# Pope's letter on child sex abuse and cover up



## Chocks away (20 Mar 2010)

Why is there such media interest in this? What can the pope say that isn't already said by right thinking people? It can be little other than a Cerberusian sop. Hopefully the (fast contracting) multitudes won't buy anything less than a complete overhaul of the Heaven's most successful (until now) quango. Women priests, bishops, cardinals and even in the top gig would make a difference IMO. Either that or remove hierarchy altogether. Personal ambition is not a good bedfellow with religious leadership.


----------



## VOR (20 Mar 2010)

*Re: Pope's letter on child sex abuse*

The word "sorry" would be a start. In fact, anything less than a contrite apology is an insult.


----------



## ajapale (20 Mar 2010)

Does anyone have a link to the letter if its on line?


----------



## JP1234 (20 Mar 2010)

[broken link removed]

I haven't had chance to read it properly yet.


----------



## ajapale (20 Mar 2010)

Thanks,

I found it here : [broken link removed]


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (20 Mar 2010)

He blames it all on the secularisation of society. For centuries we Irish were good people despite fierce persecution by them Brits. Then along came TV, Rock And Roll, the Internet etc., we could cope with the Brits but we could not cope with this wave of secularisation! Some truth in what he says.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (20 Mar 2010)

Yes, some truth, but otherwise a PR job and damage limitation. Nothing new apart from ecclesiastical spin. You mess up peoples heads and then blame them for not being able to think properly. Pure hogwash! Why did he have to wait so long before calling the bishops? Is this the opening gambit on letters to be sent to Canada, the US, Austria, Germany, Australia and Mexico? If this goes down well among the Irish it will be a prototype.


----------



## RMCF (20 Mar 2010)

So let me get this straight, all those priests and religious orders abusing children is down to secular influences?

And if I pray and fast until Easter 2011 then it will make things better? What about them outing every single paedo they have in their midst, because they know each and every one of them. Perhaps that might be more useful.


----------



## mathepac (20 Mar 2010)

I'm beyond angry; there is so much anger in me I'm not even sure there's room for me to recognise  another emotion, nor is there room for a rational examination of that letter.

It starts with by adddressing itself to the  "Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland" and ends with a  "Prayer for the Church in Ireland". Why do I think that he is addressing the Church establishment and the Church organisation? In the middle it seems there are a few offhand platitudes addressed to the abuse victims and a plea to their  abusers to "do the right thing" (my interpretation, I admit). Am I wrong? Please tell me I am.

Hopefully I'll be able to face reading it again when I'm calmer but right now I'm spitting blood.


----------



## Purple (20 Mar 2010)

I am struggling to see what he wrote in the context of a man who earnestly believes in God and that God can truly change lives and influence people via the Holy Spirit, through the power of prayer.
I am an unbeliever so it’s all hog-wash to me so while I want to hear a clear and unambiguous statement requiring all priests and religious to cooperate fully with the civil authorities under pain of excommunication (or whatever) but I have to acknowledge that he sees the world differently to me. 

There were a few things missing. First off he didn’t acknowledge his own involvement in covering up the abuse and obstructing justice for decades.
Secondly he continued to talk about canon law; it holds no more authority in this country than the rules of a golf club so I couldn’t care less what their rules are. I am concerned that there is a continuing undercurrent of sedition in that he is indirectly extolling Irish citizens to give precedent to foreign laws over Irish civil and criminal law.  
Thirdly he in no way connects this abuse to the wider abuse of children by priests and religious around the world. This abuse is particularly strong in countries where there has been an Irish influence; the USA, Canada and Australia. 

There is no link what so ever between secularisation and child abuse, if anything the opposite is the case. While his clear call for abusers to report their crimes to the civil authorities is welcome; “At the same time, God’s justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing. Openly acknowledge your guilt, submit yourselves to the demands of justice”, there is so much misdirection and so many omissions that the whole letter is undermined.

It will be interesting to see what he says when he gets here.

What are the chances that he will be arrested the minute he lands in Dublin airport?


----------



## Lex Foutish (20 Mar 2010)

Purple said:


> .....*What are the chances that he will be arrested the minute he lands in Dublin airport*?


 

Haven't you forgotten the old Diplomatic Immunity card?


----------



## The_Banker (20 Mar 2010)

I read the full letter, including the prayer at the end.

I am shaking my head here at the sheer.....emptiness. ..of the letter. 

For example, his "concrete initiatives to address the situation".

1. An invite to devote our Friday penances for one year to "to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country."

2. Organizing "periods of Eucharistic adoration"

And he says that "I am confident that this programme will lead to a rebirth of the Church in Ireland in the fullness of God’s own truth".



I know he is the Pope like but does he honestly think this will work? At the risk of sounding trite he needs to wake up and smell the coffee. Is it any wonder Martin Luther walked away.


----------



## haminka1 (20 Mar 2010)

the apology came too late and was not accompanied by any meaningful action


----------



## z107 (20 Mar 2010)

I can't be bothered to read the letter. (From the replies on here, it sounds as bogus as St Peter's)

Why didn't the guards just arrest the paedophiles? Did the guards know what was going on?


----------



## jhegarty (20 Mar 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Why didn't the guards just arrest the paedophiles? Did the guards know what was going on?



That's the question I would be asking. 

They seem far more negligent here than anyone else.


----------



## Complainer (20 Mar 2010)

The_Banker said:


> For example, his "concrete initiatives to address the situation".
> 
> 1. An invite to devote our Friday penances for one year to "to pray for an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength upon the Church in your country."
> 
> 2. Organizing "periods of Eucharistic adoration"


As Eamonn Morrissey said in the 'Speed 3' episode, "Ted, Is there anything to be said for another Mass?"


----------



## z107 (20 Mar 2010)

Money would probably be a better 'concrete initiative'. The description 'concrete' suggests something tangible.


----------



## Black Sheep (20 Mar 2010)

"must acknowledge the serious sins committed against defenseless children".  
What about the crimes???


----------



## RMCF (20 Mar 2010)

Can someone answer this for me?

If an accountant, lawyer, engineer, doctor, factory worker, librarian etc etc was to rape and abuse children they would be arrested immediately, prosecuted and jailed for a long time, along with having their names known.

Why were priests different?


----------



## gearoid (20 Mar 2010)

I found the letter, which I read in full, dishonest and historically incorrect.

We must nail the lie that the Pope has repeated several times now, that somehow all the abuse was the result of secularism. What utter nonsense, particularly given that Ireland has only moved towards a more secular model in the last two decades or so, long after the first abuse cases were documented. Secularism has given people the confidence to confront the clergy, to think for themselves and to question.

The obvious and inescapable fact is that the approach taken by Cardinal Brady in 1975 was a Vatican inspired approach. The normal approach seems to have been to subject the victim to secrecy and move the perpetrator from diocese to diocese. This model has occurred across the Northern Hemisphere.

I went to a school where children were subjected to sexually abusive behaviour by one particular priest. It was at the lower end of the abuse scale, but I have no way of knowing whether worse went on in more secretive surroundings. In 1991 I confronted one of the priests from the school, one of Ireland's most well known schools, and he said that all the other priests knew of this particular priest's behaviour; but none spoke out. What this document failed to confront was the omerta and lack of moral compass within the priesthood. Few if any have stood out despite the fact so many of them knew what was happening. 

By not acting against those within their church many priests are just as culpable as the actual perpetrator. However, those VERY FEW that stood up and spoke out were punished. That wasn't mentioned by the Pope in what to me is a selective and thoroughly self-serving missive. I listened to
Bishop McKeown on wednesday talking about those people who criticise them having an "agenda" against the church. Such use of words shows the mindset that can only be addressed by all bishops stepping down. 

The attempt to lay the blame entirely on the Irish church, and omit the Vatican's part, is particularly disgusting and shameful. Pope John Paul 11 picked the hierarchy for their obedience and submission. They reported to Rome and the approach to dealing with the problem was Vatican inspired.

Now we need the politicians to show some spine and confront the education sector where the bishops still control many school boards. The clergy must step back and if we aren't to move to a secular school system, at least no member of the hierarchy should be allowed to have any influence on the schools.

We must put pressure on our politicians to shame Rome for the craven nature of this apology, and one step would be to demote the Papal Nuncio from being head of the diplomatic corps. We no longer live in 1932.


----------



## DrMoriarty (20 Mar 2010)

+1

The current Pope, the Vatican authorities and the Irish bishops are merely continuing a centuries-long tradition of unrepentant duplicity, arrogance and power-mongering.
It is we, not they, who need to wake up and smell the coffee.

A good place to start is www.countmeout.ie.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (20 Mar 2010)

RMCF - just my take on a very small part of this criminal activity. Again the sinister workings of secret bodies in wheels within wheels. Nudge nudge, wink wink between the lawmakers and their puppet masters Opus Dei and The Knights. This macabre clique with their narcissistic grandiosity continue to play havoc with democracy. Michael Woods signed off on an awful lot of money in ensuring that the guilty were given a slap on the wrist while the innocent taxpayer (and in some cases abused taxpayer) took the brunt of the hit. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's", was ignored by this pompous know all. With (on and off) selective memory, he refused to allow CICA access to the files that enslaved and abused children in Reformatory Schools. These were big earners for the coffers in Rome. Sometime in the future (if not already) he may be entertaining three ghosts. The bottle of holy water by the bed may be a wise move according to his line of thinking.
Well said gearoid and DrMoriarty.


----------



## Lex Foutish (20 Mar 2010)

DrMoriarty said:


> +1
> 
> The current Pope, the Vatican authorities and the Irish bishops are merely continuing a centuries-long tradition of unrepentant duplicity, arrogance and power-mongering.
> It is we, not they, who need to wake up and smell the coffee.
> ...


 
Great post, Doc. My sentiments exactly!

I was raised a Catholic but, given all that's gone on, I will never again have anything to do with them (including not paying dues.... the real Ouch Factor) and couldn't care less if the Pope wrote a thousand letters or pastoral letters or encyclicals, etc. 

And today's effort should certainly be filed in the *Papal Bull* section!!!!!!!


----------



## Caveat (20 Mar 2010)

So what are people going to do?

As a former COI member (now agnostic) it has less to do with me than most, and I sometimes feel my opinions don't count on these matters. I had my original choice made for me and I've made my own choices since.

What is a valid mass protest that will make the church take notice and realise that this response is totally unacceptable?

With all due respect, and not that it isn't a good idea, I think that the countmeout website may not amount to much - who will care?


----------



## Lex Foutish (21 Mar 2010)

I think the only real way they'll feel it, Cav, is if people hit them where it hurts and stop paying dues etc.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2010)

Excellent post gearoid.


----------



## mathepac (21 Mar 2010)

I wonder would the allegations of abuse  being made against the Bavarian school where Ratzinger's brother worked as choir-master have effected his ability to write a whole-hearted and objective  letter of condemnation and apology? (Reuters UK report) - http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE6282XL20100309?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews


----------



## RMCF (21 Mar 2010)

What we really need is for the churches to be empty all over the country. Boycott them until full disclosure is made.

Problem is, it'll never happen. While we have a generation of people who can see the church doing no wrong (like those who had the stupidity to actually applaud Fr Brady last week) then we will never move on.

I think this whole sorry affair will really hurt the Church but it will take a while. The younger generation are very disillusioned and I can see a severe lack of interest in religion and attending Mass etc in the next 25/50yrs.


----------



## Tinker Bell (21 Mar 2010)

It now looks as if Ian Paisley was onto something afterall when he tagged Popes as Antichrists. This old fellow seems so cold, so rigid, so deluded. The act of submission in kissing the Pope's ring reinforces the Pope's dominance. Where in he New Testament did all this come from? 
Jeremiah 49:16 "As for the terror of you, The arrogance of your heart has deceived you, O you who live in the clefts of the rock, Who occupy the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as an eagle's, I will bring you down from there," declares the LORD.


----------



## z107 (21 Mar 2010)

I was turned off the Catholic church after I visited Vatican City.
Walking around St Peter's, I decided that this was exactly the opposite of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately' teachings. I almost felt a sense of evil in that place.


----------



## Purple (21 Mar 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> I was turned off the Catholic church after I visited Vatican City.
> Walking around St Peter's, I decided that this was exactly the opposite of This post will be deleted if not edited immediately' teachings. I almost felt a sense of evil in that place.


The RC Church is a continuation of the Roman Empire and has more to do with Paul and Constantine than This post will be deleted if not edited immediately Christ.


----------



## Kine (21 Mar 2010)

My unborn child will not be baptisesd a RC, that's for sure.

someone mentioned stopping paying dues....what dues are paid?


----------



## Lex Foutish (21 Mar 2010)

Kine said:


> My unborn child will not be baptisesd a RC, that's for sure.
> 
> *someone mentioned stopping paying dues*....what dues are paid?


 
I'm someone. 

In Cork we get envelopes at Christmas and Easter looking for "offerings." (Don't they in other counties?) People put money, usually quite a bit, into the envelope and it's collected by the local lay person who delivered it first day. In Co. Cork, they have "stations." A station is when mass is said in a house in a particular townland (twice a year in every townland) and every household makes a contribution to the priest. Station dues were to be what the priest survived on, along with payments for signing mass cards, saying masses for dead people, weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. Sunday church collections were for parish funds.... upkeep of the church building, etc.

In times past, a priest would often read from the altar, the amount contributed by each household, at stations and for Christmas and Easter offerings. Back then, if that didn't guarantee generous contributions, nothing would!!!


----------



## BillK (21 Mar 2010)

Apologies if this is found to be offensive, but I saw this today and thought it fitted.

A monastery is destroyed by an earthquake and 20 Christian Brothers ascend at once to the Pearly Gates. At the gates, St Peter says, "Who amongst you fiddled with children when he was alive?"  Nineteen Brothers put their hands up. "Right," says St Peter, "You lot get yourselves down to Purgatory - and take that deaf git with you."


----------



## Vanilla (21 Mar 2010)

We need to look with open eyes at this church and the evil that has been perpetrated in its name.

But don't kid yourselves. The priests and their superiors are not the only ones to blame. We need to look at ourselves too. Many, many lay people knew about the abuses happening all over the world and did nothing. Every time I hear another story about an innocent child being abused I feel sickened and murderous but we need to examine our own consciences too, sad to say.


----------



## dockingtrade (21 Mar 2010)

Vanilla said:


> Many, many lay people knew about the abuses happening all over the world and did nothing.


 
where was the apology of the cover up! where was the apology for the treatment of victims after the abuse.

This is the bottom line in all this.  The actions of the church gave protection to abusers and the opportunity for abusers to abuse again and again and those actions attracted more abusers to the church. This is what the heiracry is guilty of and this is what the heiracry need to be indicated for!


----------



## Bronte (22 Mar 2010)

I haven't read the letter, is it fantastic? I guess the Pope has ordered that all the files on Irish Church abuse will be sent to the Irish authorities along with the orders from Rome to the Irish Bishops on how to cover up, sorry handle abusive priests and brothers? He's also I guess 'laetising' abusing priest and bishops as a first step in the openness, transparency and honestly in the letter, but maybe paedophilia is not a cannon law crime so he might's need to do that.

Is paedophilia a canon law crime. I'm sure under God's law and state law it is but what about canon law?

Did he clarify in the letter if the Church hierarchy answers to the laws of the state or the laws of the Church, I wasn't too sure after hearing Dooley on the Pat Kenny show last Monday but I got the impression that state law was definitely in second place, would that be treason I wonder, must have got that wrong, but the Pope has surely cleared it up in his letter.

I guess the letter told the hierarchy to stop paying for the best lawyers to defend child abuse cases in court, canon law courts and at in camera meetings. They were winning most of those cases because the Church had such deep pockets (thanks to the Irish citizens etc for contributing to this by the way) and the abuse victims with very little money (those not in psychiatric care or in denial, or in pain or plain dead from suicide) who have the courage and strength to fights the heinous crimes done to them. Maybe the Pope has ordered that the Church pay for these people's medical care and legal fees? But maybe they don't have enough money for that, it takes a lot of money to keep a Bishop in a high standard of living in his palace. 

Will the papal nuncio be apologising to the Murphy report (and ultimately to the Irish people) for non responding to requests for information?

I guess some of you can confirm that everything is now cleared up and we can go forward in openness, honesty and transparency?


----------



## annR (22 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Is paedophilia a canon law crime. I'm sure under God's law and state law it is but what about canon law?


 
I saw a clip on the TV of Marie Collins of One in Four reacting to the letter and she said that even if canon law had been enforced it wouldn't have made any difference.

I haven't read the letter either but if he is blaming the secularisation of society, that is particularly outrageous.  That is shifting the blame from the church onto society and therefore onto the victims and their families.  It is this sort of things that makes me wonder about how the Church really does view 'the flock' and how that view would become twisted into a justication of abuse.

I've heard Marie Collins talk on the radio before about how she thinks this is just the tip of the iceberg.  That combination of power and repressed sexuality does not only apply to paedophiles - she thinks that lots of sexual relationships, either consensual or unconsensual must be going on between priests and also with nuns.  Sounds crazy but I believe it, it's easier to believe than the child abuse. 

Until the vatican addresses these issues as a problem within the church I won't believe anything has changed.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2010)

Full text of letter


----------



## Sol28 (22 Mar 2010)

So many people complain about the church and moan here. But have you informed the church? Like a few others on this site I have defected from the church using the services of Countmeout.ie.

The Church came back to me asking for a clarification - Even though I had already mentioned my reasons in my original letter. But I decided to re-state my position (and am including an extract of my letter below. 

Dont just complain to us - complain to them!



> With regards to your letter dated the 4th January and in response to my wish to formally defect from the Catholic Church, I just wish to clarify my reasons for defection.
> 
> Firstly, I no longer consider myself part of the Catholic Church and do not believe in God, This post will be deleted if not edited immediately or the Bible. However this in itself is not the reason I am formally defecting. As religion plays no part in my life, letting my membership lapse would have been sufficient.
> 
> ...


 
And their reply:




> Thanks for your e-mail and the clarification and clear explanation of your position. I will follow on your request as you have indicated and be in touch in writing in due course.


----------



## Kine (22 Mar 2010)

Lex Foutish said:


> In Cork we get envelopes at Christmas and Easter looking for "offerings." (Don't they in other counties?) People put money, usually quite a bit, into the envelope and it's collected by the local lay person who delivered it first day. In Co. Cork, they have "stations." A station is when mass is said in a house in a particular townland (twice a year in every townland) and every household makes a contribution to the priest. Station dues were to be what the priest survived on, along with payments for signing mass cards, saying masses for dead people, weddings, funerals, baptisms, etc. Sunday church collections were for parish funds.... upkeep of the church building, etc.
> QUOTE]
> 
> Ah OK, think my Parents get something similar. Never seen one myself though, but I think I have technically moved parish 3 years ago. Niot that I'd contribute.
> ...


----------



## Mpsox (22 Mar 2010)

As a practising Catholic I have to admit I was a bit disappointed when "Benny" got elected, to me he was not the man to drive through the changes needed in the church. There's a lot of good things in this letter, but overall I do feel it was a missed opportunity

Firstly, the welcome parts, the apology, not just for the abuse but also for the response of the church, the admonishment of the bishops(could perhaps have been stronger though), his stated willingness to meet abuse victims and his acceptance that some men were allowed to become priests who should never have been left. 
I'm reminded of the joke in Father Ted when Ted is explaining to someone how in Irish families the intelligent son would become a doctor, the eejit son would become a priest. Dougal pipes up "Ted, you've a brother a doctor, dont you?" Whether they were eejits, "mothers vocations" or whatever the reason, many of these abusers should and could have been weeded out far earliers.

I would have preferred however to seen more stringent condemnation of the cover ups. I would also have liked him to take more personal responsibility for what happened, he's the boss-man and ultimately has to take responsibility for what his staff have done, even if it was not always on his watch. Instead he just seems to blame the priests, bishops and society in general.I also have an issue with blaming "secularisation" for what happened. That's just a load of codswallop.

He also didn't tackle one of the reasons why I believe abuse happened, namely celibacy. After all, it was never a requirement in the early days of the church and I never really understood why it was brought in at all. My father told me once how after a dance in the 40s and 50s, the parish priest would be cycling around with a torch looking for "courtin" couples. In the plain speak of a country farmer, Dad described him as being like a bull in heat in a field with no cows. 

My mother admits that back in the 50s, people did not go to church to worship God, they went to workship the priests. Those days are over and good ridence to them. There is far greater lay involvement these days for example which is great. I perfectly understand why some posters on here would leave the church or stop making donations ,  but could I also ask that people do not forget the tremendous work done by organisations such as St Vincent de Paul or the recent charity collections for Haiti held in many churches (my own parish raised €54k) and not to turn their back on those.


----------



## Latrade (22 Mar 2010)

Mpsox said:


> He also didn't tackle one of the core reasons why I believe abuse happened, namely celibacy. After all, it was never a requirement in the early days of the church and I never really understood why it was brought in at all. My father told me once how after a dance in the 40s and 50s, the parish priest would be cycling around with a torch looking for "courtin" couples. In the plain speak of a country farmer, Dad described him as being like a bull in heat in a field with no cows.


 
Mpsox, I 100% agree with every thing else in your excellent post, but even as an atheist I don't think the prevalence of abuse is as simplistic in its roots as celibacy. 

My opinion is that in the same way we've seen abusers in positions with children's sports, education, care etc, it's access to and power over the victims that is the "attraction" to those vocations. I feel it is the same in the church, those who abused, chose that occupation because of the access to vulnerable children rather than the role turned them into abusers.


----------



## Caveat (22 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> My opinion is that in the same way we've seen abusers in positions with children's sports, education, care etc, it's access to and power over the victims that is the "attraction" to those vocations. I feel it is the same in the church, those who abused, chose that occupation because of the access to vulnerable children rather than the role turned them into abusers.


 
+1, agree totally.


----------



## Purple (22 Mar 2010)

latrade said:


> mpsox, i 100% agree with every thing else in your excellent post, but even as an atheist i don't think the prevalence of abuse is as simplistic in its roots as celibacy.
> 
> My opinion is that in the same way we've seen abusers in positions with children's sports, education, care etc, it's access to and power over the victims that is the "attraction" to those vocations. I feel it is the same in the church, those who abused, chose that occupation because of the access to vulnerable children rather than the role turned them into abusers.



+1


----------



## Mpsox (22 Mar 2010)

Latrade said:


> Mpsox, I 100% agree with every thing else in your excellent post, but even as an atheist I don't think the prevalence of abuse is as simplistic in its roots as celibacy.
> 
> My opinion is that in the same way we've seen abusers in positions with children's sports, education, care etc, it's access to and power over the victims that is the "attraction" to those vocations. I feel it is the same in the church, those who abused, chose that occupation because of the access to vulnerable children rather than the role turned them into abusers.


 
I'm not saying it is the reason but I do believe it is *one *of many reasons. Hans Kung, the theologian, has blamed much of what has happened on the churches "uptight" attititude to sex, which is perhaps a better explanation then just celibacy. Interestingly a German cardinal has also said that celibacy is a reason


----------



## Latrade (22 Mar 2010)

Mpsox said:


> I'm not saying it is the reason but I do believe it is *one *of many reasons. Hans Kung, the theologian, has blamed much of what has happened on the churches "uptight" attititude to sex, which is perhaps a better explanation then just celibacy. Interestingly a German cardinal has also said that celibacy is a reason


 
Sorry, I really don't mean to distract from your post by opening the celibacy debate as I really did agree with everything else you said. 

...however..., well I suppose my objection to this apsect is that it holds the church up as a special case. If we had complete liberal views on sex, we'd still have paedophiles. If we had swingers parties orgainsed by the local priest, we'd still have paedophiles.

I think to blame any system (not saying you are) or body and its attitudes to sex in general for the paedophillia to me excuses the act and those who engage in it. It's not the system's fault, it's the paedophiles.

Again though we're going off tangent. There's so much for the Church to be condemned for, but I think the issue of celibacy is a smokescreen and possibley a step to far in some way implying the Church created these individuals.


----------



## The_Banker (22 Mar 2010)

Fintan O'Toole writing in The Observer on Sunday with regard to the Benny letter...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/21/pope-benedict-xvi-catholicism

The cover-up of child sexual abuse by the Catholic church is not about sex and it is not about Catholicism. It is not, as Pope Benedict rightly argued in yesterday's distressingly bland pastoral letter, about priestly celibacy. It is about power.

The urge to prey on children is not confined to the supposedly celibate clergy and exists in all walks of life. We know that it can become systemic in state and voluntary, as well as in religious, institutions. We know that all kinds of organisations – from banks to political movements – can generate a culture of perverted loyalty in which otherwise decent people will collude in crimes "for the greater good".

In none of these respects is the Catholic church unique. What makes it different – and what gives this crisis its depth – is the church's power. It had the authority, indeed the majesty, to compel victims and their families to collude in their own abuse and to keep hideous crimes secret for decades. It is that system of authority that is at the heart of the corruption. And that is why Benedict's pastoral letter, for all its expressions of "shame and remorse", is unable to deal with the central issue. The only adequate response to the crisis is a fundamental questioning of the closed, hierarchical power system of which the pope himself is the apex and the embodiment. It was never remotely likely that Benedict would be able to understand those questions, let alone answer them.

It is this contradiction that explains why the church has been trying, and failing, to put the abuse crisis behind it for well over a decade now. There is something symbolically apt, for example, about the way the grotesque figure of the dead paedophile, Father Brendan Smyth, has returned to threaten the position of the head of the Irish church, Cardinal Sean Brady.

Smyth emerged as a public figure in 1994, when he was convicted in Belfast after almost half a century of child abuse. He almost destroyed the reputation of Brady's predecessor, Cahal Daly. He even contributed to the fall of Albert Reynolds's government in 1994. It makes a kind of grim sense that his horrific career, and the failure of the church to take any real steps to stop him, has re-emerged to haunt another cardinal.

For the shock that Smyth's exposure delivered to Irish Catholicism has not yet been absorbed by the hierarchy. Both in Ireland and worldwide, the institution's all-male leadership refuses to face the fact that its own existence is at the heart of the problem. A closed system of authority in which democracy is a dirty word, secrecy is a virtue and unaccountable individuals combine spiritual prestige and temporal power is a breeding ground for abuse and cover-up.

The universal nature of the church's response to abuse, from Belfast to Brazil and Australia to Austria, tells us the institution itself is the problem. Much of the criticism has focused, understandably, on the actions of individuals such as Brady when he investigated Smyth in 1975 or Benedict (Joseph Ratzinger as he then was) who sent an abuser in his Munich archdiocese for "therapy" in 1980. But the system for dealing with these crimes was the same everywhere: swear the victims to secrecy; send the abuser to be "cleansed" in a clinic; shift him to another parish (or in extreme cases like Smyth's to another country); and, above all, do not tell the police.

It is not a coincidence that the cover-up worked in the same way throughout the church's vast domain. It was a fully thought-through system with a clear set of goals, defined by last year's devastating Murphy report on the Dublin archdiocese as "the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the church, and the preservation of its assets".

Why did bishops, who were not monsters and who presumably believed themselves to be exemplars of goodness, choose to send child rapists out into parishes rather than bring the institution into disrepute? The brutally truthful answer is: because they could. There is no starker illustration of the corrupting influence of excessive power.

That power was, in Catholic societies or communities, all-encompassing. It included the notion that they themselves and their priests belonged to a special caste, which was not subject to the civil law. This idea is deeply ingrained. Only last week, one of Ireland's leading canon lawyers, Monsignor Maurice Dooley, insisted on RTE radio that priests do not have to report child abuse: "Priests are not auxiliary policemen… they do not have an obligation to go down to the police." On the contrary, he insisted, Brady, when he learned of Smyth's crimes, "was dealing with a particular in camera investigation within the church. It would be a violation of his obligations if he went to the police".

That appalling arrogance was bolstered by an even more sinister knowledge. Bishops and priests knew that, because of their spiritual authority, they could manipulate the victims into feeling guilty. Kindly priests would offer those who disclosed abuse absolution of their sins, as if they were the ones who had stains on their souls. And parents who reported the violation of their children were often fearful lest they themselves be seen to be damaging the church they loved. As a previous archbishop of Dublin, Dermot Ryan, noted in internal case notes: "The parents involved have, for the most part, reacted with what can only be described as incredible charity. In several cases, they were quite apologetic about having to discuss the matter and were as much concerned for the priest's welfare as for their child and other children."

It is that capacity to place yourself above the law and to make those who have been wronged feel "quite apologetic" that is peculiar to the church. These are the factors that explain, not just why the institution put its own interests above those of children, but also why it succeeded for so long. The church is not alone in believing that evil could be tolerated for a "good cause". But it was unique in the democratic world in its ability to get away with doing so in case after case and for decade after decade.

To cut out the source of the corruption, the church would have to attack its own authoritarian culture. Had Benedict done so in his pastoral letter, it would have been the most dramatic moment in the history of Christianity since Paul fell off his horse on the road to Damascus.

Benedict, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was one of the key figures in the Catholic counter-revolution. His career has been all about rolling back the democratic ideal of the church as the "people of God" that emerged from Vatican II and re-establishing hierarchical control. Indeed, in the pastoral letter he slyly suggests that Vatican II itself was responsible for the church's collusion with abusing priests – which, given the existence of precisely the same system long before the council, is patent nonsense.

So, for all the breast-beating in the pastoral letter, there is no acknowledgment of Benedict's own culpability. (If the "credibility and effectiveness" of Irish bishops have been undermined, as he says, by the scandals, what of his own standing as a bishop, as the power behind John Paul II's throne and now as pope?)

There is no explicit endorsement of the new protocols in Ireland demanding that all suspicions be referred to the police. Indeed, the demand that "the child safety norms of the church in Ireland" be "applied fully and impartially in conformity with canon law", and the weasel-worded injunction to "co-operate with the civil authorities in their area of competence", seem to reinforce the notion that canon law matters more than criminal law.

There is no rowing back on the line enunciated by the Vatican's secretary of state, Tarcisio Bertone, last week that "the church still enjoys great confidence on the part of the faithful; it is just that someone is trying to undermine that". That "someone" is, in fact, the church's own leadership and its unshaken commitment to hierarchical power. The faithful have known that for a long time now. The pope, their supposed leader, is still floundering, far, far behind them.


----------



## The_Banker (22 Mar 2010)

And while this article was written in jest a few years back, I sometimes wonder is this the real attitude of the vatican...?

http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2010)

The_Banker said:


> Fintan O'Toole writing in The Observer on Sunday with regard to the Benny letter... [etc]


He is correct in everything he says here.


----------



## Bronte (23 Mar 2010)

The_Banker said:


> And while this article was written in jest a few years back, I sometimes wonder is this the real attitude of the vatican...?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/pope-forgives-molested-children,101/


 

I thought nothing else could shock me.  Did the pope actually say that?  What is wrong with these men, every last one of them.


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Did the pope actually say that?


 No


----------



## Bronte (23 Mar 2010)

Thank you Purple, I'm so far gone I'd believe anything now.  Maybe that's the way they think behind closed doors.  

Really excellent article by O' Toole.

Could anyone shed light on why the church tolerated paedophiles.  They seem to expel priests who sleep with women and have no tolerence of that so why accept paedophiles.  Wouldn't it have been easier to just expel the paedophiles?  Do children have less rights than adults in the eyes of the Church?  What is their thinking?


----------



## Bronte (23 Mar 2010)

Mpsox said:


> Firstly, the welcome parts, his stated willingness to meet abuse victims


 
Well one ought to contrast that with how the congegration in Kerry greeted the man who shouted at the Bishop last Sunday.  Did the Bishop and congregation welcome him?  

How quick the gardai were to step in for this minor transgression and contrast that with the gardai interviewing Brady who had in law committed an offense by not reporting the fact that children had told him about the rapes they had been subjected by a priest.


----------



## Mpsox (23 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> Well one ought to contrast that with how the congegration in Kerry greeted the man who shouted at the Bishop last Sunday. Did the Bishop and congregation welcome him?
> 
> How quick the gardai were to step in for this minor transgression and contrast that with the gardai interviewing Brady who had in law committed an offense by not reporting the fact that children had told him about the rapes they had been subjected by a priest.


 
I can't and won't defend what happened in Kilarney.

Based on the Murphy report, did it actually make much difference if things were reported to the Gardai back in the past?  There is a need to actually take a long hard look at how the whole issue of child abuse was handled across the country over the last 50 years, obviously in the church, but also the performance of the Gardai, govt departments, social workers and some charities. Should we not have some sort of "Truth Commision" and get *everything* out in the open once and for all?


----------



## Purple (23 Mar 2010)

I agree Mpsox. I have said above that there is a section of people who are vilifying the RC Church in a sort of deflected guilt and anger instead of acknowledging the broader implications for how Irish society as a whole viewed child abuse in the past. 
Just look at the level of physical violence that was not perpetrated against young children in schools and in the home. It wasn’t just tolerated, it was seen as a virtue. “Spare the rod and spoil the child” was the accepted wisdom in this country ‘till recently. 

The main culprit in all of this is the Irish state, and by extension the Irish electorate, who willingly outsourced its constitutional duty to care for vulnerable children to people who were neither qualified or psychologically suitable to fulfil the task. The state then didn’t bother to carry out any oversight and when gross abuses were reported to them they didn’t just fail to investigate it, they covered it up.    

That doesn’t in any way excuse the RC Church or the Pope from their own culpability in what has happened.


----------



## annR (23 Mar 2010)

>>Again though we're going off tangent. There's so much for the Church to be condemned for, but I think the issue of celibacy is a smokescreen and possibley a step to far in some way implying the Church created these individuals.<<

Well apart from celibacy, I think that to a certain extent the church did create at least some of these individuals.  They say that often abusers were abused themselves as children and if you had altar boys/schoolkids/seminarians who were systematically abused and then went on to become priests surely they are more likely than other priests to abuse.  I wonder will we ever find out how many abusing priests were themselves abused by a priest, and that is one of the things the Vatican has to look at, whether the institution did indeed create them.

Fintan O'Toole:
>>That appalling arrogance was bolstered by an even more sinister knowledge. Bishops and priests knew that, because of their spiritual authority, they could manipulate the victims into feeling guilty<<

To me this business about blaming the secularisation of society is the same thing - part of an abusive cycle.

>> how Irish society as a whole viewed child abuse in the past. <<

There was probably some sort of hopeless denial going on and a total inability to question the authority of the church.  But I agree the question is there, what sort of country were we?  But those questions are not just in the past.  What sort of country are we now?  A society where social workers are short on the ground and cannot cover all the cases, cannot stop children being abused, children in care are not looked after properly, convicted rapists are walking around until they ruin another person's life etc . . .it's not like we have thrown off the shackles of the RC to evolve into a society where we don't allow these things to happen.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (23 Mar 2010)

Bronte said:


> I thought nothing else could shock me. Did the pope actually say that? What is wrong with these men, every last one of them.


Jayz _Bronte _you didn't seriously believe that!! Read the link on that article to another article which talks about North Korea's jealosy at that time that the US was attacking Iraq and not it. The Onion seems to be a permanent April Fool and not very witty.


----------



## Bronte (24 Mar 2010)

Duke of Marmalade said:


> Jayz _Bronte _you didn't seriously believe that!! Read the link on that article to another article which talks about North Korea's jealosy at that time that the US was attacking Iraq and not it. The Onion seems to be a permanent April Fool and not very witty.


 
I only read a bit of it, there are no beliefs that the catholic hierarchy have that I wouldn't believe right down to murder. If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be able to mentally deal with how they handle the abuse of children. It goes down to the real way they think about the rights of children and women who I absolutely believe they hate, a hatred I cannot understand no matter how I try so there is no belief of theirs that is beyond the pale with me.

To those of you who may wonder, I've never had any real bad experiences being brought up going to a Catholic school. In fact one of the kindest people I ever met was a nun who took care of me like a mother from when I went to school at 4, she made my lunch all the years I was there, and gave me free music lessons and looked out for me every day. I think I was the child she never had and she was a most holy and devout and good person far far removed from the all male hierarchy. It is the abuse of power that the Catholic Church has in Ireland that drives me crazy. That those who profess to speak good and the word of God can do such evil. And that everybody goes along with it and that they still they pay into that institution, it is beyond my understanding. I have no problem with people having religious beliefs or being part of a religion.


----------

