Why on Earth... wrote:
G.Man wrote:
My argument was that he did the correct thing in removing the priest from ministry...

Yeah, G-Man, listen: the thing is, I massively disagree with the claim that the Ratz did the right thing. I'm clear that it's your view, but it's not mine. He ought to have had the bloke punished. (In my view, like.) So while you may find my "sarcasm" annoying, I can't see that you can say it's misplaced. It's placed exactly right.

I took G-Man to be saying that Ratzinger did a right thing in removing the priest, and that the rest of what he should have done is still open to scrutiny.

These are excellent points, Hof, and I want to be clear that I am no die-hard defender of clerical celibacy.

I think it's fair to say that the Catholic priesthood's obligatory celibacy has been a "hiding ground" for many men with sexuality-related problems, paedophiles among them.

But that would not explain why the incidence of paedophiles in the Catholic priesthood is not higher than it is in among clergy in denominations which allow for married clergy, or in the general population. Unless here is statistical quirk that I am overlooking.


Wyatt, you still don't hear me. Ratzinger did the right thing in the first part of a procedure which he then delegated (and on which many other bishops came short). He did that right, and I suspect that he did wrong by not reporting the allegations to the police.

But without knowing more than the sketchy outlines of the case — and that's all the Süddeutsche Zeitung has given us — I don't feel qualified to judge exactly how Ratzinger was culpable, what he knew and what he concealed. Isn't it generally prudent to withhold condemnation until all the facts are established?

Or what Bruno said with much greater clarity and brevity.

OK, I'll do you a deal. When the Ratz faction of the Church adopts an attitude of openness towards the facts, without a gun being held to their heads, I'll suspend my hunch that they're basically a lot of cunts. Otherwise I reckon that's where the smart money is.

In other words, I don't think we should give them the benefit of a doubt they themselves have engineered.

I would go a bit further.

Not only is a celibate institution a hiding ground for those interested in sex with children- partly for the reasons Hof puts in his excellent contribution -but also because especially in the choir schools, boarding schools and children's homes run by that institution there are a number of children available and vulnerable to predatory adults,- but the acceptance of or at least the appeal of sex with children can then become normative behaviour in that world.

It's unexceptional and is thought of as comparatively harmless. British public schools and universities were similar - I 'm reminded of a joke Stephen Fry made at a BAFTA presentation about "pass me a freshly buttered choirboy"- though the sanctions and pressures available to a priest make children in that context particularly vulnerable.

In this priest-run world there will be few who are manifesting an active sexuality towards adult men or women and I would suspect that any public manifestation of such behaviour would be more disapproved of because it's less "priestly" . Would they have been able to stay in the priesthood, I wonder, if they had been having sex with adult women, or men?

But it never was normative, nor was the number of paedophiles and pederasts higher among the celibate clergy than it was among clerical classes, or in general society. There is no statistical evidence and (as far as I know) no body of psychological data that suggests that obligatory celibacy is a cause of paedopholia among Catholic priests. Should there be such data, then I'll be persuaded to reverse my position.

The fact that the Catholic hierarchy felt the need to cover up the instances of sexual abuse by priests surely suggests that they damn well realised the gravity of the crimes that were being committed. If it had been normative, Cardinal Law would be cracking Stephen Fry bon mots instead of hopping on the next flight from Boston to Rome.

Wyatt, fair enough. But you need not take out your frustration with these guys on those of us who are not in the Ratz faction (earworm alert: "I can't get no, Ratzi-faction").

G.Man wrote:
B

The fact that the Catholic hierarchy felt the need to cover up the instances of sexual abuse by priests surely suggests that they damn well realised the gravity of the crimes that were being committed.

That's one interpretation- another would be that they thought it wasn't necessary to be dealt with by the law of the land and that internal sanctions were sufficient. "Normative" in this context might mean "not abnormal for priests".

If it had been normative, Cardinal Law would be cracking Stephen Fry bon mots instead of hopping on the next flight from Boston to Rome.

It's taken long enough for anyone to get on a plane to anywhere-.

My desire to comment on this topic is strongly leavened by the insistence of some posters on using the rape of children as an opportunity for cheap and indiscriminate point-scoring.

What G-man, henry, and Hof said, and Etienne regarding Calvert.

G.Man wrote:
"I can't get no, Ratzi-faction"

Little red-socked rooster
The Last Supper time
It's all over now
Cocksucker blues

Undercover Of The Pontifical Secret

Very good, gentlemen.

TMK & GMan can argue forever and ever and ever about the details of something that happened and that's fine but I would really like to know what they both think should happen *now*.

TMK would have everybody resigning and the shop closed. Which isn't going to happen.

I would like full disclosure, the resignation of everybody who has failed to protect children, and an acknowledgement from the pope himself that the Church had an institutionalised, rotten culture of secrecy, vanity, arrogance and clericalism which valued its own reputation above the safety of children. Ideally, I'd like to see the whole saga culminate in an institutional reform of the RCC itself, but I'm not holding my breath.

I really don't think the hierarchy realises just how much trouble the Catholic Church is in.

Edit: All that, of course, on top of what the RCC, or some of it, has already done (though not always well): implement protocols to safeguard children, offer apologies to abuse survivors, make financial reparations etc

G-Man: that's massively good stuff; seriously. But should we not extend the category of people who ought to resign to include failure to report abuse to the police?

Depending on the circumstances, probably yes.

It's a pity that Sean Brady is in a position where he should resign, because he was saying some really important stuff. I don't know whether anyone outside RCC circles appreciated what he said after the Ryan and Murphy reports, but within the RCC it was really helpful in shifting a corrosive mindset.

I'm not saying he shouldn't resign, but it's a big loss for those who liked the leadership he and Diarmuid Martin showed in Ireland.

TMK would have everybody resigning and the shop closed. Which isn't going to happen.

I would like full disclosure, the resignation of everybody who has failed to protect children, and an acknowledgement from the pope himself that the Church had an institutionalised, rotten culture of secrecy, vanity, arrogance and clericalism which valued its own reputation above the safety of children.

G-man you do realise that they amount to almost exactly the same thing. If all the people involved in covering up this abuse are to resign, there will hardly be anyone left in ireland to take their place. The number of priests under 50 is tiny.

The hierachy used to be the peak of a huge pyramid of priests and brothers, in terms of age profile, but it's more like a broad flat mushroom. In 2003 there were 9 ordinations, 8 in 2004, 7 in 2005, 8 in 2006 and 2 in 2007 and 9 in 2008. In 2008 160 priests died bringing the numbers down to 4752 priests in the whole country.

The average age of priests in 2007 was 61, and they expect the numbers of priests to fall to 1500 by 2028, and for the number of active priests to be a fraction of that.

Personally I think that sean brady should resign, and should be put on trial, for misprison of felony, or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and also that he should be tried under Section 17 of the offences against the state act . He was obliged by law to report what he knew to be a crime, he didn't, he helped conceal it, and as a result, hundreds of lives were destroyed. I personally think that there is more than enough evidence to put him in prison. Which for all the talk amongst his defenders about what a lovely man he is, is where he belongs.

The institutional church in ireland is nearly dead. It needs to be taken out the back and have a bullet put in its brain. It doesn't deserve to live.

Hmm, the discussion on celibacy is an interesting one. It seems to have had one major effect on those who become priests. A large proportion of the younger priests that i've encountered I suspect are attracted to the priesthood because they're gay and don't want to tell their parents. Celibacy doesn't apppeal to anyone else any more.

There were three newly ordained priests interviewed on the late late show there before christmas and you just wanted to grab them, shake them, give them a handful of yokes and poppers, and send them down to the george, and tell them to get on with their short short lives.

I remember having a discussion at a party shortly afterwards where that programme was discussed, well actually it came up because before the priests pat kenny interviewed miley cyrus who came on and croaked a song, dressed as a whore. But eventually the conversation turned to the three priests and a number of people who happened to be gay, started laughing at their protestations that "we all had girlfriends before we joined up", saying "We've all told that lie, and I doubt we were any more convincing."

But that has absolutely nothing to do with paedophilia. the only harm those lads are doing is to themselves. I just suspect that any predator looking for easy access to children isn't going to use the disguise of a priest any more.

Also I don't know if the actual vow of celibacy is that important, not compared to the thinking behind it. One of the very strong messages of traditional catholicism, particularly as taught in post famine ireland, was that pretty much all forms of sexual desire were sinful, and would lead straight to hell. apart from those that produced children within the family, and even those were pretty sinful.

When perfectly normal feelings of sexual attraction or desire, which most people have several times a day, are defined as being sinful, you can see how a lot of people might lose the run of themselves. If you think it's all sinful, you can't tell when you're doing something really sinful. In for a penny, in for a million pounds.

But it's this thinking that sexuality is sinful is what underpins the oath of celibacy, and even if the actual teachings on feelings of sexual attraction have changed pretty drastically, (I.e. it's not going to doom your mortal soul) The oath remains however.

In ireland, we had very clear evidence that the wages of sin were mega-deaths. so we developed in reaction a very destructive and corrosive attitude to sexuality. The marriage rate fell from the highest in europe, to the lowest in europe. in the 1930's the expectation was that you wouldn't marry, and that you would probably die a virgin.

So huge proportions of the population had a vow of celibacy thrust upon them, along with no real concept of what constituted healthy sexuality so the men turned to drink, the women to religion, and a lot of unmarried uncles did a lot of very bad things to the only people they would have an opportunity with, who often would assume that this was normal and carry on the cycle themselves, making the situation worse and worse.

The church was only a reflection of the type of society we were prepared to accept. We embraced the most destructive self hating parts of roman catholic theology and took them to ludicrous extremes. we produced enormous numbers of paedophiles, and we exported them all throughout the world. (to be honest it's not really about catholicism, I reckon we would have behaved exactly the same way with any other religion, but the bizarre nature of catholicism didn't help)

There will be scandals in other countries, but they will be nothing compared to the impact of the irish priests. The german cases are pretty bad, but they just aren't remotely on the same level as the systematic campaign of rape, physical abuse and torture that we had in the industrial schools in ireland, and the army of freelance predators like brendan smyth who abused children while their parents made dinner downstairs.

However the mechanics of the creation of an army of paedophiles (both lay and clerical) isn't really here nor there. It was that they went to such great lengths to cover it up. You can't behave the way they have behaved, and be the good guys, it doesn't matter how sorry sean brady is now, it's too late.

The problem is that brady talks the talk of openness and change and transparency, yet never told anyone that he knew for 20 years before his arrest, that brendan smyth was a dangerous paedophile. Everything he has said on the subject is obviously bullshit.

Right now the only person in the RC hierarchy that has any real standing with the public is diarmuid martin who has become a very marginalized figure since he came out with his hands up over the murphy report and said that the only way forward was to mostly go down the path that Gman suggested.

The result of this is that he has been apparently been privately attacked by many of his priests who are disgusted at the way that he has suggested that bishops named in the report should resign. Things have gotten so bad that when the bishops went to rome to meet the pope, diarmuid martin left and went home a day early to prepare for ash wednesday mass.

That, TMK, is one of the best posts I have read on OTF in a very long time.

ooh, I'm blushing.

There's another thing as well that sean brady doesn't understand. It doesn't matter if he's right or wrong. That doesn't matter any more. What matters is that the numbers of people attending mass is shrinking rapidly, and a lot of people who are still attending are holding their nose. They go in spite of the hierarchy. A substantial number of these people are going to think that brady should go. If he doesn't go, they very well might. His continued refusal to resign is a clear sign that the church isn't serious about taking responsibility for what happened.

G.Man wrote:
That, TMK, is one of the best posts I have read on OTF in a very long time.

Yeah, fascinating stuff.

Steve Bell.