Thread: Child sexual abuse Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029951
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
The Oscar-winning film "Spotlight" has provided a fresh focus on the issue of sexual abuse of children by people who are supposed to be looking after their welfare. Although that film focussed on only one such institution, namely the Roman Catholic diocese of Boston (USA), the problem is of course far more widespread than that; shipmates may wish to comment on other institutions who have likewise been more concerned to cover up their failings (sins!) than to do anything to prevent them.
In Australia, there is a Royal Commission on child sexual abuse, which has been holding public hearings for the past several months. In an ironic co-incidence, on the very day that the film Spotlight won its Oscar for best picture, the Royal Commission began its 4-day examination of Cardinal George Pell, formerly Archbishop of Melbourne and then of Sydney, and now a senior official in the Vatican.
Pell's reputation in Australia is as someone who gives much greater weight to the hierarchy of the church than to compassion for suffering parishioners. Hence his nick-name among nuns I know: "Pell Pot". Pope Francis must have picked up this when he appointed Pell to be(in effect) be the senior auditor of the Vatican finances, rather than a pastor of souls as a Bishop.
The Royal Commissioner was extremely sceptical of Pell's testimony to the effect that there was conspiracy among senior members of the church to deceive him about what was going on when he was priest in the Diocese of Ballarat in the 1980s. So too were those victims of this abuse, who had flown specially to Rome to hear his testimony in person - especially the victims of Fr Ribsdale, who was at one time a housemate of Pell's , but was moved repeatedly from parish to parish in response to complaints reaching the then bishop.
Are there any shipmates who believe Pell's version of events? It sounds to me and to this cartoonist more like a case of "don't ask , don't tell".
For further background see these reports: day 2 day 3
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is times like this that I almost hope for a real Hell for those who have covered up abuse.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I found a link making the way around Facebook to a priest who was asked to comment on these events and was asked if the victims bore any guilt for having 'gone along with it'.
Let me find it...
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2015/09/ny-bishop-rape-shames-abuse-victims/
Now to be fair he wasn't saying they were solely to blame but IMHO even thinking about this issue in the terms that he did just sums up all that I find desperately wrong with the Catholic Church.
I didn't say what I thought completely on Facebook because I was able to swallow my 'What the fuck is this disgusting bollocks of a moral system?' and actually get some nuance from the Catholics on my list. But still...what the fuck is this disgusting bollocks of a moral system?
And anyway after that, do I believe Pell? No, no I don't. I think people in his position would lie to protect the institution that is the basis of their power and prestige. Can't say for sure of course but the whole thing STINKS.
[ 04. March 2016, 02:39: Message edited by: Macrina ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
The Oscar-winning film "Spotlight" has provided a fresh focus on the issue of sexual abuse of children by people who are supposed to be looking after their welfare. Although that film focussed on only one such institution, namely the Roman Catholic diocese of Boston (USA), the problem is of course far more widespread than that; shipmates may wish to comment on other institutions who have likewise been more concerned to cover up their failings (sins!) than to do anything to prevent them.
After the truly damning story of covering up abuse that "Spotlight" tells, there scrolls a long list of places throughout the world where the church covered up abuse. It's chilling.
I think the impulse to cover up failings is a very human one, both at the personal and institutional level. It's a very natural response -- we don't want people to know, and often we don't want to even think about what we've done, or about what's happened in a family or a church. But I expect spiritual leaders in all churches to do better. They lose all credibility if they are not spiritually mature enough to recognize sin, acknowledge it, and do their best to stop it.
I have, thankfully, only the mildest experience of this. Many years ago, I went twice to a tiny, newly started Baptist church where a man both times felt me up during the greet-your-neighbor part of the service. When I told the pastor that the reason I only went to his church twice was because of what this guy had done, the pastor told me I was mistaken, that it was just that the guy was friendly. I insisted that it had happened, but he didn't want to hear it. And I thought, "If he won't even entertain the possibility that something is happening that shouldn't be, I'm not going near his fucked up little church."
And frankly, the whole "we're all human, we all fall short" argument doesn't fly here. If Christianity doesn't make its adherents better people, if we can't legitimately expect Christian leaders to be better than average human beings, there's something deeply wrong with the whole religion. The RCC has some pretty ugly characters in the persons of men like Pell and Law, but it hasn't cornered the market on craven religious leaders, not by a long shot.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I think the impulse to cover up failings is a very human one, both at the personal and institutional level. It's a very natural response -- we don't want people to know, and often we don't want to even think about what we've done, or about what's happened in a family or a church. But I expect spiritual leaders in all churches to do better. They lose all credibility if they are not spiritually mature enough to recognize sin, acknowledge it, and do their best to stop it.
...I insisted that it had happened, but he didn't want to hear it.
Jimmy Savile. "alleged offences took place at 13 hospitals as well as on BBC premises" (Wikipedia) with several hundred victims.
Looks like covering up is what institutions do, religious or not. That doesn't decrease the evil of the church coverups. Be we as a society and as people need to know that if we banned all churches the problem would continue, because it isn't just a church issue, it's something much bigger and broader.
I guess we humans write off people who say things we don't want to hear? Because if we hear it we have to do something about it? And we prefer the comfort of not confronting someone popular, or "important", or even just familiar to us?
Must be LOTS of people complained about Savile and were ignored. Not surprising complaints in a church were ignored, people have more emotional investment in their church than in their hospital.
As to churches, we need to NOT tell people "church is a safe place." It's not. It's people, and they are not safe.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
Having read the coverage of Pell's testimony, he was either asleep at the wheel for most of his ministry, or he's lying through his teeth. Either way, no good.
Certainly he doesn't have a clue how he's coming across.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
The Royal Commission is not into abuse generally, but into institutional abuse. By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
That said, Pell's appearance this week has been appalling. At least in the witness box, he has shown no compassion for the abused. In none of his evidence overall has he shown any pastoral skills. Not saying he does not have any, just that none has been shown.
Was he telling the truth? Like many at the Sydney Bar, I know Justice McClellan, and not only trust him absolutely but am confident in his ability to answer this question.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Looks like covering up is what institutions do, religious or not. That doesn't decrease the evil of the church coverups.
I think it increases the evil.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Be we as a society and as people need to know that if we banned all churches the problem would continue, because it isn't just a church issue, it's something much bigger and broader.
Of course the RCC is not the genesis of the problem and of course the larger the organisation, the more it serves itself rather than its stated intent. This is a reason the coverups happened at the scale they have, not an excuse.
[ 04. March 2016, 06:58: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
This is true, but it also points to the reason why abuse is high in schools and churches. Trust and access.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Yes, that's true, but the general attitude coming through the press reports of the Royal Commission is that abuse is limited to institutions and in particular to churches or bodies such as schools associated with churches.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/11/catholic-abuse-priests
I do think people forget the pace of cultural change over this issue. Child protection standards have changed massively, alongside a major change about how the adult's behaviour is understood.
Freudianism didn't help, with theory that children had psychodynamically driven sexual fantasies about adults.
Also, many things were simply not taken as seriously. In my childhood, I recall being advised that if I saw a flasher I should ignore them , or laugh at them, and just walk away. I do not recall being told to run for it, or call the police.
I am not sure it is reasonable to expect people to have reacted in the same way in 1970 as they would have done in 2000.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is that the reaction in 2000 wasn't what it should have been either. Naught really started until JPII popped his fancy red clogs. Even then it was no quick thing.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself. He publically stated that he didn't check the age if his groupies when he was a young man. But there has been no public backlash, no stripping his name from things.
Look at the abuse directed at the 15 year old girl whose allegations against Sunderland footballer Alan Johnson have just been upheld in court.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I note also from this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel that John Peel was another example someone who having been subject to sexual abuse, went on to commit sexual abuse.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
It seems a lamentable reality that institutions tend to change people to the extent that they begin to serve the needs of the institution over the needs of humanity or the feelings of victims or the understanding of the way excuses are perceived.
It seems like the RCC is just one end of this particular reality, many different types of institution seem to attract abuse, particularly of children. The excuses just seem to make it worse, but I can believe that the kind of institutional thinking (brainwashing, in a way) may indeed mean that individuals really believe this shit they come out with, and really believe that they're just innocents swept along by events.
Even when they're shown documents and proof that they were there and knew, they often seem to want to stick to their guns and insist that no, my memory is correct and the documents are wrong.
The most tragic part of this, for me (as a non-victim looking at this on a macro-scale) is the desecration of the things we thought were holy. I'm not sure I can trust that there are no dark corners and parallel moral universes in the institutions around and about us.
And then when you get people, apparently coherently and consistently, making allegations of child murders etc from many years ago, it is very hard to know what to do with it. It sounds terrible, something out of a barely-believable horror novel. But given all this other shit that has been dug up, it can't be dismissed as impossible.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note also from this wiki page https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Peel that John Peel was another example someone who having been subject to sexual abuse, went on to commit sexual abuse.
The criminal appeal reports here are full of case after case where someone abused as a child turns at a very early age to alcohol and then increasingly worse drugs in an attempt to blot out what has happened - then engaging in crime to get the money for the drugs needed, or becoming more and more violent to others. It's not just becoming a sexual abuser, but a slide into a life where crime is accepted as the norm.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina
I found a link making the way around Facebook to a priest who was asked to comment on these events and was asked if the victims bore any guilt for having 'gone along with it'.
Years ago here a shippie told of an episode that happened when she was in parochial school. Apparently an assistant priest at the church was caught sexually molesting some children. The parish priest came to the school and lectured all the children about how wicked they were to lead this fine man astray. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Moo
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself.
are you drawing a line between that marriage in 1965 and her killing herself in 1988?
between their divorce and her death she was married 3 more times...
I wouldn't have wanted marry a 15 year old when I was 26, and we might all feel queasy that anyone would, but it was legal - so it would be a bit difficult to mount a prosecution even were they both still alive. Allegedly she was the violent one in the relationship too...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The Royal Commission is not into abuse generally, but into institutional abuse. By far the greatest amount of abuse is not by clergy, or school teachers, or those in charge of orphanages - it is by family members (family including step-parents).
There's also the fact that institutions usually have greater resources at their disposal than most families do to cover up abuse when it occurs. I came across an account of abuse in a smallish Pennsylvania diocese. Most families would not have the luxury of having a hand in selecting the chief of the police force investigating their offenses.
quote:
One diocesan official under Hogan, Monsignor Philip Saylor, told the grand jury that church officials held such clout in the eight-county diocese that “the police and civil authorities would often defer to the diocese” when priests were accused of abuse, the report said. Saylor told the grand jury that the mayors of Altoona and Johnstown even consulted him on their choices for police chief in the 1980s.
“Politicians of Blair County were afraid of Monsignor Saylor, and he apparently persuaded the mayor to appoint me as the chief of police,” former Altoona Police Chief Peter Starr testified.
It's also notable that most families don't have either a "payout chart", nor the financial wherewithal to provide large quantities of hush money.
quote:
In a practice seen in other dioceses, the bishop created a “payout chart” to help guide how much victims would receive from the church, the report said. Victims fondled over their clothes were to be paid $10,000 to $25,000; fondled under their clothes or subjected to masturbation, $15,000 to $40,000; subjected to forced oral sex, $25,000 to $75,000; subjected to forced sodomy or intercourse, $50,000 to $175,000.
I think the fact that such charts exist speaks to the widespread nature of the problem. The other thing that jumped out at me was this.
quote:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that American dioceses have paid nearly $4 billion since 1950 to settle claims with victims.
Deciding to essentially buy $4,000,000,000 of child abuse seems like a very misplaced set of priorities. If you want to put it more charitably (which I don't particularly) you could say that the U.S. Catholic Church wagered it could successfully cover up massive amounts of child molestation and lost that wager to the tune of $4,000,000,000 (to date). Either way, $4,000,000,000 buys a lot of human misery.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
I find it interesting and encouraging that there seems to have been an overwhelmingly positive public response to Spotlight by US Catholics.
I'm certainly glad to have seen it and on the whole would commend it highly.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
From the article:
quote:
Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, told the Italian daily La Repubblica that “All bishops and cardinals must see this film, because they must understand that it is reporting [abuse] that will save the Church, not ‘omertà.’” (Omertà is a term from Mafia culture meaning a code of silence and non-cooperation.)
Whoa! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself.
are you drawing a line between that marriage in 1965 and her killing herself in 1988?
between their divorce and her death she was married 3 more times...
I wouldn't have wanted marry a 15 year old when I was 26, and we might all feel queasy that anyone would, but it was legal - so it would be a bit difficult to mount a prosecution even were they both still alive. Allegedly she was the violent one in the relationship too...
I suggest her life history demostrates she was quite a disturbed individual. I suggest not checking the age of your groupies, along with marrying a 15 year old indicate little understanding of - or concern for - child protection.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I would further suggest that becoming a child bride might have a significant effect on successive relationships you might have.
(whoops read dates wrong.)
[ 04. March 2016, 22:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
From the article:
quote:
Malta’s Archbishop Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s former chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, told the Italian daily La Repubblica that “All bishops and cardinals must see this film, because they must understand that it is reporting [abuse] that will save the Church, not ‘omertà.’” (Omertà is a term from Mafia culture meaning a code of silence and non-cooperation.)
Whoa!
Yeah, I liked that bit too.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Years ago here a shippie told of an episode that happened when she was in parochial school. Apparently an assistant priest at the church was caught sexually molesting some children. The parish priest came to the school and lectured all the children about how wicked they were to lead this fine man astray.
Moo
Something similar happened to me but the people involved were Methodists.
Getting back to Pell, I know understandings were different in the 70s, but he doesn't seem to have even acknowledged the current pain that the survivors are experiencing.
Also saying that the Church (I mean the wider church not just a particular denomination) was no worse than any other institution is a cop out when it held itself up as better. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Huia
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I would further suggest that becoming a child bride might have a significant effect on successive relationships you might have.
(whoops read dates wrong.)
Yes, definitely, I would argue it is evidence of the damage to her attachment schema cascading forward in her life.
There are three types of psychological damage you tend to see in survivors of csa who are unfortunate enough to lack support and resilience: problems in forming secure attachments, problems in regulating emotions - especially a struggle to control intense emotion and self-comfort and (depending on the nature and extent of the abuse) low self-esteem often dependent on others opinion. The effect of this to make people vulnerable to future relationship failure and/of being drawn into abusive relationships.
A small subset will grow up with poor internalised understanding of sexual boundaries, a learnt undestanding of relationships as a way to control others - to maintain a sense of personal safety and meets ones own needs. Some of these people will go on to abuse others - and abusers tend not to abuse just one person - and so the whole fucked up generational cycle continues.
If you wonder what difference it makes that a fifteen year old gives a blow job to pop idol she worships ? Well depending on her resilience, how often she is in that situation and what support she recieves in the aftermath - one of the risks is that she becomes a person who crucially derives their self esteem from those connections, from the person who is her current boyfriend.
These people are a magnet for abusers, vulnerable and easy to exploit - because they are desperate for the partner not to abandon them - even if the partner hits them, even if their partner hits their child, even if their partner rapes them, even when they choose not ask why their partner leaves the bedroom when they are half asleep at 2am and their child seems out of sorts and wary of their partner.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
The second part of this is the cover up and protection of those who let this happen. For ezample, from Boston where I lived; the treatment of the Church of Cardinal Law after he hastily left Boston during inquiries.
We're sorry, but after we obstructed bringing those to justice who did these atrocities and bringing those to justice who concealed the record and saying "It was bad, but it was a long time ago..." doesn't make the apology meaningful. So among those who Pell said lied to him how many are still happily in the Church or honored in retirement?
[ 06. March 2016, 02:26: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
The second part of this is the cover up and protection of those who let this happen. For ezample, from Boston where I lived; the treatment of the Church of Cardinal Law after he hastily left Boston during inquiries.
...saying "It was bad, but it was a long time ago..." doesn't make the apology meaningful.
As I remember it, Law was on the verge legal trouble in USA when the Vatican suddenly gave him a job outside USA jurisdiction, a job regarded as a promotion.
Law is now comfortably retired
This promotion and the Vatican's continued affirmation of Law today in spite of all the evidence of his personal involvement in coverups, is why people regard any apologies as insincere. An insincere apology is never "enough." As long as Law is honored instead of sent to a remote barren monastery to meditate on his sins, why believe the apologies for the past or promises to do differently in the future are sincere?
As Eliza said in My Fair Lady - "I'm sick of words, show me!"
And yes, it's not just RCC.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
Those in Rome to watch the proceedings are some of the survivors of substantial abuse. The trouble is that nothing can amount to an adequate apology. Cynics say that all that the victims are after is a large sum of money. Quite how and why never gets explained, but success in obtaining compensation will not be enough. Nor will words. They are asking that the Pope remove Pell from his position - that may give some satisfaction to them, but it will not be adequate. Perhaps some positive action to minimise the chances of future abuse will help.
I don't know what follow-up others may have seen but the press here is loudly condemning Pell. Certainly the impression which his evidence has many has left the RCC with a substantially diminished reputation.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
Some cynics claim that Pell chose not to return to Australia to give his testimony in order to avoid having to face his many critics in Australia. But the Commissioner accepted medical evidence that such a long journey would endanger Pell's weak heart.
Either way, giving his testimony in Rome gave it (and whole issue of institutional sexual abuse of children) extra publicity worldwide as Vatican correspondents from media around the world turned up to report on it.
In response to a question upthread, Pell personally is accused only of "turning a deaf ear" to stories of abusive priests. Most of the priests in question are now either dead or in gaol. The former Bishop of Ballarat - one of those who persistently moved abusive priests on to other parishes,is now long retired and terminally ill. Nevertheless he too is being questioned by the Royal Commission.
And for those unfamiliar with that system, a Royal Commission is essentially only an enquiry (though with extensive powers to force people to appear before it); it cannot bring charges in law, though it can recommend that the Public Prosecutor do so.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Fair enough, but if what people want is not an apology but a specific set of people sacked - then it would be clearer if that was what was asked for.
However, I think part of the problem is (certainly in the BBC enquiry reaction) people simply do not believe when they are told "x did not know".
As regards Pell, he has said re certain allegations that he did not believe the complainant when he was told - and it was the complainant's word against the priest's.
Question, a) was it usual for an uncorroborated child's accusation to carry weight over an adult's denial at that point in time in that country ? b) if not, was Pell's conduct unreasonable ?
Being told something you do not believe, is not equivalent to knowing something happened.
I do not know, for example, that David Cameron put his penis in a pigs head. Nor do I know if someone did that to him whilst he was in a drunken stupour. If the latter were true, it would mean someone had sexually assaulted Cameron. I am aware that alot of people have talked about this supposed event.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
And at least one Ballarat abuse survivor said following a meeting with Pell (after the latter's testimony) that he does now seem to "get it".
[ 06. March 2016, 08:50: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I hold no brief for Pell, but this is heard alot in various enquiries on the subject, after those concerned have said we are sorry, it was catastrophic, indefensible (paraphrasing Pell) etc What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like ?
I note that survivors are unhappy with the most recent BBC report but I can not see what it is that they feel should be in the report that is not.
Those in Rome to watch the proceedings are some of the survivors of substantial abuse. The trouble is that nothing can amount to an adequate apology. Cynics say that all that the victims are after is a large sum of money. Quite how and why never gets explained, but success in obtaining compensation will not be enough. Nor will words. They are asking that the Pope remove Pell from his position - that may give some satisfaction to them, but it will not be adequate. Perhaps some positive action to minimise the chances of future abuse will help.
I don't know what follow-up others may have seen but the press here is loudly condemning Pell. Certainly the impression which his evidence has many has left the RCC with a substantially diminished reputation.
I suppose what I am getting at, is that after every statement / enquiry, it is always said that the apology is inadequate - and it probably is. As you say words will never be enough - but I think it would be helpful to be explicit about what is a useful and feasible outcome.
You can not change the culture of an organisation 30 years ago, it can be different now - and I would argue in most cases it largely is. You can have a clear child protection policy. If for a multi-national organisation there are cases where you would not co-operate with the state - e.g. we will not pass our staff into the custody of an organisation that will subject them to torture or execution - then you need an alternative procedure (e.g. we will return them to the vatican and have them stand trial).
You could fire from any position of responsibility, anyone who ignored abuse complaints, or attempted to settle them without involvement of the courts. I think this probably what the survivors want. I think there are likely to be three issues with this, a) many of these people are dead b) for all their failure in this area of practice you are still talking about a skilled and experienced group of people, numbers and seniority being what they are, it may not be feasible to remove all these people at once without sucession planning - the more time passes the less this is true c) to what extent would this process be scapegoating individuals for institutional and cultural failure ?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I have not seen the film, but have watched the many abuse speculations as they arise.
There has been a case where many institutions have been star-struck. That does not excuse anyone, but there was some looking the other way. The recent attitude to Jeremy Clarkson has demonstrated exactly the same attitude.
And I have never heard any actual suggestions of abuse about John Peel. Nothing here suggests that he did anything illegal, he did not commit abuse in the sense of anything illegal. To tar him with the same brush as people who have actually deliberately abused children seems disingenuous.
But the real problem I have is with the church. I would hold the church to a higher standard, and expect - maybe unfairly - that they should not be as subject to the same "star" problems. That they should be a place of sanctuary for those who suffer elsewhere. For me, this is an abuse of trust of the highest form. These are people who claim to represent God. While they may accept that they are poor representations, this is still unacceptable.
And for those who cover up activity like this, who deliberately and explicitly protect people who fail in their duty is vile. The problem for me is that they bring the church, Christianity and God into disrepute. Two of these are very close to me.
I can only come to the conclusion that the church is an institution with its stars, just like so many others. And it has nothing to do with God. I am sure that many others feel the same.
And then some ask why people are not wanting to go to church?
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Even then, I don't think sackings will achieve much. Pell's at an age when many others would retire, and in June he may not be renewed. Regardless, what does he do? His health is such that he cannot fly back to Australia. A flat could easily be found for him in the Vatican but then there may well be press complaints about that. I don't know how the survivors would react to that.
Of course I have not seen his evidence, and rely only on press reports. It's impossible for me to reach any conclusion as to his credibility, but my suspicion is that he was telling the truth. His knowledge at the time probably was very limited and it would have been normal procedure for him to (for example) rely upon the Christian Brothers order to investigate and take action. After all, Dowlan was subject to their discipline.
There is extremely limited hope of obtaining any verdict against the RCC. For a start, there is no legal body her called the RCC. There are various trusts, but the trustees hold the assets on particular trusts, and those only. The trusts have not employed any of those accused or convicted of offences nor were they in any way responsible for them. Then, even if these problems are overcome, a plaintiff would need to persuade a court to extend the time to bring action against the abuser. The list of difficulties is considerable. The RCC could provide counselling directly or fund those who seek to make their own arrangements. The problem with that is that the wounds are now so deep and ingrown that I'd be surprised if any amount of counselling could really be successful. It certainly is a line which should be explored, though.
You say I think it would be helpful to be explicit about what is a useful and feasible outcome. Who do you think should be explicit? It's a very hard task for the victims to do that. I do not want to offend them but consider that having lived with the problems all these years none is able to suggest what may be useful. I certainly would not rely on their present champions in the press to have any suitable suggestions either.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
It's not only a matter of protecting the institution but in many churches and the RCC in particular the basic structure of the church contributes to a very un-Christian hierarchy of persons. quote:
From Mark:10
So Jesus called them and said to them, "You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all."
When priests award themselves the rights of kings and church members are brought up to view them as superior beings, then everyone concerned is off on the wrong foot. The priests value one another above the children, the children and their parents are taught to believe that their priests are smarter, more holy, and permitted to "lord it over," them by virtue of their title. I believe that's the root cause of the cover-up and the reason the congregants felt so helpless against it for so long.
----------------------
Maybe it's because, unlike the children were talking about, I know Ruth, but that man being allowed to feel her up during The Peace, just PISSES ME RIGHT OFF! That minister couldn't even be bothered to watch the man the next time and see for himself.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And I have never heard any actual suggestions of abuse about John Peel. Nothing here suggests that he did anything illegal, he did not commit abuse in the sense of anything illegal. To tar him with the same brush as people who have actually deliberately abused children seems disingenuous.
quote:
As a young man he worked as a DJ in Texas in a local radio station. Much later he recalled that girls, some as young as 13, used to queue up outside his radio station. 'All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course, I was only too happy to do.'
He complained that American girls had ‘this strange notion of virginity as a tangible thing which you surrendered to your husband on your wedding night. So they would do anything but s*** you’.
Also, he comitted sexual,abuse in the sense of fucking a fifteen year old. It just didn't happen to be illegal in that state. It was at that time illegal in the uk. If I went to Japan and amassed a huge collection of child focussed manga porn - would you want to name the wing of a public building after me ?
[ 06. March 2016, 14:29: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To the extent that you're advocating following the law in places other than your current location, I must protest.
Or do you think Saudi women must not drive, even when they have relocated to somewhere else?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I'm not saying that he should be prosecuted for his marriage, I am saying his behaviour was sexually abusive, and that he would have known this was unlawful in his own country. And aspects of his own public statements suggest he comitted acts that would have been illegal both in Texas and the UK, and that he did not care whether they were or not.
If you read the article you will see that there are also some allegations from a specific individual.
My primary point being that despite the fact this information is widely known in the public domain - it has not significantly affected public perceptions of him because it is still the case that people don't recognise abuse when they hear about it.
An upholstery cleaner came to my house and got incvolved in a long conversation about his family - including a male relative who he thought didn't treat women well. He remarked in passing he'd not been right since he'd had an "affair" with a female teacher when he was 14/15. This man had not recognised that "affair" as sexual abuse.
This failure to see is really common unfortunately. Particularly as child sexual abuse covers such a wide range of behaviour.
[ 06. March 2016, 21:53: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Or do you think Saudi women must not drive, even when they have relocated to somewhere else?
Banning child porn is right and banning women from driving isn't. Doesn't moral relativism suck?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
My primary point being that despite the fact this information is widely known in the public domain - it has not significantly affected public perceptions of him because it is still the case that people don't recognise abuse when they hear about it.
I'm not sure if that's entirely true. At one point Peel was the cuddly warm Saturday-morning voice of R4, telling the inane stories of other people's lives and odd habits. For a long while before that he was the oddball music DJ playing new and strange music to the R1 audience.
Immediately after his death I recall lots of people making public statements of grief for the national icon, but as it became clear that he had some pretty unpleasant skeletons in the cupboard, I think that generally waned. I think the lack of many lasting memorials suggests that many felt that Peel's legacy was pretty tarnished.
But then I think it is fair to also say that many 1960s and 1970s music "stars" sailed very close to the wind. Including the various DJs from pirate radio stations, musicians and others. It would not surprise me (sadly) to learn that many music and film stars still alive from that era were also having sex with girls of 15 - because the general attitude seemed to be not to ask and that it didn't matter.
From what I understand, Peel was not in the same league as Savile. But I'm still sickened by these stories.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What is it that is wanted, what would an adequate apology look like?
There's a lot of subtext to questions like that. Most of the answers generated on this thread so far indicate that this subtext is coming through loud and clear. What's being asked is "what words or actions does the Roman Catholic Church (or any of the other once-trusted institutions caught in a similar situation) have to say or do in order for the victims to shut up and go away?" In other words, what's being sought is a way to return to the status quo ante where the RCC (or other similar institution) can go back to being a well-respected arbiter of other people's morality. Or to put it more bluntly, you have institutions asking "what can we do so that people don't react to us the same way they react to other people who have operated child sex rings?"
In a lot of ways this is simply the latest iteration of the underlying problem that caused the situation in the first place: prioritizing the needs or desires of an institutional offender over the needs of its victims. The question of what the RCC (or other institution) needs to do always seems to be pitched in terms of what needs to be done to restore its good reputation. The focus is all on the needs and wants of the RCC, not what needs to be done to make its victims whole. Given the kind of damage done by child sexual abuse, there's probably nothing that can do this. Which is why most people have a low opinion of those who operate child sex rings, because the damage can't be undone.
So in answer, an "adequate" apology is one that makes the victims whole again. The fact that this is probably not possible is not a reason for the victims to shut up and go away. In fact, it's probably a reason they shouldn't.
[ 07. March 2016, 15:28: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So in answer, an "adequate" apology is one that makes the victims whole again. The fact that this is probably not possible is not a reason for the victims to shut up and go away. In fact, it's probably a reason they shouldn't.
More than that. Also remove from positions of honor and cushy retirement digs those who participated in abuse or coverup. For example as long as Law remains in splendid comfort, he is being rewarded for his despicable behavior no matter how often the church claims they disapprove.
Show us by actions, not just words. Use actions that demonstrate to today's active clergy they will NOT be protected if they do similar behaviors and coverups.
The typical institutional response (not just churches) is "he did more good than bad." That's why wrongdoers get promoted and protected instead of kicked downstairs.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
No door, though - just a window. Turn them into anchorites.
I.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Creosus, that is bollocks.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
Jailing someone who hasn't broken the law is problematic.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Creosus, that is bollocks.
What, specifically? And why?
[ 08. March 2016, 02:22: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
Jailing someone who hasn't broken the law is problematic.
Are monks in prison? Is a luxury flat proper?
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Jailing someone who hasn't broken the law is problematic.
If they work for the church, you don't have to jail them, just give them an assigned post. There was an isolated monastery in New Mexico that they sent priests to who had repeatedly abused children so often they had to get them out of town for a while.
That should do nicely.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Or do you think Saudi women must not drive, even when they have relocated to somewhere else?
Banning child porn is right and banning women from driving isn't. Doesn't moral relativism suck?
The age of consent varies greatly from country to country.
And in some countries, all the sex that I've ever had would have been illegal.
It's got nothing to do with moral relativism, it's about legal relativism and jurisdiction. Not being a United States citizen, I'm only required to obey the laws of the United States while I'm in the United States.
[ 08. March 2016, 06:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I know this is an arguable point, but to my mind there is a deep underlying fundamental truth even if it isn't reflected in local laws. And I appreciate that it took many countries a long time to come to realisation of it, and some still are not there yet.
That point is that teenage girls are not ready for sex and that older males who encourage/persuade them to engage in sexual activity are deeply damaging them - even if the laws say it is legal.
Call me colonial if you like, but activities which I would fight to protect my daughter from are not suitable for girl children anywhere.
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
The moon?
Oh, that's no good - John Lewis will send them a telescope they can use to look into girls' bedrooms ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Creosus, that is bollocks.
What, specifically? And why?
The suggestion that asking what specifc changes should come about as a result of the various child abuse enquiries means that I somehow think the survivors should be silenced. I spend alot of my professional life working with survivors of abuse and find the suggestion extremely offensive.
What I am asking is what practically should happen, because apology mk3001.4 is really not that helpful.
I would, for example, totally back the survivors saying something like, in addition to proper child protection procedures we'd like the RCC to include in the liturgy, in the prayers for the church, a prayer for forgiveness for sheltering those who use holy orders as an oppprtunity to abuse others and that the failble humans who make up the church will not allow this to happen again - permenantly, in the same way you always pray for the pope.
[ 08. March 2016, 16:23: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Having looked at wiki, I am guessing it is theologically and currently institutionally impossible to de-bishop a bishop or de-cardinal a cardinal.
So then it becomes a question of where you put them.
As Belle Ringer suggested; in a secluded monastic cell, just big enough for a bed with the minimum daily caloric requirement.
Jailing someone who hasn't broken the law is problematic.
Are monks in prison? Is a luxury flat proper?
A secluded cell with the minimum amount of food required for survival is not a typical monastic set up. There is also a difference between culpably poor decision-making about risk & reputation management and actually choosing to have sex with children - there should be a distinction of consequence too.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Point is, no comforts.
Difference between and an abuser and an enabler.
An abuser might be a victim themselves, so pushed towards continuing the chain of victimisation.
An enabler can be one who deliberately hides obvious abuse, one who naively believes confession clears the guilt and resets the "sin" or one who is merely incompetent.
So an abuser needs to be removed from the possibility of re-offence. For a priest, monastic seclusion is well within the lifestlye options of a religious.
A conscious enabler should face punishment as well as removal from privilege and comfort.
A hapless or incompetent administrator should be removed from authority and also removed from comfort, why should incompetence be a reward?
And it is exceeding difficult to not attribute willful ignorance in this day and age. It is hardly as if this is an invisible issue.
So how is a monastic cell an unjust punishment in any of these cases?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would, for example, totally back the survivors saying something like, in addition to proper child protection procedures we'd like the RCC to include in the liturgy, in the prayers for the church, a prayer for forgiveness for sheltering those who use holy orders as an opportunity to abuse others and that the fallible humans who make up the church will not allow this to happen again - permanently, in the same way you always pray for the pope.
While I can see the advantage (from the Church's perspective) of having a system in place so the next round of abuse is "pre-forgiven", I worry that calls for "forgiveness" in this context have an ugly history of being used to silence the abused.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
The book "Survivor Prayers", by Rev. Catherine Foote, might be useful. It's a mix of prose and prayers, wrestling with childhood sexual abuse. Lots of truth and anger. No "there, there" cheap forgiveness of abusers. (She's a survivor, herself.) I don't have my copy handy; but IIRC she talks about a friend who was abused by clergy. I *think* that may be the person she mentioned who killed herself.
I met Catherine, long ago. Cool lady.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Probably a good time to link to "Reasons Not To Kill Yourself", by Mari Collings. It's meant for survivors of a particular kind of childhood abuse, but lots of other people find it useful.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would, for example, totally back the survivors saying something like, in addition to proper child protection procedures we'd like the RCC to include in the liturgy, in the prayers for the church, a prayer for forgiveness for sheltering those who use holy orders as an opportunity to abuse others and that the fallible humans who make up the church will not allow this to happen again - permanently, in the same way you always pray for the pope.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I can see the advantage (from the Church's perspective) of having a system in place so the next round of abuse is "pre-forgiven", I worry that calls for "forgiveness" in this context have an ugly history of being used to silence the abused.
While I can see the advantage (from Crœsos' perspective) of attacking a strawman rather than a real argument, that isn't remotely close to what doublethink was talking about.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I know this is an arguable point, but to my mind there is a deep underlying fundamental truth even if it isn't reflected in local laws. And I appreciate that it took many countries a long time to come to realisation of it, and some still are not there yet.
That point is that teenage girls are not ready for sex and that older males who encourage/persuade them to engage in sexual activity are deeply damaging them - even if the laws say it is legal.
Call me colonial if you like, but activities which I would fight to protect my daughter from are not suitable for girl children anywhere.
How teenage is your idea of "teenage"? Nearly every country in the world allows teenagers to have sex. In the developed world 14 to 16 seems common. It's 18 in parts of Africa and a few states in the USA.
There are places where there are "close-in-age" rules which solve some problems, so that two teenagers can have sex with each other but neither of them can have sex with an adult.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I would, for example, totally back the survivors saying something like, in addition to proper child protection procedures we'd like the RCC to include in the liturgy, in the prayers for the church, a prayer for forgiveness for sheltering those who use holy orders as an opportunity to abuse others and that the fallible humans who make up the church will not allow this to happen again - permanently, in the same way you always pray for the pope.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I can see the advantage (from the Church's perspective) of having a system in place so the next round of abuse is "pre-forgiven", I worry that calls for "forgiveness" in this context have an ugly history of being used to silence the abused.
While I can see the advantage (from Crœsos' perspective) of attacking a strawman rather than a real argument, that isn't remotely close to what doublethink was talking about.
Thankyou, what I was talking about was adding a public statement of contrition and the church's duty to protect being added permnantly to the liturgy - which would also have the function of the congregation growing up hearing that clerical abuse has happened, is not OK, and the church should prevent it, every Sunday.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
what I was talking about was adding a public statement of contrition and the church's duty to protect being added permanantly to the liturgy - which would also have the function of the congregation growing up hearing that clerical abuse has happened, is not OK, and the church should prevent it, every Sunday.
There are multiple kinds of abuse. Bullying can be devastating, routine denial of value just for being female, mocked for asking questions just because you are a child, sexual abuse. Not saying sexual abuse isn't the worse, but most of my friends who gave up on church or on God it's because of other-than-sexual abuse by clergy.
How about such an admission being about not just one specific kind of abuse, but all of them.
I doubt it would happen. Too much "clergy is the man of God" (my protestant Grandmothers words, I hear them today in many denominations), plus the RCC concept of the clergy person uniquely represents Jesus, the institution will resist any expression in the liturgy that reminds people the image of clergy as special has clay feet.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I wouldn't be in favour of making all clergy grovel before their congregations every Sunday to atone for the sins of the church. Neither would I be in favour of forgetting about child abuse when it gets boring and we want to move on. There has to be a balance somewhere, although the atmosphere is distinctly polarizing and leaves a very narrow window.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Quite, and my suggested phrasing was quite careful. But we are getting off the point - which was that it would help to be clear about what is attaintable amd desirable from the various ongoing child abuse enquiries. I do not think saying that is equivalent to saying the victims should be silenced, I think it would be useful to set goals.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Real and significant consequences for abusers and enablers. A serious dialogue amongst all faith communities that forgiveness does not excuse or cure the crime.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
--Report abuse and enabling to the police, Child Protective Services, etc. Any local church or RCC employee must do this. Anyone in the congregation should do this.
--IMHO, it would be best --for *everyone*-- to ditch the concept of "ontological change", that priests become a different/higher sort of being on ordination. I think that's a big part of why abusive priests have been moved around. They're special, they can't be subjected to earthly justice, etc. And the priests are trapped inside the concept.
--The RCC can get abusers good lawyers--but ones who will be honest and not cover up. They can get treatment for abusers--but *real* treatment.
--The RCC never, ever gets a pass about this again. Never again. No excuses. Age unto the ages, world without end, amen.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Golden Key,
IMO, the only reason the RCC is worse than any other is by virtue of scale and structure. No one gets a pass.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
IMHO, it would be best --for *everyone*-- to ditch the concept of "ontological change", that priests become a different/higher sort of being on ordination. I think that's a big part of why abusive priests have been moved around. They're special, they can't be subjected to earthly justice, etc.
Given that only the RCC (and a diminishingly few Anglicans - heck, I'm not even sure the Orthies adhere to such a view) teaches the ontological effect of Orders, you're basically addressing us here. And I can assure you that your notion above of what that doctrine entails is very wide of the mark. There is no justification whatsoever in modern Catholic teaching for the idea that clerics are or should simply by virtue of their ordained state be immune from secular justice, or that they are ipso facto morally superior in any way.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The RCC never, ever gets a pass about this again. Never again. No excuses. Age unto the ages, world without end, amen.
As lilBuddha suggests above, why single out the Catholics? Are there others who are still entitled to a pass or two? I'm not aware of any Catholics who think we're somehow entitled to more passes than anyone else (i.e., none).
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My point is that other religious organisations* are as prone to abusers operating within as the RCC. The RC Church transgressions should not be allowed to act as a smoke screen for any other.
It was not to at all alleviate the additional guilt of the church for using the power it has to hide said abuses.
*Any place, religious or no, where there is trust has a greater propensity for abuse.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
why single out the Catholics? I'm not aware of any Catholics who think we're somehow entitled to more passes than anyone else (i.e., none).
Yes. I was just now reading an article about a church sexual abuse consultant who believes conservative christian churches have a higher rate of sexual abuse than RCC, because the culture of "(quick) repentance requires immediate full forgiveness and reinstatement" shelters the perps, and a "modesty culture" that blames women when men abuse them inhibits reporting. The Article One example, a young woman was raped by a church official, she was forced to confess in front of the church her "sin" of getting pregnant and was shipped off to a home for unwed mothers, he was forced to confess to adultery (not rape), that's all.
RCC did hidden abuse and hidden coverup; some churches are doing hidden abuse, publicly excuse/embrace the perp, and publicly shame the victim. That's worse.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lB--
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Golden Key,
IMO, the only reason the RCC is worse than any other is by virtue of scale and structure. No one gets a pass.
No one *should* get a pass. But the RCC did get one for a long, long time--due to fear, blind loyalty, stupidity, complicity, incompetence, stupidity, thinking they're special, other people thinking the RCC is special, stupidity...ad infinitum.
And IMNSHO ISTM that they don't get to say they're God's instrument on Earth, that the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth, that Peter has the damn keys--and pull this crap.
Especially when the Person they're representing had some very stern words about the treatment of children.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Hate on them all you want, I won't argue against their failure. Just keep an eye on your own as well.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re singling out the RCC:
The OP and much of the thread focus on the RCC. Sexual and other abuse takes place all over, and it's all horrible, and it should all be stopped and prevented.
But the OP works with the "Spotlight" film, which is specifically about the RCC. And Doublethink wanted goals, which seemed to be for the RCC.
So I responded.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My concen in that people use them to ignore their own problems, it is that simple. Otherwise they deserve the scorn they receive.
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
As the author of the OP, let me say I picked up on the case of the RCC mainly because it was in the news that week.
The Royal Commission in Australia rightly has within its terms of reference no restriction on the institutions to be investigated, and sure enough has uncovered many cases in children's institutions (e.g orphanages) and schools associated with many other churches and others associated no church at all.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
I think it is important to acknowledge that at least 80% of all child abuse occurs in children's homes by family or friends. The percentage committed by priests is comparatively small. Of course this means that at least one family in your street are child abusers.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I think it is important to acknowledge that at least 80% of all child abuse occurs in children's homes by family or friends. The percentage committed by priests is comparatively small. Of course this means that at least one family in your street are child abusers.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'comparatively small'. Of course, there are many more family members than priests, so there are going to be more abusive fathers than priests. However, this doesn't really tell you very much, does it?
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
Having worked with abused children I can see how traumatic abuse from loved family is to the young trusting children. I know of so many families in which this tragedy occurs, but I haven't yet met any kids who have been abused in organisations although I have read about these.I feel we all need to fight to prevent abuse wherever it occurs and not assume that it only occurs in churches which the media would have us believe.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Most abuse is going to happen where there is most trust and access. So this will always be family and friends of family having the highest numbers.
Abuse by religious is the exact same mechanism, though.
I am not a fan of how some media outlets behave, but this is not completely a failure of balance.
Institution failure is always going to be a larger story. And the RCC handling of the scandal wrought the spectacle as much as anything else.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I think it is important to acknowledge that at least 80% of all child abuse occurs in children's homes by family or friends. The percentage committed by priests is comparatively small. Of course this means that at least one family in your street are child abusers.
How many families have "payout charts" with five- and six-figure payouts? And how many families have the resources to shuffle abusers across jurisdictional lines to obstruct justice? I imagine there are a few, but not that many. Most institutions, however, seem to not only have these resources at their disposal but seem almost universally willing to use them to obstruct justice and shelter abusers.
Part of the reason for the anger at institutional offenders is that they seem perfectly willing to use their considerable resources to short circuit all the social mechanisms we've put in place to stop the child abuser down the street.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
I've certainly seen families move from area to area in the hope of evading child protection processes. Those are the ones whose moves are detected of course.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself. He publically stated that he didn't check the age if his groupies when he was a young man. But there has been no public backlash, no stripping his name from things.
Look at the abuse directed at the 15 year old girl whose allegations against Sunderland footballer Alan Johnson have just been upheld in court.
And here is an example of an entire state apparently failing to notice the connection between pregnant 12 year olds and sexual abuse:
http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/03/bill-raising-marriage-age-to-16-advances-in-virginia-general-assembly/?utm_source=fark&utm_m edium=website&utm_content=link
As the woman pushing the bill through notes, wouldn't this be evidence of statutory rape ....
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I think it is important to acknowledge that at least 80% of all child abuse occurs in children's homes by family or friends.
This is what bugs me about my church's safe kids policy. It's all CYA. Yes it's good to have glass doors instead of places to hide, good to have a policy of never one adult alone with a kid - but not a word about how to respond if a kid (or adult) drops a hint about things aren't right at home.
When, several years ago, I told the clergy person there's a battered wife in the congregation, he said "don't tell me her name or I am required to tell the police" and said it was my job to find a way to help her. When I was (mildly as these things go but no question crossing the line legally) sexually harassed in church (and reported it quietly, and was told "he's important, you aren't"), I switched churches and asked a visiting clergy person what I should have done or should do a year later, the clergy person said "I don't know, there are no answers."
An unattached adult can walk away, a child or dependent adult cannot. We need a way to respond to suspected abuse - not jump on any suggestion as if true, but some kind of publicly announced way for a possible victim to seek help. The child safety course I took, not a word about this. For victims trapped in a situation, just quietly being heard could be huge.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
In the UK all organisations working with children and vulnerable adults have to have Safeguarding policies in place. Those Safeguarding Policies name a responsible person who is supposed to collect any reports of safeguarding issues and pass them on to social services if the child or vulnerable adult is in immediate danger.
If there are concerns these should be recorded and the Safeguarding Officer keeps them in case a pattern begins to show or other issues come to light. (Things like a note that little Johnny came to Sunday school unwashed, adult coming to church with carer doesn't look happy to be with that carer.)
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
In addition we have a "responsible adult" that everyone knows they can go to if there's no ' natural' fit. (Actually, we have more than one to cover different groups etc.).
I was sceptical when it was set up, but it's a system that has been proactively used.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
RCC did hidden abuse and hidden coverup; some churches are doing hidden abuse, publicly excuse/embrace the perp, and publicly shame the victim. That's worse.
Why do you think the RCC actions are in the pas because they've been compelled give up records in some cases There's little or no voluntary disclosure.
Australian RC church conceals records.
Los Angeles Diocese sex abuse
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
[qb] Why do you think the RCC actions are in the pas because they've been compelled give up records in some cases There's little or no voluntary disclosure.
Australian RC church conceals records.
Los Angeles Diocese sex abuse
You are correct. It will never be completely in the past, nor will coverups completely stop, because human beings are involved and that means some people will value power or status or public appearance more than protection for the vulnerable. In any gathering of people.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
For a view of the current church efforts; by a group experience with abuse and the church;
Pope s abuse accountability tribunal going nowhere fast
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
People still don't recognise this sort of thing unless a prosecution is mounted - John Peel is dead. He married a 15 year old in the US where it was legal at the time - she subsequently killed herself. He publically stated that he didn't check the age if his groupies when he was a young man. But there has been no public backlash, no stripping his name from things.
Look at the abuse directed at the 15 year old girl whose allegations against Sunderland footballer Alan Johnson have just been upheld in court.
And here is an example of an entire state apparently failing to notice the connection between pregnant 12 year olds and sexual abuse:
http://wtop.com/virginia/2016/03/bill-raising-marriage-age-to-16-advances-in-virginia-general-assembly/?utm_source=fark&utm_m edium=website&utm_content=link
As the woman pushing the bill through notes, wouldn't this be evidence of statutory rape ....
And here is a news article presenting someone using cannabis from the age of six as some kind of choice, rather than child abuse http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-35798523
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Today the New York Times had an article Pennsylvania Charges Ex-Leaders of Catholic Order With Aiding Sexual Predator (Paywall after a limited number of articlss). The former leaders of an order who continued to let a known child take jobs that allowed him access to children are now in the process of being charged. More details to come.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Meanwhile over here the RC Bishop of Pontoise has just gone on record thus: quote:
"La pédophilie est un mal. Est-ce que c'est de l'ordre du péché ? Ça, je ne saurai pas dire, c'est différent pour chaque personne."
"Pedophilia is a bad thing. Does it constitute sin? I couldn't say; it depends on the person".
Condemn the "sinful" actions of gays and divorcees, but minimise the actions of pedophiles as not necessarily sinful? They tend to do that themselves enough already. Way to go
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
It is in theory consistent, in that, of a peadophile has not *acted* on that impulse - has exercised self-control perhaps because they realise it would be harmful for them to act on such impulses - have they then sinned ?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
He did indeed qualify his remarks, but more in the sense of the person performing the act possibly being unaware it was a sin.
I'm not familiar enough with the RC liturgy to know whether there's an equivalent to the confession of sin "through ignorance, weakness, or our own deliberate fault", but I would have thought so.
He has since done a complete U-turn, describing pedophilia as "objectively, a serious sin".
Be that as it may, it was a bit tactless coming, in a friendly radio interview (a national Catholic station), from the head of the French RC church's pedophilia intelligence unit...
[ 07. April 2016, 16:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0