PA grand jury report on Catholic child abuse

[Copernicus]

I can't think of any Catholic or Protestant church whose official policy currently fights against having these crimes tested in court. It's the opposite. Official policy for the RCC is that victims are encouraged to go to authorities.

The things preventing cases from going forward are;
- victim won't testify
- victim has insufficient prima facie evidence.
- secular/civic law prevents prosecution (statute of limitations)
- alleged/actual perpetrator has died (usually of old age)
- victim has died
- relatives/guardians of victims with actual or circumstantial/hearsay evidence don't want to get officially involved.

The responsibility to report crimes lies not just with the victims, but with the church authorities who covered up the crimes. The problem was that church officials covered up the allegations in order to avoid embarrassment to the church. Victims of such crimes were alone, powerless, ashamed, and afraid, so I don't see them as the ones who bore primary culpability for the failure of these crimes to come to light. Even the Pope seems to understand that there was a problem with the behavior of church officials.

 

[Lion IRC]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

I blame Bigfoot myself.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I can't think of any Catholic or Protestant church whose official policy currently fights against having these crimes tested in court. It's the opposite. Official policy for the RCC is that victims are encouraged to go to authorities.

The things preventing cases from going forward are;
- victim won't testify
- victim has insufficient prima facie evidence.
- secular/civic law prevents prosecution (statute of limitations)
- alleged/actual perpetrator has died (usually of old age)
- victim has died
- relatives/guardians of victims with actual or circumstantial/hearsay evidence don't want to get officially involved.

The responsibility to report crimes lies not just with the victims, but with the church authorities who covered up the crimes. The problem was that church officials covered up the allegations in order to avoid embarrassment to the church. Victims of such crimes were alone, powerless, ashamed, and afraid, so I don't see them as the ones who bore primary culpability for the failure of these crimes to come to light. Even the Pope seems to understand that there was a problem with the behavior of church officials.

There isn't anything inherently evil or wrong with religious behavior. Yes, it's disappointing to see adults carrying on with superstitious nonsense, thinking they are bringing demigods back to life and then eating them. It's bizarre and disappointing but no more harmful than masturbating for that matter.

The problem is that the culture that permitted this abuse held its priests in the highest regard. They were the oracles, the connection to the mystery of the religion. They had answers, they could do no wrong, they weren't the neighbor or your cousin or workmate. They were as close to a god as anything or anyone could ever hope to get. Families were very proud when one of their sons became a priest. It was major cred for the family.

Yes, I personally know people who's fathers told the visiting priests he was no longer welcome at the house in order to see one of the children. The father wasn't stupid, he suspected something and stopped the behavior. So why didn't the priests police themselves the same way? Satan? Sure, and Bigfoot too! And those bad angels too, and, and, and ....

The people who ran the churches were corrupt. It's just that simple. They swept crime under the rug because they could get away with it. It was just as criminal then as it is today but they hid it in order to protect their power. They literally allowed child abuse to continue within their brotherhood and intended to get away with it forever.

Hang them all.

 

[Copernicus]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

Those who knew about it and covered it up were widespread and high up in the RCC hierarchy. The Vatican has been aware of the problem for many years now and has gone from denial to grudging admission. Meanwhile, we still have cases like this new cardinal, whose instinct is to defend the institution rather than condemn past abuses and cover-up by church officials. Pope Francis is acutely aware of the problem, yet he offers little more than apologies and words of contrition. People really expect more of an institution that claims to be a moral authority:

In Ireland, Pope Francis confronts nation shattered by Catholic Church’s abuse crisis

DUBLIN — Pope Francis said Saturday that the “failure of ecclesiastical authorities” to address sexual abuse has “rightly given rise to outrage,” his first acknowledgment during his trip to Ireland of the traumas here that have radically diminished the Roman Catholic clergy’s once-towering authority.

In an address at Dublin Castle, Francis described the “repellent crimes” and the failure to deal with them as “a source of pain and shame for the Catholic community.” But he did not discuss concrete changes in laws or transparency or address the question of the Vatican’s complicity in the abuse cases.

“I cannot fail to acknowledge the grave scandal caused in Ireland by the abuse of young people by members of the church charged with responsibility for their protection and education,” Francis told a room filled with members of the Irish government, other lawmakers and diplomats.

...

“His speech was empty — really empty,” said Mark Vincent Healy, an Irish victim of clerical abuse. “I was with a group of survivors, and they were all upset with the statements as being ineffectual.”

Margaret McGuckin, who runs a Belfast-based group for victims of institutional abuse, said the pope’s speech was “only a few feigned platitudes.”

“It certainly didn’t go far enough,” McGuckin said.

The Argentine-born pontiff said he was committed to eliminating the “scourge” in the church “at any cost.” But he also said that steps taken by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, continue “to serve as an incentive” in ending abuse.

In 2010, Benedict wrote a letter to Irish Catholics in which he said he was “truly sorry” for the “sinful and criminal” acts that happened in Ireland. The letter, though, was widely criticized by Irish abuse survivors because it did not mention the Vatican’s culpability.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's no different from a police force where fellow officers won't come clean, won't speak up when they see criminal behavior.

What makes the RCC thing truly disgusting is that the victims get forgotten. Lion is a perfect example. He talks about Satan and how priests are victims of an evil space creature, doesn't mention the victims, talks about how those priests will be dealt with in their afterlives. It's like forgetting about Jews when discussing the holocaust. It is this very attitude that permitted the behavior and continues to defend it.

 

[Lion IRC]

I've never said priests are victims of satan. I've never stated a presumption as to their afterlife judgement. And I have always attacked those who cover up and defend pedophiles.
So you're either verballing me or you have confused me with someone else.

Here's a suggestion. Use the quote function.

 

[Thomas II]

The Pope speaks out on Catholic Church abuse

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-45308879/papal-visit-pope-speaks-out-on-catholic-church-abuse


Mathew 25:40

"And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I knew this would eventually happen. As I've said before, this behavior and knowledge of this behavior was systemic in the RCC for centuries. That Frankie would eventually be personally implicated was a foregone conclusion.

Maybe someone didn't feel like falling on the sword for the RCC

Pope accused by Cardinal of Ignoring reports of Abuse Allegations

But pressure on the pope over the issue increased on Sunday when a former top Vatican official accused Francis of having known of allegations of sex abuse by a prominent U.S. cardinal for five years before accepting his resignation last month.

...

Vatican officials on Sunday declined immediate comment on the 11-page letter in which Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano said he had told Francis in 2013 that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had faced extensive accusations of sexual abuse.

Maybe RCCers will start treating priests like people and not like gods. These priests still have to wipe their asses like everyone else so what makes them special other than their followers making them special?

 

[Thomas II]

I knew this would eventually happen. As I've said before, this behavior and knowledge of this behavior was systemic in the RCC for centuries. That Frankie would eventually be personally implicated was a foregone conclusion.

Maybe someone didn't feel like falling on the sword for the RCC

Pope accused by Cardinal of Ignoring reports of Abuse Allegations

But pressure on the pope over the issue increased on Sunday when a former top Vatican official accused Francis of having known of allegations of sex abuse by a prominent U.S. cardinal for five years before accepting his resignation last month.

...

Vatican officials on Sunday declined immediate comment on the 11-page letter in which Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano said he had told Francis in 2013 that Cardinal Theodore McCarrick had faced extensive accusations of sexual abuse.

Maybe RCCers will start treating priests like people and not like gods. These priests still have to wipe their asses like everyone else so what makes them special other than their followers making them special?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-pope-benedict-knew-about-abuse-in-the-catholic-church

And John Paul II knew and did absolutely nothing. Pope Benedict did nothing and took off, and Francis was left to deal with all the crap...

 

[Lion IRC]

I see that accusation bandied around quite a lot.
Cardinal X did nothing.
Pope Y did nothing.
But what does that actually mean?

Of course the person who CANT do anything didn't do anything.

The Pope can't order police to prosecute someone based on uncorroborated hearsay. He can't compel witnesses to give evidence.

So many claims that the Pope "knew" but surely the people who claim that he knew, must themselves know what it is they claim that he knew. Think about it.

Church hater - "hey nasty Pope man, you knew and did nothing"
Pope - "did nothing about what?"
Church hater - "about that pedophile hiding in the clergy"
Pope - "how was I supposed to know about that?"
Church hater - "because everyone knew...the parents, the neighbors, the police, the media"
Pope - ""

 

[DrZoidberg]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

Meh.... the Catholic church hierarchy is the Catholic church. The Catholic church is just a compromise Constantine brokered where the Roman empire could convert to Christianity with minimum hassle for the Pagan bigwigs. The Pagan religious power structure was an intrinsic part of the Roman political machine. The political leaders were the last to convert to Christianity. The same families stayed in power even after the shift to Christianity. And these people would not have allowed the shift if it didn't allow them to maintain control over the church. Which they did keep.

What I'm trying to say is that the Catholic church in practice is Paganism in a Christian suit. There are differences. It started out as an incredibly ill fitting suit, and over time the kinks in it smoothed out. But that doesn't change what the Catholic church fundamentally is. Which is Paganism plus some stuff.

And I'm not true Scotsmaning. I'm not saying there's another form of Christianity more Christian. I don't think there's such a thing. I think Christianity is a slow and steady evolution of religion without any major revolutions anywhere. And they're all just as much or little Christian. So blaming the ills of the Catholic church on certain people in positions of power in that hierarchy is fundamentally misunderstanding human psychology. That hierarchy is the Catholic church and it's structure is what creates the problems. Obviously they do a lot of good as well, or Catholics wouldn't still bother with being Catholics. But you can believe in Catholicism without being naive about the inevitable results of the Catholic teachings.

BTW, The story is a bit more complicated. Just google "parabalani" if you are more curious. During a period formative period of christianity, a lot of Christian converts formed empoverished roaming bands of thugs without much to do all day. These tended to be very violent. Wealthy upstarts and minor nobles figured out that, by converting to Christianity themselves, these Parabalani could be used as a weapon against their other wealthy rivals. And this became the catalyst that shifted the ruling class over to Christianity. This was an exceedingly violent and unstable period of Roman history, with loads of civil wars and a lot of emperors with short reigns. No emperor had the necessary focus and control to reign in the parabalani. It was a civic death spiral. Not until Constantine.

It's quite conceivable that one major reason Constantine shifted to Christianty was simply so as to allow him to crush the parabalani, to regain some law and order. After converting, he did exactly this.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I see that accusation bandied around quite a lot.
Cardinal X did nothing.
Pope Y did nothing.
But what does that actually mean?

Of course the person who CANT do anything didn't do anything.

The Pope can't order police to prosecute someone based on uncorroborated hearsay. He can't compel witnesses to give evidence.

So many claims that the Pope "knew" but surely the people who claim that he knew, must themselves know what it is they claim that he knew. Think about it.

Church hater - "hey nasty Pope man, you knew and did nothing"
Pope - "did nothing about what?"
Church hater - "about that pedophile hiding in the clergy"
Pope - "how was I supposed to know about that?"
Church hater - "because everyone knew...the parents, the neighbors, the police, the media"
Pope - ""

Typical of what I encounter with RCC fundies, not a word about the victims. Instead it's all about the sanctity and innocence of mother church, an institution that along with its sexual deviancy was burning people alive.

It's amazing that anyone can even consider respecting it. So much for its superior morals.

 

[whollygoats]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

Meh.... the Catholic church hierarchy is the Catholic church. The Catholic church is just a compromise Constantine brokered where the Roman empire could convert to Christianity with minimum hassle for the Pagan bigwigs. The Pagan religious power structure was an intrinsic part of the Roman political machine. The political leaders were the last to convert to Christianity. The same families stayed in power even after the shift to Christianity. And these people would not have allowed the shift if it didn't allow them to maintain control over the church. Which they did keep.

What I'm trying to say is that the Catholic church in practice is Paganism in a Christian suit. There are differences. It started out as an incredibly ill fitting suit, and over time the kinks in it smoothed out. But that doesn't change what the Catholic church fundamentally is. Which is Paganism plus some stuff.

And I'm not true Scotsmaning. I'm not saying there's another form of Christianity more Christian. I don't think there's such a thing. I think Christianity is a slow and steady evolution of religion without any major revolutions anywhere. And they're all just as much or little Christian. So blaming the ills of the Catholic church on certain people in positions of power in that hierarchy is fundamentally misunderstanding human psychology. That hierarchy is the Catholic church and it's structure is what creates the problems. Obviously they do a lot of good as well, or Catholics wouldn't still bother with being Catholics. But you can believe in Catholicism without being naive about the inevitable results of the Catholic teachings.

BTW, The story is a bit more complicated. Just google "parabalani" if you are more curious. During a period formative period of christianity, a lot of Christian converts formed empoverished roaming bands of thugs without much to do all day. These tended to be very violent. Wealthy upstarts and minor nobles figured out that, by converting to Christianity themselves, these Parabalani could be used as a weapon against their other wealthy rivals. And this became the catalyst that shifted the ruling class over to Christianity. This was an exceedingly violent and unstable period of Roman history, with loads of civil wars and a lot of emperors with short reigns. No emperor had the necessary focus and control to reign in the parabalani. It was a civic death spiral. Not until Constantine.

It's quite conceivable that one major reason Constantine shifted to Christianty was simply so as to allow him to crush the parabalani, to regain some law and order. After converting, he did exactly this.

The problem is, Constantine did not convert until he was on his deathbed. So, if he did anything after converting, it was as a corpse. I suspect putrescence was about all he could handle.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The church hierarchy who knew and yet covered up in order to save the 'reputation' of the Chuch will pay a high price for not trusting Jesus who said that the gates of hell would not prevail.
They will pay a high price for not understanding that satan is trying to scatter the flock by striking at the shepherd - satan (and the mamon-worshipping media) is slandering the clergy in order to scatter the flock. And many are fleeing the church the same way Peter denied Jesus.

Meh.... the Catholic church hierarchy is the Catholic church. The Catholic church is just a compromise Constantine brokered where the Roman empire could convert to Christianity with minimum hassle for the Pagan bigwigs. The Pagan religious power structure was an intrinsic part of the Roman political machine. The political leaders were the last to convert to Christianity. The same families stayed in power even after the shift to Christianity. And these people would not have allowed the shift if it didn't allow them to maintain control over the church. Which they did keep.

What I'm trying to say is that the Catholic church in practice is Paganism in a Christian suit. There are differences. It started out as an incredibly ill fitting suit, and over time the kinks in it smoothed out. But that doesn't change what the Catholic church fundamentally is. Which is Paganism plus some stuff.

And I'm not true Scotsmaning. I'm not saying there's another form of Christianity more Christian. I don't think there's such a thing. I think Christianity is a slow and steady evolution of religion without any major revolutions anywhere. And they're all just as much or little Christian. So blaming the ills of the Catholic church on certain people in positions of power in that hierarchy is fundamentally misunderstanding human psychology. That hierarchy is the Catholic church and it's structure is what creates the problems. Obviously they do a lot of good as well, or Catholics wouldn't still bother with being Catholics. But you can believe in Catholicism without being naive about the inevitable results of the Catholic teachings.

BTW, The story is a bit more complicated. Just google "parabalani" if you are more curious. During a period formative period of christianity, a lot of Christian converts formed empoverished roaming bands of thugs without much to do all day. These tended to be very violent. Wealthy upstarts and minor nobles figured out that, by converting to Christianity themselves, these Parabalani could be used as a weapon against their other wealthy rivals. And this became the catalyst that shifted the ruling class over to Christianity. This was an exceedingly violent and unstable period of Roman history, with loads of civil wars and a lot of emperors with short reigns. No emperor had the necessary focus and control to reign in the parabalani. It was a civic death spiral. Not until Constantine.

It's quite conceivable that one major reason Constantine shifted to Christianty was simply so as to allow him to crush the parabalani, to regain some law and order. After converting, he did exactly this.

The problem is, Constantine did not convert until he was on his deathbed. So, if he did anything after converting, it was as a corpse. I suspect putrescence was about all he could handle.

It's all myth. We have no idea. Based on the legacy of Constantine I think he was an incredibly grounded and sensible person who converted for pragmatic reasons. I think he just hedged his bets.

All foundational buildings in Constantinople followed Pagan rituals. Even the Christian buildings. Which is why they have Pagan relics and idols inside their walls. For protection against the gods.

I don't think he cared about religion that much. I think he had a troubled empire to run and had a laser focus on that goal.

 

[whollygoats]

The problem is, Constantine did not convert until he was on his deathbed. So, if he did anything after converting, it was as a corpse. I suspect putrescence was about all he could handle.

It's all myth. We have no idea. Based on the legacy of Constantine I think he was an incredibly grounded and sensible person who converted for pragmatic reasons. I think he just hedged his bets.

All foundational buildings in Constantinople followed Pagan rituals. Even the Christian buildings. Which is why they have Pagan relics and idols inside their walls. For protection against the gods.

I don't think he cared about religion that much. I think he had a troubled empire to run and had a laser focus on that goal.

My understanding is that he was cursed with the rampaging mobs of various sectarian 'Christians' who kept the Empire in a state of chaotic upheaval. The differences in dogma fueled the ongoing discord amongst Christians and his attempt was to bring unity amongst Christians by simplifying the dogmas to reduce the internecine violence in the streets of the Empire. Hence, the gathering at Nicea.

 

[Thomas II]

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-admits-catholic-church-waited-too-long-respond-clergy-abuse-crisis


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-condemns-sex-abuse-described-in-pennsylvania-grand-jury-report-2018-08-16/

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Mathew 25:40

"And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

That strikes me as a dangerous message. It states that some people are less valuable than other people.

With a foundation like that on how to view our fellow human beings it's no wonder the RCC feels it has a license to engage in criminal behavior. "I'm a priest and you're not." That makes it all okay.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-admits-catholic-church-waited-too-long-respond-clergy-abuse-crisis


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vatican-condemns-sex-abuse-described-in-pennsylvania-grand-jury-report-2018-08-16/

"Maybe the old practice of moving people around, of not facing the problem, kept our consciousness asleep," the pope suggested. "Thanks to God, the Lord sent prophetic men and women in the church … who got others involved and began this work to face the problem head-on."

I think a more sincere, honest, rational reaction would be, "Hey God, What the Fuck! What took so long?"

See how it works? Get the spin, the misdirection? No mention of victims except how the RCC was victimized.

Pitiful.

 

[Thomas II]

Mathew 25:40

"And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

That strikes me as a dangerous message. It states that some people are less valuable than other people.

With a foundation like that on how to view our fellow human beings it's no wonder the RCC feels it has a license to engage in criminal behavior. "I'm a priest and you're not." That makes it all okay.

I think you misunderstood it completely. It states just the opposite. Maybe it would have been better said: "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to those you think to be the least of these my brothers, in fact I see them as close to myself as my own person"

Obviously those pedophile priests viewed those children as powerless, vulnerable, and easy prey, someone they could abuse with impunity.

Now, Mathew 25:40 is supposed to be the teachings of Jesus, but apparently, to the Church, those are just empty words. The fact is that the Church protected those priests and not the victims.