Christian Priests Rape Yet More Children, and again their church helps them

[DominiConnor]

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594439.stm\Church of England rsponsible for yet more rapes

But it's all right, honest. No doubt the CoE will say "sorry".
Of course Bishop David Wilcox who smugly talks of acting in the "best interests of the church", will walk free. The police won't even interview him, let alone bang him up.

David Wilcox is worse than any paedophile. Rather than annoy his friends, he covers up for rapists.

Would any other group get away with being accomplices ?
In other threads supporters of the CoE smugly talk of child rape as a purely Catholic issue. They know that to be false, and come Sunday will put their hands in their pockets and fund the rape of children.

Extremist thread title and tone.
The story you linked to only talks about one choirmaster, not a lot of priests.
I think Church defense is (was) resolutely crap, too, but maybe best stick to the facts of the case at hand?

Sorry, mistyped the link BBC Church of England Rapes

DC, you just don't stop, do you?

I think you and Xenia should hook up.

This thread is really quite offensive, DC. Say what you like about the church and why you don't choose to support it. But to accuse its loyal supporters of supporting rape is really going a bit too far.

I am a dedicated Anglican. I reach in my pocket on Sundays. I do NOT support rape.

Please link and quote members of the Church of England on this talk board "smugly talking of child rape as a purely Catholic issue". I'd be interested to see these.
I agree with llkj - the Church's defence of what happened 17-20 years ago is disgraceful and the choirmaster (nb, not a member of the clergy) should have been prosecuted and sacked.

oh how did I know this thread title was DOC...

The "loyal supporters" aren't exactly free from blame are they ?
The CoE is ciritcally reliant upon donations and volunteers.
There is no secret that this goes on, yet no bishop has ever been sacked for help paedophile rapists. If donations dried up, I think we both know that these people would be gone in an instant.
Do the flock query their bishops, or are they led like sheep ?

Because we beilieve in what the church stands for, and not in the bad things that are sometimes done by some bad apples.

I agree the choirmaster should have been punished (put on trial, then sent out the door).

But that does not make christians supporters of rape.

DC has got a point though. I've never heard of a congregation boycotting the donations bucket as a protest against a church's handling of an incident. (Someone will now come on and tell me they organised a successful one in their parish!)

Why is it OK to punish the choirmaster, but not the bishop who helped him ?
Indeed, I don't see how David Wilcox could have acted alone. The rapist must have had several accomplices, who passed up up the chain until the bishop could organise the cover up.

Oh sorry. Yes, the bishop should be punished too. I agree.

But the priests won't be, willthey ?
They never are. Too many Christians would be upset, so the police steer clear of arresting men who open and smugly talk of how they helped paedophiles.

Well of course THAT is wrong. I do think it is changing. Sadly for the victims, not fast enough. But it is moving in the right direction -- at least I think it is.

They don't talk smugly of how they helped peadophiles DC, because they don't see it in that way.

They see it as exercising caution, mercy, etc. However you may disagree with it, think they are naieve, wrong, or whatever, it is misrepresentation to pretend it is deliberate wilful aiding and abetting. (Although in some cases in the past it has been.)

The 'defence' by Mark Luddall and other representatives of the church is outrageous. the offences took part bewteen 1985 and 1990 - hardly the dark ages of child protection issues - I was writing policies for voluntary sector drama groups at that time - the public were very aware of abuse issues and of it's imrisonable consequences.

Maybe the press don't give space to church representatives - including members - who do not accept these awful 'fudges' by church spokespeople. There was a case recently where a church refused to employ a well qualified, experienced, well-refernced youth worker, somply because he was gay. I would take discipliniary action against a member of my staff who broke the law like that in a recruitment procedure, or who officially offered an 'excused' abuse in the late 1980s. It would, imo, be in the better interests of the church and it's members to see more challenege from within.

Perhaps it happens, but we don't hear of it.

Calugula, how do you know how they see it ?
We do know that they talk of acting in the "best interests of the church". That doesn't sound like regret to me.
As for Eleusis speaking up for those who financially support the rape of children, has she though about the logic of her "bad apples" statement ?
I accept that you can't have a vast organisation without some bad people getting in.

But how do the Christian churches act when they find "bad apples" ? They help them rape more children.
You can of course claim that the bishops and other priests are themselves "bad apples", for doing the cover up, but why are they not only tolerated, but promoted ?

Agree Blu someone on the radio this morning was saying attitudes were different then.

And I was thinking hang on, wasn't that the time they were rounding up innocent parents in Cleveland or wherever and accusing parents everywhere of being satanic abusers?

Attitudes were different - the media and organisations had just "discovered" child abuse and were seeing it everywhere, even where it wasn't.

This bishop apparantly wasn't reading the papers.

I think that when cases from the 50s are opened up, it might be fair, to a certain extent, to cite different attitudes...but not from the 1980s! That well-worn script just doesn't work!

Of course rapists are evil and should all be locked up. It just so happens that this evil bastard was a priest, but it happens all the time, in all religions and races.

Indeed, GG.
I am not a member of a Christian church - I just fee for ordinary decent ethical Christians when this sort of outrage goes on and isn't properley addresssed.

In other threads supporters of the CoE smugly talk of child rape as a purely Catholic issue. They know that to be false, and come Sunday will put their hands in their pockets and fund the rape of children'

DC you really undermine any valid points you make by mistaking superstitious emoting with thought. I have been on pretty much all the threads that you have been on when you are calling all Christian institutions hotbeds of child rape. And no one is pretending child abuse is a purely Catholic problem [or a Christian problem either, or had that escaped your powers of reason?]
I don't actually go to church. Because i am frustrated by the corruption and lethargy in the C of E [not just because of cases of child abuse]. Cases like this have happened before and will happen again. My dad is a priest and has had to go to a Bishop in person to get somebody removed from close contact with children, only to find out they have been moved on to another parish. The Catholic and Anglican church are archaic and it is inexcusable to cover up and shield child abusers as they have done before. But the title of your thread is deliberately falsified, or perhaps not deliberately, judging from the lack of logic that overtakes you when you talk about the Church.

Go ruty!!!

Gamegirly misses the point big time. It's not that rapists happen to be in Christian churches, but the organisations themselves have gone to great lengths to stop the police finding out about them.
The flocks of these churches rarely do anything much. It's tempting to think this is because the media don't cover such actions, but one only has to see how much money is given to churches each year to see that the flocks don't vote in the easiest and most effective way possible.

It is clear from your posts, DC, they you know very little about my church -- and I mean my specific parish church.

i'm assuming you know what a choir master is DC? [a clue - it is not a priest]