Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?



No Christian preacher who got a confession from a person using their position in religion to abuse a child never mind Catholic priests ever revealed those confessions to save a child.  Why is the Christian faith so passive aggressive towards children?

From Sex, Priests and Secret Codes, The Catholic Church's 2,000 Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse. Thomas P Doyle. AWR Sipe. Patrick J Wall.

"Father Gerald Fitzgerald, who founded the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947, wrote in 1952 that he had already treated a handful of priests who abused minors. He found them 'lacking in appreciation of the seriousness of their offence and situation-in practice real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. Many bishops believe men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun'" (page 54)

Comment: This refutes the claim made by some bishops that they did not understand that a paedophile is addicted which was why they just moved them from parish to parish

"Citing forty years of combined psychiatric practice treating about 1,500 priests, they concluded that 20-25 percent of North American priests had serious psychiatric difficulties and 60-70 percent suffered from emotional immaturity. They concluded that the psychosexual immaturity manifested itself in heterosexual and homosexual activity. Kennedy and Heckler stated that underdeveloped and maldeveloped priests (74 percent) had unresolved psychosexual problems and issues that are usually worked through in adolescence adding: Sexuality is, in other words, non-integrated into the lives of underdeveloped priests and many of them function at pre-adolescent or adolescent level of psychosexual growth. Sipe-based on interviews with 1,500 priests or their sexual partners-concluded that 6 percent of priests were sexually involved with minors, 20-25 percent with adult women, and 15 percent with adult men" page 58.

Comment: This hypocrisy is outrageous. The hypocrisy of the priesthood is too high thus the priesthood has no justified existence. The other problem is how the chaste priests must enable the problem by protecting the philandering ones.

"There is little doubt that on a diocese-by-diocese basis, common strategies were adopted to make sure that sexual abuse cases never became public. There is little evidence that church officials followed state reporting statutes or reported incidents of child abuse to civil authorities. Bishops - are the official teachers of the church truth and responsible for all that happens in the church" page 190

Comment: The bishops were so corrupt that they did not even need the Church to command them to cover up. Had the men who became popes never been elected and remained bishops they would have covered up too.

"I (name) cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear-never to reveal to anyone whatosever has been confided to me to keep secret and the revelation of which could cause damage or dishonour to the Holy Church" page 205.

Comment: These are the men who can be elected pope and who choose the pope!

"In 1980, a study of homosexual priests conducted by a Catholic priest at the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality found that of a sample of fifty gay Catholic priests ranging from 27 to 58 years of age, only two or 4 percent, were abstaining from sex at that time. The number of previous same-sex partners for that sample ranged from 500 or more for 11 of the participants in the study, to fewer than 10 for 9 participants, and an average of 227 for each of the entire group. A total of 49, or 98 percent of the survey sample, stated they intended to continue living a gay lifestyle" page 211

"The church's lawyers are commanding hefty fees, and some find that it is in their interest to prolong negotiations and mediations even when it is clear that an alleged priest is guilty. Dioceses that claim bankruptcy should first disclose how much they have paid attorneys to wage long and complex battles that often end in settlements for the victims. Most outrageous is the fact that many dioceses and archdioceses and the USCCB as well, have contracted with expensive public relations firms to help spin the entire mess that the exposure of widespread abuse unleashed" page 258

"The John Jay study commissioned by the American bishops said that between 3 and 6 percent of Catholic priests abuse minors. They also cautioned that the figures they reported could not accurately determine the exact dimensions of the problem because of underreporting. The Boston Archdiocese admitted that 7.6 percent of its priests abused minors during the same period covered by the John Jay study (1950-2002). Because of further revelations, that percentage is now approaching 10 percent. Twenty-four percent of the priests serving in the diocese of Tucson, Arizona, in 1986 were sexual abusers" page 271

"Five functions of a diocesan priest in order of importance: First the priest was to preserve his image; his behaviour should not provide cause for scandal about the priesthood or the church. Second, a priest's most important function was to protect the income of the church" page 279

Comment: Interesting that image came first and money second. Even prayer was unimportant compared to those things. What kind of men would have subjected themselves to such rules?

"One courageous, completely honest bishop who could lift his head above the crowd would be worth more than all the PR campaigns put together. Of course all Christians know what it would cost: Another crucifixion!" page 280

"Pontifical Secret: the strictest form of secrecy in church law. It is imposed on everybody who participates in an official investigation into allegations of sexual abuse of minors by a priest" page 339

Comment: The pontifical secret is about the duty to obey the pope and keep the secrets of the Church even if the secrets do great harm to innocent children.


The scandal of priestly sexual child abuse was never exposed by any priests Ė the victims had to do that. No priest spoke out about what he knew. The bishops generally moved offenders to new parishes when a complaint surfaced and thus the abuse continued. In many cases, they got rid of the incriminating paper trail.

Each bishop has priests who work for him in the Diocesan office to help him run the diocese. These people know of abuse allegations and have said nothing. Catholic morality is demanding and hard for many and especially the poor. Men who make such high demands should make higher demands on themselves.

Any priest can become a bishop. When did a priest break ranks to have abusing priests jailed? And when they become bishops they are no better.

The priests joined a profession that did not give them guaranteed contact with children. So why did they join the priesthood if they were paedophiles? It is as if their priesthood somehow causes paedophilia. Child abuse is likely when in an unhealthy society or church, when you have an unhealthy psychological state and have an unhealthy attitude towards sex and love.

The priests feel little revulsion for clerical child molesters which raises the question why? Do they all want to molest children even if they donĎt carry out that desire?

The Church has sought to use the excuse that some decades ago - that it thought that paedophilia was a mental disorder and couldnít be cured. Its own canon law says it is a crime. The Church lies. The Church always believed it was a crime and that paedophiles were generally responsible for their actions. The Church likes to say that there is no direct link between celibacy and priestly paedophilia. But sometimes there will be. That has to be remembered. And if there is no direct link in many cases, what about an indirect link? The pope would not abolish celibacy if there was a link.

The Church makes such serious claims that we have the right to expect the Church to live up to its standards 110%. And especially when they claim the right to make us Catholics when we are babies unable to speak for ourselves and force a Catholic education on us. For a Catholic to reprimand somebody for not believing in God or obeying the Church would be sheer bigotry. Jesus made the same point when he declared that unless the holiness of his listeners surpasses the holiness of the Scribes and the Pharisees they will not see the Kingdom of Heaven - he means they are refusing to join the Kingdom for they are refusing to love properly.

Jesus said the Pharisees only prayed to be seen by others and praised. He didn't say they prayed to be seen. He said they ONLY prayed to be seen. Jesus was advocating a black and white judgementalism. Reasonable people know that we have a variety of motives for what we do. For example, nobody prays simply to be seen. They pray to feel good as well. They pray to impress upon others the perceived benefits of prayer. The Church upholds Jesus as a standard who is meant to be reflected by the priests thus it is asking for its sinful priests to be seen only as hypocrites. What else could they be?


Pope John XXIII gave out a secret directive to all the bishops of the world decreeing that if anybody was interfered with by the priest in the confessional and didnít keep it secret from the legal authorities they were excommunicated. Despite this evil, the pope was beatified by the manipulative John Paul II. John XXIII is now a saint thanks to Pope Francis.

John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger now Benedict XVI had all the bishops of the world informed by letter that allegations of child-abuse must be made to the Vatican and not the police. This is the letter received by the Irish bishops and signed by Archbishop Luciano Storero the papal nuncio and thus who would be the voice of the pope.


Catholic aid organisations such as Caritas do a lot of good work. The service many Catholics provide to society and to the downtrodden has led to an extreme reluctance in the UN and Human Rights Watch to attack the Catholic record on human rights. The Church has covered up large scale clerical sexual abuse. Priests who the Church has found guilty have been shielded from the police and the Church never reported their crimes to the civil authorities. They were given prayer and penance as their punishment as prescribed under canon law. This is no punishment at all for the Church claims it is a privilege to pray and to do penance. An entity that issues such non-punishments is really condoning the crimes. Condoning the crimes is encouraging them.

I donít believe in the supernatural. So when I have nightmare or imagine in the middle of the night that there is a dangerous ghost in the bedroom with me I get over it. My unbelief helps me. Unbelief for many is as good as faith is supposed to be. If a form of faith with some alarming content such as Hell is given to children is that not manipulation? Yes when there are alternatives. Disrespect for a child in any form is necessary before child abuse can happen.

Jesus told Peter that if a brother sins against him loads of times a day he must forgive him as many times (Matthew 19:21-22). This teaching accuses abuse victims who do not forgive of being evil. It also allows bishops to forgive priests who abuse and as proof that the past is the past to let the priests continue to have access to children.

Jesus said that if you do not forgive, God will not forgive you any of your sins (Matthew 6:15). Some priests will tell victims that if they canít forgive God will make an exception for them. But if God calls us all to be saints as the Church says then the only thing that is stopping us is our lack of cooperation and our pretending that we are too weak to do it.

The Catholic Church demeans its flock by having it worship bread.

Pope Benedict XVI sent a letter to the Catholics of Ireland in 2010 regarding child sexual abuse by priests and religious. The letter blamed lack of faith for their antics.

But with a faith that says that we should forgive a man seventy times seven a day, we canít believe that. In fact, strong faith would be an encouragement to commit sexual abuse. That obligates the victim to forgive the clerical sexual abuser and he or she is doing evil and hurting herself or himself if this is not done. By implication, Christian teaching blames the victim for most of or all of the trauma that he or she experiences. The Church believes that if you lead a person into sin that is worse than abusing them against their will. Those who believe that will not have much sympathy for abuse victims. The Church however has to fake this sympathy for it would look bad if its true feelings were made obvious.

The Pope is insincere. He never reprimanded priests who knew what their paedophile colleagues were up to for doing absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing means that they didnít reprimand those priests, they didnít threaten to turn them in unless they stopped, they didnít ask them to turn themselves in and they didnít report those priests to the bishops. The clerical culture where clerics are separated from normal people and form a clique of their own enabled the cover-ups to happen. What comes out about clerical sex abuse no matter how great or how large the scale, will always be the tip of a colossal iceberg. The pope wants the clerical culture to continue and even to retreat back in time to the days before Vatican II. In effect, he wants the cover-ups to be as good now as they were then.

There is no excommunication for abusing a child. There is for denying the Holy Trinity or that Mary was always a virgin. This faith is more interested in manipulating minds than in caring for people and uses the care of people as a means to warping their reason and emotions.


There was a centrally organised cover up of child abuse within the Catholic Church.

Some people are thick enough to think that there were many parts of the Church which engaged in a disorganised cover-up and others which covered up in a more methodical way. They say all organisations can have similar problems but that the Vatican which leads the Church cannot be blamed for all of it. But the Vatican is paid and positions itself to rule the Church. With power comes responsibility and the duty to admit you have responsibility. No such admission has ever taken place.

What about Crimen Sollicitationis? This commanded sexual abuse in the confessional to be kept secret or the victim would be excommunicated.

Some say the document was never issued to all the bishops. They even say that it was so secret that most bishops didnít know of it. No evidence is given that there were bishops who did not receive it. And of course the Church cannot afford to have all the bishops admitting to have received this document. Bishops would not admit they got that secret directive. It was a secret after all! 

Even if it were not given to all bishops, it was still the Vaticanís formal policy - that is what we must never forget. NO decent person would follow a Church that would officially and sneakily create such policies. The Church is an organisation and you will become guilty by association for tolerating such a policy.

Crimen was to be kept extremely secret. It commanded grave secrecy for the Church tribunals. It has been said that this secrecy did not apply to the crimes themselves. It is said that Crimen did not urge the victims to keep the crimes from the police. But where are the victims who went to the police? And do you really think that the Catholic Church in many places of the world would be happy about victims going to a police force that was prejudiced against Catholicism?

Moreover the Vatican and the bishops never advised victims to talk to the police. That shows they didnít really care about justice or the victims. They did not see the crimes as crimes.

Some say the secrecy enjoined covered the church's internal tribunals, not the crimes themselves. They argue that where those were not reported, as usually they weren't, that was down to misguided and wicked institutional loyalty rather than a cover up. To that I say, if the tribunals encouraged victims and their families to go to the police then why didn't they? And the tribunals pretended to solve the problem which stopped people going to the police. It is judgemental to accuse the families of misguided insane loyalty when the problem could have been the Church! And is a religion that inspires and gets such loyalty really a good thing?

The 1983 Code of Canon Law decreed that if an accusation of abuse against a priest is to be made, the statute of limitations is five years. The only exception is if the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome is dealing with it. This exception was not clarified or mentioned until it was publicised by Ratzinger in 2001. How clever! It helped make sure priests got off the hook and then when the media and social pressure got too much the Church suddenly said the CDF would look after allegations exceeding the five years. This power was news even to the CDF? Predictably, the law was promulgated in 2001 by Pope John Paul II in Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela. Too little too late and too manipulative.

If the Vatican is trying to make the Church safer for children, that is more likely be about wanting to stop sexual pleasure than any genuine will to do what is best for children. The fact that the Vatican is forced by public anger is another factor.

Some victims can and do identify with the priests and religious who abuse them. Thus they end up abusers themselves. They may become clerics, bishops, cardinals and popes too. Then they become determined to perpetuate abuse themselves or to help others to do it by granting them support and protection from the law. A priest claims to be a person with special powers and authority and a symbol of and representative of God. Clearly a person who is abused by a priest will identify with the abusers faster than a person who is abused by an ordinary person.

Victims can identify with counsellers and therapists and doctors who abuse them but they do not have the God/supernatural power catalyst that a priest has which leads to a faster and stronger and more dangerous self-identification of the victim with the abuser.

Serious crimes that often led to victims committing suicide were compounded by a new crime. The Vatican's crime was how it plotted and lied to avoid and delay civil justice from taking its course. That lack of support for victims contributed to many suicides.

Some victims are so traumatised and damaged by their experiences at the hands of priests that it takes years for them to come forward. It can take decades.

The Church will know that by now - and do not think it cares!

RATZINGER'S De delictis gravioribus,

De delictis gravioribus, the letter which was sent by Ratzinger in 2001 is more shocking than Crimen.

Its subject is, "A delict against morals, namely: the delict committed by a cleric against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue with a minor below the age of 18 years."

It required that:

This letter was sent to and intended for all bishops. It ordered them to adhere to the earlier regulations such as those in Crimen.

The central point in it is contained in the phrase "cases of this kind are subject to the pontifical secret."

This is not about the proceedings or the findings. It refers to the case - the whole case from start to finish. De delictus is perfectly clear that it shows a conspiracy to protect clerical sexual abusers and to stop the police from hearing about them.

Thomas Doyle stated, "According to the document, [crimen] accusers and witnesses are bound by the secrecy obligation during and after the process but certainly not prior to the initiation of the process.

Not all agree and the fact remains it was taken for granted by the document that the first people approached by the victims were church officials. The document knew from the culture of that time there was going to be no other way it was going to be.

Nobody can say that of De delictus - it certainly does know there is now a culture where crimes against children by priests may be reported to the police and it tries to get that stamped out. However it limits itself to saying cases that from the point where a child becomes an adult there is a statute of limitation of a decade. Part of that was the wish to protect the sainted Father Maciel who founded the Legionaries of Christ who was a prolific abuser of vulnerable young men to say the least.

There were no documents issued in relation to helping the child! There was no compassion.

People believe in religion but it is only a belief. When a religion crosses a line, it is time to go. Belief never comes before the suffering of a child or any person. The Church is a community of faith which means responsibility in some sense is shared between all members. The crimes of the Church reflect on the clergy most of all.
Link- 1997 Letter from Vatican enabling covering up