Pharyngula

Posted by: Nancy | November 27, 2009 11:55 PM

LOVE IT.

Posted by: leepicton | November 28, 2009 12:03 AM

What I found especially creepy about the report was the assumption that the abuse continues to this day on little children who probably won't complain until they themselves are adult, and the cycle of abuse will perpetuate itself. The RCC is evil and corrupt from top to bottom, and yet the sheep still go to mass, and still fill the collection plates. I guess I will never understand.

Posted by: --PatF | November 28, 2009 12:08 AM

Maybe we can get her to come over here for a North American tour. I know a few bishops who should get a good tongue lashing like that.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | November 28, 2009 12:15 AM

Kind of reminds me of my irish catholic grandmother in tone but unfortunately that old cow is on the dark side of the force and is a jebus worshipper.

Posted by: fester60613 | November 28, 2009 12:20 AM

Great stuff! I had to watch it several times because I kept interrupting with shouts of "get him!" and "go Nell!" and "slap the bastard!"

As if the trauma to the children wasn't bad enough, as if the Irish government looking the other way wasn't bad too, the part that makes my stomach churn with anger is that the cover up was systemic - all the way to the vatican. They KNEW and covered it up. They KNEW - and did precious little to stop the abuse. Men of god my granny's dirty knickers! I spit on them.

Posted by: scooter | November 28, 2009 12:25 AM

OT

Posted by: Andyo | November 28, 2009 12:35 AM

Oh you guys leave the Vatican alone, at least they're trying to connect with the youtube generation.

Posted by: Andyo | November 28, 2009 12:40 AM

BTW, this is the video I was looking for. There is a reason that they are called "eminence" and "your grace".

Posted by: Charles Evo | November 28, 2009 12:44 AM

Splendid!

Posted by: Nephi | November 28, 2009 12:50 AM

Back in the day, in the land of Mo, The Roman Catholic Church was considered, according to our belief, the mother of harlots... and that it was influence by Satan. That was foolish make-believe, but still I can't help but think that this church fits the mold.

Posted by: Mike Nolan | November 28, 2009 1:00 AM

Andyo.

I love that video!

Posted by: Jeff S | November 28, 2009 1:19 AM

I love this woman.

To protect a child rapist is pretty much the lowest thing a person could do. Its worse than the act itself. These priests did that,and then try to act as though they have a moral authority on top of it.

You can't hate someone enough for what they've done. To act as though they have a respected position in society because they are the special overseers or whatever to a certain way of supernatural thinking is ludicrous.

They rape children. Cover up the rape of children. And people still respect some of them.

Its unbelievable. Its sickening.

Posted by: Midnight Rambler | November 28, 2009 1:51 AM

That priest who answers looks an awful lot like Ben Stein, no?

I only got in at the end of the previous thread, but it's worth repeating that there was a lot more than sexual abuse in Ireland. In the US at least, people seem to focus on the sexual abuse, because that's what was most prevalent here. But in Ireland it went a lot deeper than pedophile priests and their enablers. It's chilling to read the stories of people who endured the system - the sheer brutality and inhumanity is reminiscent of the Khmer Rouge. At least you can see why, however wrong they were, pedophiles needed to satisfy their sexual urges, and their superiors saw a need to cover things up. Where is there any kind of justification, however grossly perverted, for torturing children?

Some of the worst parts from the Irish Times; the full report is here (scroll down about halfway to Table 3.4).

– I was beaten and hospitalised by the head brother and not allowed to go to my father’s funeral in case my bruises were seen; also the head brother threatened to kill me.

– Getting chilblains, frostbite, and sores so deep I could see my bones on my hand from working in the fields was worse than the beatings.

– Seeing a young boy die. He was 12 years old, beaten by brothers on landing and fell over bannister.

– I can take any abuse, but the worst thing was having no one. Seeing other kids going out with their families and not knowing why I had no one. I was lied to: told that my parents were dead. I only found out in my 50s that they were alive.

– The constant fear. I was called into the office and told my mother had died. I actually felt relief that it wasn’t a punishment.

– I overheard someone say that my mother had died the night before. When I asked about it I was ignored and dismissed. My friend was beaten so badly for wetting the bed that I watched her die. I was constantly starving. I had to bribe my carers with bread so I wasn’t beaten.

Posted by: Adviser Moppet | November 28, 2009 2:04 AM

I have a friend who is getting her baby Christened in December and I'm not looking forward to that one. Believe me if I so much as hear from my niece that one of the clergy touched her, all hell is going to break loose.

I've had people try to convince me that the RCC has changed. What I've said is that they're not changing because they actually see the harm that they're doing. They're changing because the younger followers are starting to see it.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 28, 2009 2:09 AM

I thought "father" remains appropriate given the number of women that are raped by priests (both over and under 18).

Posted by: autumn | November 28, 2009 2:30 AM

@MadScientist
I was once followed into a hotel lobby and punched in the face. The person who did it was a black man.
I would not ever think to make a statement like yours, only substituting "black" for father, and "mugged" for raped.
I have children. I love them. I am also male.
If you think that I am to be condemned because of it, I will happily ask you to fuck right off.

Posted by: co | November 28, 2009 2:45 AM

autumn (#31):

I am sorry for your horrible experience. However, what does your analogy have to do with MadScientist's pun?

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 28, 2009 3:00 AM

Bastards, the lot of 'em.

Posted by: ShockedISaid | November 28, 2009 3:43 AM

I must be getting old and losing my ability to understand stuff. Just yesterday, a family member accused me of acting like an old fogie when I said I couldn't understand why anyone could consider Palin anything but an idiot.

And I certainly don't understand how anyone could be a member of an organization involved in the rape and coverup of rape of children. And, that's not to mention, the widespread -- even systematic -- terrorizing, torture and just plain abuse of children. From what I can glean, most Catholics accept the fact that their church and its leaders were recently involved in these heinous acts. But they stay members of the church. I really don't get it. I'm not being snarky here. I really don't get it.

And while I'm going on about not understanding, I really don't understand why everyone involved in the rape and coverup are not being prosecuted. Aren't there documents that establish that American bishops/archbishops were involved in moving pedophiles from church to church to keep the pedophiles one step ahead of the pitch forks? Why aren't these people being prosecuted?

I really don't get it.

Posted by: not a gator | November 28, 2009 3:58 AM

@37

No worries, plenty of young people think Palin is an idiot (Quitter!). Check out the blog Sadly, No!

As for why the bishops aren't in jail? Well, some of the documents are simply past the statute of limitations. However, in Bernard Law's case he's also protected by the US Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws. He tricked the Mass. Legislature into passing a law that, effectively, shielded him from prosecution. When the gig was finally up, he got off scott-free. Nice little scam there.

Now when new pedo cases come to light they try to seek more documents from the diocese. (In the early days they trusted the diocese--that's why when Father Kelley was prosecuted the scandal was contained--few had any inkling that the rot went deeper.) The RCC obstructs, obstructs, obstructs. If the heat gets bad enough they can always "recall" the bishop to the Vatican City.

The RCC is nothing more than a criminal syndicate. JPI tried to do something about it, and look what happened to him.

Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 28, 2009 4:54 AM

I wonder how many priests were molested like that as children; I wonder if that sort of 'pederasty' is a priestly recruitment/entrapment tool. Why not? Those defective humans have made a high art of their projection of guilt and shame. (What's the Latin for 'perverted sanctimonious bastard', anyway? There's an appropriate honorific.)

I thought Nell was quite civil and restrained, for an Irishwoman. Personally, I've experienced 'Irish foreplay' at intense levels. Nell may as well have been singing a lullaby there, compared to what I expected.

Still, good on the lady for speaking up.

Posted by: YerWan | November 28, 2009 5:24 AM

CAG -

I was hoping against hope that at the end of the video Nell announced that she renounced her membership in the RCC and walked out. That would have been a fantastic start to a stampede.

This move would have had zero credibility, as Nell is well known in Ireland for publicly speaking out against the Church and its various abuses and predations over the course of several decades. Her "walk out" probably happened in her teens.

Nevertheless, as an American living in Ireland for over 20 years, I can say that the stampede away from the church here is happening...The tide is all one way here - against the church. Believe me, it feels completely different to the US, where it is church(es) pushing back hard against secularism.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 28, 2009 5:41 AM

The Catholic Church claims to be the moral authority on Earth yet it acts in immoral ways. When the dignity and reputation of the Church is more important to Benny Ratzi than the welfare of children, then the organization he leads has forfeited any pretense to moral authority.

Posted by: MadScientist | November 28, 2009 6:07 AM

@autumn: Go fuck yourself you illiterate retard.

Posted by: Charlolz:D | November 28, 2009 6:42 AM

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=186233218119&ref=search&sid=1152647578.1708497698..1&v=info

Facebook group to expell the Irish Papal Nuncio (that's what they call their ambassador)

Posted by: se-rat-o-SAWR-us | November 28, 2009 7:22 AM

This report struck partial clarity even into Andrew Sullivan, who posts this with a charismatic pic of JPII:

If the Catholic church were a secular institution in Ireland and had been found guilty of child abuse to the massive extent the Church has, it would be forced to close. Its top officials would not be issuing statements of apology and regret, but serving sentences in jail. The name of John Paul II would not be a revered mantra; it would be synonymous with the head of an international organization that had to be dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge its own long-running, institutional brutalization of generations of defenseless children. In the name of Jesus.

Posted by: F | November 28, 2009 7:37 AM

Oh hell yeah.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 28, 2009 7:57 AM

Snowy @48,

Unless there's one priest who got kicked out of this pedo-club for protesting against their institutionalised cover-ups,I think we can tar them all without exception

It's a rare day you'll find me with something good to say about a Roman Catholic priest, so mark this one in your calendar. But credit where due: as I recall the news reports from a few years ago, a priest called Thomas Doyle was instrumental in exposing the priestly child-rape conspiracy in America. And yes, he lost his job for doing so. He was an Air Force padre, a few months away from retirement and a pension. To punish him for exposing its evil secrets to public view, the RC church revoked his credentials, automatically disqualifying him from further service as a chaplain.

So you can tar them all except Doyle.

Posted by: Hank | November 28, 2009 8:23 AM

One thing about the Irish--and the English, too--they have such a way with words! Words flow out of their mouths like liquid gold. It must be their long history or bardic poetry!

Posted by: Don | November 28, 2009 8:33 AM

@52,

Oh, yes indeed. Apparently it was all about the love and a family drawing together or something.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6933887.ece

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 8:45 AM

Former Catholic,

PZ's main complaint is the the RCC hierarchy systematically covered up and enabled abuse - constituting itself the world's largest pedophile ring; and continues to have the gall to dish out pronouncements on morality and claim the right to universal obedience. As for your references to the findings of science, science is found in refereed journals, not in popular magazines. It may be that the article you link to gives appropriate scientific references, but since I can't access it, it would be more useful for you to provide those. Do you have any?

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 28, 2009 8:49 AM

Former Catholic #60

Using science ( does PZ respect science?) it has been conclusively determined that the proportion of pedophiles amongst the Catholic clergy, is no more or less than the general population. ( 2% to 4%, depending on the study)
Is it fair for PZ to constantly slap the pedophile label on priests? Of course not, but I'm starting to notice that PZ will ignore scientific findings if it will further is agenda.

Like you I am also a former Catholic.

It isn't the pedophile clergy which so has us up in arms. Most of us realize that in any large population there will be a small but significant group of pedophiles and other sexual deviants.

No, our objection to the Catholic Church is the systematic coverup of child abuse, sexual and otherwise. The Church hierarchy supported and protected child rapers. If the Church dealt with rapists in a reasonable, appropriate manner, there would be no outcry. If the Church turned criminals over to legal authority instead of moving them from parish to parish, exposing a new group of potential victims each time, then we wouldn't be complaining.

Instead, as a matter of official policy, promulgated by the Pope himself, the Church hid the rapists and abusers. Protecting the dignity and reputation of the Church was more important to the hierarchy than protecting children. That is despicable, especially for an organization which claims to be the moral authority on Earth.

Posted by: Former Catholic | November 28, 2009 9:04 AM

The magazine is dated Dec 7, 09. It will be a while before it is available for free online. ( They want people to buy the magazine for the cover story)

Yes of course the story is sourced with valid, peer reviewed scientific studies...they used a few studies that placed priests in an un-favourable light with regards to other issues. All in all, a well balanced story.

Yes, I do understand that PZ ( as well as everyone else) is disgusted at the Catholic Churchs pattern of covering up the crimes of its clergy...but, but...

You can't tell me that PZ doesn't leap at every opportunity to remind everyone about the pedophile priest.

From the story...

" The research shows that most guilty priests are actually epheboophiles: people attracted to post-pubescent boys, typically between 13 and 17. For a victim, though, such a distinction is completely irrelevant. Whether seven or 14, an altar boy is still a minor and the perpetrator priest is s till a criminal.'

Secondly, don't anyone dare suggest I'm defending these bastards. I like facts and I bristle when I see people ignore facts in the name of progressing an agenda.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 28, 2009 9:17 AM

The magazine is dated Dec 7, 09. It will be a while before it is available for free online. ( They want people to buy the magazine for the cover story)

So why tell us to read it ?

Yes of course the story is sourced with valid, peer reviewed scientific studies...they used a few studies that placed priests in an un-favourable light with regards to other issues. All in all, a well balanced story.

Sorry, unless we can verify that for ourselves we cannot accept that assertion from you.

Yes, I do understand that PZ ( as well as everyone else) is disgusted at the Catholic Churchs pattern of covering up the crimes of its clergy...but, but...

You can't tell me that PZ doesn't leap at every opportunity to remind everyone about the pedophile priest.

And why should PZ, and others, not keep reminding people ? The problem is not that there has been to much outrage at the RCC but that there has not been enough. Is there any good reason why the Pope should not be put on trial in Ireland for the crimes he has committed in covering up abuse ?

Secondly, don't anyone dare suggest I'm defending these bastards. I like facts and I bristle when I see people ignore facts in the name of progressing an agenda.

I will suggest you are doing just that. You are defending them. And while you do so I will tell you that.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 9:21 AM

Yes of course the story is sourced with valid, peer reviewed scientific studies - Former Catholic

So give us the references (no more than 3 in a single post IIRC or it will be blocked). Then those of us with access to them can judge for ourselves, now, rather than through the filter of the journalist's take on the story, when it becomes available. BTW, the stuff about "ephebeophiles" is boilerplate RCC apologia: means anger can be redirected toward teh gay.

Posted by: AdamK | November 28, 2009 9:32 AM

Every single one of those "good" priests is a supporter and employee of a criminal organization. None of them are off the hook as far as I'm concerned. They are preachers of lies and promoters of social injustice.

Posted by: Bobber | November 28, 2009 9:44 AM

I don't know any more about Maclean's than I've just looked up on-line, but any mag that has this opinion writer on the payroll:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/29/why-jews-keep-voting-against-themselves/

certainly has more in common with "Parade" than with "Nature". Blecch.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 28, 2009 9:58 AM

"...Nell announced that she renounced her membership in the RCC and walked out."

If she's still a Catholic, she's part of the problem.

Posted by: Former Catholic | November 28, 2009 10:05 AM

Sad sad sad....

Someone actually wrote, that parents should assume every priest is a rapist until proven otherwise.

What does such a sentiment prove?

1) That poster ignores the fact that the absolute VAST MAJORITY of childhood sexual abuse takes place in the HOME by someone known and trusted by the family.

2) 96% to 98% ( depending on the study) of priests are not sexual deviants.

This poster proves my point perfectly.

The atheist movement ignores fact in favour of progessing their agenda. Just like how the creationists ignore facts to further their agenda.

http://www.safekidsbc.ca/statistics.htm

'80% of all child abusers are the father, foster father, stepfather or another relative or close family friend of the victim. '

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/summary.htm

'In 2007, nearly 80 percent of perpetrators of child maltreatment (79.9%) were parents, and another 6.6 percent were other relatives of the victim. Women comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 56.5 percent compared to 42.4 percent. Nearly 75 percent (74.8%) of all perpetrators were younger than age 40.'

DOES ANYONE even care about statistics or facts?

Maybe if PZ spend an equal amount of time exposing and condemning the ONGOING and very much hidden epidemic of familial child sexual abuse, maybe I'd take PZ and his legion of blind followers a little more seriously.

Posted by: AdamK | November 28, 2009 10:10 AM

Strawman 1, Former Catholic 0.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 28, 2009 10:17 AM

'80% of all child abusers are the father, foster father, stepfather or another relative or close family friend of the victim.

not to nitpick, but "priest" and "close family friend" are overlapping categories.

and you're still miserably failing to address the issue of the RCC being a abuse-covering and facilitating organization. people have pointed out to you several times that it's this systematic cover-up (and thus enabling) of abusive priests that's at issue here.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 28, 2009 10:20 AM

DOES ANYONE even care about statistics or facts?

Yes we do. Here is a fact you are deliberately ignoring. The RCC hierarchy has deliberately engaged in a cover-up, masterminded by the present pope, of the abuse that its employees, the priests and nuns, committed over the years. We, as you should, condemn the hierarchy, which claims to be the guiding moral compass for the world, of such hypocrisy. That is our complaint, and until you address it directly, you have nothing cogent to add to the discussion. You are attempting to misdirect everyone from the moral lapse of a allegedly moral organization. You should stop that, or you are essentially saying you agree with the cover-up.

Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 28, 2009 10:21 AM

Oh, and Former Catholic, here is a report anyone can access. It is the Fern's report into allegations of abuse by Catholic Clergy in the Dublin dioceses. It is damming. It shows how the church had a deliberate policy of covering up claims of abuse, how clergy were simply moved to another parish with opportunities to further abuse children, and how the church lied about what it knew of such abuse.

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

Only read it if you have a strong stomach. It is sickening stuff.

The report deal with evidence and facts.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | November 28, 2009 10:28 AM

What do you all say about that?????

Nothing.

which may have something to do with the fact that that is not the topic of this thread!

claiming that we shouldn't worry about x because y is so much worse is fucking absurd. we are fully capable of condemning both individual abuse of children by parents (and siccing CPS at them when necessary) and the systematic abuse perpetrated by the RCC.

fucking idiot.

Posted by: sharky | November 28, 2009 10:33 AM

Autumn, Beaker:

I don't think the point was "fathers are evil." I think it was "if a man continually rapes young girls, it is quite likely he will eventually be a father."

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 10:37 AM

"Former" Catholic,

Someone actually wrote, that parents should assume every priest is a rapist until proven otherwise.

What does such a sentiment prove?

That they can provide sound advice. When I was about 10, I became friendly with the owner of a junk shop, where I used to go to buy old coins. My mother insisted on visiting the shop with me, and spending some time talking to him - after which, she let me continue visiting the shop. I had no idea why at the time, and have no reason now to suspect he was a pedophile, but if he had been, my mother's visit would have warned him that this was a child with concerned parents. Such parents look out for their children - and when an adult is going to have the kind of regular, unfettered access to children that a priest has, particular care and even suspicion are rational - as is the case for any such profession, since they are likely to attract pedophiles.

The fact of the matter, most kids are molested and abused within their own homes by family members.

What do you all say about that?????

That it is terrible, but does nothing to excuse the RCC hierarchy. Moreover, the appalling authoritarianism and patriarchalism of the RCC, and of Christianity in general, the attitude that children should be submissive to authority figures, and are fair game when it comes to indoctrination, feeds directly into such abuse.

I notice that you still have not given us any relevant references from the Macleans article. Why not?

BTW, I don't believe any more that you are an atheist, or an ex-Catholic. You are just a Catholic operating under cover: a concern troll in the original sense of the word. The failure to condemn the hierarchy's cover-up, and the reference to "the atheist movement", are pretty conclusive.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 28, 2009 10:53 AM

When they claim 1 billion adherents, they don't say how many of those are people who only adhere because the RCC won't unglue them. - Tracy

Nicely phrased! Still, I suppose it's better than the old practice (still official Islamic doctrine) of killing apostates: just don't let people apostasise!

Posted by: Logicel | November 28, 2009 10:54 AM

Also Former Catholic's reference to our/PZs agenda points to their still being an loyal Catholic sheeple.

What agenda is that, ahole? Justice?

It's not our problem that the crimes of the Catholic Church is undermining its existence. It's yours as long as you insist on being a member of this particular crime syndicate. And until you get the courage to leave it, you will continue to be intellectually dishonest with yourself and others.

You have conducted yourself as intellectual slime so far on this thread. No wonder you can continue to be a Catholic, your brain power has been so diluted with nonsense, you can't think straight and with honesty. Keep dodging the real issue of complicity to crime which is plaguing your precious church, and you will continue to drag the church down.

Posted by: Don | November 28, 2009 11:45 AM

The rape of children is a sufficiently vile crime but it shouldn't overshadow the (perhaps more coldly wicked) non-sexual abuse and exploitation in the Industrial schools and Magdalen Laundries.

To argue that the clergy contains only an average number of paedophiles and so we should not blame the church is intensely dishonest. In fact, wasn't that O'Reilly's position?

Posted by: colluvial | November 28, 2009 12:20 PM

Former Catholic:

Someone actually wrote, that parents should assume every priest is a rapist until proven otherwise.

That would be me!

96% to 98% (depending on the study) of priests are not sexual deviants.

How would you feel about leaving your child in the care of an organization consisting of "only" 2 to 4% pedophiles? And I believe those percentages refer to priests accused a child rape, not those with a taste for child porn. Since those pedophiles have been systematically shifted between parishes and protected by their supervisors, they have access to a lot of children. And considering the deference given to those same priests who are skilled at terrifying their charges with threats of fire and brimstone, how long is such abuse likely to continue - or simply go unreported - because of the fear they inspire in their victims?

DOES ANYONE even care about statistics or facts?

Comparing percentages with the population at large is meaningless unless you know the number of rapes committed by each perpetrator. The most meaningful statistic would be what percentage of acts of sexual abuse of children that attended catholic school were perpetrated by clergy.

Posted by: Úna | November 28, 2009 12:35 PM

Suffer little children and by fuck did they ever!!!

Posted by: cpsmith | November 28, 2009 12:53 PM

She makes me feel warm and fuzzy on the inside. =)

Posted by: Caustic Gnostic | November 28, 2009 1:05 PM

Colluvial (#66) expressed the matter very well.

The church plays a shell game with the paedophiles, which means any priest may be suspect. That's one hell of a happy thought.

Posted by: HG | November 28, 2009 1:22 PM

The Catholic church in southern island acted in effect as a state within a state -administering over much of education and the welfare state. This would in part explain the 'collusion' between church and state in 'covering up' the abuses -they acted in the capacity of the state. If you act in the capacity of the state then you have no recourse to the state.

It should also be noted what we take for granted in the present day in our understanding of science, medicine and social issues. At the time many of these cases occurred, even the well educated lacked any benchmarks in relation to the psychology and behaviours of paedophilia.

As a church decision maker in these cases -if you were unaware that paedophilia related to the forming of exclusive relationship with children, you might mistakenly think that by placing a priest in another parish the issue had been resolved. This appeared to be standard practice in many cases but served only to extend the lifetime of their activities.

I believe these cases show a shocking failure in church processes and laws. Like any institution that is responsible for the vulnerable it must be subject to the most stringent governance both internal and external.

Posted by: Sili | November 28, 2009 1:46 PM

She was consistent; she made very sure to emphasise that she was calling him "sir".

He did sound like he was about to cry in the last exasperation.

Posted by: Rey Fox | November 28, 2009 2:30 PM

"Moreover, the appalling authoritarianism and patriarchalism of the RCC, and of Christianity in general, the attitude that children should be submissive to authority figures, and are fair game when it comes to indoctrination, feeds directly into such abuse."

Exactly. The whole structure of the Catholic Church practically selects these abusers, when you couple it with their offical policy of "celibacy", which, as you all know, is the strangest perversion of all.

Posted by: Norman Bates' Mother | November 28, 2009 3:13 PM

Former Catholic,you're mistaken in your asumption that abuse happens EITHER in the child's home OR in the church.There are plenty both/and situations.A fellow patient in the mental heatlth facility where I received treatment year ago had been molested by her parish priest as a child.When she tried to tell her mother,that evil woman beat her as punishment for "telling vile lies".Because a priest has more authority and credibility than a silly,nasty seven-year-old,you know?
If you read German,visit http://norbert.denef.com .
Mr.Denef is a tireless crusader against child-abuse,he was himself molested by a priest WITH HIS MOTHER'S KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.
The problem is not just the abuse itself,but the systematic denial and suppression of truth as well as the desertion of the victims.This is true of both clergy and family abuse.However, a huge religious organisation has more power ,outreach and wherewithall than most families to perpetuate this.I say "most" rather than "all" families,since the wealthy parents of Jennifer Freyd have managed to convince people that there is such a thing as "false-memory-syndrome" which exists no more than "post-abortion-syndrome" or
pictures of Jesus on a slice of toast.
http://www.screamsfromchildhood.com/war_against_truth.html

Posted by: Rex | November 28, 2009 3:28 PM

If there were a devil he would have invented religion.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 28, 2009 3:42 PM

I'll suggest something counterintuitive. Don't defect. Ensconce. Bring the temple down from inside. It only takes a few bad apples, right? You could be the bad apple.

We should all* join a church, and wage a guerilla war of ideology. Become deacons, lay ministers, etc. Sow the seeds of doubt wherever two or more are gathered anywhere. Of course, the atheist movement should continue to catch the converted as they leap from the crumbling turrets of faith! Bwooohahahaha!

*Not me, though. Church is too boring for me. And I am a terrible liar.

Posted by: Haley | November 28, 2009 4:22 PM

Institutionalized torture of children, sometimes leading to death, always leading to emotional scars? Systematic covering-up and justification of child rape? Words vile enough to describe the RCC escape me. I just wish the mass exodus from the church were larger.

Posted by: amphiox | November 28, 2009 7:34 PM

As far as I can count, not including the first stupid post, Former Catholic is batting 0/3 in the arena of missing the point.

Now one time I can understand - it's a long post and one can easily miss reading a reply or two. But two times and I have to start questioning reading comprehension, and three times and I can only conclude deliberate obtuseness and a hidden agenda.

This is not about pedophilia. This is about child rape. The former is just a state of being, and has no consequences in isolation. The second is an act. The frequency of pedophiles in any give population is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. A pedophile who does not abuse children is an innocent person - nothing more and nothing less. But a single child rapist, who may or may not actually be a pedophile, given sufficient opportunity and properly sheltered, can leave hundreds of victims in his wake.

And that is the point. These child rapists are being maintained in positions of authority over children, and not just a few children, but many, many children. They are being sheltered and provided with even more opportunities to abuse even more victims. And all this is the official policy of the organization, a decision made and carried out at the very highest levels.

So YES, every parent should consider every priest to be a potential molester, because the cover-up leaves them no other safe choice. Because the crimes have been covered up, the guilty priests sheltered, moved around between parishes, left free to seek out new victims. We don't know how many rapists there are out there, how many victims they have already violated, or where they are. Until the church comes forward with the names and locations of every single one of the child rapists they are sheltering, until all have been removed from positions where they have access to children, arrested and tried, and all the guilty ones punished through the proper legal processes, no prudent parent should allow their children to set foot in a church.

Posted by: Deen | November 28, 2009 8:15 PM

By the way, I figured the only reason priests like to be called "father" is so they can quite conveniently benefit from the "you should honor your mother and father" commandment.

Posted by: J W, Louisville | November 28, 2009 10:05 PM

I am an atheist, a former Catholic and I was raped by my parish priest. I was a member of the class-action lawsuit in Louisville, Kentucky, in which a $25 million+ settlement was reached for approximately 240 victims. Another thousand-plus have come forward since the settlement and joined our support group.
Unless you are a party to such a legal action, I am quite doubtful you can imagine the depth and breadth of the abuse that occurred. Certain dioceses were dumping grounds because the local bishop was friendly and within that diocese, certain parishes were known havens. Many plaintiffs in our case reported being passed among multiple priests and yes, in some cases, poor parents were paid for a child's sexual slavery. In one case, a priests from my (former) parish would request what two sisters would wear and which of the two would be used on Sunday afternoon. One priest was marrying a young woman he had raped as a girl and he raped her on her wedding day and was finally arrested. Children were abused with every possible sexual device, in every possible way, including bondage, torture (both water and electric), were photographed, were made to perform with other children, were often taken on long holidays where they were raped multiple times daily, were given every conceivable kind of drug and or alcohol, were used at parties, were made to walk around naked for entire weeks, were abused by nuns and priests at the local orphanage...this list could go on for pages. In our case, the local archbishop, Thomas J Kelly, settled the suit the night before he would have been deposed and thus would have to reveal that he kept 12 known rapists on the altar and completely exhausted the insurance policy through a long series of payoffs in the $24,000-$30,000 range. This all while he was abusing pain killers and alcohol himself, until he went to rehab. There was a long series of news articles documenting these facts, published by the local daily, the Courier Journal. The same archbishop appointed the bishop of another diocese in Kentucky - Lexington - and this bishop was eventually forced to resign over his own abuse accusations. The archdiocese has reneged on almost every institutional "promise" it made to victims during the settlement phase, because they could not legally be held to the changes, such as not forcing children to address priests as "Father" and having a policy forbidding children to be alone with priests.
I carry the scars of my abuse to this day, at age 51. I was recently forced to go back to the parish of my abuse because my father died and he was still a member of the parish, just like my mother still is. Nothing changed for them.
We plaintiffs have kept a private online chatboard since day one and almost every single plaintiff has reported familial rejection, disgust, shame or disbelief.
How anyone can "be" a Catholic is beyond me. It has screwed up more people than any other religion on earth, with popes as complicit as priests. It is organized crime, plain and simple.

Posted by: Marc Abian | November 29, 2009 9:35 AM

We plaintiffs have kept a private online chatboard since day one and almost every single plaintiff has reported familial rejection, disgust, shame or disbelief.

I can understand the RCC church better in this instance, it's natural not to want to be caught for something, and the priets were obviously sick and bloated on power.
But a family, the thing that supposed to protect you and support you and love you, retacting like that?

Fuck them.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 29, 2009 11:00 AM

@David--You are a PERFECT candidate. You are European and multilingual. You could become the greatest Anti-Pope ever. The trick will be PR. The great journey begins with one small step. The global conspiracy starts with one crackpot with time to kill...I'll get to work right away.

Posted by: Stardrake | November 29, 2009 12:10 PM

J W Louisville @125:

THANK YOU.

If not for you and people like you, who had the guts to stand up to and fight this scum, it would still be secret. While not enough has changed (as you pointed out) NOTHING would have changed without the survivors who finally had had enough.

You're fighting the good fight. Thanks again.

Posted by: L.Minnik | November 29, 2009 3:32 PM

(the above post is in response to David Marjanović, OM at #128)

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 29, 2009 6:23 PM

L. Minnik,

your own approach to "valid scientific research" sounds impeccable. If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you go ahead and publicly declare that Freyd's parents are child molestors? If "recovered memory" is all that, then surely you need not fear liability for reckless defamation. Or, if you were found liable (as you would be, if the Freyds bothered to sue), then surely it would all be down to the global paedophile conspiracy.

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 29, 2009 7:29 PM

L. Minnik,

I'm sure, then, that you'll be keen to hold "recovered memory" theory to equally stringent scientific scrutiny -- indeed, given that it's farther from the null hypothesis, to even more stringent standards. One eagerly (and surely not in vain?) awaits your proffer of sound, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence.

And did I didn't give you any reason to tar what I said with something like 'the global paedophile conspiracy,' did I?

Yes, you did. See the entire first paragraph of your post @132. OK, maybe not "global". But the implication of the second through fifth of the five sentences in that paragraph is clear. Stop being coy. Say outright what you are hinting at. And have the evidence to back it up, or else face the liability you otherwise deserve for an appalling libel.

Posted by: L.Minnik | November 29, 2009 8:40 PM

...as much information on this topic as I could.
(note to self: proofread.)

Posted by: Mrs Tilton | November 29, 2009 9:02 PM

But Tulse, Dr Loftus is not unbiased, because the concept of false memory will help her deflect accusations of abuse (whether she is in fact guilty of it or not).

Posted by: Tulse | November 29, 2009 10:40 PM

I'm not familiar with Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus' research

If you are disputing false memories and don't know Loftus' work, you are an ignorant ninny -- her work is foundational in the field, and is cited everywhere, including the popular press. You would have to really work at it not to know her research. Frankly, I can't take you at all seriously if you have no familiarity with her extensive body of research on false memories -- it's like saying you're interested in baseball but don't know Babe Ruth.

Posted by: equisetum | November 30, 2009 8:24 AM

Light at the end of the tunnel:

Why Ireland Is Running Out of Priests.

My first thought was "Because they're all in jail," but that's just wishful thinking.

Earlier this month, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, made a grim prediction about the future of the church in Ireland: If more young priests aren't found quickly, the country's parishes may soon not have enough clergy to survive.

Here's hoping.

Posted by: Neilgue | December 3, 2009 3:34 AM

It's not just Ireland:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/second-priest-in-sex-claim-tipoff-20091202-k6b6.html