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.
I do get that IT. My Mum was a sweet Lady, but she was a terrible racist. She called any Turk and there were lots of Christian Turks in Coburg in the 1960 and 1970’s “Tea Towel Ladies”, and would not sit anywhere near them on the tram. My sister at 18 was asked out by a guy whose Mother may have had indigenious blood, and Mum was irate and would not allow it. However both Mum and Dad, knew that you did not leave your kids with some Priests and Brothers on their own, and any out of school activities where the Assistant Priest was involved, was always supervised by Parents.
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
Yeah that has been written about many times. Pretty disturbing case.
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
Catholic Church Tells Bishops They Are Not Obliged to Disclose Child Sex Abuse: Report
Rishi Iyengar @Iyengarish Feb. 11, 2016
Report says the church has told prelates that decision should be made by the victims and their families
The Catholic Church is allegedly telling newly ordained bishops that they have no obligation to report child-sexual-abuse allegations to law-enforcement officials, saying instead that the decision to take such claims to the authorities should be left to victims and their families.
The policy was first reported by a veteran Vatican journalist at Catholic news website Crux, who cited a presentation given by French Monsignor Tony Anatrella.
Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, also authored a training document for new bishops released by Church authorities last week, in which similar guidelines are laid out.
“According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” his document states, according to a citation in the Guardian.
Victim-support groups have reacted with fury to the revelation, according to news agency UPI.
Crux adds that the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors — a major body created by Pope Francis last year to establish “best practices” for the church in its battle against child abuse — was not involved in the training process.
Catholic Church Tells Bishops They Are Not Obliged to Disclose Child Sex Abuse: Report
Rishi Iyengar @Iyengarish Feb. 11, 2016
Report says the church has told prelates that decision should be made by the victims and their families
The Catholic Church is allegedly telling newly ordained bishops that they have no obligation to report child-sexual-abuse allegations to law-enforcement officials, saying instead that the decision to take such claims to the authorities should be left to victims and their families.
The policy was first reported by a veteran Vatican journalist at Catholic news website Crux, who cited a presentation given by French Monsignor Tony Anatrella.
Anatrella, a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Family and the Pontifical Council for Health Care Workers, also authored a training document for new bishops released by Church authorities last week, in which similar guidelines are laid out.
“According to the state of civil laws of each country where reporting is obligatory, it is not necessarily the duty of the bishop to report suspects to authorities, the police or state prosecutors in the moment when they are made aware of crimes or sinful deeds,” his document states, according to a citation in the Guardian.
Victim-support groups have reacted with fury to the revelation, according to news agency UPI.
Crux adds that the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors — a major body created by Pope Francis last year to establish “best practices” for the church in its battle against child abuse — was not involved in the training process.
Pope Frank needs to focus on real issues not spend his time commenting on whether or not a politician is saved. This institution is screwed up.
I think it all gets down to money. They’ve paid out around $20 mil to abuse victims so far and the catholic church loves it’s money more than its followers. One of the main reasons why they’ve never let their clergy marry.
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.
Pell’s infamous “abortion is worse than child abuse” line - when asked by paritioners how to talk about the ongoing child abuse scandals. That’s compassion, right there.
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
Mr Bad.
Mr Baldy (Brian Keith Jones) is the one I think you are searching for. There was also Mr Stinky but I don’t think he was a kiddy fiddler.
Off topic, but who was the slimy lizard paroled (or maybe served his sentence) who walking away from the courthouse(?) said first thing he’d do was find some boy to fark?
You wouldn’t have to report running that slime over, would you?
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.
Wasn’t Mr Evil the villian off E-street?
Thinking of Toni Pearen and Melissa Tkautz is a nice afternoon treat for myself.
