schuck@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Mary Margaret Schuck) (08/15/89)
In article <28367@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >In article <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: ><In article <3984@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: ><> Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? ><I was waiting for someone to comment in a sarcastic way on one of the greatest ><human tragedies of our time. Brad, you didn't disappoint me. Your comments are ><shallow, uncaring and show a callous disregard for the feelings of both ><pedophile and victim. >Fuck the pedophile; he lost all of my sympathy when he did the deed. >On the other hand, Brad shows great concern for the victim, and >wonders whether this wasn't done deliberately. More to the point, why show concern for anyone when your only purpose is to spread hate? ><> Smith: What can we do? We can't excommunicate him. ><Your implied assumption that somehow the church is responsible for a priest's ><behavior simply perpetrates the myth which fuels pedophilic bahavior. The myth ><is: "I am not responsible for my behavior. I am this way because of....(my ><parents, my situation, the anger others arouse in me, the sexual arousal in me ><WHICH I CAN'T CONTROL)..... > Agreed. The church would be (and is) the first to promote individual responsibility for actions. >The church specifically encourages the view that an individual is not >responsable for their actions, so long as they seek forgiveness (via >the church, of course). The church may not think so, but I hold them >responsable. The idea behind confession is that when *you* think you've done something wrong, you can go to confession and get official confirmation that you are still a worthwhile human being. Ever hear of penance? That's the quaint concept that even though God has forgiven you you still have to make some form of reparation for what you've done. I.e. you are responsible. I've never heard of anyone going to confession and being told, "Don't worry about it; you're clean again." And if you aren't sorry for what you've done there is no point in going to confession. > ><> Murphy: No, that would get in all the papers. We'll do what we always do. ><The fact is neither the community, the family, the church, the school, the law ><has yet figured out how to deal with this problem. It has always been with us > >Sure we have; put the pedophiles in jail, simple! Good idea. And lets put alcoholics in jail too, we don't want them out there. And all those people with nasty psychiatric disorders: why waste money on treatment when we have all those handy jails. Doesn't jail make life simple! ><it only surfaced as a high profile crime in the last decade or so. Everybody ><wants to hide the problem. Mainly because most of us don't know how to deal ><with our own feelings of sexual dominance over another human being and the ><surfacing of a problem close to us makes us ashamed. So we cover our feelings ><up with anger, belligerence, flippancy, etc. Why should the Roman Catholic >Church be singled out simply because the media decides for our benefit that the ><crime in a religious context makes great headlines? >Because the RC Church takes great pains to lecture the rest of society >on proper moral conduct while protecting incredibly corrupt individuals, >placed in a position of power and trust, within their organization >while attempting to transfer blame to the victim. Not even Clifford >Olsen tried to claim that his victims asked for it. 1) the RC Church does not lecture "the rest of society". It attempts to provide guidance for those who follow its ways. Where do you read these lectures? 2) How do you see the church protecting these "incredibly corrupt" individuals (of which there are probably some in your family given their prevalence in society)? If it perceives problems within its family it deals with the problem in the most appropriate way: internally. The problems between priests and children are dealt with by local bishops, the families of the children and the priests concerned. I don't see where the Canadian general public should be involved. If you hear that the manager of a company took advantage of a low paid employee would you demand that it be made public and that every manager of every company in Canada be stigmatized because it was "one of them" that did it? 3) How do you figure that the church is "attempting to transfer blame to the victim"? Every official pronouncement on the topic has expressed regret, taken responsibility and extended sympathy to the victims. We are discussing the church, right? I.e. official statements? Or is every statement made by every member of the church to be taken as gospel if you don't like it? ("Look Martha! A manager in the Kapuskasing branch said that maybe the bimbo should have reported it! The whole management's corrupt! Lynch them all!") > ><The fact of the matter is, several hundred arrests are made, charges laid and ><convictions obtained every year in every province. Only a small number involve ><the RC clergy. Many of the people are in trust positions with children. Yet ><they don't get national headline attention. (No, I'm not a Roman Catholic). > ><I would bet that the situations that are revealled every year only involve the ><tip of the iceberg. Obviously I don't have many statistics. But I do ><volunteer prison work and the numbers are far greater than any that get ><reported in the press! > >In my experience, children are generally treasured in any civilized >western society. That's what child-labour laws, pedophile laws, >children's aid societies, etc. are all about. I don't see any The whole point is that in most places CHILDREN ARE NOT TREASURED. Where do you think those statistics come from? One in four girls and one in 10 boys are molested before adulthood. Most of those are from within their immediate family. No one is running around screaming that all those nice daddies and mommies should be spread all over the newspapers. For a start it wouldn't do the kids any good. Why is this different? Because the children involved aren't related to the pedophiles. Therefore we can pretend all those others don't happen and concentrate on these few since those nasty Roman Catholics make such nice scapegoats. You know, this isn't even unique to RC clergy! Many other religions have had similar findings lately, but there are usually fewer clergymen implicated (since most churches are smaller) so we just concentrate on the big sensational case. ><> Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and ><> brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile ><> RC priests & brothers? Where do "gay" and "pedophile" come together? A pedophile generally picks whatever's handy, regardless of gender. Most altar servers are male so most priest pedophiles abuse boys. In fact, the vast majority of all pedophiles are heterosexual. That's why so many girls get it. ><I don't know how you expected the RC church to deal with it in any different ><way given the potentially explosive reaction from society. >How about, excommunicate the priests responsible, turn them over to >the police, hang them out to dry, and make sure they never get a >chance to do it agian from a position of publicly recognized >authority? Nah, better cover it up instead, wouldn't want the pleebs >to clue in that we can make mistakes. If you'd start thinking and stop spouting erroneous misconceptions you might get somewhere. 1) Excommunication is for people who have deliberately turned their back on God. Like Satanists. Regular people are allowed to make mistakes occasionally. That doesn't mean they're encouraged to or treated leniently when it happens, but the general idea is to allow everyone (yes, even (gasp!) priests!) to be human. Do you think all criminals should have their citizenship revoked? ("Look! Daddy molested Susy! Kick him out of the family and make him change his name! Forget counselling or treatment; we wanna make him an EXAMPLE!!!") 2) Once again, do you hang your dirty laundry out to dry in public? Everyone makes mistakes; publicizing them just makes it that much harder to go on. (Are you one of those charming people who would never hire a formerly convicted criminal because they're "not fit to be in society?" How long must they wait to be readmitted to society? One year? Ten? Three generations? What if it's your neighbor? When he gets home from jail will you post signs in the neighborhood to warn everyone that he's an evil being?) >< Tell me Brad, do ><you have any dark secrets that would turn off your employer, friends, family, ><etc., if you were to reveal them? Ever have any 'unacceptable' thoughts? Huh? > >Unnacceptable thoughts are completely different from unacceptable >actions. That's why civilized countries only have action-police (they >bust you for bad things that you do) and the the RC church has >thought-police (in the form of confessional priests) who make you feel >guilty for having thoughts that the church finds 'unnacceptable', >regardless of what the rest of society thinks of such thoughts, or the >disgusting concept of thought-police. Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about Catholicism? Go spout your ignorant hatred elsewhere. ><Here's my suggestions for dealing with this problem: ><1) Everybody in Canada, start to talk openly about this problem. Let both >< victim and pedophile know that you are a caring, supportive person who will >< stick with them through all the trauma and hurt of a police investigation, a >< trial and a possible jail sentence; >RC Church authorities implementation of this: cover up the crimes of >the pedophile & ship him off to some place that has never heard of >him (where he can do it again with impunity) and make the victim feel >guilty for 'consenting' to the act at the age of seven. Terrific >support group. (I'm beginning to feel like a broken record: can't you at least come up with something new?) The Church has fully supported the law in all cases. Many of the pedophiles have gone to jail. Most parents who molest their own children do not. Removing the priest from a parish which has been hurt and betrayed by him seems common sense to me. Broadcasting crimes for which he has already paid does not. Further, ONE (can we count that high?) member of the church authority suggested that adolescents (not seven year olds) should have reported what was happening. The church does not agree with this position and understands the pressures which people in authority can bring to bear on their subordinates. Obviously this one priest does not understand this. Can you get it through your head that just because a Catholic says it, that does not make it church policy? Given your lack of general understanding of Catholicism, it is unlikely that you have any idea of the number of support and therapy measures which are available for disturbed clergy. Do you really think the Church *wants* this to happen? ><2) Contact your local mental health authorities and see if you can get a >< support group started for pedophiles where they can come and honestly talk >< about their loneliness (a trademark of the behavior), their anxieties, and >< how to find a way out of a behavior in which they feel trapped. (You'll >< likely only be able to deal with pedophiles who are the subject of a police >< investigation because the current laws now make you liable to criminal >< prosecution if you do not immediately report any suspected pedophilic >< behavior to the police or child welfare authorities). >This is a good idea. I agree. ><3) Get a victim into therapy immediately, and go with them if necessary to >< ensure that they have the proper support to deal with their hurt, and their >< now problematic view of human relationships. If not, this will cause them >< great pain in later life when everything has cooled off and they are left >< with the memories. In addition, the police and crown prosecutors will often >< not be very helpful. You have to remember that their job is to get a >< conviction, not be supportive. They may create immense pressure on the >< victim to testify, and this will add to the trauma. >So does pressure from a bishop telling the victim that it is his >fault. So does pressure from a mother telling a child that it's her imagination. The fact is that there are many terrible pressures on a child that has been abused. The idea is to give treatment, not just keep repeating the wrongs like a litany. ><4) Write to your MP and urge them to get the police and courts to back off a >< little in their relentless pursuit of "justice". Not every situation has to >< be handled by a jail sentence and the laws should allow judges a little more >< leeway in how they can deal with this problem. For example, if someone is >< seeking counselling and help already, a jail sentence can often cause more >< grief and pain to both the victim and the pedophile, particularly in family >< situations. >Bullshit. Serious crimes like this do not deserve kid gloves. The >mindset of "he didn't really mean it, and he's getting help" lead to >exactly the same problems that women face with regard to rape; the >offender is treated kindly, and the victim is made to feel like they >are on trial. Instead of backing off on prosecuting these cases, they >should be persued to the full extent of the law, or the problem will >just persist and grow, as perpetraitors get the idea that a 'sincere' >appology is a free ticket to another crack at the lads. Throwing the perpetrator in jail just perpetuates the problem. What good does it do to throw an alcoholic in jail? Sure he's a public nuisance, but as soon as he gets out he'll repeat the offence. In a real (i.e. non-simplistic) world, the solution is to cure the offender, not just punish him. There's a big difference between "He didn't mean it and he's getting help" and "It was a serious crime; lets see why it was committed and ensure that he no longer feels the compulsion to commit one again." >Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Mary Margaret. ____________________________________________________________________________ My mailer hates everyone. Try to deceive it if possible. schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca {decvax,attcan,watmath...}!utzoo!dciem!schuck ____________________________________________________________________________
sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) (08/16/89)
In article <2396@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca (Mary Margaret Schuck) writes: >In article <28367@watmath.waterloo.edu> sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu (S. Crispin Cowan) writes: >>In article <1479@apss.apss.ab.ca> jhp@apss.ab.ca (Herb Presley, Emergency Planning Officer) writes: >><In article <3984@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >><> Bishop Murphy: Shocking about Father Jones, isn't it? [assorted debate . . .] >>The church specifically encourages the view that an individual is not >>responsable for their actions, so long as they seek forgiveness (via >>the church, of course). The church may not think so, but I hold them >>responsable. >The idea behind confession is that when *you* think you've done >something wrong, you can go to confession and get official confirmation >that you are still a worthwhile human being. [stuff about how some people actually take 'penance' seriously] >And if you aren't sorry for what you've done there is no point in going >to confession. How long ago was it that the RCs stopped selling 'indulgences' IN ADVANCE for sins that the purchaser was contemplating? [whining about how we shouldn't single out the RC church for being corrupt] >>Because the RC Church takes great pains to lecture the rest of society >>on proper moral conduct while protecting incredibly corrupt individuals, >>placed in a position of power and trust, within their organization >>while attempting to transfer blame to the victim. Not even Clifford >>Olsen tried to claim that his victims asked for it. >1) the RC Church does not lecture "the rest of society". It attempts to >provide guidance for those who follow its ways. Where do you read these >lectures? When the pope tells the third world that condoms are evil, sinful, and these incredibly poor, over-populated countries should continue to breed like rabbits. Or is it not the case that what the Pope says is gospel? >2) How do you see the church protecting these "incredibly corrupt" >individuals (of which there are probably some in your family given their >prevalence in society)? Because it zips them off and hands them a fresh parish to abuse in some place that's never heard of the perpetraitor. There was an article in the paper a few days ago about a priest installed in Toronto that had some sort of history of child abuse, and the higher-ups were 'keeping him under scrutiny.' My point is that it might be ok to treat these people and eventually let them out of jail, but it is NEVER ok to let them have such a position of trust and authority ever again. Would you let Richard Nixon back ito public office? >3) How do you figure that the church is "attempting to transfer blame to >the victim"? Every official pronouncement on the topic has expressed >regret, taken responsibility and extended sympathy to the victims. We are >discussing the church, right? I.e. official statements? Or is every >statement made by every member of the church to be taken as gospel if you >don't like it? Seems to me that the victims in Nfld. have been complaining for years that the church has been completely non-supportive. Every day I turn on the tube, and there's another abused teenager complaining that he's gotten ZERO support and care from the church. >><> Think about it. What other reason can there be? I mean 18 priests and >><> brothers in a province with 600,000 people? 18 gay, non-celibate, pedophile >><> RC priests & brothers? > >Where do "gay" and "pedophile" come together? A pedophile generally picks >whatever's handy, regardless of gender. Most altar servers are male so >most priest pedophiles abuse boys. In fact, the vast majority of all >pedophiles are heterosexual. That's why so many girls get it. > >><I don't know how you expected the RC church to deal with it in any different >><way given the potentially explosive reaction from society. >>How about, excommunicate the priests responsible, turn them over to >>the police, hang them out to dry, and make sure they never get a >>chance to do it agian from a position of publicly recognized >>authority? Nah, better cover it up instead, wouldn't want the pleebs >>to clue in that we can make mistakes. > >If you'd start thinking and stop spouting erroneous misconceptions you >might get somewhere. > >1) Excommunication is for people who have deliberately turned their back on >God. Like Satanists. Regular people are allowed to make mistakes Like Galileo; he turned against God--he used his own brain. And in the 1970s, the RC church had the grace to 'forgive' him. Seems to me that the church is the one that should seek forgiveness. >2) Once again, do you hang your dirty laundry out to dry in public? >Everyone makes mistakes; publicizing them just makes it that much harder to >go on. (Are you one of those charming people who would never hire a >formerly convicted criminal because they're "not fit to be in society?" >How long must they wait to be readmitted to society? One year? Ten? Three >generations? What if it's your neighbor? When he gets home from jail will >you post signs in the neighborhood to warn everyone that he's an evil >being?) I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that you can ever reform a criminal. Like all people, they act out of self-interest; unfortunately their value system doesn't allow them to consider other people as being valuable, which civilized people do. I don't steal from my neighbour because I don't want him to steal from me. A thief figures he can get away with it, and so takes what he can get away with. Therefore, a convict can be allowed back into society, but without extensive evidence of change, can never be trusted. >>Unnacceptable thoughts are completely different from unacceptable >>actions. That's why civilized countries only have action-police (they >>bust you for bad things that you do) and the the RC church has >>thought-police (in the form of confessional priests) who make you feel >>guilty for having thoughts that the church finds 'unnacceptable', >>regardless of what the rest of society thinks of such thoughts, or the >>disgusting concept of thought-police. >Are you serious? Do you know *anything* about Catholicism? >Go spout your ignorant hatred elsewhere. Go check out your mindless loyalty to a corrupt institution. The Pope that having lustful _thoughts_ is sinful. Pardon me while I gag, thoughts alone should NEVER be considered 'sinful.' Let's see, what other lovely policy gems have we got here: Old ones: -burning heretics (def: anyone who dissagrees with you) -an esitmated 100 MILLION dead in the second millenia in the search for 'witches' (followers of the original pagan religion of Europe). -the 100 Years War -the Inquisition Current Ones: -women are unnaccepable as priests -gay people are unnaccepable as priests -sex if for pro-creation only, you're now allowed to enjoy it, especially if you're a woman -lusting after one's _wife_ is sinful Wouldn't it be nice if the Pope would walk on the ground and kiss women, instead of the other way around? > Mary Margaret. >____________________________________________________________________________ > My mailer hates everyone. Try to deceive it if possible. >schuck@dretor.dciem.dnd.ca {decvax,attcan,watmath...}!utzoo!dciem!schuck ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Login name: sccowan In real life: S. Crispin Cowan Office: DC3548 x3934 Home phone: 570-2517 Post Awful: 60 Overlea Drive, Kitchener, N2M 1T1 UUCP: watmath!watmsg!sccowan Domain: sccowan@watmsg.waterloo.edu "Everything to excess. Moderation is for monks." -Lazarus Long