Pell and other allegations

Why are surprised that Churches will protect their own - All institutions are a microcosm of society - All institions protect their own - Yet society as a whole still support these institutes - Maybe society needs to reflect on their values.

If that is true then why didn’t EFC protect the 34.

Is EFC an institution in the literal sense of the word ?

Why are surprised that Churches will protect their own - All institutions are a microcosm of society - All institions protect their own - Yet society as a whole still support these institutes - Maybe society needs to reflect on their values.

If that is true then why didn’t EFC protect the 34.

EFC 100% protected the institution - the AFL.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-25/royal-commission-former-ballarat-bishop-ronald-mulkearns-appears/7198260
"Former Catholic bishop Ronald Mulkearns has told a royal commission he is not sure if he knew child abuse was a crime during his time in charge of the Ballarat diocese, but he knew it was wrong."

Fair dinkum, just don’t know what to say. Jesus fark, there is no excuse for these ■■■■■.

It will a crime to kick that ■■■■ to death, but there will be nothing wrong about it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-25/royal-commission-former-ballarat-bishop-ronald-mulkearns-appears/7198260
"Former Catholic bishop Ronald Mulkearns has told a royal commission he is not sure if he knew child abuse was a crime during his time in charge of the Ballarat diocese, but he knew it was wrong."

Fair dinkum, just don’t know what to say. Jesus fark, there is no excuse for these ■■■■■.

It will a crime to kick that ■■■■ to death, but there will be nothing wrong about it.

To be fair to him, child abuse wasn’t considered a crime for a long time and he was around for that time. In those days people very, very rarely reported child abuse to the police and very rarely did the police do anything about it when they did. So his answer is reasonable in that he did not know it was a crime but he did acknowledge that it was morally wrong and he didn’t do anything about it that was meaningful.

Took guts to admit it tbh and he should be praised for admitting it when Pell keeps trying to hide from it.

Not a crime eh? FMD.

Total bollocks IT.

Has daytripper hacked your account?

I guess it was ok back then.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES.

You people are participants in a horror story.

1 Like
Not a crime eh? FMD.

Total bollocks IT.

Has daytripper hacked your account?

I guess it was ok back then.

STOP MAKING EXCUSES.

You people are participants in a horror story.

Maybe you should read what I said rather than going off on a tangent and abusing me.

I made no excuse for anyone.

That was totally unnecessary nor appropriate.

EDIT: I wasn’t going to say anything because of personal reasons but when I get told I am part of this from an insulting position then I cannot remain silent…I am the victim of child abuse so stop verbally insulting people when you do not know where they are coming from.

What!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

1 Like
What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

Mulkearns would have known it was a crime to rape an adult but didn’t know it was a crime to rape an child?

And to IT, sorry to hear you have been abused. I know people who have been and it’s highly distressing.
And for the record I wasnt abusing you, and apologies to you that you took it that way.

The people in the church who put the church first and victims last need to take a second look at their position.

What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

No disrespect IT, and I have some very close friends who are victims. I do find it hard to understand that any parents would have this view until 1990. I am not asking you to explain or justify; I just find it one of those wow moments. I can recall way back in the 1960 at our church, when an assistant priest was accused of “tampering” with a child, that all parents knew it was wrong and illegal, and all children were warned. We were in a working class parish of strict irish and italian catholics, but wrong is wrong.

Mulkearns would have known it was a crime to rape an adult but didn't know it was a crime to rape an child?

And to IT, sorry to hear you have been abused. I know people who have been and it’s highly distressing.
And for the record I wasnt abusing you, and apologies to you that you took it that way.

The people in the church who put the church first and victims last need to take a second look at their position.

No worries.

As for Mulkearns, he did what you said and resigned his position. He has admitted he acted poorly. I praise him for that bit because everyone else (like Pell) are trying desperately to cover their arses while he has fronted up and confessed to his pathetic and woefully inadequate actions. More should do the same.

We also need to understand the times, not as an excuse, but to comprehend why some of these people acted that way.

Sex was a 4 letter word and sexual abuse was even more shameful. No one talked about it, no one even considered it, neither in the public nor in the clergy. Also people like Mulkearns were indoctrinated by the RCC; it is all powerful, infallible (never wrong) and you NEVER EVER do anything to shame the Church in public. So people like Mulkearns are taught to always follow the rules set out by those above them. These rules included such things as “moving” priests who do something wrong well outside their current area of influence and sending them to “counselling” to fix their problem. The last thing that he would be able to do is go to the police and if he did, well, kiss his job goodbye. Whistleblowers were not acceptable and, this is an important issue, confession could never be violated (terrible terrible process that absolutely flies in the face of what the Bible actually teaches).

I am not excusing him, moral courage was required and he failed on that score horribly, but I can understand why it happened the way it did. I just hope that this RC can highlight this and bring even more change to the RCC and other religious and non-religious institutions so this sort of thing can be limited.

How long will it take society to realise that children are our greatest gift and highest responsibility? With the profligation of child ■■■■■■■■■■■ I fear we are losing this battle and the outcome will not be pretty.

What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

No disrespect IT, and I have some very close friends who are victims. I do find it hard to understand that any parents would have this view until 1990. I am not asking you to explain or justify; I just find it one of those wow moments. I can recall way back in the 1960 at our church, when an assistant priest was accused of “tampering” with a child, that all parents knew it was wrong and illegal, and all children were warned. We were in a working class parish of strict irish and italian catholics, but wrong is wrong.

Also no disrespect intended, and I’m not disputing what you’ve said in your case but speaking more generally…the Eightes were not the dark ages.
In many respects I happen to think that they were more progressive than the times we live in now.
But in any case, Mr Bubbles was a thing.
There was a worse guy before that…I want to say Mr Evil…but I’m not sure.
These weren’t…they were front page and six o’clock news stories.

What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

No disrespect IT, and I have some very close friends who are victims. I do find it hard to understand that any parents would have this view until 1990. I am not asking you to explain or justify; I just find it one of those wow moments. I can recall way back in the 1960 at our church, when an assistant priest was accused of “tampering” with a child, that all parents knew it was wrong and illegal, and all children were warned. We were in a working class parish of strict irish and italian catholics, but wrong is wrong.

Some people live under a rock, my parents were like that. My mum still called PNG women fuzzy-wuzzy girls and Asians as slanty eyes. She meant no real disrespect, she is not actually racist or bigoted, but boy she came across that way if you didn’t know her. It used to make me both cringe and laugh at the same time.

What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

No disrespect IT, and I have some very close friends who are victims. I do find it hard to understand that any parents would have this view until 1990. I am not asking you to explain or justify; I just find it one of those wow moments. I can recall way back in the 1960 at our church, when an assistant priest was accused of “tampering” with a child, that all parents knew it was wrong and illegal, and all children were warned. We were in a working class parish of strict irish and italian catholics, but wrong is wrong.

Also no disrespect intended, and I’m not disputing what you’ve said in your case but speaking more generally…the Eightes were not the dark ages.
In many respects I happen to think that they were more progressive than the times we live in now.
But in any case, Mr Bubbles was a thing.
There was a worse guy before that…I want to say Mr Evil…but I’m not sure.
These weren’t…they were front page and six o’clock news stories.

Not sure where you grew up but in the 80’s homosexuality was not an acceptable lifestyle and when aids hit it became even less tolerable. Not so now, far more inclusive and accepting.

We had sex ed back then in school (late 70’s early 80’s for me) but it was still frowned upon that you would have sex outside of marriage or even discuss it (unless you were boys and your dad had Playboy or Hustler then everyone was your friend - and no not me).

What?!!!!

Child abuse of a female under 10 has been a criminal charge since 1928 in victoria. Since 1950 it has been illegal to have penetrative sex with a child under the age of consent (16), to procure a child under the age of consent for “immoral acts”, to indecently assault a child UTAC (oral sex etc). Some offences would have fallen into the (highly objectionable) anti-homosexual legislation prevalent at the time but was illegal nonetheless.

Unless Mulkearns is several hundred years old, the “i didn’t know if it was illegal” explanation is utter bullshit.

Not really, my parents didn’t know it was illegal until the 90’s.

No disrespect IT, and I have some very close friends who are victims. I do find it hard to understand that any parents would have this view until 1990. I am not asking you to explain or justify; I just find it one of those wow moments. I can recall way back in the 1960 at our church, when an assistant priest was accused of “tampering” with a child, that all parents knew it was wrong and illegal, and all children were warned. We were in a working class parish of strict irish and italian catholics, but wrong is wrong.

Also no disrespect intended, and I’m not disputing what you’ve said in your case but speaking more generally…the Eightes were not the dark ages.
In many respects I happen to think that they were more progressive than the times we live in now.
But in any case, Mr Bubbles was a thing.
There was a worse guy before that…I want to say Mr Evil…but I’m not sure.
These weren’t…they were front page and six o’clock news stories.

Not sure where you grew up but in the 80’s homosexuality was not an acceptable lifestyle and when aids hit it became even less tolerable. Not so now, far more inclusive and accepting.

We had sex ed back then in school (late 70’s early 80’s for me) but it was still frowned upon that you would have sex outside of marriage or even discuss it (unless you were boys and your dad had Playboy or Hustler then everyone was your friend - and no not me).

We had very different upbringings.
And Mr Baldy was the guy I was thinking of.

Edit: I still recall my History teacher telling me in 1986 that people don’t mind you being a left-footer as long as it’s a very good left foot.
And I still think that’s funny.

See I dunno, I came from a very strict and conservative catholic upbringing, and my parents still knew that priests (or anybody for that matter) shouldn’t be touching up kids. Granted I was late 80’s - early 90’s, but still, I don’t think there was some period of enlightenment on the topic just before that time.

One of the things that ■■■■■ me about it, is that I know of two separate cases in the 70’s of priests being kicked out of the church because they had sexual relations with a consenting adult woman.

You know, because of the whole chastity thing.

But sexual relations with a child? Nah, let’s just ignore that, that doesn’t count.

1 Like
See I dunno, I came from a very strict and conservative catholic upbringing, and my parents still knew that priests (or anybody for that matter) shouldn't be touching up kids. Granted I was late 80's - early 90's, but still, I don't think there was some period of enlightenment on the topic just before that time.

One of the things that ■■■■■ me about it, is that I know of two separate cases in the 70’s of priests being kicked out of the church because they had sexual relations with a consenting adult woman.

You know, because of the whole chastity thing.

But sexual relations with a child? Nah, let’s just ignore that, that doesn’t count.

Yeah some of the things churches do are strange on that score.

In Protestant churches it used to be that if you divorced and then remarried you committed a terrible thing and you would get kicked out or shunned. If you had an affair while married, well that was bad but they would try and help you “get better” and they still loved you.

I could never work out how that worked.

I’m very frustrated that I have tried to post an article from Facebook that I found appalling and relevant to these discussions
About 50 years ago in the U.S a priest raped and murdered one of his parishioners. Evidence of his crime was found and he was a suspect but being a priest it wasn’t followed through.
Later this priest wanted to enter a new order and confessed his crime to the order. Years later the priest that heard the confession contacted the police
When asked why he didn’t report the crime at the time he said his job was to assist the priest not to get involved with the police
To my knowledge the murdering rapist priest was not convicted