alleged abuse that took place decades ago. There is good reason to believe that many of these could be false accusations given the money on offer.
“Perhaps the link has been withdrawn because it’s….err….suspect?”
No, the link was to a well established newspaper called The Republican. I read the article about a year ago and it was perfectly legitimate. Being a 2005 piece, however, it has probably been removed from the database of the newspaper’s computer system to make room for more recent stuff.
“Your mind appears closed on this subject so there is no point to continuing the discussion. As far as I’m concerned the facts speak for themselves.”
My mind is certainly closed to open season on the Catholic Church by the Godless media and their money grabbing story tellers. As for facts speaking for themselves. Decades of bizarre victim silence, a revisionist report, paid accusers and deceased accused don’t exactly add up to facts, or even strong circumstantial evidence. What they do add up to is a very great miscarriage of justice. I’m afraid I’ll have to pass, then, on your offer to join the lynch mob.
-
Guardian Angel, here’s a link that’s not been removed.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1906351007/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1At least one of the most notorious accusers has been exposed as a liar.
I look forward to your defence of the indefensible Kathy O’Beirne.
-
Guardian Angel – don’t get me wrong. I’m defending no-one who did anything wrong. However, it’s vitally important to understand (a) what the actual problems are; and (b) to be scrupulously careful that no innocent people get tarred with the same filthy brush. There are hundreds, if not thousands of false claims made because the Church is seen as fabulously wealthy and, frankly, a soft target. There are lawyers who make a great living from targeting Church institutions and ambulance-chasing to find “victims” who will “come forward at last.” Trust me on this. It happens and it can ruin lives. Given the law in this country now, just being accused (with not a shred of evidence, never mind a conviction in a court of one’s peers) can destroy the career of a teacher or a carer, break their spirit, cost them inordinate amounts of time and money to defend and still, after it’s all over and they’re proven innocent, leave their good names in tatters. Whenever Crimen Sollicitationis is mentioned, it should always be borne in mind that the Church sought to protect everyone in these cases – accused and accuser alike.
If we’re going to do anything about the “epidemic” then we also need to know what the problem really is. Talking about “paedophile priests” is nonsense because 99% of the time, these were not paedophiles. They were men taking advantage of post-pubescent boys. Of course it was a crime and of course it is repellent in every way, but you don’t treat a virus with antibiotics. If we treat this problem in the same way as we might treat men caught raping toddlers, we miss the point and don’t really help anyone. Whether you regard homosexuality as wrong or not, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that what was going on in most of these cases was a particularly unpleasant reflection of homosexual tendencies rather than what we typically regard as paedophilia.
I have the utmost sympathy with the victims of any and all abuse and I hope and pray the Church hierarchy can finally learn some lessons in how to handle this kind of allegation in future, but I am also worldly-wise enough to know that there is almost always more to a story than tabloid headlines tell. We have a responsibility – not just as Catholics, but as citizens – to properly understand the situation and treat it appropriately.
-
Guardian Angel
“As someone I admired greatly once said ‘When will these people understand that no amount of abuse adds up to an argument?” Recognise it?”
Strange that you quote this statement of an admired one. You should have applied it to the Godless people you voted with against the Catholic Church. You must have been quite at home with their abuse and blasphemy or you wouldn’t have sided with them.
Remember this also, NO AMOUNT OF ARGUMENT ADDS UP TO ABUSE, only facts which no one has yet provided in any great quantity.
-
Legion
A fantastic post, thank you! Now that is common sense writing and so well expressed.
-
editor
I just had to copy this statement from one reviewer of the book that exposed Kathy O’Beirne as a liar. Guardian Angel take note:
“I had just begun reading Hermann Kelly’s new book exposing the unsupported allegations contained in Kathy’s Story when the two of them appeared on TV together. She got so mad when he challenged her “facts” that she grabbed his papers and began to beat him over the head! If you are at all interested in the truth then you should read this book. The later chapters are very interesting also when they look at some of the ways the Redress system in Ireland has been manipulated by charlatans. While the Religious Orders have been attacked and the Government blamed for letting them off too cheaply, people forget how the burden of proof has all but disappeared and how difficult if it for individuals to protect their good name in these circumstances. “
-
Athanasius, I originally decided not to post the link to that TV interview because there is so much shouting and talking through each other but on second thoughts, here’s the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jixeaz9lu1s
Watch for the final piece where she hits Hermann Kelly over the head!
Hermann Kelly sent us a copy of his book to review on publication – it is really terrific. I recommend it to all who don’t believe there was skulduggery at government level and bribes on offer. A must-read.
-
editor
I watched the video but couldn’t make head nor tail of what they were saying. It was a complete free-for-all! Still, I got a laugh from their antics.
-
I hope you watched until the end – when Hermann got a whack over the head from Kathy – the REAL Kathy!
Hilarious!
-
Athanasius
At no time have I said I believed ALL the allegations of abuse. Please do not put words into my mouth by implication. What I have said is that each and every allegation should be investigated. Indeed the Pope said as much when he visited Australia. Here is what he said then:
‘I would like to pause to acknowledge the shame which we have all felt as a result of the sexual abuse of minors by some clergy … in this country.
I am deeply sorry for the pain and suffering the victims have endured.
These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation. Those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.
I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops and to work together with them in combating this evil.’
This is entirely consistent with the view of the Chucrh as being sinless. Why? Pope John PaulII, in 1994 summed it up beautifully in his Apostolic Letter ‘Tertio millennio adveniente’:
“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”
I have read here countless instances in which many bloggers have lamented over liturgical abuses and the failure of the Church to act when these abuses have been reported. Correction of abuse, whether liturgical, canonical or relating to fidelity to priestly orders are the responsibility of the Church. Where the Church has been negligent she (through those entrusted with office) must take responsibility.
Legion
I agree with your post and your observations that we need to understand the nature of the problem. Judge Michael R. Merz, who was chairman of a National Review Board tasked by the Church to look at this issue, said following the Popes visit to the United States:
“The Holy Father also asked us to look for deeper cultural causes of the crisis. Why did this outbreak of crime against children occur in our Church in our time?”
-
Guardian Angel
That quote from Pope John Paul II is both contradictory and a scandal. He first says that the sins are those of men of the Church and then says that the Church must never cease to do penance. Garbage! Catholics who commit mortal sin cut themselves off from the true vine. It is not for the Church to accept any repsonsibility for the sins of individuals, past or present, who reject her grace and betray her, no, not even if the sinner is a pope. Every man is responsible for his own sins and will answer for them at the personal judgment.
As for this statement you made:
“At no time have I said I believed ALL the allegations of abuse. Please do not put words into my mouth by implication. What I have said is that each and every allegation should be investigated.”
Here are your introductory comments:
“I’m afraid I disagree with all of you on this one. We can argue all we want about percentages and degrees. The simple fact is that abuse on a massive scale has taken place, not just sexual abuse but physical abuse and psychological abuse as well. And it’s not just priests; nuns and laity (so called care workers) have been responsible too. I am old enough to well remember some of it and those memories are not altogether pleasant.”
So what happened to each and every allegation being investigated when you wrote that paragraph? It was these careless words that started the ball rolling in the first place.
So you see, Guardian Angel, no one is putting words in your mouth. Hardly a single accusation has been sufficiently investigated. Read the statement on Hermann Kelly’s book a few posts back for an example of what I mean.
-
Athanasius
You really do spout rubbish. You are at odds with the Pope, the Bishops and the mind of the Church.
I will say what I have said again that I don’t believe that accusations against deceased clergy should be entertained. But as for the others it is for the competent legal authority to investigate and bring to justice those who have a case to answer. The Pope has made that clear. End of discussion, regardless of what you or others may thing. Thank God that you have no jurisdiction within the Church. The Holy Spirit indeed shows wisdom in all sorts of ways.
As for your comments regarding Pope John Paul they simply display arrogance and confirm that you are no true son of the Church. I will quote again the present Pope:
“I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops and to work together with them in combating this evil.”
Your disrespect and disobedience are staggering. I will not engage with you again on this topic – you always want and take the last word anyway, and I expect you will do so again – in your usual sactimonious manner.
End of discussion.
-
Guardian Angel
You were voting with the Godless a few weeks ago to say that the Church is not a force for good in the world. Now your telling me that I am an arrogant and disobedient non-son of the Church because I don’t accept every word of Pope John Paul II to be infallible. Stop sniffing the glue and start smelling the incense!
-
Athanasius
You really are a hypocrite.
Three times now you have mentioned the vote. And Editor has done so too. I admitted it was wrong to do that and apologised. On November 16 I posted the following:
“Now, having said all of that I will admit that voting as I did was done for the wrong reason and I was wrong to do so, especially in light of some of the latter comments which, I confess, I didn’t read properly. So I apologise for that.”
I mention this because I followed a link (posted by the Editor) to Damian Thompson’s. And what do we find there? You bleating on about a blogger who quoted your BNP contribution and then wouldn’t accept that you had written it in haste or in ‘a fit of pique’ to quote you.
And then Editor jumps to your defence there with the following:
“Most of us make mistakes or say/write something in haste that we don’t really mean, but not you. Not saint realcatholic. Sanctimonious humbug. Gimme a break. Somewhere along the line your Catholic educators forgot to tell you that we are duty bound to accept the word of another. If Athanasius says he wrote in a fit of pique or too hastily, the educated, charitable Catholic says “I believe you”. Isn’t that the decent thing to do anyway?” Obviously not Editor. Obviously not. At least not for you.
So both of you preach one thing on one blog and practice another on here. If that isn’t hypocritical I don’t know what is.
So spare me all the sanctimonious rubbish and indignation. And Athansius, I notice that the blogger in question accepted your position once explained, however suspect that explanation looked. Both of you should take a leaf out of his (or her) book and practice what you preach!!!
Finally, anyone can disagree with Pope John Paul. To describe his Apostolic Letter in the crude way that you did says much more about you that it does about the contents of the letter.
-
Guardian Angel
Calm yourself!
I apologised over my BNP remarks when I later discovered that one of their chief guys is openly anti-Catholic. Your apology was for knowingly giving your support to anti-Catholics once you realised that your name had gone up with your vote. I think you would do well to re-read the definition of hypocrisy!
-
Guardian Angel,
You remind us that you wrote (re. the debate)
“Now, having said all of that I will admit that voting as I did was done for the wrong reason and I was wrong to do so, especially in light of some of the latter comments which, I confess, I didn’t read properly. So I apologise for that.”
What POSSIBLE reason can there be to justify voting on the side of atheists against Christ’s Church? If you loved Christ and His Church, GA, you just could not do that – ever.
If you’d genuinely regretted that disgraceful action and said so unambiguously, we’d have accepted your word and that would have been an end to it. But you haven’t. You can envisage that it would have been perfectly ok to insult Christ’s Church had your motives been better. Get outa here!
So, your analogy with the discussion on the DT blog doesn’t work at all.
I know it was a relatively small debate in a small corner of the world (only around 10,000 tuned in…) but it is still a public counter-witness to Christ and His Church and I feel very sad about it. Your subsequent readiness to believe the worst about the clergy accused (but not convicted) of sexual abuse crimes in Ireland serves to underline my feeling that there is something not quite right here.
Nevertheless, having said all that, I do not want to bear any grudges, so let’s agree to leave the “vote” in the past and move forward.
Yes? No?
-
“What POSSIBLE reason can there be to justify voting on the side of atheists against Christ’s Church?”
Because the atheists were right?
-
Editor
“If you’d genuinely regretted that disgraceful action ….But you haven’t.” Stop press news…now Editor is JUDGE as well!! Staggering. But not surprising. This is the lady who tells God what is (and is not) pleasing to Him!!
As for something “not quite right”, you bet! Both of you have demonstrated that by your behaviour.
Athanasius
You were let off lightly by that blogger on DT blogg. You, of all people, should have accepted my apology was in good faith and done the same. There’s a biblical precedent for that. But you only quote Christ when it suits you. THAT more than anything makes you a hypocrite.
-
Guardian Angel
The Church is full of hypocrits, but worry not there is always room for one more! We wouldn’t go to Church if we were sinless, now would we, L*cky?
The point being made, GA, was that while you were apologising just two weeks ago for denying that the Church was capable of any good on earth, you then came on here quoting the Ryan report to the detriment of the Church as though it were Sacred Scripture. When reminded that this revisionist report declares against deceased priests and prelates not on evidence, but on the strength of bought testimony, you suddenly switched tact and quoted recent popes as though they were giving the rubber stamp to everything the Ryan reoprt reports.
All these popes have done, in fact, is regret the true hurt caused by those genuine sexual abuse cases involving clerics and spoke of working with authorities to root it out. They have by no means agreed that there is an epidemic of clerical pederasty in the Church, which is what the Ryan report attempts to state. That’s where you went off the mark.
L*cky
“Because the atheists were right?” Aye, right!!
I can’t think of a more despairing way to live and die than as an atheist. Very sad and animal-like. Atheism is about as low as human reason can sink. Truly narrowminded in the proper sense of the term.
-
“I can’t think of a more despairing way to live and die than as an atheist. Very sad and animal-like. Atheism is about as low as human reason can sink. Truly narrowminded in the proper sense of the term.”
Well done, Athanasius. You’ve revealed yourself as the petty, shallow, anti-intellectual bigot you are. What a hide you have – to post nonsense upon nonsense, claiming that you are some kind of Catholic moral leader, whilst denying and apologising for the institutional sins of the church. My daughter, after I’d shown her some of your posts, summed you up nicely: “What a creep.”
-
Lucky, that was nasty and I hope you told your daughter off for being so rude about a fellow human being. Two wrongs never add up to one right. Did you tell her that?
I happen to consider Athanasius’s comment, as quoted by you, as being regrettable if not imprudent.
Sorry, Athanasius, but we don’t know what is in Lucky’s deepest soul and how God is working there (for “working there” is precisely what God is doing, Lucky).
So, let’s draw a line here and try to remember the golden rule given to us by Christ Himself: “treat others as you wish to be treated yourself”.
Guardian Angel, you only quoted part of my comment – I did say “if you’d regretted and SAID so…. but you haven’t”. There is no “judgement” of the definitive kind in there, merely an observation.
Tell us now if you DO regret (for the right reasons) that vote otherwise, I’d advise you to let it remain in the past. I’ll not raise it again, that I promise you. I’ve made my point.
-
editor
I make no apology for my statement about atheism. It shuts off the mind and the soul to God, thereby reducing the human person to a wretched animal species with no hope of anything beyond a short earthly existence. It deprives the world of a common morality, the destructive fruits of which we see everywhere today in the post-Christian era. It promotes and encourages every kind of excess in individuals and nations and it quite clearly robs young women of a proper feminine mode of speech.
L*cky
What did you expect your daughter to say – “Oh he’s so right daddy, that Athanasius is spot on!” Get a grip on yourself, man! But, then, I suppose you’ve trained your daughter to look upon all practicing Christians as just so many creeps? That’s ok, I can handle that kind of immaturity. I’m a Scotsman after all.
-
Athanasius, not that long ago you were telling us that there is no such thing as an atheist. I presumed by that you meant that – as St Augustine teaches – our hearts are restless until they find God. You were correct at that time.
Incomprehensible as it may be to us, God loves Lucky (and his naughty daughter) deeply and longs for their salvation. Let’s not make His work of bringing them to The Truth any more difficult than it is already.
-
editor
I merely use the term “atheist” now to mean Godless. Believe me, there is no such thing as an atheist who has the full use of human reason.
I have never doubted that God loves L*cky and every other human being that He created. Indeed, I absolutely agree that He deeply longs for their salvation.
Have you read the life of Blessed Bartolo Longo, the founder of the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary in Pompeii? It makes for a very interesting read, especially the part about his conversion from being a Satanist priest. In this respect, L*cky is something of a saint already in comparison.
Make no mistake, though, there has to be openness to God for Him to make headway, at least the absence of obstinacy in denying his existence. I haven’t found that to be the case with L*cky or any of the other Godless ones who have come onto this blog.
I think there comes a point when we have to realise that the person we exchange comments with isn’t remotely interested in what we have to say, but has the singular intention of winning Christians over to his unthinkable outlook on the purpose of life. You can usually tell when the mocking starts.
-
Athanasius, Guardian Angel is right about you. There is a vast difference between real Christians and people such as you. You are intolerant of every belief that does not conform to your very narrowly-defined worldview.
I know many fine people who happen to be Christians as well. My own mother is one such. She and I disagree on matters of religion, but she accepts my position with grace and good humour. She no more thinks I am destined for the lake of fire than she is destined for eternal bliss, because long ago she thought through these concepts and dismissed them as the ratbaggery they are. She is a Christian because she loves the word of her lord, not because of the ridiculous rites, symbols and authoritarian ugliness that comprises much religion, and in particular the narrow, cultish version you profess.
You do more to convert people to atheism than I ever could.
-
“Believe me, there is no such thing as an atheist who has the full use of human reason.”
Athanasius, that is an incredibly pompous assertion, not to say ludicrous. Prove it – I’d love to see the ‘reasoning’ behind that one!
-
Lucky, behave yourself. Listen, you make the mistake of thinking that Christians must be perfect and never say or do anything to annoy anyone. That’s patent nonsense. (Athanasius is proof of that – only kidding Ath!) Now, whether or not you agree with Athanasius’s view of atheists, please don’t descend into the realm of nasty personal remarks. That’s not on.
With respect, if you are representing your mother’s beliefs in fact, then she is no more a Christian than yourself, Lucky. To say she “loves the word of her Lord” but rejects eternal life, is utterly ridiculous. Her “Lord” spoke about both Heaven and Hell and said that more souls would choose Hell than Heaven. “If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments” Christ said. Wishy washy altruism, so often confused with Christian belief and life, is, quite simply, not to be confused with Christianity. Living a “good” life (generally interpreted as not killing, stealing etc and helping old ladies across the road) and being nice to people you like and avoiding those you don’t, is NOT Christianity.
Anyway, for a little light relief, since it is seasonal and humorous, here’s something I read recently from the diary of Clemente Crabbe (27/12/08) – The Joys of Atheism …
“Militant atheists spent a miserable Christmas. They wouldn’t have it any other way. Clive and Peta Lapse, the Putney seculrists, spent the morning outside their local church shouting “timewasters!”
They then returned to Richard Dawkins Crescent, SW15, for a lunch of nut loaf and pumpkin seeds, which Clive enlivened by reading aloud Lewis Wolpert’s latest thoughts on clinical depression.
Clive does quite a good Wolpert impersonation, though Peta wishes he wouldn’t spit quite so much.”
Comical!
-
Editor, my mother is more a Christian than you or Athanasius will ever be. That she rejects the afterlife as a fantasy is the result of about seventy years of serious thought by a woman with double your IQ. You think you can argue – you’ve got nothing, compared with her.
-
Lucky,
If your mother claimed to be a member of the Labour Party and then said that she did not accept the central claims of the Labour Party, would you consider her to be a much better Labour supporter than, say, Gordon Brown? That is how nonsensical the claim is to be a Christian but not to believe in THE key teaching of Christianity – that our lives here on earth are to prepare us for the next – eternal – life.
That is patent nonsense and you need to tell your mother to either accept the whole package – which is the only deal on offer – or to clarify her own (according you, highly intelligent) mind on the matter. I have no doubt that she thinks she is a Christian, but by definition, she is not. That’s not to say she isn’t a very kind, caring person. Not at all. She may well be and probably is a very nice lady. That is not, by definition, a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ and Christ has told us in some key sentences what we need to do to enjoy eternal salvation – with dire warnings of Hell fire if we reject Him and His teachings. It’s all there in Scriptures – all your mother has to do is read them for herself. If she really does “love her Lord” she will obey – that is, He has told us, the hallmark of His followers: “if you love Me, you will keep my commandments”.
As a scientific guru, you should be on the ball here, recognising that it is academically ridiculous for anyone to claim to be a Christian while rejecting the central doctrines of the Faith.
It won’t do your mother any good in the next life to have an IQ superior to mine – lots of people are much more intelligent than me (I’m sure you are, as well). I’ve never claimed to be highly intelligent.
Slim, glamorous, witty, yes. But highly intelligent? Get outa here!
-
L*cky
It’s just as well for the masses that Our Lord Jesus Christ doesn’t require a high IQ for holiness and salvation, otherwise heaven would indeed be slim in numbers. He did say something about those who are wise in their own conceit. Nor should we forget that it was the intelligent Pharisees who conspired against Him.
From recollection Hell gets around 55 mentions in the Bible and heaven gets around 550, 50+ of which are in the New Testament. It must take some IQ to negate all those. Your mother, well meaning woman that she may be, deludes herself if she thinks that she alone has worked out that one may be Christian without believing what Christ Himself taught about heaven and hell. Christ revealed these things directly. Surely you’re not telling us that your mother is calling Christ a liar?
Christianity without eternity is not Christianity, it is naturalism with a religious veneer.
“Athanasius, Guardian Angel is right about you. There is a vast difference between real Christians and people such as you. You are intolerant of every belief that does not conform to your very narrowly-defined worldview.”
Absolutely correct! I am a Roman Catholic whose Church teaches that, objectively speaking, there is no salvation outside of her. She is the only Church instituted by Christ for the salvation of souls, all other so-called Christian denominations being but grotesque caricatures that were once part of that Church but broke away from the true vine at some point or other in history. As for non-Christian religions, well without baptism they can’t be saved, unless by the rare grace of desire or blood. That’s what the Catholic Church has taught for two thousand years and I believe it.
I understand why you mock. You simply can’t grasp such divine truths because you think as man thinks and not as God thinks. It’s human IQ against divine wisdom. The first is natural, the other is supernatural. You have to desire it to receive it.
-
Lucky, you seem to be thoroughly accustomed to expressing yourself in glib, off-the-cuff remarks, usually with a derogatory tone.
We frequently hear from the likes of you how religion in general, and Christianity in particular, hardens people’s hearts. Yet it would appear that atheism, as represented by those who have visited this blog, not only hardens hearts, but poisons people’s minds and tongues as well.
And what an anomaly that you admire your mother’s “Christianity” when it excludes an afterlife! Do you think Christianity is like a pair of designer jeans – that you buy only if it fits you? What narcissism!
-
One episcopal head has rolled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8417507.stm -
Tomas, and you seem thoroughly accustomed to being superstitious. I know which quality I’d rather have.
-
Lucky, with respect, it is your mother who is superstitious if she really does believe she’s going to Heaven without adhering to God’s law, despite Christ’s own words “if you love Me you will keep My Commandments”.
A vague, woolly belief in a “nice, gentle Jesus” is not enough to get anyone to Heaven. Indeed, that is pure superstition.
Comments are now closed.
98 comments