±«Óătv

Alleged victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Clergy say they are gathering stories to present to Pope Benedict XVI during his upcoming visit to Britain. The pope is scheduled to visit Scotland and Britain for four days; he will stop at London, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Birmingham.
Alleged victim, a group called the "Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors" said they want to collect the stories in a book to present to the pope.
I can understand how sexual abuse could shake an individual's faith; even being alone with a priest (e.g. confession) would be loaded and very likely traumatic. Abuse survivor Peter Saunders runs the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. He has said, "Because abusers pass some of the responsibility to their victims, you're left thinking, 'I can't really say anything because maybe I did something, maybe in some way it was my fault, I deserved it.'"
The Catholic Church has done, "a phenomenal job of covering up," he said, like moving priests around so that the priest gets a new start, but the victim never does.
In my opinion, the Catholic Church being so patriarchal, a male bastion, has made itself into a seedbed for paedophelia and homosexuality. After all, sex is a natural appetite. Supression of a natural appetite often leads to abuse.
This year, Pope Benedict XVI apologized to sexual abuse victims in Ireland and vowed "action" would be taken on the issue. How about allowing females to become priests?

I think the figure for the number of Catholics who have had their faith shaken by the paedophile priests' scandal (52 per cent) would be higher if the people surveyed had full knowledge of the extent of the abuse and the way the Catholic Church has handled abuse allegations.

Young children who were raped and molested were sworn to secrecy and allegations were dealt with under Canon Law. The secrecy of Canon Law benefits the paedophile priest. Canon Law can at most "defrock" a paedophile priest; criminal law can put the paedophile behind bars where he belong.

Are the full results of the opinion poll publicly available anywhere, ±«Óătv or ComRes? Please provide a link.

As usual aninteresting prog. TWO contributors of note: The Islamic moderate and Michael Mecher .
1. Islamic speaker while talking tolerance towards Islam urged use of incitement to hatred laws. Doesnt he know we have that and doesn't he know we have the right (UN CONVENTION on Human Rights)to free expression . He demonstrated his underlying repressive attitude well hidden in the language of apparent tolerance by that remark and demonstrated the fundamentally AUTHORITARIAN nature of Islam as a faith and the utter intolerance at the core of its theology which is really scary when allowed to manifest though a political state. Moderate Muslims there maybe indeed be - but Islam like Catholicism is not liberal in any way.

Michael Meecher ? learned as he has tried to be surpised me that after all his research and thought decided to give undue weight to the human reading of what is ultimately chemical changes in the brain - mystical experinces - brought on by rituals designed for that purpose - brought on by stress - and so on. We know now if we probe the temporal lobes we can create the "god experience" - We are foolish to believe that the result is "divine inspiration ". Buddism tell us all is illusion - we would be wise to listen and not believe all we think we see or experience and think it is "divine" inspiration or the evidence of "god".

If someone has put his/her faith in Christ then it will not be shaken when he sees the leadership of the church failing. Indeed, he knows that he like every other Christian messes up every day. He is sadly aware that he fails to wholeheartedly love God and love his neighbour as he loves himself. But he also knows, that as he turns back to God and acknowledges this, that there is forgiveness and restoration.

Perhaps it is time that the Roman Catholic Church leadership rediscovered what is at the heart of the Christian faith by stripping away all the layers that they and their predecessors have added to the clear teachings of the New Testament. Then, I believe, they will come clean on their failures that have led to the child abuse, and respond in a God honouring and pleasing way.

Maybe the faith of Catholics being shaken is contributing to their lackluster turnout for events during the papal visit. An article in the Telegraph mentions near the end that tens of thousands of tickets have not been taken up due to lack of interest.



The fact even many of the Catholics of Britain are not interested to buy a ticket for the events underscores how incorrect it is that tax payers in general are paying ÂŁ20 million for it.

Of course William you could have had as a headline "70% of British Catholics polled expect the Pope's visit to help the Catholic Church in the UK"

the logistics have been very badly handled. I know lots of people who have had difficulties getting tickets.

The difference between abuse in RC Church and Evangelical Protestantism is that sexual abuse is endemic and a consequence of a false belief system that will not obey Christ regarding marriage (or, more fundamentally, the way of salvation).

This is rightly making RCs question their belief system. At last, sadly, RCs in Ireland are seeing beyond their nationalism. (Being Christian doesn't mean that you can't believe in a united Ireland.)

To such I would say, just because you have been stung by a counterfeit, doesn't mean there isn't true Christianity. Start comparing Christ and His Apostles' teaching in the Bible with what the Vatican teaches. Historic Protestantism claims to be not only obedient to Christ and to believe His truth, but also to be Reformed Catholicism. Rome has departed from the Catholic Faith.

Presbyterian/ Baptist/ Congregationalist belief as stated in their Confessions (e.g the Westminster Confession of Faith 25:2): "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation."

God forbid facts would get in the way of a story.

You could also write;

"Most of UK residents not Catholic. Some bemused as to why the high priest of a minority group is given preferential treatment over heads of state."

Or you could say "Religious leader of 17.5% of world population pays State Visit to medium sized country with history of anti-cathlocism".

It's not just in Britain that the interest in tickets for the papal events is quite low. Yahoo news reports that the Irish are mostly staying at home too. Only a third of the available tickets have been sold.

With, I think one exception, the Irish bishops did nothing with their allocation of tickets. They don't even seem to have known they were coming. Ordinary Irish Catholics had no idea tickets were available.

"Religious leader of 17.5 % of world population."

Now, now, MCC, you cant go using us lot when it suits your purposes. Take away all the Catholics you want kicked out of the church and you are left with

"Religious leader of 0.00001 % of world population."

Maybe the Irish bishops didn't do anything because it didn't concern most of them. When I said that Irish catholics didn't show interest I was talking about Northern Irish catholics. Since it is a UK visit, they were allocated tickets, the republic was not. The availability of tickets for Ulster catholics was of course widely known through the papers, radio, etc. Yet few gave a damn.

So what was that bit about Irish bishops you were on about there? Surely you weren't making up things to excuse the disinterest in Ratzi, were you Christopher? Nah, I know you'd never do anything like that. Ever. All things being equal. Usually. Well, not regularly anyway. At least not on a twice daily basis.

hello bbc can we trust the n.h.s the as been a cover up on my hospital opp i had to go in hospital 28/08/2009 to have a stent put in my heart thay did the job and 2 weeks after i got ill the doctor that did this told me he as put the wrong stent in my heart and blocked off a heartry so now part of my heart is dead and the n.h.s as told every doctor in the uk not to touch me the new doctor as told me if i have a opp it will kill me the hospital that did this have dun nothing for me im a singel dad with my 11 yr old son i cant go on the sick the d.h.s.s as told me you r not ill its man made i cant get a job i may drop dead i think people shud be told my life is so bad now thay dont want me in hospital now thay just say to me we cant help you sorry mr p jackman thanks

hello bbc can we trust the n.h.s the as been a cover up on my hospital opp i had to go in hospital 28/08/2009 to have a stent put in my heart thay did the job and 2 weeks after i got ill the doctor that did this told me he as put the wrong stent in my heart and blocked off a heartry so now part of my heart is dead and the n.h.s as told every doctor in the uk not to touch me the new doctor as told me if i have a opp it will kill me the hospital that did this have dun nothing for me im a singel dad with my 11 yr old son i cant go on the sick the d.h.s.s as told me you r not ill its man made i cant get a job i may drop dead i think people shud be told my life is so bad now thay dont want me in hospital now thay just say to me we cant help you sorry

Conservative Bishop Charles Chaput of Denver recently stopped the two infants of a lesbian couple from attending a Catholic school.

He stated, "The parents of Catholic school children are expected to agree with Church beliefs, including those forbidding sex between anyone other than married, heterosexual couples. The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus."

It has just been announced that Chaput has been appointed to Philadelphia, one of the seven US Dioceses which permanently have a Cardinal ie Chaput will be a Cardinal.

I would love to be in the congregation when Chaput explained the teaching Jesus gave on children's angels being constantly in the presence of God, and it is to such as these that the Kingdom belongs, not to mention what he said about those who harm children.

Two women choose to give two adopted children a quality life, love and all the sacrifices that parenting requires. But they are evil.

A Bishop is asked to provide a signature to allow these two adopted kids an education. He refuses. And HE is going to be made a Cardinal.

RJB,

Apart from that I find it incredible that a church would punish children based on the supposed sins of their parents. Seems at odds with christianity (where jesus was supposed to have died to release man from the sins of their predecessors) maybe this guy is a pre christ christian.

Theo will probably agree with it though, not because its right but because a geezer on the way up said it.

I forgot, Theo calls it moral correction, make the children suffer so we can correct the parent to our way of thinking. The love just flows....

Theo blamed sexual abuse on the "Woodstock" era. The quote actually emanates from the US Bishop's Conference in their latest exercise in blame shifting. (Theo takes it all in because it was Bishops who said it and Bishops dont lie.)

The following link is an interview with Fr Tom Doyle who responds to that claim. (The Woodstock era did have an effect on clerical sexual abuse because for the first time, people began to question the authority of the Church, began to be critical of it, thus opening the door for people to tell the truth about what was really going on.)

Hundreds of thousands of children were harmed and yet the Irish government does nothing to indict culprits. What is it with being afraid of priest? They hold no magical powers or any more special insight into the after life than my pet rock and yet their insidious control of politicians is more shocking than that of Murdoch.

The correct action is to confiscate all property owned by the RC and call on the snakes of the island to rid the places of priests.

@19 RJB:
I've mostly heard good things concerning Bishop Chaput of Denver.Here's an article about him I saw online:
I hear you re. the children involved in the dispute mentioned.I've worked in a Catholic school & to be fair,often there is more going on than what can revealed to the public due to privacy issues.But the children really need to be the first priority.I've had past issues I've not been able to reconcile within a Catholic school & realized that parochial schools,at least in the US, offer a good education but within certain, sometimes rather rigid guidelines.It works for many children, but not all.And not for all families,either.I don't know the particulars about the family you mentioned,& doubt, again due to privacy issues, that bouncing around the internet will reveal the real situation either.For that family & others there are many,many other educational options available out there.

Religion is the bane of modern existence. Abolish faith schools & encourage critical thinking.

LucyQ (@ 25) -

"Religion is the bane of modern existence. Abolish faith schools & encourage critical thinking."

Now I wonder what would happen if someone embraced 'critical thinking' and concluded that it did not lead to atheism. Would you respect that person's 'critical thinking', or not?

Or is it a case of: "everyone should think critically as long as they draw the only acceptable ideological conclusion." ??

For the record: I consider myself a 'critical thinker' (a true 'freethinker' and a sceptic), and that's the reason why I am NOT an atheist.

@19 RJB:
P.S. I saw this quote from Cardinal O'Malley of Boston (who had a similar incident within the parochial schools there.)He said this about another earlier experience:
As a young bishop in the West Indies I once celebrated a memorial Mass for a local “madame” who ran a brothel near my Cathedral. It was said she smuggled women in from other islands in oil barrels for her business. Some women suffocated in the crossing. She herself was murdered by her lover.

At the Mass I met the woman’s daughter, a lovely little girl. I asked her what grade she was in. She replied that she didn’t go to school. I sent a stern glance to her grandmother, who said: “Her name is the same as that of the brothel. The other children were so cruel to her, she left the public school.” I told her grandmother, “Take her to the Catholic school tomorrow.”


It raises some questions, but is another take on the purpose of Catholic schools.

MCC and Theophane



Are you watching?? Are you taking this stuff in??

I hope your next posts on here contain apologies for all the hurtful nonsense you have written on here. MCC, I seem to recall you calling me a liar on more than one occasion. And you, Theo, calling me thick. Both of you called me a non-Catholic. Anything to say now, guys?

MSCracker

If you have mostly heard good things about Chaput you should be more discerning in the company you keep.

Bishop Morris of Australia was sacked in May by the Pope on the recommendation of...... Chaput. His move to Philly is seen as a reward for his dirty work there.

Morris's crime was to say that if the church decided to ordain women, he would ordain them. Sacked!! Not one Bishop involved in the crimes against children have been sacked. Resignations have even been refused. And Cardinal Law still walks the corridors of power in Rome and some pretty decent restaurants as well. Protected by the Pope.

@29 RJB:
To each his/her own opinion.You are certainly intitled to your's. I'll have to agree to disagree.

romejellybean

Cardinal Law has a lot of explaining to do - specifically why paedophile priests (or some such similar variant of pervert) stayed in post after their sickening crimes became known to him. I've just read on Wiki that he didn't step down from his position of Archbishop of Boston until after the closure of 65 of his parishes.

It says a lot about the Vatican that he was given a job there and remains a Cardinal. Strange that he spoke out so vigorously against a woman's right to abort a foetus, yet when it came to raped and tortured children he kept so quiet.

mscracker

"To each his or her own opinion."

Except in the Church where your opinion and mine is completely ignored by a medieval patriarchy who will not tolerate any opinion other than their own.

As was once said, one of the defining factors of a healthy church is the tolerance of dissenting views. We are a very unhealthy church.

32.romejellybeen:
Speaking for myself,I shouldn't want my personal opinions to influence Church teaching in any way.
We have an almost infinite number of denominations & sects here in the US.Whenever one or two members dissent from a certain practise or teaching, they break away & form their own church.The Anabaptist churches,wonderful people as they are, have a constant splintering among themselves.The issue can be as insignificant as whether buttons or zippers are allowed on clothing or what color a vehicle can be painted.

mscracker

Canon Law 212 2-3

We have a right and duty in keeping with our knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to our pastors our views on matters which concern the good of the Church.

@34 RJB:
Thank you! Here's the full text:

Can. 212 §1 Christ's faithful, conscious of their own responsibility, are bound to show christian obedience to what the sacred Pastors, who represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith and prescribe as rulers of the Church.

§2 Christ's faithful are at liberty to make known their needs, especially their spiritual needs, and their wishes to the Pastors of the Church.

§3 They have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the Pastors and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals.

I have the full text, MS, what's your point?

@36 RJB:
Just the context.

MS

The point I was making to you by quoting Canon Law is that you posted earlier that you have no wish to give your opinion (your input) into our Church. I am making the point that you have a duty to do so.

Quoting the full text back at me doesnt really respond to my point. (Neither does providing a list of Universities or Colleges where nice things happen.)

@38:
I find that things are better understood when seen in their full context.
And my earlier post said "Speaking for myself,I shouldn't want my personal opinions to influence Church teaching in any way." The "Church teaching" part was key.
Posting links to Catholic colleges in the US wasn't responding to any particular person's point.Just an effort to balance the conversation.

mscracker

So if you desire balance, why hand all authority to these people who have been found to be malevolant?

RJB, #32;

"As was once said, one of the defining factors of a healthy church is the tolerance of dissenting views."

Someone also once said that Elvis is still alive. You do the math.

Theo

Eh?

Josef Ratzinger - "Standards of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy, cannot be PURELY and SIMPLY applied to the Church."

Enda Kenny - "I am making it absolutely clear, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct the Church deems appropriate for itself, cannot and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic. Not PURELY or SIMPLY or otherwise. CHILDREN FIRST."

Kirsty MCcoll - "There's a guy works down the Chip Shop swears he's Elvis...."

40.romejellybeen:
mscracker

So if you desire balance, why hand all authority to these people who have been found to be malevolant?"
***
I think the above comment demonstrates why balance is desirable in the conversation.

mscracker

When has your clericalist Church ever allowed balanced discussion? (The most balanced the church ever was, was Vatican II and you and your cronies have done everything to smash it.)

Were they balanced when they sacked Bishop Morris of Australia with absolutely no right of reply?

Were they balanced when they refused any discussion on women priests and sacked or excommunicated anyone who called for talks on the subject?

Are you telling us that the Ferns, Murphy and Cloyne reports dont actually show malevolance? (Or any amount of government reports in your own country?)

What will it take for omnipotent, moral busybodies to actually acknowledge evil-doing amongst their own ranks? Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge the truth about your church?

When it comes to your clerics being caught with their pants down, "Oh lets be positive!!" When it comes to people seeking justice in the Church, you are in there with the rest of the over-dressed scavengers, undermining them, ridiculing them and seeking anything but "balance."

@45:
Instead of provoking others, would it not be more constructive to simply post your opinion & viewpoint on issues & provide links so that others may be informed? And then attempt dialogue?
Sure, I personally may disagree, but I'd be much more likely to understand where you are coming from without the inflammatory verbage.
There's a huge amount of reactive drama on this blog (from many sides) that obscures any real discussion or sharing of ideas.
With all due respect, look at the language in your posts.That's why there needs to be balance.
God bless!

mscracker

When you come on here and make comments about the issue of priests abusing children, stating that you think that this issue is used by people to undermine the Church, (stroking Theo's denial), as a victim, I find that extremely insensitive, hurtful and provocative.

I will respond to you - within the parameters of moderation - on my terms and in my language. I have no time for middle-class religiosity and pomposity. You do not get to set the agenda on here or get to tell me what is acceptable language.

And for the record, some of your posts are grossly insulting and arrogant, like # 44 above.

@47. romejellybeen :
Just politely suggesting moderation instead of reaction.Not censorship of your free speech, nor mine.It's not something you are forced to act upon.
And if any of my comments seem arrogant or insulting, I am truly sorry.They were not meant to be, but it is something I honestly wonder about & I certainly have the freedom to express that.
Women have been / are currently terribly abused in some domestic situations & while I have no patience with those who ignore domestic violence or try to blame the victim, it is non the less true that it is an issue used by some to discredit & undermine the Sacrament of Marriage.It would be dishonest to not say that.
It would also be honest to say that men who want to control women hide behind religion.That discredits them, not religion.

In the latest turn of events, the church is now trying to avoid liability, claiming that they don't have all that much to do with priest, they are certainly not employees, so the church can't be held liable.



So first try

step 1: downplay or deny all together, say that the victims are gold diggers or blame any myriad of groups or causes, like the 60s, jews, homosexuals, etc.

If step 1 really doesn't work and guilt is undeniable, then try

step 2: express deep disgust and sorrow for what has happened, but pull whatever legal trick in the book to avoid liability.

What was that bit again about moral absolutes handed down from god that some christians so arrogantly use to claim moral superiority?