Smoking Gun for Ratzinger. That's it!

[Aepervius]

c) Pedophilia is pretty well known and it is well supported that the sex of the victim is irrelevant to the attraction of the bastard. He will rape indiscriminately male or female children depending of which he can get his grubby little hands on.

very true, as soon as there are actual indicator of puberty and sexual external sign, like breast for example for girl, pedo aren't interested anymore. Pedophile are only interrested in children no matter the sex, as long as they are in infancy/childhood and show no secondary sexual characteristic.

Which is why when i hear story of a guy (or gale) buggering a 15 old girl which look more like an adult, being accused of "pedophilia" or children abuse/molestation I rise my eye skyward. Ephebophilia is much more widespread than pedophilia, and a totally different beast, and pedophilia is totally unrelated to homosexuality.

 

[Meadmaker]

That was never my words or my point. Try re-reading what I've actually said several times herein now if necessary to understand.

But, do you have a point?

Your point seems to be related to the fact that the homosexual connection is hardly ever mentioned. And...you're point? This is where we get lost. You seem to be hung up on the fact that no one is mentioning the homosexuality. Why should we? No one cares about it. So, we have acknowledged that we don't often mention the homosexuality, and we have explained why. We don't care about it.

I went further and noted that there are in fact some people who do mention homosexuality, but they all seem to be people who are trying to deflect criticism away from the church by blaming homosexuals. (This wasn't exactly an original thought, either. Lots of other people have noted this trend in several threads, and have touched on it briefly in this thread.)

So, do you think there's any significance to the homosexual angle?

 

[Simon39759]

Shall we start searching for as many accounts as we can find from recent years?
In the last five years or so, I recall two incidents that have involved girls. In the same timeframe, I have seen no less than about three dozen accounts involving boys.
As I first said, some people, many people absolutely resist acknowledging this.
They hate it when somebody dares say it.
We are not supposed to do anything but "celebrate diversity."
Before much longer, not celebrating diversity will be a punishable offense.

Considering these points have been explaining in the rest of the post you "forgot" to quote, as well as others', I will amend my statement: you sound like a willfully ignorant homophobe.

 

[Darat]

Regardless, the truth of the matter is, whether it troubles you or not, that the vast majority of these pedophiles are homosexual, yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles.

...snip...

It's the "paedophile" part that is the problem.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I think the real problem is not so much about what Ratzinger did or did not do. The real problem is that the church knows about all the child abuses for a long, long time, and has effectively done nothing to stop it.

But why not find out about this case, and discover what the local bishop did to discipline the priest, and what the state of California did to punish him.

"Has effectively done nothing to stop it" may be an overstatement, if that case is an example of Church policy recently, though probably more germane to the past centuries ... which means we need to go back to pillorying Germans, since Hitler led Germany for a while ... Lord, did I just Godwin this thread?

Not done enough to stop it? I think I'll go along with you there. I consider such a betrayal of trust to be a severe case of wrong.

Every sane person would instantly conclude that it is a bad idea to let some child molester close to children again. However, that thought escapes the church people.

Take a look at what actually happened in that case. Head over to current events forum, post by Alfred packer. An interesting summary.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you are right about the number of times it has been covered up, which the recent stories coming out of Ireland point to.

DR

 

[Christian Klippel]

But why not find out about this case, and discover what the local bishop did to discipline the priest, and what the state of California did to punish him.

...

Take a look at what actually happened in that case. Head over to current events forum, post by Alfred packer. An interesting summary.

Unfortunately, I suspect that you are right about the number of times it has been covered up, which the recent stories coming out of Ireland point to.

DR

Thanks for pointing me to that post. However, i have to disagree a bit there. That the church has internal ways and methods to handle wrongdoings is one thing. But to not hand over a child molester to the state authorities is by itself plain stupid. No matter what regulations the church has internally, not "handing him over" to proper authorities is, in my view, an act of covering up what happened.

The reasoning that that it was up to bishop to decide how to handle the priest, or keep an eye on him, is, for me, a lame excuse. Yes, it might be the way they handle such things, but that does not change the fact that this way is just wrong. Molesting and abusing children sexually is a crime, and should be punished by the authorities. That is, brought to a proper court and judged there. Not handled internally.

they can have their own processes to handle drunk priests/whatever, to resolve conflicts, or whatnot. But as soon as the issue at hand is a crime, there is just no justification to give them a free pass to let them stay out of court. The church has no rights to be above the law. But behaving the way they do they actually put themselves above it. That's just wrong.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Toke]

It's the "paedophile" part that is the problem.

Paedophile is not the whole problem.
Even assuming that a choirboy is gay, 15*, and infatuated with the priest, it is still illegal. There are laws dealing with, difference in power, people under your care, minors under your care, ect.

Schoolteachers are not allowed to play with cute teenage girls either.


*Legal age here.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Thanks for pointing me to that post. However, i have to disagree a bit there. That the church has internal ways and methods to handle wrongdoings is one thing. But to not hand over a child molester to the state authorities is by itself plain stupid. No matter what regulations the church has internally, not "handing him over" to proper authorities is, in my view, an act of covering up what happened.

Hard to argue against that. I have posted before that when a priest confesses this sin, or it is found out beyond the confessional, his penance needs to include turning himself into authorities, accepting that penance/just punishment, and then accepting the "nails in the priest's own personal cross," which I deem to mean serve his prison sentence with contrition and humility.

Who knows, he may be able to turn a few hearts in the prison population towards Christ while he's in there ... the Lord only knows.

DR

 

[Toke]

Perhaps the rcc have not yet adapted to the loss of their legal enforcement arm?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Perhaps the rcc have not yet adapted to the loss of their legal enforcement arm?

?? Did they used to have a Church Police?

 

[Toke]

?? Did they used to have a Church Police?

Yes, and I think it was more than just the inquisition.

 

[Darat]

Paedophile is not the whole problem.

...snip..

My comment was in response to "..yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles..." and explaining why we don't use the word "homosexual" or "hetrosexual" of "bisexual" in front of the "paedophile".

 

[pgwenthold]

a) Because a great number of girls were also abused.

b) If there is, indeed, a difference (it remain to be demonstrated), this could simply due to a difference in accessibility of the priest to boy or girls (let's call it the choir-boy effect.

I wouldn't call it that. I would call it the "altar boy" effect.

Girls didn't start serving mass until the early-mid 80s, or later even. A lot of the abuse we are talking about was going on in the 70s.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I wouldn't call it that. I would call it the "altar boy" effect.

Girls didn't start serving mass until the early-mid 80s, or later even. A lot of the abuse we are talking about was going on in the 70s.

Aye. The cases I used to read about in the news, when I lived in New England, typically referred to adults who finally came forward regarding abuse in the sixties or seventies.

DR

 

[Toke]

My comment was in response to "..yet they are not called homosexual pedophiles..." and explaining why we don't use the word "homosexual" or "hetrosexual" of "bisexual" in front of the "paedophile".

Yes.
Sorry, it does look like I have quoted you and made a point not quite relevant to yours.

 

[Simon39759]

I wouldn't call it that. I would call it the "altar boy" effect.

Girls didn't start serving mass until the early-mid 80s, or later even. A lot of the abuse we are talking about was going on in the 70s.

You're right. That's what I meant.
Outside of that, many activities were segregated by sex with the male priest being in charge of the boys and females (nuns or volunteer mothers) in charge of the girl.
It's quite clear that the priest had a much more readily access to boys than girls and it is well known that pedophiles tend to be indiscriminate as far as the sex of their victims is concerned. That difference in opportunities is a perfectly cogent explanation for the discrepancy that 154 finds so "telling".

 

[Darat]

You're right. That's what I meant.
Outside of that, many activities were segregated by sex with the male priest being in charge of the boys and females (nuns or volunteer mothers) in charge of the girl.
It's quite clear that the priest had a much more readily access to boys than girls and it is well known that pedophiles tend to be indiscriminate as far as the sex of their victims is concerned. That difference in opportunities is a perfectly cogent explanation for the discrepancy that 154 finds so "telling".

According to (you've guessed) the Irish report, the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl.

 

[Pup]

In the last five years or so, I recall two incidents that have involved girls. In the same timeframe, I have seen no less than about three dozen accounts involving boys.
As I first said, some people, many people absolutely resist acknowledging this.
They hate it when somebody dares say it.

I'm also groping to understand the point you're making.

Is your point something like: This large-scale sample shows that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals?

But that doesn't follow unless one assumes that the sexuality of priests is the same as the general population, and I'd be surprised if it was. During the era in which most of these men decided to become priests, the heterosexual ones generally had to make a choice: have an open relationship with someone you love, or give that up forever and join the priesthood. That's a lot to sacrifice. The homosexual ones weren't giving as much up, since they couldn't have an open relationship with someone they loved anyway.

Edited to add: and as others have said, for pedophiles who want pre-pubescent children of either gender, there's also the bias due to gender-restricted access to children. For gay men preying on male teens under the age of consent, my reasoning above applies.

If that's not the point you're making, what is it?

 

[Darat]

Aye. The cases I used to read about in the news, when I lived in New England, typically referred to adults who finally came forward regarding abuse in the sixties or seventies.

DR

From the Irish report:

The Commission examined complaints in respect of approximately 320 complainants against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Of the complaints examined by the Commission,

• three were made in the 1960s;
• 11 were made in the 1970s and there were two suspicions/concerns;
• 64 were made in the 1980s and there were 24 suspicions/concerns;
• 135 were made in the 1990s and there were 23 suspicions/concerns;
• 112 were made in the 2000s (mainly between January 2000 and 1 May 2004) and there were 10 suspicions/concerns.

Some context for those figures:

1.6 ...snip... This report is much more restricted in scale and is concerned only with the response of Church and State authorities to a representative sample of complaints and suspicions of child sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese of Dublin between the years 1975 and 2004.

1.7 ...snip... This Commission‟s investigation is concerned only with the institutional response to complaints, suspicions and knowledge of child sexual abuse. ....

Number of Complaints
1.8 The Commission received information about complaints, suspicions or knowledge of child sexual abuse in respect of 172 named priests and 11 unnamed priests. (Some or all of the 11 unnamed priests may, of course, be included in the 172 named priests.) After a preliminary examination, the Commission concluded that 102 of these priests were within remit.

1.9 It is important in the Commission‟s view not to equate the number of complaints with the actual instances of child sexual abuse. While a significant number of the priests against whom allegations were made admitted child sexual abuse, some denied it. Of those investigated by the Commission, one priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during the currency of his ministry which lasted for over 25 years. The total number of documented complaints recorded against those two priests is just over 70. In another case, there is
only one complaint but the priest has admitted to abusing at least six other children.

 

[Darth Rotor]

From the Irish report:

Some context for those figures:

Thank you. If you match those figures to the case Ratzinger commented on, which was percolating in late 70's early 80's, it is hard not to see the organization as stuck in a "it couldn't happen here" attitude in any diocese where a scandal/charge had not yet been uncovered or made.

In the Navy, we used to get taken to task about command climate during safety surveys, and in the past 10 years, a number of Commanding Officers in the USN have been relieved due to the effects of a crap command climate: what is the institutional mind set, and how does it manifest itself in behavior? The terms I'd see in the announcements were "Admiral XX lost confidence in Captain YY's ability to lead his command ... "

So even with some data points in the 1980's from elsewhere, the incidence, if the numbers show cases of abuse, increased rather than decreased, which shows that whatever management controls were in place (if any) were ineffective. Did the organization then put effective management controls into place to reduce undesired behavior? (Aside: Your point on the explicit condemnation in canon law shows that some form of address to the problem was made, of questionable effectiveness.)

Those numbers tell us that for the case of Ireland, and possibly elsewhere, effective organizational change was not made.

Leadership/management failure, plain and simple. The deduction I make is that it was pretended to be less serious than it was, or the organization never got from "we have a problem" mode to "problem solving" mode. It was instead wished away.

Deming wept.

Or maybe ... this is why Jesus wept.

Darat, this discussion has made me think something else through:

I disagree with then Cardinal Ratzinger's point, thanks to Alferd's posts, about how important this "once a priest always a priest" bit plays out. The Roman Catholic Church puts great store in the apostolic tradition and lineage back to Peter, quoting time and again from Matthew 16:19:

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.​

With the power to loose and to bind, the RCC can indeed revoke the impact of a priest's vows, and he can be, by legitimate authority vested in the Holy See, via RCC "We got this from Peter and the keys" dogma, rendered a non-priest.

They can annul a marriage, they can annul a holy order. Both are sacraments.

I appreciate Alferd's explanation of why Benedict made the appeal to the bishop in CA -- you can't just flush your problem away. I disagree with the reasoning that the Church should not render void, or loose, the previous decision to ordain the man. By their own dogma, they have the authority.

... these statistics (if representative of the whole RCC and organized religion in general) fit very well into the transit of Pluto through the Tropical Zodiac with I cited here. The middle section of Pluto in Sagittarius, the sign connected to organized religion, is especially relevant.

Then why aren't Buddhist clerics the problem, if you are going to generalize this whole problem to "organized religion" in this case. I don't think it fair to pillory Mormons, Buddhists, Methodists, or Muslims for the problems of a discrete religious sect: the RCC. If your astrology shows that, perhaps you'll reconsider using it as an analysis tool.

Father Fitzgerald had the right of it. From Wikipedia:

One early opponent of the treatment of sexually abusive priests was Father Gerald Fitzgerald, the founder of The Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete. Although Fitzgerald started the Servants of the Paraclete to assist priests who were struggling with alcohol and substance abuse problems, he soon began receiving priests who had sexually abused minors.

Initially, Fitzgerald attempted to treat such priests using the same spiritual methods that he used with his other "guests". However, as he grew convinced of the futility of treating sexually abusive priests, Fitzgerald came to oppose vehemently the return of sexual abusers to duties as parish priests. He wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood could not be cured and should be defrocked immediately.

Eventually, Fitzgerald lost control of the Servants of the Paraclete. The center began to employ medical and psychological professionals who added psychiatry and medical treatment to the spiritual regimen of treatment favored by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald continued to oppose these modifications to his treatment regimen until his death in 1969.

Seeing as how this problem has been known for some decades, any analysis of how rectifying this problem has to account for the inertia of the organization.

In 1983, the Vatican promulgated a revised Code of Canon Law which included a canon (1395, 2) which explicitly named sex with a minor by clerics as a canonical crime.

OK, work with me here: why does it take until 1983 to spell this out? Why is it required to spell this out? See my previous reference to Luke 17:2 -- which isn't just RCC doctrine, it's bloody Scripture!

In April 2001, Pope John Paul II issued Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (Safeguarding the Sanctity of the Sacraments). This replaced the Crimen sollicitationis. All priestly sex crimes cases were to be placed under the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which, in most cases, would authorize the bishops to conduct trials themselves. In May 2001, a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in line with the 1983 Code of Canon Law and the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was sent to the Catholic bishops.

If you do the same old thing, and expect different results, you are bound to be disappointed. The Vatican was unwilling to do other than delegate the responsibility for the remedy of this problem. It is no surprise that this policy failed.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) perceived a lack of adequate procedures for the prevention of sexual abuse of minors, the reporting of allegations of such abuse and the handling of those reports. In June 2002, the USCCB moved to address these deficiencies by promulgating a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People that pledged the Catholic Church in the U.S. to providing a "safe environment" for all children in Church-sponsored activities. The thrust of the charter was the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse. The Charter instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees. The Charter requires dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty

One wonders why, given the history of these cases being well known within the church since the 1960's, that it took to 2002 for the leadership to finally clue up.

Could it have been the lawsuits that cost the church over a billion dollars, and forced the RCC in the US to sell property and close some schools and churches? Is that what it takes?

DR