The Law Royal Commission into Child Abuse

[evo]

I guess you are leading to the idea that the RC Church should be dismantled. If so, then it behoves us to consider similar recourse for other institutions such as the Anglicans, JW's, Boarding Schools, Scouting movements, Youth Clubs - and the biggest of them all - the family!

Not sure about the other institutions, but when the Scouts became aware of a problem - unlike the RC - they tackled it head on.

Edit: Just as an addendum to this, recently I as part of a coaching footy juniors accreditation,, had to submit to a reasonably rigourous 'working with children' clearance. All footy coaches of youths have to do this these days.

There was also a requirement to attend a course at one of the TAC clubs where, amongst other things were lectured from psychologists on how to appropriately deal with children. We also had to sign a legal form. There was one interesting clause in it, in light of your post. Legally, if the s**t ever hit the fan, we have to be able to demonstrate that we acted as " a careful parent would". Meaning we have to act towards other children that same way we reasonably be expected to act toward our own. Interestingly a RC priest could never be tested that way, while all the other members of the institutions you mentioned likely would.

 

[Chief]

I guess you are leading to the idea that the RC Church should be dismantled. If so, then it behoves us to consider similar recourse for other institutions such as the Anglicans, JW's, Boarding Schools, Scouting movements, Youth Clubs - and the biggest of them all - the family!

And letting gays marry means we will have to let people marry farm animals.

 

[Slax]

I guess you are leading to the idea that the RC Church should be dismantled. If so, then it behoves us to consider similar recourse for other institutions such as the Anglicans, JW's, Boarding Schools, Scouting movements, Youth Clubs - and the biggest of them all - the family!

You forgot to mention government, they have been turning a blind eye to it for decades, refusing to investigate things properly, blame previous administratios for not funding Child Services properly whilst reducing the funding themselves. When you create a system where there a fundamental problems and deliberate failings to enable things to fall through the cracks they are just as culpible as the RC Church.

 

[Monniehawk]

Not sure about the other institutions, but when the Scouts became aware of a problem - unlike the RC - they tackled it head on.
Edit: Just as an addendum to this, recently I as part of a coaching footy juniors accreditation,, had to submit to a reasonably rigourous 'working with children' clearance. All footy coaches of youths have to do this these days.
There was also a requirement to attend a course at one of the TAC clubs where, amongst other things were lectured from psychologists on how to appropriately deal with children. We also had to sign a legal form. There was one interesting clause in it, in light of your post. Legally, if the s**t ever hit the fan, we have to be able to demonstrate that we acted as " a careful parent would". Meaning we have to act towards other children that same way we reasonably be expected to act toward our own. Interestingly a RC priest could never be tested that way, while all the other members of the institutions you mentioned likely would.

And tackling it head-on is now overdue. All for it, and you will never eradicate it entirely, but the point is trying to minimise the harm. The churches in general have been too protectionist, for too long, and this has institutionalised behaviours as well as institutionalising public perceptions of them.
As for the WWC clearance, I am an umpire and have to carry my card (renewable next year). The 'rigorous' clearance is to submit a form that allows a police check. That's about as far as it goes.
"In loco parentis" is well-established in many fields. With celibates, it still applies because the legal concept alludes to the established societal norm rather than the individual. About time it was spread across the social spectrum, though. If nothing else, it highlights the dangers!

And letting gays marry means we will have to let people marry farm animals.

Of course not. I understand your irony, but the logic is still flawed because it does not acknowledge that the problem is much deeper than just the church. Not an apology for the church, but a recognition that we have a bigger problem that is being clouded by the narrow focus.
The RC church should be reformed, not eradicated - and it should be treated in the same manner that we regard other institutions - Boarding Schools, Welfare groups, sports, families, etc.
Otherwise, it just comes across as a bit of catholic/xian bashing.
It may even cloud the real issue - keeping ALL kids safe across our society.
Generally, us blokes have a lot to front up to.

 

[evo]

"In loco parentis" is well-established in many fields. With celibates, it still applies because the legal concept alludes to the established societal norm rather than the individual.

.

Acknowledged. However I was making a more subtle point than the legal aspect to it. It is more a psychological-experiential point.

If you are a "family man", by the tine you kids reach their teens you have quite a lot of experience dealing and living with children in vulnerable positions. You also have probably had reasonable experience dealing with your kids mates - sleep overs and what have you. Having children in your care is no big deal.

Contrast that with the priest who lives alone and only partnership is with God. The only serious social interaction may have been lecturing on weekends and dealing with a few adult groups during the week. Dealing with impressionable children could easily be a whole new (exciting?) experience.

 

[Caesar]

You could say the same about any single person, and they aren't barred from those organisations. It shouldn't matter. It's not like we're not talking about concepts so sophisticated that only experienced parents are capable of understanding them.

There's a lot of systemic factors at play here, but I really don't think "priests don't have kids so they can't understand parental responsibility" is one of them.

 

[evo]

You could say the same about any single person, and they aren't barred from those organisations. It shouldn't matter. It's not like we're not talking about concepts so sophisticated that only experienced parents are capable of understanding them.

There's a lot of systemic factors at play here, but I really don't think "priests don't have kids so they can't understand parental responsibility" is one of them.

I'm more about exploring in an open forum about why these situations arise.

I reckon skilts made a pretty good additional point at an earlier time - if not in this thread then in another- about how it takes a "special" type of person at 16 or 17 to freely choose to commit to the preisthood and celibacy for life.

When you also consider these poor buggers have to listen to other peoples more interesting and decadent lifestyles via confessions each week, it is not that hard to see why some of them 'crack' .

 

[Monniehawk]

I'm more about exploring in an open forum about why these situations arise.
I reckon skilts made a pretty good additional point at an earlier time - if not in this thread then in another- about how it takes a "special" type of person at 16 or 17 to freely choose to commit to the preisthood and celibacy for life.
When you also consider these poor buggers have to listen to other peoples more interesting and decadent lifestyles via confessions each week, it is not that hard to see why some of them 'crack' .

Fair points.
But it is only 'some', although I would guess your point about those (personality types) who are more likely to choose the cloisters is a valid factor. (I have related suspicions about the police and armed services!)
The church also attracts other types: some who are actually committed to a cause and an ethic. I have much experience of them also.
I'm not so sure priests lead the cosseted life, either. I was impressed with an encounter I had with the Whitefriars in Melb. Wierd set up with a few priests spread over a huge monastic complex, but boy! were they powerful intellects - and worldly wise! Quite subversive, too. They were very anti-papacy!! *secret applause!*

Probably just issuing a caution about over-generalising, rather than outright disagreement.

 

[Caesar]

I think it's pretty fair to say that the strictures of the priesthood make it prone to attracting more than its fair share of people with problems.

I am just saying I don't really think that someone's family status makes them more or less qualified to exercise ILP responsibility. Considered in isolation, the fact that priests don't have children makes them no less qualified for that duty than any other person in the community who doesn't have children.

 

[evo]

I'm not so sure priests lead the cosseted life, either.

Pun? Closetted?

I was impressed with an encounter I had with the Whitefriars in Melb. Wierd set up with a few priests spread over a huge monastic complex, but boy! were they powerful intellects - and worldly wise! Quite subversive, too. They were very anti-papacy!! *secret applause!*

Interesting. By coincidence about a third of my u/14 boys team go to Whitefriars.

 

[evo]

I am just saying I don't really think that someone's family status makes them more or less qualified to exercise ILP responsibility. Considered in isolation, the fact that priests don't have children makes them no less qualified for that duty than any other person in the community who doesn't have children.

fine. but the reason I bought it up in the first place was that Monniehawk was implying that we should treat the RC situtaion the same as we treat, Scouts, Anglicans etc. Seems to me the RC priest have a somewhat unique set of circumstances.

I'd also add that, while with paedophilia there is never a good situation for it to arise, it seems to me doubly mendacious when it is committed by a priest who is not only charged with a childs physical well being but also their ethical/ spiritiual well being as well. It is an appaling state of affairs.

I reckon a child abused in the RC cvhurch is less likely to come forward, and be more permanently damaged than if had been at the hands of say a scout leader.

 

[Monniehawk]

Pun? Closetted?
Interesting. By coincidence about a third of my u/14 boys team go to Whitefriars.

Hehehe. No. I did mean 'cosseted'!
Whitefriars Monastery, not the College. It was a huge, rambling, brick complex in Donvale(?) that housed only about a dozen friars. Each had their own cell within the complex of lecture rooms, libraries and (apparently deserted) offices.
It struck me as an awful waste, yet I was captivated by the priests and their intellects.
No kiddies to bother, either. They were alone in a huge property.

 

[Monniehawk]

I'd also add that, while with paedophilia there is never a good situation for it to arise, it seems to me doubly mendacious when it is committed by a priest who is not only charged with a childs physical well being but also their ethical/ spiritiual well being as well. It is an appaling state of affairs.

Unfortunately, that is the crux (no more puns!) of it. Almost all hotspots for paedophiles are related to care of children - family, boarding school, church, clubs, etc. They attract paedophiles and paedophile behaviour simply because the kids are available and the circumstances for access are loose.
In that sense, they need to be assessed with the same vigour and focus as with the RC's. These institutions also need to develop a regime of safeguards, reporting and behaviours that can ameliorate the problem. I repeat, it is a societal problem, not just a sectarian one!

I reckon a child abused in the RC church is less likely to come forward, and be more permanently damaged than if had been at the hands of say a scout leader.

ANY situation where there have been close bonds of trust. The most compelling cases that I (personally) have encountered have involved close friendships (4), incidents within my own family (2) and schools where I worked (5 proved, many others 'rumoured'). No churches, although I am not implying their innocence from that quarter.
I hold a lot of hope and expectation for the Royal Commission being able to start some telling reforms across the board.

 

[Caesar]

fine. but the reason I bought it up in the first place was that Monniehawk was implying that we should treat the RC situtaion the same as we treat, Scouts, Anglicans etc. Seems to me the RC priest have a somewhat unique set of circumstances.

I'd also add that, while with paedophilia there is never a good situation for it to arise, it seems to me doubly mendacious when it is committed by a priest who is not only charged with a childs physical well being but also their ethical/ spiritiual well being as well. It is an appaling state of affairs.

I think they're all pretty different situations, and trying to put them into different categories and weigh them against each other is ultimately pretty futile.

All these groups have power and trust that extends beyond the physical wellbeing of the child. Teachers and scoutmasters may not purport to speak the word of god, but from the perspective of the child they may as well. Children don't distinguish between authority figures that much, when they're instructing them on right and wrong.

I reckon a child abused in the RC cvhurch is less likely to come forward, and be more permanently damaged than if had been at the hands of say a scout leader.

I don't know enough about the topic to comment, really.

 

[skilts]

Hehehe. No. I did mean 'cosseted'!
Whitefriars Monastery, not the College. It was a huge, rambling, brick complex in Donvale(?) that housed only about a dozen friars. Each had their own cell within the complex of lecture rooms, libraries and (apparently deserted) offices.
It struck me as an awful waste, yet I was captivated by the priests and their intellects.
No kiddies to bother, either. They were alone in a huge property.

Have been there. In fact, I reckon I've visited every monastery in Victoria during my childhood. My old man, being the tight-arsed, rabid catholic he was, had a complete understanding of how these places were run. Apparently, and it was never proven to us to be otherwise, if you turn up to one of these places around lunch or afternoon tea time, they are obliged to give you some food and a cup of tea. Something to do with an ancient requirement for them to provide 'succour' for weary travellers. For my old man, this was merely a means to avoiding having to pay for afternoon tea during one of our day trips in the car.

In my old man's defence (possibly a first), it should be acknowledged that he actually knew priests at most of these places. This was because he used to pick up replacements for our parish priest, when that man was either on holiday, or more frequently, when he was ill, which he was quite often. I always felt uncomfortable with this freeloading. My father reckoned he was owed.

The most extraordinary thing about these replacement priests was that they were so personable, almost normal, while we were transporting them to our church. Come the following Sunday, they'd be preaching fire and brimstone with full-on apoplexy, while the bulbous veins in their reddened necks looked liable to burst. Most peculiar fellows, but great performers. They scared s**t out of those who chose to believe. I found them hilarious. After their sermon, they'd revert to meek and mild and butter wouldn't melt. Then, that bloody infuriating, vacant, christian, smiling facade would reappear. I'm led to believe they now call this syndrome bipolar disorder.

Edit: If you're having trouble recognising that christian smile, have a look at the genius Tom Keneally, next time he's interviewed on TV. Despite having left the priesthood decades ago, he's been unable to shake it off. If you want to know about the fire and brimstone friars, read Joyce.

 

[evo]

there wouldn't have been a lot out there in those days.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

I get the impression that skilts was 37 years old when he was born.

No more samsara for him.

 

[medusala]

Contrast that with the priest who lives alone and only partnership is with God. The only serious social interaction may have been lecturing on weekends and dealing with a few adult groups during the week. Dealing with impressionable children could easily be a whole new (exciting?) experience.

Do they become paedos because they can't marry or do they become priests because they have paedo tendencies? Surely if celibacy is the issue then one could wonder down to a "relaxation centre" and the church hierarchy would turn a blind eye.

 

[skilts]

there wouldn't have been a lot out there in those days.

Not altogether sure what you mean by this mate. Expand if you can be bothered.

 

[skilts]

I get the impression that skilts was 37 years old when he was born.

No more samsara for him.

If someone were able to explain 'spirituality' without reference to religion, I may be able to muster a minimal interest. Otherwise, those who speak thus and I have no common language, rendering such an encounter futile. We think different languages.

 

[skilts]

Do they become paedos because they can't marry or do they become priests because they have paedo tendencies? Surely if celibacy is the issue then one could wonder down to a "relaxation centre" and the church hierarchy would turn a blind eye.

You are trying to attribute a discernible psychology born of intent to these children. Methinks you overstate the element of intent. The seduction of sixteen-year-olds to the (eventual) elevated status of priesthood is not fully understood by those youths who are most intimately involved and prepared to commit. However, it is completely and utterly understood by the institution and its participants who visit that upon them. To even imply that those youths become priests with a view to feeding their paedophillic tendencies is unfair. That the church, by definition, wants to attract those who are so unworldly that they would be happy to give up such a vital part of life (sex) is unconscionable, irrational, inhuman, manipulative, and, as has been proven, ultimately destructive to the whole enterprise.

The fault lies with the structure and strictures of the institution, and the unknowing people who would be attracted by such a perverted lifestyle.

I hope I haven't completely misunderstood your post.

 

[medusala]

That the church, by definition, wants to attract those who are so unworldly that they would be happy to give up such a vital part of life (sex) is unconscionable, irrational, inhuman, manipulative, and, as has been proven, ultimately destructive to the whole enterprise.

I totally agree with that point, however, what I question is the process by which one becomes attracted to youths. IIRC there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that those that were molested are more likely to become molesters. Perhaps this explains much of the church problems ie a vicious cycle, rather than outsiders who want to find a vehicle for their actions. Hard for a non Catholic to understand much of this.

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/448575/pedophilia

 

[skilts]

I totally agree with that point, however, what I question is the process by which one becomes attracted to youths. IIRC there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest that those that were molested are more likely to become molesters. Perhaps this explains much of the church problems ie a vicious cycle, rather than outsiders who want to find a vehicle for their actions. Hard for a non Catholic to understand much of this.

IMHO, the whole problem has at its root the accretion and exercise of power, which has led to this debauchery. Those who find this an attractive proposition will find fulfillment in the exercise of this power. I think it unlikely that any prediction can be reliably made as to the ultimate effect of such exercise, given the diversity of the individuals involved. I don't know, and I'll never pretend otherwise.

As for being attracted to youths, By other accounts, this is something which requires no explanation. It just is. Complicated, isn't it?

You're especially right that this is something a non-catholic will find difficult to understand. This is no deficit on your part.

 

[Chief]

Of course not. I understand your irony, but the logic is still flawed because it does not acknowledge that the problem is much deeper than just the church.

Your statement re other organisations does not acknowledge the simple fact that child abuse has been an institutional feature of the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. This is not the case with the other organisations.

Generally, us blokes have a lot to front up to.

What have you done??