Pedophilia Irish Style

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You know, I was thinking... the righteous indignation about children I see today, either didn't exist or was at least much less apparent years ago. I mean on a community/national level. These days you can't look at a kid sideways without a lynch mob forming. Whereas years ago, if the kid wasn't physically injured, people not immediately involved would be more like, tsk tsk, that's a shame, what's for supper? The emotional well being of other peoples kids, and sometimes their own, was not a big concern. Maybe that's why the Catholic Church was so successful at covering up these incidents.

"Righteous indignation" and "lynch mob" both sound very negative, while "these incidents" not so much.
That jumps right out at me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by jinx

"Righteous indignation" and "lynch mob" both sound very negative, while "these incidents" not so much.
That jumps right out at me.

I can't think of a better way to describe public reaction to any reports, even alleged. I've seen it right here on this board, calls for lynching, torture, sexual mutilation, etc.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You know, I was thinking... the righteous indignation about children I see today, either didn't exist or was at least much less apparent years ago. I mean on a community/national level. These days you can't look at a kid sideways without a lynch mob forming. Whereas years ago, if the kid wasn't physically injured, people not immediately involved would be more like, tsk tsk, that's a shame, what's for supper? The emotional well being of other peoples kids, and sometimes their own, was not a big concern. Maybe that's why the Catholic Church was so successful at covering up these incidents.

Originally Posted by jinx

"Righteous indignation" and "lynch mob" both sound very negative, while "these incidents" not so much.
That jumps right out at me.

I don't think Bruce is supportive of that view, and I do think it's an accurate description of values previously held.

I personally knew two girls abused as children. One was called back in her late teens or twenties to give evidence about a school caretaker (janitor) who exposed himself to her and was on trial for more serious abuses with other young girls. She reported the incident in the '70s and the reaction was very much, "There, there, no harm done." The report was filed, which is why she was tracked down later.

The second was physically abused and again, she reported it. Not to the police in her case - she was in care and reported it to the people higher up in the facility. No-one believed her. It was only a family member who heard gossip years later that made any of her family take it seriously. She was simply seen as being "disturbed" because of her background and the reasons she was in care in the first place. She had nothing like a criminal trial or conviction to give her closure, but at least in the end her family accepted what had happened. This was in the late '60s.

[DanaC]

Not to mention that there used to be a default position within society of disbelieving children when they spoke up about abuse of this kind.

[Shawnee123]

They has a plan, or maybe it's a how-to manual:

[Undertoad]

Just when you thought the thread was done.

Catholic League: Not All Gay Sex is Abusive

The entire post:

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today's New York Times about a case of alleged sexual abuse committed by a Chilean priest:

If a 17-year old guy has sex with an older guy for twenty years, and continues to have sex with him at the age of 38—while he is married with children—is there anyone who would believe his claim that he was sexually abused? The answer is yes: the New York Times would. That's exactly what happened in the case described in today's newspaper involving a homosexual affair between Chilean priest Fr. Fernando Karadima, now 79, and Dr. James Hamilton, now 44.

Why would the New York Times try to sell this so-called abuse story with a straight face? For two reasons: it wallows in stories designed to weaken the moral authority of the Catholic Church, and it is so gay-friendly as to be gay-crazy.

According to the Times, it all started with a kiss. Let me be very clear about this: if some guy tried to kiss me when I was 17, I would have flattened him. I most certainly would not go on a retreat with the so-called abuser, unless, of course, I liked it. Indeed, Hamilton liked it so much he went back for more—20 years more. Even after he got married, he couldn't resist going back for more.

So what about the priest? He is a disgrace. Throw the book at him for all I care. But let's not be fooled into thinking that Dr. Hamilton is a victim. The real news story here is not another case of homosexual molestation, it's the political motivation of the New York Times.

Would you say it's abuse for a 52 year old to have "consensual" sex with a 17 year old? Never mind gay sex, never mind priest sex. The Catholic League is twisting like a pretzel here, trying to make everything OK. It's so much crap, it's practically entertaining.

[Shawnee123]

Not to mention the Catholic church thinks sex outside of marriage or for anything other than procreation is wrong. So yeah, they can leave out the genders and the ages and whatever else they want, they're waffling on their face! (which is probably a lot like pancakes on your face.)

[classicman]

Vatican: Pope may apologize for abuse by priests

AP - Wednesday, April 28, 2010; 8:56 AM

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Benedict XVI may issue a mea culpa for clerical sex abuse at a June meeting of the world's priests at the Vatican.

The June 9-11 summit, initially called to mark the end of the Vatican's year of the priest, had already morphed into a pep rally for the pope as he came under fire amid a new wave of reports on sex abuse by clerics.

Now, according to the top Vatican official dealing with abuse, it's possible that Benedict may issue some form of an apology at the meeting.

Cardinal William Levada, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told U.S. public broadcaster PBS on Tuesday that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the pontiff issues a mea culpa at the meeting.

[Cloud]

well, that's what the SNAP people have wanted all along. Maybe they'll shut up now.

[Cloud]

We are seeing the rubber-band syndrome common to any large social change.

At first, there's no action (i.e., sexual abuse is not talked about, kids are not believed, things are covered up, perps taking the cure)

Next, there's a huge overreaction. Everybody talks about it, there's an outcry, lawsuits filed, new laws made, new social reactions and institutions put into place. That's where we are now.

The final stage is winding down from the overreaction, making sure the new societal institutions and responses are working, and homogenization of the social position. We're not there yet.

This is merely my own, completely unscientific, opinion, but I see this progression a lot.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Cloud

We are seeing the rubber-band syndrome common to any large social change.

Characteristic of an under-damped system. A response that exceeds what is needed followed by oscillations (hype and then inaction, then more hype) that dampens with time. A classic underdamped response - 11 September followed by the 'veins hanging from teeth' attitude that wanted Saddam's head.

But this pedophilia response is not a knee-jerk reaction to an evil. This problem has been festering for generations. It was openly addressed in 2004. Dioceses all over the world have been in process to hide or protect assets for five years now. And still we have only addressed the problem in but a few nations.

What is the number for Malta? Something like 80 of 450 priests are known (by church records) to be pedophiles? IOW the response has really been tame. A classic example of an overdamped response where the response slowly keeps increasing - does not overreach.

The world's response to church hidden pedophilia has been extremely tame. Which is why an issue obvious all over America in 2004 is only just being discovered six years later in Ireland, Malta, Germany, etc.

This will not end until we know the Church's numbers (that should be significant) from every nation. Furthermore, the problem will never be solved as long as the Church has this introverted policy of priests who do not marry. Even marriage of gay priests should be encouraged. But that means the Catholic Church acknowledges reality. Even when all American bishops traveled in mass to Rome to plead for a solution, the Catholic Church choose to deny pedophilia exists - did nothing.

That is the problem. Apologies without action are only useless propaganda. The church has reams of files. Minimal action is to turn those files over to local authorities.

[tw]

Originally Posted by tw

The world's response to church hidden pedophilia has been extremely tame. Which is why an issue obvious all over America in 2004 is only just being discovered six years later in Ireland, Malta, Germany, etc.

The DA for Philadelphia subpoenaed Archdioceses records. Proved that one (of three Philly) Archdiocese had hundreds of known pedophiles. So the church responded? Of course not. Instead they hired consultants.

Six years later, the Philadelphia Archdiocese knew of more priests sexually attacking kids for years. Leaks suggest the church knew of at least 37 pedophiles left in positions of high risk.

A Philadelphia Grand Jury has accused two priests and a teacher for sexually molesting kids for more than two years. And Monsignor Lynn of Downingtown, whose jobs was to eliminate this problem, instead, knew this was ongoing and condoned it. Remember that name - forever. He is more guilty than the pedophiles. If Catholics are patriotic Americans, then that Monsignor goes to jail for a minimum of 14 years. And Catholics complain that was not long enough. But most Catholics so love pedophilia as to again remain quiet. If you are Catholic, you are part of a corrupt oganization that remains corrupt because you will again remain quiet. This is when four letter words should appear in your posts alongside the Cardinal's name.

He did what the Church wanted? 85% of all problems are directly traceable to the same people who condoned this decades previously and are still there.

Leaks say Philly Cardinal Rigali and many subordinates knew of this and other sexual abuses. And did nothing. Leaks suggest others including the Cardinal could be prosecuted. Yes, because corruption will never stop until the guy who protects overt penis activity is ‘beheaded’. Yes, beheaded. The Cardinal's public response was to bring back consultants who so successfully covered up previous organized sexual crimes.

Philadelphia’s DA Lyn Abraham demonstrated that every state should subpoena all Church records to find the thousands of pedophile priests. Yes, thousands. Question is how many thousands should be prosecuted? In part because so many Catholics are that brainwashed as to condone this stuff.

Someone asked about Ken Starr. Well, how many actually guilty penises need to be chased? Why we do chase one penis only for a political agenda? And not the penises of thousands who support extremism and hate? Philadelphia is not an exception.

Most every if not most Catholic Archdioceses have and have been protecting pedophiles. How many Archdioceses? Are 100 Archdioceses are guilty of protecting pedophiles? Ricoh laws were created to prosecute such organizations. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to the top penis. My comments are tame compared to what others here should be posting. Shame on anyone who says anything nice about Cardinal Rigali. Who ‘loves’ kids – by proxy.

[Shawnee123]

I agree about the rubber-band analogy. Very good. That is true and usually the way we settle down into a real change.

I do have a hard time labeling late reactions to abuse as "overreaction" especially when the outcry involves abuse of children...whose voices have gone unheard for far too long.

[Cloud]

an extreme reaction, then. It's not an "over" reaction in the sense that it's unnecessary or unjustified, just -- big.

[Shawnee123]

Yeah, I'm not trying to argue semantics, I totally see what you're saying. It is an extreme reaction in the rubber band analogy. We can hope it settles into a better understanding of this touchy issue.