Church child protection chief.. well, you know the rest.
Discussion
A child protection official for the Catholic Church has been caught with 4,000 pictures of child porn.
Father-of-four Christopher Jarvis was arrested after uploading pictures of children being abused to a website.
Married Jarvis, 49, a former social worker, was employed by the church following sex scandals about pervert priests.
His job was to monitor church groups to ensure paedophiles did not gain access to children in the church’s congregations.
Just genius.. and its too obvious now.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/3...
Father-of-four Christopher Jarvis was arrested after uploading pictures of children being abused to a website.
Married Jarvis, 49, a former social worker, was employed by the church following sex scandals about pervert priests.
His job was to monitor church groups to ensure paedophiles did not gain access to children in the church’s congregations.
Just genius.. and its too obvious now.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2011/07/3...
I think this must be wrong. It all happened 20 or 30 years ago and everything is alright now. The pope, repeated by his representative here, says it is all in the past and that people like Sinaed O'Conner - the years have been hard on her - are over-reacting. I mean, he's infallible.
Austen Invereigh comes over as so believable that one must doubt O'Connor.
Wasn't O'Connor excommunicated from the church for saying nasty thing about priests yet no priest, despite many doing much more than nasty things to kids over years and years, has? Says it all really.
That disturbing link someone put up of the chap in his 50s/60s who had been systematically abused from a child comes to mind now everytime I see yet another example of abusive priests.
Austen Invereigh comes over as so believable that one must doubt O'Connor.
Wasn't O'Connor excommunicated from the church for saying nasty thing about priests yet no priest, despite many doing much more than nasty things to kids over years and years, has? Says it all really.
That disturbing link someone put up of the chap in his 50s/60s who had been systematically abused from a child comes to mind now everytime I see yet another example of abusive priests.
If the catholic church was any other kind of organisation than a religion, they'd have been shut down long ago and their leaders imprisoned. But because of the undeserved respect that religion gets, they've been free to rape children and cover it up for far too long.
A Catholic church's school in Victoria Australia had two pedophiles tag-team raping the student body, 26 kids have killed themselves after being raped, as typical, the Catholic church doesn't see the problem and doesn't want an investigation
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/church-...
"I think we've learnt a lot of things about what is appropriate behaviour and what's not appropriate behaviour," Bishop Connors said.
"I think people are very well informed nowadays as to what's inappropriate approaches from a male."
While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that "in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was appropriate and inappropriate behaviour."
A Catholic church's school in Victoria Australia had two pedophiles tag-team raping the student body, 26 kids have killed themselves after being raped, as typical, the Catholic church doesn't see the problem and doesn't want an investigation
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/church-...
"I think we've learnt a lot of things about what is appropriate behaviour and what's not appropriate behaviour," Bishop Connors said.
"I think people are very well informed nowadays as to what's inappropriate approaches from a male."
While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that "in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was appropriate and inappropriate behaviour."
Willie Dee said:
"I think we've learnt a lot of things about what is appropriate behaviour and what's not appropriate behaviour," Bishop Connors said.
"I think people are very well informed nowadays as to what's inappropriate approaches from a male."
While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that "in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was appropriate and inappropriate behaviour."
Is he really saying that a few years ago they didn't realise it was wrong to rape kids????"I think people are very well informed nowadays as to what's inappropriate approaches from a male."
While conceding the abuse of children was wrong, he said that "in the past it had not always been clear to everyone what was appropriate and inappropriate behaviour."
FFS!
Hooli said:
Is he really saying that a few years ago they didn't realise it was wrong to rape kids????
FFS!
In fairness, no, I don't think he is saying that. I think he's saying that a priest being alone with children, or sitting children on his knee, or showing affection, was mostly viewed as normal, reasonable, and so on, and not as a 'sign' of something more sinister. In most cases, I suspect, it was indeed innocent. Now these are viewed as inappropriate.FFS!
So I think what he was trying to say was 'we didn't see the signs, because those things weren't viewed as inappropriate'. The implication, of course, is that they can catch the pervert priests by just looking for those who sit children on their knees, since none of them will be bright enough to avoid that....
What he is clearly indicating, if not saying, is that he hasn't had any training or education on how to address this issue with the media!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff