Yep - power without accountability sucks
In lots of places....
Good people still exist in such organisations - and they can do good.
Wilso- Abuse of children, wife beating and other heinous acts have been going on for centuries. The only difference is that now the acts are smeared all over the media. This is a GOOD thing, because now our civilization is more enlightened and capable of dealing with the problems. Years ago, it would have been swept under the rug.
Wilso,
Your last post was self deluding. You spend so much time posting other people's accounts of these matters I begin to wonder about your fascination. OK if you've been a victim get it out and begin to get over it. That is the only acceptable excuse for your vitriol. I'm not surprised you cannot cope, your obsession is unhealthy.
dlowan wrote:The prejudiced and grossly generalizing nature of your comments is making me wish them to be deleted to preserve MY non-catholic and non-christian sensibilities, Wilso.
Good observation.
There are times when I wish some people were not on my side.
Phoenix,
I related (on another thread) how as children we protected our parents from knowledge of an active paedophile and how when he was discovered the police were not involved. This was a neighbour who had been active for years. The fact is in the fifties, sixties and seventies these matters were often covered up by many groups including the church. It is unfortunate that such was the case and I'm glad things have changed. The churchmen who failed the church ( the church being the faithful in my appreciation of catholic theology) are paying dearly for their failure.
gozmo- I can remember, as a young teenager (about 13), talking to a girlfriend about a mutual friend. What she told me, I realize now, indicated that the other girl's father was molesting his daughter. at the time, I kind of shrugged. I don't think that I could have even begun to understand the ramifications of what my friend was telling me.
I suppose that one of the advantages of the precocious sexuality that you see now, is that the girls would have understood what was happening to their friend, and reported it.
I also remember when a few kids I knew were molested (not by their parents) and even when their parents were told it was kept quiet. That stuff was kept very hush hush back then.
I had no idea of the harm and learned only this year of the suffering it caused one of my sisters. She spoke to my mother about it for the first time last year just after her 60th bithday.
Montana- I don't think that many of the young people today can conceive of a time when just about all of sexuality was something that was not discussed in polite company.
I remember a girl who lived a few blocks from me. It was alleged that she had been raped, and that, in the kids' minds, somehow tainted her. She was whispered about, and pointed at, although I don't think that anybody really knew all the details. That was just the way it was, back then.
Phoenix32890 wrote:Montana- I don't think that many of the young people today can conceive of a time when just about all of sexuality was something that was not discussed in polite company.
I remember a girl who lived a few blocks from me. It was alleged that she had been raped, and that, in the kids' minds, somehow tainted her. She was whispered about, and pointed at, although I don't think that anybody really knew all the details. That was just the way it was, back then.
That's right. As if there was shame put on the victim. Very sad.
Montana- The peculiar thing was, that it never occurred to the kids that this girl had been hurt, and needed support and empathy.
I know what you mean Phoenix. Seems so cold.
gozmo wrote:Wilso,
Your last post was self deluding. You spend so much time posting other people's accounts of these matters I begin to wonder about your fascination. OK if you've been a victim get it out and begin to get over it. That is the only acceptable excuse for your vitriol. I'm not surprised you cannot cope, your obsession is unhealthy.
There's nothing more self deluding than Catholic apologists for paedophiles.
Why don't you grow up, and also pull your head out of the sand and look at the reality of the organisation you support, probably with your money as well as your mind.
And if my posts about Catholic paedophiles have upset you to this point, then I suggest you stay away from this thread pal, 'cause you ain't seen nothing yet.
Wilso, Most religions has a special hold on people that goes beyond logic or ethics. It won't be found in defenders of the 'faith.'
UK'S HEAD OF ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
COVERS UP FOR PAEDOPHILE
PROTECTING THE CHURCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROTECTING CHILDREN
Britain's most senior Roman Catholic, the Archbishop of Westminster, was under attack yesterday for allowing a known paedophile to continue working as a priest.
Despite repeated warnings of the danger posed to children by Father Michael Hill, Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor appointed the pervert as chaplain to Gatwick - where he abused a youngster who missed his flight and wandered into the airport chapel for comfort.
The full extent of the Archbishop's involvement in the scandal emerged after the church admitted secretly paying compensation to two victims of Hill, who was jailed for five years in 1997 for sex offences.
The church authorities - who never informed the police of Hill's vile activities - imposed a confidentiality clause on the two brothers after paying them thousands of pounds.
And yesterday the Archbishop, who was warned as long ago as 1983 that the priest was a child abuser, resisted calls for his own resignation.
But the man appointed by the Pope in February admitted: 'Did I make a mistake at that time? The answer is yes, of course I did. But what I understood then, what many others understood then, about this (paedophilia) is very different from now. The Catholic Church take child protection very, very seriously.
'Yes, there were warnings about this man and certain options were put forward to me. The one I took I thought was, in the light of the circumstances, a safe one. I have stated that I did not act irresponsibly, though, if a similar situation arose today of course, I would act differently.'
The Archbishop said that police were not called in because child abuse by priests was at that time regarded 'as more a moral and pastoral problem than a police problem'.
Hill, who abused children for almost 20 years, worked for much of his career under the authority of Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor, who was previously Bishop of Arundel and Brighton.
Shortly after the 66 year old paedophile was jailed the Archbishop insisted he had always acted properly in his management of the priest.
But his actions were heavily criticised yesterday after letters he had received, warning of the continuing risk to children, were revealed.
Hill, who was ordained in 1960, began his assaults in 1977 at St. Teresa's Church in Merstham, Surrey, where he abused a ten-year-old altar boy who called him 'God Father' and committed offences against another ten-year-old.
In 1979 he was transferred to St Edmund's in Godalming, where he continued to assualt altar boys. When he 'got himself involved' with a boarding school, parents alerted the Church about his behaviour.
One mother went to then Bishop Murphy-O'Connor in 1980. 'I told him what was going on,' she said.
'He said he'd deal with it. Little did I know he'd take Father Hill from this parish and put him another. He should never have done that.'
Hill was moved to St. Catherine's in Heathfield, Sussex, where he abused two brothers who were altar boys.
One of his many victims, then aged nine, told BBC Radio Five Live yesterday: 'He used to come in to me, kneel next to my bed and start reading me stories about Jesus.....you know, the Lord....and he used to put his hand under the cover and down my pyjama bottoms. I used to hate it, you know, my worst nighmare.'
In 1983, Hill was ordered to undergo therapy in a home for problem priests in Stroud, Gloucestershire. But two years later Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor made him chaplain at Gatwick - a magnet for youngsters which was once described as the 'Leicester Square of Sussex'. While there, he came into contact with his last known victim when the boy, who had learning difficulties, went to the chapel.
Hill later took him on a pilgramage to Loudres, molesting him in a shower.
Allegations were made against him in 1996 and he was jailed the next year for nine offences of indecent assault and one of gross indecency. Judge Stuart Sleeman said: 'If young boys and parents cannot trust a priest, who can they trust?'
At the time, Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor's predecessor, Cardinal Basil Hume, said: 'Clearly, if the local bishop had known then what is revealed now, a different course would have been taken.'
But Archbishop Murphy-O'Connor said then: 'I first became aware of some general concerns regarding Father Hill in 1981 and required he attend a therapeautic centre. Though the reports from the centre were inconclusive I withdrew his licence to work in parishes. In 1985 he was permitted to return to a limited ministry as an industrial chaplain.
But the letter sent to the Archbishop suggest that far from being 'inconclusive', they made clear Hill represented a continuing danger to children.
In one dated June 28, 1983, Father John Murphy, then head of the centre in Stroud, warned him: 'There is still a risk that Father Hill will act out again, in fact, no one could give any moral certainty that he would not, especially when he is reported to have said he believes the children enjoyed their experience with him.. A high risk does pertain.'
Dr. Seymour Spencer, of Oxford, who had also worked with Hill for the Church, warned the Bishop in a letter dated just six days later that the priest 'could well commit further pederastic acts'.
He said Hill had been 'aloof, even a tiny bit grandious' in response to attempted therapy and needed to be 'steered in some direction of a therapeutic nature if you are to avoid further scandal emanating from Michael.'
Another letter that month from Father Hillary Clark warned: 'Michael is attracted to pre-adult teenagers...there is a need to protect his pastoral contacts, the good name of the priesthood and, not least, himself from the worse consequences of his behaviour, eg police involvement.'
Michelle Elliott, director of the child protection charity Kidscape, said: 'The Archbishop should resign. If he'd taken action as soon as he found out about this man all those other children wouldn't have been abused. My real objection is that he is still not taking responsibility.'
The Church, he said, was still defending itself and the priest instead of the children.
source:
British Newspaper Article
