Thread: Pope says he is 'truly sorry'

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I've already been thoroughly aghast. But I will definitely read that site. Makes me think of a line in the movie The General's Daughter, "What's worse than rape?" The movie answers that question, "Betrayal."

So many little children had to live with that kind of betrayal. So sad. Is it any wonder our world is so fucked up.

It's a true sentiment. The cover up is often more offensive than the offence. Every organisation will have those who breach the trust. It's inevitable in a large organisation. Humans are flawed, and some people are very flawed. But, how one handles that is what makes or breaks how the public at large reacts to it.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Spade just told the truth about how things worked in the Philadelphia Archdiocese including its reaction once the lids blew off. In Ireland, given the societal and official influence control the church had until the lids blew off, it stunk just as bad if not worse. Those two places I know from my lifetime experience.

Wow. On that bishopaccountability.org link I posted if you go into the links there is story after story of people who were abused as young children and teens who eventually suicided. Sadly, it is the victim who bears the shame and suicide is a very typical end. That, I think is a rather bitter and ironic thing given the church's dogmatic teaching about suicide. I find it difficult to imagine a God who would condemn a person to hell, as painted by the world's religions for trying to put an end to the hell that their life became over something like this.

The people who did this have to be sociopaths.

I read that California opened up a year outside any limitation of actions statute so that victims of child sex abuse could come forward and seek prosecution. Don't ask the link, it may have been on the one mentioned above. That is a novel thing to do, but appropriate, IMNSHO, in the absence of a statute of repose that extends past the age of 18, an age when many are not likely to speak up just because of their developmental stage.

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

It's a true sentiment. The cover up is often more offensive than the offence. Every organisation will have those who breach the trust. It's inevitable in a large organisation. Humans are flawed, and some people are very flawed. But, how one handles that is what makes or breaks how the public at large reacts to it.

That's very true. I expect there to be more of this to come to light as time goes on. We have seen a new openness on the part of the victim and the institution alike now in our families, schools, medical professions, the military, and now churches. One can only hope we have turned a corner in a civilization which has 'an evolving standard of decency' as our Supreme Court put it once.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

Wow. On that bishopaccountability.org link I posted if you go into the links there is story after story of people who were abused as young children and teens who eventually suicided. Sadly, it is the victim who bears the shame and suicide is a very typical end. That, I think is a rather bitter and ironic thing given the church's dogmatic teaching about suicide. I find it difficult to imagine a God who would condemn a person to hell, as painted by the world's religions for trying to put an end to the hell that their life became over something like this.

The people who did this have to be sociopaths.

I read that California opened up a year outside any limitation of actions statute so that victims of child sex abuse could come forward and seek prosecution. Don't ask the link, it may have been on the one mentioned above. That is a novel thing to do, but appropriate, IMNSHO, in the absence of a statute of repose that extends past the age of 18, an age when many are not likely to speak up just because of their developmental stage.

Suicide was very common, as was criminality, promiscuity, etc.

Sociopathic behaviour definitely existed. The Magdalene Asylum scandal is one particular awful example IMO where the 'fire and brimstone' attitude of the church on sex relations brought horrendous abuse upon women like unwed mothers or even anyone thought to be 'tarty' where the church clergy felt entitled to abuse them in sociopath fashions whilst making them slaves for their own benefit, etc.

Magdalene Asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The routine removal of out of wedlock children for adoption was the initial humiliation for which they were condemned. There are even plenty of cases where such children were sent to the United States, many under false names after the church destroyed their identity and where some living today in the US either don't know they were adopted and/or born in Ireland or, if they do, are now unable to successfully find out who they and their birth parents are.

There was a movie a few years ago that covered the subject matter most horrifically.

YouTube - The Magdalene Sisters

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Suicide was very common, as was criminality, promiscuity, etc.

Sociopathic behaviour definitely existed. The Magdalene Asylum scandal is one particular awful example IMO where the 'fire and brimstone' attitude of the church on sex relations brought horrendous abuse upon women like unwed mothers or even anyone thought to be 'tarty' where the church clergy felt entitled to abuse them in sociopath fashions whilst making them slaves for their own benefit, etc.

Magdalene Asylum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The routine removal of out of wedlock children for adoption was the initial humiliation for which they were condemned. There are even plenty of cases where such children were sent to the United States, many under false names after the church destroyed their identity and where some living today in the US either don't know they were adopted and/or born in Ireland or, if they do, are now unable to successfully find out who they and their birth parents are.

There was a movie a few years ago that covered the subject matter most horrifically.

YouTube - The Magdalene Sisters

I have not even heard of the Magdalene Asylum. I will definitely read about that.

Criminality and paradoxically promiscuity are not at all unusual in victims of childhood sexual abuse. For the rest of us, those things are a question of morality. But in cases like we see on here, morality was rejected very early.
There just isn't anything left to lose for those people. And many of the people in prisons in America were sexually abused as children.

But beyone that, there is a cycle to it all and the victim often becomes the abuser. These are difficult concepts to teach to a class of nursing students, many of whom have children in the home. Working with the abuser in a nonjudgmental manner takes skill. One almost has to create a disconnect in the thought process to be able to do it.

Originally Posted by Sunshine

I have not even heard of the Magdalene Asylum. I will definitely read about that.

Criminality and paradoxically promiscuity are not at all unusual in victims of childhood sexual abuse. For the rest of us, those things are a question of morality. But in cases like we see on here, morality was rejected very early.
There just isn't anything left to lose for those people. And many of the people in prisons in America were sexually abused as children.

But beyone that, there is a cycle to it all and the victim often becomes the abuser. These are difficult concepts to teach to a class of nursing students, many of whom have children in the home. Working with the abuser in a nonjudgmental manner takes skill. One almost has to create a disconnect in the thought process to be able to do it.

The Magdalene laundries were awful places and the operated until the scandals in the 90s hit the fan for the whole series of church abuses.

Some of my childhood memories were asking my parents and others on occasion why a baby was found dead in a public park or bathroom, etc, whenever such a discovery was reported. Imagine trying to explain that to a child. Simply put, the idea of premarital sex and especially bearing a child out of wedlock was social death in Irish circles, rendering the woman to be a social pariah permanently ('the dirty slut,' 'the whore', etc, still ring in my head from the words of people back in the late 70s-early 80s in my childhood memories). Women knew what was going to happen to them. People with money often secretly sent their daughters to England for abortions in order to preserve their 'good name' or to live there after the child's birth to escape what the church-dominated society had in store for them. But the poor ones, forget it...social death.

Promiscuity did become a factor for many abused people for a few reasons. Some did it to drown out their own sexual abuse and other pain inflicted upon them. Sick as it may be, when the church and its church-brainwashed society took such a harsh view on 'sexual sins,' people actually felt entitled to sexually abuse them. Clergy could abuse them because the victims weren't deemed credible and/or the matter would be concealed and the woman abused because they would blame the woman for being a temptress. They were easy targets for men looking for an easy score but would never think of officially dating or marrying them because they had a horrible public reputation as 'the dirty slut.' These women often had sex in the hopes of getting the man to accept them when so few others would give them a chance, but the actions only made their plight worse in being used, rejected, and further labelled as the town slut, etc.

And yes, abuse tends to be cyclical, where mentally, physically and/or sexually abused people wind up doing that themselves when they turn adult.

Originally Posted by mabus

Force your Johnson up a boys ass and the pope feels sorry. Enjoy sticking it up a man's ass consentually and Benedict lets you face eternal damnation in hell. The churches never cease to amaze me. Kinda reminds me why I'm christian and not catholic.

Define Christian.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Very good; I subscribe to that myself. Unfortunately, you and many others have wrongly judged him ("disgusting") based on false reports and conjecture driven by prejudice. There are no facts upon which to conclude that Pope Benedict XVI ordered cover-ups of sexual abuse nor personally participated it in himself; yet this is the prevailing theme I see reported in the media and trumpeted on this board -- even by good and smart posters. With respect to the issue, the usual requirement that the proponent of a position prove it by affirmative evidence has been dropped. That's not how I rely upon my wits.

I may be wrong, but then again, so may you be. There's plenty of allegations going on right now. You're already claiming that: "Unfortunately, you and many others have wrongly judged him ("disgusting") based on false reports and conjecture driven by prejudice." My prejudice IMO is justified by facts I know. As I stated, I recognise that disputes of events are commonplace, and I am still in the next couple days going to focus very deeply into the whole matter of the 2001 issue besides the other allegations.

But I'll tell you what initially I suspect, and it not only involves wits but common sense applied to facts.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, I know what his official roles have been in the church. Relying upon wits based on facts, it's fairly hard for me to not have a suspicion that he knew of the many shiftings of pervert priests and cover ups, even to 'rehabs' set up by the church for such perverts. They are too extensive for a man of his high stature to have no clue for warranting a reasonable suspicion that he did in fact know of it and/or played some roles in it.

Plus, given the extensive cover ups and attitudes I have witnessed with my own eyes and other learning of events, I do not give the benefit of the doubt to the church, and especially high ranking people who have the clergy and internal data available to them. That's the penalty for abusing and concealing. Why, for example, should I give the benefit of the doubt when the church made the very difficulties that so many now have in proving the abuses they endured when it happened so often for so long? They have unclean hands through and through and now ask for the benefit of the doubts they created for themselves by their own unclean hands. No, I will not give the Pope that doubt so easily. Not now, not after all that has happened. He and the church are not entitled to that.

The church and its clergy and hierarchy made this appalling situation for themselves through grievous and extensive and lasting wrongdoings, and it is for people like Ratzinger with his longtime positions at the top to prove as best he can that he has absolutely no roles in cover ups and do the proving and outreaching in his general capacity to restore the faith that was given to them by so many and betrayed. It is for the Pope to prove his fitness by innocent actions and him and the rest of the clergy to restore the name of the church by proving fitness and earning the trust back.

I am, however, very open to receive and desire to hear the Pope's sides and defences provided it is full disclosure, and I'd certainly like it if he winds up exonerated. But the cloud of suspicion will remain in my mind until such time as these matter play themselves out.

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Give the man time. As you may know, when he came to the United States he met personally with abuse victims and spoke publicly about the scandal in the U.S.

Give him time? For what? All Ireland has done is give him time, and these massive scandals have been on the radar for a decade. He's been Pope for 5 years and can't hop a short plane from his palace with these atrocities of the organisation of which he heads? No, time's up. It should have been done long ago. If he wants amends, he'll get one of his staff to book him one of the routine cheap flights on Ryanair for the 2 hour flight over for a couple hundred euro, get his arse over to Ireland hat in hand, and give serious and immediate direct restorative attention to the issues.

Do you know when the last time a Pope visited Ireland? 1979. Again, 1979. And guess what? That's the first time any Pope ever visited Ireland. John Paul II never visited when the scandals erupted nor has this Pope ever done so. And the Catholics in Northern Ireland likewise loyal in the face of local sectarian oppression by anti-Catholic Protestants and church betrayal of their own congregants with abuse? Forget it...it's never received any visit from a Pope.

BBC News - No Pope visit for Northern Ireland

Apparently, meeting with other leaders and other faith leaders has always been more important than meeting the very people who suffered, were banished, abused and died under the sword in centuries of abuse, namely Irish Catholics, just for being Catholic, only to be abused repeatedly by the organisation for which they suffered, were banished, bled and died.

It actually amazes me at times, given my mixed upbringing in Protestant and Catholic traditions, why Irish Catholics have long been so loyal to an organisation that screwed them over so often, even in favour of the hands that persecuted them for being Catholic, e.g., the Pope supported William of Orange who defeated the Irish Catholics and criminalised them in the name of Protestant hegemony. William of Orange was funded by the Pope who funded his victories at the Battle of the Boyne and the Battle of Aughrim. When news of the Boyne victory reached the Pope, prayers and songs were sung in his honour. And as a result, the Catholic Irish were suppressed brutally until the south achieved independence. As for Northern Ireland, the Protestants still every July conduct the 'Orange Order Marches' that celebrate their victory in the Battle of the Boyne and mock the Catholics in triumphalism.

YouTube - Several injured in Orange march clashes

Battle of the Boyne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Church heirarchy often used the Irish Catholics to get their official status out of oppressed status, but when they got up, then worked with the Protestant Ascendancy on divvying up money and control matters against the poor Irish Catholic population. And all I need to do is see other things, like the old shops that one of my prosperous grand-uncles once owned that were supposed to go to his children. Upon notice of his imminent death, the Archbishop of Tuam (who heads the church for western Ireland) visited his deathbed personally in his final few days until he died. Not a parish priest, mind you, the Archbishop himself. When he died, the children went to the local solicitor to show their will, where they learnt that the properties were all going to the church given a change in the will. But, I'm sure it was all about saving his soul, ya know. That was also a frequent thing in Ireland..deathbed property theft with undue influence to will property and money to the church.

The church has much to redeem itself with Catholics in Ireland IMO. It better get working on that itself because that is its burden to do so.

Originally Posted by FideiDefensor

There are no doubt instances of abuse, but I am also mindful that some accusations are simply not true and the accused also deserves some benefit of the doubt. You may recall, for example, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago had false charges of sexual abuse filed against him and then subsequently withdrawn. This is perhaps another way in which our experiences have differed, informing our consciences in different ways.

Yes, I remember that and am glad his name was cleared. That false claims would be made by troubled people and scamsters was inevitable, but again, that is a self-inflicted wound IMO of its extensive misconduct and does not remove the cloud of suspicion and anger that it has earned.

But whilst you bring him up, there's also Cardinal Bernard Law of the Boston Diocese. He's one of countless reasons why the church brought this upon itself.

Bernard Francis Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's been sitting in the Vatican since his resignation, and Pope Benedict has let him remain a Cardinal despite the fact that he is past the mandatory age of resignation. As for Cardinal Bevilaqua of the Philadelphia that Sunshine posted information about . . .

Anthony Bevilacqua - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and it goes on and on in exposures.

That being said, it's unclear that the situation at Malvern (or anywhere else) was exacerbated by a canonical investigation. I have never heard of a priest being "protected" or transferred because of a canonical investigation, which found him guilty of childhood sexual abuse. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but there must be affirmative evidence of such a thing before I can begin to link up the secrecy of such investigations with continued abuse. It's a proximate cause issue, and I've seen no evidence of it in any of these stories making outlandish claims about the Pope or the Vatican ordering cover-ups. In fact, I believe in many cases (perhaps most) there was no canonical investigation at all.

That's a very constrained set of criteria IMO. They even had plenty of 'rehabs' for pervert priests that sometimes were even staffed by pervert priests, e.g.,

Director of Rehab Center for Priests Suspended over Sex Abuse Allegation
Associated Press
July 18, 2002

The director of a rehabilitation center for priests accused of molesting children has himself been suspended over sexual abuse allegations dating to the 1970s.

The Rev. Robert Beale was placed on administrative leave Wednesday by the Archdiocese of Boston after church officials reviewed an allegation that Beale molested a minor while a parish priest.

Donna Morrissey, a spokeswoman for the archdiocese, would not release details but said church officials found the allegation credible.

. . .

Director of Rehab Center for Priests Suspended over Sex Abuse Allegation, by AVTOR, Associated Press, July 18, 2002

The church has always known how to count money, do accounting, own property, organise clergy, programmes and structures, etc. IMO, the church has its work cut out for them to exonerate themselves.

Originally Posted by Doc Marten

Define Christian.

Here's my definition:

(Obeying/honestly trying to obey) the 10 commandments, believing that Jesus Christ physically existed and will physically exist again, believing that he was the son of god and will return to rule planet earth after the last of all days, when we all (those who received the law as well as those who didn't) will return from the graves to be judged by the saints. Except all those who turned serving god into their profession, these people will be judged by god "personally".

Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor

Wrong thread Voland. This is about Ireland.



More speculation is more like it. More here: Accused Munich priest resigns in sex abuse case wrongly linked to Pope :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

If i read the title correctly it is about the Pope, and the scandal that does not only concern Ireland. And neither are all the posts here limited to Ireland.
And if a case in his home country undermines the authority of the Pope on the subject in question like that than it of course belongs in that context
As to the report :
The only obvious piece of speculation in the linked article is up to the readers. Is it likely that minor officials were making such far reaching decisions alone and kept them secret from the archbishop ? Especially in an institution with a strict hierarchy like the catholic church, and since the Pope knew at least the reasons why the priest in question was transferred to Munich ? ( though no solid evidence ties him to the handling of the case later) And if we are to assume that the decisions ( like to install this priest in a parish, where he just went on with "indecent advancements" instead of either forcing him to therapy or expelling him from priesthood) were made bypassing the archbishop does that relieve him of all responsibility ? ( vicarial responsibility)
As long as the Pope chooses not to answer that questions and the catholic church in Germany instead makes headlines with outrageous rants like from the bishop of Regensburg/Bavaria yesterday, who compared press coverage of the abuse scandal to the Nazi prosecution of Jews the case continues to become a huger and huger media desaster for the catholic church.

Originally Posted by mabus

Here's my definition:

(Obeying/honestly trying to obey) the 10 commandments, believing that Jesus Christ physically existed and will physically exist again, believing that he was the son of god and will return to rule planet earth after the last of all days, when we all (those who received the law as well as those who didn't) will return from the graves to be judged by the saints. Except all those who turned serving god into their profession, these people will be judged by god "personally".

What a nonsense. No Christian in the whole world is believing such a nonsense. Give me the creed and name of your "christian" confession please.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55yCQOioTyY

@mabus: YouTube - Bella Ciao, dtsch. Dieter Dehm, Michael Letz (p)

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

The Magdalene laundries were awful places and the operated until the scandals in the 90s hit the fan for the whole series of church abuses.

Some of my childhood memories were asking my parents and others on occasion why a baby was found dead in a public park or bathroom, etc, whenever such a discovery was reported. Imagine trying to explain that to a child. Simply put, the idea of premarital sex and especially bearing a child out of wedlock was social death in Irish circles, rendering the woman to be a social pariah permanently ('the dirty slut,' 'the whore', etc, still ring in my head from the words of people back in the late 70s-early 80s in my childhood memories). Women knew what was going to happen to them. People with money often secretly sent their daughters to England for abortions in order to preserve their 'good name' or to live there after the child's birth to escape what the church-dominated society had in store for them. But the poor ones, forget it...social death.

Promiscuity did become a factor for many abused people for a few reasons. Some did it to drown out their own sexual abuse and other pain inflicted upon them. Sick as it may be, when the church and its church-brainwashed society took such a harsh view on 'sexual sins,' people actually felt entitled to sexually abuse them. Clergy could abuse them because the victims weren't deemed credible and/or the matter would be concealed and the woman abused because they would blame the woman for being a temptress. They were easy targets for men looking for an easy score but would never think of officially dating or marrying them because they had a horrible public reputation as 'the dirty slut.' These women often had sex in the hopes of getting the man to accept them when so few others would give them a chance, but the actions only made their plight worse in being used, rejected, and further labelled as the town slut, etc.

And yes, abuse tends to be cyclical, where mentally, physically and/or sexually abused people wind up doing that themselves when they turn adult.

That sounds very much like the culture in which I grew up. But I'm sure you are not surprised about that. It wasn't just the rich though who could send their girls away, though. There was always a relative in another state who would take one for a year and then she would come home as if nothing had happened. But everyone knew........ And the girl was equally washed up.

There was even a movie that starred Patty McCormick which our parents all sat us down to watch at some point. Being only about 9 myself it went completely over my head! LOL. Nine in the 50s wasn't like 9 on 2010!

I can understand the 'time is up' stance you have. I had no idea there were so many children involved. The bishopaccountability link says almost 300,000 to date, and that doesn't include Ireland.