Age Of consent- Bishops Statement

S

Sunny

Registered User
Messages
4,571
I realise I am probably opening a whole can of warms here but I was just wondering how people felt reading the churches statement about how the debate on the age of consent has 'shied away from confronting the basic demands of morality'.
According to the bishops, children need to be protected not only from irresponsible adults but also from themselves, until they reached the age of maturity, currently considered to be 18.

I find it extemely hypocritical for an organisation with a track record of child abuse and rape among its members and one where perpetrators of these crimes were protected and shielded to be suddenly giving us moral guidance on the protection of our children.

Let legislators, parent groups and child groups decide on the appropriate age of consent. Let the Church worry about its own morality. How many years did it take for the Pope (Previous and Present) to apologise for the abuse in Ferns?
 
i did hear it coming in in the car this morning.
As part of their brief i suppose to make such a statement - and they were just pointing out that they were the only ones making the statement. however i do to a large extent agree with them. As I heard it they were merely saying that the moving of age of consent was not always going to be in the interest of the 16 year old, and in the age of kids having everything it could lead to trivialising and not valuing the whole act of sex and people abusing 16 year olds who might be clueless. i think some things should be left for later. I look back and think of the guys i was "mad about" at 16 and the thought of shifting them alone is embarassing enough.
 
Who ever pays attention to what the church says. I think we as a nation lost our faith/believe years ago
 
Like they're qualified to talk about sex & morality....:rolleyes:
 
Sunny said:
I find it extemely hypocritical for an organisation with a track record of child abuse and rape among its members and one where perpetrators of these crimes were protected and shielded to be suddenly giving us moral guidance on the protection of our children.
Click to expand...
Notwithstanding the crimes of individual clergymen or the failure of the Catholic Church to deal with these properly ... I thought that the rate of child abuse by clergymen ran at about the same rate for the general public (or possibly males in the general public). If this is the case does it somehow make any comments by any men on this issue hypocritical and irrelevant? In my opinion any organization is entitled to make its views on any issue known. Whether or not the relevant authorities should listen to or act on them is another matter.
 
ClubMan said:
Notwithstanding the crimes of individual clergymen or the failure of the Catholic Church to deal with these properly ... I thought that the rate of child abuse by clergymen ran at about the same rate for the general public (or possibly males in the general public). If this is the case does it somehow make any comments by any men on this issue hypocritical and irrelevant? In my opinion any organization is entitled to make its views on any issue known. Whether or not the relevant authorities should listen to or act on them is another matter.
Click to expand...

The abuse of children by the clergy involved a systematic cover up of the crimes by the Church hierarchy which must have been just as painful for the victims as the actual abuse. Also the people in the general public who committed these sick crimes didn't go into mass the next Sunday and lecture on sin and morality. I am not saying they are not entitled to express a view but I just found the use of the word morality when talking about children and sex in the same statement a bit hypocritical.
 
Sunny said:
The abuse of children by the clergy involved a systematic cover up of the crimes by the Church hierarchy which must have been just as painful for the victims as the actual abuse. Also the people in the general public who committed these sick crimes didn't go into mass the next Sunday and lecture on sin and morality. I am not saying they are not entitled to express a view but I just found the use of the word morality when talking about children and sex in the same statement a bit hypocritical.
Click to expand...
AFAIK Clubman is correct (according to Vincent Bowne anyway), the prevalence of person's committing abuse was at worst the same in the clergy as it was amongst the general population.
Re the hypocrisy, you have to look beyond what happened in the past, the hierarchy now are not the same people, they see themselves as guardians of our spirituality and morality and for the most part are good people themselves. Since 90% odd of this country profess to be catholic, they would have to be expected to add their tuppence worth.
Now, on a related note, they also said that "sex is reserved for the loving, caring context of a lifelong marriage", my question is, do any of you know why or where they came up with that teaching??
 
It's all pretty irrelevant anyway because kids couldn't give a tuppeny damn about what the age of consent is. They will do what they they chose, and the only thing that will have any influence on that is parenting and how society behaves.
 
According to the bishops, children need to be protected not only from irresponsible adults but also from themselves
Click to expand...

By "themselves" I presume they mean The Bishops.

-Rd
 
Am I'm mistaken in assuming that no Irish bishop has ever been charged with, never mind convicted of, child sex abuse?
 
Am I'm mistaken in assuming that no Irish bishop has ever been charged with, never mind convicted of, child sex abuse?
Click to expand...

Just aiding and abetting as far as I know, but I'm open to correction.
Perhaps Google might know.

-Rd
 
In many of the cases of abuse before the Redress board criminal charges couldn't be brought, but that doesn't mean that society doesn't accept that the events happened.

Bishops have admitted trying to deal with the problem themselves, there is evidence that priests were moved from parish to parish etc. There may be a grey area in law regarding what they could be charged with.

-Rd
 
Regardless of the Bishops input etc., isnt the debate in danger of going down the same road of the divorce referendum

i.e. the majority of arguments in that case were against marital breakup (who anyone would say was an unfortunate reality), whereas what the referendum was about was, primarily, the right to remarry (having gotten finally clear of previous partner).

In this case most of the arguments are about how sex among teenagers or younger teenagers is a bad thing morally/developmentally/from a health perspective.

But isnt the actual decision now whether we make it a crime for these younger teenagers to have sex?

I think the issue is more about people taking advantage of vulnerable people, so I think this is where the age gap is maybe more appropriate as a guidance as to what should be prohibited.

Say you have a teenage son, you might want to kill him if he's underage & having sex (whether with someone underage or not), but is it really in anyones interest for that to be a crime?

As regards the defence of reasonable mistake?, why does it have to be struck off? Again your wayward son is at a nightclub where he meets a comely maiden (or not!) and they end up having sex. Turns out she's 15. Would you want your son to be locked up as a rapist? He met her in an over 18 nightclub, he was probably flamin himself (quite the embarassment this chap!), didnt he have a reasonable expectation that she was over 18 (or at least over 16).

If reasonable mistake is unreasonable in the circumstances - some sicko preying on girls in primary school uniforms - then let the court reject it as a defence and throw away the key. But blanket amendments to the law could have unfortunate consequences for "your son".

... on a lighter note (if there is one), think of poor Renton in Trainspotting as he met Kelly McDonals folks over brekkie
 
Am I wrong in remembering a time in Ireland when the age of consent for sex was lower than they age at which you could buy contraceptives.

I know there was a time when you culdn't buy contraceptives at all, but after their introduction I think I remember their being an age limit on who could buy them.

But I could be wrong.

-Rd
 
Betsy Og said:
Say you have a teenage son, you might want to kill him if he's underage & having sex (whether with someone underage or not), but is it really in anyones interest for that to be a crime?
Click to expand...
In fairness Betty Og, I think that killing your son for having underage sex should be a crime, I'm not saying Murder 1, but certainly manslaughter of some sort;)
 
Sunny said:
Let legislators, parent groups and child groups decide on the appropriate age of consent. Let the Church worry about its own morality.
Click to expand...


Don't I have a say in the matter? I'm neither a legislator, a member of a parents' group or a child group, but I am a citizen of this country. I'm not a supporter of any organised religion other than at the most nominal of levels but with regard to the RC Church's right to have a say in the matter, I agree with Glenbhoy. Also, what does the 'Good Book' say about who should cast the first stone?
 
daltonr said:
Am I wrong in remembering a time in Ireland when the age of consent for sex was lower than they age at which you could buy contraceptives.

I know there was a time when you culdn't buy contraceptives at all, but after their introduction I think I remember their being an age limit on who could buy them.
Click to expand...
I'm of a time when you had to be married to buy condoms and you also needed a prescription AND you need a pharmacist who would actually supply them.
I'm not a Catholic or even a Christian, but I'm in agreement with the bishops on this one. I don't think it should be socially sanctioned to have sex under 18. Same as alcohol and voting. We know they'll do it, but we shouldn't give them the ok. That's not to say that we should criminalise sexual activity between consenting teenagers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top