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.

Marge DC is quite upfront, he thinks that belief in religion is a mental illness.

So he thinks that any religious person is mentally ill.

So I suppose that he would like you all to get 'better'.

know who would put my money on for being a bit of a nutter

I suppose, that if RW is terrrified that either the Americans or the Africans will leave, and fudges accordingly, and if people leave the labour party in droves (not quite big enough, but still...) because they do not want to be associated with Iraq etc, and custmers desert ratners because it's leader says he is selling crap, then you might expect that a threatened mass exodus from the pews might influence the central hierarchy of the CoE to behave more responsibly and honestly in relation to this kind of thing. Not just the dubious non-reporting at the time, but the outrageous commentary and PR statements being made now.

I have huge respect for the amount of youth and social and charity work that gets done by local churches and church members, I've seen a lot of it up close, and it is good necessary work - I'm not 'bashing' or intending to bash - but it IS an issue for us non-Christians because of the CoE's role in the state.

It's all very sad.

i have no problem with people who don't like religion when they argue their points coherently. I don't like 'religion' in terms of religious institutions myself. But i also do not like it when athiests pride themselves on being more rational and logical than those who believe in God, no matter how incoherently and irrationally they wildly speculate and demonize.
In this case however it is right to condemn the CofE for ballsing it up once again and not protecting the people is should be serving.

(the glaring flaw in my logic there is that people leaving the labour party in doves had no effect on TB's warmongering at all...)

But as Marina points out - the members have no democratic function in electing or deposing these spokespeople or leaders of their institution...so what is left but voting with your feet? Or some mass action expressing dissatisfaction and a 'not in my name' statement over the ludicrous statements about 'things were different'.

i odnt see hhow its peversion if the case hadnt come to court or the poepel hadnt even been charged tbh.

thing is Blu so few people go to church anyway these days the church just wouldn't notice if people just stopped turning up....

not hey are all busy believeign itn ley lines

oha dn the princess of wales gorblesser

Careful, Cod, don't talk yourself into another wicker basket debacle....

I'm not an atheist, never said I was.

I accept the idea of the comparison between the CoE and Tony Blair's policy on Iraq.

But it only goes so far.
Many people support the war, even now, and at one stage it was quite popular. That's not the same as raping kids which is not a vote winner.

Also the CoE is a lot smaller than the electorate, and much more dependant upon voluntary finances. Few people choose to pay extra tax because they love government polices so much
Also there is a cold calculation that those who opposed the war from the beginning were never going to vote tory anyway. The CoE has a different economy of support.
So whereas it takes millions to effect elections which occur infrequently, a much smaller number of people could really hurt the CoE very quickly. It's hard to avoid paying your taxes for long enough for the government to care, but if there were a strike against the CoE's fund raising they'd be in trouble very quickly.

Not read all of this but heard a bit on radio earlier. It was the parents who brought it to the Bishop's attention wasn't it? If so, why didn't they take it further?

Indeed, doesn't look good on the parents does it ?
The obvious explanation is that in a time of weakness the bishop used his powers of persuasion to get them not to rat on his friend, because it would make the church look bad.
The sort of person who goes to their bishop rather than the police is going to be a lot easier to persuade.
Again it's rank and file Christians, helping paedophiles.

The obvious explanation is the parents are twats.

If someone touches your child you do something about it...you go to the police FFS

but church fundraising does not go into CofE's pockets. It goes into local activities - maybe a social project, maybe a church roof or hall, maybe overseas projects. So i can see why churchgoers would be unwilling to stop useful charitable giving.

OUr collections during lent went towards a group campaigning to stop trafficking of people, particularly within the sex industry. So witholding collections would be a REAL statement against the church wouldn't it? Or would it actually just affect people who really need help.

oh dc get oev yourself rank and file my arse

our chucrchs colections go toa churhc and school int eh sudas

Sudan

People trust the church, just as they trust doctors. There is a long, long horrible ignoble history of institutionalised child abuse being covered up by, well, institutions. It's just that most of them don't claim to be the country's moral leadership at the same time. Of COURSE most Christians don't condone child rape. But the fact that the most senior people in the major churches have actively worked to pretect child rapists is slightly worrying, no?

Unfortunately people with paedophillic tendencies head towards positions where they can either hide from their temptations (ie catholicism until it all explodes and they eff up some poor child) or where they have free access to kids- I guess C of E Vicar would come into this.

feel particularly about this one because one of the ex-Bishops alledgedly involved in covering up the Clevedon case in court atm was known to me, and I would have trusted him with my life.

Don't thnk Vicars are a bigger risk though than any career where people have contact with kids- the Disclosures are fabulous but they only pick up people who have been caught, no-one is truly risk free.

never will understand why anyone can get involved in a cover up though

Of course its worrying Aloha. which further reinforces my firm view that the Church as an institution bears little resemblance to Christianity as it was intended by Christ.

Well, I'd agree with you on that point! I'm am pretty sure that twhen the Jesus of the scriptures said 'let the little children come unto me' he didn't have any of this in mind.

'But the fact that the most senior people in the major churches have actively worked to pretect child rapists is slightly worrying, no?'

It is very worrying and an indictment of the church that anyone has done this.

But i don't think RW or most clergy, even in senior positions, are doing this.

lol@aolha