Child abuse in the Irish Catholic church

And lo, it did come to pass, that the head of the Irish Catholic church (Cardinal Brady) was found to have personally covered up cases of child abuse.

Behold, said the Lord, this fucker should be thrown into jail. He hath been one of three church investigators into two kids being abused in the 70s, and had sworn them to secrecy as part of the investigation, and also then done fuck all when the culprit was simply moved to another parish to continue his abuse.
By failing to report the crimes to the civil authorities and taking steps to prevent the victims from doing so, Asshole Brady is guilty of the misprison of felony.

Pathetically, some of his apologists have suggested that canon law overrides civil law. And the shitfaced cocksucker, while apologising for his mistake, has refused to do the decent thing by resigning.

Meanwhile, the Nazi Pope has issued a mealy-mouthed statement of apology for the abuse by preists, while refusing to address the role of his own heirarchy in allowing this to happen and covering the whole thing up.

Why has this institution not been sued out of existence by now?

Did you personally do those things? Because it sounds like you didn't and that you're blaming everyone else and declaring that they should follow your example and your principles.

^You may want to re-read the post, because right now you seem to be defending kiddie fiddlers and those who cover up their crimes

Nah! I was just quoting Henry when he tried to troll me in the blame thread.

I wasn't trolling. And the quote doesn't make any sense in this context.

It didn't when you said it in the other thread either.

Too big to be "sued out of existence." But major cracks are appearing in the structure, with all the things coming to light lately that seem to point to cover-ups that directly involve Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. At the very least, there appears to be a failure on his part to supervise what was going on, leading to investigations being closed which were theoretically under his authority.

I don't expect this to bring down the Catholic Church. But it is likely to discredit them more and more among people who are wavering. Those who are already opposed to them of course aren't going to change their opinion, nor are the die-hard faithful, but the Church that lost half of Europe to the Reformation and most of the other half to the Enlightenment is likely to lose even more of what little is left for them, at least in Europe and North America, over these scandals. It has become very clear over the last few years that deliberate cover-ups of known sexual-abuse cases involving children has been a wide-spread practice in the Church for a generation or more. That can hardly help their image.

I don't blame Benedict for being drafted in Nazi Germany. Its not like he had a choice, and he ran away from them twice. He was in a seminary when he was drafted.

I DO however blame him for being the head of the office of inquisition when several of the worse cases of child abuse were taking place, and he didn't do a damn thing about it. Indeed, one priest in Wisconsin abused over 100 children, and the Pontiff refuses to have him defrocked even though he's been dead for 10 years.

The priests who are doing this should be in jail. And their higher ups who have covered for them also should be in jail.

Agreed, all along.

And, in addition to that (even though it has no legal value), the Church should have roundly condemned every one of them and booted them out for being unfaithful to its teachings. By protecting them and covering them up, they show that their priority is in politics rather than spiritual values. That is highly unfair to the average faithful Catholic who is sincerely interested in the spiritual teachings that the church is supposed to be communicating.

Why don't we have a Pedobear priest smilie?

Average Catholics should assert more pressure to get these people removed from their positions. (There is some suggestion that this might be done, actually.)

However, some of the "spiritual teachings" that the church communicates are part of the problem, specifically with regards to celibacy. That sort of unnatural repression is what channels priests towards this sort of outlet.

That never made much sense to me, given that having sex with the alter boys would still be breaking the vow of celibacy. Personally I think they're just pedos who found a position of authority with access to plenty of young people.

Sadly, they hide behind their canon law, which says that only God can fire the higher-ups in the Catholic Church. Basically, that only a bolt of lightening from heaven can take the Pope off the job.

This pope will not hold his archbishops and cardinals accountable for the priests they reassigned, because he would move toward the impeachment of himself since we was guilty of the same thing in Munich.

It's a huge corrupt mess and they, like many evil people, are hiding behind religion in the name of faith to get away with their deeds.

Historically, popes who have taken the name Benedict have a lousy track record.

Perhaps there's another Avignon papacy on the horizon.

They should be put to death, not coddled in jail.

No, it's the environment of required celibacy that draws pedos and such to the life. They were already pedophiles. No one asks them why they don't have an (adult) girlfriend because it's required of the priesthood. A vow of celibacy doesn't cause a normal man to become a pedophile and diddle little boys or girls. A normal man who couldn't handle celibacy would either quit the priesthood or have an affair with an adult female in secret.

How do you know that this is the case rather than what I said?

In my observation, it's a mix of both.

Either that or a Barrett .50.

Common sense?

I don't think "common sense" can tell you much about the origin of sexual disorders. It's a topic that requires proper study to determine, I'd say.

I don't see any mechanism by which church teachings might push someone who lacks an inclination to be attracted to children to become a child molester. That said, sexuality is complex, lots and lots of people probably have both an inclination towards consensual sex with adults and a sexual attraction towards children, and church teachings that lead someone to believe that all sex is evil, shameful, and forbidden could easily cause someone who might otherwise suppress a sexual desire for children in favor of other inclinations to turn that desire into a favored sexual outlet, especially if that person believes that a child is more easily manipulable and more likely to keep quiet than an adult.

In any case, there's no doubt that whatever the mechanism, the celibate priesthood is disproportionately populated by men who are sexually immature and whose sexuality in one way or another would be considered sinful by the church.

No, it's common sense that everyone but the church (and you) can see. If you require celibacy, most normal people will avoid the priesthood as they have no desire to be alone. Thus the pool of people you draw from is off the center of the bell curve. Then to boot these guys are lonely for their whole lives living an unnatural lifestyle. Altogether you have the primary cause of the child abusing catholic priesthood.

If you got rid of the stupid celibacy rule, which BTW was not originally a requirement but was instituted in the Middle Ages to avoid Priests and Bishops setting up generational rule which the Vatican viewed as a threat, you'd get normal family people as priests who would be vastly less likely to explore little boys' assholes.

That all seems like a pretty fair analysis, from what I can see. In any case, it is not for nothing that Judaism, from which Christianity originated, and basically all Christian groups except Roman Catholics, consider sex in itself as a normal and even wonderful part of human life. The Catholic rule of celibacy does not find its roots either in Christianity or in Judaism.

I will never believe that men are so inherently evil that they'd turn to molesting children if they were denied sex for a period of time. They're not in prison. They can leave. Those who molest had those tendencies to begin with.

I think you've got a torch and trying to find excuses to start burning things.

The Catholic Church doesn't consider sex to be abnormal.

And yes, actually clerical celibacy and/or continence goes back to the Apostles. Whether or not that's practical is another matter, but they didn't invent the rule out of thin air like everyone thinks.

Prove it.

With the exception of the Apostle Paul, who made it quite clear that celibacy was only a good idea in his opinion, what other Apostles practiced and/or advocated celibacy?

I agree. They are no better than The Taliban or other "religious" groups that
value their beliefs over humanity and decency.

Here's my take on why this is tolerated by Catholics:
they figure that you need the occasional "sacrifice" to appease God + his staff (that being The Pope, Cardinals, etc.). As long as it's not their kid, no harm no foul. It's a small price to pay for having the privelidge of being under God's protection and grace.

The boys after all are only imperfect, lowly humans. But the priests are part of God (the top of the food chain) so hey....it's a no-brainer!

Bottom line the molesters are like celebrities who serial cheat on their always forgiving spouses....they know they can get away with it because the world owes them.

Given the chance, I would throw them in a pit with all the other "common" average Joe molesters and burn them all to death. Then if I had another pit I would throw in all the victims' parents who aren't renouncing the Catholic Church for tolerating/encouraging the molesting.

But that's just me....an evil sinner who loves kids more than I love the Man in the Funny Hat.