Pedophilia coverup by the Vatican

[Skeptical]

It is inevitable that some priests will misbehave, and certainly not just pedophilia. Priests are also human and about 10% of any human population consists of arseholes.

Protestant ministers will also have about 10% of their number misbehaving in various ways. The real problem is not the fact that people do nasty things, but that these nasty things are hidden.

 

[adoucette]

So if child abuse is a reason to invade then its time to invade the US, after all the US previously murdered its children untill the supreme court put an end to it and what is worse than the murder of a child?

Actually no children have ever been put to death in the US since the death penalty was re-instated.

Seller was 29, Hain was 32, Patterson was 24, Jones was 25, Beasley was 25 etc etc

As to their crimes:

Just a sample of what steller youths these people were:

On September 8, 1985, 16-year-old Sean Sellers killed Robert Bower, a convenience store clerk in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Sellers later admitted on his website that he killed Bower because the man had refused to sell him beer and because he wanted to see "what it felt like". He surprised the Circle K convenience store clerk while he was drinking coffee, then pursued the wounded man across the store and shot him again (killing him).
On March 5, 1986, Sellers killed his mother, Vonda Bellofatto, and his stepfather, Lee Bellofatto, while they were asleep in the bedroom of their Oklahoma City home. Sellers tried to disguise his guilt by arranging the crime scene to look as if an intruder had committed the killings.[3]

On 6 October 1987, Hain and Robert Lambert carjacked an automobile in Tulsa that was occupied by Michael Houghton and Laura Sanders. Hain and Lambert eventually stopped the car, robbed Houghton and Sanders, and placed them in the trunk of the car. Hain set fire to the car, which resulted in Houghton and Sanders's deaths. Hain was 17 years old at the time of the murders.

Toronto Patterson began selling crack cocaine and openly displayed his gang membership when he was 15 years old. By age 17, he developed an affinity for expensive chrome and gold automobile wheels. Knowing that a cousin in the penetentiary stored a BMW with such wheels at the home of Evelyn Stiff, he drove there and visited with his cousin, Kimberly Brewer. He left, only to return later, entering and shooting Kimberly and her two daughters, 3 year old Ollie, and 6 year old Jennifer.

After unsuccessfully attempting to carjack a Lexus, Beazley spotted a 1987 Mercedes driven by John Luttig. He and his wife, Bobbie Luttig, were on their way home from Dallas. Beazley followed the Luttigs to their home and stopped at the end of the driveway. Beazley got out of the car and stripped off his shirt. Armed with the .45-caliber pistol, Beazley ran toward the garage. Donald followed shortly after, carrying Beazley's sawed-off shotgun. Beazley fired one round from his pistol, hitting Mr. Luttig in the side of the head, leaving him alive but stunned and in a seated position. Beazley next ran around the car where Mrs. Luttig was getting out of the vehicle and fired at her at close range. Although he missed, she fell to the ground. Beazley then returned to Mr. Luttig, raised his gun, took careful aim, and fired point blank into Mr. Luttig's head.


Arthur

 

[Bells]

I seem surprised by this? I am a little surprised, actually: at least, at the scope of it. I'd expected something but not to this scale. Sort of diocese-on-down, if you get me.

I have to ask why you assumed it was more local?

There have been documents found in discovery (in the US at least) that shows it leads all the way back to the Vatican.

Oh, sure. Saints were people, like other people. Maybe a little touched by God, maybe not. It's sheer guesswork - although absolutely fascinating guesswork, like a riddle that can never be answered for certain.

You missed my point..

If someone like JP can be made into a saint, a man who knowingly and willingly ordered the protection of child sexual offenders within his clergy against any police investigation (and shifting them around to avoid detection), doesn't it raise your eyebrows a bit at the whole process for sainthood?

Don't you find it a tad revolting that an organisation found to have protected abusers within its organisation (for so long) is starting the 'fast track' process to declare their deceased leader a saint, even though that deceased leader was aware of abuse within his organisation and did nothing to report them to the police, instead the organisation ordered local diocese to basically obstruct police?

None, I would expect.

How much do you want to bet that within 3 years JP will be made a saint and a plethora of miracles attributed to his name?

Self-deception, deliberate ignorance. No organization is perfect, Bells: but the Church requires a very stiff wind to blow out the chaff. I think many Catholics know this; but that I would happily do it on the muzzles of armed riflemen may differentiate me in substance from many other Catholics, however.

Ya. Good luck with that.

The Church was never perfect and its continued protection and defense and actions when it comes to child abusers amounts to absolute criminal behaviour. The Church only cares about protect The Church. They don't give a flying fuck about their 'flock' and they have happily protected and shielded priests who fuck children against police scrutiny.

Look at George Pell. Instead of being reprimanded for his attempts to cover up child sex abuse allegations against priests, he was made a Cardinal. This is the man who came out in public and said that abortion was much worse than any sex abuse by priests. Because apparently, terminating a pregnancy was much worse than children being buggered by priests, sometimes for years on end. This is the mentality of the Church. To further reiterate Pell's abuse of his position, he was also accused of trying to buy the silence of victims who had reported it to the police. This is a small portion of Pell's own actions and behaviour when it comes to pedophile priests:

Dr Pell, when he was archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, set up Carelink, a free counselling and support service for victims of clergy, in response to scandals plaguing the Catholic Church.

The man he chose to chair Carelink was Richard Ball, the former chair of psychiatry at St Vincents Hospital, Melbourne.

Professor Ball provided independent expert psychiatric reports which have been used in court for the defence of Catholic clergy. He had also helped treat priests accused of sexual abuse.

--------------------------------------------


Among the trials at which Professor Ball gave independent expert evidence was that of one of Australia's most notorious serial pedophiles, Father Gerald Ridsdale - a long-term associate of George Pell and the priest at the centre of a controversy over claims that Dr Pell tried to buy the silence of one of Ridsdale's victims.


--------------------------------------------

Several of the pedophiles for whom Professor Ball provided expert defence were well known to the Archbishop.

Dr Pell was a priest in Ballarat from 1971 and vicar in charge of the Catholic education system in the Ballarat Diocese, covering western Victoria, from 1973 to 1984.

Three Christian Brothers teachers from that era - Edward Dowlan, Robert Best and Stephen Farrell - have been convicted of sex offences against students at St Alipius Primary and St Patrick's College in the early 1970s.

At the same time, the school chaplain and parish priest was Gerald Ridsdale.

For a year from early 1973, Ridsdale shared a house with Dr Pell at the St Alipius Presbytery, next door to the primary school.

When Ridsdale faced pedophile charges in May 1993, Dr Pell accompanied him to court to give him moral support.

Dr Pell, then an auxiliary bishop of Melbourne, said at the time that Ridsdale "had made terrible mistakes". He said: "It was simply a gesture on my part."


(Source)
​

And even after all of this, he is made a Cardinal. That story goes on to detail Ridsdale's abuses over many years and how he and Pell were so closely associated and how their superior was well aware of the abuse claims and how Pell would have known (he claims he did not), but what galls about this cretin's appointment is:

Ridsdale's nephew, David Ridsdale, who says he was abused by his uncle, phoned a police hotline in 1992 and brought his trail of destruction to an end.

David Ridsdale alleges that, before phoning police, he raised the matter with Dr Pell, a family friend and then the auxiliary bishop of Melbourne. He claims Dr Pell became angry and asked how much it would take to keep him quiet.

Mr Ridsdale's allegations were published in Outrage magazine in April 1997 and repeated to 60 Minutes, which will air the story tonight.

Dr Pell has vigorously denied the claims.

Gerald Ridsdale was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1994 after pleading guilty to 46 counts of indecent assault, including buggery, against 21 children. Among hundreds of victims, those who laid charges were mainly altar boys aged 11 to 14 from the Ballaret Diocese.

Catholic insiders have questioned how Dr Pell, as Bishop Mulkearns's head of education and a close associate of the offending priest, could have been blind to what was going on.

Shortly before being sworn in as archbishop of Melbourne in August 1996 - after Ridsdale and Best had been convicted - Dr Pell said his first priority was to restore the credibility of the church after the sex scandals.

He said: "A big priority of mine is to try to strengthen priesthood morale and protect priests who are innocent."

A number of victims of one pedophile priest, Ron Pickering, received cash payments and two also received written apologies from Dr Pell when he was archbishop of Melbourne. Pickering was allegedly part of Dr Pell's circle.​

Boosting the priesthood morale. Stuff the children who had been abused over a number of years. Just pay them off.

And this twat of a man was made a Cardinal.

A stiff wind isn't enough. What it needs is to be taken down piece by piece and investigated and for them to be thrown in jail.

And really: is it actually praying to them? Maybe I diverge here, but I don't see it that way. I see it more as passing on a request, or an intercession. I believe it's interpreted as the act of prayer going to God, but the 'chat' being handled by the intercessor. Silly in a way, but that's culture for you.)

If you are sitting there, or on your knees, seeking a request or an intercession with God, I'd consider that a form of prayer myself.

 

[GeoffP]

I have to ask why you assumed it was more local?

There have been documents found in discovery (in the US at least) that shows it leads all the way back to the Vatican.

Really. I'd no idea, actually.

You missed my point..

If someone like JP can be made into a saint, a man who knowingly and willingly ordered the protection of child sexual offenders within his clergy against any police investigation (and shifting them around to avoid detection), doesn't it raise your eyebrows a bit at the whole process for sainthood?

Of course. Like any process, it's subject to human interest ranging from the malign to the benevolent. I don't disagree with the idea of sainthood, although I recognize that many such calls may be - and probably are - false. Ditto many people passed over; in human achievement, politics is not for nothing. (Or rather, it is something for nothing.)

Don't you find it a tad revolting that an organisation found to have protected abusers within its organisation (for so long) is starting the 'fast track' process to declare their deceased leader a saint, even though that deceased leader was aware of abuse within his organisation and did nothing to report them to the police, instead the organisation ordered local diocese to basically obstruct police?

Of course I do! Why wouldn't I?

How much do you want to bet that within 3 years JP will be made a saint and a plethora of miracles attributed to his name?

Quite a bit, because he almost certainly will be.

The Church was never perfect and its continued protection and defense and actions when it comes to child abusers amounts to absolute criminal behaviour. The Church only cares about protect The Church. They don't give a flying fuck about their 'flock' and they have happily protected and shielded priests who fuck children against police scrutiny.

This is true and false at the same time. They do give a flying flock, but they also protect pedophiles, much as it pains me to say it. The one, revoltingly, seems to be trumping the other. It's fucked.

Boosting the priesthood morale. Stuff the children who had been abused over a number of years. Just pay them off.

And this twat of a man was made a Cardinal.

Yup. Shocking, isn't it, what man gets up to - and then closes ranks about.

A stiff wind isn't enough. What it needs is to be taken down piece by piece and investigated and for them to be thrown in jail.

You're mostly right here - it needs a complete investigation, which most people in the rank of Bishop and above jailed. (Although my preference is a little more severe.) As for "taken down": if you're talking about the dissolution of the Catholic faith, then obviously not.

If you are sitting there, or on your knees, seeking a request or an intercession with God, I'd consider that a form of prayer myself.

Really? I've never seen it that way: I do feel that the wording is flawed and derived, frankly; a product of lazy thinking, which leads to foolish notions.

 

[dbnp48]

Here's a link about the Vatican cover up in Ireland and the US:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/103...tter-to-tucson-reveals-cover-up-mentality.htm

 

[Bells]

Really. I'd no idea, actually.

Hmm okay..

Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

(Source)
​

Some more on Crimen Sollicitationis, which Ratzinger expanded on with his further instructions to Bishops around the world to refer all sexual abuse accusations to his officer in the Vatican (keep in mind his role in the Vatican and Church hierarchy at that time):

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.

The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as 'explosive'.

The 69-page Latin document bearing the seal of Pope John XXIII was sent to every bishop in the world. The instructions outline a policy of 'strictest' secrecy in dealing with allegations of sexual abuse and threatens those who speak out with excommunication.

They also call for the victim to take an oath of secrecy at the time of making a complaint to Church officials. It states that the instructions are to 'be diligently stored in the secret archives of the Curia [Vatican] as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries.'

The document, which has been confirmed as genuine by the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, is called 'Crimine solicitationies', which translates as 'instruction on proceeding in cases of solicitation'.

It focuses on sexual abuse initiated as part of the confessional relationship between a priest and a member of his congregation. But the instructions also cover what it calls the 'worst crime', described as an obscene act perpetrated by a cleric with 'youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality)'.

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases 'in the most secretive way... restrained by a perpetual silence... and everyone... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office... under the penalty of excommunication'.

Texan lawyer Daniel Shea uncovered the document as part of his work for victims of abuse from Catholic priests in the US. He has handed it over to US authorities, urging them to launch a federal investigation into the clergy's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse.

He said: 'These instructions went out to every bishop around the globe and would certainly have applied in Britain. It proves there was an international conspiracy by the Church to hush up sexual abuse issues. It is a devious attempt to conceal criminal conduct and is a blueprint for deception and concealment.'

British lawyer Richard Scorer, who acts for children abused by Catholic priests in the UK, echoes this view and has described the document as 'explosive'.

He said: 'We always suspected that the Catholic Church systematically covered up abuse and tried to silence victims. This document appears to prove it. Threatening excommunication to anybody who speaks out shows the lengths the most senior figures in the Vatican were prepared to go to prevent the information getting out to the public domain.'

Scorer pointed out that as the documents dates back to 1962 it rides roughshod over the Catholic Church's claim that the issue of sexual abuse was a modern phenomenon.


(Source)
​

So you would think they were doing something about it.. Right? One of the main complaints to come out of the US was that Ratzinger did nothing. But that wasn't the worst of it. When the sex abuse allegations broke in the US, the US Cardinal of Boston was found to have been deeply involved in covering up and hiding offending priests over a number of years. He refused to step down and was in the end forced to when many of the churches were shut down. Where do you think Cardinal Bernard Law went to? Jail? Was he defrocked?

I asked, why is the man who is prima facie responsible, Cardinal Bernard Law, not being questioned by the forces of law and order? Why is the church allowed to be judge in its own case and enabled in effect to run private courts where gross and evil offenders end up being "forgiven"? This point must have hung in the air a bit, and perhaps lodged in Cardinal Law's own mind, because in December of that year he left Boston just hours before state troopers arrived with a subpoena seeking his grand-jury testimony. Where did he go? To Rome, where he later voted in the election of Pope Benedict XVI and now presides over the beautiful church of Santa Maria Maggiore, as well as several Vatican subcommittees.

In my submission, the current scandal passed the point of no return when the Vatican officially became a hideout for a man who was little better than a fugitive from justice. By sheltering such a salient offender at its very heart, the Vatican had invited the metastasis of the horror into its bosom and thence to its very head. It is obvious that Cardinal Law could not have made his escape or been given asylum without the approval of the then pontiff and of his most trusted deputy in the matter of child-rape damage control, then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.



(Source)
​

See what I mean? The organisation is a cesspit.

Of course. Like any process, it's subject to human interest ranging from the malign to the benevolent. I don't disagree with the idea of sainthood, although I recognize that many such calls may be - and probably are - false. Ditto many people passed over; in human achievement, politics is not for nothing. (Or rather, it is something for nothing.)

JP should not be seen as being blessed. A man who was so entrenched in the child abuse issues of the Church, who allowed Cardinal Law to set foot in the Vatican and be given a historic church to preside over.. How in the hell can this individual be considered a saint?

It is disgusting that people even consider him worth of anything more than a criminal who allowed this to continue under his leadership and who knowingly harbored protectors of child abusers and abusers themselves. George Pell also had child sexual abuse allegations made against him, before he was made Cardinal I believe. It really is quite disgusting.

Quite a bit, because he almost certainly will be.

Which says more about the Church than it does about anything else.

This is true and false at the same time. They do give a flying flock, but they also protect pedophiles, much as it pains me to say it. The one, revoltingly, seems to be trumping the other. It's fucked.

If they gave a flying flock, they would not protect pedophiles. If they gave a flying flock, they would do their utmost to protect the most vulnerable amongst their flock. Not force children to secrecy and forbid them to report it to the police, not to mention then go on and protect and shield the offending priests and attempt to stifle police investigations into the abuses.. not to mention then try to buy off victims. If they gave a flying flock about their flock, they would have denounced, defrocked and handed the pedophiles over to the police.. not rewarded them and placed them in contact with even more children in different areas (some abusers abused for decades Geoff).

That does not show giving a flying flock. It shows a complete disregard for the flock and their safety. The Church cares only about itself. The flock are only there to give them legitimacy.

You're mostly right here - it needs a complete investigation, which most people in the rank of Bishop and above jailed. (Although my preference is a little more severe.) As for "taken down": if you're talking about the dissolution of the Catholic faith, then obviously not.

This is ingrained. Unless you removed the whole hierarchy, this will continue.

When you have Cardinals, involved in the cover up, electing Popes.. it is a never ending cycle. A complete investigation means nothing if nothing can be done about it - they are the untouchables. No one can storm the Vatican and remove the little twats and force them into Criminal courts. An investigation will only be worthy if those involved (and there would be many - from the Pope down) can be tried and punished accordingly. But they never will be. And it will continue.

Really? I've never seen it that way: I do feel that the wording is flawed and derived, frankly; a product of lazy thinking, which leads to foolish notions.

I had always been taught that you pray to a Saint to intercede.. That to ask in prayer, etc, blah blah blah..

 

[Asguard]

Bells its not pritty but every organization has had to deal with cover ups. The police thought it was better to cover up dirty cops than have them taint the whole Police force, public servants and pollies have covered up all sorts of screw ups. Companies are no better, look what mining companies have covered up, even at times costing lives.

 

[GeoffP]

Hmm okay..

Shocking. I'd thought it was Ratzinger that had instituted such a high-level, top-down clam-up. I'm not surprised it goes back at least as far as 1962.

So you would think they were doing something about it.. Right?

No. This is not a shocker in any way: this is what organized humans do, under every fucking political stripe and every religious one, too. Mind you: reform happens. It does. The best format for it is in the context of a social democracy or other specific coincident system. Anyway: the inevitable outcome is - coverup. Always. Always and everywhere. Here it happens to be acutely repugnant in a way that attacks our most basic sensibilities.

Where do you think Cardinal Bernard Law went to? Jail? Was he defrocked?

Ha. Never likely, that was. It makes one ask: exactly what fucking system is this meant to be again, where we're supposed to only observe secular law and not religious law so far back as Cromwell (a hero of mine on some points, though not so much for what he did in Ireland). Yet we have this.

See what I mean? The organisation is a cesspit.

Mais oui. But what else do you expect? Two people is a clique, three a conspiracy.

Well, in fact I do expect better. And particularly from the RCC.

JP should not be seen as being blessed.

FUCK no. I'd disinter the creep and toss his bones in the Vistula.

How in the hell can this individual be considered a saint?

Politics, my good Bells, politics. The Holy See is - of course - rife with them. As I said: Bishop on up. But not only them, obviously.

It is disgusting that people even consider him worth of anything more than a criminal who allowed this to continue under his leadership and who knowingly harbored protectors of child abusers and abusers themselves.

Agreed.

Which says more about the Church than it does about anything else.

More or less, yes. I would go so far as to say that the Church is a special case in this regard; this is less of a leap for others perhaps than myself. Perhaps lingering loyalty stays my hand; although I did just advocate shooting the lot of them.

If they gave a flying flock, they would not protect pedophiles.

Well, that's the thing: they do do both. Are they all horrifyingly corrupt? Probably not. There'll always be some relatively untarnished individuals within. I'm sorry I seem blasé about this, but I'm not surprised by much at this point, excepting in some of the particulars, as above.

That does not show giving a flying flock. It shows a complete disregard for the flock and their safety. The Church cares only about itself. The flock are only there to give them legitimacy.

This is a reasonable accusation. My father made many of the same, and in many ways he was probably right.

This is ingrained. Unless you removed the whole hierarchy, this will continue.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that one cannot erase Catholicism. Catholicism deserves more or less the same right to continue as any other religious organization or array: but it desperately and urgently requires clean-up. Now. Not investigation, but detainment and imprisonment (and IMHO, firing squads) for the upper echelons, and God knows how many of the lower.

No one can storm the Vatican and remove the little twats and force them into Criminal courts.

True. Rather makes one a little wistful of Stalin's comments about the Pope having no divisions (another favourite of my father).

I had always been taught that you pray to a Saint to intercede.. That to ask in prayer, etc, blah blah blah..

I agree, it's just that I never fooled myself into accepting - whatever the herd may have thought - that the Saint actually does anything - or does so without some greater authorization. That's the Celestial Hierarchy for you.

 

[Bells]

Shocking. I'd thought it was Ratzinger that had instituted such a high-level, top-down clam-up. I'm not surprised it goes back at least as far as 1962.

I suspect if your really looked into it, abuse goes back a lot more than that.

Always and everywhere. Here it happens to be acutely repugnant in a way that attacks our most basic sensibilities.

One of the things that stands out the most to me about this particular issue is the hypocrisy. Their blatant discrimination against homosexuals, for example, treating homosexuals like sexual deviants.. But a priest raping children? That they protect and nurture those individuals within the Church. It is that total disregard for the safety of children.

Recently in Australia, the Church won a landmark case which would allow Catholic adoption agencies to openly discriminate against homosexuals who may want to adopt a child. They cited the child's mental stability and need to have a loving mother and father, etc. Apparently the mental stability of children only matters if a homosexual couple wish to adopt them. The very same individuals who applauded and cheered at the ruling were the very same ones who stood shoulder to shoulder with one of the country's worse pedophiles as he faced his court hearing.. This was after he had tried to buy off the children's silence through threats and intimidation.. The mental stability of that priests victims didn't matter at all.

It is that kind of blatant hypocrisy that kills me.

There are few people on this planet that I hate so vehemently. Those I do hate have tended to be leaders within the Church. Funny that.

exactly what fucking system is this meant to be again, where we're supposed to only observe secular law and not religious law so far back as Cromwell (a hero of mine on some points, though not so much for what he did in Ireland). Yet we have this.

The Church will only ever have a priest arrested and charged, or hand him over to the police, if it has been made public and the child or parents get the police involved. That is the only time. The sheer number of priests they know abused and knew abused for years, who have all been shifted around to different communities, sometimes even sending them overseas.. And these priests are moved around continuously because they keep abusing, like Father Gerald Ridsdale, for example.

They deem their laws are superior and unless their hand is forced, they won't denouce or hand them over to the police. We have seen it over and over again. It won't change anytime soon.

More or less, yes. I would go so far as to say that the Church is a special case in this regard; this is less of a leap for others perhaps than myself. Perhaps lingering loyalty stays my hand; although I did just advocate shooting the lot of them.

I think the Church has done little to rectify the wrongs to be honest. Shoving money at people won't make this better. Some of these children were abused for years. Giving them money won't give them those years back or their sense of self back. What the victims want is the Church taking ownership in its part in the crime itself - apologising for having done so little (to nothing) to protect the most vulnerable amongst their flock and where at times they knowingly allowed abusing priests to have ongoing access to even more children.

Token words from the figurehead who ordered the clamp down isn't going to make this better soon.

Agreed. What I'm saying is that one cannot erase Catholicism. Catholicism deserves more or less the same right to continue as any other religious organization or array: but it desperately and urgently requires clean-up. Now. Not investigation, but detainment and imprisonment (and IMHO, firing squads) for the upper echelons, and God knows how many of the lower.

I think one of the best things they could do would be to allow investigators into their vaults and to deny or no longer grant them immunity.

 

[GeoffP]

"Dude, where's my Law?"

I suspect if your really looked into it, abuse goes back a lot more than that.

Oh, absolutely. I was just kind of thinking in the present era.

One of the things that stands out the most to me about this particular issue is the hypocrisy. Their blatant discrimination against homosexuals, for example, treating homosexuals like sexual deviants.. But a priest raping children? That they protect and nurture those individuals within the Church. It is that total disregard for the safety of children.

Yes: the most darkly amusing of the unamusing contrasts. What I see it as - and I think a lot of the mid-clergy would plead this also - is the whole 1960s loss of face and social power thing. Because the Church had huge setbacks with the liberalization of society and so forth, they would say, they 'must' conceal essentially rope-a-dope every time they get challenged, rather than being proactive or open. Stupid and/or evil.

There are few people on this planet that I hate so vehemently. Those I do hate have tended to be leaders within the Church. Funny that.

They deem their laws are superior and unless their hand is forced, they won't denouce or hand them over to the police. We have seen it over and over again. It won't change anytime soon.

Yup. This is a wistful carry-over of that 13th-century canon law. "Dude, where's my Law?" I reiterate: Cromwell, assholes. Or did he actually rescind canon law? Anyway: one law for all.

I think one of the best things they could do would be to allow investigators into their vaults and to deny or no longer grant them immunity.

Agreed: particularly were it coupled with firing squads.

 

[Skeptical]

While I hate the hypocrisy of the church in this, I am not sure that civilian legal approaches actually do any better.

Pedophilia is a major problem, in that the pedophile usually cannot be treated. Partly effective prevention is either through chemical castration, or through keeping the pedophile away from children. Chemical castration is nasty, and requires an injection each month, while keeping a pedophile away from children nearly always fails if the pedophile goes hunting. Physical castration is not used, since it is considered "cruel and unusual."

Putting pedophiles in prison does not work, either, since we just let them out again in a few years to keep on offending.

 

[dbnp48]

"Chemical castration" can reduce sex drive, compulsive sexual fantasies, and capacity for sexual arousal. Pedophiles who are sexual sadists can still abuse children, they just can't (usually) rape them. The injection is given every three months.

Here's a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

 

[birch]

there are pedophiles, hebephiles and ephebophiles.

sexual predation is not just limited to pre-pubescants which is what pedophilia is. some are attracted to the early stages of puberty (hebephiles) which is pre-teen or early teens and later teens is ephebophilia. some are attracted to all these stages in differing ways. but most of the time, pedophilia a general term for anyone that wants to predate sexually to those who has less power than them because they don't know the exact term.

the reason why there has to be laws and a line drawn somewhere is because younger people are so vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and force. there are those who say that these people are being oppressed for their sexual preference but that's ignoring the other factors that are also important and why these laws exist.

i wouldn't know how bad it was unless i was a victim myself. sexual abusers consider their victims as lovers, not actual victims. it is really insulting. they think this because in the mind of an abuser, what they want means what the other wants too. if they can force themselves on you then it means that it was mutual. that is how they reason because their attraction to their object of desire is what's most important.

 

[GeoffP]

Good points lads, if you don't mind me saying. Yes, there is an endemic percentage of all adult males that have this predilection, and yes the problem is Church protectionism, and the use of the Church apparatus for that protectionism.

I like the discussion of chemical castration; it has a certain Mutant Chronicles sort of feel. If one's going to enter the priesthood, maybe this is a reasonable request.

 

[Bells]

While I hate the hypocrisy of the church in this, I am not sure that civilian legal approaches actually do any better.

Pedophilia is a major problem, in that the pedophile usually cannot be treated. Partly effective prevention is either through chemical castration, or through keeping the pedophile away from children. Chemical castration is nasty, and requires an injection each month, while keeping a pedophile away from children nearly always fails if the pedophile goes hunting. Physical castration is not used, since it is considered "cruel and unusual."

Putting pedophiles in prison does not work, either, since we just let them out again in a few years to keep on offending.

If someone commits a crime that harms another physically, emotionally and/or mentally, then that individual should go to jail for that crime.

The problem that has arisen with the Church and with other religious organisations as well, in the past (present for the Church), is that most of the time, they did not ban or prevent the abuser's access to children. In fact, most were simply moved to other parishes, sometimes even overseas, and given direct contact to children again. Some of these priests were teachers, some were given the role of mentor to children, others abused altar boys and girls, etc, and some (like Father Gerald Ridsdale would abuse children during and after mass (he abused one boy and his sister immediately after the funeral of the children's father for example - he also abused them in the priest's lodgings, camping trips with the mentor he supposedly was, in his car, children's family homes, holidays, his parents house, in the church, church yard, homes for girl's run by nuns, and for boys run by priests - he was shifted, sometimes after only a couple of weeks, from parish to parish and then sent to the US and he abused everywhere he was sent - I doubt we will ever know the true extent of his crimes to be honest, he was one of the Church's most prolific abusers).

If a priest was abusing in one school or church, and this was brought to the attention of the parishe's presiding Bishop, that priest would disappear, only to re-appear in another distant parish a few weeks or months later (usually far away and sometimes out of the State and after repeated complaints and reports, he may be sent overseas), and given the same level of access to children, only to re-offend again.. Rinse and repeat a few dozen times over and you can see the extent of the abuse.

I think such individuals deserve to be put in jail. The damage they do to their victims cannot really be explained and it scars them for life. Ridsdale, for example, would abuse his victims anywhere he could get them. And when he abused them during confession, he would make sure the child would think it was their fault - their sin's:

Gerald Ridsdale's victims were sexually abused inside the church, in the presbytery (the parish house), in the priest's car, in victims' homes, at the home of Ridsdale's parents in the city of Ballarat, during outings, and on holidays with the priest. He molested one boy and his sister a few hours after their father's funeral.

Some of the offences occurred during the sacrament of Confession — while Ridsdale would be asking questions about a boy's "sins". After Confession (and after the molestation), Ridsdale would perform the rite of Absolution — an official declaration that the boy was forgiven for the boy's "sins".

(Source)
​

Imagine the damage to his victims? And there were a lot of them. He was Australia's most prolific abuser's (he also abused countless in the US as well).

That man deserves to remain in jail for the rest of his life and then burn in whatever hell his religion believes in for all eternity. The same goes for those who protected him for decades - including the man who was made Cardinal - the then Bishop who accompanied him to court when his reign of terror on children ended when the police finally managed to get their hands on him:

He should never have been protected for so many decades.

 

[Asguard]

Bells: why should religious organisation be held to a higher standed than civil and legal organizations? Forgetting about private and community groups schools run by the State and the police itself have been guilty of the same sorts of actions and coverups. Sure in the case of police it tends to be murder and drug coruption but the same attitudes of covering it up rather than charging perpitrators applies

 

[dbnp48]

Bells: why should religious organisation be held to a higher standed than civil and legal organizations? Forgetting about private and community groups schools run by the State and the police itself have been guilty of the same sorts of actions and coverups. Sure in the case of police it tends to be murder and drug coruption but the same attitudes of covering it up rather than charging perpitrators applies

The catholic church presents itself as a moral authority. They should be held to the highest standard.

Other organizations that are given authority over people (police, schools) should also be held to a higher standard than ordinary people.

With authority comes responsibility.

 

[Asguard]

Higher standed than we hold the Police who we ask to uphold the laws? Your kidding right????

 

[Bells]

Bells: why should religious organisation be held to a higher standed than civil and legal organizations?

You misunderstand.

I want the Church to face the same laws that the rest of the population faces. Why should pedophiles be allowed to be moved by the organisation? Why should the community be forced to tolerate the hindering police face when investigating these priests, by Bishops and Cardinals intent on preventing them from investigating fully? Shouldn't they be made to kowtow to the same laws that govern the community? Should a Church be sneaking priests around, and sometimes out of the country, to avoid prosecution for raping and molesting children?

Forgetting about private and community groups schools run by the State and the police itself have been guilty of the same sorts of actions and coverups.

And when discovered, they are made to face an enquiry or commission which investigates the matter. The issue with the Church is that they are, quite literally, protecting child abusers and doing everything they can to keep those abusers from facing any form of justice at all. They then place those abusers into other unsuspecting parishes and give them equal or at times, even more access to children.

Can you name me one instance where police officers raped and sexually molested children and then were moved to another district and even equal access to unsuspecting children there?

Sure in the case of police it tends to be murder and drug coruption but the same attitudes of covering it up rather than charging perpitrators applies

If that was what we were discussing, then yes, we would discuss the attitude. At present we are discussing the Church's willingness to allow priests to rape children and their demands from parishes around the world that such individuals be protected and sheltered from any police investigation.

 

[birch]

i don't think people realize just how sick the perpetrator's mind is. they think what they have done with children or with rape or force is no different than adults having mutual relationships or flings or cheating on spouse or girlfriend/boyfriend etc. they don't see it as being a heinous criminal act or it's that serious. they look at it as lover's spat/revenge if there are legal ramifications. they don't or won't see they were not wanted or that it was not mutual. this is to self-justify their their motives and actions.

also, it is the lowest form of human that is so lazy or so selfish that they don't want to put forth the effort at working toward or wooing someone they want etc (people their own age) so it's easier to rape a child or young person. that way they don't have to give of themselves or be accountable. they either feel they cannot attract the type of person they want because of their attributes or harder to control adults as much, so they resort to raping young people or trying to find someone they can groom and make their victim. some will try different organizations through church leadership, boy/girl scouts, big brother/sister, youth camp, adoption, foster home etc. any possible way they can access children and weasel their way in. there are people who are extremely creative and manipulative with it. some will seek out men/women with children to get into relationships with so they can have access to their children. what compounds the evil is the perversion of trust. that's what makes it even more devastating and the mind games played on children and trying to corrupt them or get them used to the idea that corruption is okay. the predation on young people is the easiest crimes to get away with due to a number of factors from vulnerability to them having less power and defense mechanisms. it's an insidious process that happens over time rather than random attack of rape. for instance, if someone was walking alone at night and were attacked. even if an adult is a victim of rape, they still have more power to begin with especially if it was a random attack. though traumatic, it can be gotten over with and if they have the right support of friends and family more easily and that they did not really know the perpetrator. what children go through is much more heart-wrenching as they usually knew their perpetrator and they had no way of getting away from them and had to see them repeatedly or live with them. usually, these people had no support system and had nobody really on their side to begin with. again, how bad or damaging it is depends on the context of the situation and on a case by case basis as it's not all the same. they do NOT all have the same level of gravity as most people assume when they hear 'molestation' without real consideration. some cases of molestation can be as light as one time or slight fondling over clothing and it went no further to more serious as sodomy and much more intimate to outright rape and full sexual predation. this is a very dangerous world that is full of the darkest evil hidden in some people's hearts and minds and victims that are children and teenagers are the ones that seldom get justice.