Interesting and informative  points raised in the NYT  

 

Scandals and Intrigue Heat Up at Vatican Ahead of Papal Conclave

 

 

As cardinals from around the world begin arriving in Rome for a conclave to elect a successor to Pope Benedict XVI, new shadows have fallen over the delicate transition, which the Vatican fears might influence the vote and with it the direction of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

..................

 

At the conclusion of the Vatican’s Lenten spiritual retreat, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the director of the Pontifical Council for Culture and a papal contender, spoke darkly of the “divisions, dissent, careerism, jealousies” that he said plagued the Vatican hierarchy.

..........................

 

 

Vatican experts speculated that prelates eager to undermine opponents during the conclave were behind the leaks to the news media over the last week.

 

“The conclave is a mechanism that serves to create a dynasty in a monarchy without children, so it’s a complicated operation,” said Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Center in Bologna and the author of a book on conclaves.

 

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

 

 

 

 

The voting rules for the conclave require a candidate securing an uncontested majority, so any effort to undermine rivals is “part of the great game of the conclave, whose tools include political attacks and efforts to condition consensus,” Mr. Melloni added.

 

 

............................

 

At the same time, other Italian news reports have centered on a petition by critics who say that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles should not be allowed to attend the conclave, after the release of church files that show how Cardinal Mahony protected priests accused of sexually abusing minors.

 

Some Vatican experts read the media reports about Cardinal Mahony as an attempt to undermine any potential American papal candidates.

 

While the battle lines inside the Vatican hierarchy and the College of Cardinals are difficult to discern, in Mr. Melloni’s view, the news reports calling attention to Vatican scandals could shore up the more conservative cardinals who would lean toward electing “a sheriff, not a pope,” a figure who would focus on discipline more than the pastoral aspects of the role.

 

.................................

 

On Monday, just days before his papacy ends, Benedict is expected to issue a law that would change the rules for electing a new pope, making it possible for the cardinals to start the conclave sooner than the traditional 15-20 day waiting period after the papacy is vacant. That might favor the cardinals who are based at the Vatican and already know each other rather than those who are coming from around the world, Vatican experts said.

 

Why is this of the slightest importance to anyone! One thing is assured, the Catholics will be "electing" another old man who may or may not have molested children. Whenever I see a RC priest, Bishop, Cardinal or other I immediately wonder how many little lives has he destroyed.

PKBC

Not all priests were child rapists, PKBC. I'm sure some are good people, but the hierarchy is forever tarnished. Plus, I don't understand why anyone would leave their child with a Catholc priest, unattended. Not any more.

Back to the topic, it'll be interesting how this gay sex and blackmail scandal at the Vatican plays out. This could blow up in their faces.

Well for one, the RC church is both the largest religion, and the largest christian church in the world. Thus what they do shape what many people believe Christianity is about. 

Also many Canadians, including myself (Ottawa) live in commiunities where the Catholic Church has 70% or more of people with a  relgious afiliation. I believe that alot can be learned about Christianity form other Chrisitians. Thus it is important to understand what is going on in their church. In Ottawa the vast majority of are on the Liberal side of the church and thus are profoundly hurt by their leadership.  While most who leave, leave religion altogether, and the bulk of the rest join the Anglican church, many have eneded up joining my UCC and likely others.  Some of them are survivors of abuse, and otthers are just dissidents,

Also if you join any type of social justice groups, or left wing movement in Ottawa, or other communities, you will find many Catholics, lay, ordained, and sisters. The changes happening will thus affect our abilities to promote change, and save the environement. etc.

The sexual abuse scandal and it's coverup is the biggest story in Religion today, and we are likely going to see either a totally reformation of the church, a split, otr i's demise.  This could be a larger and more significant series of events than those involved in the reformation, or the great schism.  The person who is picked will have a large part in determining that. 

I also hope to establish in this thread kind of livinh hostry so that I made go back after it is finsihed and see what patterns I can see, in order to help me understand how these things work in the the real world.  Much as the thread  The Fall of the World. has traced for the last 3 the events leading up to the Pope's resignation.  It was three years ago that I predicted that that the Pope would either resign or be disposed as a result of the sex abuse coverup, and events steming from it.   I wanted to examine and talk  about the events as they unfolded and see what I could learn.

I would say that very likely the vast majority are good people, but I agree that the image of clergy (and not just RC priests) has been tarnished by the scandals in the RC Church.

As far as the election of the Pope is concerned, I'm a bit disappointed. I was hoping to see the attack ads on TV by now.

If you start looking around for breaches of trust, you will find them everywhere… almost a sign of the times. Divorce rates are easing but marriage is still a fraught relationship; the police lie in court and attack native women, the military had Russell Williams, the Boy Scouts have been hiding their molestation incidents, corruption and greed taint every level of government… schools are full of bullies and the corporations are run by thieves.

I will confess to doing my share of criticism but we all need to look at the other side of the balance from time to time.There are many, many good people in every organisation: in politics, in the churches, in schools and emergency services, the military and ven in the banks.

Purging the vice, violence, corruption, negligence and evil from our institutions is essential, wherever it is found.

And we DO have heroes: Edgar Schmidt deserves adulation, support and the Order of Canada for selflessly calling the Justice Department to account… a lonely, courageous and personally very costly commitment to integrity.

Somehow, we have to learn to act: to support and protect whistleblowers like Edgar Schmidt, listen to what they say, repair what's broken and get on with it without losing confidence in the entire institution… unless it is structurally responsible for more harm than good. Broken parts can be replaced.

Scandals always invite us to throw babies out with bathwater.They tempt us to throw the first stone and to fuel our own hypocrisy. They also raise our levels of paranoia and aggression.

Scale can also confuse the issues. The Catholic Church has something like 1.2 billion adherents Worldwide; more than 400,000 priests and 5,000 bishops.

At a rate of 7,518 reported incidents (including 68 sexual assaults + 9 other sexual offences) per 100,000 people, the crime rate in Canada in 2006 (the latest year for which there are statistics) was the lowest in twenty-five years. Half of the sexual assault victims reported to police in 2007 were children and youth under the age of 18.

In perspective, then, the sexual crimes rate within the Catholic Church compares favourably with that of peaceable Canada.

It's hard to be absolutely sure but, in the U.S., the John Jay Institute compared the number of reported offences with the number of confirmation candidates, to get a rough figure of reported assaults per 100,000. This approach would tend to overestimate the frequency but it's regarded as a consistent measure for year to year comparisons.

So in 1992 — when the worst was over — the rate was 15 incidents of reported abuse per 100,000 confirmation candidates. By 2001 this rate had fallen to 5 incidents of abuse per 100,000 confirmations in the Catholic Church in the U.S.. There was a similar drop in American society as a whole but less steep and from a consistently higher rate.

For a Wikipedia summary, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

The Associated Press reported in 2007 that, each year, three American insurance companies together were receiving 260 reports or more of people under 18 being sexually abused by Protestant clergy.

And the American Atheists Organization of Bridgeport in 2010 acknowledged in court papers that it documented 32 accusations of sexual abuse of children by atheists associated with the organization for over 40 years. The Atheists were contesting a lawsuit filed by the estate of Michael Powel, who had claimed that he was sexually abused at the local American Atheist building between 1968, when he was 9, and 1972, when he was 13. They were asking the court to let them withhold records on all allegations made after 1973 on the grounds that they were irrelevant to Mr. Powel’s lawsuit

(By comparison, the Swedish rate for reported sex crimes against all children under 15 was 142 per 100,000 children in 1992, and 169 per 100,000 in 2001. These figures suggest that during the 1990s a child in Sweden —  possibly the most secularised country in Europe —  was 10-30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than a young American Catholic was by his priest. PKBC is obviously obsessing, and Chansen might like to revise his comment, along the lines of: "…I don't understand why anyone would leave their child with a Catholic priest a Swede (or a Canadian) unattended. Not any more.")

The crime of the Catholic Church has been hypocrisy: the hypocritical denial of flaws in the fold and in the system. It needs a cultural shift within the church: not least to safeguard the considerable good work it does in the World. THIS is what a new Pope must address.

Then, perhaps, more people will realise that here are many far more frightening forces abroad than Roman Catholicism.

From SNAP 

The John Jay report is not a study, not a thorough accounting, or God forbid, not an investigation. It's a self-survey. Period. No independent corroboration, no spot-checking, no verification, no third party involvement.

 

However whenever there has been an independant study that has had access (usually due to civil court actions) to the files of diococes (which are manadated  under cannon law to be kept secret.     The numbers of Priest accused is revealed to be  around 10% in evry diocese.  

Most cases are not reported to the Police, the John Jay report only had access to  files involving Priests who had been reported to the police.   Howevr that stills means 90% of Priests have nevr been accused. The majority are inoccent  of abuse, and any studies of the sexual lifes of Priests points to the fact that around 80 % are involved in consenual adult relationships with other men and women.  (Albeit the secrecy of their sex lifes does lead them to overlook abusers amongst themselves) 

It is also my believe that many Priests are actually saints, who's work is unsung.

Now back to the John Jay report, which has been covered in the fall of the Pope thread,

From SNAP,  (the largest group of adult survivors of sexual abuse by clergy) comes the following statement that was released after the John Jay relased,  The response to the statement is also what the cardinals must decide in the coming days and will be shownin who they pick . and why.   If the choose the wrong person, we soon will see again another Pope resign, and worse, the good news that many Priests practice and preach will be overlooked.

One of the issues the cardinals have to deal with Cardinal Mahoney of LA. Last month the civil courts in California forced the church to reveal documents that they had refused to hand over to vicitims.suing the church.  In these documents it was revealed how the cardinal when he was archbisop used the church to prevent cases of rape and sexual assualt by being reported against hundreds of accused Priests

The most common technique he used was to remove accused Priests from California to Arizona for treatment. Because as he himself has said in the documents therapist are not obliged to report abuse in Arizona as they are in California.

He aslo did other things. Like when informed that families were, or had reported a Priest of rape to the police, instead of believing his promise, as other families had,  that he would deal with it, he would move the Priest overnight to Mexico, so that the police could not question the Priest, nor could they complete their investigation and thus lay civil and criminal charges.  

The new Archbisop has subsequential removed all authority for the Cardianal to preach or practice in Cailfornia and barred him from public activities. . Yet through a blog based in the UK,  Cardinal Mahoney has attacked the new Archbisop, and is claiming that he is proud that he protected children better than anyone else in the Catholic Church, and being inncocently accused of wrongdoing (Just like Jesus! he says) , he is closer to God, and thus knows better than others. 

http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.ca/2013/02/jesus-suffering-se...

Now that problem is not only is the Cardinal continuing a public role, but that he is also a cardinal and thus will be particpating in the conclave to pick a new Pope.  There seems to be nothing anyone can do, unless the current Pope removes him before he resigns.  This is making the other cardinals nervous, because it raises suspiscions that they too, when they were bishops, might have done the same things as Mahoney. Certainly a criminal trial next year of Cardinal Mahoney, will lead others in others dicocese, including the new Pope's former diocese) to come forward.

They have no need for attack ads, they just use the Italian media.Which are way more vicious, than any attack adds I have seen. Did you see the reports about the gay mafia running things in the Vatican. 

It is also interesting that the worst attacks come from the cardinal home regions. In secular politics, usuall the home regions support their candidates. In the last conclave, a leading contender from India  was done in by leaks from his staff, about his bad health (diabetes, and how often he would loose his cool and yell at staff)

Or how about the claims in the Globe page=all  against Canada's cardinal Ouellet, which state he is unfit to lead a church as his own church in Quebec has disapeared.  Better still is the statement by Quebec bishops, where they say they will not support Ouellet , instead they believe the Cardinals should pick  the best man for the job.  A very sly attack.  A denial of a denial.

Will the new Pope have to be able to speak Italian or Latin?

There are no rules regarding language abilities. However in practice, all Caridnals, and Bishops speak Latin.

 Also because Cardinals during the deliberation process leading up to the conclave informally gather in linguistic caucuses during meals and their spare times, being able to speak many languages is an important skill in order to be able to connect with the electorate.  Speaking Italian is an important qualification since 1/4 of the Cardinals are Italian. Also most of the support staff at the Vatican are Italian.  I would also "guess" that speaking Spanish is also an important ability, as that is the most common langauge spoken by lay catholics even if few cardinals come from Spanish speaking countries.  English is also important, and the American church is a very important source of money, and along with Portugese is likely the second most common language spoken by Catholics. 

Language skills would favor someone like Cardinal Ouellet as he speaks  in English, French, Latin, Spanish, Italian, Portugese, and German.   It will hurt American candidates as they speak few, and poorly languages other than English and Latin. 

You are comparing apple and oranges.

Survivors are more likely to report abuse only if they are not likely to fear or suffer further abuse if they report it.  When I was at school, studing philosophy in almost all classes where there were group discussions, I would have at least one women come to me privately and tell me about being abused.In all but 2 cases, I was the first person they reported there abuse or rape to. This is likely because as an openly gay men living with HIV and Autism, I was someone they felt would not judge them for being vicitimised. I would not say things like "how did you let it go one for so long? why did you not report it to police?  why were you not more carelful? I would understand that bad things happen, to innocent people. 

Do you not believe Mike that the  more patriarchial a scoiety the more likely women vicitms will be blamed for their abuse or rape. Women will be called sluts (bad women) and boys/men fags (in a bad way).

Thus do you not agree that Swedes and atheists are more likely to report abuse, because they have more gender equality  and  the vicitims are less likley to suffer reprecussions from reporting abuse?

In Irleland the Cloyne report documented many cases of victims reporting their abuse to the church as children, and being sworn to secrecy and threaten with being sent to  hell, if they told the police.   Also in the cases revealed recently of Priests abusers in  southern California, it was revealed that illegal immigrants were threaten by Priests with having themselves, and their families deported if they reported the abuse to the police.   Is it surprising to you that they greatest numbers of unreported abuse is among orphans, and children with communication related disabilities, like deafness, and those with intellectual, developmental, and mental disabilities?

Likewise a predator is more likely to act if he is assured that there will be no reprecussions to his or her actions. In Iraq for example  Blackwell security were much more likely to murder and rape people, because they were exempt from both Iraqi law and US military law. To this day, no one is persecuting employees of this and other security firms who were exempt from being held responsible for there actions under the law.  Even Blackweel employees who rape other Blackwell employees were nevr charged, becasue they existed in a legal loophole.  Meanwhile the women who reported being raped were immediately dismissed.

Likewise when predator Priests were moved around instead of punished, it gave a sign to others that it was safe to abuse children.

Also  when Cardinal Law of  Boston, was tarnsfered to the Vatican and given a good job as an archbisop inside the Vatican so that he was neither obliged to answer police questions (being outiside the USA)  about  the coverup, nor pay for his crimes as his removal (and other witnesses)  from the US made that difficult or impossible.  This gave a sign to other Bishops that the Vatican would protect them, and to continue to refuse to cooperate with police,

Do you not beleive Mike  that  societties that presecute victims,will have less victims reporting, and that groups or scoieties that protect abusers will have more vicitims?

Last week the top ranking cleric in the UK, and the only Brit able to participate in the the conclave that will choose the next Pope, Cardinal Keith O'Brien came out and supported allowing Priests to marry. 

Allow Catholic priests to marry, urges Cardinal Keith O'Brien

Now come word that he is to be disiciplined for inappropiate relations with adult men. 

Pope considering response to alleged 'inappropriate acts' by UK cardinal

It seems the Pope did have a word with Cardinal Keith OBrien. He has resigned as Archbishop, and while remaining a Cardinal, he is not going to participate in the conclave.

This leaves the question of why Cardinal Mahoney is still going. Perhaps the Pope did have a word with him and he refused to comply to the Pope's demand. 

Or perhaps being caught red handed in the coverup is not as serious as being caught as an abuser. Or perhaps because O'Briens victms were Priests and that is clearly seen as a more grevious sin against the church, than abuse against Children, women, and the disabled.   ANd it appears that the affairs he had were abusive. One started when a victim was 18 and a 1st year seminary student, and all involve stories of stalking, violence, threats of violence, etc.  As a senor cleric, O Brien have authroity and power over the younger Priests and seminary students. In fact one of them actually resigned from the Priestshood, because having believed that he had escaped O'Brien clutches, Obrien was appoint a Bishop , and thus would continue to have power over him.

Who knows? This leads into the same problem I had with the Vatileaks affair. I have little understanding how a system of governement based on the middle ages royal courts function.  Howver I do understand how this will appear to a modern populace, lay Catholics, and Priests use to democratic and equalitarian principles.

Add to that the Pope announced that they are moving up the date of the conclave, which will shorten the period the church is without a leader.  

This change, and the O Brien affair , are causing experts in Europe to say the sense of crisis inside the Vatican is greater than imagine.

Not only is it raising the problems associated with the cover up, but also the paraysis of the exisiting goverence of the church. This will favor the election of someone who is less pastoral like and more in line with that of a south American military dictator.

As well another Cardianl form the Phillipines has recused himslef from the conclave. Leaving 115 Cardinaals elgilble to particpapte. WHich mean it only takes 38 cardinals to veto a selection.  This could mean we are looking at a longer selection period. Especially if the split between, JP2 people and Bens people are.  JP2 people are still furious at Ben for saying that JP2 stopped Ben from acting against the monster Marciel Marcel, the Legionaires of Christ leader.  Conclaves in the distant past have lasted up to three years. 

This in turn to give an advantage  to the election of an older cardinal , a gatekeeper, who would be able to resign in a couple of years due to old, age. 

Alex did a good job of refuting that, but let's not leave it to chance that someone here might take you seriously on the above, Mike.

The John Jay Report you're quoting from, is a report commissioned by the Catholic Church, using data supplied by Catholic bishops. Yes, the same bishops who turned a blind eye to rapes, and moved priests between parishes. Amazingly, they say that the vast majority of abuses occurred back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and sadly, most of those priests have died. And besides, these rapes were a product of the swingin' sixties times of promiscuous sex, so we can't blame the priests. It was only a temporary problem, caused by homosexuals, not the church itself. Everybody move along. Nothing to see here.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201105/the-new-jo...

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Challenging-the-Jo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/priest-sex-abuse-scandal-was-tempora...

OK, so Protestants abuse kids, too. Nothing shocking there. Are there examples of Protestant leaders moving ministers around in response?

Then there's this gem:

I don't want to bury my response in this post. Wait for my next post.

Nobody believes the numbers the Catholic bishops provided, and you're parroting. There's not even any point in checking the numbers you've provided here, and I don't have the time.

What we have, is Joseph Ratzinger's name and signature on a May 18, 2001 letter to every Catholic bishop, giving the Vatican jusidiction on all claims of abuse against children under 18 years, and that jurisdiction was not to expire until 10 years after they reached adulthood.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs...

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

The rapes are only part of the story here. The other part is that Pope Benedict himself is complicit in the rapes of untold numbers of children.

So, your numbers are almost surely bogus, and you're ignoring the Catholic Church's systematic enabling of child rapists to continue raping kids, long after they were reported.

There is no organization in modern times which has done more to enable and shield child rapists from prosecution, the world over. If that letter from Ratzinger was on behalf of a international chain of schools instead of the Catholic Church, Ratzinger would never again see the outside of a prison cell.

It will also add to the possibility that an Italian will be picked, or at least someone who has spent little time as a Bishop. (like the Canadian Ouellet)  It might be impossible for the Cardianls to pick  anyone who has spent consideralble time as  a Bishop who has also not been involved in the cover up,  Many of the Italian cardianls are just Vatican functionaries, and as such would have not had responsibility for investigating Priests, nor would they have had authority over as many Priests.

But again who knows how and what Princes (Cardinals) think about in a middle age court system, as that court system  comes to an end of it existence. 

double post

Mike, you have me regretting being busy all weekend, because this paragraph from your post stood all weekend, without challenge. Here it is:

Now, I know that you got this by Googling something like "Atheist Child Abuse Scandal". Maybe you got it from here, or here. You must have absolutely wet yourself with excitement when you read that the American Atheists Organization was embroiled in a child rape scandal. So excited, that you copied and pasted the above without hesitation and without once checking if it was true.

Online forums and blog comments are the only place you'll find the exact text you copied above. But you will find a very, very similar piece, at the New York Times, with only a few words changed (highlighted for your convenience):

Source

BUSTED

Can you imagine the uproar if 32 members of something called American Atheists (or any other non RC group) in just one town or city, had actually sexually abused children? And then vicitims went on to kill themselves. 

What would people say  about  the American Athiest who dealt with its sexual abuse  problem by moving the accused from one organization to another?  or by firing them without reporting it to police. Wouldn't  the leaders involved been charged? Would they continue to exist without removing all the leaders involved.

I  think  that people  in the US  would attempt to ban the American Atheists organization.

I am assuming that American atheists is a made up group, just as the article was and the Friends of Hamas is.

Yep, here's where it comes from:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments13.htm

So, an atheist wrote it just to make a point, and now it's taken off over the conservative blogosphere. Mike bought it, and because he wanted it to be true, Mike never checked it.  Just like Republicans bought the whole "Friends of Hamas" line, which was meant to illustrate a point as well.

Not sure how the cartoon applies, Jae. What's funny, is that in an attempt to show that groups other than Catholic priests are raping children (and I'm not sure how that makes it better) Mike was determined to dig up some similar dirt on atheists. He found something to beat me over the head with, posted it, and it turns out these sexual assaults weren't committed by atheists - they were committed by Catholic priests as well.

That's the definition of irony, right there.

Another great Irony  is the history of Cardinal O'Brian, who has step down as Archbishop and recused homself from the conclave ater the Pope told him to do so. Because the Pope became aware of of his history of abusive sexual/stalker type relations with Priests and Seminary students.

Pope forces out Cardinal Keith O'Brien

He was one of the main campaigners against same sex marriage in the UK. Which he compared to slavery.  It's now understandable considering the way he negotiated hois own sexual re;lationships.  Makes one wonders how the Pope own sexual relationships has coloured his views.

 

Gay marriage is like slavery, Catholic leader says

Britain’s most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has condemned gay marriage as an “aberration”, likening it to slavery and abortion

 

 

He claimed same sex unions were the “thin end of the wedge” and would lead to the “further degeneration of society into immorality.”

In a series of controversial comments, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that if same sex marriage were legalised, “further aberrations would take place and society would be degenerating even further than it already has into immorality.”

The interview, conducted by John Humphries, followed an article Cardinal O’Brien wrote for the Sunday Telegraph, in which he likened gay marriage to slavery

..............

He wrote: “Imagine for a moment that the Government had decided to legalise slavery but assured us that ‘no one will be forced to keep a slave’.

“Would such worthless assurances calm our fury? Would they justify dismantling a fundamental human right? Or would they simply amount to weasel words masking a great wrong?”

.....................

"I would say that countries where this is legal are indeed violating human rights."

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Chansen: I beat YOU up again? Come on...  you seem a bit extravagant in your apparent need to feel perscuted… it's really incredibly self-centred.

The point of widening the issue beyond a single target group is an encouragement to seek the source.

Are you saying ONLY Catholic priests molest kids and then try to hide fact? Some required course in seminaries, perhaps? It should be really easy to fix then.

Are you saying that atheists never do bad things? I somethines get the impression that's where you're coming from — an assertion that atheists are uniquely virtuous. Maybe you should hang a photo of Pol Pot on your wall as reality check to ponder when you get up in the morning.

Please try to bring some sense of the real world to these discussions.

My point was, and remains, that to direct disproportionate and particular venom towards ANY group for what is a widespread vileness is not just silly, irrational and dishonest, and not just scapegoating, but it is exploting a widespread problem to condemn some perpetrators but not all… it is pretends to address serious problems by diverting attention to the peripheries. 

The real place to start looking for causes and cures is to find the source… to identify what it is in the way males are socialised (it IS especially a MALE issue) in our society (and others we could pointlessly name), that encourages them towards predatory sexuality. That must be the issue.

What is it, despite all the child-rearing texts, universal education and social concern, that many males reach maturity with a pathological sense of entitlement and aggression when it comes to sexuality? What shapes them to exploit women and children? What embeds the detachment that lets loose the cruelty?

Might it not be related to the same of the kinds of social conditioning that unleash domestic abuse, for example, or is it just Catholicism? Or just religion?

This is a crisis issue for the Catholic Church because of it hypocrisy and denial: its leadership chose to hide and protect perpetrators out of a hopelessly misguided notion of "looking after own own"… in chosing to "look after its own" the Roman Catholic Church chose full complicity. And it will remain fully complicit until it sriously addresses the issue.

But the abuse is a widespread social issue. It can only be addressed by treating it as such.

No, I'm saying you were desperate to find a group of atheists who were busy sexually assaulting kids, and what you actually found were more Catholic priests sexually assauting kids. I mean, that news article talked about an "American Atheist Organization" that had a buiding! And you bought it, because you want to beieve the worst about atheists, and you're desperate to put us in the worst light possible.

Sure, disbelief in gods and a tendency to sexually assault children are not mutually exclusive. But in your zeal, you failed miserably to put atheists on the same level as Catholic priests. You just made Catholic priests look worse.

I'm not attempting to address the trajedy of worldwide sexual assault. The discussion here, is about the Catholic Church, and how these scandals affect the election of the next pope.

You're attempting to deflect blame from the Catholic Church by pointing out that other groups in society are guilty as well. Guilty of sexual assault? Yes. Guilty of massive coverups and complicit in the rapes of even more children by systematically letting reported rapists gain access to more children the world over? No one else comes close.

This is one of the biggest crimes against humanity in our lifetimes, perpetrated by a religious organization which pretends to represent God and hippocritically gives the world moral teachings, and warns against disbelievers like myself. Damn right I'm going to be fighting mad when it turns out they've been raping kids and nuns and covering it up for decades, if not centuries.

You've bought into the whole Catholic excuse that this isn't their problem - it's a problem with society. Sexual assault is a problem in society. It is a scandal in some other religious organizations as well, like the Boy Scouts of America. It is a scandal at Penn State because of one man. It is an epidemic in the Catholic Church. No one believes the numbers you quoted, because those are the numbers provided by the bishops themselves. Everyone knows the real number of victims is much higher, and we will never know how many orders of magnitude they were off.

It is not an epidemic in atheist organizations, unless you read it on a blog and you want it to be true that atheist groups are raping kids.

Some days I figure I should just walk away from this place, but then who is going to catch it when people like you blame atheists for things that religious people are doing? Next time you read on a blog that atheists blew up a building, or raped some kids, or shot up a school, please learn something from this moment and confirm it from some kind of source before you make an ass of yourself again.

Chansen: Why are you so determined to make this all about you?

I have never denied that a number of Catholic priests have molested kids. I have said that it's far more widespread. I doubt whether ANYONE knows how deeply or widely it affects any particular segment of society. I have said that it is an issue for society at large.

I have said the Catholic Church, as an institution is complicit and will be deeply complicit until it addresses the issue. I have not said sexual predation is virulent among atheists… that, again. is your own ever-precious reading.

I have said that a predatory impulse is far too common in male sexuality in the society we live in.  

You might get less pissed offf if you actually read what's in front of you.

I would add, that many other organisations have done the cover-up thing fairly shamelessly, including police forces, the military and businesses. In fact, most large organisations hire public relations consultants to bury their bad behaviour. I find the knee-jerk cover-up is another worrying impulse in a democracy. It happens in relation to pretty much ANY clear misbehaviour, and it is very difficult and expensive to expose.

You have no examples of this scale. Nothing of this depravity. Nothing of this longevity. All you're trying to do is deflect by saying what other organizations have done and claim I'm making it about me.

Yes, I get pissed off when you tell WC that there is a case of an atheist group sexually assaulting children, when it was actually more Catholic priests. I think it's bullshit that you copy and paste whatever you find in blogs, with no references. Now every time you put numbers or claims out there, I have to paste sentences in Google to see what you've been up to this time. I don't have time for that. If I go back through your posts, how many more paragraphs critical of atheists will I find lifted from right-wing blog comments?

Time really seems an issue for you. Maybe that's why you miss so many points.

I would actually venture to suggest that very few crimes of any sort are attributed to atheists because nobody counts them.

Are you suggesting atheist have never committed them?

Sorry, but I don't see atheism as the iron-clad state of moral and intellectual perfection you seem to claim. On the mega-scale, I'd have thought history would indicate that atheists have perpetrated their fair share of crimes against humanity: enough, I would say, for you to see some hypocrisy in the gait of your ridiculously high horse, a mount that most atheists among my friends (they make up probably two thirds of my circle) are less inclined to charge recklessly about on… but they're better riders with more interesting arguments.

Anyway, let me indulge you with another "extreme right-wing" cut and paste to help you cement yourself into your narrow little cell:

As for the topic of this thread…

All the indications seem to be that the papacy will more even further to the right. If it does, it will alienate a lot of European and American (North and South) Catholics but it may pick up some kudos in those parts of Africa, Asia and the Pacific where liberalism has less appeal and is widely seen as moral laxity.

Mike, you're irresponsible with what you post here. I have never said that atheism is a state of perfection. You take shots at atheists at every opportunity, this time it completely backfired on you, and instead of some level of contrition for claiming that an atheist group is somehow raping kids and covering it up, you're saying this is all my problem again.

Well I'm sorry, but it's just not. This is about your vendetta, and me not letting you get away with posting crap. If I had posted in error that UCCan ministers were raping kids and the UCCan wasn't cooperating with authorities, I'd be strung from the rafters by my toenails. No one would allow me to say that, because examples exist of UCCan members raping kids, that my criticism holds. Here, you think you can make the same error about a group of atheists, and then brush it off by saying that, well, other atheists have done bad things.

Well, I wasn't really commenting on any of that chansen. I just find the idea of an infallible Pope to be farcical and so I'm endorsing a cartoon character for the job.

Rich blessings.

As for the topic of this thread…

All the indications seem to be that the papacy will more even further to the right. If it does, it will alienate a lot of European and American (North and South) Catholics but it may pick up some kudos in those parts of Africa, Asia and the Pacific where liberalism has less appeal and is widely seen as moral laxity.

Well, at least you're copying your own comments this time, instead of someone else's.

I don't disagree with your basic assessment of the state of the Catholic Church, or the likely implications if they double down on conservatism as expected.

I am surprised that you won't even acknowledge that you went hunting for dirt on atheists, and as soon as you found a sufficiently juicy atheist pedophile story, posted the claims as if you wrote them, straight from a blog or Yahoo comment, with no regard for the truth.

For all the evil you claim about atheists, at least I admitted when I went too far last week. You don't get to screw up royally and then act as if everything is my fault and my misunderstanding.

It's beside the point but I googled "organisation association pedophile claims" and probably put "religion" in there too. From there I browsed. I picked up the atheist news clip as being radically opposite to the Catholic Church. It was aimed at no-one in particular. It wasn't targetted at anyone in particular but at everyone in general. The Swedish information surprised me. And it interested me that Boy Scouts featured: a old sick joke about Baden Powell. I just do not think that  what has been happening in the Catholic Church is especially different from what happens in other organisations where women or young people are particularly vulnerable. Such situations attract the sickos. Women especially get molested on the Tokyo subway; the London underground or NY Metro wouldn'y over;y surp[rise me. . There's a bit of denial involved, in my view, in exemption anyone from the problem. There are aven accusations of sexual assault on operating tables… wierd. I see it related to date rape and to domestic violence… something to do with, as I said, a male predatory sexuality.

The Catholic Church could find some redemption in turning all it knows over to the appropriate authorities and handing over the priests involved. But they also need to "normalise" a few things, like allowing priests to marry (the do accept ministry from married Anglicans who convert which is odd, considering); they should be orgaining women and letting them become bishops, cardinals and popes… they need to disentangle themselves from some of their business arrangements… is it going to happen? One day… some time. Maybe…

I am happy to see such lively and passionate debate that is also informative on wondercafe/

I am particularly happy with Mike's contribution, as he has brought another point of view that is representative of what many people inside and some outside the Catholic heirarchy are saying, while leaving out some other points that usually made, (as to the abuse scandal being manufactured by anti Catholics due to the church;'s stance on Israel, or being a liberal secular attack, Or scaping goating the sixites, or societies tolerence of homosexuality.

I too would agrreee that all parts of scociety have this problem, and that we need to talk more about sexiual abuse, and to fight it evrywhere. ( as oppose to refusing to speak toi victims groups as the RC church is doing in the US,, we need to be talking to surviors of abuse, just as the churches are doing in Canada, with First Nations survivors of residential schools,we need to lead the way , by talking about it inspite of its ugliness and difficulty in doing so. After doing so we can also talk with survirors from churches, ands institutions, like jails, work camps, isolated resource communities of mosstly men, who almost nevr report abuse. and in youth homes, and groups, disabled people in instiututions and thoise who are abused inside families.  At the very least it is a first step.

Now if I were to make this argurment that there is no more or not much more abuse by Catholic Priests, I would not minimise the abuse by Priests . Everytime prosecutors in the US get a hold of a diocese records, it turns out around 10% of priest have been accused. Its the same in Boston, New Hampshire, Philadelpdia and elsewehre.  Howere we know sex abuse in general is vastly underreported to the police. and others. So I believ it is more reasonable to claim that 10% of all men are sexual abusers., than too claim few Priest abuse. Supporters of this argument could say that  The reason we see more of it in the RC church,  a predator Priest will have many more victims, that an abusers who only assaults inside their family, or a small institution.  Thus someone with a few hundred victims, as opposed to someone who just abusers one two or three family membrs is more likely to be reported. Also once removed from the abuser a victim is mopre likely to report. Howver if the abusers is in your family, than you also have to deal with the other parents, or yothere brothers, and sisters. 

Howevr I doubt 10% of men are abusers. I can believ 5% are but I could be wrong.

Besiudes it does not mater how many Priest abuse. The story the victims care about and the story affectting public opion, and that is creating a crisis inside the church is the story of the coverup.

Also after Mikes posted that it was a problem of equal magnitude among Protestants  I looked at the number of claims against Protesant clergy..  Along with what I have read about sexual abuse inside Jewish, Muslim and Hindu, the Insurance compagnies draw a picture that says sexual abuse is a bigger problem with Southern baptists and other denomination that exclude women from minister.

tI believe there is a correlation between  partiarchy and sexual abuse abuse.  Those Protestant churches without female leadership, have more abuse. Also  inside denomination that have female clergy,  but that still  demonise women sexuality  and homosexuality have more abuse than those that do not. Teh same is found in Jewish communities, where a big abuse scandal has broken out inside ultra orthodox communities. Previously it was thought that sexual abuse and homosexuality was rarely inside these groups than in Reform Judaism,  Howevr with the recent scanals it is becoming apparhenat that sex abuse an rape is much more commion there than inside reform Judaism..  Like with the RC church , wrong doing thrives, when it is hidden form the community. And just as we see inside the RC church, inside ultra orthodox community a civil war of types is going one between those speaking out and the men in power,  

Ultra-Orthodox Shun Their Own for Reporting Child Sexual Abuse

Howevr I would guess it is less commoin inside these communities because at least the rabbis are married to women, and have daughters. 

The RC church not only excludes women, like many other religions, but there leaders are not allowed to married nor raise daughters. Religiuos sisters are seen as inferior moral, (it used to be said intellectual, but it hard to argue that today) One of the suggestions that has been put forth by Sisters and others is that if the Bishops are fearful of releasieng theri files to outsider, (as it would be problematic in some places like the Middle east) than they should let Nuns rbe in charge of reviewing these reports. But the Bishops would rather give the reports and files to secualr authorities, rather than allow any women, to have any authority over Priests.

From what I know about atheism and their groups there are none who say women must not be equal, or say homosexuality must remain hidden, ( at least none of their intellectuals or leaders) . (at the very least I imagine there views are at least as progressive as liberal and progressive religious people) . Thus I would not be surprised that while there are abusers amongst them, I would expect there to be a lot fewer abusers, or the same numbers of potential abusers, but who refrain from sexaul assualt becasue they do not have the same tools needed (fear and instiutional support, to keep it hidden,  Thus just as a theif is unlikely to steal in if he fears being seen or caught, a potential abusers in a community (atheist or others) where victims are not attrack as fags or bad women, because msiogony and homophobia is not acceptable, means  children and others are less likely to be victimised.

Howevr let me be clear, it is not religion that is the problem, it is patriarchy, mysogony, and homophbia that is. Just as racism causes wars, when some blame relgion. We can blame these other factors, andbut we can hold religions and their leadership  responsible for allowing sexism, and homophobia, to exists inside our churches, and should not be puzzled as to why smany think that they are part of relgion, as opposed to being a foreign virus.

 At least I was never taught that Jesus hated women, or believed that men were surperior, nor that LGBT were an abomination (while pork was not).  The only time I did hear this was in the years leading up to 88, and those that state it could nerver back it up. In fact I can still remebr them saying that we were a threat to the community and children.  Its too bad I nevr told them than what is said now, telling their own boys and girls that they are unacceptable to God and the community is menatl and emotional abuse, and thus it was them, those reactionary ignornant fools who were  abusers of youth

And so why should it surprise people that religious leaders, like  Pope ben, many bishops and others who freely tell young teens that they are evil, would actually care so little for children and youth

An extreme example of how homophobia prevents boys from reporting sexual abuse .

You can imagine that in Holland in the fifties there were few reports of sexual abuse by teens boys.  Is that becasue there were few sexxual assaults, or was that because vicitms did not want to be labeled homosexual and castrated?

Either way I am sure that abusers could act without fear of being reported and caught. Do you think being protected this way, abusers would abuse more often, and that more of those those who had an attraction to sexual assualting teen boys would have abused, whereas if there had been a chance that they worud have been caught, might have refrained from doing so?

Dutch Roman Catholic Church 'castrated at least 10 boys'

Evidence of the castrations has emerged amid controversy that it was not included in the findings of an official investigation into sexual abuse within the church last year.

 

The NRC Handelsblad newspaper identified Henk Heithuis who was castrated in 1956, while a minor, after reporting priests to the police for abusing him in a Catholic boarding home.

 

Joep Dohmen, the investigative journalist who uncovered the Heithuis case, also found evidence of at least nine other castrations. "These cases are anonymous and can no longer be traced," he said. "There will be many more. But the question is whether those boys, now old men, will want to tell their story."

it has been impossible to track down the original report that provided the statistics mentioned in Mikes earlier post concerning the number of sex abuse reports by USA Protestant Clergy. .  

And there are no news stories that make that claim. Howevr one AP article however was similar and used the number 260.

I found this AP article  in the New York Times, from 2007.  It uses the same number of 260 of insurence claims, but they are not claims against Protestant/s clergy . 

Tallying Sexual Abuse by Protestant Clergy

The three companies that insure a majority of Protestant churches say they typically receive upward of 260 reports a year of children younger than 18 being sexually abused by members of the clergy, church staff members, volunteers or congregants.

 

.......................

 

 

So the report gives us  no idea t how many clergy in Protestant churches have had claims files against them.  The report is about all claims concerning sexual abuse for which churches are sued.  

This would include clergy, but as well other groups, for which are nevr included in the reports on the Catholic Church sex abuse cover up.  Like support staff, (maintance people, secretaries, and others) volunteers and all lay members and adherants of the church.  These claims also include abuse occuring in Church programs, like camps, schools, and other church organisations like social serices agency that run  shelters for the homeless. Likely including abuse committed by clients, against other clients, that the church was held responsible for since it was on church grounds, and under the neglectful eyes of church emploees who failed to provide a safe place for some reason.

So the same stats that Mike's source used to prove that Priests abuse at around the same rate as Protestant clergy,  were misrepresented and actually supports the idea that Priests abuse chilkdren  at a much greater rate, than others adult men.

If I could jump into the conversation between Mike and chansen, I believe that chansen's point is not that atheists are more moral, pure, etc. than people of faith. I believe that his point would be that non-belief doesn't spur one to action (positive or negative.) Non-belief is simply non-belief. Religious faith, on the other hand, can spur one to action, and is in fact (I would argue) intended to spur one to action. The intent is to spur one to positive action. Unfortunately, sometimes, religious faith spurs one to negative actions. I'm personally not entirely convinced that non-belief cannot spur one to action either positive or negative. But it's an arguable point, and I think it's what chansen has consistently said about atheism. (And please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that, chansen.)

Now, what chansen doesn't acknowledge is that non-belief in religion can also simply leave a void which is filled with something else, at least for some. For example, people can be easily and passionately motivated by ideology rather than religion, and they can do terrible things in the name of ideology in the absence of religious faith. (See: communism. Or nazism. Or the FLQ.) Sometimes attempts will be made to use the trappings of religion to promote the ideology; sometimes not. Sometimes the ideology itself for which people are willing to kill and be killed explicitly rejects religion and its trappings. But the motivation (for good or evil) comes from the ideology rather than any religion. People can be easily motivated by appeals to patriotism, and they will do unspeakably evil things in the name of their country, even in the absence of religious faith People can be motivated by appeals to vigilante-ism, and they will do unspeakably evil things in the name of "justice" (of their own brand) and supposedly for the sake of "victims." People can also be motivated by simple self-interest, and they can do terrible things as a result of their own self-interest, which can itself also be named: "Look out for Number 1! That's my philosophy." There are all sorts of things that can motivate people to unspeakably evil acts.

We can get into the age old debate about "religion is the source of so much evil." My own feeling is that humanity is the source of so much evil. Not that all (or most or many) humans are inherently evil, just as not all (or most or many) people of faith and the faiths they follow are inherently evil. But some are, and those who are will find excuses to engage in evil acts. If it isn't religion it will be something else.

Alex: I wouldn't trust ANY of the numbers. I doubt whether very much of it gets reported, no matter who the perpetrator is. If you look at the Jimmy Saville case (U.K. celebrity and serial abuser) what you see is a flood of allegations once he's dead. Publicity about one incident often opens the floodgates and other accusations stampede out of the woodwork.

When we look at those acusations, some are quite likely to be false and, no matter how many assaults come into the open, there are almost certainly others that will not come to light. The victims of sexual assaults typically feel some shame and even groundless guilt.

In many countries, heterosexual rape has become a little easier for victims to report but that doesn't mean it always happens. The recent Human Rights Watch report that reported abuse of aboriginal women and girls by RCMP offfficers in northern B.C. — part of a bigger investigation into charges of systemic neglect of more than two dozen missing and murdered aboriginal women along  the Highway of Tears — failed to draw out any official complaints by victims, even in the case of a rape. So did any of it happen? Is there a problem here? Human Rights watch is a reputable international agency. I'd say there's bound to be a problem.

My contention is that sexual abuse is a big issue that affects the whole of society: not JUST the Catholic Church. It does not minimise to seriousness of the Catholic issue to see a bit of convenient scapegoating and sectarian bigotry behind the the emphasis on abuse by Catholic priests. At the same time, it seems odd to me that there is not a flood of similar complaints from their mission fields and numerous African parishes. 

But when pointing the finger takes the place of self-examination it becomes a form of denial. 

There is something very wrong about the way, for example, that advertisers and entertainment media have happily sexualised children; with the depiction of women; with the depiction of men… "macho" is — in my view — an image that needs critical attention. Our national sport (hockey, of course) is very much about forceful confrontation to "win". 

Homosexual or heterosexual, child or adult victims… there's a consistent element of male entitlement and domination, of bullying and sexual predation. And a lot of social communication seems to accept this uncritically at lower levels of intensity… it's a bit of a joke, a laugh. But I know women who've quietly left jobs because of sexual bullying and harassment. They haven't complained because they they don't think their problem would be seen as anything other than intolerance for "a bit of fun".

All of this is big, deep, socially entrenched dysfunction. It has a long history. But is has to be addressed. Catholic-bashing may feel good but it avoids the issue.

With the election of a new Pope, the Catholic Church has an opportunity to make some amends and address the root of its problems. If it doesn't take this opportunity it could well be heralding its own demise.

So… what about us?

Exactly. Thanks for looking into Mike's claims about Protestant clergy. I also don't have the time to go hunting for everything Mike claims, and he doesn't provide links. I was most interested in his atheist claims, and that was so easy to debunk, but you still have to pour through search results to figure out where he likely got it from. His search, as well, had to include the word "atheists" - there are too many other sexual assault stories on pages that would rank waaaay higher in Google's algorithm.

Until he starts disclosing his sources, I don't think we can believe any numbers he gives. I understand that he's just trying to show that other groups are not innocent, but you just don't do that by lying or taking numbers with no regard to the truth or the source.

Actually there is little room on the right for the papacy and the church to move, without abandoning Augustine and Aquanis, and all other Christian philosophers.

There are no Liberal cardinals. the two biggest camps are those associated with JP2 administration and Ben's administration, and they are at each other in a very serious and public (relative to Vatican Histroy) battle.  Especially since Ben people laid the blame on JP for protecting Marcial Maciel three years ago.  And just last week in order to discredit JP2s people from becoming a Pope,  Ben's people have let it be known that Ben sent an official to Mexico from the vatican only hours after JP2 died. Which would support his claim that the only reason he did not take action earlier was becasue JP2 forbid it. 

Howver there is a fair  chance ththis battle will mean the next Pope will come from neither group in the battle.  This other group is not really conservative, they are the careerists, oportunists or whatever, and they are now the most likely people with a chance of being elected, to be able to make the changes necessary to save the church. They have the ability to  turn the church  away from it current path, as only they will have what it takes to get elected as conservative, and than without hesitation stab their allies in the back, by supporting reform after becoming Pope, 

If a principled true beleiever  is elected, he will find it as difficult to manage, and we will see another Papal resignation in 4 or so years.  Without any progress in dealing with the pressing concerns of the church.

 I disagree, it just numbers that seem to be out of whack with what we genrally believ that need to be checked. But that is the same thing that needs to be done for many. There is a lot of distortion and misinformation out there. I myself have almsot been fooled by a former UCC minitser who has dozens of web sites which self reference each other, and are occassion picked up others and repeated, yet just as is the case with this source Mike uses, he will change one or two sentences, from a tdocumented established source, to create a differant impression. Just this week a viral story about a European country issueing an arrest warrant for Pope Ben was picked up by some established sites. Because it was based on true facts and events, however it made a claim that Ben was getting protection from the Italian gvt, howerv under the treaty the Vatican has with Italy the Pope is already covered.

Also it was not just republicans fooled by "Friends of Hamas" some media sites were as well.   The nice thing about the net, is that when our suspicions are raised we can check, it only those sources which goes un challenged (usually due to it confirming our own bias) 

Howevr I believ that Mikes source actually help the discussion and has better informed us about the reasons some smart people continue to beleiev that there is no problem. It shows how we need to continue to talk about and question authorities in the RC church. Until we see the problem is being tackled by those with the power to do so. I will believ it when the Bishops start to talk  with survivors, and cooperate by handing over the files which document reports to the church of a abusive Priest.

Okay, so now you're just lying again. What you copied without attributing your source can't even be found on the first ten pages if you search "atheist organization association pedophile claims". You had to really dig to find that story.

I did. You are incredibly fixated on hijacking the threads you visit.

Actually there were reports and reasons to investigate him before. What happens is that when the abuser dies  (especialy one with power or money) the victims loose their fear.

Few reports are false. Howver when dealing with an indivdual accused, it must be remebred that some are false. Look at Michael jackson, there were no accusations after he died, and  of the hundreds of children who spent time with him alone, only one evr filed a complaint, and the accusers family had a history of blackmailing and threaten other s

Stats are just that and can mislead, howevr when the same stories are repeated in region after region, and the numbers start to support each other we can draw conclusions, It what empoiricism is all about.

As for Africa, girls who report rape can be killed or forced to marry their rapists, while boys can be accused of being homosexual and being beaten, with some dieing. That explains why there are few reports of sexual assault,. And yet if you ask any African experts about sexual assault or any womens groups they will say it is common, and something evry women fears in many regions.

There is a Canadian immigrant who grew up in Africa and who was forced from a very young age to sexual service an Irish  Priest starting at 14 and for many years. The Priest became a Bishop. It was only when she was able to leave her community that she reported it and sued. The Bishop was forced to step down and returned to Ireland.

You have no reason to accuse people who complain or talk about sexual abuse in the RC church of catholic bashing. Especially since most of those doing the complaining and fighting for the abusers and their enablers to be held accountable are Catholic.  Nothing I have said is  any differant than any of my friends, have not or could not, including the Professor that taught my introductory course on Catholic Theology.

It is more likely that your anti catholic bias is causing you to dismiss what Catholics are saying and reporting to the police, and what their grass roots orgainastion, and many Nuns and Priests,.

The most notable critic of the church is Sister Nuala Kenny, a pediatrician who was a member of a commission that looked into child sexual abuse by priests in St. John’s, N.L., from 1989-91, said the reaction from clergy was to turn a blind eye to the abuse and to move the offending priest to a new parish.

"It nearly killed me to be a nun, a baby doctor, sitting there listening to people describe what had happened when men of God, priests of my church, had offended against their children and teenagers," Kenny told about 200 people at the Dalbrae Academy in Mabou.

 

The commission that Kenny served on recommended the creation of the Canadian Conference on Catholic Bishops ad hoc committee on child sexual abuse.

Without participation by Canadian bishops to deal with the systemic problems that made sexual and physical abuse possible, the church can’t begin to heal itself so it can tackle other problems, such as declining church attendance, she said.

"We have not addressed, ‘Why has it happened the way it has happened? Why have we dealt with it the way we have?’ "

 

 

Please  do not project your own disrespectful of Catholics on to me.

"Please  do not project your own disrespectful of Catholics on to me."???? (The link doesn't work, by the way.)

Whaaaaa????? What distant part of your head did you have to reach into for that ungrammatical blurt?

The Chronicle Herald?: I was on their subeditors' desk when they hired their FIRST ever Catholic journo. They saw it as a bold move, a blow for toleration… besides one sports jock couldn't do too much damage to the WASP establishment. I wonder whether they'd welcome Catholic "good news" stories even now.

How come you are so reluctant to address the more widespread issue of predatory male sexuality in our society? That would help to put the Catholic Church's complicity into the sort of perspecpective that could suggest ways to address the real problem.

I agree with your general positon, and believ it would be the best road for the Cathjolic church to address the problem as a society wide problem, but that would also include them becoming transparent with their own problems. 

My main bias is likely similar to yours, progressive, inclusive and process oriented. One that would likely point to a solution that would lead to measures that promote the equality of women, promote understanding  and an open and honest approach to human sexuality and its healthy variations,which lead to mutual respect.

At the very least by respecting women as equals, abusers of all sorts will no longer be able to create fear in vicitms that they will be blamed becasue women are bad and asking for. Secondly with less homophobia and transphobia, male vicitms as well not fear reporting abuse and be further vicitimised by accusations that they are homosexual and fear the reprecussions that comes with that.   WHile some churches have recently recovered from patriarchy, most are still dominated by men, and most still fear women's sexuality and gay men.

The Catholic Church is the most patriarchial of Christian churches, and in a sad way, it is the church where men with same sex attraction are more likely to be found among it clergy in my experience.  (the vast majority who do not abuse, but they support homophobia and mysogeny, which means abusers can go undetected, because vicitims are afraid to report.)

 So a big part of the solution is creating conditions where gay men will not grow up hating their sexuality and tthemselves and so tthat we all learn that all are entitled to be respected, and where women, children, and the disabled live without fear of harm, and have the ability to fully develop their humainity along with   able bodied men.

But to do so we need honest discusiion like this one. 

The reason I talk about the situation inside the Roman Catholic Church is because it is a key issue facing it, and in a period of change unseen since the reformation, or earlier. It is important not only for those affected, but for all of humanity as it is the largest religion in the world and we need it to be supporting the changes needed to ensure the world does not became a wasteland caused by human activity. We need both it's social justice tradition to promote change, and it members needs it ritual and other supports in order to sustain the changes necessary to do so.  By refusing to be open and face the issues that are related to  the abuse crisis, the church  power as an agent of change, is crippled. And God know we need it, as governments have proven incapable of promoting the change to tackle climate change and other ecological threats to earth..

I fix the link and while it is in the Herald, it is a CP story that can be found elsewere. There are other sites about Sister Kenny. She is the leading expert in the Canadian church, and possibily the world on the problem  of the abuse of children in the church. She is a Nun, a professor, aand a Pediatrcian, who was the only doctor who served on the first commission (Winters Commission) to have exmained sex abuse of children by Priests and monks.  being a Nun, she is not bias against the church, and also she is not a part of the government of the church and thus has no bias that favours it's governement and courts.

This was in 1989-1990 after it became known that the Christian Brothers and others abused hundreds in Newfoundlands orphanages that they ran. Many mark this story as the first sex abuse scandal, which than hit the reast of Canada, and than the USA and than Europe and other countries.