In not wanting The Pope to visit uk at the taxpayers expense?

[Alouiseg]

Apparently The visit wil cost 12m pounds. That's 12 million pounds to be pinched from other budgets. For a man who has been responsible for covering up crimes against children.

My MP will receive an email today and I will make my abhorrence very clear.

It would seem to make sense that people with unacceptable sexual urges would choose a life where they may hope those urges could be shelved in celibacy, or alterbatively where they can have access to children in a position of trust and power within an organistion that will not expose them and will indeed tolerate their behaviour, and where they do not have to maintain a charade or the expectation of normal adult sexual relationships.

It's not rocket science, as they say.

This is why the catholic preisthood has had issues with paedophilia, not because being catholic makes you more likely to be a paedophile.

I think it's perfectly obvious that no one has been arguing that.

Mumblechum: You put me in mind of people who think that gay people are paedophiles.

None of what you have said establishes a link.

Stubbornhubby: I accept that you have not infered that to be catholic is to be a paedophile.

It is the following statements infer that all catholics are paedophiles:

"not paying for the head of an organised pedophile ring"

"you may not be a paedophile (like most of your "lot"),"

"any catholic who does not stand up and demand that the heirarchy of their faith propely investigate the pardophile incidents that have happened, punish the perpetrators, punish the people who covered up for them and make reparations to the victims is colluding in paedophilia."

To debate the wisdom of the Pope's visit is fine.
To say that HE has colluded and therefore condoned abuse, again, fine.
To say that because you are celibate and/or catholic and therefore are/condone/collude with paedophile/paedophilia not fine!

Easywriter - a Catholic priest of my acquaintance insists there is a link between celibacy and paedophilia. He says the Church took teenage boys, just when mother Nature is doing her best to make them go forth and multiply, and put them in seminaries. He says for many of them their development was frozen at an immature stage, leaving some of them unable to form appropriate relationships with adults. (Well, they can't form any sexual relationship at all in theory, but he reckons it mucks up their entire attitude to all relationships including friendship.)

This is a man who was in a seminary as a teeanger, but left before becoming a priest, worked and lived like anyone else for two decades before going back and studying for the priesthood in his 40s. So he has a much broader perspective than most priests.

I think BridesheadRegardless is right on the money in post just above.

'
"any catholic who does not stand up and demand that the heirarchy of their faith propely investigate the pardophile incidents that have happened, punish the perpetrators, punish the people who covered up for them and make reparations to the victims is colluding in paedophilia."

That was me. I may not have explained myself - or maybe collude is not a commonly used word. What I am saying is that any catholic who does not so challenge the church hierarchy is guilty of helping to cover up paedophilia. That individual is not a pedophile - but is guilty of doing nothing to prevent sexual abuse of children continuing. A sin of omission, not commission, if you like.

Easy (again!), the Catholic church as an organisation covered up abuse and enabled abusers to find fresh victims. For decades. On a massive scale in every continent with at least tens of thousands of victims.

Individual parishioners may not be responsible for that but the organisation, especially those in power, were and are. It's institutionalised child abuse, making the church rotten to the core.

(And actually, many people in Ireland knew perfectly well church-run childrens' homes were terrifying places where children were very badly treated. Difficult to speak up when the church held such power, but I'm sure I remember the Bible telling us 'suffer the little children' and that we should stand up for right against wrong, even if it makes us unpopular.)

Seeker - do feel free to deemonstrate that you don't agree with the RC church's handling of the matter in any way that can be seen.

What I mean is as Seeker or Easywriter you CAN disagree with it but is not going to be printed in the national press.

Onestone please tell me what my beliefs are because you profess to know what they are. I have not told you any of my beliefs except that I do not believe that to be catholic or celibate makes you a paedophile.

Easywriter, unfortunately you embody what's wrong with most catholics: the total denial and dismissa of anything different from their belief.

How can you make such a generalisation?

In this case, you declare a book "not worth the paper it's printed on", only because this book presents the EVIDENCE

EVIDENCE????
Do you know how they collected that EVIDENCE?
DO you know it can be trusted?

I don't think you can as I said paedophiles hide what they are otherwise no one would let a child near them.

Your attitude is what helps these criminals carry on.

My attitude!
What? Would that be my utter disgust, abhorence and intolerance of paedophiles.

I have not said that I don't think this abuse occurred, I believe the victims.

I have not said that I don't believe the current Pope helped to cover it up. It has been established as fact that he did.

For the last time.

TO...BE...CATHOLIC...AND/OR...CELiBATE...DOES...NOT...MAKE...YOU...A...PAEDPHILE.

And as a catholic who is not a paedophile I find comments that infer that catholics are paedophiles offensive in the extreme.

There are many things that should be changed about catholocism. You're not alone in thinking that. But we are not paedophiles.

How many catholic priests are there in the world?

How many catholic priests are child abusers?

I do not have the statistics but I would imagine it is a tiny tiny percentage that are child abusers. Seriously to make a statement saying priests choose their profession to get access to children or to quash their sexual preferences is outrageous. Sure maybe a small few would but this is the same in all other walks of life. Is this the opinion you have if you meet a catholic priest in real life? Out of the 2 billion catholics in the world how many have been helped by their priest?

"It would seem to make sense that people with unacceptable sexual urges would choose a life where they may hope those urges could be shelved in celibacy, or alterbatively where they can have access to children in a position of trust and power within an organistion that will not expose them and will indeed tolerate their behaviour, and where they do not have to maintain a charade or the expectation of normal adult sexual relationships." BridesheadRegardless do you really think that is the reason people become catholic priests?

EW, of course no one is saying that being Catholic is more likely to make you a paedo. Umpteen posters have told you that but you still keep banging on that Catholics in general are being accused of child abuse.

They aren't!

priests choose their profession to get access to children

Yes - for those (the few percent) that are paedophiles first, priests second. People with paedophilic tendencies do seek ways to have access to children. (They may not consciously realise it, may be suffering from cognitive dissonance). Before the problem in the priesthood was discovered, the standard model was the scout master. The more realistic example was care home workers. But those cases were exposed and safeguards installed to minimise future risk. The catholic church is behind the curve on this, and shamefully has tried to cover rather than expose.

all organisations/institutions - from the PTA Summer Fair Committee to the Grenadier Guards sometimes have to deal with unwelcome and wrong behaviour from their members.

institutions with integrity face up to what happens, and take appropriate measures.

organisation without integrity hide things, lest it reflect badly on them.

when an organisation is in trouble and has made mistake it behooves it to lie low for a while, until it has found it's way again. not parade up and down Edinburgh on 'State Visits'

To change the topic a little- I plan to protest against the Pope not only because of the child abuse cover up and the repression of homosexuals but because of his views on assisted conception/IVF have branded my DS an 'immoral' 'clone'.

do you really think that is the reason people become catholic priests?

I for one don't doubt the vast majority do it from genuine 'vocation'. Or because their mum will be so proud or whatever. I'm sure many do a good job within their remit. Some are paragons of Christlike virtue.

We're talking about the few rotten apples. The church authorities should have chucked them out of the barrel into the light rather than protecting them.

I wish posters would be clear about this and stop feeding a few people's paranoia that all non-catholic posters have it in for all catholics!

Mingg I think the priesthood provides an 'escape' for many men for many different reasons, and there are many troubled unhappy men within the preisthood.

Some of those may be paedophiles and the church has not dealt with those who are.

Of course some preists are also genuinely gentle good kind men, I know these preists too. But even for these men celibacy will inevitably cause issues that the church refuses to openly and honestly address.

barbi - eh? Got a link for that? AFAIK the only human clones are naturally born twins/triplets.

And no baby is 'immoral' (any more than one is born a catholic. Jews may be said to be born Jews simply because they are a racial group with genetic similarities, regardless of what the individual subsequently believes)

Stubbornhubby and Grimma both of your most recent posts are well thought out.

My bug bear (not by you grimma but just using you to demonstrate how my whole sub-plot argument has happened) is that The Catholic Church covered it up.

Sure they did, no disagreement from me on that one but it was individuals who performed those actions. The average Catholic wasn't privvy to any of it until recently (unless of course you were directly involved) and it is very harse to have every Tom, Dick and Harry, saying things about "Catholics". This isn't me claiming "we were just following orders". This is "we had as much idea as you".

And that's the problem with the way in which people are expressing themselves on this thread.

Lying low would seem prudent, opening up would seem prudent. I have no control over these things be angry with those who do and may well have contacted my MP so as a nation we can apply pressure.

Sorry, am behind.
I think the point has been made.

I should restate: I am a catholic, but one who is prepared to bevery critical of my church, as all catholics should be, to ensure that what went on in the 50's/60's is never allowed to happen again.

It happened because the parishioners felt you can't speak out against the hierachy or the organistion.

Well you can and you should.

Barbi Hmmm! As I said there are many things that could do with changing in the Catholic church.

I don't care to list them, I think we all know the more obvious ones but I think on the whole as soon as your "clone" had a heartbeat the catholic church wouldn't care how you got him, just that you kept him!

And that's the problem, the church is behind the times.

Maybe a big overhaul would be a good thing but unfortunately it moves very slowly (the church that is)

Actually catholics did know.

Other priests knew who the paedophiles were, the bishops knew, the nuns knew, the kids in the schools knew, their parents knew, the government in Ireland knew...

but no one dared challange. The church could do what it wanted it was all powerful.

Priests were all powerful, people were terrifeid of thier priest, my mum (who is only 60) tells me that the priest was next to God and never ever challanged and you'd do anything he told you just because he was the preist.

i think to those who were catholic educated in the 50/60's this scandal is no suprise.

Having lived through those times as a child, it is my firm belief that many priests and nuns were pressured into the religous life by parents, parish priests, and the church hierarchy.
My experience has been that many of these young priests and nuns were in fact from very poor, rural families and once they had joined the priesthood or religious orders of nuns, their lives and the lives of their families were comfortable because of this.
Priests had relationships with each other, as did the nuns. Priests had relationships with nuns. And, of course, across the board abuse was inflicted on the children in their care.
For those of us who have been there, it doesn't really matter a jot how it came about.
Social workers [or children's officers] as they were then called, teachers, police and the people who lived around the homes knew it was going on.
They kept silent. They are also guilty.

and even now the vatican knows what went on and has the information, but will not fully reveal it or bring all those involved to account, that is why the pope deserves to be booed.

It was going on long before the 50s and 60s. I have read personal accounts of adults whose parents were brought up in these homes and it had been going on as far back as the 1930s.

When I used the term 'Catholic Church' in relation to cover-ups, I was thinking of - I used the better term later - 'church authorities'. Clarity in posts can be hard!

It goes without saying that to be involved in a cover up you have to know what's going on. The average catholic didn't know so obviously isn't implicated.