I'm afraid you're buying into the propaganda. But then you know nothing about the Church. The author, like myself, grew up in it. I know all about abusing priests; they are much rarer than (for instance) financially criminal priests. But if you let the newspapers write the story for you, I can't help it. I know the facts, you know what the whores of the press pass on to you.
Considering that this is my freedom of speech, belief and expression that is in danger - and it is in danger here and now in this country - I will certainly kick as hard as I can before it is too late. When you realize I am right, it will probably be too late. I regret that you have seen fit to believe the haters, the liars, the liberticides and the whores.
Goodbye, Rebecca. Get back in touch when you realize I am right on this.
any chance you'll unscreen those posts? just for amusement, you understand...
on the broader issue, i wonder how the incidence rates of physical and sexual abuse by *staff* - probably best to exclude emotional/psychological abuses - would stack up against the rates in secular educational and other care based settings?
Sadly, there is little that is amusing about a firmly closed mind.
Studies have been made about the comparison, and the impression I have is that Church school and institutions come out ahead. I might be wrong. But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home, and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.
got any links please? i think i've seen an occupational breakdown at some point in the past but don't remember much detail.
'But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home,' agreed, the opportunities for comitting such offences are much more constrained in institutional settings.
'and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.' institutional/residential settings only exist because there is a need where parents are unable, unwilling and/or incapable of caring for their children - with the exception of the awful practise of sending kids to boarding school. there are enormous numbers of homes where abuse doesn't occur and we only get to hear about the failures. don't kid yourself into thinking that there aren't eyes open in the services provided to parents and children, they are.
That is not what I was speaking about. Did you miss the point of the original article, which is that a climate of opinion is being fostered in which parents will simply not be allowed to bring up children in their religion?
below you write: 'The process is very advanced in Britain, and freedom of religion is really on the edge of being legislated out of existence'. it's fair to argue that the catholic church's response to sex offending amongst its staff hasn't been appropriately dealt with and that the media appear to be pushing for a washing of the dirty linen in public. but i'm thinking that except in the obvious cases of aspects of sharia law, maybe where drug use is expected: rastafarianism, shamanism, and perhaps the carrying of weapons into courtrooms for instance, this argument of yours simply doesn't hold water?
taking the above into consideration and this: 'Considering that this is my freedom of speech, belief and expression that is in danger - and it is in danger here and now in this country', i think it's fair to expect you to back up your position because all my understanding and experience suggests that the uk situation is quite the opposite. i honestly do hope that you're not misrepresenting it to youself aswell as others?
I think where redcoast may be coming from is that most of the expressed horror stems not from the abuse (horrific as it is) but from the systematic (and systemic) cover-up. (How many parentheses can Mary use in one comment? Go!)
While there's no truth to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is a giant child-abusing power-mad cult, the combination of widespread abuses (understanding that widespread =! common), routine suppression of incidents, and the existence of church hierarchy* leads to this sort of framing, especially in the American media. Who aren't exactly known for their restraint and taste.
For what it's worth, my two cents is that people have been demonizing the RCC for about the past two thousand years, and it's done all right regardless. Or as my dad would say, this, too, shall pass.
*Meaning that a scandal in one Southern Baptist church, for example, doesn't tend to reflect badly on others because there's no overall, standardized leadership; it's perceived quite differently in a church with an institutionalized hierarchy.
Rebecca, you are defriended. When you stop following lynch mobs and start reflecting on the nature of hate, prejudice and journalistic misrepresentantion, get back in touch. Till then, you are not welcome on this blog.
I'm not surprised that at least one secular humanist sees something to dislike about the current fury, and I may myself borrow his point that Events of the (sometimes distant) past which nobody can change are being used to justify dangerous trends in the present. A new kind of society is being solidified on the back of exposing abusive priests, one in which scaremongering supersedes facts, where people redefine themselves as permanently damaged victims, where freedom of thought is problematised, and where parents are considered suspect for not adhering to the superior values of the atheistic elite.
I would be surprised to find that this essay changed anyone's mind, however, or that using the above point in conversation did anything but buy me some time off from hearing about it from my friends. (None of my offline friends are Catholic.)
I have already been forced to defriend one person who had bought into the NYT pack-o-lies (I won't dignify it by the term "narrative"). Things WILL get worse before they get better.
A very, very forlorn hope. The strange thing is that I have found more than once that the intellectual heirs of serious Marxism actually have more understanding and respect for the Catholic Church than the current liberal-progressive-PC crowd, with its feeble rags of ideology and poorly motivated attitudes. For instance, the last eminent member of the famous Marxist Frankfurt School, Juergen Habermas, has more or less taken the side of the Pope in the current controversies. Likewise, the Spiked people have more than once proved more compatible (and more intellectually solid and responsible) than the Dawkinses and the Pullmans and their benighted followers. But by the same token, they are simply too honest and too responsible to please a crowd whose main characteristic is self-regard and contempt for evidence.
I thought the article was good, but I'm tired of the whole "if priests could just marry and the church would change the constrictive sex rules this wouldn't have happened" thing.
Well, the author is an atheist, and he is one by choice, having been brought up as some sort of Catholic. Can't expect him to give up his little hobby-horses! The important thing is that he has nailed what is really happening and called it by its name. The process is very advanced in Britain, and freedom of religion is really on the edge of being legislated out of existence; and even in Italy there have been some horrible sentences from high courts that seriously impair free speech. Constitutional rights are now trumped by the imagined right not to be offended, and that is something that you should beware of, because it seems to be the mood in the USA as well.
"Constitutional rights are now trumped by the imagined right not to be offended, and that is something that you should beware of, because it seems to be the mood in the USA as well."
I am sadly well aware of this. Some old college friends and even members of my own family seems to have gotten on this bandwagon.
couldn't find it, try reading this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection - all the guardian has to do is publish the letter...
this from archbishop nicholls - who referenced ratzinger's 2001 letter on the andrew marr show last sunday - which is reassuring: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/catholic_church/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_2010/the_church_is_not_trying_to_cover_anything_up
ok but it doesn't quite seem to fit neatly with the relevant sections of this: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/content/download/5473/37714/file/Directory_of_Clergy.pdf
and this which doesn't clearly state the case for involvement of the state: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/catholic_church/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_2010/pope_benedict_xvi_s_pastoral_letter_to_the_catholics_of_ireland
it's very easy to see why the catholic church could be argued to be attempting to remove its staff from local criminal proceedings in some cases.
Considering that in the case raised and mangled by the NYT, the Church court had taken up the case long after the state authorities had refused to do anything with it, no, it is not so easy.
are there not other us cases? german, swiss, italian, irish and presumably others bubbling under? it appears to me that the pope has had a couple of bites of the cherry on this (with his letter to the catholics and his speech to the bishops) and rather than killing the issue as could relatively easily have been done, he's allowed enough scope for misunderstanding. i'm not vatican or pope bashing btw, just curious about the issue. i'm also curious about the medical treatments administered in the cases of conviction: does this included chemical castration for instance? and confession for the ordinary catholic, i think i'm aware of the process, but not what it means to someone as such - i'd be grateful if you'd explain from your point of view.
'Last week the Vatican made it clear that the policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of minors by clergy, adopted by Catholic bishops conferences in the US and in England and Wales, is now applicable worldwide.'
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 06:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:01 pm (UTC)Goodbye, Rebecca. Get back in touch when you realize I am right on this.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 11:12 pm (UTC)on the broader issue, i wonder how the incidence rates of physical and sexual abuse by *staff* - probably best to exclude emotional/psychological abuses - would stack up against the rates in secular educational and other care based settings?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:58 am (UTC)Studies have been made about the comparison, and the impression I have is that Church school and institutions come out ahead. I might be wrong. But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home, and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 01:52 pm (UTC)'But what is certain is that most abuse occurs in the home,'
agreed, the opportunities for comitting such offences are much more constrained in institutional settings.
'and that nobody is (yet) demanding that because of this children should be taken from parents at birth.'
institutional/residential settings only exist because there is a need where parents are unable, unwilling and/or incapable of caring for their children - with the exception of the awful practise of sending kids to boarding school. there are enormous numbers of homes where abuse doesn't occur and we only get to hear about the failures. don't kid yourself into thinking that there aren't eyes open in the services provided to parents and children, they are.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 02:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 01:30 am (UTC)below you write: 'The process is very advanced in Britain, and freedom of religion is really on the edge of being legislated out of existence'.
it's fair to argue that the catholic church's response to sex offending amongst its staff hasn't been appropriately dealt with and that the media appear to be pushing for a washing of the dirty linen in public. but i'm thinking that except in the obvious cases of aspects of sharia law, maybe where drug use is expected: rastafarianism, shamanism, and perhaps the carrying of weapons into courtrooms for instance, this argument of yours simply doesn't hold water?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 11:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 07:51 pm (UTC)While there's no truth to the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is a giant child-abusing power-mad cult, the combination of widespread abuses (understanding that widespread =! common), routine suppression of incidents, and the existence of church hierarchy* leads to this sort of framing, especially in the American media. Who aren't exactly known for their restraint and taste.
For what it's worth, my two cents is that people have been demonizing the RCC for about the past two thousand years, and it's done all right regardless. Or as my dad would say, this, too, shall pass.
*Meaning that a scandal in one Southern Baptist church, for example, doesn't tend to reflect badly on others because there's no overall, standardized leadership; it's perceived quite differently in a church with an institutionalized hierarchy.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 08:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 07:36 pm (UTC)I would be surprised to find that this essay changed anyone's mind, however, or that using the above point in conversation did anything but buy me some time off from hearing about it from my friends. (None of my offline friends are Catholic.)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 09:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-29 10:11 pm (UTC)I liked this one as well:
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-30 06:59 pm (UTC)I am sadly well aware of this. Some old college friends and even members of my own family seems to have gotten on this bandwagon.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-03 10:45 am (UTC)this from archbishop nicholls - who referenced ratzinger's 2001 letter on the andrew marr show last sunday - which is reassuring: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/catholic_church/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_2010/the_church_is_not_trying_to_cover_anything_up
ok but it doesn't quite seem to fit neatly with the relevant sections of this: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/content/download/5473/37714/file/Directory_of_Clergy.pdf
and this which doesn't clearly state the case for involvement of the state: http://www.catholicchurch.org.uk/catholic_church/media_centre/press_releases/press_releases_2010/pope_benedict_xvi_s_pastoral_letter_to_the_catholics_of_ireland
it's very easy to see why the catholic church could be argued to be attempting to remove its staff from local criminal proceedings in some cases.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-03 11:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-06 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-10 10:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-21 11:07 pm (UTC)'Last week the Vatican made it clear that the policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse of minors by clergy, adopted by Catholic bishops conferences in the US and in England and Wales, is now applicable worldwide.'