More constitutional denial

[Cole Parker]

A horrible story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_..._catholic_abuse

C

[Trab]

Just to correct that, the story is not horrible, just the material that is being reported.

[DesDownunder]

Movies that claim to be based on true stories about this subject would now seem to be validated:

Magdalene Sisters (on the girls)

Song for a Raggy Boy (on the boys)

See also the 1973 Australian movie, "The Devil's Playground". (Not to be confused with the 2002 film of the same title.)

There have been others.

Historically, corruption in the Papacy is fairly well documented, even if not readily celebrated by today's Vatican.

This reference on naughty Popes has unverified claims but leads to information that is quite well documented, even if denied by some.

There has been a constant effort to maintain the purity of the priesthood in most religions. The hypocrisy of many in the priesthood is more apparent when we consider that the difference between what they preach and what they do, has often been excused under the "admission" of Man's failings.

The Humanist in me finds these excuses and the acts themselves equally appalling.

[Bruin Fisher]

I share the outrage about the perpetration of such crime. The long-term effect on young minds of abuse of this kind is, in my view, deeper and more damaging than is even now generally understood.

I venture to suggest that there are more victims of these crimes around than we can possibly know, because so many of them have never spoken out. Some such victims will be known to us, maybe there are members of the AD community who suffered this way in the past. I sincerely hope none of us are suffering this way in the present, if so please speak out, in any way you can, and get it stopped.

Actually, I know for a fact that the AD community includes people who have been damaged this way. And I know that AD has provided, and continues to provide invaluable therapy, helping such ones to discover themselves, possibly for the first time, in a safe, supportive, non-abusive environment.

So three cheers for AD, for all the wonderful supportive folks that make up the community here, and for the wonderful Dude, and Des the forum admin, who make it all possible. Thank you thank you thank you.

[Merkin]

The priesthood (and the protestant preacherhood) seems by its very nature to attract two types of individuals: The very good person, because it is based on an ideal of serving mankind; and the scoundrel, because it is based on a reality of myth and deception.

There can be no greater evil than abusing the innocent young.

James Merkin

[Bruin Fisher]

...animals have more protection than our precious children.

Brit18uk's post reminded me that I saw this, from the Wikipedia article on the NSPCC, recently:

"The first child cruelty case in Britain was brought by the RSPCA; the court charge list described the affected child as "a small animal", because at the time there were no laws in Britain to protect children from mistreatment. This case was successful."

In other words there was a charity for protecting animals, with royal patronage, but no charity at all for the protection of children, and when the first child protection case was brought to court the child had to be defined as a 'small animal' in order to qualify for the protection the law provided.

I love animals, but not more than people...

[Trab]

"The National Society for Protection of Cruelty against Children" (NSPCC)

I'm happy to report that this was a TYPO, and it is "The National Society for Prevention of Cruelty against Children" (NSPCC). For a moment or two I could barely believe my eyes, then I became totally cynical about it, followed by some investigation. Whew.

[Trab]

Don't you think that it is the presumption that parents will protect and nurture their child that may be at the root of the discrepancy between Royal protection for animals, as opposed to children? Knowing what we do now, that parents are at times the most abusive of adults towards children, laws and agencies should be upgraded.

[Cole Parker]

Now that the Irish institutional abuse has been reported, it's time for outraged citizens to demand more transparency in the matter. Hiding names behind a religious structure and promises of silence shouldn't cut it. Crimes, serious crimes, were perpetrated against innocents, and the culprits, be they 30 or 90, need to be identified and brought to pay for their transgressions.

The investigative agencies should not be allowed to hide the facts. If they refuse to do their job to the fullest, another investigative team should be empowered. If facts in the case are being sequestered in Rome, they should be unearthed. It is ridiculous to allow anyone still alive who was involved in this to escape untouched.

C

[DesDownunder]

Vengeance on the individual is too often used as the scapegoat to allow powerful organisations to continue their mischief.

Comments on the Adelaide Now website about the Irish situation have interestingly called for the disbanding of the Catholic Church. As one commentator says, "Other organisations have been outlawed for less."

If however individuals are made the scapegoat for the child molesting culture that seems to exist in many religions, then the real cause of the problem does not get addressed. I would prefer to see the church prohibited from contact with children below the age of 16, rather than chase decrepit old men and women in their 70s and older for past crimes based solely on claims made by adults and which in many instances cannot be verified, no matter how much sympathy we may feel for them. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

The Church ontheotherhand, we can see is guilty by its own admission as well as from the study of it's history of atrocities against mankind. As unwelcome as it might be for some to accept, it is the culture, endemic in the church that has facilitated the crimes against the children in much the same way as the Jesuits have claimed, "Give me a child before the age of 7 (-16) and he will be a devout Catholic for life."

From my atheist, humanist point of view, what that means is, the Catholic Church has been for centuries, knowingly and deliberately, corrupting young minds, before they have achieved the capacity for independent rational awareness and freedom for self determination of their beliefs.

[Cole Parker]

It's pretty hard to put an institution in jail, Des. But an institution is run by people, and if we publicly humiliate and jail the people from within the institution that contributed to the abuses, we will in fact harm the institution.

People who knew about the abuse and helped cover it up are guilty of criminal conspiracy. If the pope knew about it and did nothing, he's guilty. Same with everyone else involved.

If you want to fine the Church, I have no problem with that. Money seems very, very important to the Church. Taking vast amounts of it away might make it wake up. But probably not. They'd just ask for larger donations from their poor members.

No, I don't think demanding that the Church have no contact with kids under 16 is the answer, because there are good men in that organization, and they do do some good with kids. But if we root out and punish everyone involved in cover-ups and child abuse, even people who were only involved to the extent they knew about it and didn't tell the authorities, the message will get heard.

It isn't only the Church that is at fault here. Policemen were told and turned a blind eye. They, and their superiors who knew of the abuse, are just as guilty, and should be punished just as harshly.

I don't think we lack proof of what happened. A report was written laying it all out. We only have the victims' words for who the perpetrators were, who were told and didn't stop the crimes, but those words are supported by a huge number of victims. That is plenty good in most any court of law.

C

[DesDownunder]

An istitution that terrorises and corrupts young children as part of its doctrine, in order that they submit to the doctrine does not have a place in a free world in my view.

But perhaps that is getting too close to the definition of so many religious regimes, particularly, those which seek to control the politics of a nation.

My problem is not so much with what happened in Ireland, as much as that situation can be seen as only the tip of an iceberg.

Jailing the Pope sounds good to me.

But historically we have disbanded instituions that have threatened freedom. Nazis, to mention one. Others are currently being fought.

As for there being good people in any religious organisation, find me one, just one that will tell a child, without covert coercion, that he is free not to believe in that religion's dogma and I will agree with you.

[Cole Parker]

As for there being good people in any religious organisation, find me one, just one that will tell a child, without covert coercion, that he is free not to believe in that religion's dogma and I will agree with you.

I can't do that, Des, but not because I don't think such people exist. I had bad experiences with religious people and religion itself when I was younger and don't associate with such people if I can help it. They make my skin crawl.

But I don't for a minute think there isn't a single priest, a single rabbi, a single any kind of minister that would look at a moral dilemma involving his sworn dogma and what would be best for a child and not take the side of right against his own religion's teachings if the two were in conflict. I will agree that the majority might not, but some could certainly see the larger good and preach what was best for the individual.

C

[DesDownunder]

As for there being good people in any religious organisation, find me one, just one that will tell a child, without covert coercion, that he is free not to believe in that religion's dogma and I will agree with you.

I can't do that, Des, but not because I don't think such people exist. I had bad experiences with religious people and religion itself when I was younger and don't associate with such people if I can help it. They make my skin crawl.

But I don't for a minute think there isn't a single priest, a single rabbi, a single any kind of minister that would look at a moral dilemma involving his sworn dogma and what would be best for a child and not take the side of right against his own religion's teachings if the two were in conflict. I will agree that the majority might not, but some could certainly see the larger good and preach what was best for the individual.

C

Well said Cole!

I agree with your conjecture for a specific priest in a specific dilemma, but it would go against the dogma of his religion and what he has been taught.

To put it another way, it is the singer and not the song, in whom goodness exists.