View Full Version : Should the Pope be in the dock????
Amy-Winehouse
07-Apr-10, 07:35
Going by reports all of this week, the Pope Benedict has been covering up a case of child abuse by a priest . For someone in such a high position & preaching morals to millions , does it not smack of hypocrisy ?
I read that he cant be touched as hes head of state(the Vatican )of the smallest state in the world, Do you think this is right ??
There were also allegation s that the previous pontiff John Paul knew about child abuse in the church, concerning Priests in a school for deaf kids.
Why are these people not investigated ??
Thoughts
So much for everybody being 'equal', because of his status he can do what he likes......i think its completely wrong! People without his status will think its ok to go against the law because he is doing it! He has re-defined the word hypocrit.
Going by reports all of this week, the Pope Benedict has been covering up a case of child abuse by a priest . For someone in such a high position & preaching morals to millions , does it not smack of hypocrisy ?
I read that he cant be touched as hes head of state(the Vatican )of the smallest state in the world, Do you think this is right ??
There were also allegation s that the previous pontiff John Paul knew about child abuse in the church, concerning Priests in a school for deaf kids.
Why are these people not investigated ??
Thoughts
If this had been posted by any other Orger than yourself, I may have made some constructive comment, you are well known for your anti catholic views Amy, your stirring it!!!
I think you have a fair & valid point.
its disgusting that nothing is done
"Should the Pope be in the dock?"
"Do Bears crap in the woods?"
Invisible
07-Apr-10, 09:40
Yeah and I bet he doesn't paid road tax for the Pope Mobile, extra long sentence
onecalledk
07-Apr-10, 09:43
If this had been posted by any other Orger than yourself, I may have made some constructive comment, you are well known for your anti catholic views Amy, your stirring it!!!
I fail to see how someone can be accused of "stirring it" when the facts speak for themselves. The catholic church should hang its head in shame, in any other "occupation" then the person in charge as it were would be investigated and charged if found to have known and done nothing about it.
The catholic church is not immune from prosecution. It is in a place of power, if it abuses this power then it should be held to account.
Religion does not equal do what you want !
K
Amy-Winehouse
07-Apr-10, 09:50
If this had been posted by any other Orger than yourself, I may have made some constructive comment, you are well known for your anti catholic views Amy, your stirring it!!!
Eh? you talk sense sometimes but on this occasion not. Im anti Celtic but not anti catholic Golach, My best friend is a catholic so think again old boy.
As you say Im stirring it, why ? Am i not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I support Rangers ? Thats a rather blinkered view on your part. Theres a big bad world out there & as a parent I think our kids need protected from the likes of these beasts who prey on young children- dont you ?
Catholic church or Free Presbyterian, i dont care- a beast is a beast & I think they should be punished for their crimes -not covered up.
annemarie482
07-Apr-10, 10:01
Going by reports all of this week, the Pope Benedict has been covering up a case of child abuse by a priest . For someone in such a high position & preaching morals to millions , does it not smack of hypocrisy ?
I read that he cant be touched as hes head of state(the Vatican )of the smallest state in the world, Do you think this is right ??
There were also allegation s that the previous pontiff John Paul knew about child abuse in the church, concerning Priests in a school for deaf kids.
Why are these people not investigated ??
Thoughts
i couldn't give a hoot who it was, if they knowingly hid such a crime then they should be prosecuted accordingly.
(and in my world as if they had committed the crime themselves!)
Going by reports all of this week, the Pope Benedict has been covering up a case of child abuse by a priest . For someone in such a high position & preaching morals to millions , does it not smack of hypocrisy ?
I read that he cant be touched as hes head of state(the Vatican )of the smallest state in the world, Do you think this is right ??
There were also allegation s that the previous pontiff John Paul knew about child abuse in the church, concerning Priests in a school for deaf kids.
Why are these people not investigated ??
Thoughts
Not only in the Dock, but jailed, shamed and largely forgotten, ie; throw away the key.
Like so many, he is protected by some archaic notion that he untouchable.
What message is being portrayed to the good catholic citizens of the world?
Good post, with good questions.
Going by reports all of this week, the Pope Benedict has been covering up a case of child abuse by a priest . For someone in such a high position & preaching morals to millions , does it not smack of hypocrisy ?
I read that he cant be touched as hes head of state(the Vatican )of the smallest state in the world, Do you think this is right ??
There were also allegation s that the previous pontiff John Paul knew about child abuse in the church, concerning Priests in a school for deaf kids.
Why are these people not investigated ??
Thoughts
A case? Just the one?
Oh, yeah! You may be suggesting that he is embroiled with his own personal controversy?
How about the fact that he's in charge of the Catholic church that seems to be a hidey hole for all wannabe paedophiles? Want to play with little kiddies, legit? Be a priest!
Let's face it, if you or I knew that someone was doing wrong with children, any kind of abuse, and did sod all about it, we would be as bad as the perpetrator.
And if you happen to mention that he is wrong, as Rowan Williams did the other day about the abuse in Ireland by priests, and it upsets church leaders, well tough. Fancy having to issue an apology to the Catholic church for telling them the bloody truth!
Pope Benedict sent a message to Irish Catholics apologising to victims of abusive priests and "acknowledged" their sense of betrayal. Big wow to that Popey baby. He's "truly sorry" that they have suffered grievously. But surely, their suffering would be eased if the Pope himself stood up and was counted in denouncing the priests involved, defrocking them and making sure that they paid for their disgraceful acts with a very long jail term and chemical, if not physical, castration. Not just the Irish priests either. There's the US, German, Swiss, Dutch and Austrian too. And God knows how many other countries.
Personally, I blame the fact that priests have to be celibate is part of the problem. If the turds were allowed to marry and had proper relationships then the matter would not have been as bad. Before people complain about that statement, I know there are married paedophiles. Note what I said --- if they were allowed to marry it would not have been as bad. It's not the only factor.
There are probably paedophiles in most walks of life including, I should imagine, the Protestant clergy too. The big difference here though is that the Catholic church is all powerful, and it wasn't that long ago that the word of the priest was law. This meant that the sexually predatorial priests were able to commit their crimes and get away with it and their bosses were quick to close ranks and shame the offended rather than the offender.
Benedict XVI should be man enough to show the rest of the world he is a true leader, root out the dross, have them prosecuted and drag the Catholic church up by its boot straps. Yeah, in my dreams!
A case? Just the one?
"..There are probably paedophiles in most walks of life including, I should imagine, the Protestant clergy too.."
Research has shown that the clergy are less likely to be involved in illegal sexual activities with children than the male population in general
"..First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.."
A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse
By Thomas Plante,
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
.
IMHO the Catholic Church is guilty of Institutional Abuse of children and vulnerable people. There has clearly been a failure of the Church to provide an appropriate and professional service to children and vulnerable people. The evidence is in the innumerable complaints about the overt and covert behaviour of priests towards children and the prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness of the church hierarchy in not seriously investigating the complaints or of examining the evidence.
The Church and its entire congregation cannot wait for or count on God’s forgiveness; it must allow due process of law to take place and cleanse itself of the stigma in order to regain any credibility.
To all members of the Catholic Church I would say it is time to do something and quote Edmund Burke who said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
It is not just priests from the Catholic Church that abuse children.
There are paedophiles in all walks of life.
One only has to look through the pages of the Journal & Courier, to see that Caithness has its fair share of them as well.
It is not just priests from the Catholic Church that abuse children.
There are paedophiles in all walks of life.
One only has to look through the pages of the Journal & Courier, to see that Caithness has its fair share of them as well.
I take your point, these are individuals and will be dealt with as individuals. There should be no hiding place for these people.
The case in point is a wide congregation, an institution, and just as Macpherson defined Institutional Racism in the Metropolitan Police, it is my opinion that Institutional Abuse is prevelent in the Catholic Church.
Every member of the Catholic congregation should be questioning every layer of the hierarchy and must not allow any abuse to be hidden.
If the Pope is to retain any credibility he must initiate independent investigations at every level to clear this scourge from the Church.
To do anything less is to condemn the Catholic Church to stigma and ridicule.
I take your point, these are individuals and will be dealt with as individuals. There should be no hiding place for these people.
The case in point is a wide congregation, an institution, and just as Macpherson defined Institutional Racism in the Metropolitan Police, it is my opinion that Institutional Abuse is prevelent in the Catholic Church.
Every member of the Catholic congregation should be questioning every layer of the hierarchy and must not allow any abuse to be hidden.
If the Pope is to retain any credibility he must initiate independent investigations at every level to clear this scourge from the Church.
To do anything less is to condemn the Catholic Church to stigma and ridicule.
Would you also agree that as well as Catholic priests, that Teachers, Scout Troop leaders, Nursery Staff and every other occupation that has employed paedophiles, should also "initiate independent investigations at every level"
The Catholic has held its hands up and admitted that mistakes were made.
As most of the abuse occurred a long time ago, only time will tell if they have learnt from their mistakes.
All paedophiles should be prosecuted for their crimes on an even basis, i.e it does matter whether they are Clergy or lay people
onecalledk
07-Apr-10, 19:06
Research has shown that the clergy are less likely to be involved in illegal sexual activities with children than the male population in general
"..First, the available research (which is quite good now) suggests that approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor (i.e., anyone under the age of 18). There are approximately 60,000 active and inactive priests and brothers in the United States and thus we estimate that between 1,000 and 3,000 priests have sexually engaged with minors. That's a lot. In fact, that is 3,000 people too many. Any sexual abuse of minors whether perpetrated by priests, other clergy, parents, school teachers, boy-scout leaders or anyone else in whom we entrust our children is horrific. However, although good data is hard to acquire, it appears that this 4% figure is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population that is best estimated to be closer to 8%.."
A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse
By Thomas Plante,
http://www.psychwww.com/psyrelig/plante.html
.
Sexual abuse by its very nature would be very very hard to provide statistics on. Sexual abuse by its nature is not something that is widely talked about or openly admitted by the victims of said abuse. There is no "perspective" needed on this subject. 1% or 8% makes NO difference to those who have been subjected to it.
Like domestic abuse it is for too long been hidden. Every person who has been let down and abused by another has been failed by society. Perhaps the tide is now turning and stones will start to be unturned. Lets hope so for the next generations sake.
Any abuse is an abuse of power. I would question any organisation that believes that it is more powerful than anything or anyone. Where there is power there is corruption, where there is corruption there is suffering ....
Percentages mean nothing, no statistic can write away what has been endured by these poor children.
The world doesnt need a perspective on sexual abuse by clergy, the clergy however may need a perspective on their place in society .....
K
I totally disagree that the Catholic Church has held its hand up and admitted "mistakes"were made. "Mistakes" it seems are still being made, check todays news from Norway.
If it was not for the courage and determination of those children who were abused by people who were meant to be looking after them, the Catholic Church would not be holding its hads up to anything - there is no moral high ground to be held on this issue Anfield. The Catholic Church is a cesspit.
Would you also agree that as well as Catholic priests, that Teachers, Scout Troop leaders, Nursery Staff and every other occupation that has employed paedophiles, should also "initiate independent investigations at every level"
The Catholic has held its hands up and admitted that mistakes were made.
As most of the abuse occurred a long time ago, only time will tell if they have learnt from their mistakes.
All paedophiles should be prosecuted for their crimes on an even basis, i.e it does matter whether they are Clergy or lay people
Seems to me that you are defending the Catholic church and their paedophile priests. That you are trying to justify what they have done by saying that there's less chance of being abused by a priest than there is by any other man.
What I think you have failed to note is that Scout Troop leaders, Nursery staff, teachers and every other occupation that has employed paedophiles has had those paedophiles prosecuted. If they haven't, the law in one form or another, has. The Catholic church, however, hasn't dismissed the dozens if not scores of abusive priests that they know about, have they? Unless you know better?
There's nothing worse than an apologist and you reek of it.
There's nothing worse than an apologist and you reek of it.
I think that if you read my posts correctly you will find that I am not an apologist.
All I am stating is that it is not just the clergy, irrespective of denomination,
who are paedophiles.
I think your posts "reek" of religious bigotry, but that is only my opinion
Looking at the history of the Catholic Church I think that the child abuse thing is only the tip of the Iceberg. Consider the role of the Church during WW11 in relation to helping Nazi killers to escape. I am not anti Catholic.
I think that if you read my posts correctly you will find that I am not an apologist.
All I am stating is that it is not just the clergy, irrespective of denomination,
who are paedophiles.
I think your posts "reek" of religious bigotry, but that is only my opinion
Your first post consisted of 24 original words by you, unless you copied and pasted them, and a quote copied and pasted from a website (A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse By Thomas Plante).
In that very first post of yours, the only opinion that you expressed is nothing, only that there is less chance of being abused by male clergy than by other males.
Have you not got any children? If you have, does it make you feel better knowing that if they'd been abused by a perverted priest they'd have been in the special 4% you quoted and not the common 8%?
In your subsequent posts, and I did read them, you have not once condemned Catholic priests. Just apologised for them by grouping them with all other men. By suggesting that really they not as harmful as all other men. Is it really that hard to type these words: "They should be prosecuted and the Catholic Church held to rights" instead of trying to justify them?
As for me being a bigot, so what? Anyone who denies being a bigot, in any way at all, is a liar. I'm bigoted against perverted Catholic priests, indeed any pervert who takes a delight in abusing children. I'm that bigoted I'd kill the little tossers myself given half a chance.
I do not tolerate bigots.
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, Hate leads to ...suffffferrrinnnggg...
(may not be accurate quote)
Is it a strange coincidence why these priests have done this or is there an actual reason why so many of them do it?
I do not tolerate bigots.
But you tolerate paedophiles
I do not tolerate bigots.
You're quite happy to put up with perverts and paedo's though? Sad [disgust]
onecalledk
07-Apr-10, 22:54
Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, Hate leads to ...suffffferrrinnnggg...
(may not be accurate quote)
Is it a strange coincidence why these priests have done this or is there an actual reason why so many of them do it?
because they can and at some level realise that they can hide behind their religion whilst doing it. How many now adults grew up thinking they brought shame on themselves when in actual fact that shame belongs to the church ?
Corruption and greed run the catholic church, corruption and greed will be its downfall.....
K
Yes but why has this happened in so many churches is it somethin to do with celebasy do you think or am i getting the religions mixed up?
You're quite happy to put up with perverts and paedo's though? Sad [disgust]
I haven't seen Anfield say anything to that effect.
As I understood it he was saying all institutions where there is abuse of children should be investigated not just the Roman Catholic church. There is a history of abuse in other religions too, in children's homes, in public schools, in a lot of institutions.
We can't just push all the blame onto the Catholics and ignore all the other abuse as we have turned a blind eye to the Hollie Greig affair.
child molesters take on and hide behind many guises they all should be found and prosecuted and any person found to have shielded them should also face the full force of the law. there is no cure for them they should be locked away for the rest of their lives. religion plays no part in their perversions,it is only one place for them to hide. if the pope has knowingly covered up for them then he is as guilty as they are. the same way if any moderator of the church of Scotland has covered up for any minister, or indeed any leader of any church or organisation.
Amy-Winehouse
07-Apr-10, 23:20
I haven't seen Anfield say anything to that effect.
As I understood it he was saying all institutions where there is abuse of children should be investigated not just the Roman Catholic church. There is a history of abuse in other religions too, in children's homes, in public schools, in a lot of institutions.
We can't just push all the blame onto the Catholics and ignore all the other abuse as we have turned a blind eye to the Hollie Greig affair.
Good point Fred, the point I was making was about the pontiff himself, possibly the most well kent face in the world & he lets down so many people just save face for someone who has wronged so many young children- which I feel is wrong, very very wrong. He knew , yet did nothing to help those innocent kids, to me that is punishable & there is NO excuse for it- why does he & the Priest seem to be exempt from punishment ? WHY??
I haven't seen Anfield say anything to that effect.
As I understood it he was saying all institutions where there is abuse of children should be investigated not just the Roman Catholic church. There is a history of abuse in other religions too, in children's homes, in public schools, in a lot of institutions.
We can't just push all the blame onto the Catholics and ignore all the other abuse as we have turned a blind eye to the Hollie Greig affair.As far as I can see, Anfield has sod all relevant to the pope seeing as how the OP was discussing the pope and not Catholics in general.
When did Hollie's dad become an institution then?
What about you fred? Will you denounce the Catholic priests or are you quite happy to allow them to hide under their cassocks, protected by the cloak of the almighty Catholic church and their sorrowful head honcho?
the pope as head of state is not exempt from prosecution, no-one is above the law. there has been prosecutions of clergy of various denominations for this crime. there should be a fully independent investigation into all covers up in all institutions and prosecutions of all deemed to have committed any offence. Those that cover up these offences are as guilty as the scum that perpetrate them,there should be no hiding place.
Metalattakk
08-Apr-10, 00:09
as we have turned a blind eye to the Hollie Greig affair.
I, along with quite a few others, are eagerly awaiting conclusive proof of any wrong-doing in the so called 'Hollie Greig' case.
Where's your proof, fred? Where?
Just end your witch-hunt here and now. It's making you look stupid.
Eh? you talk sense sometimes but on this occasion not. Im anti Celtic but not anti catholic Golach, My best friend is a catholic so think again old boy.
As you say Im stirring it, why ? Am i not allowed to have an opinion on the subject because I support Rangers ? Thats a rather blinkered view on your part. Theres a big bad world out there & as a parent I think our kids need protected from the likes of these beasts who prey on young children- dont you ?
Catholic church or Free Presbyterian, i dont care- a beast is a beast & I think they should be punished for their crimes -not covered up.
Many Thanks for the Bad Rep, I could not agree with you more, there are
child molesters every where, HM Queen Elizabeth is head of the Kirk of England are you going to condem her for every Anglican priest and paedophile? I do not think so! And yes to your question......will I sleep all right?? I will sleep the sleep of an innocent, as I always do.
But you tolerate paedophiles
Of course not,
You're quite happy to put up with perverts and paedo's though? Sad [disgust]
See post 24
But you tolerate paedophiles
I don't tolerate paedophiles, but I think that I would sooner have a paedophile living in my area than some the religious bigots we have on the org.
Looking at the history of the Catholic Church I think that the child abuse thing is only the tip of the Iceberg. Consider the role of the Church during WW11 in relation to helping Nazi killers to escape. I am not anti Catholic.
As we are now doing a history lesson, let us go back to King Henry v111, it was the catholics fault why his wives all died for th church not allowing him to divorce them
Onto WW2 I would say that Winston Churchill was a bigger War criminal than Pope Pious.
Churchill knew about death camps in 1941, and could have bombed both camps and railways leading to them, thus saving thousands of peoples lives.
Our own "Royal" family was also very quiet on denouncing Hitler
I don't tolerate paedophiles, but I think that I would sooner have a paedophile living in my area than some the religious bigots we have on the org.
All religions are a waste of time and space, some more than others.
I see you obviously dont have kids then.
As we are now doing a history lesson, let us go back to King Henry v111, it was the catholics fault why his wives all died for th church not allowing him to divorce themHenry VIII separated from the Roman Catholic church mainly because he disagreed with a pope who was involving himself in secular activities rather than religious ones and who had a say in the affairs of this country. Let's face it, in all honesty, would you like to be told what to do by a priest in another country?
He executed only 2 of his wives - "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived".
Onto WW2 I would say that Winston Churchill was a bigger War criminal than Pope Pious.
Churchill knew about death camps in 1941, and could have bombed both camps and railways leading to them, thus saving thousands of peoples lives.Now you you really are talking crap. Bomb the concentration camps? All that would have happened is we would have killed maybe thousands of internees of the camps, saving Hitler a job. They would have been rebuilt quickly by more prisoners. What happens then? Bomb them once more?
Our own "Royal" family was also very quiet on denouncing HitlerHave you ever heard the Royal family denounce any head of state? It's not their job to do that, it's a politicians.
Re. Post 24: You don't tolerate bigots. You're in danger of repeating yourself. Do you actually know what a bigot is? Let's ask the Oxford English Dictionary....
bigot
/bigghttp://www.askoxford.com/images/phonetics/schwa.gift/
• noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
— DERIVATIVES bigoted adjective bigotry noun.
— ORIGIN French.
Oh dear, that could be me! I'm prejudiced in my views about paedophiles. Hmm, there's another. I'm intolerant of the opinions of others. Well, yes. Especially when they fail to see the wrong in Catholic priests.
Wait! Hang on a minute. If I'm correct in the way I've read that dictionary, would your intolerance of me and my views mean that you are a bigot too?
See post 24... you don't tolerate bigots.
tolerate
• verb 1 allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference. 2 patiently endure (something unpleasant).
— DERIVATIVES toleration noun.
— ORIGIN Latin tolerare ‘endure’.
Just put me on your ignore list. I'm not going away.
Henry VIII separated from the Roman Catholic church mainly because he disagreed with a pope who was involving himself in secular activities rather than religious ones and who had a say in the affairs of this country. Let's face it, in all honesty, would you like to be told what to do by a priest in another country?
He executed only 2 of his wives - "divorced, beheaded, died, divorced, beheaded, survived".
Now you you really are talking crap. Bomb the concentration camps? All that would have happened is we would have killed maybe thousands of internees of the camps, saving Hitler a job. They would have been rebuilt quickly by more prisoners. What happens then? Bomb them once more?
Have you ever heard the Royal family denounce any head of state? It's not their job to do that, it's a politicians.
Re. Post 24: You don't tolerate bigots. You're in danger of repeating yourself. Do you actually know what a bigot is? Let's ask the Oxford English Dictionary....
bigot
/bigghttp://www.askoxford.com/images/phonetics/schwa.gift/
• noun a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others.
— DERIVATIVES bigoted adjective bigotry noun.
— ORIGIN French.
Oh dear, that could be me! I'm prejudiced in my views about paedophiles. Hmm, there's another. I'm intolerant of the opinions of others. Well, yes. Especially when they fail to see the wrong in Catholic priests.
Wait! Hang on a minute. If I'm correct in the way I've read that dictionary, would your intolerance of me and my views mean that you are a bigot too?
See post 24... you don't tolerate bigots.
tolerate
• verb 1 allow (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) to exist or occur without interference. 2 patiently endure (something unpleasant).
— DERIVATIVES toleration noun.
— ORIGIN Latin tolerare ‘endure’.
Just put me on your ignore list. I'm not going away.
Haha touche!
northener
08-Apr-10, 08:59
I think the key difference here is that the Catholic Church has systematically covered up child abuse without referring any allegations whatsoever to the relevant authorities.
I've no doubt that there are as many potential child molesters in all walks of life, but the difference is that in cases like this, people are abusing a position of absolute trust in organisations that should be working with the police - not covering up the tracks of their own people. That's why the Catholic church is rightly attracting all the flak.
My personal opinion is that the Catholic church genuinely believes it is above Sovereign and State law, always has done...and, I fear, always will.
I think the key difference here is that the Catholic Church has systematically covered up child abuse without referring any allegations whatsoever to the relevant authorities.
I've no doubt that there are as many potential child molesters in all walks of life, but the difference is that in cases like this, people are abusing a position of absolute trust in organisations that should be working with the police - not covering up the tracks of their own people. That's why the Catholic church is rightly attracting all the flak.
My personal opinion is that the Catholic church genuinely believes it is above Sovereign and State law, always has done...and, I fear, always will.
As I have above, all paeophiles should be prosecuted, and if I am correct quite a lot of the clergy, both catholic and non catholic, have been sentenced for child abuse crimes.
If the pope, and others, are guilty of a cover up then yes they also be prosecuted but as i keep saying it is not just catholic priests who abuse children, here are just a few examples of other faiths clergy misdemeanours:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/5006298.Former_minister_faces_assault_probe/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/09/2010-03-09_bklyn_rabbi_convicted_in_sex_assault_on_teen.ht ml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2939904.stm
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/shocking-truth-about-child-abuse-in-northern-ireland-14311626.html
annemarie482
08-Apr-10, 11:34
i couldn't give a hoot who it was, if they knowingly hid such a crime then they should be prosecuted accordingly.
(and in my world as if they had committed the crime themselves!)
again, i repeat as above!
As I have above, all paeophiles should be prosecuted, and if I am correct quite a lot of the clergy, both catholic and non catholic, have been sentenced for child abuse crimes.
If the pope, and others, are guilty of a cover up then yes they also be prosecuted but as i keep saying it is not just catholic priests who abuse children, here are just a few examples of other faiths clergy misdemeanours:
http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/5006298.Former_minister_faces_assault_probe/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/03/09/2010-03-09_bklyn_rabbi_convicted_in_sex_assault_on_teen.ht ml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2939904.stm
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/shocking-truth-about-child-abuse-in-northern-ireland-14311626.html
Of course there are those who would abuse children to be found in every wark of life, the point of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church take any action where evidence was presented, and in fact allowed Priests to continue to abuse those placed in their trust. We are not talking about individuals here, we are talking about the INSTITUTION, nothing was allowed or permitted to be said, as it may cause damage to the institution.
This has nothing to do with religous bigotry, and to cry such is just a diversion tactic used by those who will not accept that an organization has permitted child abuse to go unpunished.
northener
08-Apr-10, 13:28
Of course there are those who would abuse children to be found in every wark of life, the point of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church take any action where evidence was presented, and in fact allowed Priests to continue to abuse those placed in their trust. We are not talking about individuals here, we are talking about the INSTITUTION, nothing was allowed or permitted to be said, as it may cause damage to the institution.
This has nothing to do with religous bigotry, and to cry such is just a diversion tactic used by those who will not accept that an organization has permitted child abuse to go unpunished.
Ah reckon that's about the top and bottom of it.
As far as I can see, Anfield has sod all relevant to the pope seeing as how the OP was discussing the pope and not Catholics in general.
When did Hollie's dad become an institution then?
What about you fred? Will you denounce the Catholic priests or are you quite happy to allow them to hide under their cassocks, protected by the cloak of the almighty Catholic church and their sorrowful head honcho?
Hey I just pointed out that Anfield didn't actually say what you accused him of saying.
Where were you when I posted this (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=661136&postcount=137) back in February then?
Hey I just pointed out that Anfield didn't actually say what you accused him of saying.
Where were you when I posted this (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=661136&postcount=137) back in February then?
I was there, watching, losing interest rapidly when your previous posts in that particular thread weres soooo way off topic that you were ranting on about the miners strikes of the '80's and not paedophiles. Check 'em out.
Erm, a quote from Anfield in theis thread... "I don't tolerate paedophiles, but I think that I would sooner have a paedophile living in my area than some the religious bigots we have on the org."
So, you were saying?
Of course there are those who would abuse children to be found in every wark of life, the point of the matter is that the Roman Catholic Church take any action where evidence was presented, and in fact allowed Priests to continue to abuse those placed in their trust. We are not talking about individuals here, we are talking about the INSTITUTION, nothing was allowed or permitted to be said, as it may cause damage to the institution.
This has nothing to do with religous bigotry, and to cry such is just a diversion tactic used by those who will not accept that an organization has permitted child abuse to go unpunished.
Well said.
This has nothing to do with religous bigotry, and to cry such is just a diversion tactic used by those who will not accept that an organization has permitted child abuse to go unpunished.
I think you will find that certain posters are treating this thread as an excuse to attack the Catholic Church in general.
I reiterate my view that the Catholic Church has been found wanting in many aspects of these tragic cases, and hopefully will change the way that they are dealt with.
I do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution allowed this to happen.
How about the fact that he's in charge of the Catholic church that seems to be a hidey hole for all wannabe paedophiles? Want to play with little kiddies, legit? Be a priest!
Fancy having to issue an apology to the Catholic church for telling them the bloody truth!
Pope Benedict sent a message to Irish Catholics apologising to victims of abusive priests and "acknowledged" their sense of betrayal. Big wow to that Popey baby. .... Not just the Irish priests either. There's the US, German, Swiss, Dutch and Austrian too. And God knows how many other countries.
Personally, I blame the fact that priests have to be celibate is part of the problem. If the turds were allowed to marry and had proper relationships then the matter would not have been as bad.
As for me being a bigot, so what? Anyone who denies being a bigot, in any way at all, is a liar. I'm bigoted against perverted Catholic priests, indeed any pervert who takes a delight in abusing children. I'm that bigoted I'd kill the little tossers myself given half a chance.
Will you denounce the Catholic priests or are you quite happy to allow them to hide under their cassocks, protected by the cloak of the almighty Catholic church and their sorrowful head honcho?
Looking at the history of the Catholic Church I think that the child abuse thing is only the tip of the Iceberg. Consider the role of the Church during WW11 in relation to helping Nazi killers to escape. I am not anti Catholic.
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 14:51
I do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution allowed this to happen.[/quote]
Then perhaps following the thousand more victims that are waiting in the wings (we have only just seen the tip of the iceberg) you may then have to open your eyes.
The institution that is the Catholic church is corrupt. Any institution that would cover up ONE case of child abuse is corrupt let alone an institution that has covered up hundreds.
THe catholic church has power, where there is power at this level there is corruption. It would be a VERY easy place for someone to hide. A few prayers will not wash this sin away......
People on this thread are having a go at the catholic church for WHAT IS HAS DONE , not what it stands for.
Please please open your eyes and see what is has DONE and how it covered it up. This is not about religion anymore, this is about abuse of children that HAS NOTHING TO DO with the religion of the people who instigated it.
K
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 14:52
.
Erm, a quote from Anfield in theis thread... "I don't tolerate paedophiles, but I think that I would sooner have a paedophile living in my area than some the religious bigots we have on the org."
perhaps some brain washing has occured when in the 21st century a grown adult (i am making assumptions here) can make the statement above......
K
I think you will find that certain posters are treating this thread as an excuse to attack the Catholic Church in general.
I reiterate my view that the Catholic Church has been found wanting in many aspects of these tragic cases, and hopefully will change the way that they are dealt with.
I do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution allowed this to happen.
You have truly got your head buried in the sand if you do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution, allowed it to happen. You sound like a Catholic who is frightened of spending an eternity in purgatory or of being excommunicated from the Church for daring to agree that the institution was wrong in allowing priests to get away with abuse. Alas, you are not the only one. Many Catholics I know, born into the faith - not converts, are frightened and simply cannot believe that what is being said is true. Indeed, some of them profess the fact that the claims against the Church are really the work of the Devil himself.
The pope has issued several letters of apology to various countries since he was elected to do with abuse by clergy.
In 2006, the BBC showed a documentary called "Sex crimes and the Vatican." The documentary quoted this from the 2005 Ferns Report, which was an official Irish government inquiry into the allegations of clerical sexual abuse in the Irish Catholic Diocese of Ferns in County Wexford : "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children."
Canon lawyer Thomas Doyle said in the documentary that "The Church was reluctant to hand over to the civil authorities information about the Church's own investigations into charges."
In the same programme, an American District Attorney, Rick Romley, who was investigating the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona said "The Church fails to acknowledge such a serious problem but more than that, it is not a passiveness but an openly obstructive way of not allowing authorities to try to stop the abuse within the Church. They fought us every step of the way."
So if you believe that posters are treating this thread as an attack on the Catholic Church in general then go ahead and believe so. Attack them for saying so. It's your right. Just as it's my right to attack hypocrites, liars and naysayers.
I do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution allowed this to happen.
Let's fill the Kop with the victims of abusive priests who have been allowed to get away with their wrongdoings and get you to stand there and say that. If you're still alive after you do, then I'll treat you to a pint in the Arkles. You know where that is don't you?
.
Erm, a quote from Anfield in theis thread... "I don't tolerate paedophiles, but I think that I would sooner have a paedophile living in my area than some the religious bigots we have on the org."
perhaps some brain washing has occured when in the 21st century a grown adult (i am making assumptions here) can make the statement above......
K
After reading the rants from 3of8 I stand by my statement.
As I mentioned above, I think all convicted paedophiles should be gaoled, irrespective of religious denomination.
I did a search for institutionalized child abuse, and found that the Gardai colluded with the Catholic Church on several of the reported cases. I trust that all of the officers concerned will now face, or have faced, disciplinary charges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html)
Also of interest is a report from NSPCC which defines institutionalised child abuse as:
'...any system, programme, policy, procedure or individual interaction with a child in placement that abuses, neglects, or is detrimental to the child's health, safety, or emotional and physical well-being, or in any way exploits or violates the child's basic rights.' ( p9)
In the UK The National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC 1989) states that institutional abuse occurs with '..a system becoming increasingly more punitive in its failure to respond to their (children's) need.' (p1)
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/briefings/abuseofchildreninresidentialcare_wda48221.html
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 16:43
After reading the rants from 3of8 I stand by my statement.
As I mentioned above, I think all convicted paedophiles should be gaoled, irrespective of religious denomination.
I did a search for institutionalized child abuse, and found that the Gardai colluded with the Catholic Church on several of the reported cases. I trust that all of the officers concerned will now face, or have faced, disciplinary charges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html)
Also of interest is a report from NSPCC which defines institutionalised child abuse as:
'...any system, programme, policy, procedure or individual interaction with a child in placement that abuses, neglects, or is detrimental to the child's health, safety, or emotional and physical well-being, or in any way exploits or violates the child's basic rights.' ( p9)
In the UK The National Association of Young People in Care (NAYPIC 1989) states that institutional abuse occurs with '..a system becoming increasingly more punitive in its failure to respond to their (children's) need.' (p1)
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/inform/research/briefings/abuseofchildreninresidentialcare_wda48221.html
We live in a very corrupt world. Lots of evil goes on right under our noses, those that take part in it can be hidden for years. This thread is about the sexual abuse of children by the catholic church. We dont need a definition of child abuse. Child abuse is a broad term that covers amongst other things sexual abuse.
There will never be any REAL reports of actual numbers of children affected and this is solely down to individuals within insititutions such as the catholic church who will seek to smother the information.
How many people do you think are alive in the world today who carry the secret of being a child sexual abuse victim within them? The answer is many many more than will ever show up on any statistics.
Many children are abused in homes, in residential schools, in their own homes , places that SHOULD BE SAFE.
To a lot of people the catholic church was a place of safety but it wasnt.
To abuse in the disguise of someone who says they are following god is up there with some of the worst betrayals of trust. .......
Look beyond the veneer of what is to see what ACTUALLY is.
Far, far too often the veneer of "respectable citizen" is woven by the perpetrator. As if abusers look somehow different to the average human being. They come in all shapes and sizes. Putting on a robe and wearing a cross round your neck does NOT entitle you to do whatever your want to WHOM ever you want.........
K
northener
08-Apr-10, 16:46
I think you will find that certain posters are treating this thread as an excuse to attack the Catholic Church in general.
I reiterate my view that the Catholic Church has been found wanting in many aspects of these tragic cases, and hopefully will change the way that they are dealt with.
I do not accept the claim that the Church, as an institution allowed this to happen.
You can't have it both ways Anfield.
I can rip out God knows how many posts where you have criticised Western Governments for the actions of, and problems caused by, their people - and yet suddenly the Catholic church is to be absolved of responsibility for its own people?
How odd.
I have never said that the clergy should be absolved from any responsibility.
I said, and I repeat myself again, is that it is not only Catholic priests that have abused children.
I also think there is a very big difference in the link you are trying to make.
The clergy does not order priests/ministers to sexually abuse children.
Bush/Blair/Brown/Israel/Taleban do order their soldiers to kill fellow human beings.
I have never said that the clergy should be absolved from any responsibility.
I said, and I repeat myself again, is that it is not only Catholic priests that have abused children.
I also think there is a very big difference in the link you are trying to make.
The clergy does not order priests/ministers to sexually abuse children.
Bush/Blair/Brown/Israel/Taleban do order their soldiers to kill fellow human beings.
You wouldn't happen to be a Catholic archbishop would you?
onecalledk
08-Apr-10, 17:37
[
The clergy does not order priests/ministers to sexually abuse children.
Bush/Blair/Brown/Israel/Taleban do order their soldiers to kill fellow human beings.[/quote]
The clergy may not order it BUT NEITHER DO THEY STOP IT
The analogy with war and politics is irrelevant , you seem once again to be putting other things above the SAFETY OF CHILDREN.
K
[
The clergy does not order priests/ministers to sexually abuse children.
Bush/Blair/Brown/Israel/Taleban do order their soldiers to kill fellow human beings.
The clergy may not order it BUT NEITHER DO THEY STOP IT
The analogy with war and politics is irrelevant , you seem once again to be putting other things above the SAFETY OF CHILDREN.
K[/quote]
Think you will find that I was not the one to make this comparison, i was merely answering.
northener
08-Apr-10, 19:00
Think you will find that I was not the one to make this comparison, i was merely answering.
I'll disagree with you on your stance over my comparison.
The Catholic Church (through it's appointed representatives) refuse to hand over to the authorities details and evidence of sexual abuse.
Governments (through their appointed representatives) cover up 'atrocities' and refuse to bring individuals accused to book.
No difference.
Both are as responsible as each other for the actions of their operatives. So therefore you cannot openly condemn one organisation on it's individual rights policy whilst defending the other.
I'll disagree with you on your stance over my comparison.
The Catholic Church (through it's appointed representatives) refuse to hand over to the authorities details and evidence of sexual abuse.
I mentioned in a previous post that Police in Ireland were aware of what was going on, why did they not take action
"..I did a search for institutionalized child abuse, and found that the Gardai colluded with the Catholic Church on several of the reported cases.."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html
But again you are missing my point ALL CONVICTED PAEDOPHILES SHOULD BE GAOLED
I did a search for institutionalized child abuse, and found that the Gardai colluded with the Catholic Church on several of the reported cases. I trust that all of the officers concerned will now face, or have faced, disciplinary charges.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6662086/Catholic-Church-in-Ireland-given-immunity-for-child-sexual-abuse-cover-up-report-says.html)
I agree with you. I too trust that all of the officers should face disciplinary charges.
Let's take this one step further.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implicated in covering up two cases of multiple child rapes and molestations, one in Germany and one in the United States. This is a quote from The Times: "The German case is the most clear-cut — because it was so glaring and so directly connected to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as the Pope was then known. The facts are these: a priest, Peter Hullermann, was found guilty of raping children in at least three families under Ratzinger’s authority in the late 1970s. The local priest indicated that the families would “not file charges under the current circumstances”, and the case went to Ratzinger, who decided not to report the priest to the criminal authorities, nor to strip him of his office, but to send him for therapy and retain him as an active priest, capable of molesting again. The priest subsequently raped many more children; he was found guilty in 1986 and was given a suspended sentence."
On the basis of your believing the Gardai to be implicit in hiding abuse and should therefore be charged, does the same not apply to the Pontiff for his misdemeanours from when he was a Cardinal?
I say yes.
Amy-Winehouse
08-Apr-10, 21:36
I agree with you. I too trust that all of the officers should face disciplinary charges.
Let's take this one step further.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implicated in covering up two cases of multiple child rapes and molestations, one in Germany and one in the United States. This is a quote from The Times: "The German case is the most clear-cut — because it was so glaring and so directly connected to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as the Pope was then known. The facts are these: a priest, Peter Hullermann, was found guilty of raping children in at least three families under Ratzinger’s authority in the late 1970s. The local priest indicated that the families would “not file charges under the current circumstances”, and the case went to Ratzinger, who decided not to report the priest to the criminal authorities, nor to strip him of his office, but to send him for therapy and retain him as an active priest, capable of molesting again. The priest subsequently raped many more children; he was found guilty in 1986 and was given a suspended sentence."
On the basis of your believing the Gardai to be implicit in hiding abuse and should therefore be charged, does the same not apply to the Pontiff for his misdemeanours from when he was a Cardinal?
I say yes.
Yes, he should be charged as should peter Hullerman- disgusting .
na, if i spoke my mind out i would be zapped for it.
Yes, he should be charged as should peter Hullerman- disgusting .
Yes. If the Pope, or any other member of clergy, irrespective of faith, is found to be guilty, then yes they should be punished.
As annemarie said, it does not matter who comitted abuse, they should all be exposed
Check my previous posts and you will find I have always said this.
Problem is, under what jurisdiction and charge would these people be tried under
Problem is, under what jurisdiction and charge would these people be tried under
He can be tried by The International Criminal Court.
See the link below:
http://uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/feb9b816-15c7-41a8-9914-aaa033215eb7
Which in 2 sentences says this: U.N. judge Geoffrey Robertson says the Vatican is wrong in saying that the pope as a 'head of state' is immune from the legal action as international law counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. Head of state immunity provides no protection in the International Criminal Court as has happened to President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan.
From Wikipedia:
On 14 July 2008, the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo alleged that al-Bashir bore individual criminal resposibilty for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes committed since 2003 in Darfur. The prosecutor accused al-Bashir of having “masterminded and implemented” a plan to destroy the three main ethnic groups, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa, with a campaign of murder, rape and deportation. The arrest warrant is supported by NATO, the Genocide Intervention Network and Amnesty International.
An arrest warrant for al-Bashir was issued on 4 March 2009 by a Pre-Trial chamber composed of judges Akua Kuenyehia of Ghana, Anita Usacka of Latvia and Sylvia Steiner of Brazil indicting him on five counts of crimes against humanity (murder, extermination, forcible transfer, torture and rape) and two counts of war crimes (pillaging and intentionally directing attacks against civilians).
So it can be done. It was tried in Texas in 2005 in a test case against the pope, but Dubya Bush claimed sovereign immunity on the pope's behalf. (The US judiciary did as they were told by Dubya.) That surely is proof that the Vatican know and realise that Benedict can be tried?
would it not be a good question to put to politicians seeking election/re-election to parliament that would they support a prosecution of the pope for these crimes?
John Little
09-Apr-10, 08:15
I was not going to take part in this thread but you touch on the ICC which purports to uphold 'International law' and I hold that such a thing does not exist yet.
Try this from the trial of Charles 1;
I would know by what power I am called hither. . . . by what Authority, I mean, lawful; there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought from thence, and carried from place to place, (and I know not what), and when I know what lawful Authority, I shall answer: Remember, I am your King, your lawful King, and what sins you bring upon your heads, and the Judgment of God upon this Land, think well upon it, I say, think well upon it, before you go further from one sin to a greater; therefore let me know by what lawful Authority I am seated here, and I shall not be unwilling to answer, in the meantime I shall not betray my Trust: I have a Trust committed to me by God, by old and lawful descent, I will not betray it to answer a new unlawful Authority, therefore resolve me that, and you shall hear more of me. . . . I will stand as much for the privilege of the house of Commons, rightly understood, as any man here whatsoever. I see no House of Lords, here that may constitute a Parliament, and (the King too) should have been. Is this the bringing of the King to his Parliament? Is this the bringing an end to the Treaty in the public Faith of the world? Let me see a legal Authority warranted by the Word of God, the Scriptures, or warranted by the Constitutions of the Kingdom, and I will answer.
My point is that the ICC may call itself whatever it likes but without international law it is not a lawful authority. It can't be.
This also from Wikipedia - I draw your attention particularly to the last sentence;
"As of March 2010[update] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Criminal_Court&action=edit), 111 states are members of the Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Parties_to_the_Rome_Statute_of_the_Internat ional_Criminal_Court),[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-untreaty-6)[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-parties-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-cicc-ratification-8) and a further 38 countries have signed but not ratified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification) the Rome Statute.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-untreaty-6) However, a number of states, including China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China), India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India), Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia) and the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), are critical of the court and have not joined. The ICC can generally exercise jurisdiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisdiction) only in cases where the accused is a national of a state party, the alleged crime took place on the territory of a state party, or a situation is referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council).[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-articles12.2613-9) The court is designed to complement existing national judicial systems: it can exercise its jurisdiction only when national courts are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute such crimes.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-article17-10)[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-article20-11) Primary responsibility to investigate and punish crimes is therefore left to individual states.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court#cite_note-prosecutor-12)"
I really hold no sympathy for the Pope or his Church but I have no sympathy with bodies purporting to be what they are not. There are some 'powers' which have been set up to impose certain views but they quite clearly do not have universal assent; those are significant ommissions.
northener
09-Apr-10, 08:16
http://dailyshite.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/nsxnickpedophile.jpg
I was not going to take part in this thread but you touch on the ICC which purports to uphold 'International law' and I hold that such a thing does not exist yet.
Of course there is an ICC but this would have nothing to do with them, I don't think it would even come close to their remit.
Any person who has committed an offence should be tried in the country in which the offence was committed but as we have seen from the Holllie Greig affair the establishment are willing to turn a blind eye to child abuse if it is committed by a certain class of people, probably because many of them went to public school and see it as normal, character building even.
I would say the best bet would be for an individual or group of individuals to go to the European Court of Human Rights (that is an international court and yes it does exist) as their human rights have clearly been violated. They could prosecute the Roman Catholic Church as a whole for failing in their duty of care.
But as usual I suspect it wont be the lack of a case or the lack of a court which results in no prosecution, it will be the lack of political will.
John Little
09-Apr-10, 08:55
Fred stop playing with my words - if you look at subject and object in my sentence it is quite clear that I was speaking of International Law which I said did not exist.
As to the ICC - of course a body calling itself that exists.
We've been here before.
Amy-Winehouse
09-Apr-10, 09:20
Yes. If the Pope, or any other member of clergy, irrespective of faith, is found to be guilty, then yes they should be punished.
As annemarie said, it does not matter who comitted abuse, they should all be exposed
Check my previous posts and you will find I have always said this.
Problem is, under what jurisdiction and charge would these people be tried under
Im not the one doubting you Anfield, Annemarie has the same view as I do- they should all-no matter who or what they are-be done with child abuse. The old sying, if you do the crime, you do the time.
I already said I couldnt care less whether it was the pope or moderator of the COS who comitted the awful crime of coveering up child abuse, they should be arrested & jailed.
Its just that in this instance, its the top man in the Vatican & he appears to be untouchable- why ?
Fred stop playing with my words - if you look at subject and object in my sentence it is quite clear that I was speaking of International Law which I said did not exist.
As to the ICC - of course a body calling itself that exists.
We've been here before.
So are you saying that European law isn't international?
I already said I couldnt care less whether it was the pope or moderator of the COS who comitted the awful crime of coveering up child abuse, they should be arrested & jailed.
Its just that in this instance, its the top man in the Vatican & he appears to be untouchable- why ?
Again you have conveniently forgotten to mention HM the Queen , head of the CoE, why are you only picking on the Pope, many Anglican priests have been caught too?
Its just that in this instance, its the top man in the Vatican & he appears to be untouchable- why ?
Because he is immensely powerful, when he speaks over a billion people around the world listen.
John Little
09-Apr-10, 10:45
"So are you saying that European law isn't international?"
OOh look - somebody has dug a big hole in my path with sharp stakes at the bottom.... will I fall into it?
Where did I say that? You make it up as you go along.
European law is international in that it is inter the states of Europe - which in turn have a legislative body in Brussels which all have agreed to abide by whilst retaining their individual sovreignty.
But across the globe where Russia, USA, India, China- the big powers- and who contain about half of humanity- refuse to sign, there is, as yet, no such thing. Just something that purports to be.
Amy-Winehouse
09-Apr-10, 11:24
Again you have conveniently forgotten to mention HM the Queen , head of the CoE, why are you only picking on the Pope, many Anglican priests have been caught too?
If you read my last post properly, you will see I stated that no matter who they are or what they are (this means EVERYONE GOLACH -you included), if theyve done the crime they should do the time.
Can you not understand that or shall I just make it even easier for you golach??? Your just nit picking again & looking as daft as the other day. Read the post man:eek:
Metalattakk
09-Apr-10, 12:33
Any person who has committed an offence should be tried in the country in which the offence was committed but as we have seen from the Holllie Greig affair the establishment are willing to turn a blind eye to child abuse if it is committed by a certain class of people </snip>
Here we go again. :roll:
Where's your conclusive proof of any wrong-doing in the so called 'Hollie Greig affair'? Where is it, fred? Where?
You're sounding more and more like the rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist that most of us suspect you are.
Here we go again. :roll:
Where's your conclusive proof of any wrong-doing in the so called 'Hollie Greig affair'? Where is it, fred? Where?
You're sounding more and more like the rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist that most of us suspect you are.
It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.
Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?
New details, it continues:
'Pope Benedict XVI has become embroiled in new revelations over child sexual abuse, over a letter he is said to have signed in 1985 before he became Pope.Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of an offending priest. Cardinal Ratzinger said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in defrocking, AP reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm)
Amy-Winehouse
09-Apr-10, 22:18
It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.
Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?
Fred, I started this thread because they dont really come more famous or well known than his holiness the Pope. It has been on a number of forums I frequent about Pope benedict`s cover up, I hadnt heard of Hollie Greig until yesterday , i still do not know or have heard any of the facts about her case so I cannot comment.
Until I do , I cannot comment but it doesnt sound good, but as Ive already said the pope- they dont come much more famous than him do they & he has to be whiter than white- It appears that hes not, this is where most people have an opinion & rightly so.
Metalattakk
09-Apr-10, 22:40
It is a matter of record that Hollie was abused and it is a matter of record that the abusers have not been prosecuted.
So you say. Again, where is your proof?
Why is it people can accuse the Pope of being involved in a conspiracy to cover up child abuse on this forum and nobody thinks twice about it but when I point out the same thing happens in the Scottish establishment I get called a "rambling deluded conspiracy-theorist"?
That'll be because you continually propagate the myth of the 'Hollie Greig' case. Without proof, the case is dead. No matter how much you propose it as the truth, without conclusive proof your case is no more than a fanciful supposition.
Please decease with your vile smear campaign, unless of course you can back it up with conclusive proof.
I await, with much interest, your deliverance of the required conclusive proof.
So you say. Again, where is your proof?
That'll be because you continually propagate the myth of the 'Hollie Greig' case. Without proof, the case is dead. No matter how much you propose it as the truth, without conclusive proof your case is no more than a fanciful supposition.
Please decease with your vile smear campaign, unless of course you can back it up with conclusive proof.
I await, with much interest, your deliverance of the required conclusive proof.
Hollie's medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old so I don't think there is any doubt she was abused, the police and the courts have not disputed it, she received criminal injuries compensation for it. You are the only one saying she wasn't abused.
As for no one being prosecuted for the abuse it isn't possible to prove a negative, if someone was prosecuted for Hollie's abuse then it's down to you to post the details of the case.
Fred, I started this thread because they dont really come more famous or well known than his holiness the Pope. It has been on a number of forums I frequent about Pope benedict`s cover up, I hadnt heard of Hollie Greig until yesterday , i still do not know or have heard any of the facts about her case so I cannot comment.
Until I do , I cannot comment but it doesnt sound good, but as Ive already said the pope- they dont come much more famous than him do they & he has to be whiter than white- It appears that hes not, this is where most people have an opinion & rightly so.
I don't think it's just a matter of what happened, I think it's a matter of how it happened and why.
Just concentrating on the Roman Catholic Church might lead people to believe we are more interested in a Protestant versus Catholic vendetta than the suffering of children.
Metalattakk
09-Apr-10, 23:17
Hollie's medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old so I don't think there is any doubt she was abused, the police and the courts have not disputed it, she received criminal injuries compensation for it. You are the only one saying she wasn't abused.
Again, you're wrong. She received no payment in lieu of any confirmed abuse. Show me any evidence that she was abused as a nine-year old. Substantiate your words with proof, fred.
As for no one being prosecuted for the abuse it isn't possible to prove a negative, if someone was prosecuted for Hollie's abuse then it's down to you to post the details of the case.
There is no case to prove. Obviously. But that won't stop you promoting your filthy lies and tarnishing the reputation of innocents. It's a sad shame that the internet allows people like you a voice. It's even more of a shame that a voice as determined as yours is wasted chasing unfathomable, unprovable myths.
Again, you're wrong. She received no payment in lieu of any confirmed abuse. Show me any evidence that she was abused as a nine-year old. Substantiate your words with proof, fred.
Hollie's mother has stated she obtained her medical records and they show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old. I have seen no official denial of this, if you know of one then post it. If you know of any official denial that Hollie was abused then post it.
Interesting this, in a thread about the cover up of child abuse we can see how it happens before our very eyes.
Metalattakk
09-Apr-10, 23:41
Hollie's mother has stated she obtained her medical records and they show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was 9 years old. I have seen no official denial of this, if you know of one then post it. If you know of any official denial that Hollie was abused then post it.
Hollie's mother has been diagnosed with psychiatric problems. There is no shred of evidence that has been presented by any other professional to confirm her claims. Note that I said 'her' claims, and not Hollie's. That's because Hollie's claims have only been reported and presented by her mother.
Interesting this, in a thread about the cover up of child abuse we can see how it happens before our very eyes.
And again, you try to justify your slanted view by slating others. Grow up, fred.
New details, it continues:
'Pope Benedict XVI has become embroiled in new revelations over child sexual abuse, over a letter he is said to have signed in 1985 before he became Pope.Associated Press said it had obtained the letter, signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, resisting the defrocking of an offending priest. Cardinal Ratzinger said the "good of the universal Church" needed to be considered in defrocking, AP reported.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm)
As the story unravels,it looks like, according to the above link and other media reports, that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implicated in the cover up of child abuse.
If reports are authenticated then he, and any others involved should resign and face any criminal charges which may be brought against them.
Hollie's mother has been diagnosed with psychiatric problems. There is no shred of evidence that has been presented by any other professional to confirm her claims. Note that I said 'her' claims, and not Hollie's. That's because Hollie's claims have only been reported and presented by her mother.
Both your statements are false, Hollies mother was never diagnosed with psychiatric problems, two qualified psychiatric experts have said she does not have psychiatric problems.
Hollie has been interviewed by others apart from her mother and none have denied that she was abused.
Hollie's own medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was nine years old. If this were not true it would have been refuted by the authorities. It is a claim which would be easily disproved.
This folks is how a cover up of child abuse happens, in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Scottish establishment.
Metalattakk
10-Apr-10, 01:24
Both your statements are false, Hollies mother was never diagnosed with psychiatric problems, two qualified psychiatric experts have said she does not have psychiatric problems.
Prove it fred. Gimme the proof or shut up.
Hollie has been interviewed by others apart from her mother and none have denied that she was abused.
A denial that she wasn't abused does not equate to a proof of abuse. FGS fred, wake up. And again, where are these official reports? Link me to them.
Hollie's own medical records show she was treated for a sexually transmitted disease when she was nine years old. If this were not true it would have been refuted by the authorities. It is a claim which would be easily disproved.
Prove it fred. Where's the evidence that her medical records show anything? Is this just another 'fact' that has come from her mother's mouth?
This folks is how a cover up of child abuse happens, in the Roman Catholic Church or in the Scottish establishment.
Head, meet Desk.
Do you ever stop to think why a 9 year old girl (and her mother) would invent such a story, and be able to name individuals and events?
If this was just for publicity/compensation, would she have not been better naming a much more "famous" person than a Sheriff, who, unless you have appeared in front of, most people have never heard of.
As Fred has stated all along, it is situations like this which scream of "Cover up"
Metalattakk
10-Apr-10, 02:03
Do you ever stop to think why a 9 year old girl (and her mother) would invent such a story, and be able to name individuals and events?
If this was just for publicity/compensation, would she have not been better naming a much more "famous" person than a Sheriff, who, unless you have appeared in front of, most people have never heard of.
As Fred has stated all along, it is situations like this which scream of "Cover up"
The mother has been classified as an untrustworthy witness, by implication at the very least. All of the so-called evidence has come from the mouth of the mother. There is not one single scrap of credible evidence to support her claims.
The only people who are screaming "Cover up" are those with a conspiracy theory to add to the rest of their conspiracy theories.
I am more than happy to accept any credible evidence that implicates any one in the Hollie Greig case. If there is something amiss then I will expect and demand criminal proceedings.
Give me credible evidence and undeniable proof. If you can't give me that, haud yer wheesht.
The mother has been classified as an untrustworthy witness, by implication at the very least.
It would not have been people with a vested interest in this case that classed Hollies's mum as an "untrustworthy " witness would it.
And what is this about "by implication at the very least"
Metalattakk
10-Apr-10, 02:39
It would not have been people with a vested interest in this case that classed Hollies's mum as an "untrustworthy " witness would it.
No, because by implication (you know how that works, eh?) her testimony wouldn't have stood up to legal scrutiny. In other words, her evidence was a load of unsustainable bollocks.
Don't be fooled into falling for the conspiracy theorist's agenda.
Mrs Bucket
10-Apr-10, 08:08
Should the pope be in the dock. YES
Head, meet Desk.
Read the report in the Press and Journal.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1488131
Two independent psychiatrists and a police officer said Hollie was telling the truth. She received criminal injuries compensation for her abuse.
I have posted the evidence Hollie was abused, now you post your evidence to support your claim she is lying.
Read the report in the Press and Journal.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1488131
Two independent psychiatrists and a police officer said Hollie was telling the truth. She received criminal injuries compensation for her abuse.
I have posted the evidence Hollie was abused, now you post your evidence to support your claim she is lying.
And where was the Pope when all this was or not going on?
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 10:00
The newspaper reported that Hollie told police she was abused. It quotes only her mother's claims, and doesn't commit itself to anything, so that it can't be prosecuted for making defaming statements. The P&J reported the truth, in that claims had been made. That is not evidence.
And you Fred, short ago when you were squirming after Stavro got banned, stated that you couldn't be prosecuted as you hadn't said anything illegal. So you understand the concept of 'being sued foir defamation' anyway.
Perhaps you could explain the terms 'evidence' and 'claimed'. How about 'stated'. Do the concepts of 'rambling conspiracy theorist web-blogs' and 'David Icke' mean anything to you?
You won't though, you never do. You just continue shouting the same garbage louder and louder. And when people get sick of it, you claim you're being bullied.
Sheesh, groundhog day??
The newspaper reported that Hollie told police she was abused. It quotes only her mother's claims, and doesn't commit itself to anything, so that it can't be prosecuted for making defaming statements. The P&J reported the truth, in that claims had been made. That is not evidence.
And you Fred, short ago when you were squirming after Stavro got banned, stated that you couldn't be prosecuted as you hadn't said anything illegal. So you understand the concept of 'being sued foir defamation' anyway.
Perhaps you could explain the terms 'evidence' and 'claimed'. How about 'stated'. Do the concepts of 'rambling conspiracy theorist web-blogs' and 'David Icke' mean anything to you?
You won't though, you never do. You just continue shouting the same garbage louder and louder. And when people get sick of it, you claim you're being bullied.
Sheesh, groundhog day??
So just post your evidence, post a link to a newspaper report which says that any official, police, court or medical, said that that Hollie was not abused.
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 10:41
Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty, burden of proof lies with the complainant. That means YOU have to find something that comes even close to 'evidence'.
Get a grip, you're back to the stuck record.
Don't have to. Innocent till proven guilty, burden of proof lies with the complainant. That means YOU have to find something that comes even close to 'evidence'.
Get a grip, you're back to the stuck record.
Yes, Hollie Grieg is innocent of your accusations that she is a liar unless you can provide evidence to back it up. I have provided evidence she is telling the truth, you have provided no evidence whatsoever that she isn't.
Boozeburglar
10-Apr-10, 11:51
I have provided evidence she is telling the truth
Fred, if you have evidence you best run along to the relevant authorities with it.
Bola bola.
I wonder what would have happened if the first victims of religious child abuse were treated in the same manner as what Hollie Greig and her mother are being treated.
They would have ended up like many rape victims i.e. too scared to report their ordeal.
Tubthumper
10-Apr-10, 12:52
Or we could wonder what would happen if those who stand accused by a faceless rambling conspiracy on the internet, were to actually face their accusers?
I can tell you: there would end up being no case to answer, but those who make the noise woul not give up, they'd simply claim 'cover-up.
You clowns seem to forget the reason we have a legal system in this country.
If you don't like the place, why not go elsewhare?
You clowns seem to forget the reason we have a legal system in this country.
If you don't like the place, why not go elsewhare?
So we have a legal system in this country do we?
Abdelbaset Al MegrahiThe Parents of Stephen LawrenceBirmingham 6Guildford 4and many many more would disagree about our so called justice system.
Mrs Bucket
10-Apr-10, 14:36
I think we need Jeremy Kyle and his lie detector. I dont mean to lower the tone but something like lie detector evidence would be useful in these cases. I am now looking for my safety hat
Should the pope be in the dock. YES
If he does go into the dock and is found guilty, I can foresee a Sun Newspaper front page carrying the story alongside the next two days weather forecast:-
"Hail, Hail, The Pope's in Jail"
;)
Welcomefamily
11-Apr-10, 19:04
I think he should be banned from entering Britian, I listened to one of the directors of a major charity who helps adults dealing with their lives having been abused as children.
In a group of ten of one of the support sessions he was leading, they started talking about their experiences, 8 out of the 10 were abused by catholic priests, he found similar in many other group.
Why did it take this pope over 10 years to be seen as doing anything about it? in fact he even issued a letter suggesting that any such alligations were dealt with secretly. I do not think resigning is enough, he needs locking up and so do all those he covered up for.
I dont believe even the bible preaches forgiveness for these sins?
Dawkins is going to have him bang to rights when he comes to the UK:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7578024/Richard-Dawkins-planning-to-have-Pope-Benedict-arrested-over-crimes-against-humanity.html
Hope he succeeds!
Welcomefamily
11-Apr-10, 19:26
Its a shame that Dawkins motives are possibly not for the right reasons, I would like to see someone make a complaint perhaps under the childrens act?
but no to score points other than for those who were abused.
I also feel the Church of England should be more outspoken in their criticism of it.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.