Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.
Locked on 12/21/2009 4:58:04 PM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:

Childish behavior.



Skip to comments.

Vatican guilty of unholy compassion for paedophiles
the post.ie ^ | 20 December 2009 | Vincent Browne

Posted on 12/20/2009 3:22:36 PM PST by Alex Murphy

In 1922, the Vatican promulgated an instruction to do with what it called crimen solicitationis (the crime of solicitation within the confessional) and what it called the ‘‘worst crime’’ - the sexual abuse of children. The document was issued in Latin. No authoritative version was produced in English.

The document was circulated only to bishops and under terms of strict secrecy.

A new version of the guidelines was produced in 1962, but this, according to the Murphy Commission, was unknown within the Dublin diocese until some time in the 1990s.

Desmond Connell, the former archbishop, told the commission he had never seen the 1962 document, nor had he met anyone who had seen it.

John Dolan, the chancellor of the diocese and a monsignor, whose job is to ensure that the administrative records of the diocese are kept safe, said he didn’t know that ‘‘lurking in the very end, at the very back [of the decree crimen solicitationis], was a little paragraph on the ‘‘worst crime’’.

He was unaware of the 1962 document until an Australian bishop discovered towards the end of the 1990s that it was still valid. Until then, he did not know of any guidelines by the Vatican on the issue of clerical child sexual abuse.

The Murphy Commission commented on how ‘‘unusual’’ it was, ‘‘whereby a document setting out the procedure for dealing with clerical child sexual abuse was in existence but virtually no one knew about it or used it’’.

In 1996, victims of clerical abuse hounded the bishops into devising a ‘framework document’, setting out guidelines for dealing with allegations of abuse. John Dolan said: ‘‘They [the authors of the framework document] did not feel Rome was supporting them in dealing with this issue ... they were meeting an onslaught of complaints, and Rome was pulling any particular solid ground that they had from under them’’.

The 1922 and 1962 Vatican instructions on dealing with allegations of clerical child sex abuse demanded absolute secrecy in the conduct of investigations. T he secrecy was so pervasive that, to some, it seemed to demand that the complaint also be kept secret from the state authorities.

Cannon 1341 states that the bishop is to ‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.

The Murphy Commission notes: ‘‘This canon was interpreted to mean that bishops are required to attempt to reform the abusers in the first place." In Dublin, efforts were made to reform abusing priests by sending them to therapeutic centres. But, according to the commission, ‘‘the archdiocese seems to have been reluctant to go beyond the reform process, even when it was abundantly clear that the reform process had failed’’.

But, more tellingly, the commission stated they ‘‘could find very little evidence, particularly in the early decades of the commission’s remit, of any attempt by church authorities to restore justice to the victims’’.

I t says the question of harm to the victims never seemed to have been considered by the archdiocese.

In considering whether a person is guilty of the ‘‘worst crime’’, canon law states a person must have ‘‘deliberately’’ violated the canon law. In considering the issue of guilt under canon law, the Canon Law Society of Britain and Ireland has commented: ‘‘Among the factors which may seriously diminish their imputability (guilt) in such cases (cases of clerical child sexual abuse) is paedophilia ...

‘‘Those who have studied this matter in detail have concluded that proven paedophiles are often subjected to urges and impulses which are in effect beyond their control .. .because of the influence of paedophilia (the abuser) may not be liable, by reason of at least diminished immutability (guilt) to any canonical penalty or perhaps to only a mild penalty, to a formal warning or reproof or to a penal remedy."

The commission says it ‘‘finds it a matter of grave concern that, under canon law, a serial child abuser might receive more favourable treatment from the archdiocese or from Rome, by reason of the fact that he was diagnosed as a paedophile’’.

What all this says is that the issue is not just a matter of negligence or complicity in clerical child sexual abuse on the part of individual bishops - it is the culture of the Catholic Church, a culture shaped by the church authorities in Rome and transmitted and refined in dioceses.

A culture that hides the Church’s own guidelines concerning what it itself rhetorically said was the ‘‘worst crime’’; that caused the Vatican authorities to pull the ground from priests who were trying to draft guidelines on abuse; that prioritises the abusers over the abused; that has been essentially indifferent to the harm caused to abuse victims; that regards paedophiles as objects of sympathy and compassion.

A few more episcopal resignations, with a presumption that these settle the matter, is just a continuance of the culture of denial of the Catholic Church’s institutional and cultural complicity in the criminality of clerical child sexual abuse.

The Holy Roman and Apostolic Church is the problem.


TOPICS: Catholic; History; Ministry/Outreach; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS: catholic; ireland; murphycommission; murphyreport; paedophilia; romancatholics
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last
The Murphy Commission notes: ‘‘This canon [Canon 1341] was interpreted to mean that bishops are required to attempt to reform the abusers in the first place." In Dublin, efforts were made to reform abusing priests by sending them to therapeutic centres. But, according to the commission, ‘‘the archdiocese seems to have been reluctant to go beyond the reform process, even when it was abundantly clear that the reform process had failed’’.

But, more tellingly, the commission stated they ‘‘could find very little evidence, particularly in the early decades of the commission’s remit, of any attempt by church authorities to restore justice to the victims’’.

It says the question of harm to the victims never seemed to have been considered by the archdiocese.

1 posted on 12/20/2009 3:22:37 PM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Oh, look another article about pedophilia posted by Alex.

Imagine that.


2 posted on 12/20/2009 3:37:05 PM PST by vladimir998 (Part of the Vast Catholic Conspiracy (hat tip to Kells))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I've never seen this publication posted here, so I went to check it out. Here's another article from the same source that clues you in as to where they're coming from:

The winner of the Post Mortem Outstanding Achievement of the Decade Award is: the great ape (or whatever animal immediately precedes humans on the evolutionary path). The apes win because they haven’t destroyed the planet. The apes win because they don’t spend huge amounts of money trying to find newer, nastier ways of killing each other. The apes win because they don’t spend insane amounts of money on nuclear weapons, instead of giving it to very poor apes. The apes win because half of their population isn’t obese, while the other starves to death. The apes win because half of their population doesn’t suffer from floods, while the other half has barely any water. The apes win because they don’t spend more money on entertainment than they do on drugs that might alleviate the suffering of fellow apes. The apes win because they don’t fly planes into buildings full of other apes. The apes win because they don’t invade other ape nations on the most spurious of grounds. The apes win because they aren’t constantly waging war on other ape nations over ape land, ape oil or ape religion. The apes win because they don’t form organised religions in which children are sexually abused by members of the religion while other senior members don..."

Go to the site to read the rest if you want. Puts this report, which I've not seen anywhere else, in context. (The apes win because they don't suffer from floods? Huh?)

3 posted on 12/20/2009 4:11:00 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Merry Christmas-wishing atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Cannon 1341 states that the bishop is to ‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.

I looked up Cannon 1341 on Google. This is the first page of results:

http://www.i4es.org/resumes/KFucikResume.pdf

http://www.lawyersdirections.com/oregon/cannon-beach/619334-101-press-inc.html

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-2003/0155.html

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Sep-2003/0155.html

http://www.stateoforegon.com/directory.php?name=&city=Cannon+Beach&form=biz

http://www.justice.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr0811_01d.pdf

http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-religion/2411895/posts(link to this thread)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canon_EOS_3_img_1341.jpg

http://openjurist.org/280/f3d/1341

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1341 (an article about the year 1341).

Sorry, Alex. I can't find any references to Cannon 1341 that back up your claim. Do you have any more?

4 posted on 12/20/2009 5:38:10 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Sorry, Alex. I can't find any references to Cannon 1341 that back up your claim.

Sorry Mark, but it wasn't my claim. Still, somehow I was able to find the exact quote at the "Our Lady's Warriors" webpage. Here's the quote from the thread:

‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.
And here's the quote from Our Lady's Warriors [matching sections are bolded]:
TITLE V: THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES

Can. 1341 The Ordinary is to start a judicial or an administrative procedure for the imposition or the declaration of penalties only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction or reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored and the offender reformed.

Perhaps your search was thrown by the misspelling of the word "canon" in the article.
5 posted on 12/20/2009 6:02:49 PM PST by Alex Murphy (qyot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
The source of the commentary by Vincent Browne is "ThePost.IE," which is "The Sunday Business Post Online."

This is from their "About Us" page:

ThePost.ie is a new portal site from The Sunday Business Post that has been designed as a gateway to the internet for those with in interest in Irish business, financial, political and economic issues.

ThePost.ie is partnering with Irish businesses that have a strong online offering to deliver a fuller, faster internet service to our growing online community.

ThePost.ie follows the principles and philosophy of The Sunday Business Post.

http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/flat.aspx-qqqincludename=aboutus.htm-qqqx=1.asp

This doesn't appear to be a fringe publication.

6 posted on 12/20/2009 6:07:44 PM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Being a “cannon” lawyer must be tough on the ears, don’t you think?


7 posted on 12/20/2009 6:10:51 PM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Got it, thanks. http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20090320_1.htm says that:

“Penal remedies in the 1983 Code

The 1983 Code of Canon Law reflects many of the insights of the Second Vatican Council, and particularly its emphasis on human dignity and rights. The Code Revision Commission sought to limit penal law to the external forum, abolished a series of vindictive and expiatory penalties, gave greater emphasis to the principle of mercy, and emphasised pastoral considerations (such that punitive measures did not damage the wider interests of the faithful) in the administration of sanctions.

The Code gives the reasons for sanctions: reform of the offender, restoration of justice, and the reparation of scandal (canon 1341). Several means for achieving the objectives are outlined in canon 1341, apart from the ‘correction’ and ‘repute’ mentioned in canon 1339.”

I guess I’m still puzzled as the claim of secrecy in the thread article and how it is claimed that it was hidden from clergy and the people.


8 posted on 12/20/2009 6:16:11 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I guess I’m still puzzled as the claim of secrecy in the thread article and how it is claimed that it was hidden from clergy and the people.

The article makes reference to four documents. The first is mentioned in the opening sentences:

In 1922, the Vatican promulgated an instruction to do with what it called crimen solicitationis (the crime of solicitation within the confessional) and what it called the ‘‘worst crime’’ - the sexual abuse of children. The document was issued in Latin. No authoritative version was produced in English. The document was circulated only to bishops and under terms of strict secrecy.
The second comes next in the article It is this document that is apparently cited in the Murphy Report:
A new version of the guidelines was produced in 1962, but this, according to the Murphy Commission, was unknown within the Dublin diocese until some time in the 1990s....The Murphy Commission commented on how ‘‘unusual’’ it was, ‘‘whereby a document setting out the procedure for dealing with clerical child sexual abuse was in existence but virtually no one knew about it or used it’’.
The third is one drafted by the Irish bishops themselves:
In 1996, victims of clerical abuse hounded the bishops into devising a ‘framework document’, setting out guidelines for dealing with allegations of abuse. John Dolan said: ‘‘They [the authors of the framework document] did not feel Rome was supporting them in dealing with this issue ... they were meeting an onslaught of complaints, and Rome was pulling any particular solid ground that they had from under them’’.
It's at this juncture that the fourth document - the previously debated Canon 1341 comes in - and the article gives no introduction to it, unlike the prior three. The article makes two sudden changes, first talking about the bishops' "framework document", then the 1922/1962 document, and then the Canon, without indicating why the latter is being raised.
The 1922 and 1962 Vatican instructions on dealing with allegations of clerical child sex abuse demanded absolute secrecy in the conduct of investigations. T he secrecy was so pervasive that, to some, it seemed to demand that the complaint also be kept secret from the state authorities.

Cannon 1341 states that the bishop is to ‘‘start a judicial administrative procedure, for the imposition or the declaration of penalties, only when he perceives that neither by fraternal correction nor reproof, nor by any methods of pastoral care, can the scandal be sufficiently repaired, justice restored, and the offender reformed’’.

It would be easy for the reader to confuse the Canon with the 1922/1962 documents are as being a single work, from the way the article treats them. Presumably Canon 1341 is raised because it was either cited in the 1922/1962 document(s), or in the Murphy Report as being connected to the 1922/1962 document, or in the bishop's framework document.
9 posted on 12/20/2009 6:40:07 PM PST by Alex Murphy (qyot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; Alex Murphy

I suspect it might be the 1917 Code, which preceded the one currently in force. The canon numbers, and subject order, would be different.

Still, it’s pretty cheesy stuff for you to be bringing up, Alex. Got any of this stuff highlighting Protestant ministers? How about public school teachers? No? Somehow, I didn’t think so, though that stuff is certainly not at all hard to find on the web.


10 posted on 12/20/2009 6:49:30 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I didn't find any good references to 1922, but I was able to find: Crimen sollicitationis (Latin for "the crime of soliciting") was a letter sent in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to "all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite". In the document, the Holy Office laid down procedures to be followed in dealing with cases of clerics (priests or bishops) of the Roman Catholic Church accused of having used the sacrament of Penance to make sexual advances to penitents; its rules were more specific than the generic ones in the Code of Canon Law.[2] In addition, it instructed that the same procedures be used when dealing with denunciations of homosexual, paedophile or zoophile behaviour by clerics. It repeated the rule that any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest who had made such advances in connection with confession was automatically excommunicated and could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so.[3] A revision of the document, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law (which had replaced the 1917 Code that was in force in 1962) and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was issued in 2001 in the form of the Instruction De delictis gravioribus. An English translation of this 2001 Instruction appeared on Origins, 31:32 (24 January 2001).

All Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops and other Local Ordinaries, including those of Eastern Rite. Somebody's falsifying something here. Either the author of the article or the Dublin diocese.

Purpose of the secrecy

The document dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.

"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities."[5]

Some interpret the secrecy about the procedure as a cover-up of scandalous conduct. This view was presented in a BBC documentary film Sex Crimes and the Vatican.[6] of 1 October 2006.

Others see it as aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed: "It allows witnesses to speak freely, accused priests to protect their good name until guilt is established, and victims to come forward who don’t want publicity. Such secrecy is also not unique to sex abuse. It applies, for example, to the appointment of bishops."[7]

A presentation of the question can be read in a study [8] of 1 November 2006 by Thomas Doyle, OP, JCD.

Notice here, that there is no order of secrecy on the victims and that there was an established method for reporting to the secular authorities. I guess that I am still puzzled by the 1922 report, and the air of secrecy from all. The diocese was given the 1962 report, of that I have no doubt. Somebody is lying and if it is the bishop, then hell would be too good for him.

11 posted on 12/20/2009 7:13:07 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Got any of this stuff highlighting Protestant ministers? How about public school teachers?

I kinda agree; but here's the point. We have to have a clean house first. We are sinners, yet we have to be able to handle the sins and ensure that they are not institutionalized. We want no Jimmy Swaggarts or Ted Haggards in the Church.

12 posted on 12/20/2009 7:16:31 PM PST by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Agreed. I only wanted to point-out the single-minded expose of Catholics here, as if only Catholics have this problem. That we need to have our own house in swept and in order is a given. Recent measures undertaken by the Church - even if in an often tardy fashion - are meant to find true and just remedies for the sins of the past.

That some folks seem to want to dredge up nothing but muck, when remedial measures are more and more in operation, says more about them than the Church scandal they so eagerly want to keep in the headlines.

13 posted on 12/20/2009 7:33:22 PM PST by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: magisterium; MarkBsnr
I only wanted to point-out the single-minded expose of Catholics here, as if only Catholics have this problem.

The only thing "single minded" is the near-monolithic absense of threads posted by Catholics about abuses within the Catholic Church (or within public schools). If FReepers looked at nothing but threads posted by Catholics, they'd be hard-pressed to believe that anyone but Protestants have had any problems at all in this area.

14 posted on 12/20/2009 8:12:44 PM PST by Alex Murphy (qyot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
We want no Jimmy Swaggarts or Ted Haggards in the Church.

Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard?

If it had only been a matter of RC priests in Ireland soliciting adult prostitutes and taking illegal drugs, I doubt there would have been something like a Murphy Commission as a response.

What Swaggart and Haggard did was immoral and reprehensible. What the Murphy Commission report claims occurred in Ireland is at least an order of magnitude worse.

15 posted on 12/20/2009 8:33:44 PM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

Never heard of it today. Being an internet site associated with a business paper doesn’t make it any less fringe—countless papers simply have connections to online content producers. Did you read that other article I posted a selection from? That doesn’t suggest an agenda beyond reporting business news? They also post fiction, something I’ve yet to see in business journals.


16 posted on 12/20/2009 9:49:40 PM PST by Darkwolf377 (Merry Christmas-wishing atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...

Oh, look another article about pedophilia posted by Alex.

Imagine that.


17 posted on 12/20/2009 10:20:42 PM PST by narses ('in an odd way this is cheering news!'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

Well maybe you have to spell it correctly...3rd one down...1st page...

http://books.google.com/books?id=JKgZEjvB5cEC&pg=PA1558&lpg=PA1558&dq=Canon+1341&source=bl&ots=GI7HLJxz-f&sig=N7pmFl3-k654-T4sEwe50oOpVWI&hl=en&ei=LiUvS7_lAoaKNuHBtY4J&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Canon%201341&f=false


18 posted on 12/20/2009 11:38:55 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Still, it’s pretty cheesy stuff for you to be bringing up, Alex. Got any of this stuff highlighting Protestant ministers? How about public school teachers? No? Somehow, I didn’t think so, though that stuff is certainly not at all hard to find on the web.

It's not about school teachers...And it's not about priests...It's about the One True Church setting up a mechanism to protect child molestors from their victims as well as to protect them from the law...

But then you have to ask yourself why a religion would want this perverted, illegal activity within it's ranks protected...

19 posted on 12/20/2009 11:50:11 PM PST by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377
I never heard of it, or of the journalist Vincent Browne, until Alex Murphy posted the article.

I read the article you excerpted from. Looks like it was meant to be satire; if so, the spirit of Swift isn't doing too well in Ireland!

As for there being an agenda beyond reporting news, how is that different from any other newspaper you've come across?

And it's obvious that Vincent Browne's op-ed isn't intended as fiction. BTW, I looked up "Vincent Browne" on the internet and he seems like an Irish journalist who doesn't have any particularly sinister connections (except perhaps for the fact that he's a barrister!).

20 posted on 12/21/2009 3:07:00 AM PST by Poe White Trash (Wake up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Wow, another article about child molestation by Alex Murphy. I thought Coleus got banned for posting these about Protestants.


21 posted on 12/21/2009 3:15:30 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magisterium
Got any of this stuff highlighting Protestant ministers?

There was a person named Coleus who was posting similar about Protestants, but for some reason the religion mederator decided that was unfair and banned him.

22 posted on 12/21/2009 3:20:25 AM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash
As for there being an agenda beyond reporting news, how is that different from any other newspaper you've come across?

You miss the point. Are you really saying there's no difference between an article that appears in the National Review and one that appears in The Nation? Of course there is--each is driven by a different agenda, and it colors one's view of the material; that was no unbiased report. If you look at the other piece I excerpted, you can see the magazine's editorial bias. You may blithely accept anything someone publishes at face value just because "every" newspaper has an agenda, but you'd be a fool to do so.

That article wasn't satire. Please--show me the satirical part.

And it's obvious that Vincent Browne's op-ed isn't intended as fiction. BTW, I looked up "Vincent Browne" on the internet and he seems like an Irish journalist who doesn't have any particularly sinister connections (except perhaps for the fact that he's a barrister!).

Uh, I wasn't talking about Vincent Browne's op-ed. I was talking about the short story about the novelist getting a bad review. I'll copy the link for you, but it's, like, right there on the site.

(Of course, since that's fiction, and you claim the other is satire, maybe this article is meant to be "satire," too?)

You're spinning like a top, and it does you no credit. Why not just admit to the type of publication excerpted from? Because it would reveal you have an agenda, too, and the petulance over 'Catholics' posting things you don't like is obvious--you REALLY think that a single person on FR is unaware of the Catholics' priest pedophile problems, and you're simply trying to share more knowledge?

I don't have a dog in this fight, and it's obvious what's going on to me. There's not a thing wrong with your having your position, but please don't post something like this post I'm replying to again--I don't care if you think I'm an idiot, but please don't talk to me like you think I am, because I'll rip your obvious bunk apart every time, ok?

23 posted on 12/21/2009 5:10:15 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Merry Christmas-wishing atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Poe White Trash

P.S. Unintentionally may have implied you posted the article. All points stand, though, as you support its posting.


24 posted on 12/21/2009 5:11:34 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Merry Christmas-wishing atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
It repeated the rule that any Catholic who failed for over a month to denounce a priest who had made such advances in connection with confession was automatically excommunicated and could be absolved only after actually denouncing the priest or at least promising seriously to do so

Thanks for the info, Mark. There's a whole lot of [excommmunicated] FReeper Catholics out there who'd rather denounce me than denounce their own priests, based on their own posting history.

25 posted on 12/21/2009 5:33:57 AM PST by Alex Murphy (qyot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
I thought Coleus got banned for posting these about Protestants.

Really?

Also, is Alex so insecure in his own beliefs that he must attack the Church? This obsession of his (posting Catholic articles, and posting threads about the sins of others) is deeply troubling. Maybe he should speak to his pastor about his need to attack Catholicism, and its implications for his own spirituality.

26 posted on 12/21/2009 6:13:28 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; magisterium; Coleus

Coleus hasn’t been banned, he’s still an active FReeper.


27 posted on 12/21/2009 6:17:30 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp; Hacksaw; Petronski

Very nearly all of the anti-Catholics are so insecure in their beliefs that they must attack the Church.

Calvinist predestination is nothing more than a cosmic lottery. Unfortunately, none of the participants in the lottery have any idea how many winners there will be and they are horrified that they will not be a winner. So, to convince themselves that they are a lottery winner, they set out to defame those who disavow such idolatry. I cannot imagine the daily dread they must endure.


28 posted on 12/21/2009 6:24:30 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

Don’t forget that in Ireland hatred between Catholics and Protestants is near pathological. Granted it’s not as bad in the Republic of Ireland as it is in Northern Ireland, but it’s still bad.


29 posted on 12/21/2009 6:27:54 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
There's a whole lot of FReeper Catholics out there who'd rather denounce me than denounce their own priests, based on their own posting history.

I've been personally involved in getting several ephebophile priests removed from my own diocese, and therefore feel qualified to denounce you, Alex.

Also, you fall right in with the homosexuals and liberals in continuing the slander against the Church that it has or had a pedophilia problem. It does not. It relaxed its prohibitions on admitting homosexuals to the priesthood, and a cohort of homosexuals have passed through its ranks over the past 4 decades, and the homosexuals did what homosexuals are wont to do.

So in Christian charity, I strongly suggest you cease this grave sin of detraction and slander, and stop implying the Church has a pedophile problem. It does not. It has a homosexual priest problem, and ephebophilia is endemic to the homosexual subculture.

30 posted on 12/21/2009 6:37:50 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
Oh, look another article about pedophilia posted by Alex. Imagine that.

It's a fetish.

31 posted on 12/21/2009 7:01:22 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses; Hacksaw
Oh, look another article about pedophilia posted by Alex. Imagine that.

That is the nature of a fetish.

32 posted on 12/21/2009 7:05:29 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; Religion Moderator
There was a person named Coleus who was posting similar about Protestants, but for some reason the religion mederator decided that was unfair and banned him.

Dear Religion Moderator,

Could you please clarify? Is it OK to post articles in the Religion Forum about the sexual proclivities of protestant ministers, or are such postings in the Religion Forum currently limited to articles about the sexual proclivities of Catholic priests?

Thanks in advance,

Dr. Kopp

33 posted on 12/21/2009 7:28:41 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: Alex Murphy

I strongly suspect these posts were reactions to prior posts about RC priests, but I could be wrong.


35 posted on 12/21/2009 8:01:53 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Dr. Brian Kopp; TaxachusettsMan

Actually, Alex, I stopped, for the most part, posting the details of protestant pervert pastors (except for “big name” televangelists) in the religion forum (preferring to post them over to “general,” along with the exploits of miscellaneous psychologists, teachers, and pediatricians), but I can start again if you’d like.

By the way, what did “European paedophile trolls in Africa (child sex tourism in Mombasa Kenya)” have to do with Protestant ministers (unless you know of some who are engaging, of course)? Sure wasn’t mentioned in the article...


36 posted on 12/21/2009 8:03:49 AM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
===========================================================

THE RULES

Rule One: 'Rome' is the locus of all evil in the universe.

Rule Two: In case of doubt, see Rule One.

All Else Is Irrelevant.

=========================================================== "The Rules" pretty well explain a huge 'genre' of posting on this forum.

Since I cannot read minds (only words), I cannot say for certain that any individual on this forum actually thinks according to "The Rules". However, a reasonable person, upon reading certain types of writing on this forum, would be led to suspect it.

37 posted on 12/21/2009 8:11:38 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Here's a simple direct question (and I honestly have not been following this tit-for-tat):

Was a Roman Catholic poster(s) requested by the Religion Moderator to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by Protestant ministers in the Religion Forum?

If so, would it not also be appropriate for Protestant posters to stop posting articles about sexual abuse by RC priests in the Religion Forum?

Maybe, as markomalley pointed out, you could post these articles in "General" or "News" or "Bloggers/Personal" instead of the Religion Forum.

38 posted on 12/21/2009 8:17:32 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
By the way, what did “European paedophile trolls in Africa (child sex tourism in Mombasa Kenya)” have to do with Protestant ministers (unless you know of some who are engaging, of course)? Sure wasn’t mentioned in the article...

Oh, but it was. Presumably you didn't know of any priests who were involved? The last paragraph:

It is a thriving industry still in parts of South Asia, as well as Central America and those parts of Africa where tourists venture. It is also an international disgrace. The media, in particular, are hypocritical about it. A pastor or priest who abuses children is called a pedophile, molester, defiler or pervert; it makes front-page news and the media is after his blood until his church apologizes. A Briton, German or Italian is said to be “on a spree” or having a bit of “legitimate fun”: he or she is called a sex “tourist”. He’s not reported; no need to apologize either for a life ruined.

39 posted on 12/21/2009 8:20:21 AM PST by Alex Murphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Iscool said: It's not about school teachers...And it's not about priests...It's about the One True Church setting up a mechanism to protect child molestors from their victims as well as to protect them from the law...

But then you have to ask yourself why a religion would want this perverted, illegal activity within it's ranks protected...

Bingo with one comment. In your writing, the One True Church omits the quotation marks and you neglected to mention that school teachers and the protestant churches (except the cults) do not claim to be the "One True Church" nor do they claim infallibility and or apostolic succession.

40 posted on 12/21/2009 8:21:22 AM PST by fatboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Do you think that paragraph is stating that Catholic priests were involved?


41 posted on 12/21/2009 8:22:26 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; Coleus; Dr. Brian Kopp
Coleus hasn’t been banned, he’s still an active FReeper.

I remember when he was locked out for a lengthy period for posting a lot of articles about Protestant abuse.

Granted, he was asked to stop because he posted so many, but no such request had been made of those posting articles about Catholics. Coleus did a great job demonstrating that it wasn't just a problem with Catholics. Apparently, that hurt someone's feelings.

42 posted on 12/21/2009 8:49:48 AM PST by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
Oh, but it was. Presumably you didn't know of any priests who were involved?

And if you read the last paragraph, of course, you'd recognize that the author was stating that it was rather hypocritical for a clergyman to be roundly and universally condemned, while people who participate in sex tourism with youths are just 'on a spree.'

43 posted on 12/21/2009 8:51:07 AM PST by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Titanites
I remember when he was locked out for a lengthy period for posting a lot of articles about Protestant abuse.

Granted, he was asked to stop because he posted so many, but no such request had been made of those posting articles about Catholics. Coleus did a great job demonstrating that it wasn't just a problem with Catholics. Apparently, that hurt someone's feelings.

OK, thanks for clarifying this. This answers my questions, which so far have been ignored.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander...

44 posted on 12/21/2009 9:01:45 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Off the Record

the posture imposture

Facebook Twitter By Diogenes | December 16, 2009 3:11 PM

Now here's a head-shaking story from the Chicago Sun-Times. A number of Chicago-area women report that, in a period from the 1940s until the 1960s while they were in public high schools, they were required to pose for photographs, completely undressed, as part of a study purportedly designed to analyse and correct posture. In some places college girls received the same treatment. Sun-Times journalist Mark Brown's columns on the survey are found here and here. Not one of the finer moments of our species:

Patricia Repass, now 80 and living in Skokie, says she and her family were residents of Wilmette when she attended New Trier from 1943 to 1947.

"Just which year I cannot say, but one gym period, we [the entire gym class] were ushered into a room and asked to undress," Repass wrote. "All were naked but for a teacher armed with a jar of opaque cream. As we stood in line, she put a dab on each vertebra."

"Then we stood in another line waiting to enter a camera booth one at a time," she continued. "As you might suspect, there was a lot of staring, giggling and blushing. Not the fondest of memories, but just another of 'those things' we live through."

The standard explanation of this "survey" piles implausibility on laughable implausibility. Only high school and college females served the special requirements of the researchers. Right. The photos were supposedly used to make silhouettes called shadowgraphs "as a means of checking for posture abnormalities." Right. Retaining leotards or underwear would have spoiled the silhouettes. Right. The pictures were developed in a special darkroom and the negatives were locked away to ensure privacy. Sure they were.

And of course all of us remember -- after those 25 years of shadowgraph data were scientifically collected and scientifically collated and scientifically fed into that mighty Univac for scientific analysis -- the life-changing breakthrough in Posture Amelioration Pedagogics that resulted: "Sit up straight."

Made it all worthwhile.

Unsurprisingly, no one seems able to remember who the sleazy genius was that pulled off such a stunt on such a scale; neither is anyone today eager to claim credit. A pity, for the story has interesting points of similarity with the clerical sex abuse scandal, and the perp -- from whatever government lab or university he operated -- belongs in the same category as those unsmiling monsignori who took it upon themselves to examine altar boys for hernia.

It's remarkable how many people, at how many different levels of responsibility, played along in this imposture: the school administrators, the gym teachers who took the photos, the parents and older siblings of the girls, and finally the victims themselves. It's remarkable too that everyone whom Brown interviewed felt to some degree that something was "off key" about the whole enterprise: they were uneasy about it. And yet they complied.

The episode is not without its comic -- its ruefully comic -- side. But it shows that the Catholic clerical sex abuse scandal, while uniquely appalling in the magnitude of its spiritual betrayal, was not unique in every respect. A large number of ordinarily upright people can be duped into cooperating in their own degradation and humiliation -- against their inclination and better judgment -- when their traducers wear the trappings of authority and when their protectors are morally passive. Where were the angry fathers with their baseball bats?

It's also worth noticing that the organs of conspiracy often invoked to explain the Catholic Church's tolerance of abuse were not in play in the Posture Photo Fraud. There wasn't a culture of silence or a cult of omertà or a straitjacket of suffocating celibacy or a reputation of infallibility that empowered the slime-balls and muted their victims. The girls were too embarrassed to complain and those in a position to intervene were too embarrassed to do so. At a time when sexual scandals are rife, and many people are more eager to throw out the babies than the bathwater, the story deserves some reflection.

45 posted on 12/21/2009 9:04:41 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I looked up Cannon 1341 on Google. This is the first page of results: ... Sorry, Alex. I can't find any references to Cannon 1341 that back up your claim. Do you have any more?

I have to say this is a hilarious epic Google search FAIL and completely your fault! Everything is easy to find on Google if you know how to search — try this again, search for "Canon 1341" but INCLUDE the quotation marks, and spell Canon correctly this time.
46 posted on 12/21/2009 9:07:16 AM PST by fours
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
That is the nature of a fetish.

Fetish might be a bit too strong:

Main Entry: fe·tish

Variant(s): also fe·tich \ˈfe-tish also ˈfē-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French & Portuguese; French fétiche, from Portuguese feitiço, from feitiço artificial, false, from Latin facticius factitious
Date: 1613

1 a : an object (as a small stone carving of an animal) believed to have magical power to protect or aid its owner; broadly : a material object regarded with superstitious or extravagant trust or reverence b : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion : prepossession c : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
2 : a rite or cult of fetish worshipers
3 : fixation

We should try not to fall into the same error as those we are trying to correct.

Main Entry: ob·ses·sion

Pronunciation: \äb-ˈse-shən, əb-\
Function: noun
Date: 1680

1 : a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling; broadly : compelling motivation <an obsession with profits>
2 : something that causes an obsession

Clearly, this is an obsession, not a fetish. To claim otherwise would be similar to claiming the current problem in the RC Church is one pedophilia and not ephebophilia.

We Christians must hold ourselves to a higher standard ;-)

47 posted on 12/21/2009 9:21:28 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp

I’ll happily defend my use of the term as 1b or 3.


48 posted on 12/21/2009 9:27:52 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Code of Cannon Law? Is that indexed by ordnance?

Sorry guy, couldn't resist.

49 posted on 12/21/2009 9:34:30 AM PST by Petronski (In Germany they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I’ll happily defend my use of the term as 1b or 3.

OK, you might have a valid point, esp. in regard to b and c under "fixation" as well as 2 and 3 under prepossession:

Main Entry: fix·a·tion

Pronunciation: \fik-ˈsā-shən\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

: the act, process, or result of fixing, fixating, or becoming fixated: as a : a persistent concentration of libidinal energies upon objects characteristic of psychosexual stages of development preceding the genital stage b : stereotyped behavior (as in response to frustration) c : an obsessive or unhealthy preoccupation or attachment

Main Entry: pre·pos·ses·sion

Pronunciation: \ˌprē-pə-ˈze-shən also -ˈse-\
Function: noun
Date: 1648

1 archaic : prior possession
2 : an attitude, belief, or impression formed beforehand : prejudice
3 : an exclusive concern with one idea or object : preoccupation

50 posted on 12/21/2009 9:41:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-69 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson