News

UK Supreme Court blow for Catholic Church, which tried to evade responsibility for clerical abuse

THE Supreme Court this week refused to hear a case from the Catholic Church in which it claimed it could not be held responsible for abuse committed by one of its priests because he was not an “employee”. This means the Catholic Church can now be financially liable for child abuse by priests working under its control.

The case, according to this National Secular Society report, arose when a Portsmouth woman brought a civil action against the Church after claiming she was abused by a priest at a RCC children’s home.

The woman, identified in court as Miss E, was seven years old when she was admitted to the Firs Children’ Home in 1970. She alleges she was sexually abused by Father Wilfred Baldwin, a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portsmouth, who died in 2006.

In November 2011, High Court judge Mr Justice Alistair MacDuffs ruled that the church is legally responsible for sexual abuse committed by its priests. This week’s ruling by the Supreme Court has now confirmed that decision.

cartoon

Peter Furlough, who represents the lawyers of the Waterlooville victim, said it was a landmark case that could not be challenged in Europe – and one that would have international ramifications for the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court has refused the Catholic Church permission to make further appeals to it. Therefore the Catholic Churches’ case is lost. That’s to say they are responsible for the misbehaviour of their priests.

He added:

The Catholic Church were looking to use a loophole. They were arguing that because priests are technically self-employed the church could not be held responsible for their misbehaviour. The Supreme Court was having none of it.

Because the point of the law has now been settled, it means that other cases of alleged abuse by Father Baldwin can be heard. Furlough said there were known to be several “local” victims.

It’s known there are a number of other cases involving the late Father Baldwin. We should expect a number of other cases to come forward. There’s a list of half a dozen or so that are known.

He said the ruling would have an impact across the globe in similar cases.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, said:

It is hard to exaggerate the importance of this case: it will almost certainly become an international precedent opening the door to financial liability against the Church for at least tens of thousands of victims of abuse worldwide.

Evidence abounds of the shameless lengths to which the Church has stooped for decades to evade financial responsibility for widespread abuse of children in its care. To have fought to evade liability for admitted abuse is both morally repugnant and a continuing blatant breach of the Church’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Meanwhile, we learn that the demented Deacon Nick Donnelly, the “brains” behind the Protect the Pope website, has gone out of business – temporarily. This is what he wrote yesterday:

At Protect the Pope we have decided that as there is no pope to protect, like the Swiss Guard, we will absent ourselves from the public arena. The best thing we can offer the Church at this time is our earnest prayer for the Holy Spirit to assist the College of Cardinals and the Conclave in choosing the next successor of St Peter.

The absence of a de facto pope was a worry for one of Donnelly’s supporters – Nicholas Bellord – who commented:

One wonders whether an interregnum, when Christ has no Vicar on Earth, is not a time when Satan and all the wicked spirits, who wander through the world for the ruin of sould [that should be souls, I guess], take advantage of this void to spread the maximum evil in the world. We can but watch, take note and pray, solid in the faith that the gates of hell will not prevail.

Does this idiot not realise that Satan and the hordes of hell would be hard pushed to spread more evil than the Catholic Church has done from its very inception?

Hat tip: BarrieJohn & Ian (Protect the Pope)

93 Responses to “UK Supreme Court blow for Catholic Church, which tried to evade responsibility for clerical abuse”

  1. remigius says:

    ‘I believe there are 74 books in the Bible not sixty.’

    So you’re not a catholic then, as their Bible has 73. Please tell us what denomination you subscribe to?

  2. Broga says:

    @barriejohn: Many thanks. Fascinating and informative. I won the Divinity prize at my grammar school, when such existed, a long time ago when I wrote an essay on the Synoptic Gospels. I forget what I wrote but I still have the prize: a rather handsome copy of Charles Dickens’ “Great Expectations.” I was sixteen and already an atheist. My growing atheism was an incentive to explore the Synoptic Gospels.

    I note that Nicholas believes in the virgin birth. So, Mary married Joseph but we must assume that they did not have sex. Joseph must have had much more restraint (why?)than I did when we got married. We spent entire week-ends in bed. What was Joseph’s problem?

    Then God had sex with Mary. I wonder what kind of intercourse that was? And Jesus was born who was both the son and the father who begat him. Odd. And the Holy Ghost is involved somewhere.

    I’m confused. Maybe Nicholas could explain as he seems to be expert in Christian theology.

  3. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    I must say I find it surprising that because a person with homosexual inclinations who is unable to declare it or “come out” is thereby driven to paedophilia. In any case I think you will find that most of the documented cases amongst Catholic priests were not technically paedophilia as they involved adolescents and I think this is known as ephebophilia.

    Fuck you Bellord and your excuses for the raping, by rcc priests of children because yes, they were children. The fact that the rcc in it’s desperation to avoid the fact that so many of it’s priests were peadophiles (not homosexuals, peadophiles, there is a difference you brain dead fuckwit) decided to change the commonly accepted fact that people under the age of 16 are still children and made out, in it’s wisdom that childhood ended at 10.

    These are children, not adolescents, children. Do you get that, children!

    You may not be a kiddie fiddler yourself but I hope you feel mighty proud of yourself knowing that you are a supporter of the biggest peadophile ring in the world and that you, yes you, are personally responsible for the rape of children because if it weren’t for the likes of you, supporting this criminal outfit, then a lot of children (there’s that word again, you getting the message yet dipshit) would not have been raped.

  4. Angela_K says:

    @Bellord “One just has to make a pragmatic judgement on the basis of the evidence” Well we’re waiting, evidence please.

    “I believe there are 74 books in the Bible not sixty” Well I did approximate to over sixty.

    “Alice in Wonderland purports to be a work of fiction; the bible purports to be the truth”. Alice in Wonderland IS a work of fiction; the bible purports to be the truth but is also mainly a work of fiction.

    “I do believe in the Virgin Birth” Please explain the mechanism for this. Biology not your thing is it?

    And another thing, belief is not evidence.

    “The point about marriage is that it is between a man and a woman” No, wrong again. Marriage is a relatively recent [in terms of human evolution] idea hijacked by religion and previously people just used to get together, male/female, male/male and female/female. In spite of the hysterical rantings of the religions, none of them own marriage.

  5. Daz says:

    Nicholas

    Daz: The point about marriage is that it is between a man and a woman. That is an ontological fact. It is no more unjust discrimination to say that two people of the same sex cannot marry than to say that a man cannot give birth to a child or that two women cannot conceive a child of themselves.

    1… 2… 3…

    Oh, sorry, just counting up the number of happily and completely voluntarily childless couples I know. Because your argument only makes sense if we view the single, sole and only purpose of marriage as being for the begetting of sprogs. Which means that all of their marriages (including one Catholic couple, married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest, by the way) are shams. Do you want to tell them, or shall I?

    Unless you want to redefine “sex” to mean only “vaginal penetration by a penis,” along with your redefinition of “marriage.” (“Ontology,” my maiden aunt Gertrude’s camel’s arse!)

    4… 5…

  6. I think the main reason why the Catholic Church gets away with too much and gets too many privileges in the law is because of the argument, “The Church does good work with the sick and the poor.” Would it not be wiser to argue, “The people called Catholics do good work with the sick and the poor.” That way we see the goodness as human goodness instead of attributing it to a religious system. It is never hospitals that are good but the people who work in them. It is never the Church as a system that should benefit. Its people that matter and not religion. Religion should not get any special treatment

  7. JohnMWhite says:

    I see Nicolas is merely a moral coward trying to cling to his right to cause harm to gay people while holding onto his blindfold of ignorance regarding the historicity of Jesus and the gospels. So, ignorant bigot it is. Amazing that somebody so fond of pulling up dictionary definitions of words continues to fail to grasp any of them.

    It is not an ontological fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage arrangements are nothing to do with biology or reproduction and never have been. You can’t possibly believe that because you’re educated enough to read, so you are simply trying to cover for your obnoxious determination to get in the way of marriage equality. You’re another not-a-bigot™. The book you are so fond of doesn’t even define marriage as between a man and a woman, it has numerous marital arrangements which are considered acceptable, and civilizations throughout the world have redefined marriage in countless ways over time. At least have the guts to admit it already – you just don’t like gay people. You’re a bigot. If you stop being so terrified of a word that actually applies to you, then at least you can stop tying yourself in knots trying to justify a bigoted position and we can all move on. Must be exhausting trying to be two mutually exclusive things at once.

    Also, trying to qualify the sexual and physical abuse of minors with semantic tricks over age (tricks which were based on tricks themselves) paints you as a genuinely awful person. Are you proud that your faith has turned you into somebody who tries to hurt people who just want to live their lives with the person they love, and somebody who feels the need to minimise the abuse of other human beings? Is this all worth it because god rewards sycophants?

  8. Marky Mark says:

    (The Catholic Church were looking to use a loophole. They were arguing that because priests are technically self-employed the church could not be held responsible for their misbehaviour.)

    …So, their followers are expected to confess their sins and wrongdoing, but the church answers to no one and will not confess to their sins.
    …more proof they are a greedy cult.

    (Does this idiot not realise that Satan and the hordes of hell would be hard pushed to spread more evil than the Catholic Church has done from its very inception?)
    …He does not, as his personal faith can never be wrong…if they are, the devil made then do it.

  9. Broga says:

    Meanwhile O’Brien “has left the country.” Where? Who knows? Sinecure in the Vatican, England, Australia, the Arctic. The main task for the Vatican is to get O’Brien to keep his mouth shut. Threats of being “crushed” may help.

    Nicolas provides an exemplary example of how being a fundamentalist Christian turns the brain to pulp and leaves the victims without a rational or independent thought in their heads. He “believes” in the virgin birth. How dotty can you get?

  10. Marky Mark says:

    (If you call yourself Catholic then you are what gives these monstrous paedophiles their power, and should hang your head in shame. Want to be a part of their gang?..then feel my utmost contempt and disgust.)
    …I agree, and think once a pedophile priest is discovered in a particular church, the whole congregation should be charged under the RICO act for funding this kind of activity. It is no secret the RCC is involved with this type of behavior and the congregation’s opinion that it only happens in other places, and our priest is a good priest, should not be used as a defense. Ignorance is no excuse or a defense.

    (they are Twenty-First Century people who are trying to follow the beliefs and prejudices of ignorant, unsophisticated, superstitious people who lived thousands of years ago.)
    …who also believed the world was flat, sea monsters prowled the deep and fire breathing dragons lived in caves.

  11. Nicolas Bellord says:

    Remigius: You are right. I miscounted – 73 is the correct figure in my Knox bible. I am a Roman Catholic.

  12. Nicolas Bellord says:

    Broga: I am no expert in Christian theology. The exact details of the virgin birth are necessarily shrouded in mystery. I can quite understand that if you have lost your faith you find all this unbelievable. However sex however beautiful in itself is something that needs to kept within certain restraints. Those who manage to keep celibate – such as St Joseph – can be a good witness to such restraint and help others to restrain themselves from following every urge. There is a tradition that he was a widower he married the Virgin Mary so perhaps it was easier for him.

  13. Marky Mark says:

    Nicolas said:
    (such as St Joseph – can be a good witness to such restraint and help others to restrain themselves from following every urge.)
    …so what happened with the church today? No restraint?
    Funny how the RCC resembles other religious leaders like David Koresh, who proclaimed that his followers could not have sex, even with their wives and husbands, but he had all the sex he wanted, with the male followers wives, and their children.
    …it is more than greed, it is sexual dominance as well, and the RCC is being exposed as the same type of cult as David Koresh.

  14. Nicolas Bellord says:

    Graham Martin-Royle: Perhaps I expressed myself badly. I was replying to Broga who said:

    The RC Church is profoundly hypocritical and ridden with sleaze and, with priests unable to admit their homosexuality, they are driven to the perversion of paedophilia. I don’t know what I bother to spell this out as events have made it all so obvious.

    I felt that that statement was rather surprising as it suggested that suppressing homosexual inclinations led to paedophilia.

    As for the rest of your comment and ignoring your obscenities we are into semantics here. Just as a matter of interest we are all the child of someone in law until the day we die! I was just making the point that paedophilia is usually defined as abusing children prior to puberty whilst thereafter it is ephebophilia. There is a certain amount of evidence that there was more of the latter than the former.

    However whether it is paedophilia or ephebophilia they are both wrong whether the activity is homosexual or heterosexual.

  15. Marky Mark says:

    In relation to David Koresh, a brave reporter once said; “We know the FBI’s excuse of pedophilia for using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to storm the Koresh compound is bogus or there would be Fighting Vehicles storming catholic churches across the nation.”

  16. Nicolas Bellord says:

    Angela_K: I merely stated that the New Testament is evidence that somebody known as Jesus Christ existed. I find that credible evidence. You do not. We could argue about that till the cows come home!

    As for marriage I agree that nobody owns it either any religion or the State. It is just there. I am no expert in anthropology but when you say relatively recent I wonder what that means exactly and what evidence you have. I do not go along with Rousseau’s misanthropic ideas about the Noble Savage who just happened to bump into a woman, copulated and then ran off. Remember that Rousseau disowned his own children at birth.

    Daz: I think you have misunderstood the Catholic teaching on marriage. We see it as a covenant or partnership of life between a man and a woman, which is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children. I would emphasise the importance of the dual function. If a couple are unable to have children then that does not change the situation in anyway provided they do not prevent it happening.

    Patrick Gormley: I think that many of the religious people who do good works are inspired to do so by their religion and the admonition to love one another. I am always impressed when people of no religion do good works – a great example of altruism.

    Generally: I am as shocked and angry at what has happened as any of you. I would do anything to make sure that such behaviour is not repeated. However we are dealing with a minority of people in the Church who have betrayed us. Is everyone outside the church equally guiltless?

  17. David Anderson says:

    “Is everyone outside the church equally guiltless?” Shouldn’t think so. But then theyr’e not pretending to be the holders and guides of moral conduct. Then again, many people outside the church have stronger morals than those within it without the need of a sky daddy, or a magic book.

  18. Daz says:

    Nicholas

    Daz: I think you have misunderstood the Catholic teaching on marriage. …

    *insert sound-effect of screeching brakes*

    Here’s the thing, Nicholas. I’m not a Catholic. We atheists are not Catholics. Many many Christian LGBT people are not Catholics. We should not have to obey the tenets of your church. We do not care about the “Catholic teaching,” which is applicable only to Catholics.

    The Roman Catholic church, should it want to continue to, is perfectly entitled to enforce a ban on same-sex marriage within the Roman Catholic Church. But the Roman Catholic Church is not content to do that, is it? The Roman Catholic Church continues to badger, lobby and bully for an outright ban on same sax marriage within all churches, regardless of whether those other churches want to be able to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or not.

    There was this thing called the Protestant Reformation. You may have heard of it. It was a bit long and rather bloody, but the upshot of it was that we don’t have to obey His Popeliness’s commands any more.

  19. JohnMWhite says:

    @Nicolas – It is not a minority in the church who betrayed us, it is the entire hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church that allowed the abuse to continue unrestrained for decades. The institution is rotten from the throne vacated by the guy who swore victims to secrecy down to the vicious zealots in the pews who eagerly throw their tuppence into the collection plate in the hope it will help with a campaign to make gay people’s lives a little harder. You cannot separate these things in an authoritarian institution.

    It is authoritarianism that leads to this kind of behaviour – these people genuinely think children are tools and objects to be used for their own purposes. I was raised Catholic, I survived Catholic education, and I heard this from the mouth of every person put in charge of me. I read the Catechism, I read the bible, so deflect reality as you always do but fortunately some of us can see the wood despite the trees. And I notice, Nicolas, that you continue to nitpick over the definition of pedophilia even when it was pointed out to you that the church were the ones who went with an arbitrary definition of “under ten” rather than the biological one used by the rest of the world, solely so they could give apologists for child rape the grounds to muddy the waters.

  20. Broga says:

    @Nicolas: First may I express my sympathy to you in that you are a Roman Catholic. That is a tough call and I’m sorry that your life has been besmirched by these pernicious and erroneus beliefs. I am also sorry that you have fallen under the influence of people as superstitious and misguided as priests.

    Second: Sex. Celibacy is not a restraint. It is a perversion. It leaves the unfortunate victim who tries to follow this perversion obssessed with sexual thoughts. How do I know? Simple. Consider your own experience.

    Marriage. According to the demented beliefs of your church I am not married because we were married decades ago in a registry office. I certainly don’t need the superstitions of the RC Church to tell me how to “order” my marriage which, as it happens and I know I have been lucky, has been long and happy. Nor do I want its destructive advice on the upbringing of my children.

    The record of the RC Church, the behaviour of its hierarchy and many of its priests, is shameful. Its lies, theft, sexual predations on those at its mercy and its stunning hypocrisies set a standard of cynical viciousness that must repel all but the most blinkered and besotted.

  21. Daz says:

    A note on the “definition of paedophilia” distraction.

    It does not matter if an act is “technically” paedophilia or not. What matters is that, if the child is under the age at which that country’s law states that the child should not be engaging in sexual acts, then an adult is bound, morally and legally, not to engage in sexual acts with that child, even if they find that child and his/her behaviour sexually arousing. To engage in sexual acts with such children, even if they appear to give consent, is rape (whether paedophilia or not), pure and simple, as such consent is not informed consent.

    But then, priests in particular should know all that, being as they’re expert enough on the subject of resisting temptation that they’re able to lecture their flocks on it, yes?

  22. Nicolas Bellord says:

    Daz: I can agree with you on your last comment and I do not think I said anything different.

    Having agreed on something I doubt if I am going to get any further on other fronts so I will leave it there!

  23. Graham Martin-Royle says:

    Bellord, fuck your semantics. You are complicit in the rape of children. I don’t care that the rcc doctored it’s report and changed the definition of a child, the fact is that your priests, who you support and aid, raped children. You can twist and turn whichever way you like, all the while you support this organisation you are as guilty as those doing the raping.

  24. JohnMWhite says:

    Of course you don’t agree, Nicolas, because you kept bringing up the “technically it’s not paedophilia” argument. You went there of your own volition. It must have been for a reason, and it can’t be because you agree with Daz otherwise your own point would have been irrelevant to yourself.

  25. Ken says:

    Broga – “I’m confused.”

    I appreciate your honesty!

    “I note that Nicholas believes in the virgin birth. So, Mary married Joseph but we must assume that they did not have sex.”

    At the time Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph were betrothed, not married. This was more binding than modern engagement, as it could only be broken by divorce. No sex was involved at all, it was a virgin birth, a pre-existing Person taking on human form. This is not derived from Greek mythology.
    Mary and Joseph later on had other children quite normally. There is no implication of sex being ‘dirty’ or any such thing here, providing it is kept to marriage. This biblical mandate is in my opinion the only reason it is possible to state categorically that what the ‘priesthood’ has been getting up to was evil and wrong.

    “The cardinals have as much belief in their religion as I have i.e. zilch.”

    I agree with you there (regarding the perpetrators), even though in some modern Christian circles it has become politically incorrect to reject the RCC as a legitimate expression of Christianity. If they really believed in a God who is pure and holy, they could not possibly make such activity a way of life, nor try to cover it up. That is not to say there are not genuine believers in the RCC, nor that anyone can succumb to temptation, but such on-going disobedience to the revealed will of God deserves judgement on the basis of the ‘fruit’ it produces. It is not as though one day they will not have to give an account – though that applies to everyone who has ever lived.

    In all of this, the bible’s diagnosis of the human condition remains spot on. We all by nature tend to do what is wrong and continue in that, religion notwithstanding, until we do some real business with God.

  26. Broga says:

    @Ken: I take it you are not too sensitive to irony.

    As for the rest of your self serving nonsense I can’t be bothered answering. Anyway, I’m off to the pub this evening for a game of darts, a pint or three and to watch Man U versus Real Madrid.

  27. Daz says:

    This biblical mandate is in my opinion the only reason it is possible to state categorically that what the ‘priesthood’ has been getting up to was evil and wrong.

    The rape and sexual abuse of children isn’t, then, a good enough reason for you to condemn their actions?

  28. David Anderson says:

    “Well,it’s like this Joe. I didn’t have intercourse with anybody but I’m preggers. It’s OK though because god did it.”

    Broga; I’ll be having a bottle or three of wine while I’m watching. Who’s your money on (ha ha)?

  29. remigius says:

    ‘No sex was involved at all, it was a virgin birth, a pre-existing Person taking on human form. This is not derived from Greek mythology.’

    Actually Ken, this is a very common theme throughout all mythologies. And all of them pre-dating Baby Jesus.

    Your turn!

  30. remigius says:

    Here’s a link for ya…

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081227133417AAs84oB

    You can Google them if you can be arsed.

  31. Angela_K says:

    “…a pre-existing Person taking on human form” That sounds like the shape-shifting aliens straight out of David Icke’s forum – just as barking mad.

  32. Broga says:

    @David Anderson: OT but between you and me we (i.e. the pub regulars) thought (after more than a few beers) that the Nani decision was harsh. Rather spoiled an interesting game as a spectacle.

  33. Marky Mark says:

    (Actually Ken, this is a very common theme throughout all mythologies. And all of them pre-dating Baby Jesus.)
    …actually, long before the whole Virgin Mary story, many young girls of this time who could not overcome the strict restraints placed upon them and gave in to desire, the instinctive need of the human body to reproduce, clamed a spirit, god, or other metaphysical force impregnated them. All to save face amongst their communities.

  34. Ken says:

    Daz “The rape and sexual abuse of children isn’t, then, a good enough reason for you to condemn their actions?”

    I don’t doubt you find what has been going on in the RCC repugnant, and on that score we would be in agreement.

    The difference is more in why this is evil. Biblical morality condemns this as a perversion of sex, as well as being an abuse of authority and trust. Given atheism though, you will reject the biblical sex ethic (or at least not regard it as binding on everyone), and also given that atheism necessitates moral relativism, you grounds for condemning such behaviour is seriously undermined. If (macro)evolution were true, then this absolves us of binding moral duties, and the responsibility for our actions can be shifted to our evolutionary inheritance, for which we are not responsible. Behaviour is ‘natural’ rather than good or bad.

  35. remigius says:

    ‘If (macro)evolution were true, then this absolves us of binding moral duties, and the responsibility for our actions can be shifted to our evolutionary inheritance, for which we are not responsible.’

    Ken, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

  36. David Anderson says:

    @Broga OT. As you can imagine, in the bar that I was having a few here in Spain, the decision was applauded roundly.

  37. Broga says:

    @David Anderson: OT (Sorry folks, last time). There were a number of pub regulars who thought Roy Keane got it right in his comments. I was also amused by the number who thought the sending off was worth it just to see Fergie so “distraught.”

  38. Broga says:

    @Ken: Congratulations. That last post of yours was a classic of gibberish. I doubt if we will see it improved on as a piece of imcomprehensible bullshit. I assume that you think that by writing this opaque crap some may be fooled into thinking that there is some profound meaning in there. You are mistaken. I don’t think you know what you are trying to say so what chance have the rest of us?

  39. Daz says:

    Ken

    Hurting children is bad. I don’t need a fucking iron age book, or a fancy philosophical/theological argument to inform me of that.

    As for your little diatribe about evolution, just what sort of behaviour would you guess evolution would favour, in a species whose young need many years of protection by adults if they’re to survive into adulthood? P…r…o…t…e…c… … can we finish spelling that word, boys and girls?

  40. JohnMWhite says:

    The trouble with the likes of Ken is that they firmly believe that might makes right. The main, and possibly only, reason that raping children is wrong is because god says so. The suffering it causes doesn’t matter, the idea that children are individuals with their own feelings and agency doesn’t matter, all that is relevant is that god said “no” and god must be obeyed or there will be terrible consequences.

    Ken will now waffle on about how he actually has a conscience and feels bad and understands that suffering is bad, but his own line of logic completely betrays him. In every instance he points to god’s rules as the reason not to do something, and this same god thinks it is ok to dash children’s heads against rocks and have them eaten by bears for calling somebody “baldy”. Ken’s conscience, like a classical psychopath, extends only to “what will stop something bad happening to me?” Sadly he had a very bad role model growing up – a murderous father, equal parts absent and abusive, whose blood lust and anger can only be satisfied by killing his own son to prevent himself sending everyone else in his care to a place of eternal suffering.

    Of course, some of us had the same role model and managed to figure out that raping children isn’t ok long before now, and we didn’t need verses from the bible to do it. There’s something deeply unsettling about the kind of person who continues to argue about this issue in the context of what god wants, not what the victims want. As an aside, where in this book that treats children as property and tools does it state specifically that sexually and physically abusing them is bad? I’m guessing it’s not Proverbs 13:24.

  41. Ken says:

    Daz “Hurting children is bad. I don’t need an iron age book, or a fancy philosophical/theological argument to inform me of that.”

    We agree it’s bad. The problem is how do you explain to an abuser that it is wrong without having ‘that’s just your opinion’ and who are you to judge and discriminate thrown back in your face?

    As I’m not sure you really got what I was getting at, I’ll bring a friend along – Richard Dawkins. “”The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference”. No evil and no good. It then becomes a matter for individuals or society to try to decide what is right and what is wrong. How do they know? Science can’t tell you, and where does reason get its information from? How can you make absolute condemnation of behaviour based on relative morals? After all, aren’t we really just blindly-programmed survival machines?

    JohnMWhite – I don’t believe might is right; the ‘survival of the fittest’ is not a Christian doctrine! And where does God say it is OK to dash children’s heads against rocks? I’ll give you a clue – NOT Psalm 137!

    I have also never said what happens to the victims is irrelevant. The biblical sex ethic is confined to marriage of one man and one woman until death do us part. Secular Britian and the West in general has largely ditched this, but the result of promiscuity has been brokenness and heartache, disease and disfigurement and early death on a large scale. Doesn’t the effect of this make the secular ethic wrong?

  42. […] Read UK Supreme Court blow for Catholic Church, which tried to evade responsibility for clerical abuse […]

  43. Neil Allen says:

    The Catholic church is an organized crime family of child rape, not God’s church.

    About 8-9% of Catholic priests in the US were documented to be substantiated, accused child sex offenders. These are the child raping “hit men” of the church.

    After they rape a child, they go to another priest for Catholic “confession”, which Catholics literally invented, using only the 1st half of what Jesus said in John 20:23, and ignoring the 2nd half, and assuming that the power of forgiveness was only given to Catholic priests, as opposed to all victims, which is what Jesus meant.

    The priests who forgive the rapists re the mafia lieutenants. Bishop then hide and move these pedophiles. They are the mafia “Dons”.

    Of course, the Catholic child rape mafia has no honor, like the other mafia does. They attack the most innocent children, with the most despicable, cowardly crime that they KNOW they can get away with, and they destroy the lives of those children.

    The Catholic church – the pedophile mafia.