Clerical Child Abuse in Ireland

Post by **Alatar** » Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:40 pm

I'd like to post the following for comment. The issue here is not that the abuse took place. All agree that what happened to those children was abominable. However, what has people more angry, is not that the abuse took place, but that it was deliberately covered up by the Church. And it would now appear that this cover-up went right to the very top.

In September 2006, the commission wrote to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith seeking information on reports of clerical child sex abuse sent to it by the Dublin archdiocese over the relevant 30-year period. It also sought information on the document Crimen Sollicitationis , which deals with clerical sex abuse. It did not reply.

Instead, it contacted the Department of Foreign Affairs, stating that the commission had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels. As a body independent of Government, the commission said it did not consider it appropriate to use diplomatic channels.

In February 2007, the commission wrote to the then papal nuncio, Archbishop Giuseppe Lanzzarotto, in Dublin, asking that he forward all documents relevant to it and which had not been or were not produced by the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin. It also requested that the nuncio confirm if he had no such documents.

Earlier this year the commission again wrote to Dr Leanza, enclosing extracts from its draft report which referred to him and his office, as it was required to do. He did not respond.

In June 2001, every diocesan bishop in the Catholic Church was written to, in Latin, by the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. They were instructed that, where complaints of clerical child sex abuse were concerned, these were first to be referred to Rome and it would decide how they were to be dealt with.

The Congregation document was accompanied by a letter, also in Latin, stipulating that the instruction was to be kept secret.

Full article here:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fro ... 04886.html

Post by **vison** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:26 am

This is much the same as the sort of thing that happened in Canada over the same issue. It's dreadful.

What will happen now that this is public knowledge?

I know people who dismiss this - practicing Catholics - as "making too much of it" or "it wasn't all that common" or, "they should get over it", etc.

Post by **Holbytla** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:03 am

Yeah. Google the Boston archdiocese and Bernard Law.
Same story, different settings.
Which is why I was so irate with the church. The coverup could lead to further potential abuse, and lo and behold it has.

And it really really irked me that I was preached contrition by people that refused to follow that same theology.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:07 pm

I know people who dismiss this - practicing Catholics - as "making too much of it" or "it wasn't all that common" or, "they should get over it", etc.

Well, I'm certainly not one of them. I'm horrified and furious- and it certainly looks very bad for the present Pope.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 5:38 pm

I have a question - perhaps a delicate one - for my Catholic friends on this board.

It does seem that the cover-up went right to the very top. And sadly, the scandal in the US also appeared to go very high up. It would seem to indicate that the RCC, as an organization, is rotten. (What is the saying - "A fish rots from the head?")

Anyway...how do you continue as a member of this organization, knowing what you know about it? I have been a member/attender of Quaker Meetings for the last 20+ years and I love it and I love the Quaker philosophy and way or worshipping. But if I discovered that the very core of the organization had sanctioned something as hideous as this, I would abandon them and have nothing further to do with them. I would not want to be associated with them.

How do you rationalize this, in your own mind? Have any of you considered leaving the church because of this? And why or why not?

I repeat, I know this might be a delicate question and I ask with all respect for the difficulty something like this must bring.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:09 pm

Jewelsong

my answer to your question is this..... I do not rationalize it. I do not excuse it. I no longer participate in organized institutional religion as it has precious little to do with spirituality.

I was born and raised Catholic. Went to a Catholic school for 12 years. Was an altar boy for most of that time as well. I attended Mass at least six times a week, sometimes much more. Every day in school we had at least an hour of religious instruction, sometimes a lot more.

With all that behind me, I left the formal church behind as well. The hypocrisy of people standing up in the pulpit on sunday preaching how to live their lives while doing the opposite is too blatant for me to tolerate with my participation.

Why did the formal Church tolerate this behavior by its own priests? I think the answer lies in the shrinking demographics of the priesthood and the numbers crunch it produced for staffing churches. To put it simply, a decision was made that the Church could not afford to lose any more priests than it already had in the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties.

This fits in with the first rule of any organsim - self preservation. The leaders of the Church simply made a decision that they needed these priests and were willing to take the risk that went with it.

On a personal note, one of the things I find so disgusting about this whole priest molesting kids situation is that the Catholic church was into serious big time guilt trips relating to issues of human sexuality. If Jewish people think that GUILT is a cliche of their religion, they are not alone. I know countless former Catholics who had their sex lives ruined by the crap they were taught in Catholic schools. A friend of mine who is a professional therapist has joked that Catholic schools paid for her summer cottage.

So I have left and am glad I did.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:10 pm

Let's put it this way, Jewelsong: in the wake of Watergate, did you decide to resign your US citizenship?

The Church is an institution made up of human beings, and the fact they wear robes is absolutely no guarantee that they are especially good or decent. Many (including some Popes) have been positively dreadful.

That holders of Church offices should besmirch them doesn't however call the existence of the office into question, any more than Nixon called the existence of the Presidency into question. The Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments continue, no matter how unworthy the mortal vessels thereof.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:21 pm

There is a huge difference in the Watergate scandal and the priesthood molestation scandals. Watergate was confined to the inner circle of the Nixon White House and their toadies on the Committee to re-elect the President. It was a top down operation. It was for a limited period of time and arose from a desire to defeat an enemy for political purposes. Once it was exposed, it was dealt with and eliminated.

The priesthood molestation scandal was not a top down operation like Watergate was. It arose in countless places with decisions about immoral behavior made on an individual level by who knows how many people. Some feel that the pressures which produced this behavior are directly linked with the churches insistence on celibacy for priests. Once the problem was recognized, it was not dealt with, instead it was simply treated as a shuffling of the cards to preserve a staffing of the churches. A decision was made for very selfish and narrow reasons.

Solicitr..... I realize you have said you are a convert. You might want to read some actual history of the Church and start with Malachi Martin who can tell you all about the Papacy and some of those sacraments. The man was deep on the inside and has written in graphic detail about many matters that the Church would just as soon its members not know about.

This is one of the best available

www.amazon.com/Decline-Fall-Roman-Church/dp/0399126651

Here is a bit about Martin from his wikipedia entry

Malachi Brendan Martin Ph.D. (July 23, 1921 – July 27, 1999) was a Catholic priest, theologian, writer on the Catholic Church, and professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Biblical Institute. He held five doctorates[1] and was the author of sixteen books which covered religious and geo-political topics. He wrote additional books under pen names. He was a controversial commentator on the Vatican and other matters involving the Church.[2]

He is a font of knowledge. I have passed on his book to several people and have only heard very positive things in return from the readers.

Post by **Lalaith** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:36 pm

Perhaps it's time for the Catholic people to call for reform. ?? A reform of the policies of the priesthood? A recall of certain bishops, cardinals, or maybe even the pope? (Can you do that?)

(I say this as a person who has a very tender spot for the RCC; I would convert if I could at this point in my life.)

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:40 pm

Lalaith .... you have to remember that the Catholic Church is very much a top down organization where the lay people have little if any real power. Perhaps this is a case of people voting with their feet? The institutional Church has had many years to accept the decline in attendance, both in the US and in many European countries and they have done nothing significant about the reasons behind it.

Post by **Lalaith** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:48 pm

That's an interesting thought which leads to a question: What recourse does the Catholic laity have to affect change?

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:02 pm

The priesthood molestation scandal was not a top down operation like Watergate was. It arose in countless places with decisions about immoral behavior made on an individual level by who knows how many people.

You mean like government corruption in places like Chicago and Detroit....

Solicitr..... I realize you have said you are a convert. You might want to read some actual history of the Church and start with Malachi Martin who can tell you all about the Papacy and some of those sacraments.

Don't you dare condescend to me, on either history, Catholicism, or both combined. I'm very familiar with Martin, thank you very much. At the moment however I'm rereading Partner's The Lands of St Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and The Early Renaissance.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:06 pm

solicitr wrote:Let's put it this way, Jewelsong: in the wake of Watergate, did you decide to resign your US citizenship?

The Church is an institution made up of human beings, and the fact they wear robes is absolutely no guarantee that they are especially good or decent. Many (including some Popes) have been positively dreadful.

That holders of Church offices should besmirch them doesn't however call the existence of the office into question, any more than Nixon called the existence of the Presidency into question. The Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments continue, no matter how unworthy the mortal vessels thereof.

I just wanted to highlight this. I think it's a very good answer to Jewel's question.

Digging up dirt on the history of the church is not relevant to Jewel's question. No long history of any institution is spotless. There are, as soli pointed out, other issues to consider besides that.

A shirriff note: We should all bear in mind that we aren't here to speak for anyone but ourselves, or to urge other people to change their thinking or (for goodness' sake!) their religious affiliation.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:10 pm

solicitr wrote:Let's put it this way, Jewelsong: in the wake of Watergate, did you decide to resign your US citizenship?
.

No, because there was a way to get rid of the people in charge that had made such a mess. As far as I know, the laity of the RCC have no real power and in fact, are actively discouraged from seeking it.

I do not think the comparison is an apt one. I said what I would do if I found that my own religious organization was corrupt. That is the kind of comparison that might make sense.

However, if I thought the entire government of the USA was corrupt and there was no way to address it, then yes, I would seek citizenship in another country.

The Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments continue, no matter how unworthy the mortal vessels thereof.

Even if the mortal vessels that initiated them were corrupt?

I did acknowledge that it was a delicate question.

Post by **solicitr** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:15 pm

As far as I know, the laity of the RCC have no real power and in fact, are actively discouraged from seeking it.

You'd be surprised.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:18 pm

JewelSong wrote:
The Apostolic Succession and the Sacraments continue, no matter how unworthy the mortal vessels thereof.
Even if the mortal vessels that initiated them were corrupt?

I did acknowledge that it was a delicate question.

Just to point out, neither institution was established by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Both were instituted by Jesus, and as a believer (even if not Catholic) I don't see the scandal as touching them at all.

Post by **JewelSong** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:25 pm

Primula Baggins wrote: Just to point out, neither institution was established by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. Both were instituted by Jesus, and as a believer (even if not Catholic) I don't see the scandal as touching them at all.

Okay - I misunderstood the point.

Thanks for clarifying.

I still would like to hear from Catholics...those who have left the church. those who never would think of it and those who are in between.

I know many Americans left the RCC after the latest child abuse scandal in the US. Some became Episcopalians or another denomination and some simply stopped going to any church at all. Some spent a long time trying to get the RCC to listen to their concerns before making the decision to leave. I understand it is far more problematic for a Catholic to leave the church than for a Protestant to switch congregations.

Post by **sauronsfinger** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:50 pm

from Solicitr

Don't you dare condescend to me, on either history, Catholicism, or both combined. I'm very familiar with Martin, thank you very much. At the moment however I'm rereading Partner's The Lands of St Peter: The Papal State in the Middle Ages and The Early Renaissance.

Why is it that when someone extends a hand in assistance towards you, you have to take it as a sign you are about to be slapped with it?

This is at least the second time in the last few weeks when you accuse me wrongly of being condescending to you when all I was doing is offering information I thought could be helpful to you. I will continue to do so if I know of things that I feel could be helpful to you.

Quote: from me
As far as I know, the laity of the RCC have no real power and in fact, are actively discouraged from seeking it.

reply from Solicitr

You'd be surprised.

I am sixty years old. I spent my entire life in the Catholic Church. If you know of some revolutionary change in the way the church is run from the past six decades, I would be more than happy to read all about it. The Catholic Church is a top down organization and is still a top down organizations. If you have any factual information to the contrary, please present it.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:11 pm

sauronsfinger, maybe you didn't intend to be condescending, but that's certainly what came across. Telling solicitr "You might want to read some actual history of the Church" is like patting him on the head. If I were him, "How dare you" would probably have cropped up in my response to that as well.

Post by **vison** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:21 pm

Like any extremely powerful institution the RCC has one overarching concern: maintaining that power.

That doesn't mean that all the men who run the RCC are bad, or that they condone child molestation, but it means that the survival of the church is paramount. The RCC seems - to me - to be certain that with the right reactions, the scandal will die. The RCC is probably right, especially if it has altered its methods of dealing with child molesting priests.

The church will lose adherents if the problems are not addressed and if they are not SEEN to be addressed. The church has not survived all these centuries without having learned to adapt to necessity and this is no different than any other.

Simony is no longer the problem it was in the Middle Ages, few priests live openly with concubines. Those are but 2 of the issues that were successfully dealt with.