Catholic Church 'Covered Up' Child Sex Abuse

[Reedy]

I say anyone who intentionally protects a known paedophile to avoid justice is as guilty as the paedophile themselves. If a link can be proven, then yes there should be justice, no matter how high up it goes. Being a member of any organisation should not mean you're immune from the law of the land.

Originally Posted by SMG

Again its a case of a few rotten apples contaminating the rest. Every "Straight" priest has to live down these abusers.

I agree. Although straight might not be the best word since gay people would fail that test

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

It used to be, but recently God's rotweiller decided he was ashamed of the past behaviour of certain priests (who had been caught) and he was determined to make things a bit more difficult for kiddie fiddlers to either join his gang or for exsting deviants to perpetrate their acts.

He was, of course, talking Barlocks.

If a nation can be repulsed at the shortcomings of Harringay Council in their complicity / ineptitude in the abuse and murder of "baby P" to the extent that their chief executive can be summarily sacked then how come nobody is calling for the Pope to be sacked?

Or God, as he seems to be ok with them being his agents.

[Reedy]

If they've already had to pay out 'Hundreds of millions' in compensation for sex abuse, How do they fund if all, or how will they fund it all! Somethings got to give. Why does the news only mention compensation, why aren't the implicated facing justice like other paedophiles?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20091126...s-f858358.html

Counsellors are bracing themselves for an onslaught of crisis calls after the latest horrific revelations of a Catholic Church cover-up of clerical sex abuse.

Some of the country's leading victim support services, which saw as much as a 300% surge in calls after the Ryan Report in May, said they were preparing for a similar reaction to the Dublin Archdiocese inquiry.

Lock them all up in a room and douse them with petrol then throw a match in there. Like I posted above it's been going on for years.

[Reedy]

Apparently it's now the gays fault so says the Vatican.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01...t-paedophiles/

A Vatican official has said that the child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was caused by gay men preying on teenage boys, rather than paedophilia.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, read out a statement after a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva.

[Russ]

If it's true that the majority of the abuse was against teens then the following is worth pointing out...

Tomasi added that it would be "more correct" to refer to ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males, than paedophilia.

Although to suggest ephebophilia is exclusive to homosexuals is off-the-charts wrong.

Originally Posted by Reedy

Apparently it's now the gays fault so says the Vatican.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/01...t-paedophiles/

but surely if a gay man attacks a 14-15yr old its still classed as paedophilia ,i didn't think paedophiles were restricted to one sex

[Reedy]

That's what I thought.

[Russ]

Paedophillia doesn't relate to teenage victims though.

Originally Posted by Russ

Paedophillia doesn't relate to teenage victims though.

that depends on the definition you use "sexual abuse of a minor" or sexual abuse of a prepubescent
the first one tends to be a legal term and the second a psychological one very confusing i know and should be clarified

Originally Posted by martyh

but surely if a gay man attacks a 14-15yr old its still classed as paedophilia ,i didn't think paedophiles were restricted to one sex

No, paedophile crimes are generally classed as those against pre-teens, but in any case 'paedophile' is more of a sociological category, it's certainly not a legal one. There isn't any single offence called 'paedophilia' in law, there are a number of different offences depending on the age of the victim and the nature of the act.

Sex with a 10 year old and sex with a 15 year old are not the same thing.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

but surely if a gay man attacks a 14-15yr old its still classed as paedophilia ,i didn't think paedophiles were restricted to one sex

I think it's just that the term 'paedophilia' is not gender specific, just as the term 'incest' is not gender specific. It doesn't mean that the person doesn't have specific preferences(sex/race/hair colour etc).

Originally Posted by Chris

No, paedophile crimes are generally classed as those against pre-teens, but in any case 'paedophile' is more of a sociological category, it's certainly not a legal one. There isn't any single offence called 'paedophilia' in law, there are a number of different offences depending on the age of the victim and the nature of the act.

Sex with a 10 year old and sex with a 15 year old are not the same thing.

thanks for the clarification

And as someone else suggested shouldn't the church be held accountable (at least partly)for covering up the behaviour of some of it's priests .If they have paid out millions in compensation isn't that an admition of guilt?

I don't know about the current law, but the new vetting and barring rules the CRB (or Disclosure Scotland north of the border) will be working to from next year will certainly make it an offence not to pass on such information about an employee. Anyone, Catholic bishops included, who gets caught trying to cover up something like this in future is going to be liable to a sizeable fine at the very least, and quite possibly some jail time.