Friday, November 27, 2009

Mass child sex abuse: ‘the structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated the cover-up’

Jesus wept.

As did the hundreds of desperate, lonely, terrified children, as they lay in the impenetrable shadows of their beds wondering if Friar Tom or Father Dick would be paying them a visit to ‘comfort’ them at some unknowable hour of the darkness.

No, it was Brother Harry’s turn that night. And he knew full well that no bishop or archbishop would even bat an eyelid. Turning the other cheek took on a myriad of alternative sinister and shady meanings.

Remember these four faces, for these are they who handled allegations of child abuse against 46 priests. It was not just one; not simply a singular rogue priest of depraved morality, but FORTY SIX priests who were known to be sexually abusing the children in their care. One priest admitted to 'interfering' with over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis over 25 years. It is a pity three of these bishops are dead. Or perhaps not. Archbishops John Charles McQuaid died in 1973; Dermot Ryan died in 1984; Kevin McNamara died in 1987. Cardinal Desmond Connell is retired, and may well now be fleeing to the Vatican for sanctuary, where others are known to safely reside. They all had qualifications in canon law, some in civil law, and yet they decided to place themselves above the law of both Church and State. For them, the standing and reputation of Ireland’s Roman Catholic Church was more important than the protection of children: the exposure and prosecution of paedophiles was deemed to be a greater evil than permitting the nuns and priests to continue beating and raping the girls and buggering the boys to kingdom come. The institution was more important than the most vulnerable individual: the church’s assets worth more than dignity, truth and justice.

Suffer the little children?

Yes, until the pain is unbearable, the suffering insurmountable, and the violation unforgivable.

One wonders what Jesus would have said to these professing ministers of the gospel.

The Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin covered a period from 1975 to 2004. The scrutiny of just these past 30 years has revealed a cesspit of depravity and a sewer of corruption on a scale one could scarcely believe. God alone knows what might be uncovered if the previous 30 years were examined, or the 30 before that.

The report states: ‘The Dublin archdiocese's pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets.’

Clergy were able to molest hundreds of vulnerable children because of a ‘systemic, calculated perversion of power’ that put their abusers above the law. They refused to pass information to the police, and evidence was kept inside a secret vault in the archbishop's Dublin residence while the paedophile priests were shunted from parish to parish to prevent the allegations being made public.

And the State was complicit, as the Gardai ignored the complaints from victims, effectively granting priests immunity from prosecution. The inquiry found that church authorities nurtured ‘inappropriately close relations’ with senior police officers.

Cranmer is struck by the observation that ‘the structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up’, for it is a theme to which the Archbishop of Canterbury referred last week in Rome when he repudiated ‘the language of rule and hierarchy established by decree, with fixed divisions between teachers and taught, rulers and ruled’. Power corrupts, and unaccountable power facilitates collusion and cover-up, placing institutions beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes.

Quite incredibly (and Cranmer is sincerely shocked by this), the inquiry heard a defence from the former bishops that they did not know sex abuse was a crime.

It beggars belief that those whose lives are dedicated to the Lord, whose training and vocation are steeped in the faith of the Fathers, do not recognise sin, refuse to control their lust, and cannot see that evil is evil.

There is no doubt that the actions of these priests were evil, but the greater evil and more appalling scandal was the conspiracy between Church and State to pervert the course of justice. It is not only the clerics who should face prosecution, but the police officers who colluded in the cover-up to protect the honour of the Roman Catholic Church. The welfare of children counted for nothing.

There are those who frequently quote in this context that the forbidding of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1Tim 4:1-3), and that the Roman Catholic Church is colluding with Satan by enforcing celibacy upon its clergy. Or that confession and a few Hail Marys are considered to be the end of the matter, not least because of the sanctified confidentiality of the confession box.

But this is superficial theology. The sexual abuse of children by religious leaders, which is overwhelmingly by male clergy upon young boys, is inescapably homosexual. And the constraints imposed upon priests (marital status, sexual orientation, erotic sex) are not irrelevant: they are inseparable from the reality that Roman Catholicism (as the Church throughout the ages) is patriarchal and inherently masculine. The gendered nature of the organisation and all of its literature over centuries has produced a static, totalitarian expression of masculinity, such that notions of fraternity and paternity precede sexuality and become the visible medium of the expression of catholicity. Consensual submission in the context of hierarchical assertions of power is inherent in brotherhood and episcopal structuring. While the novice, priest, bishop, and cardinal have vowed and aspire to be asexual, in reality they cannot deny their human nature, and so adopt the masculinity of the hermaphrodite. And as their public face is that of purity and holiness in deeply-fulfilling celibacy, the private paradox is confused, constrained and yearning deeply to express itself. And if it cannot be with a woman, as St Paul observed, it will be predatory upon the malakoi - the ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ prepubescent ‘pet’.


Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

A masterly conclusion:

'And as their public face is that of purity and holiness in deeply-fulfilling celibacy, the private paradox is confused, constrained and yearning deeply to express itself. And if it cannot be with a woman, as St Paul observed, it will be with the malakoi - the ‘soft’ or ‘effeminate’ prepubescent ‘pet’.'

27 November 2009 at 10:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Is there not a theological debate over the meaning of 'malakoi'?

27 November 2009 at 10:13  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Yes, but not much. There is a far greater 'theological debate' over the meaning of arsenokoitai.

27 November 2009 at 10:23  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This travesty sort of renders the whole church thing unfit for purpose. They are supposed to exist to save souls, not destroy lives. Simply another reason I'm better off out of it.

27 November 2009 at 10:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did not the present pope get diplomatic amunity due to cases in the US

27 November 2009 at 10:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The doctrine of ‘Head of State immunity’ was destroyed by Cromwell’s brilliant lawyer: Master John Cooke.

The English do not remember their lawyer who is revered around the world. It was he, Master John Cooke, who terminated the doctrine: Head of State immunity.

It was not until the twentieth century that the doctrine was again challenged by the British. Lloyd George said: ‘Hang the Kaiser.’ Had they hanged him, Hitler might have paused.

In 1946 the US Supreme Court confirmed Cooke’s ‘command responsibility’ principle in relation to Japanese generals.

In 2001 Slobodan Milosevic used the same defence as Charles I refusing to plead either guilty or not guilty upon the ground that the court had been unlawfully established.

When Saddam Hussein stepped into the dock he used identical language to that of Charles I: ‘By what authority do you put me on trial?’

27 November 2009 at 10:59  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Wonderful,at last a bit of fire from the pulpit,raw god and guts,because if you do not give them hell,cranmer,they will surely fall into it.

27 November 2009 at 11:03  
Anonymous eikonoklast said...

It's all wrong, pseudoCranmer, all of it; the whole perverse and masochistic slave-cult is just plain wrong. Original sin, redemption, resurrection: a huge, psychotic fantasy which has created a monster now thankfully in its death throes, its malformed progeny soon to follow. Let this be an end to importing religions born in the madness of the middle east; if we must have ancestral myths, let them at least be our own. Or better still, let us face the chilling yet liberating truth that we are alone under the sky, our only hope and solace in each other.

27 November 2009 at 11:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm a much bruised and battered ex-itinerant worship leader and preacher. In my time I was invited to minister in every denomination from Roman Catholic to Elim and to those who have all the appearance of a denomination but deny that they are.
My conclusion is that there are some honest and well meaning ministers and a flock of honest believers, all tightly controlled by those who put power before service.
I once watched as a group of non-aligned church leaders took turns to boast about how many conversions, or signs and wonders, or demons cast out they had carried out in the last week. It was worse than the four Yorkkshiremen.
I've stood in a Roman Catholic church and was welcomed as a person of another faith.
I was a member of a baptist church but never again. I joined a Pioneer church but was percieved as a threat and was ejected. I've heard tales of threats of physical violence if someone turned up at a church meeting. I've ministered for charlatans and snake oil salesmen posing as men of god.
I was even given a course of "teachings" to ensure that my beliefs tied in to what they held.

And I've seen miracles and signs and wonders that had nothing to do with the church, its politics, its leadership.I still believe is Jesus but not the church.

The Church is corrupt and beyond redemption, in every one of its manifestations. I know hundreds of believers who will never again set foot inside a church. I wondered about this and have concluded that God is calling us out of the church, in order to protect us from the wrath that is to come.

The church is doomed, but Christianity will continue, but underground.

27 November 2009 at 11:40  
Anonymous shane said...

Your Grace, this report is really quite frightful. My heart goes out to all victims of abuse and such a thing is a scandal to the world. Evidently some priests did not heed Christ's words about His special affection for children and what would happen to those who made them stumble. I also ask to please pray for the victims of Protestant sex abuse who disgracefully are totally exempted from the state compensation claim.

“OPINION: Victims of Protestant prejudice and State neglect are at a disadvantage, writes DEREK LEINSTER

YOU DON’T have to be a Catholic to be listened to as a victim of institutional abuse, but it seems to help. That is my experience as a Protestant victim of institutional neglect. Like all sufferers, I am a victim of prejudice.

It was prejudice that forced my mother into the Bethany Home in Orwell Road, Rathgar in 1941 for the “social sin” (as one cleric put it) of being pregnant out of wedlock. To add to her burden, her gestating baby had a Catholic father. Marriage in those circumstances was out, and so was I, fostered out to a dysfunctional family in Wicklow where I was beaten black and blue and (I mention it since it seems to be what Irish people are most interested in) sexually molested.

I left school illiterate when I was 13 and Ireland when I was 18, still unable to read or write. Some people escaped Catholic Ireland. I escaped the equally self-contained Protestant version, from Wicklow to Wakefield, in England.

Patsy McGarry wrote all too briefly about my call to include the Bethany Home in the Irish State’s redress scheme, but a lot about abuse being something peculiarly Irish and Catholic (Irish Times, June 20th). I can assure him that just being Irish was reason enough. That and being poor was often sufficient.

One reverend gentleman speaking in Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin in December 1945 received reports on that score from the Bethany Home, the Protestant Magdalen Home (yes, there was one) and “the Detective Branch of the Civic Guard”. Unwed pregnancy was spreading beyond the “servant girl type”. Sometimes, “business girls and occasionally university students were victims”.

He should have said “victimised”.

The Bethany Home was set up in 1922, the opening presided over by the Church of Ireland archbishop of Dublin. He said the home was “specially intended” for “fallen” women.

Another clergyman involved was the a leading supporter of the Orange Order in Dublin. When not making clever remarks about the pope, the Rev TC Hammond was persecuting fellow clerics for placing candles on church altars.

People like him pursued, as The Irish Times put it in 1964, the “moral welfare and rehabilitation” of Bethany women. The women had overstepped the boundaries of prejudice. Some found an all too fleeting happiness with a member of the opposite religion.

Their illicit offspring paid for it for the rest of their lives. Cast off, cast out, half-caste.

That was me and many others.

I am now old, a proud father and a grandfather. I want justice. Not just for myself but for all the victims of State neglect and religious narrow-mindedness. I will not rest until the lies have been exposed.

I was told that the Irish State did not monitor the Bethany Home. That is a lie. Though, as an excuse for getting off the hook, it takes some beating. It was the reason I took so many.

I forgive my dysfunctional foster father. He no more beat me because he was a Protestant than others were beaten because their tormenters were Catholics. He and his wife should never have been given a foster child.

Those who claimed to know better than the rest should have done better. They are to blame. The Irish State I do not forgive. The Irish people deserve better.

27 November 2009 at 11:49  
Anonymous shane said...

We victims of Protestant prejudice and State neglect are at a disadvantage because we were scattered to the four winds, disconnected from each other and forgotten about. Since my personal story, Hannah’s Shame, was published I have met fellow sufferers. They have medical problems alarmingly similar to mine that stem from early neglect.

I can be contacted through my website, I would like to share experiences with Catholic and Protestant victims. Maybe the Irish media and politicians will get more interested. That is up to them.

We need a bit of Protestant people power to make that happen. Catholics can join in.

I am not prejudiced. My father, who died before I discovered who he was, was a Catholic.

Derek Leinster became a trade union official and accomplished amateur boxer in England. He is now retired. Hannah’s Shame, and a companion volume, Destiny Unknown, are available via his website,“

27 November 2009 at 11:49  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." Those words always come to mind at times like these. Pity those priests didn't reckon with the adversary.

Jesus was most annoyed with two sets of people. Those who abused children either spiritually or physically and those who mocked God, such as the moneychangers. Seems both sets are still very much with us and have yet to see sense!

27 November 2009 at 12:12  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

What this dreadful episode shows is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Gnostic says that this shows that the Catholic Church is not fit for purpose.

You could apply this statement to Dr Barnados (who sent children to Australia and Canada into slave labour), to the child care service inthis country whose faults are so numerous and are regularly excoriated, to the Orthodox Jews in Brooklin, (who have been allowed by the courts to settle their child abuse internally; to the BBC one of whose senior reporters has just been charged with 14 counts of indecent images of children etc etc..

And lets not forget the 200 Hollywood celebs who have rushed to Roman Polanski's aid when he was at last arrested for the 30 year old crime of raping and sodomising a thirteen year old girl. 'That's not rape-rape' says Whoopie Goldberg.

It would be better to conclude that our whole society is not fit for purpose.

You are right to link this with homosexuality. Since the 60's the taboos have been swept away and the homosexual lifestyle was accepted generally by society. Gays in particular have conned the rest of society into believing it's just another way of living. But see recently the Scottish Gays, whose leader has just been given a life sentence for child pornography and abuse including sexual assault on a 3 month old baby. This pillar of society was so lauded for his high-profile gay activism that it earned him invitations to Downing Street and to the Buckingham Palace Garden Party. Gays are almost immune from criticism in the UK today. Recently Patrick Harvie the bisexual militant gay rights MSP was mildly criticised for accepting an award in commemorating a gay rights activist Ian Dunn who fought to legalise paedophilia. 'A man of poor judgement'

Unfortunately gaydom infiltrated into the Catholic Church, in spite of her formal opposition to such practices. We hear of seminaries where a homosexual lifestyle was encouraged. Not so long ago, there were the incidents (Ian Paisley couldn't make this up)of the Dublin Gay bathhouses where one Catholic priest was dying of a heart attack and another was giving him absolution (though that act itself carries with it an automatic excommunication so it availed them not).

Vile behaviour by a small minority of Catholic priests is not new. Almost 1000 years ago, St Peter Damian complained to Pope Leo about the practice including paedophile priests hearing each other's confessions and absolving each other. The Pope acted and pronounced the sentence of automatic excommunication (latae sententiae) which means that it takes place without any Bishop having to pronounce the sentence.

As for those who perpetrated these vile acts and those who covered up for them:

If they are still alive, they should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away. If they are dead they should be dug up and their bodies burnt.

and I hope they rot in hell.

27 November 2009 at 12:18  
Blogger FABVirgil said...

Goodness me, a man could get burnt at the stake for this sort of thing, but very brave of you non the less. You demonstrate a clear grasp of the psychological mechanisms at work - these devilish principalities we read about are human and genetically driven: Any blindfolded attempt to reorder such things is bound to have disastrous consequences.

I like some of the comments also. There is an overall honesty here that I find refreshing. I hope it becomes contagious and snuffs out the irredeemably evil nature of what plagues all of us today. Namely pious pricks in uniforms.

27 November 2009 at 12:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pope seeks immunity over sex abuse suit
August 17, 2005 - 10:44AM

Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked US President George W. Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the US government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in US District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s. The suit is seeking unspecified monetary damages.

In Washington, US State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said today that the pope already is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity. Keener said Benedict doesn't have to ask for immunity and Bush doesn't have to grant it.

International legal experts said today it would be "virtually impossible" for the case to succeed because the pope, as a head of state, had diplomatic immunity. "There's really no question at all, not the vaguest legal doubt, that he's immune from the suit, period," said Paolo Carozza, an international law specialist at the University of Notre Dame Law School

27 November 2009 at 12:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 November 2009 at 12:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The Americans play the ‘immunity game’ according to their ‘rules’. For example it is impractical to try the head of a superpower for war crimes (I am not suggesting American forces have committed war crimes).

Stalin was never tried.

27 November 2009 at 12:52  
Blogger Ray said...

It is only further proof to me of the complete lack of credibility to any and all so called religions. Before politicans, we had priests, Shamen, witch doctors, druids , and many other forms of politicians who by manipulation of the mind in various ways gain control over the less wary. Then proceed to rape and pillage them for their own gains. Neither the Catholic Church or the protestant churches have ever made anything so how come they are so rich ? you do not need to be a believer in any god to have compassion, so why do they think they have a monopoly in it ?
You all make me sick, and you will ultimately be the death of the planet in some way or other.

27 November 2009 at 13:42  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

A little strong perhaps Ray, but I share your sentiment.

27 November 2009 at 14:08  
Blogger FABVirgil said...


It is very easy to feel like that, having no voice, powerless and having to listen to all the BS from those who thrust their self qualified crap in our bound and gagged faces.

It is too easy to get angry with the people who still blindly latch on with misplaced hope, but until some other hope comes along, nothing can possibly change for these frightened and lost souls cowering in the corners of this pointless existence. While you still feel anger then there is more hope for you because I feel pity, and this is a barren place to be.

Hold on to you rage and blow holes in the fog ahead. Good luck.

27 November 2009 at 14:28  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Your Grace,

Thank you for a deeply emotional, honest and passionate report on this shameful episode. It's good to see intelligent people who can hold on to their principles and behave consistently because of them.

27 November 2009 at 14:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Look one of the functions in civil society that religion used to perform was the defence of reason.

The young skeptic says: ‘I have a right to think for myself.’

The old skeptic, the consistent skeptic says: ‘I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all.’ (That is because the old skeptic has asked all the questions and failed to find satisfactory answers.)

We know from history (the Russian revolution for example) that if all things are questioned wildly then reason is the first casualty (see the works of Dostoevsky).

The Christian religion, even in its darker episodes (the Inquisition, for example), was organised for the difficult defence of reason. If you silence religion then we are where that French atheistic existentialist philosopher, Jean Paul Sartre, arrived at: ‘Hell is other people.’ That will be so because the only authority each man will have to refer to is, ultimately, himself.

Mr Himself will collide with Mr Yourself. And Mr Himself and Mr Yourself will doubt themselves (because there will be no personal, infinite objective authority to refer to (for God will have been silenced)).

The Christian religion is the first and last authority in defence of the authority of a man to think. That is how precious the Christian faith is.

Let us examine a modern example on the attack against reason. In a recent interview former atheist professor of philosophy, Anthony Flew (who believes in Intelligent Design) said this about Dawkin’s philosophy:

Anthony Flew: ‘There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.’

Dawkin’s is, unwittingly, attacking resaon itself; let us read it again:

‘The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.’

27 November 2009 at 14:45  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your Grace, I am one who is sceptical about Bishops in general but might be contented if England had no fewer than 15 rather than 141.

I am however at a loss to know what function a Bishop serves if he considers his role to protect those who violate the whole basis of Christian Ministry. If the Church of Rome cannot see that such men should be defrocked and cast aside, one wonders what spiritual value is supposed to reside in such offices when the secular bureaucracy trumps the Christian Ministry in such a blatant and self-serving manner.

I cannot see that Jesus died on a cross to permit child abusers to hide within His Church.

27 November 2009 at 16:03  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

A counterblast: The Christian religion, especially in its darker episodes (the Inquisition, for example), was organised for the difficult defence of authority. It had precious little to do with reason as belief in God is primarily an emotional issue.

Similarly the fact that an aging philosopher cannot now imagine how life may have started and evolved to the current state of adaptation is an emotional response (the argument from incredulity).

Richard Dawkins takes several pages in The God Delusion to explain how the start of life could easily be unlikely, but given the vast number of planets in the universe is almost certain to have happened. Once started, the evolution of life is working to a different set of probabilities and almost a foregone conclusion. That is an exercise in reason.

Just a reality check - is it reasonable to cover up sexual crimes against children in your care merely to protect your firms brand of "loving God and loving your neighbours?" Or has reason given way to fear of exposure?

27 November 2009 at 16:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...


I refer you the first post on this thread.

It is quite clear that the Politically Correct brigade has put so much fear even into social services departments that oficials fear that if they revealed abuse by homosexuals they may be accused of committing a thought crime. So officials remain silent supported by the fear of the thought police.

27 November 2009 at 17:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Similarly the fact that an aging philosopher cannot now imagine how life may have started and evolved to the current state of adaptation is an emotional response (the argument from incredulity).'

It is not that he can't imagine - he has told you he finds it comic.

27 November 2009 at 17:03  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

Which bit of "I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so." contains the comedy?

The statement that Flew finds Richard Dawkins efforts 'comical' is merely an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are often used instead of reasoned arguments.

27 November 2009 at 17:17  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Some posts open the floodgates of response...and this is one of them.

I had to cease reading the responses, as it became too painful to continue.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant, so thank you for opening the window a bit.

27 November 2009 at 17:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Would calling someone an aging philosopher and lacking imagination be an example of an ad hominem attack?

For the record Flew has imagination as he enjoys comedy.

27 November 2009 at 17:21  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Your Grace,

The last paragraph is, may I say, an example of clarity and thoughtfullness. Were you to instruct, and he to heed, Rowan Cantaur could well persuade many who have crossed over to cross back.

27 November 2009 at 17:22  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Brilliant article your grace "didnt know sexual abuse was a crime" as you say from alledged learned men .

I hope the victims can be healed .

27 November 2009 at 17:35  
Blogger Preacher said...

A heart breaking report that brings tears to my eyes.The inhuman treatment of the innocent & defencless is evil & the cover ups inexcusable. The fact that these abusers wore the cloak of religion to mask their vile deeds simply adds to their crimes & what can be said of their accomplicies that failed to take action to stop it continuing? They are just as guilty.
I cannot or will not ask those abused to forgive their abusers, to do so would be ridiculous & wrong. Wicked men (& women) exist in all levels & posts in society & sin is universal so I would say to those that use this opportunity to tar the whole of Chritendom with the same brush. That Judges, Doctors, Police Chiefs, Teachers etc have all been charged with the same evil practices, this doesn't mean that all, or even a majority of these professions are guilty. Christianity teaches that there will come a day of judgement when justice will be meted out to all the abusers & Gods sentences are worse than a few years in a human prison.
In conclussion, I will only say that I know many people who have suffered abuse that have found release from the poison that otherwise would have continued to circulate in them & would ultimately have destroyed them. But they left the pain & the judgement with God & thus found in the certainty of His love for them, & the promise of redress to their tormentors, a peace & release unavailable elsewhere.

27 November 2009 at 17:36  
Anonymous Anguished Soul said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. Some excellent and moving comments.

Jesus warned us that wolves in sheep's clothing would enter the church not sparing the flock.

We also know in the parable of the wise and unwise virgins that He will reject 50% of the church.

It's a sobering thought...

27 November 2009 at 18:28  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...


Both statements about Flew are factual. They can stand or fall on the truth of the matter. You choose to read them as an attack - aging can lead to greater wisdom or a reduction in reasoning capacity - but Flew is still comparatively old either way. His own words (assuming they are quoted correctly) reject scientific evidence for abiogenisis and evolution but he can propose no other solution that an 'Intelligent Source' - which still needs explanation. He has rejected possible solutions (however unlikely) for none at all.

Flew offers no reasons for calling Richard Dawkins efforts 'comical'.

This can happen at any level from "I know I shouldn't have another doughnut, but I really want one" to "I know sexually abusing children is wrong, but I'll cover up the crimes for the sake of the Church".

In most cases deeply held beliefs (trivial or profound) are powered by emotion. The emotion short-circuits rational thought. When belief allows abuse you have to ask if the benefits of belief are sufficient to outweigh the costs. I say not.

27 November 2009 at 18:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Both statements about Flew are factual.'

You used them to discredit Flew. Which part of 'ad hominem' don't you understand?

The Christian religion does not encourage abuse.

It is Dawkins theory that encourages abuse.

It is people like you that ought to be consistent and make an online applcation to join the Hitler Youth.

If you encourage men to be believe they are mere accidents then upon what ground will you appeal to prevent the murder of six million Jews? After all, consistent with your view how can you call the murder, upon an industrial scale, that served no military purpose, encouraged by that corporal from Bohemia, whose only military experience was peeling potatoes in World war I, murder? For you have defined them as accidents.

Why don't you plead for another tutorial from your university?

Get out of my sight.

27 November 2009 at 19:13  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

The guilty men should be brought to justice, wherever they try to hide.

27 November 2009 at 19:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Church of England priest (with a three year old son), I'm deeply upset and disgusted to hear of the systemic abuse perpetuated by my brothers in Christ.

As an ex-social worker who has read about and witnessed how abusers use institutions, to both justify and maintain their abusive behaviour, I'm not surprised.

With the long term collusion of the Irish secular institutions both political and judicial, you couldn't have created better conditions for systemic abuse to take place

27 November 2009 at 19:44  
Anonymous the recusant said...

Your Grace, one does not have to ‘wonder what Jesus would have said to these professing ministers of the gospel’, one knows what Jesus would have said because He already said it, Mark 9:42 & Matthew 18:6, and unless His mercy is boundless and His forgiveness limitless for the blackest of sins of a true penitent, then neither will they.

As a Catholic I am angry, ashamed and unbelievably disappointed at what these men have done, if anything this is far more a betrayal and cause of scandal to each and every Catholic, way before it is a cause of criticism and accusation from outside. That said it does not change one single truth that the Catholic Church teaches or dogma that it holds. It will be telling to see those that fashion themselves Catholic running for cover around about now and suddenly re-discovering their reformed tradition.

Christ knew betrayal, the Apostles fled, St. Peter denied Him and Judas…, well why should it be different today, and it occurs to me that this deceit will affect not just Catholics but every Christian, every professing Christian will be tarred with the same brush from the militant atheists, we can see a few predictably poking their heads above he parapet now, and a secular MSM that are gorging themselves in this feeding fest.

I am Catholic, this is my Church and although I am deeply ashamed of the actions of some of my Bishops and Priests, I do not distance myself from it one inch, scorn if you must but before you cast the first stone, in your Christian Charity, pray for those faces, it’s the law, He said it.

27 November 2009 at 19:47  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Part of the problem, in my opinion, stems from the seminaries. It is not all that uncommon for some young men, who may be, let us say, "confused" about their sexuality, to choose to enter a communal situation (such as a seminary) - and not necessarily from a simple desire to be among other young men in a female-excluded environment, but from a desire to seek refuge from everyday society for a while.
I don't know what sort of training or psychological aptitude tests seminarians go through, but I would imagine that sexuality is an area that ought to be (...trying to find the right word here...) covered in much depth, because it is no small thing to ask a man to remain celibate for the rest of his life. Some (indeed, I imagine the majority) do manage to do it, but there are clearly some for whom it's not going to work, for whatever reason. Are the heads or tutors of the seminaries (being themselves priests) the right people to guide their novices in this area?
(I am not trying for one moment to excuse the vile behaviour we are talking about, by the way. Only saying, as His Grace has said, that there are big problems within the whole set-up).

27 November 2009 at 20:03  
Anonymous len said...

This shows that a thin veneer of religion over a corrupt nature is worse than useless.

Any system which protects such evil men is as corrupt( possibly more so) than the perpetrators.

27 November 2009 at 20:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Discoverdjoys wrote

>>The statement that Flew finds Richard Dawkins efforts 'comical' is merely an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are often used instead of reasoned arguments.<<<

Perhaps that is Why Richard Dawkins likes to compare Darwin doubters with child busers and Nazis.

27 November 2009 at 20:42  
Blogger berenike said...

Quote from the report: "The Commission has been impressed by the extraordinary charity shown by complainants and their families towards offenders.... Many indeed expressed concern for the welfare of the priest concerned."

An example to follow there.

27 November 2009 at 20:45  
Anonymous len said...

That makes it all right then?

27 November 2009 at 20:51  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

D. Sing:'s_Law

27 November 2009 at 20:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Who is D. Sing?

27 November 2009 at 21:15  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well boys; we got these socilists on the run.

General Patton was right.

'Hold'em by the nose, and kick'em in the pants!'

27 November 2009 at 21:24  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

Brilliantly written, Your Grace. And the comments, too, are good. Obviously I welcome those who understand that the failing here is in mankind and his set-ups: not in Christianity or the Word of God.

To say that the Church should be demolished for these acts is parallel to saying that a person diagnosed with a serious disease should be killed - and that regardless of the qualification, or motive of the diagnostician.

The analogy extends because the purpose of Christianity is Healing and Rehabilitation - it is not the remit of Church members to condemn others to spiritual death. However, it is their place - especially those whose vocation requires them to heal - to reform and purify their institutions in order to render them salvific. "If thine eye offend thee..."

As for the supercilious peerers over the parapet - they have their own their own 'beams' to recognize, and their own eyes to heal. Their world clearly is not free of the same problem: especially if they went to boarding schools, or single-gender schools or even, at a later stage, to universities. Nor, I am sure, is the problem confined to Ireland.

What secularists also refuse to recognise is that the core beliefs of Judaeo-Christianity are centred around Goodness (OE: god=good). Another thing they might also consider is that these abuses are a very good argument for not putting one's faith in human nature ... it is too weak, and succumbs to easily to evil.

As for that remark about giving up on Middle Eastern religions. The person is obviously unaware that western cultures derived from that area and the Near East/Balkans. We'd be hard put, then, to find a western religion that didn't have roots there. Furthermore, given the archaeological finds that testify to [other kinds of] human sacrifice in northern climes: I believe that Celtic and Scandinavian beliefs show evidence of having been refined by Christianity.

As to the other supercilious view that 'belief' is an emotional phenomenon... what makes the disbeliever - the negative counterpart - an expert in the intellectual abilities of any given believer? What qualifies the disbeliever to judge another's power to analyze, synthesize and form theses based on empirical evidence the disbeliever doesn't know exists? The disbeliever, who by definition closes his mind to learning how much he doesn't know?

27 November 2009 at 21:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

not a mouse


Your Grace - he's a good gun-slinger.

27 November 2009 at 21:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You once wrote that you only thought that you would get at the maximum a few hundred people logging on.

You now have thousands.

Your Grace the younger generation are growing; at long last guys like me can fade.

But not until we free our country from the EU.

And when that happens; you shall hear of me no more.

27 November 2009 at 21:42  
Anonymous There is no help out there said...

A little boy sat on a wall next to a church was crying one day. A passer-by asked if he was OK, and the boy replied, sobbing, that his mother had run away with her new man abandoning him alone to fend for himself. He said he had been brought up a good catholic and went to the church every Sunday without fail. The Passer-by asked the boy if he wanted him to go fetch the Priest from the church, the boy simply replied "No, I don't think sex will help".

27 November 2009 at 21:46  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...


I apologise for mis-spelling your name. It was unintentional and not intended to cause offence.

You might care to review what else you wrote and reflect if it was said in anger, or to inform.

In this particular debate it wasn't people who accept the scientific Theory of Evolution or atheists who carried out and covered up child abuse. It was *some* Roman Catholics.

Hitler was, at least nominally, a Roman Catholic. He was not excommunicated though.

The current Pope did join the Hitler Youth, however innocently.

Similar shameful child abuse has happened in other Roman Catholic communities.

Is there some vast conspiracy here? No, I don't really think so. Child abuse sadly happens in other communities too.

Did the cover up encourage the abuse? It certainly made not enough effort to stop it.

27 November 2009 at 21:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Look kid; you have a 'razor-sharp intellect'. Why don't you go over to another blog where you'd be much more comfortable.

You're out of your league here.

27 November 2009 at 21:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'In this particular debate it wasn't people who accept the scientific Theory of Evolution or atheists who carried out and covered up child abuse.'

You still don't 'get it' do you kid?

Dawkins is advancing a theory of which the implications are that they are not children. They are apes; mere accidents (you are implicated in that movement).

He is against reason.

The Judaeo-Christians are the new 'rebs'. They are in revolt against nihilism.

Long live the Cause!

27 November 2009 at 22:32  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...

You know neither my age nor my gender. It is quite charming to be called 'kid' again after so many years (unless of course you were trying to be dismissive of someone who disagreed with you...)

You also mischaracterise Dawkins ideas. It was Darwin who proposed that humans shared a common ancestor with other modern apes. It was Dawkins who proposed that humans are vehicles for the replication of the genes within them. Neither Darwin or Dawkins has ever suggested that we should not aspire to be better than other animals, and both have actually said that we should rise above our instincts.

When you say Dawkins is against reason you are doing yourself a dis-service. He may be 'against' your world view, and you may consider that unreasonable, but to deny facts (e.g. evolution) because of the perceived consequences is a fallacy. (One that St. Augustine spoke out against I understand)

Oh, and by the way, you didn't spell my name correctly in your post of 17:00.

Not a mouse:
Please do not think that I was being dismissive of religious belief when I called it an emotional phenomenon. I am convinced that there is just as much emotion involved in adopting a disbelief as well. I would go further and say that most of our day to day lives is driven by (mostly unconscious) emotion. It's what makes us get up in the morning, feed ourselves, relate to others and interpret external events. The problem is that our belief/disbelief in any particular idea can strongly influence our thoughts without our conscious selves realising this. I recommend 'Strangers to Ourselves' by Timothy D. Wilson for insight into just how little control our conscious thoughts have over our emotional personality.

Everyone else:
I'm sorry for highjacking this thread with side issues about belief and disbelief. I didn't mean to, particularly when people bravely shared their experiences of abuse.

For what it is worth I care more for stopping the abuse and supporting the victims than arguments about belief.

And with that I'm off to bed. Us 'kids' need our sleep.

27 November 2009 at 23:42  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Your grace.

Good piece, however I would give things a more SPIRITUAL bias, then your good self.

It is my opinion, and that of many other who have painstakingly researched these types of things far more them my humble self. That the RCC at the higher levels at least, is a universally established, as 'good' as infinitely rich, and all powerful Global Business Corporation, less well known as cosmically inspired SATANISM, or maybe better known as a true form of Internationally mutated NAZISM.

Which I would have thought explains much, if not all that needs explaining, as far as this particular issue is concerned.

This has very little to do with sexual orientation or natural human desire. It does however have much to do with Satanist mind control over the perpetrator and the victim. Children are ONLY sexy to people who have allowed or encouraged one of the many servants, or serpents of Satan into their hearts.

As all honest child care Social workers will tell you, especially if you can get one pissed. Which is not at all difficult, for very understandable reasons. Where there is organised or systematic child sex abuse at play. High Religion, especially the RC type of organised crime, or another more straight forward masonic based Devil worshipping cult is close at hand, or staring the authorities full square in the face.

The fact that the public are NEVER told this, basically says all there is to say about who is, and who has always been, REALLY running the WORLDS show from the very top. No names you understand? However I feel sure you all know very well WHO I am talking about.

If there is only two things that unite all organised religion, then these are them.

SEX and COSMOLOGY.(After all pre-historic man had little else to do after dusk then shag his brains out, and then lay flat on his over worked back so as to better contemplate the nights sky.)

Although one could and surly should add in many if not all cases, systematic corruption, mass murder, periodic genocides, propaganda, and habitual dishonesty. Not of course forgetting the gaining and keeping of simply enormous fortunes, along with the inhumanly cruel abuse of absolute unquestioned power in general.

28 November 2009 at 00:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

to anon@20:03
In 1Cor7 & the New Testament, our Lord says it is better to marry than to burn with passion; that some people are given the gift of "celibacy" i.e. being happy single(sexually & otherwise) while some are not; heterosexuality & celibacy are individally God-given, not man-imposed unless we wish to play God. Some disciples & church leaders were single & some married. It's humility(of which we all need more) to accept ourselves as God made us - His gifts, place & calling on our lives generally & if we become Christians. They're God-given & we risk unnecessary temptations, sin & frustration where we try to be what God did not make us. Celibacy, for those whom God did not "make" celibate, is playing with fire;likewise celibates who marry harm their spouse.Marriage choices(good & bad incl. singleness)affect society & churchlife. Nuclear families are the bricks of extended families, of community & churches.The mortar being Christ & love. I wouldn't trust all the psychtests. They are i.a. profit-driven & fallible. People, Christian or not, usually know if they have the gift of celibacy by the time they are old enough to marry.
Re the discussion between D.Singh and DiscoveredJoys: The Bible says that God made the planet,first people & specific wildlife in a certain order. It may or not list all species God created originally & directly. God also made reason. Plants, animals & people adapt(see Jacob & Laban). If other wildlife has developed per adaptation or cross-breeding,it's still God who made any ability to breed or adapt.I think we err when we add to or take away scripture.I believe Psalm 139. God sovereignly makes each person incl. their genetic code in the womb; all are wonderful,unique & reflect His image(though imperfectly& sinfully after Adam sinned).He wants each of us to know Him. We were made for Him as well as for each other.He made the planet & nature to bless people, not people for the earth.In Genesis, God made the first people,giving them somewhere to live,someone to love & be loved by, something to do,a bounty of food & beautiful nature, as well as the ability to know & worship & enjoy God Himself. I challenge DiscoveredJoys to observe ask: are there differences between the man-made/the natural? Is there something more wonderful, ordered & free yet non-cookie-like about nature vs. the man-made?Is it beautiful,artistic, scientific, vibrant, flexible, creative, varied, inspiring? I see God's character - His creative hand, provision, bounty,love, power, awesomeness & that He is to be feared(though the world is corrupted by us & evil too sends storms).That there is a Being beyond us.I know His Name is Jesus & that the Bible (original text) is what He wanted us to know about Him & how to live for Him & as people.What do you see in nature vs the man-made? What do you see in the Bible, not what I or others say about it? Have you asked God to show you if He exists, if not ask if you wish - you not will give an account of your life after death to people but to Him; people are fallible & not all Christians are Christians. Who gave you the capacity to love, hate, like, think, choose, fear, enjoy humour music, art, be thankful, relate to & think of others not just yourself, be curious, miss, grieve, invent?
Re Mr. Polanski; see LA Times; i.a.the victim doesn't want another trial(it would harm her); there was a private settlement;she was near the then CAage of consent at the time though rape is still terrible);CA reneged on the agreement with prosecution&defence & he bolted?out of fear/holocaust memories?;he appears not to have reoffended;politics(extradition, pressure on CH/rich re banking etc.;his current film & who knows what else etc.;why extradite now after so many years?

28 November 2009 at 02:16  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Hitler was, at least nominally, a Roman Catholic. He was not excommunicated though.

The current Pope did join the Hitler Youth, however innocently.

The Hitler Youth was COMPULSORY as it was a precursor to CONSCRIPTION into the Wehrmacht. Conscientious Objectors were executed.

Why do you claim Schickelgruber was a "Roman Catholic" ? There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest he was a Communicant and it is hardly the action of a "Roman Catholic" to order all crucifixes removed from public buildings and to launch a campaign of persecution against Catholic priests accusing them of pederasty and sexual deviationism; and closing down Catholic schools and replacing Christmas decorations with Nazi symbols.

It seems to be a policy more like that pushed by the Atheists in our midst nowadays. Face it, Hitlerism is alive and well in its new guise and propagated on this blog by people like yourself

28 November 2009 at 07:14  
Anonymous len said...

Hitler a nominal Catholic? In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious.

If Nazism represented the culmination of anything, it was that of the nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century ideology of social Darwinism. Read historian Richard Weikart's revealing study, From Darwin to Hitler. As Weikart documents, both Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a "law of nature" that guaranteed the "elimination of the unfit." Weikart argues that Hitler himself "drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy" and concludes that while Darwinism is not a "sufficient" intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a "necessary" one. Without Darwinism, quite possibly there would not have been Nazism.

28 November 2009 at 08:42  
Anonymous len said...

So in addition to the mountain of corpses that the God-hating regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pot Pot and others have produced, we must add the body count of the God-hating Nazi regime. The Nazis, like the Communists, deliberately targeted the churches and the believers because they wanted to create a new man and a new utopia freed from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality. What is atheism's contribution to civilization? One answer to that question: Genocide.

28 November 2009 at 08:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Catholic Church + Nazis

Nazism is alive and well in Europe and its flickering flame is nurtured by those who claim to be opposed to its past you might expect..

28 November 2009 at 09:43  
Blogger 1662 BCP said...

Your Grace,
All I want from Santa this year is a Lambeg Drum. I grew-up Irish-RC and by the Grace of God I am a Protestant Anglican. Dr. Paisley put it so well many years ago, "there'll be a wailing and gnashing of teeth and for them that haven't, teeth'll be provided!"

28 November 2009 at 09:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What happened in Ireland is an absolute disgrace and cannot, in any way, be reconciled with the message that any Christian Church is supposed to deliver.

That said, it might be of interest to note that in Canada it was the Anglican Church's hierarchy that covered up child sex abuse in the 1980s and early-1990s.

28 November 2009 at 14:20  
Anonymous Richard said...

The Report "covered a period from 1975 to 2004", yet when you say "remember these four faces" you include Archbishop McQuaid, who died in 1973. Seems a tad unfair.

28 November 2009 at 15:28  
Anonymous The voice of experience. said...

"It is Dawkins theory that encourages abuse. "

No atheists ever tried to sexually abuse me. A respected Catholic teacher did when I was a child and two male lay Catholics tried to coerce me into sex when I was an adult.

It is one of the reasons why, respect his Grace though I do, I am an atheist and would without compunction act as hangman to any paedophile priests society wished to send to find out whether or not there is a divine judgement.

28 November 2009 at 15:49  
Blogger DiscoveredJoys said...


Richard Weikart's book was not well received by other historians.

See for further details and links to debates.

28 November 2009 at 17:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it written somewhere in the bible that you can judge a tree by it's fruits well every right minded person can certainly judge (with all these sex scandals going on)the catholic church for what it is

28 November 2009 at 17:58  
Anonymous len said...

All works based religions are doomed to failure!
" The whole Adam life of nature is absolutely fallen.It cannot be improved. It is fallen and poisoned by the serpent in root and branch.The whole scheme of redemption lies in the fact that God must begin again, so to speak, and make a new creation. Through the cross He plans to bring to an end the old Adam life of the fallen race, and build again a new creation in the midst of its ruins"

28 November 2009 at 19:29  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Voyager and others. You so do have a clue what you are talking about, I don't know where to start.

However I will say this.

The WORD of JESUS is the enemy of NAZISM, and the RCC. Jesus is THE WORD. He is not, and never has been flesh.

The RCC, has as little to do with The Word of Christ, as it can possibly get away with.

The RCC at the highest levels has much in common with ALL religions. Which are ALL based almost exclusively on COSMOLOGY. Jesus represents the SUN of the GODS, not the SON of GOD.

The STORY that is The Bible is just that, A STORY. A story told for over at least 15 thousand years, some say many more thousands if not millions of years more then that.

You clearly have not read any of it properly, or if you have you understood perfectly NOTHING worth understanding. However it was indeed written so that people like yourself would not understand it, so please don't feel bad, or in anyway inadequate.

29 November 2009 at 02:11  
Blogger Ronald said...

Any church led by a man who thinks a bit of flagellation is the way to heaven and baned priests from marrage to reduce the risk of the churches wealth getting passed on to their children, is always going to have problems. Believing that they are above normal humans will not help.

If the pope thought giving himself a damn good thrashing now and then would keep him out of hell why did he not tell his subjects to do the same?

Either he did not care about them or he thought he was taking on all their sins as well.

29 November 2009 at 07:51  
Blogger Ronald said...


If the pope is setting himself up as gods infalable representative on earth, and probably a saint before too long should we not hold him to higher standards.

Should we not expect that he would even at the risk of death avoid joining an evil brain washed cult.

29 November 2009 at 07:55  
Anonymous len said...

Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come. I John 4:3

29 November 2009 at 08:03  
Anonymous len said...

Atlas shrugged, Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world. They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them. We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. I John 4:2-6

29 November 2009 at 08:07  
Anonymous len said...

Atlas shrugged
You are correct however about the RCC and the pagan sun god thing.

The real Church of jesus christ or to use his correct name Jeshua ( Jah saves) has run a parallel course to the corrupt church, don`t confuse them!

29 November 2009 at 08:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The sexual abuse of children by religious leaders, which is overwhelmingly by male clergy upon young boys, is inescapably homosexual."

Well said, though it does not follow that Catholicism leads to pederasty - there is plentiful proof that pederasts are drawn to occupations that allow access to young boys. Look at care homes, scout and other youth groups. Now we even have nurseries.

Look at the offender first and the organisation second.

Just as paedophiles gather together to abuse children certain occupations provide "cover" for pederasts.

Even now they flourish in the CofE and are now openly officially endorsed and promoted. In fact, I am sure that some will now move from Rome to Canterbury.

The Catholic Church needs a root and branch clear out - it has been too trusting of people and, without doubt, some of the pederasts have gained high office.

It is too important to be taken down by such creatures - the future of Christendom depends upon it.

29 November 2009 at 15:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


"Richard Weikart's book was not well received by other historians."

No, but Michael Bellesiles' book was. Actually, it was so well received he was awarded the Bancroft Prize. The esteem of historians, and sometimes scientists, is not quite as important as many would like it to be.

From Wikipedia:
Michael A. Bellesiles is a professor of American colonial and legal history, who formerly taught at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. In 2000, Bellesiles published Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (2000), which won the Bancroft Prize of Columbia University. Bellesiles' conduct in researching and writing this book was investigated by Emory, and he was found "guilty of unprofessional and misleading work." He resigned his professorship in October 2002, and the Bancroft Prize was rescinded.[1]

2 December 2009 at 08:11  
Blogger PDFM said...

Can someone please explain why the relevant church authorities are not simply prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or some such offence? Surely a criminal offence has been committed by the systematic covering up of such offences?

7 December 2009 at 01:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older