Revelations that a prominent U.S. cardinal sexually abused and harassed his adult seminarians have exposed an egregious abuse of power that has shocked Catholics on both sides of the Atlantic. But the Vatican has long been aware of its heterosexual equivalent — the sexual abuse of nuns by priests and bishops — and done little to stop it, an Associated Press analysis has found.
An examination by the AP shows that cases of abused nuns have emerged in Europe, Africa, South America and Asia, demonstrating that the problem is global and pervasive, thanks to the sisters' second-class status in the church and their ingrained subservience to the men who run it.
Yet some nuns are now finding their voices, buoyed by the MeToo movement and the growing recognition that even adults can be victims of sexual abuse when there is an imbalance of power in a relationship. The sisters are going public in part to denounce years of inaction by church leaders, even after major studies on the problem in Africa were reported to the Vatican in the 1990s.
"It opened a great wound inside of me," one nun told the AP. "I pretended it didn't happen."
Wearing a full religious habit and clutching her rosary, the woman broke nearly two decades of silence to tell AP about the moment in 2000 when the priest to whom she was confessing her sins forced himself on her, mid-sacrament.
The assault — and a subsequent advance by a different priest a year later — led her to stop going to confession with any priest other than her spiritual father, who lives in a different country.
In 2013, for example, a well-known priest in Uganda wrote a letter to his superiors that mentioned "priests romantically involved with religious sisters" — for which he was promptly suspended from the church until he apologized in May.
"Consecrated women have to be encouraged to speak up when they are molested," the official told AP. "Bishops have to be encouraged to take them seriously, and make sure the priests are punished if guilty."
But being taken seriously is often the toughest obstacle for sisters who are sexually abused, said [Karlijn] Demasure, until recently executive director of the church's Center for Child Protection at the Pontifical Gregorian University, the church's leading think-tank on the issue.
"They (the priests) can always say 'she wanted it,'" Demasure said.
Demasure said many priests in Africa, for example, struggle with traditional and cultural beliefs in the importance of having children. Novices are particularly vulnerable because they often need a letter from their parish priest to be accepted into certain religious congregations.
"And sometimes they have to pay for that," she said.
And when these women become pregnant?
"Mainly, she has an abortion. Even more than once. And he pays for that. A religious sister has no money. A priest, yes," she said.
The reports in the 1990s were prepared by members of religious orders for top church officials. In 1994, the late Sr. Maura O'Donohue wrote about a six-year, 23-nation survey, in which she learned of 29 nuns who had been impregnated in a single congregation.
Nuns, she reported, were considered "safe" sexual partners for priests fearing infection with HIV from prostitutes or other women.
The reports were never meant to be made public, but the U.S. National Catholic Reporter put them online in 2001. To date, the Vatican hasn't said what, if anything, it ever did with the information.
A nun identified only as Sister Marie describes how sisters serve clergy but "are rarely invited to sit at the tables they serve."
During his recent trip to Peru, Francis denounced femicide and gender-based crimes that have turned his home continent, Latin America, into one of the most violent places on Earth for women. He also has frequently called for dignified work — and dignified pay — for all. And in a recent prologue to a book on women's issues, Francis acknowledged that he was concerned that in many cases, women's work in the church "sometimes is more servitude than true service."
Other sisters, meanwhile, show remarkable intellectual gifts and earn advanced degrees, but aren't allowed to put them to use because the collective nature of religious communities often discourages personal advancement, another nun, Sister Paule, told the magazine.
"Behind all this is the unfortunate idea that women are worth less than men, and above all that priests are everything in the church while sisters are nothing," she said.
Sister Marie noted that many nuns from Africa, Asia or Latin America who come to study in Rome hail from poor families, whose extended care is often paid for by their congregations. As a result, they feel they can't complain about their work conditions, she said.
"This all creates in them a strong interior rebellion," Sister Marie reported. "These sisters feel indebted, tied down, and so they keep quiet."
Vatican 2My arse!
Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
The belief that the Church can ever be wrong and therefore not God's Earthly representation is in and of itself Catholic heresy.I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
Man, your conversion strategy sucks!
As are the more modernised churches. Again, saying the church is ever wrong about anything is heresy.So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
Man, your conversion strategy sucks!
No, traditionalist Catholicism and the traditionalist churches that practice Latin mass are still within the Catholic Church.
Yes, but declaring that all the churches that do mass in comprehensible modern languages are No True Catholics is in contradiction with Catholic doctrine, heretic!So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
Man, your conversion strategy sucks!
No, traditionalist Catholicism and the traditionalist churches that practice Latin mass are still within the Catholic Church.
As are the more modernised churches. Again, saying the church is ever wrong about anything is heresy.So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
Man, your conversion strategy sucks!
No, traditionalist Catholicism and the traditionalist churches that practice Latin mass are still within the Catholic Church.
As are the more modernised churches. Again, saying the church is ever wrong about anything is heresy.So in Catholic terms you're a heretic and here you are trying to convince us to be good little Catholics.Vatican 2So, are you actually a Catholic or is Catholicism fucked? You can't have it both ways.
I am a traditionalist Catholic who thinks that the Vatican 2 reforms are a heretical liberalism of the Church. There are only a few Churches that still practice the traditional Latin Mass.
Man, your conversion strategy sucks!
No, traditionalist Catholicism and the traditionalist churches that practice Latin mass are still within the Catholic Church.
It is not heresy because it does not deny Papal Infallibility. The Pope is only infallible when defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire Church and 1950 was the last time that happened.
heretic
NOUN
1A person believing in or practising religious heresy.
1.1 A person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.
Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsYou abhor the church's teachings? That's worse Jacob, before you were merely a heretic. Now you're an apostate!
Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsYou abhor the church's teachings? That's worse Jacob, before you were merely a heretic. Now you're an apostate!
You're a bad Catholic, Jacob. It'll take more than a couple of Hail Marys and a bit of loose change in the plate, quite irredeemable I'm afraid.
Yes it is, actually. As a layperson, it is not your place to question the clergy. Are they not ordained into God's true church? Do they not follow a strict chain of command all the way up to the Pope, who is of course His representative on earth? If they have committed heresy, that is for whoever is directly above them to decide and address. If you disagree with a clergyman who is fully sanctioned by his superior and by extension the Church as a whole, it is you who is committing heresy, not him.It is not heretical to point out heresy, and corruption committed by those in the Church, many including members of the clergy have done that.Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
Yes it is, actually. As a layperson, it is not your place to question the clergy. Are they not ordained into God's true church? Do they not follow a strict chain of command all the way up to the Pope, who is of course His representative on earth? If they have committed heresy, that is for whoever is directly above them to decide and address. If you disagree with a clergyman who is fully sanctioned by his superior and by extension the Church as a whole, it is you who is committing heresy, not him.It is not heretical to point out heresy, and corruption committed by those in the Church, many including members of the clergy have done that.Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
And V2 were teachings of the church, apostate!Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsYou abhor the church's teachings? That's worse Jacob, before you were merely a heretic. Now you're an apostate!
You're a bad Catholic, Jacob. It'll take more than a couple of Hail Marys and a bit of loose change in the plate, quite irredeemable I'm afraid.
I do not abhor the Church's teachings, I abhor the changes they made in Vatican 2.
And V2 were teachings of the church, apostate!Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsYou abhor the church's teachings? That's worse Jacob, before you were merely a heretic. Now you're an apostate!
You're a bad Catholic, Jacob. It'll take more than a couple of Hail Marys and a bit of loose change in the plate, quite irredeemable I'm afraid.
I do not abhor the Church's teachings, I abhor the changes they made in Vatican 2.
It's fascinating to watch how a fundies brain builds little protective walls of hot air around absurdities. Folks, I present cognitive dissonance in action!
Reforms in practices about what and how they teach at the pulpit heretic.
And your suicide defence of a blatant contradiction is noted. Of course it makes Jacob Harrison look like more of a twat but it shifts attention away from rape and forced abortions in the RCC.
Trying to atone for your heresy and apostasy eh Jacob? Or do you merely conclude that any sin is forgivable so long as it defends Mother Church?
Now, that is VERY Catholic!
Your petty, pointless hairsplitting not withstanding, you really are doing this to derail the discussion away from Priests buying abortions for Nuns they raped.
Dunno why, seeing as you're not actually Catholic. Just a weird, archaic cosplay version of such.
Maybe you're Catholic in an alternate universe?
Yes it is, actually. As a layperson, it is not your place to question the clergy. Are they not ordained into God's true church? Do they not follow a strict chain of command all the way up to the Pope, who is of course His representative on earth? If they have committed heresy, that is for whoever is directly above them to decide and address. If you disagree with a clergyman who is fully sanctioned by his superior and by extension the Church as a whole, it is you who is committing heresy, not him.It is not heretical to point out heresy, and corruption committed by those in the Church, many including members of the clergy have done that.Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
The Church is only infallible when the Pope defines a Doctrine concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire Church. There is a chain of command, but corruption can and has set foot in the Church all the way up to the Pope himself. Pope Francis not to long ago committed heresy by denying the existence of hell.
As I noted earlier in this essay, some have attempted to lay the blame for the problem
of abuse on shifting attitudes to sexual morality that arose post—Vatican II. Moral
relativism is viewed as a significant contributor to the problem, if not its major cause.
It is important to review the evidence for such a claim as it has consequences for the
ongoing formation of priests and religious. The proposal is suggesting that the older,
more strict forms of formation, where morality was more black and white, together
with the reintroduction of older forms of piety, would help alleviate the problem of
sexual abuse in the church.
It is not difficult to find evidence which would call this proposal into question. In
fact the most notorious cases of sexual abuse in the Australian church occurred in
institutional settings in the 1940s-60s by men (and sometimes women) who were
thoroughly trained in the strict morality and rigorous piety of the' pre—Vatican II
church. There are two such cases that come to mind. The first was the abuse of young
boys at Bindoon, Castledare, Clontarf and Tardun in Western Australia by Christian
Brothers running those institutions. As a Senate report into the abuse there noted:
4.2 The accounts of sexual abuse and assault at these four institutions are horrendous,
supporting and amplifying the UK Committee's description of 'quite exceptional
depravity'. The stories from the ex-residents of Bindoon, Castledare, Clontarf, and
Tardun provide all account of systemic criminal sexual assault and predatory behaviour
by a large number of the Brothers over a considerable period of time. Evidence was
given of boys being abused in many ways for the sexual gratification of the Brothers,
of boys being terrified in bed at night as Brothers stalked the dormitories to come
and take children to their rooms, of boys as pets' of the Brothers being repeatedly
sodomised, and of boys being pressured into bestial acts.
This is a damning indictment of those who perpetrated the abuse in those institutions.
What adds to the tragedy, however, is that these abusive activities were known to
church authorities and they did not act to protect the boys under their care.
A sinular, if less well-known occurrence, was in the orphanage at Neerkol, in the
Rockhampton diocese.
One priest who served as the resident priest at the orphanage
had a fifteen-year reign of terror with the children there, sexually abusing young
boys repeatedly, often as they served as altar boys going to and from Mass in outlying
churches.This abuse occurred in the 1950s and 1960s and cannot be attributed to any
slackening in training or moral formation due to the influence of Vatican 2. This
priest eventually died as a respected and loved figure in the Rockhampton Catholic
community without his history of abuse ever coming to light during his lifetime. His
successor at the orphanage, however, was eventually imprisoned at the age of eighty for
his sexual abuse of children in his pastoral care
Retired nurse Mary Adams, 64, suffered repeated emotional, physical and sexual mistreatment at the hands of nuns and priests at the Neerkol orphanage near Rockhampton in the 1950s and 1960s, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard.
Sobbing uncontrollably at times, Ms Adams told the hearing in Rockhampton she was punched, slapped, pulled by her hair and on one occasion flogged with a skipping rope so forcefully she struggled to walk for days.
Boys who tried to run away from Neerkol were publicly flogged with horse whips, and those who wet the bed were forced to stand with the soiled sheets draped over their heads.
Ms Adams recounted how when aged 12 she confided in a visiting priest, and he tried to rape her.
Another priest repeatedly molested her while she was billeted to a foster carer in Mackay, the commission heard.
She later received $20,000 compensation from the Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton and the Sisters of Mercy, who ran the orphanage.
However, Ms Adams said she felt let down by the former Catholic bishop of the Rockhampton diocese Brian Heenan, who she said hadn’t made any real attempt to identify the priest who sexually assaulted her at Neerkol.
The whole "Vatican 2 caused all the pervy priests" is a popular dodge amongst traditionalist Catholics wanting to lampshade the whole affair, but (https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/victims-of-a-reign-of-terror-conducted-by-nuns-at-central-queensland-orphanage-to-tell-their-stories/news-story/673cad0044f0831afcdaa485cdcdd6c0)it's bullshit. (https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/IND.0595.001.0024.pdf)Quote
As I noted earlier in this essay, some have attempted to lay the blame for the problem
of abuse on shifting attitudes to sexual morality that arose post—Vatican II. Moral
relativism is viewed as a significant contributor to the problem, if not its major cause.
It is important to review the evidence for such a claim as it has consequences for the
ongoing formation of priests and religious. The proposal is suggesting that the older,
more strict forms of formation, where morality was more black and white, together
with the reintroduction of older forms of piety, would help alleviate the problem of
sexual abuse in the church.
It is not difficult to find evidence which would call this proposal into question. In
fact the most notorious cases of sexual abuse in the Australian church occurred in
institutional settings in the 1940s-60s by men (and sometimes women) who were
thoroughly trained in the strict morality and rigorous piety of the' pre—Vatican II
church. There are two such cases that come to mind. The first was the abuse of young
boys at Bindoon, Castledare, Clontarf and Tardun in Western Australia by Christian
Brothers running those institutions. As a Senate report into the abuse there noted:
4.2 The accounts of sexual abuse and assault at these four institutions are horrendous,
supporting and amplifying the UK Committee's description of 'quite exceptional
depravity'. The stories from the ex-residents of Bindoon, Castledare, Clontarf, and
Tardun provide all account of systemic criminal sexual assault and predatory behaviour
by a large number of the Brothers over a considerable period of time. Evidence was
given of boys being abused in many ways for the sexual gratification of the Brothers,
of boys being terrified in bed at night as Brothers stalked the dormitories to come
and take children to their rooms, of boys as pets' of the Brothers being repeatedly
sodomised, and of boys being pressured into bestial acts.
This is a damning indictment of those who perpetrated the abuse in those institutions.
What adds to the tragedy, however, is that these abusive activities were known to
church authorities and they did not act to protect the boys under their care.
A sinular, if less well-known occurrence, was in the orphanage at Neerkol, in the
Rockhampton diocese.
One priest who served as the resident priest at the orphanage
had a fifteen-year reign of terror with the children there, sexually abusing young
boys repeatedly, often as they served as altar boys going to and from Mass in outlying
churches.This abuse occurred in the 1950s and 1960s and cannot be attributed to any
slackening in training or moral formation due to the influence of Vatican 2. This
priest eventually died as a respected and loved figure in the Rockhampton Catholic
community without his history of abuse ever coming to light during his lifetime. His
successor at the orphanage, however, was eventually imprisoned at the age of eighty for
his sexual abuse of children in his pastoral careQuoteRetired nurse Mary Adams, 64, suffered repeated emotional, physical and sexual mistreatment at the hands of nuns and priests at the Neerkol orphanage near Rockhampton in the 1950s and 1960s, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard.
Sobbing uncontrollably at times, Ms Adams told the hearing in Rockhampton she was punched, slapped, pulled by her hair and on one occasion flogged with a skipping rope so forcefully she struggled to walk for days.
Boys who tried to run away from Neerkol were publicly flogged with horse whips, and those who wet the bed were forced to stand with the soiled sheets draped over their heads.
Ms Adams recounted how when aged 12 she confided in a visiting priest, and he tried to rape her.
Another priest repeatedly molested her while she was billeted to a foster carer in Mackay, the commission heard.
She later received $20,000 compensation from the Catholic Diocese of Rockhampton and the Sisters of Mercy, who ran the orphanage.
However, Ms Adams said she felt let down by the former Catholic bishop of the Rockhampton diocese Brian Heenan, who she said hadn’t made any real attempt to identify the priest who sexually assaulted her at Neerkol.
Hence your claim that the sexual abuse of adult nuns occuring only after Vatican 2 is very doubtful if pre Vatican 2 they couldn't even keep their horrid claws off children!
Also consider the case of this nun who entered a covenant pre Vatican 2 where she was abused (https://jezebel.com/nun-abuse-how-my-mother-a-former-nun-suffered-at-the-1742877082), abusive cultures of secrecy take years to develop.
The only difference between the Church pre and post Vatican 2 in terms of sexual abuse has been more willingness among victims to speak out about the abuses. Now that the RCC has been dragged kicking and screaming into the light it's ugliness is plain for all to see. That's why the likes of you miss the 'good old days' when priests were above reproach and few dared challenge them.
Yes it is, actually. As a layperson, it is not your place to question the clergy. Are they not ordained into God's true church? Do they not follow a strict chain of command all the way up to the Pope, who is of course His representative on earth? If they have committed heresy, that is for whoever is directly above them to decide and address. If you disagree with a clergyman who is fully sanctioned by his superior and by extension the Church as a whole, it is you who is committing heresy, not him.It is not heretical to point out heresy, and corruption committed by those in the Church, many including members of the clergy have done that.Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
The Church is only infallible when the Pope defines a Doctrine concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire Church. There is a chain of command, but corruption can and has set foot in the Church all the way up to the Pope himself. Pope Francis not to long ago committed heresy by denying the existence of hell.
If that's the case, then it's still not your place to say. Only a future Pope can decide whether or not his predecessor is wrong. As a laymember of the church, yours is only to listen and accept and never ever question the word of the clergy. If they are ever wrong, then those above them will correct their mistake, not you. If you think you know better than even the lowest ranking ordained clergy, much less the Pope himself, then it is you who is a heretic, not them.
It's official church doctrine, at least for the traditionalists, which you claim to be. Only the priests and higher clergy have the training and ultimate blessing of God through the Church to read and interpret the scriptures. For the non-ordained, it is their place only to listen to the priest of their parish (this is why both Mass and the Bible were in Latin for the longest time, and why the church was so opposed to it being conducted/printed in other languages that are actually spoken by people). It is simply heresy for you as a layperson to say that any non-excommunicated clergyman is wrong. There's no other way to slice it.Yes it is, actually. As a layperson, it is not your place to question the clergy. Are they not ordained into God's true church? Do they not follow a strict chain of command all the way up to the Pope, who is of course His representative on earth? If they have committed heresy, that is for whoever is directly above them to decide and address. If you disagree with a clergyman who is fully sanctioned by his superior and by extension the Church as a whole, it is you who is committing heresy, not him.It is not heretical to point out heresy, and corruption committed by those in the Church, many including members of the clergy have done that.Ok, while I abhor the Vatican 2 reforms, I guess the reforms itself are not heretical. However heresy and corruption has sprung out of the Church as a result of the reformsSays you, or an ordained clergyman of higher rank than those accused of said heresy and/or corruption?
The Church is only infallible when the Pope defines a Doctrine concerning faith or morals to be upheld by the entire Church. There is a chain of command, but corruption can and has set foot in the Church all the way up to the Pope himself. Pope Francis not to long ago committed heresy by denying the existence of hell.
If that's the case, then it's still not your place to say. Only a future Pope can decide whether or not his predecessor is wrong. As a laymember of the church, yours is only to listen and accept and never ever question the word of the clergy. If they are ever wrong, then those above them will correct their mistake, not you. If you think you know better than even the lowest ranking ordained clergy, much less the Pope himself, then it is you who is a heretic, not them.
Nowhere in the Catechism does it say that.
Of course it began shortly before Vatican 2 when the corrupt clergy who later presided over Vatican 2 began to infiltrate the Church but it wasn’t until Vatican 2 that the coverup went all the way up to the Vatican
At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the issue of sexual abuse by clergy and religious had not yet surfaced with the ferocity that would emerge in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not surprising then that the issue does not rate a mention in the various documents that arose from the council's deliberations. In that sense there is a certain`innocence' about the documents, for they were written at a time when the church still enjoyed a relatively unquestioned obedience from its laity (at least until the storm over Humanae Vitae), and strong respect from society, as a moral authority to be listened to and esteemed. In many countries, church institutions existed in a protected space, either officially through church—state concordats or unofficially through networks of power and influence that the church could call on to protect itself from overt scandal. Police could be trusted to allow church authorities to `deal' with matters through internal processes, and newspaper editors to keep matters off the front page. This situation was not to last in the decades following the council.
Of course it began shortly before Vatican 2 when the corrupt clergy who later presided over Vatican 2 began to infiltrate the Church but it wasn’t until Vatican 2 that the coverup went all the way up to the Vatican
(https://i.imgflip.com/1733vy.jpg)
You intellectually dishonest little hack!
From the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse. (https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/IND.0595.001.0024.pdf)QuoteAt the time of the Second Vatican Council, the issue of sexual abuse by clergy and religious had not yet surfaced with the ferocity that would emerge in the 1980s and 1990s. It is not surprising then that the issue does not rate a mention in the various documents that arose from the council's deliberations. In that sense there is a certain`innocence' about the documents, for they were written at a time when the church still enjoyed a relatively unquestioned obedience from its laity (at least until the storm over Humanae Vitae), and strong respect from society, as a moral authority to be listened to and esteemed. In many countries, church institutions existed in a protected space, either officially through church—state concordats or unofficially through networks of power and influence that the church could call on to protect itself from overt scandal. Police could be trusted to allow church authorities to `deal' with matters through internal processes, and newspaper editors to keep matters off the front page. This situation was not to last in the decades following the council.
Note the highlighted text, it wasn't that the church was magically free from predatory priests while they were still barking at their flock in the language of the iron age Empire that nailed Christ to a tree, it was that the lustre and protected status of the church wore off and people increasingly had the confidence to question its bullshit.
Good thing too or they'd be sweeping it under the carpet even more than they're continuing to do so!
How do you know that there weren't incidents like this before?
...
a) A lot of organizations have had a strict moral code and there still have been people breaking that code and covering it up.
b) Rape is still a pretty fucking bit deal as far as crimes go but the Catholic church is notable for covering up rape, punishing the victims and letting the rapists off with a slap on their wrist whenever they have a chance.
c) Don't you think that a grown person raping a child is bad even if it isn't gay sex? Because society as a whole thinks that is a lot worse than just homosexuality.
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
Well over 80 years ago, there would be records of victims reporting cases to secular authorities.
And the Catholic Church considers Pope Alexander VI to be one of the bad popes for breaking the Church’s code of celibacy.
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
Well over 80 years ago, there would be records of victims reporting cases to secular authorities.
And the Catholic Church considers Pope Alexander VI to be one of the bad popes for breaking the Church’s code of celibacy.
80 years ago, secular authorities were, as already noted, even more subservient to Christianity than they are today.
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
Well over 80 years ago, there would be records of victims reporting cases to secular authorities.
And the Catholic Church considers Pope Alexander VI to be one of the bad popes for breaking the Church’s code of celibacy.
80 years ago, secular authorities were, as already noted, even more subservient to Christianity than they are today.
Well the United States was majority Protestant so the authorities in the US 80 years ago would not be subservient to the Catholic Church, so such scandals in the United States would be reported
Guys I'm pretty sure Jacob's brain is so wrapped up in fucking his second cousin, who's a lesbian now that niam had his cock in her mind, that he can't actually think of anything rational.
Ironbite-pretty sure we can put this one to bed
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
Well over 80 years ago, there would be records of victims reporting cases to secular authorities.
And the Catholic Church considers Pope Alexander VI to be one of the bad popes for breaking the Church’s code of celibacy.
80 years ago, secular authorities were, as already noted, even more subservient to Christianity than they are today.
Well the United States was majority Protestant so the authorities in the US 80 years ago would not be subservient to the Catholic Church, so such scandals in the United States would be reported
No, because you're missing the other side of the problem: the grip which the Church had on its laity. Those who were abused by clergy would have been afraid to admit it to anyone because of the fear and obedience instilled in them by the Church.
You're assuming that these incidents would even have been reported. The Church (and Christianity generally) had a far firmer grip on Western society eighty years ago, so it's entirely possible victims would never have come forward, and also, the people who would have been abused then would be around ninety years old by now.
Plus, records can be destroyed.
And anyway, the Church has had sex scandals going back centuries--look at how many children Roderic de Borja had, by mistresses no less. (He acknowledged four; some sources claim he had up to six more.)
If he were Pope now, of course, he probably would have forced his mistresses to have abortions.
Well over 80 years ago, there would be records of victims reporting cases to secular authorities.
And the Catholic Church considers Pope Alexander VI to be one of the bad popes for breaking the Church’s code of celibacy.
80 years ago, secular authorities were, as already noted, even more subservient to Christianity than they are today.
Well the United States was majority Protestant so the authorities in the US 80 years ago would not be subservient to the Catholic Church, so such scandals in the United States would be reported
No, because you're missing the other side of the problem: the grip which the Church had on its laity. Those who were abused by clergy would have been afraid to admit it to anyone because of the fear and obedience instilled in them by the Church.
Because victims were too scared of the Church to report it and police were too deferential to religion generally, and by the time this stuff was exposed the victims from before then were really old?
Because victims were too scared of the Church to report it and police were too deferential to religion generally, and by the time this stuff was exposed the victims from before then were really old?
The scandal was first revealed in the 1980s and 1990s, so those who lived before the 1940s would not be old enough that they would be dead.
Because victims were too scared of the Church to report it and police were too deferential to religion generally, and by the time this stuff was exposed the victims from before then were really old?
The scandal was first revealed in the 1980s and 1990s, so those who lived before the 1940s would not be old enough that they would be dead.
Their indoctrination (both religious and cultural) would also be even heavier, and so they would be more mentally resistant to speaking out against religion.
Because victims were too scared of the Church to report it and police were too deferential to religion generally, and by the time this stuff was exposed the victims from before then were really old?
The scandal was first revealed in the 1980s and 1990s, so those who lived before the 1940s would not be old enough that they would be dead.
Their indoctrination (both religious and cultural) would also be even heavier, and so they would be more mentally resistant to speaking out against religion.
But in the wake of a scandal being exposed, they would want to reveal what happened realizing that they are not alone.
Because victims were too scared of the Church to report it and police were too deferential to religion generally, and by the time this stuff was exposed the victims from before then were really old?
The scandal was first revealed in the 1980s and 1990s, so those who lived before the 1940s would not be old enough that they would be dead.
Their indoctrination (both religious and cultural) would also be even heavier, and so they would be more mentally resistant to speaking out against religion.
But in the wake of a scandal being exposed, they would want to reveal what happened realizing that they are not alone.
Not necessarily, their indoctrination is deeper and so they may be more afraid of going to Hell, and of social ostracization, if they speak out against the Church.
As I said cultures of abuse take a long time to develop. Regardless I note Harrison has shifted from "naughty priests are a result of V2" to "naughty priests are a result of a cultural shift that happened at an arbitary time before V2 who's boundries I'll redefine if you evidence me again. "
Because falsifiable claims can be toppled and if you can't convince them-gaslight 'em, right Jake?
There's also the fact that the clergy who aided and abetted coverups, like George Pell were more conservative and less liberal in their beliefs. Jacob shows us why in fact, when confronted uncomfortable beliefs the believer in strict Catholic morality has no qualms about gaslighting, goalpost shifting, intellectual honesty or truth so long as they are defending the lily-white facade of Mother Church.
ROME - A major report airing tonight on Swedish television documents four clerical sexual abuse cases, with previously unknown details on three of them, within the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist breakaway group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
At the center of the report are four different men. Three are priests, who remain in active ministry, and one is a former seminarian and volunteer at a church run by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Idaho who’s been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of abusing seven boys over the course of a decade. (https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/05/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/)
Well, lookie here.QuoteROME - A major report airing tonight on Swedish television documents four clerical sexual abuse cases, with previously unknown details on three of them, within the Society of St. Pius X, a traditionalist breakaway group founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
At the center of the report are four different men. Three are priests, who remain in active ministry, and one is a former seminarian and volunteer at a church run by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) in Idaho who’s been sentenced to life in prison after being found guilty of abusing seven boys over the course of a decade. (https://cruxnow.com/global-church/2017/04/05/report-charges-cover-traditionalist-society/)
Seems that even priests who reject Vatican II and keep all the Jew-hatin', bells, smells and gibberish Latin mass can't stop beastly priestlies from getting their horrid rookers all over the little ones, or covering it up!
I'm shocked I tells ya, shocked!
Marcel Lefebvre violated Catholic doctrine by doing the same thing Jacob's doing, defying Vatican II. So Jacob tells us that:
Vatican II is heresy.
Padres kicked out of the RCC for violating Vatican II are heretics because they defy the Holy See.
Heretics, heretics everywhere. Heretics, heretics even in my underwear.
Perfectly normal. Stark raving normal!
The Holy See already told him to fuck off for doing what you promote, why the flaming fuck would they approve of his successor?Marcel Lefebvre violated Catholic doctrine by doing the same thing Jacob's doing, defying Vatican II. So Jacob tells us that:
Vatican II is heresy.
Padres kicked out of the RCC for violating Vatican II are heretics because they defy the Holy See.
Heretics, heretics everywhere. Heretics, heretics even in my underwear.
Perfectly normal. Stark raving normal!
His heresy was not defying Vatican 2, his heresy was consecrating his successor without the approval of the Holy See which is violation of Catholic Doctrine
The Holy See already told him to fuck off for doing what you promote, why the flaming fuck would they approve of his successor?Marcel Lefebvre violated Catholic doctrine by doing the same thing Jacob's doing, defying Vatican II. So Jacob tells us that:
Vatican II is heresy.
Padres kicked out of the RCC for violating Vatican II are heretics because they defy the Holy See.
Heretics, heretics everywhere. Heretics, heretics even in my underwear.
Perfectly normal. Stark raving normal!
His heresy was not defying Vatican 2, his heresy was consecrating his successor without the approval of the Holy See which is violation of Catholic Doctrine
It's a breakaway sect, of course they aren't going to get approval.The Holy See already told him to fuck off for doing what you promote, why the flaming fuck would they approve of his successor?Marcel Lefebvre violated Catholic doctrine by doing the same thing Jacob's doing, defying Vatican II. So Jacob tells us that:
Vatican II is heresy.
Padres kicked out of the RCC for violating Vatican II are heretics because they defy the Holy See.
Heretics, heretics everywhere. Heretics, heretics even in my underwear.
Perfectly normal. Stark raving normal!
His heresy was not defying Vatican 2, his heresy was consecrating his successor without the approval of the Holy See which is violation of Catholic Doctrine
Well they do permit some Churches to practice traditional mass. Regardless of whether they would approve of his successor, he committed heresy by consecrating his successor without their approval.
Nothing to say about sex abuse in Eastern Orthodox churches, Jacob?
Nothing to say about sex abuse in Eastern Orthodox churches, Jacob?
It shows that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with such scandals. Sex abuse also happens in some Protestant churches
Nothing to say about sex abuse in Eastern Orthodox churches, Jacob?
It shows that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with such scandals. Sex abuse also happens in some Protestant churches
Agreed.
So it's not Vatican II, then.
As I said, I maintain that it's clericalism.
That won't work, the problem isn't even mainly individual clergy-it's what the churches let them get away with. The problem is that maintaining the appearance of righteousness is more important to churches because they're in the business of public relations. It's the good graces of their flock that keep them in business. The path of least resistance for churches plural, not just the Catholics has been to silence the victims. If you punish the abusers then you have to publicly admit you have a problem which is bad PR.Nothing to say about sex abuse in Eastern Orthodox churches, Jacob?
It shows that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with such scandals. Sex abuse also happens in some Protestant churches
Agreed.
So it's not Vatican II, then.
As I said, I maintain that it's clericalism.
It is evil clergy not the system of clericalism itself that is the problem. There needs to be more righteous clerg6 in the Catholic Church
A recurrent theme in Australian victims’ accounts is how their parents’ religious beliefs
and trust and reverence for members of the clergy meant that they could not conceive of
the possibility that priests could sexually abuse their children and betray their own vows.
Yet there is ample evidence that this trust and reverence was sadly misplaced and the
same caution that would be applied to other members of society needs to be applied to
members of the clergy.
Churches too must increase their index of suspicion about the possibility of priests being
capable of CSA and mandatory reporting of CSA should be introduced for the clergy. In the
Victorian Inquiry, Archbishop Hart in attempting to explain the behaviour of his
predecessor Archbishop Little in keeping no records of abusive priests, described him as a
sensitive man who found it hard to believe that priests could do such ‘evil, evil things’.
Leaving decisions about how to respond to CPCSA and perpetrator priests to the discretion
of Archbishops or anyone else in the Church is totally unacceptable.
The chairman of Catholics for Renewal and chairman of Vincent Care Victoria, Peter
Johnstone, in a submission to the Victorian Inquiry on May 1, 2013, demanded that the
church’s internal abuse response process (The Melbourne Response) was replaced by a
government body and that legal options for victims were strengthened.
That won't work, the problem isn't even mainly individual clergy-it's what the churches let them get away with. The problem is that maintaining the appearance of righteousness is more important to churches because they're in the business of public relations. It's the good graces of their flock that keep them in business. The path of least resistance for churches plural, not just the Catholics has been to silence the victims. If you punish the abusers then you have to publicly admit you have a problem which is bad PR.Nothing to say about sex abuse in Eastern Orthodox churches, Jacob?
It shows that the Roman Catholic Church is not the only Church with such scandals. Sex abuse also happens in some Protestant churches
Agreed.
So it's not Vatican II, then.
As I said, I maintain that it's clericalism.
It is evil clergy not the system of clericalism itself that is the problem. There needs to be more righteous clerg6 in the Catholic Church
In fact, convincing the Church and the faithful that you only have righteous priests working for you now is more likely to exacerbate the problem.
(https://www.psychology.org.au/getmedia/c4d9a79f-e2ce-4d4a-8145-22b8401d2b15/Child-sexual-abuse-in-the-general-community-and-clergy-perpetrated-child-sexual-abuse.pdf.pdf)QuoteA recurrent theme in Australian victims’ accounts is how their parents’ religious beliefs
and trust and reverence for members of the clergy meant that they could not conceive of
the possibility that priests could sexually abuse their children and betray their own vows.
Yet there is ample evidence that this trust and reverence was sadly misplaced and the
same caution that would be applied to other members of society needs to be applied to
members of the clergy.
Churches too must increase their index of suspicion about the possibility of priests being
capable of CSA and mandatory reporting of CSA should be introduced for the clergy. In the
Victorian Inquiry, Archbishop Hart in attempting to explain the behaviour of his
predecessor Archbishop Little in keeping no records of abusive priests, described him as a
sensitive man who found it hard to believe that priests could do such ‘evil, evil things’.
Leaving decisions about how to respond to CPCSA and perpetrator priests to the discretion
of Archbishops or anyone else in the Church is totally unacceptable.
The chairman of Catholics for Renewal and chairman of Vincent Care Victoria, Peter
Johnstone, in a submission to the Victorian Inquiry on May 1, 2013, demanded that the
church’s internal abuse response process (The Melbourne Response) was replaced by a
government body and that legal options for victims were strengthened.
What we need is harsher punishments for anybody in an institution that works with children in any capacity who covers up criminal offenses, bishop covers for a priest, they both share the same cell for the rest of their miserable days. That's how you stop it.
It doesn't just require mandatory reporting, to be truly secure it requires a change in church doctrine
and culture even more sweeping than Vatican II, investigations must take place with the local authorities and priests have to be kicked off their pedestal and treated like any other employee.
It doesn't just require mandatory reporting, to be truly secure it requires a change in church doctrine
and culture even more sweeping than Vatican II, investigations must take place with the local authorities and priests have to be kicked off their pedestal and treated like any other employee.
I agree with the other things but why does the Church have to change it’s doctrine? How would that stop the scandal?
In total, the grand jury found credible allegations against over 300 priests and identified over 1,000 child victims, although they believe the real number of victims is higher.
We, the members of this grand jury, need you to hear this. We know some of you have heard some of it before. There have been other reports about child sex abuse within the Catholic Church. But never on this scale. For many of us, those earlier stories happened someplace else, someplace away. Now we know the truth: it happened everywhere.
We were given the job of investigating child sex abuse in six dioceses - every diocese in the state except Philadelphia and Altoona -Johnstown, which were the subject of previous grand juries. These six dioceses account for 54 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. We heard the testimony of dozens of witnesses concerning clergy sex abuse. We subpoenaed, and reviewed, half a million pages of internal diocesan documents. They contained credible allegations against over three hundred predator priests. Over one thousand child victims were identifiable, from the church's own records. We believe that the real number - of children whose records were lost, or who were afraid ever to come forward - is in the thousands.
Most of the victims were boys; but there were girls too. Some were teens; many were prepubescent. Some were manipulated with alcohol or pornography. Some were made to masturbate their assailants, or were groped by them. Some were raped orally, some vaginally, some anally. But all of them were brushed aside, in every part of the state, by church leaders who preferred to protect the abusers and their institution above all.
As a consequence of the coverup, almost every instance of abuse we found is too old to be prosecuted. But that is not to say there are no more predators. This grand jury has issued presentments against a priest in the Greensburg diocese and a priest in the Erie Diocese, who has been sexually assaulting children within the last decade. We learned of these abusers directly from their dioceses - which we hope is a sign that the church is finally changing its ways. And there may be more indictments in the future; investigation continues.
But we are not satisfied by the few charges we can bring, which represent only a tiny percentage of all the child abusers we saw. We are sick over all the crimes that will go unpunished and uncompensated. This report is our only recourse. We are going to name their names, and describe what they did - both the sex offenders and those who concealed them. We are going to shine a light on their conduct, because that is what the victims deserve. And we are going to make our recommendations for how the laws should change so that maybe no one will have to conduct another inquiry like this one. We hereby exercise our historical and statutory right as grand jurors to inform the public of our findings.
It's a long report. But at least read the introduction.
One victim who came forward was eighty-three years old. Since they were only looking at child sex abuse, that would mean that, even if that testimony was heard this year and the victim was abused shortly before turning 18, the abuse happened no later than 1953.
Vatican II my ass.
Tell me, how old was John XXIII when he called Vatican II? Unless you're saying the conspiracy goes way back, I somehow don't give too much credence to your notion.
EDIT: And, variously, what you're saying amounts to...
(https://i.imgur.com/io2mXtd.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sgeOG9z.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/n0PG58m.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YQFfg7f.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/JnB9Aab.jpg)
And this is how faith destroys intellectual honesty--refusing to accept any facts that contradict what you want to be true.
And this is how faith destroys intellectual honesty--refusing to accept any facts that contradict what you want to be true.
How am I refusing to accept facts. I acknowledge that the pedophile scandal began at a certain time before Vatican II.
And this is how faith destroys intellectual honesty--refusing to accept any facts that contradict what you want to be true.
How am I refusing to accept facts. I acknowledge that the pedophile scandal began at a certain time before Vatican II.
What you're refusing to acknowledge is that the problem goes deeper than just doctrinal laxity.
This grand jury exists because Pennsylvania dioceses routinely hid reports of child sex crimes while the statutes of limitations for those crimes expired. We just do not understand why that should be allowed to happen. If child abusers knew they could never become immune for their crimes by outrunning the statute of limitations, maybe there would be less child abuse.
We know our statute of limitations has been extended recently, so that now abusers can potentially be prosecuted until the victim reaches age 50. And that's good. It just doesn't help a lot of the victims we saw. No piece of legislation can predict the point at which a victim of child sex abuse will find the strength to come forward. And no victim can know whether anyone will believe her, or how long she will have to wait for justice.
If that seems hard to understand, think about Julianne. She was taught without question that priests are superior to other adults, even superior to her own parents - because "they are God in the flesh." So when one of these flesh gods [OMITTED], who was she going to tell? Julianne was 14 when she was assaulted; now she's almost 70.
Or Joe from Scranton. At the time he couldn't find anyone who was willing to hear about the [OMITTED] priest who told him to take off his pants and get into bed. It took 55 years before he found us.
Or Bob, from Reading. He told us "there is not a day that goes by" that he doesn't think about what happened to him. He can't bear to be touched by a man, not even to shake hands, or to hug his own sons. He never reported it, because he thought "I was the only one." But if he could still put that priest on trial, even now, he would. "Somebody has to be accountable," he told us. "This has to stop." Bob is 83.
So yes, we say no statute of limitations at all. Not for this kind of crime. And it's not like we are asking for anything that unusual. It turns out that this is the rule in well over half the states across the country: no free pass for serious sexual violation of children, no matter how long it takes. That includes almost every state in our region, except us. If we lived in New Jersey, or Delaware, or New York or Maryland, we would today be issuing a presentment charging dozens of priests. But because we happen to live here instead, the number is two. Not something for Pennsylvania to be proud of.
We wonder how [the Church and its insurance companies] decide how much is "too much." Maybe they should meet with Al, as we did. Al was abused in sixth grade by a priest who put him in a locked room, [OMITTED]. He managed to slip away and tried hiding under a desk, but the priest found him and told him he would go to hell if he ever told anyone. Afterward, Al flunked the sixth grade and had to repeat it. He began drinking, working up to as much as a bottle of whiskey a day. He started scratching his genitals so hard they would bleed. He thought he must be gay, which made him a mortal sinner. He tried joining the Navy, but was diagnosed with PTSD and eventually discharged. He tried to kill himself on multiple occasions, most recently by hanging himself with a coaxial cable. He was institutionalized in the locked ward of a psychiatric hospital. He wanted to keep going to church, but he would become nauseous and have to throw up when he entered the building.
Maybe, if he'd had money for good medical and psychological resources, Al's life wouldn't have been quite so hard after that priest knocked it off track. Maybe, if he could file a lawsuit now, he could make up for some of the pain and suffering. We wonder what people would think is "too much" money if it had been one of their kids. Al should get his two years back.
QuoteThis grand jury exists because Pennsylvania dioceses routinely hid reports of child sex crimes while the statutes of limitations for those crimes expired. We just do not understand why that should be allowed to happen. If child abusers knew they could never become immune for their crimes by outrunning the statute of limitations, maybe there would be less child abuse.
We know our statute of limitations has been extended recently, so that now abusers can potentially be prosecuted until the victim reaches age 50. And that's good. It just doesn't help a lot of the victims we saw. No piece of legislation can predict the point at which a victim of child sex abuse will find the strength to come forward. And no victim can know whether anyone will believe her, or how long she will have to wait for justice.
If that seems hard to understand, think about Julianne. She was taught without question that priests are superior to other adults, even superior to her own parents - because "they are God in the flesh." So when one of these flesh gods [OMITTED], who was she going to tell? Julianne was 14 when she was assaulted; now she's almost 70.
Or Joe from Scranton. At the time he couldn't find anyone who was willing to hear about the [OMITTED] priest who told him to take off his pants and get into bed. It took 55 years before he found us.
Or Bob, from Reading. He told us "there is not a day that goes by" that he doesn't think about what happened to him. He can't bear to be touched by a man, not even to shake hands, or to hug his own sons. He never reported it, because he thought "I was the only one." But if he could still put that priest on trial, even now, he would. "Somebody has to be accountable," he told us. "This has to stop." Bob is 83.
So yes, we say no statute of limitations at all. Not for this kind of crime. And it's not like we are asking for anything that unusual. It turns out that this is the rule in well over half the states across the country: no free pass for serious sexual violation of children, no matter how long it takes. That includes almost every state in our region, except us. If we lived in New Jersey, or Delaware, or New York or Maryland, we would today be issuing a presentment charging dozens of priests. But because we happen to live here instead, the number is two. Not something for Pennsylvania to be proud of.
(omissions and emphasis mine; pp. 310-311)
EDIT:QuoteWe wonder how [the Church and its insurance companies] decide how much is "too much." Maybe they should meet with Al, as we did. Al was abused in sixth grade by a priest who put him in a locked room, [OMITTED]. He managed to slip away and tried hiding under a desk, but the priest found him and told him he would go to hell if he ever told anyone. Afterward, Al flunked the sixth grade and had to repeat it. He began drinking, working up to as much as a bottle of whiskey a day. He started scratching his genitals so hard they would bleed. He thought he must be gay, which made him a mortal sinner. He tried joining the Navy, but was diagnosed with PTSD and eventually discharged. He tried to kill himself on multiple occasions, most recently by hanging himself with a coaxial cable. He was institutionalized in the locked ward of a psychiatric hospital. He wanted to keep going to church, but he would become nauseous and have to throw up when he entered the building.
Maybe, if he'd had money for good medical and psychological resources, Al's life wouldn't have been quite so hard after that priest knocked it off track. Maybe, if he could file a lawsuit now, he could make up for some of the pain and suffering. We wonder what people would think is "too much" money if it had been one of their kids. Al should get his two years back.
(omission and emphasis mine; pp. 312-313)
This is not doctrinal laxity. This is a problem with the doctrine itself.
It's a problem with the doctrine that's taught to the laity, and also a problem with internal Church doctrine that elevated protecting the Church itself above protecting the laity or the public at large.
The doctrine taught to the laity enables abusive priests, because it makes the laity afraid to question them and their actions.
As for a "noble" Pope, no Pope would dare do that because it would expose the sheer moral depravity of the Church and bring the entire institution into irreparable disrepute. Nobody would trust that all the offenders had been purged.
They've tried reporting the abuse to higher-ups in the Church, it's been ignored. What needs to happen is that the Church needs to make it very, very plain that not only can the laity report abuse to secular authorities, they should and must. (As should the Church itself.)
The Catholic Church can no longer be trusted to police itself.
Do you have any evidence to support this conspiracy theory of yours?It's a long report. But at least read the introduction.
One victim who came forward was eighty-three years old. Since they were only looking at child sex abuse, that would mean that, even if that testimony was heard this year and the victim was abused shortly before turning 18, the abuse happened no later than 1953.
Vatican II my ass.
As I keep saying, corrupt clergy began infiltrating the Church before Vatican II and Vatican II was a result of that.
Do you have any evidence to support this conspiracy theory of yours?It's a long report. But at least read the introduction.
One victim who came forward was eighty-three years old. Since they were only looking at child sex abuse, that would mean that, even if that testimony was heard this year and the victim was abused shortly before turning 18, the abuse happened no later than 1953.
Vatican II my ass.
As I keep saying, corrupt clergy began infiltrating the Church before Vatican II and Vatican II was a result of that.
Man, I know you guys like to claim pedos and homos are the same thing but if Catholics actually remotely believed that we'd see the post V2 church pouring resources into protecting gay rights advocates, not child molesting priests who also rape nuns (women) and girls (girls).
And the absence of evidence is not evidence, try harder!
Well your weird denim fetish and cousin fixation has only left you as boring as you ever were, I think it's safe to say the gays having consensual adult sex won't turn into pedo-werewolves anytime soon.
You have zero evidence that a cabal of liberal, gay pederasts infiltrated the church in the 1950s. The entire conspiracy theory comes from your cavernous butthole, same as your other theory that the normal, consensual behaviors you feel icky lead to a miasma of child and nun rapin'.
You don't have to try to justify your irrational bigotry to us. We know you're an arsehole, we don't need your sad excuses for being such!
Well your weird denim fetish and cousin fixation has only left you as boring as you ever were, I think it's safe to say the gays having consensual adult sex won't turn into pedo-werewolves anytime soon.
You have zero evidence that a cabal of liberal, gay pederasts infiltrated the church in the 1950s. The entire conspiracy theory comes from your cavernous butthole, same as your other theory that the normal, consensual behaviors you feel icky lead to a miasma of child and nun rapin'.
You don't have to try to justify your irrational bigotry to us. We know you're an arsehole, we don't need your sad excuses for being such!
It probably wasn’t an entire cabal, it was many different pedophiles and corrupt officials infiltrating over various periods of time. And I know that most gays are not pedophiles. I am saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are both results that occur when people go down a path of sexual perversions. And none of that changes the fact that the Congregation of the Servants of the Parcalete while originally dealing with alcoholism started dealing with a increasing amount of sexual cases, both heterosexual and homosexual indicating that is was a new thing. You have no proof that the scandal went back before the 1940s.
Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The sexual abuse scandal in Los Angeles archdiocese covered events that were documented beginning in the 1930s, but most publicity was related to events of the 1970s through 1990s. Priests accused of molesting children or adults in the parish were typically reassigned, without informing new parishes of charges against them, as the church protected its staff. Changes in policy took place, a dozen priests were dismissed in 2002, the church issued an apology and detailed report in 2004, and in 2007, the Archdiocese reached a settlement with 508 victims of $660 million, a recordbreaking amount
Well your weird denim fetish and cousin fixation has only left you as boring as you ever were, I think it's safe to say the gays having consensual adult sex won't turn into pedo-werewolves anytime soon.
You have zero evidence that a cabal of liberal, gay pederasts infiltrated the church in the 1950s. The entire conspiracy theory comes from your cavernous butthole, same as your other theory that the normal, consensual behaviors you feel icky lead to a miasma of child and nun rapin'.
You don't have to try to justify your irrational bigotry to us. We know you're an arsehole, we don't need your sad excuses for being such!
It probably wasn’t an entire cabal, it was many different pedophiles and corrupt officials infiltrating over various periods of time. And I know that most gays are not pedophiles. I am saying that homosexuality and pedophilia are both results that occur when people go down a path of sexual perversions. And none of that changes the fact that the Congregation of the Servants of the Parcalete while originally dealing with alcoholism started dealing with a increasing amount of sexual cases, both heterosexual and homosexual indicating that is was a new thing. You have no proof that the scandal went back before the 1940s.
From the font of all knowledge. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Catholic_archdiocese_of_Los_Angeles)QuoteSexual abuse scandal in the Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
The sexual abuse scandal in Los Angeles archdiocese covered events that were documented beginning in the 1930s, but most publicity was related to events of the 1970s through 1990s. Priests accused of molesting children or adults in the parish were typically reassigned, without informing new parishes of charges against them, as the church protected its staff. Changes in policy took place, a dozen priests were dismissed in 2002, the church issued an apology and detailed report in 2004, and in 2007, the Archdiocese reached a settlement with 508 victims of $660 million, a recordbreaking amount
Cue goalpost shift in 5,4,3,2...
Fuck off Jacob!
I never clIaimed pedos and homos are the same thing, however one perversion leads to another.
Most of the alleged victims were not raped: they were groped or otherwise abused, but not penetrated, which is what the word “rape” means. This is not a defense—it is meant to set the record straight and debunk the worst case scenarios attributed to the offenders.
Furthermore, Church officials were not following a “playbook” for using terms such as “inappropriate contact”—they were following the lexicon established by the John Jay professors.
Examples of non-rape sexual abuse found in the John Jay report include “touching under the victim’s clothes” (the most common act alleged); “sexual talk”; “shown pornography”; “touch over cleric’s clothes”; “cleric disrobed”; “victim disrobed”; “photos of victims”; “sexual games”; and “hugging and kissing.” These are the kinds of acts recorded in the grand jury report as well, and as bad as they are, they do not constitute “rape.”
Myth: Over 300 priests were found guilty of preying on youngsters in Pennsylvania.
Fact: No one was found guilty of anything. Yet that didn't stop CBS from saying "300 'predator priests' abused more than 1,000 children over a period of 70 years." These are all accusations, most of which were never verified by either the grand jury or the dioceses.
During the seven decades under investigation by the grand jury, there were over 5,000 priests serving in Pennsylvania (this includes two dioceses not covered in the report). Therefore, the percent of priests who had an accusation made against them is quite small, offering a much different picture than what the media afford. And remember, most of these accusations were never substantiated.
Importantly, in almost all cases, the accused named in the report was never afforded the right to rebut the charges. That is because the report was investigative, not evidentiary, though the report's summary suggests that it is authoritative. It manifestly is not.
There are some cases that are so old that they are unbelievable. Consider the case of Father Joseph M. Ganter. Born in 1892, he was accused in 2008 by an 80-year-old man of abusing him in the 1930s. Obviously, nothing came of it. But the priest was accustomed to such charges.
In 1945, at the request of Father Ganter, a Justice of the Peace interviewed three teenage males who had made accusations against him. Not only did they give conflicting stories, the three admitted that they were never abused by Ganter. But don't look to the media to highlight this case, or others like it.
Myth: The report was warranted because of the on-going crisis in the Catholic Church.
Fact: There is no on-going crisis—it's a total myth. In fact, there is no institution, private or public, that has less of a problem with the sexual abuse of minors today than the Catholic Church. How do I know?
Over the past two years, .005 percent of the Catholic clergy have had a credible accusation made against him. No one knows exactly what the figure is for other institutions, but if there were a grand jury investigation of the sexual abuse of minors in the public schools, people's heads would explode—it would make the Catholic Church's problems look like Little League. But no district attorney or attorney general has the guts to probe the public schools.
To single out the Catholic Church—without ever investigating any other institution—is akin to doing an investigation of crime in low-income minority neighborhoods while allowing white-collar crimes committed in the suburbs to go scot-free, and then concluding that non-whites are criminally prone. That would be a scam. So is cherry picking the Catholic Church.
Myth: The grand jury report was initiated to make the guilty pay.
Fact: False. It has nothing to do with punishing the guilty. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh "Salacious" Shapiro admitted on August 14 that "Almost every instance of child abuse (the grand jury) found was too old to be prosecuted." He's right. But he knew that from the get-go, so why did he pursue this dead end?
Kane and Shapiro have never sought to shame imams, ministers, or rabbis—they just want to shame priests. Nor will they conduct a probe of psychologists, psychiatrists, camp counselors, coaches, guidance counselors, or any other segment of society where adults routinely interact with minors.
In most states, public school students have 90 days to report an offense. That's it. Which means it is too late for a student raped by a public school teacher to file suit if the crime occurred this year at the start of the baseball season. Public institutions are governed under the corrupt doctrine of sovereign immunity, and few politicians have the courage to challenge it.
The reason we have statutes of limitation is because many witnesses are either dead or their memories have faded. The public school industry understands the importance of this due process measure, and rightfully protests when it is in jeopardy. So why is it that when bishops make the exact same argument, they are condemned for obstructing justice? The hypocrisy is nauseating.
Myth: The priests "raped" their victims.
Shapiro said that "Church officials routinely and purposely described the abuse as horseplay and wrestling and inappropriate contact. It was none of those things." He said it was "rape." Similarly, the New York Times quoted from the report saying that Church officials used such terms as "horseplay" and "inappropriate contact" as part of their "playbook for concealing the truth."
Fact: This is an obscene lie. Most of the alleged victims were not raped: they were groped or otherwise abused, but not penetrated, which is what the word "rape" means. This is not a defense—it is meant to set the record straight and debunk the worst case scenarios attributed to the offenders.
Furthermore, Church officials were not following a "playbook" for using terms such as "inappropriate contact"—they were following the lexicon established by the John Jay professors.
Examples of non-rape sexual abuse found in the John Jay report include "touching under the victim's clothes" (the most common act alleged); "sexual talk"; "shown pornography"; "touch over cleric's clothes"; "cleric disrobed"; "victim disrobed"; "photos of victims"; "sexual games"; and "hugging and kissing." These are the kinds of acts recorded in the grand jury report as well, and as bad as they are, they do not constitute "rape."
The report, and CBS, are also wrong to say that all of the accused are priests. In fact, some were brothers, some were deacons, and some were seminarians.
...
Here's the truth: In over 1300 pages, the word "horseplay" appears once! To top it off, it was used to describe the behavior of a seminarian, not a priest.
Myth: The abusive priests were pedophiles.
Fact: This is the greatest lie of them all, repeated non-stop by the media, and late-night talk TV hosts.
There have been two scandals related to the sexual abuse of minors in the Catholic Church. Scandal I involves the enabling bishops who covered it up. Scandal II involves the media cover-up of the role played by gay molesters.
Let me repeat what I have often said. Most gay priests are not molesters, but most of the molesters have been gay. Not to admit this—and this includes many bishops who are still living in a state of denial about it—means the problem will continue. Indeed, there are reports today about seminaries in Boston and Honduras that are disturbing.
[M]ost men who molest little boys are not gay. Only 21 percent of the child molesters we studied who assault little boys were exclusively homosexual. Nearly 80 percent of the men who molested little boys were heterosexual or bisexual and most of these men were married and had children of their own.
They see the boy as a projected representation of themselves. They feel themselves to be more child than adult – more boys than men – and therefore find themselves more comfortable (especially sexually) in the company of children....
How do I know that most of the problem is gay-driven? The data are indisputable.
The John Jay study found that 81 percent of the victims were male, 78 percent of whom were postpubescent. Now if 100 percent of the victimizers are male, and most of the victims are postpubescent males, that is a problem called homosexuality. There is no getting around it.
The New York Times, which has been covering up for homosexuals for decades...
Myth: Cardinal Donald Wuerl is so guilty that he needs to resign.
Fact: This accusation, made by a CBS reporter, as well as others, is based on pure ignorance, if not malice. Shapiro played the same game when he lamented how "Bishop Wuerl" became "Cardinal Wuerl" after he allegedly "mishandl[ed] abuse claims." This is a scurrilous statement.
No bishop or cardinal in the nation has had a more consistent and courageous record than Donald Wuerl in addressing priestly sexual abuse. Moreover, the grand jury report—even in areas that are incomplete and unflattering—does nothing to dispute this observation.
Why do I call Wuerl "consistent and courageous"? Because of Wuerl's refusal to back down to the Vatican when it ordered him to reinstate a priest he had removed from ministry; this occurred in the early 1990s when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh. The Vatican reconsidered and agreed with his assessment.
Diocesan records revealed that Wuerl granted Paone' s request to be reassigned again on October 22, 1991.
Wuerl responded by dispatching letters notifying the relevant California and Nevada Dioceses of the 1994 complaint. However, Wuerl did not report the more detailed information contained within Diocesan records. The Diocese did not recall Paone; nor did it suspend his faculties as a priest. To the contrary, Paone continued to have the support of the Diocese. On July 29, 1996, Wuerl was informed by the Chancellor of the Diocese of San Diego that Paone had continued with his ministry, but, "acting on the advice of our insurance carrier," he was requesting that Wuerl complete the enclosed affidavit, which stated, among other things, that Paone has "not had any problems involving sexual abuse, any history of sexual involvement with minors or others, or any other inappropriate sexual behavior."
In February, 2003, Wuerl accepted Paone' s resignation from ministry. Wuerl wrote a letter acknowledging Paone' s request while providing assurance that "sustenance needs and benefits will continue according to the norms of law." Approximately 41 years after the Diocese learned that Paone was sexually assaulting children, he was finally retired from active ministry. In spite of Wuerl's statements to the Vatican, the clear and present threat that Paone posed to children was hidden and kept secret from parishioners in three states. Wuerl' s statements had been meaningless without any action.
In the midst of this public scandal, on March 1, 1989, Wuerl authorized a confidential settlement between the Diocese and the family of the victim and his brother (who was also a victim) in the amount of a $500,000 lump sum with a separate amount of $400,000 to be paid over a period of 30 years. The settlement contained a "confidentiality agreement" which prohibited the victims from discussing the settlement or basis for the settlement with any third parties - unless agreed to by the Diocese. The settlement released the Bishop, the Diocese, and the Roman Catholic Church from any further liability with respect to the matter.
In March, 1992, Zula informed the Diocese that he might be eligible for early release in July and requested that Wuerl confirm his future salary payments to assist him in obtaining his release. In response to Zula' s request, internal Diocesan documents revealed that Wuerl directed his subordinates to provide the requested information. The Diocese also agreed to increase Zula' s sustenance payments to $750 per month after his release and to provide him with medical coverage. When Zula was released in July, 1992, he received a check in the amount of $11,542.68 from the Diocese.
On January 20, 1995, Wuerl met with Zula to discuss his future salary and medical benefits. They discussed his dispensation from priestly vows but Zula was hesitant to agree to his removal because he did not think he could support himself. Zula suggested the possibility of a lump-sum payment which Wuerl referred to as "cushion income." After further discussion, Wuerl was open to the idea of Zula receiving a lump-sum payment of $180,000.00. Zula countered, however, with a request for "$240,000.00 (TAX FREE)." Additional internal documents indicated that the Diocese weighed Zula' s request. Three pages of undated handwritten notes with the heading "FROM THE DESK OF Father Guay" referenced Zula' s concern regarding his July, 1995 payments and the figures of $180,000 and $240,000. The words "slush fund - under table" were also included on the notes. Similarly, in a November 24, 1995 letter sent from Zula to Wuerl, Zula stated that he had recently met with Guay and Father Dinardo who informed him that if he were to resign from the active priestly ministry, he would still be entitled to receive his monthly sustenance payments and medical coverage. In light of this representation, Zula stated his desire to resign.
In 1996, the Diocese entered into a memorandum of understanding with Zula whereby he was allowed to resign and was prohibited from ever seeking future assignments within the Diocese. In return, the Diocese agreed that it would continue to pay him $750.00 per month for sustenance and provide medical coverage for him.
On January 31, 2001, another victim disclosed abuse by Zula. The victim reported that Zula asked him to remove his clothes so that he could beat him with a belt. On December 14, 2001, the Diocese increased Zula' s sustenance payments to $1,000 per month as of January, 2002.
There are many vicious critics of the Catholic Church who would like to weaken its moral authority
These very same people delight in promoting a libertine culture, one which ironically was the very milieu that enticed some very sick priests and their seminarian supervisors to act out in the first place.
...a newly minted Mexican Cardinal has suggested that victims who accuse priests should be “ashamed” because they too have skeletons in their own closets.
RCC Victim blaming and shaming turned up to 11. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-sex-abuse-victims-should-be-ashamed-to-speak-the)Quote...a newly minted Mexican Cardinal has suggested that victims who accuse priests should be “ashamed” because they too have skeletons in their own closets.
Can we just shut the doors on this whole perverse, medieval fuck up called the Roman Catholic Church, sell its assets give the proceeds to their victims and the rest to secular charities now please?
At the very least could these apologists for rape, pederasty and torture shut the holy fuck up about "sexual immorality" forever?
I'll just leave this here. (https://www.theherald.com.au/sport/knights/5597597/popes-silence-on-australian-child-abuse-jars-after-response-to-us-report/)RCC Victim blaming and shaming turned up to 11. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-sex-abuse-victims-should-be-ashamed-to-speak-the)Quote...a newly minted Mexican Cardinal has suggested that victims who accuse priests should be “ashamed” because they too have skeletons in their own closets.
Can we just shut the doors on this whole perverse, medieval fuck up called the Roman Catholic Church, sell its assets give the proceeds to their victims and the rest to secular charities now please?
At the very least could these apologists for rape, pederasty and torture shut the holy fuck up about "sexual immorality" forever?
Or we can have righteous clergy infiltrate the Church, become Pope, get rid of Vatican 2, and finally crack down on the pedophile priests, those who cover for them, and those who make comments like the Mexican Cardinal. He was made a Cardinal by the liberal Pope Francis.
Former trainee priest, lawyer and author Kieran Tapsell said Pope Francis can change church culture with the stroke of a pen.
“He can change the culture of the church with the stroke of a pen by changing canon law but he won’t,” said lawyer and former trainee priest Kieran Tapsell, whose submission to the royal commission on canon law was reflected in a series of recommendations for Australian bishops to raise with the Vatican.
“The church secrecy laws protect the perpetrators and increase the amount of child sexual abuse and yet when two United Nations committees in 2014 recommended the Pope change canon law to protect children, he rejected them,” Mr Tapsell said.
“How can he get rid of a culture of secrecy when canon law requires secrecy? Until he changes canon law, everything he says is hypocrisy. There’s nothing wrong with the words in his letter. I like what he says, but it’s still more hand-wringing.”
16.6: The bishop of each Catholic Church diocese in Australia should ensure that parish priests are not the employers of principals and teachers in Catholic schools.
16.7: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should conduct a national review of the governance and management structures of dioceses and parishes, including in relation to issues of transparency, accountability, consultation and the participation of lay men and women. This review should draw from the approaches to governance of Catholic health, community services and education agencies.
16.8: In the interests of child safety and improved institutional responses to child sexual abuse, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to:
a. publish criteria for the selection of bishops, including relating to the promotion of child safety
b. establish a transparent process for appointing bishops which includes the direct participation of lay people.
16.9: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend the 1983 Code of Canon Law to create a new canon or series of canons specifically relating to child sexual abuse, as follows:
a. All delicts relating to child sexual abuse should be articulated as canonical crimes against the child, not as moral failings or as breaches of the ‘special obligation’ of clerics and religious to observe celibacy.
b. All delicts relating to child sexual abuse should apply to any person holding a ‘dignity, office or responsibility in the Church’ regardless of whether they are ordained or not ordained.
c. In relation to the acquisition, possession, or distribution of pornographic images, the delict (currently contained in Article 6 §2 1° of the revised 2010 norms attached to the motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela) should be amended to refer to minors under the age of 18, not minors under the age of 14.
16.10: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law so that the pontifical secret does not apply to any aspect of allegations or canonical disciplinary processes relating to child sexual abuse.
16.11: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to ensure that the ‘pastoral approach’ is not an essential precondition to the commencement of canonical action relating to child sexual abuse.
16.12: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to remove the time limit (prescription) for commencement of canonical actions relating to child sexual abuse. This amendment should apply retrospectively.
16.13: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend the ‘imputability’ test in canon law so that a diagnosis of paedophilia is not relevant to the prosecution of or penalty for a canonical offence relating to child sexual abuse.
16.14: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to give effect to Recommendations 16.55 and 16.56.
16.15: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia, in consultation with the Holy See, should consider establishing an Australian tribunal for trying canonical disciplinary cases against clergy, whose decisions could be appealed to the Apostolic Signatura in the usual way.
16.16: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to introduce measures to ensure that Vatican Congregations and canonical appeal courts always publish decisions in disciplinary matters relating to child sexual abuse, and provide written reasons for their decisions. Publication should occur in a timely manner. In some cases it may be appropriate to suppress information that might lead to the identification of a victim.
16.17: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to amend canon law to remove the requirement to destroy documents relating to canonical criminal cases in matters of morals, where the accused cleric has died or ten years have elapsed from the condemnatory sentence. In order to allow for delayed disclosure of abuse by victims and to take account of the limitation periods for civil actions for child sexual abuse, the minimum requirement for retention of records in the secret archives should be at least 45 years.
16.18: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should request the Holy See to consider introducing voluntary celibacy for diocesan clergy.
I. Catholic clergy submit to the rule of celibacy that is required for ordination to the priesthood. Most—from my experience I repeat most—Roman Catholic clergy do not want to be celibate (sexually abstinent). They wish to be priests; many genuinely wish to serve others; but many are bound by the status, advantages, and security that ministry provides.
II. Celibacy (sexual abstinence) is not a common or persistent practice among Roman Catholic clergy. Many bishops and priests have had or are having some kind of sexual contact, experience, or relationship, at least from time to time.
III. Sexually active clergy, and those with a sexual history, run the risk of exposing their own activity if they bring a fellow cleric?s activity to public attention. A great deal of information about priests? sexual lives, however, is circulated within clerical circles and some can be found in church records. Sacramental confession is a reservoir of sexual knowledge.
IV. In addition, sexual experiences with fellow seminarians or priest faculty are common in houses of training. [Estimates of twenty (20) percent sexual contact during formation are frequent among informed conservative sources.] Church authorities are aware of the situation. (Cf. the recent Vatican evaluation of U.S. Catholic seminaries, 2006 and the Vatican guidelines for the psychological screening of priesthood candidates, October 30, 2008).
V. Homosexual contact and slips are so common among the RC clergy that the Vatican has invented a new pseudo-scientific category of behavior—transitional homosexuality—especially designed to cover activity in seminaries and religious orders. This rationalization allows authorities to permit candidates who have been sexually active, even with minors, to admit them to ordination if they have been abstinent for three years.
VI. Even temporary involvement of a priest in a sexual relationship or experimentation with another priest puts him in a fearful state and a bind of "systemic blackmail." He cannot expose the other priest without exposing himself and endangering not only his reputation, but also even his career.
VII. At times priests or seminary faculty are involved in sex-play or relationships with seminarians or young priests. Later the faculty member is promoted to the office of major superior or bishop. Even the good numbers of clergy who have been sexually involved and subsequently strive to establish celibate practice are caught in the circle of secrecy that covers even sexual abuse of minors. [There is no effective viable recourses to report misbehavior of a bishop.]
VIII. There is a scarlet bond of secrecy that is inculcated within the clerical system (reinforced via Confession), supported from the top down (Vatican), and preserved by bishops and superiors for fear of systemic or personal exposure. Candidates are taught this dynamic of secrecy about sexual activity and abuse from their first days in training.
IX. Wherever one finds a coterie of sexual abusing clergy one can locate a sexually active superior or one who tolerates sexual activity and abuse. The superior?s sexual activity most likely is not minor abuse; activity with consenting adult females or males suffices to seal the bond. All RC clergy are caught in this system that demands cover up at any cost to save themselves (the Church) from scandal.
X. Truth, honesty, transparency, accountability, and lay people find no place within the Scarlet Bond. Denial is the most commonly psychic defense used to seal the bond from within. Rationalization and Mental Reservation are employed freely and frequently even under civil oath not to lie.
16.19: All Catholic religious institutes in Australia, in consultation with their international leadership and the Holy See as required, should implement measures to address the risks of harm to children and the potential psychological and sexual dysfunction associated with a celibate rule of religious life. This should include consideration of whether and how existing models of religious life could be modified to facilitate alternative forms of association, shorter terms of celibate commitment, and/or voluntary celibacy (where that is consistent with the form of association that has been chosen).
16.20: In order to promote healthy lives for those who choose to be celibate, the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and all Catholic religious institutes in Australia should further develop, regularly evaluate and continually improve, their processes for selecting, screening and training of candidates for the clergy and religious life, and their processes of ongoing formation, support and supervision of clergy and religious.
16.21: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia should establish a national protocol for screening candidates before and during seminary or religious formation, as well as before ordination or the profession of religious vows.
16.22: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia should establish a mechanism to ensure that diocesan bishops and religious superiors draw upon broad-ranging professional advice in their decision-making, including from staff from seminaries or houses of formation, psychologists, senior clergy and religious, and lay people, in relation to the admission of individuals to:
a. seminaries and houses of religious formation
b. ordination and/or profession of vows.
16.23: In relation to guideline documents for the formation of priests and religious:
a. The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should review and revise the Ratio nationalis institutionis sacerdotalis: Programme for priestly formation (current version December 2015), and all other guideline documents relating to the formation of priests, permanent deacons, and those in pastoral ministry, to explicitly address the issue of child sexual abuse by clergy and best practice in relation to its prevention.
b. All Catholic religious institutes in Australia should review and revise their particular norms and guideline documents relating to the formation of priests, religious brothers, and religious sisters, to explicitly address the issue of child sexual abuse and best practice in relation to its prevention.
16.24: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia should conduct a national review of current models of initial formation to ensure that they promote pastoral effectiveness, (including in relation to child safety and pastoral responses to victims and survivors) and protect against the development of clericalist attitudes.
16.25: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference and Catholic Religious Australia should develop and each diocese and religious institute should implement mandatory national standards to ensure that all people in religious or pastoral ministry (bishops, provincials, clergy, religious, and lay personnel):
a. undertake mandatory, regular professional development, compulsory components being professional responsibility and boundaries, ethics in ministry, and child safety
b. undertake mandatory professional/pastoral supervision
c. undergo regular performance appraisals.
16.26: The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference should consult with the Holy See, and make public any advice received, in order to clarify whether:
a. information received from a child during the sacrament of reconciliation that they have been sexually abused is covered by the seal of confession
b. if a person confesses during the sacrament of reconciliation to perpetrating child sexual abuse, absolution can and should be withheld until they report themselves to civil authorities.
16.55: Any person in religious ministry who is the subject of a complaint of child sexual abuse which is substantiated on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw, or who is convicted of an offence relating to child sexual abuse, should be permanently removed from ministry. Religious institutions should also take all necessary steps to effectively prohibit the person from in any way holding himself or herself out as being a person with religious authority.
16.56: Any person in religious ministry who is convicted of an offence relating to child sexual abuse should:
a. in the case of Catholic priests and religious, be dismissed from the priesthood and/or dispensed from his or her vows as a religious
b. in the case of Anglican clergy, be deposed from holy orders
c. in the case of Uniting Church ministers, have his or her recognition as a minister withdrawn
d. in the case of an ordained person in any other religious denomination that has a concept of ordination, holy orders and/or vows, be dismissed, deposed or otherwise effectively have their religious status removed.
But that would mean real change, and no Pope will countenance that.
I'll just leave this here. (https://www.theherald.com.au/sport/knights/5597597/popes-silence-on-australian-child-abuse-jars-after-response-to-us-report/)RCC Victim blaming and shaming turned up to 11. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-sex-abuse-victims-should-be-ashamed-to-speak-the)Quote...a newly minted Mexican Cardinal has suggested that victims who accuse priests should be “ashamed” because they too have skeletons in their own closets.
Can we just shut the doors on this whole perverse, medieval fuck up called the Roman Catholic Church, sell its assets give the proceeds to their victims and the rest to secular charities now please?
At the very least could these apologists for rape, pederasty and torture shut the holy fuck up about "sexual immorality" forever?
Or we can have righteous clergy infiltrate the Church, become Pope, get rid of Vatican 2, and finally crack down on the pedophile priests, those who cover for them, and those who make comments like the Mexican Cardinal. He was made a Cardinal by the liberal Pope Francis.QuoteFormer trainee priest, lawyer and author Kieran Tapsell said Pope Francis can change church culture with the stroke of a pen.
“He can change the culture of the church with the stroke of a pen by changing canon law but he won’t,” said lawyer and former trainee priest Kieran Tapsell, whose submission to the royal commission on canon law was reflected in a series of recommendations for Australian bishops to raise with the Vatican.
“The church secrecy laws protect the perpetrators and increase the amount of child sexual abuse and yet when two United Nations committees in 2014 recommended the Pope change canon law to protect children, he rejected them,” Mr Tapsell said.
“How can he get rid of a culture of secrecy when canon law requires secrecy? Until he changes canon law, everything he says is hypocrisy. There’s nothing wrong with the words in his letter. I like what he says, but it’s still more hand-wringing.”
Now, how likely is it that an ultraconservative pontiff, more traditional than say Francis, would change the canon laws that allow priests to hide their misdeeds under the seal of the confessional Jacob?
"Not precluding" is woefully insufficient, church doctrine should make it mandatory in all cases and suspected cases, not merely those the church considers "credible."I'll just leave this here. (https://www.theherald.com.au/sport/knights/5597597/popes-silence-on-australian-child-abuse-jars-after-response-to-us-report/)RCC Victim blaming and shaming turned up to 11. (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/francis-appointed-cardinal-sex-abuse-victims-should-be-ashamed-to-speak-the)Quote...a newly minted Mexican Cardinal has suggested that victims who accuse priests should be “ashamed” because they too have skeletons in their own closets.
Can we just shut the doors on this whole perverse, medieval fuck up called the Roman Catholic Church, sell its assets give the proceeds to their victims and the rest to secular charities now please?
At the very least could these apologists for rape, pederasty and torture shut the holy fuck up about "sexual immorality" forever?
Or we can have righteous clergy infiltrate the Church, become Pope, get rid of Vatican 2, and finally crack down on the pedophile priests, those who cover for them, and those who make comments like the Mexican Cardinal. He was made a Cardinal by the liberal Pope Francis.QuoteFormer trainee priest, lawyer and author Kieran Tapsell said Pope Francis can change church culture with the stroke of a pen.
“He can change the culture of the church with the stroke of a pen by changing canon law but he won’t,” said lawyer and former trainee priest Kieran Tapsell, whose submission to the royal commission on canon law was reflected in a series of recommendations for Australian bishops to raise with the Vatican.
“The church secrecy laws protect the perpetrators and increase the amount of child sexual abuse and yet when two United Nations committees in 2014 recommended the Pope change canon law to protect children, he rejected them,” Mr Tapsell said.
“How can he get rid of a culture of secrecy when canon law requires secrecy? Until he changes canon law, everything he says is hypocrisy. There’s nothing wrong with the words in his letter. I like what he says, but it’s still more hand-wringing.”
Now, how likely is it that an ultraconservative pontiff, more traditional than say Francis, would change the canon laws that allow priests to hide their misdeeds under the seal of the confessional Jacob?
From the Wikipedia article on Pontificial secret.
“Thus the procedures of the Church tribunal were covered by papal secrecy (called at that time secrecy of the Holy Office), but the crime of the priest was not: "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."
So allegations already can be reported to legal authorities without changes in Canon law. All the Church needs to do, is to defrock clergy members involved in the crimes and cover up, and increase the vetting procedures when ordaining clergy.
Calling Sigma to this thread to explain how Bergoglio is every bit as ultraconservative as other Popes.
And Vatican II ain't the problem.