Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Resource for Foreigners in Finland  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
The Breast Cancer Site
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
I am a Catalyst for Change I am a Catalyst for Change
by Eleana Winter-Irving
2013-04-03 06:50:21
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

I write about subjects that I want people to think about. I am not a facts and figures person. It doesn’t matter to me if 3,647 people were raped by priests, Cardinal, Bishops and the like or that it is 4,238 people raped. What matters is that many children were raped or molested. That every child has a voice and that every perpetrator is found guilty and suffers as much as they have caused the suffering of others. This will never happen because the children never had a voice and only now as adults are they coming forward, often at the encouragement of wives and friends. The perpetrators are now mostly old men, so no amount of punitive action will compensate. If such a thing had happened to a child of mine, I’d gladly string the perpetrator up by his penis and scrotum; similar to what they did to Mussolini. Harsh? I don’t think so. But I wouldn’t kill him.

I don’t only have the Catholic Church in my sights, but it is the Catholic Church that makes me feel the sickest because they have known right from the top what was going on and priests were merely moved to another diocese to perpetrate again and again. The child got nothing or a rebuke. It is beyond my understanding that anyone can have any faith in this religion. Sure there are some priests doing some good things, but you don’t have to be a priest to do good things. Anyone can help people in need. If you want to believe in Jesus, you can without being a Catholic. If you want to pray, you can without being a Catholic. Anyone can pray and if you believe it is doing some good, then keep on praying. I pray myself, just not to the god of Israel. I’m Australian, why would I pray to the god of Israel? Why would anyone pray to the god of Israel, other than the Jews? But many Christians hate Jews. Why is that? Why bother to be Christian and hate anyone? There is no one in the world that I hate. I dislike some people. I dislike George B*sh. I dislike Islamic Fundamentalists. I dislike people who torture people and animals. I dislike liars and of course I dislike paedophiles. But Christians actually kill people they hate, without even knowing the person personally. This is a very difficult thing to understand for a peace loving non-Christian. The Catholics kill Protestants in Ireland. You may well point out that Protestants also kill Catholics. Anyone but me think this is very weird when both are Christians? Both read from the same bible, worship the god of Israel and both are supposed to follow the Ten Commandments; one of which is: Thou Shalt NOT kill. Not, Thou Shall Kill thy enemy.

The Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and priests set themselves as superior to their followers and congregation. They behave piously in the church building, sanctimoniously preaching nonsense that no one can contradict in their pews. They tell their congregation how they must behave, as if they can’t work this out for themselves. From time to time I attend a church service just to see if things have changed. But sadly they have not. I went to the Anglican church (Cathedral) in Sydney last and the sermon the Arch Bishop gave was about as stupid as anything I have ever heard. He said that ALL fathers are bad fathers. He repeated this several times, I think it was 8 times in all. Was he judging all fathers on his own fathering skills? He doesn’t know all fathers, how absurd. I wrote to him challenging him on his sermon. I asked him if he had met every father in the world, or even in Sydney. I asked him how he could judge every father without knowing them personally. Did I receive a reply.  NO!

No, because he had been called out on his stupidity and false assumptions. He didn’t have the guts to reply and I only wish I had had the guts to stand up in front of the congregation and say my piece. I told my daughter that I was going to stand up and interrupt him, but she begged me not to. I wish I had asked her to wait outside and gone ahead anyway. Why do these miserable women need to be told that their husbands are bad fathers? How did the fathers in the congregation feel being told they are bad fathers, without any proof or justification? But I bet all those good fathers were back in church the very next Sunday like robots. I found a congregation who can’t think for themselves, who sit there praying trite prayers, singing the same old hymns and I wonder if they ever think that their god of Israel ever gets sick of hearing the same old prayers and hymns week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade and millennia after millennia.  Or don’t they think past the mundane?

Every time I go to a church service, regardless of the denomination, I am shocked at the level of ignorance. I am shocked at the amount of money spent on maintenance of the church and of the clergy; the little they have to do to earn their keep and the criticism of their congregation. When does a priest ever say, “well done so and so, you have been a great mother, or a great humanitarian?” When has a priest ever recognised a woman to be his superior? When will the Roman Catholic Church ever recognise women as wise women, wiser than they? How can women go on century after century, right into the 21st century, perpetuating a patriarchal society and the myth that men are superior to women?  Things need to change and the best way would be for the church to fall over, disintegrate and self-combust. IMHO.


   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(43)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2013-04-03 08:32:59
All women are wise women. All fathers are bad fathers. All clergy are pedophiles, ignorant and venal. All religions are harmful to be condemned and disposed of.

All of the statements above are obviously false, none excluded. Common sense and logic dictate that generalized statements egregiously accusing all those belonging to a particular group or category one does not like can easily and glibly be asserted but can just as easily be denied and ignored. It can also land one in a suit for slander and fefamation.

For anyone, regardless of gender, nationality, ethnic background, education, occupation, race, color, religious affiliation or non-affiliation, to start any argumentation with those generalized statements as premises, unsupported by hard bona fide empirical evidence while painting a whole group of people with the same wide brush, in order to arrive at conclusions that support one’s biases and prejudices, is not only to eventually lose any credibility but also any chance of being taken seriously.

Free speech and freedom to express one’s opinions and to interpret the hard facts and respond to what one thinks as false and egregious, to vehemently disagree with one's interlocutors while defending their right to disagree, is a wonderful concept well exemplified by Ovi, but I'd like to suggest that it never meant that all opinions and interpretations are created equal or that one can disregard the facts or simply create one’s own or for that matter descend to boorish argumenti ad hominem. Not even J.S. Mill thought that.


Murray Hunter2013-04-03 08:48:14
Eleana
I saw in The Age today that the Royal Commission into Child Abuse has over 5,000 submissions from people who are claiming that they have been abused by the Church.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/abuse-royal-commission-expects-5000-submissions-20130403-2h6k7.html


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-03 15:50:50
P.S.
“If such a thing had happened to a child of mine, I’d gladly string the perpetrator up by his penis and scrotum; similar to what they did to Mussolini.”

The above is not a fact but an invented fantasy. While it is true that Mussolini was captured by Italian partisans as he fled to Switzerland, summarily tried and then hung up by his feet from a Milan bridge with six other executed persons (and 10 more on display on the ground) including his mistress, it is an invented fabrication that he was hung up by his penis and scrotum. I include a link with supporting evidence and documentation below. To reiterate the point, to invent one’s facts and then throw them against the wall hoping that they’ll stick and then present them as supporting metaphors or evidence in order to arrive at conclusions that support one’s biases is to make sure that one’s argument is not only weakened but also discredited and not taken very seriously.

In a course on logic and philosophy those shabby tactics would net one an F whether or not one agreed or disagreed with the author of the course's text or the professor teaching the course.

http://www.custermen.com/ItalyWW2/ILDUCE/Mussolini.htm



Leah Sellers2013-04-03 19:01:15
Eleana,
You are ferociously Wonderful !
Most of the Churches of Today are merely exhibiting (and make a great place to Observe, Study and Analyze) the very Behavioral Tic-Tocs and Trends that All of Us Need to be made Aware of, so that We Can Change and Move toward the more Enlightened and Positively Energized parts of OurSelves as Human Beings.
They hold the potentialities and capabilites to be ever bubbling and Evolving Cauldrons of Individual and Social Changes for the Better. And Spontaneous Combustion and Re-Generation may well be an integral part of that - ha !


Murray Hunter2013-04-03 19:28:46
Eleana
I wish to share some of my experiences while spending 10 years at a Jesuit School, which is also Roman catholic of course. I would prefer to just share these snippets with you without comment. They are just experiences to share and I hope readers will respect that.
I remember back in 1970 taking some copies of the magazine China Reconstructs to school to show at geography class. As you would remember at that time China was still a mysterious country to us. For my efforts, I got the magazines from Radio Peking, I was summoned to the headmaster's office, magazines confiscated and given 4 hours detention.
Another experience was in religious class where Brother Guliano told the whole class that "a good catholic is obligation to God to vote for the DLP". I walked out of the class and never went back for the rest of the year.
Then on 11th November 1975 when I got the news that the Governor General had dismissed my beloved Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, I went straight from school to the centre of Melbourne like 250000 other people and was suspended from attending school for 10 days for that.

I also met many very nice priests as well. A priest who is now an archbishop of one of the Australian cities today taught us theology in year 6. When evidence came out in 1976 that Jesus may not have been the son of God due to the possibility of the remains of ISA in Kashmer being those of Jesus, this became a topic in the class. Our priest who worked in the missions in India for some time gave us a very interesting explanation. He said that there was great probability that Jesus was a mortal human and yes that made the doctrine of Catholism technically fictional. However this does not take away from the role of the Church as a facilitator of faith in this world. He went on to tell us that our true God is love and compassion for others. He further told us that if we ever feel we are losing our faith is to take heed of the Gospel of St Thomas. God comes from inside of us and its up to us to manifest his/her's existence in what we think and do in this world. This is the true objective of Christainity is to bring love into our hearts and then radiate it into the world. He brough religion to our level so easily in that half hour and all of us have deeply respected him since. He also admitted than many priests within the priest hood don't really believe in God but they joined the priesthood to become humanists. These are the ones I respect.
Just as another thought. My friend who passed away Tim Connagrave wrote a book called "Holding the man". It was made into a play in both London and NY. If you have access to the book it will in great detail describe what life was like in a Jesuit school and how we found ways of coping with this. FYI in the book I am Kevin, so you can judge for yourself.
Im just sharing my experiences, so consequently not inviting any comments on my experiences if readers can respect that.
Murray


Eva2013-04-03 20:31:08
You are my hero, Eleana, well said!!


Eleana2013-04-04 04:41:03

Emanuel, your comment on my article was not well thought out and did not even apply. I wrote ‘similar’ to what happened to Mussolini, not exactly the same as. Are you unable to differentiate between the two?

Secondly your line of attack was not clear when you quote: “All women are wise women. All fathers are bad fathers. All clergy are pedophiles, ignorant and venal. All religions are harmful to be condemned and disposed of.” Can I ask you who is saying this, other than you? I certainly have never said that all women are wise women. Can I make it quite clear to you now that what I was saying was quote: “When will the Roman Catholic Church ever recognise women as wise women, wiser than they?” That to an intelligent person is very different from saying that all women are wise. I was referring to wise women, not all women. That may equate to just 3 women on the planet, or it could equate to millions of women, but never to all women. Good grief and you are a professor.
It was not me that said all fathers are bad fathers. I personally know some wonderful fathers. My grandson has a wonderful father; however the insinuation seems to be that that is what I think. I have a feeling that you get yourself into such a blind rage when you read my articles that you are UN able to comprehend what I have actually written. If you respond in temper, you will get things wrong. How about ensuring you are quite calm next time.

I certainly qualified that not all priests are paedophiles. Quote mine: “Sure there are some priests doing some good things…” Could anyone but you Emanuel, construe that to mean that even the priests that are doing good things are also paedophiles? Almost every comment you make on my articles is twisted and skewed to make it seem that I have written something that I have not. And Emanuel, I am not afraid to call you out on it. My articles are not designed as a personal attack on you. You were not even in my mind when I wrote the above article. But it is an attack and deservedly so, on the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions that have paedophile perpetrators in their midst.

It confounds me that you Emanuel have such high regard for the Church and very little regard for the victims. This attitude is bound to cause some suspicion. It appears to be the same attitude that those high up in the annals of the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy, who wish to preserve the integrity of the Church and dismiss the abuse as being merely ‘unfortunate’ for the victims.
Emanuel, we agree on one thing quote: “Free speech and freedom to express one’s opinions and to interpret the hard facts and respond to what one thinks as false and egregious, to vehemently disagree with one's interlocutors while defending their right to disagree, is a wonderful concept well exemplified by Ovi, but I'd like to suggest that it never meant that all opinions and interpretations are created equal…”. However quote: “or that one can disregard the facts or simply create one’s own or for that matter descend to boorish argumenti ad hominem.” I ask you now to clarify exactly what facts I disregarded. I am entitled to a viewpoint and an opinion, without having facts and figures involved. Murray has stated that there are over 5,000 submissions to the Royal Commission in Australia alone and more are expected as time goes on, as victims are emboldened and brave enough to air the filthy laundry in public. Facts that I disregarded please.

Now on the subject that I am boorish: Collins Dictionary n. an ill-mannered, clumsy or insensitive person. I suggest that I am the exact opposite. I come from an upper-class family, my manners are impeccable. I am nimble in speech and countenance. I say what I mean and I mean what I say. I stick to the truth as I see it and I am not afraid of professors lauding it over me as either a woman or as a moral entity. And insensitive? This is my truth: I am highly sensitive to abuse of any kind. I fail to see reason as to why I should be sensitive towards perpetrators of evil. Amen.



Eleana2013-04-04 04:41:41
Thank you for sharing Murray.


Eleana2013-04-04 04:43:44
Thank you Leah. I think you are getting used to my out-spoken ways, ha ha ha.


Eleana2013-04-04 04:45:45
Thank you Eva. I am not afraid to say what others are scared to. I am thankful for the support.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-04 09:41:06
An inquiry and open question: were we to slowly abandon the commendable notion of a team and a family respectful of the empirical facts and their interpretation and start a Mutual Admiration Society patting each other on their back, to which anybody who is perceived to be a critical gadfly and who doesn’t agree with the generally agreed and accepted politically correct points of view and general preferences, what may be felt to be the common values of the Society, need not apply, or at the very least urge them to keep their mouth shut or else..., would we not thereby be running the real risk of slowly but surely creating an exclusive intolerant elitist club thereby destroying the very character of a publication of opinion organized around free speech in the best sense of that slogan, that is to say a publication open to all opinions and points of view to be discussed and debated rationally, where the voice of reason prevails rather than the politically correct position, and where people can discuss and comment on any issue and disagree without becoming disagreeable and boorish and without descending to the personal and ad hominem?

I suppose the challenge for anybody in any way associated with this magazine, not excluding myself, is to attempt to answer the question honestly without bringing in manufactured facts, personal preferences and prejudices, innuendos and false assumptions inevitably leading to false conclusions.


Eleana2013-04-04 12:05:01
Of which Emanuel, your entire last comment is false. You know all abvout it. Right? False. Maybe some tests are in order.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-04 13:44:16
Ms. Eleana Winter-Irving, I am afraid that the above rationalizations simply will not wash. While it is true that you never said that all Catholic priests are pedophile, nor do I claim that you said it, unfortunately you came close to it when you turned the table around and egregiously proclaimed that the truth is that the number of offending priests is not 3% as the statistics reveal, but more like 97%.

I submit to you and any sycophant with anti-Catholic leanings, who may also find such bizarre statistics plausible, that those are shabby argumentative tactics which dishonor the truth and do little honor to your cause which is allegedly one of compassion toward the victims and concern for justice; to the contrary it makes a perceptive reader suspect another nefarious motive and agenda, that of sheer bias toward the Church. Which is not to deny in any shape or form compassion toward the victims and advocacy of justice and punishment toward the 3% or perpetrators, as I have repeated said. But to eliminate the suspicion of another agenda you would at a minimum have to retract that bizarre made-up statistic and begin the dialogue anew showing greater respect for the facts and for the truth. I am sorry that you and your supporters have so far not seen such an obvious fact.

Laarly, contrary to the image of a raving nut that you have been trying to insinuate all along, let me reassure you and inform you that I write all my comments and articles aerenically and as rationally as possible and with no animosity toward you personally whom I hardly know. I can only go by what you write and proclaim.


Murray Hunter2013-04-04 15:21:43
According to the Catholic Church website there are 3,000 priests and brothers in Australia. If only 3% of these clergy are pedofiles, then each member of these 3% have committed 42 abuses on children each. I believe that the figure of members of the clergy involved in the sexual abuse of children to be much greater than 3%. We will only know the answer to this question as the Royal Commission continues.
http://www.catholicaustralia.com.au/page.php?pg=austchurch-survey

Anyway, it really doesn't matter how many clergy were involved in the sexual abuse of children. What is important is the attitude the church took in covering up this abuse from the authorities. Fortunately this issue is also within the terms of reference of the inquiry.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-04 18:09:40
Professor Hunter, it seems to me, if nobody else, that if onr id sharing one's experiences in the public domain in a magazine of opinion, than one ought not ask readers to refrain from commenting on those experiences simply because they are one's personal experiences. In that case, it is better to refrain from sharing them in public. The concept of free speech is really simple: whatever is put in the public domain before an audience is subject to critique or praise as the case may be; moreover one leaves oneself open to charges of slander when one attacks somebody or some institution with unfounded facts, personal insinuations and assumptions. One would have thought that anybody who reads and contributes to Ovi magazine would subscribes ipso facto to that simple principle.


Murray Hunter2013-04-04 19:06:14
Here are some exerts from today's The Age newspaper:
"Catholic Church leaders in Australia were contributing to the ostracism and scapegoating of child sex abuse victims, showing little leadership and very little ''will to know'', the Victorian inquiry into how the churches handled sex abuse was told on Thursday...''The greatest insurance policy offenders have is the ignorance of the community,'' she said. ''I don't believe the Catholic hierarchy has changed its attitude. There has been no leadership to take this forward. I haven't seen that probity and will to know, which means setting aside preconceived ideas and being open to learn. It takes courage.''...She said many priests and churchgoers were dismissive of abuse, using minimising language such as ''there was just a bit of touching''. She had heard churchgoers say, ''when are these people going to stop coming forward? Why don't they show some dignity and keep silent?''



Murray Hunter2013-04-04 19:06:47
Part 2:
She told of a ''punch up'' between a priest and parishioner outside a rural church when the priest disparaged the abuse of a child during the homily. Professor Taylor said children taught to respect the authority of the church often saw offenders as a representation of God, and many victims felt their abuse showed they were unloved by God....She said grooming by paedophiles was still rife, and that predators particularly targeted the children of very devout families....Noted child abuse expert Professor Freda Briggs also lamented ignorance across the community, saying professionals, especially university academics, were reluctant to accept the seriousness of child abuse.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/church-heads-ostracised-victims-20130404-2h9mf.html#ixzz2PVjzV65l

Oh how this article is so familiar to the denial going on through these pages.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-05 00:56:23
One has to wonder as to whom the good professor is alluding to when he suggests that there is “denial in these pages.” I read the magazine daily and nobody that I know has denied that there have been scandalous and reprehensible sexual abuses of minors within the clergy of the Catholic Church as well as other Churches's clergy to be sure, that we ought to feel compassion and sympathy for the victims, and the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law, never mind defending pedophiles or being branded a secret one that needs “to come from the closet.”

What was challenged were the shabby argumenti ad hominem bordering on the slanderous, the empirical accuracy of the facts as presented and the motivation for distorting them to arrive at wrong conclusions supporting one’s prejudices. Indeed if there is a denial going on, it is the denial that an anti-Catholic bias making its appointed rounds since the resignation of Benedict XVI is alive and well, and sadly, even in a politically correct society, it remains the last acceptable bias.


Eleana2013-04-05 02:35:34
In another article I said that the percentage of paedophiles in the Catholic Church was closer to 97% than it was to 3%. I hoped the reader would realise that both 97% and 3% are absurd figures. Anyway I was speaking of what is going on in Australia. The Royal Commission into sex child abuse has only just started. We will never know the true number of abusers, as not all victims will come forward, EVER. The children that are being abused now may not even know about the Royal Commission. Parents of children who are secretly being abused may still trust their priest.

There is one constant commenter who consistently defends the Roman Catholic Church to the point of ad nauseam. I don’t care if that Church has over a billion mindless followers, nor do I care that it is run as an industry with wealth, power and gain as its main aim. I care about the abuse of children, children without a voice. I want paedophilia stamped out of every organisation where perpetrators hide. The commenter appears to have no regard or sympathy for the abused. All his energy in his writing goes on the same old tired statements ad infinitum. Where has anyone read, where a genuine empathy has been shown towards victims and a desire to rid the Church of such vile crimes? Has he ever acknowledged the cover-ups, the denials and rejection of complaints?

My observations have mainly come from Cardinals speaking on television and radio, not so much from mainstream media and what they say about it. I listen. I hear what they say and I am appalled, disgusted and revolted by their words. Cardinal Pell is probably the most offensive to my senses. He went on ABC’s QandA some time ago and admitted that he was confused about religion and didn’t know what was truth and what was not. It is what Cardinals, Bishops and priests say themselves that I take notice of. Not what a spokesperson from the Vatican says. I have a brain, plus a mind and I use them in conjunction with my intuition. I can tell with the use of intuition when someone is lying. I see the Catholic Church breaking the Ten Commandments on a regular basis. I’m not a Christian, yet I obey the Ten Commandments without challenge or difficulty. Surely if a non-Christian, a person without religion can obey them, then the Roman Catholic Church MUST obey them and not blatantly break them for all the world to see.






Murray Hunter2013-04-05 05:21:12
Eleana
One can see how difficult an issue this is due to the number of long years it took a Government to have the fortitude to actually allow this enquiry. I think that this will go down as one of the current Prime Minister's leagcies on social issues. Lets pray that after the facts are revealed that the abused can be consoled of their pain and suffering. This is also a watershed opportunity for the Catholic Church in Australia to turn over a new leaf and look to the future.


Murray Hunter2013-04-05 02:49:41
Dear Professor Paparella,
I expect nothing else but negativity and humdrum from you. There is a great difference between free speech and mischievous meanderings. Sometimes I just feel that you are trolling for a fight. You have labelled me an atheist, cut and pasted other peoples writings to rebut what I have said, and made numerous accusations that the facts presented by others are false without ever offering anything constructive. I don't expect any better from you. Free speech that just negatively attacks others continually is just using the notion as an excuse bully others. I see how you love to give, but cry foul when it comes the other way.
Good day to you Professor.


Eleana2013-04-05 02:51:59
Thank you so much Murray for your comments with all the necessary facts and figures that I often leave out.

I am a controversial writer. I like to challenge people's senses. I am often disturbed by shallow thinking and abandonment of basic human rights in places of authority and any position held in high esteem. I suppose my senses are not as affected by the knowledge that a criminal was raped in jail, as I am a child by a priest. The criminals can sort themselves out, but the child has no idea how to deal with the situation they find themselves in. It is not only sexual abuse I find cruel and wicked, abuse of any kind is abhorrent to me. Beating, whipping, hitting, burning, locking in cupboards etc. etc.. all inhumane behaviours.

I was a single mother of two children. I never found the need to smack or punish either child. Neither of their fathers ever smacked my children. Admittedly my children were well behaved, polite and obedient. I rewarded good behaviour and they soon learnt that it was advantageous to behave well according to my parenting.



Emanuel Paparella2013-04-05 07:25:02
Indeed Professor Murray Hunter, as distasteful and boring as this diatribe has become to me and to you and probably the readers of these comments, not to speak of its editors, who may still be following it, I am afraid that as long as you persist with demonization and slander with egregious attacks on my character and good name and keep on publicly doubling down rather than regret such a reprehensible behavior, the issue cannot be put to rest.
That modus operandi is also reflected in your (as well as Ms. Winter-Irving’s) biased attacks on the Catholic Church.

Had you taken the trouble to read any of my contributions carefully and with an open and serene mind you would not be alleging that I have never offered any positive alternatives to what I critique. It has become rather obvious that you prefer the ad hominem slanderous attack to the rational dialogue attempting the resolution of complex issues.

A case in point, your insinuation of plagiarism for taking an empirical list with no author sent around by the Obama campaign listing the accomplishments of the President as advertised in a newspaper to inform the readership and to rebut your unfair criticism of our President may be considered cut and paste but it does not constitute plagiarism as you obviously wish to insinuate. I submit that those shabby tactics are too bad and unfortunate, even in a publication of opinion.


Murray Hunter2013-04-05 09:37:22
Nobody wants a sole arbitrator of the truth. The determinator of the truth will always become the terminator of the truth. The truth is too valuable to allow one person ride shotgun over it through the comments section of each and every article. Why should be single handedly rated for the truth by any self appointed arbitrator? Let the truth flow freely from the various tangents of conversation, rather than any monologue of righteous opinion. That is suppression disguised as free speech. This is the method that the zealots gained power and maintained power.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-05 11:59:20
Once again Professor Hunter you unfortunately resort to a lamentable sophistic insinuation by implying that I have set myself up as an arbiter of the truth when to the contrary I have always advocated a strong comment section for Ovi and even declared that without the comment section which allows readers to freely express their reactions, opinions and interpretation of the truth of an issue (as long as empirical facts are not invented and decency and good manners are observed) the magazine would lose its very character of champion of free speech. Given that I have been contributing and commenting for the magazine for the last six years or so and some of those pieces have been liked and even praised by readers and editors despite not always agreeing with the political correct positions of modernity and post-modernity I again resent and protest your egregious insinuation that I am some kind of bully trying to dictate to others what the truth is as you and Ms. Winter-Irving have also implied for a millenarian Church as a whole. Surely my words will not give you pose since you seem bent on affirming your own version of the truth by bringing down the messenger that dissents. As we know from Plato’s description those dishonorable tactic is as old as Socrates’ trial but most people can make up their mind as where the truth lies. Without a comment section or a recorder such as Plato we would never know.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-05 13:22:21
By the way, Professor Hunter, you have repeatedly impugned my claim that I am a professor and presently teaching philosophy at both Barry University and Broward College insinuating that such is not the case and that I am some kind of impostor and inviting the readers to make up their mind about it. I have challenged your egregious insinuation proposing a bet of $10,000 that I am correct and you are either lying or not well informed. I am still patiently and calmly waiting for a reply.


Murray Hunter2013-04-05 13:47:05
Its all public record on OVI. No one ever disputed that you teach philosophy.


https://www.broward.edu/ext/FacultyDisplay.jsp?Name=EPAPAREL

You can bet with yourself if you want

Boo Hoo


Eleana2013-04-05 15:38:54
When Paraphernalia gets in the way, it’s best to ignore it. Lol.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-05 18:29:14
I THOUGHT SO!


Eleana2013-04-06 02:26:31
MILWAUKEE -- The Archdiocese of Milwaukee said Wednesday it will release thousands of pages of documents tied to sexual abuse lawsuits, including depositions with some former top officials.

The archdiocese, which had been fighting the documents' release, made its announcement the day before the matter was to be decided in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Milwaukee. The archdiocese filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January 2011 to deal with about 500 sex abuse claims. Lawyers representing the men and women who filed the claims had been seeking the documents' release.

The documents include depositions by New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who previously led the Milwaukee archdiocese, as well as by former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland and retired Bishop Richard Sklba. Victims' advocates have accused archdiocese leaders of transferring abusive priests to other parishes and concealing their crimes for decades.

Jerry Topczewski, the chief of staff for current Archbishop Jerome Listecki, said the archdiocese will post the documents on its website by July 1. The documents will also include items from priests' personnel files and the files of bishops and other church leaders.

Topczewski said officials need time to ensure the identities of sexual-abuse victims are fully redacted. The archdiocese also plans to post timelines to provide some context for the documents.

"I think what the archbishop has done is say, `If this is what's needed for resolution, if this is going to help abuse survivors, then I'll authorize their release without the court being involved,'" Topczewski said.

Dolan, who led Milwaukee's Roman Catholics from 2002 to 2009, gave a deposition in February in which his attorney said he had answered questions about his decision to publicize the names of clergy members who'd been accused of molesting children in mostly decades-old cases.

"As I stated at the time of the deposition, I was grateful for the opportunity to go on-the-record with a full account of how the Archdiocese of Milwaukee responded to abuse survivors, and to answer any questions that I could," Dolan said in a statement Wednesday. "I stand ready to assist in any way that I can in the future."

Plaintiffs' attorney Jeff Anderson said the archdiocese's decision marks a "giant step" toward helping the survivors heal. He said the next steps will involve resolving financial claims with the archdiocese's insurance companies.

"The survivors' priority was the document disclosure," Anderson said. "Now that this is achieved we can now pursue with vigor the archdiocese's insurance companies, who have been a major impediment to resolution."

One Milwaukee plaintiff told The Associated Press that even though he was glad the documents would be revealed, he wasn't eager to read them himself.

"I think it's good for the general population because then other people can get a glimpse," said Billy Kirchen. Now 46, Kirchen says his choir director at a Milwaukee parish assaulted him for five years beginning in the 1970s when he was about 11. "I'll probably read it at some point, but it'll probably be an affirmation of what I already believed was going on: secrecy, untruths, cover-ups."

The AP generally doesn't identify people who say they were victims of sexual abuse, but Kirchen gave permission to use his name.

Milwaukee is the eighth U.S. diocese to seek bankruptcy protection over abuse claims. Advocates for victims have accused Milwaukee church officials of trying to shield its assets, in part by transferring millions of dollars several years ago into a cemetery trust fund and a parish fund.

Some of the documents to be released go back as far as 80 years, the archdiocese said in a statement. The papers will show that church leaders often didn't know about abuse until years after it happened, in many cases because victims didn't report the crimes to church or public authorities until decades later, the statement said.

The documents also detail how priests who were accused of abuse in the 1970s and `80s were often removed from their parishes for medical reasons, sent for counseling and then reassigned to other parishes with the recommendation of their medical professionals. The diocese said the documents will show that most priests who were reassigned did not abuse again, although some did.

Other documents show that police, church and other authorities did not always investigate abuse claims and that priests who were convicted did not always receive jail sentences, the archdiocese said.

Sklba took over as head of the archdiocese after Weakland abruptly retired in 2002 after news broke that Weakland had secretly reached a $450,000 settlement with a man who said Weakland sexually assaulted him in 1979.

"I welcome the release of my deposition transcripts and of these documents as a way to further get out the truth of what happened - and what didn't happen - during the many years the Church has been dealing with this issue," Sklba said in a statement.
Eleana: And these are only that which was reported. My guess it could be a little as 50% of abuse that occurred. Just a guess. Don’t make a big deal out of it.
Milwaukee Archdiocese Sex Abuse Files To Be Released http://huff.to/16pHoK6 via @HuffPostRelig
___


Murray Hunter2013-04-06 11:06:00
Wikipedia is an invaluable source of material on Catholic child sex abuse. There are dozens of entries. here are some of the important ones:

Catholic sex abuse cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

Abuse by members of Roman Catholic orders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_by_members_of_Roman_Catholic_orders

Abuse by members of Roman Catholic orders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_by_members_of_Roman_Catholic_orders

I'm shocked by how deep this issue is internationally. Wikipedia has documented it very well.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-06 17:01:17
I am shocked at the fact that Professor Hunter has made an obviously selective choice of sexual crimes within the Catholic clergy with the innuendo that they are all or almost all guilty, conveniently omitting the well know fact that those reprehensible abuses go on in every Christian and non Christian denominations and in fact it is greater in the Episcopal Church in the US than in the Catholic Church as pointed out by Dr. Nannery recently.

So, given this curious selectivity and false premises one begins to suspect that the agenda at work here is not so much sympathy for the accused, shock at the scandals or concern for justice as it is pompously claimed, but rather bias (the last acceptable bias in a politically correct society)and an ax to grind against the Catholic Church; a virulent recurring phenomenon which comes out every time there is a Papal conclave. Time to come out of the closet?


Murray Hunter2013-04-07 03:05:38
Dear Professor Paparella,
Actually I have to thank you very much for all your comments. I have gone through them in the last day going back to Martin's time. They are classic and I have enjoyed them. Then an "aha' moment came as I realized how valuable is the material you have supplied to the OVI comment sections. I have been looking for narratives for my forthcoming book with a working title "Discovering Narratives" and didn't realize that the material I was searching for was right in front of me. Thank you, thank you so much for all your comments over the last year. I'm looking for your best commentary exchanges to go in the chapter as a case study exercise in "How to detect psychosis in narrative". Students will have to read exerts of narrative and determine whether any psychosis exists on the part of the writers according to a model. It fits the bill perfectly and be assured I will give you due credit in the text. As you agree that all comments are public domain, there is no need for any copyright permissions, which I thank you for.
Thank you so much for all your comments and looking forward to more. It's very hard to get text that will amuse the reader while they are doing narrative exercises, but your style is a real "gem". Once again thank you so much.
Murray


Eleana2013-04-07 04:42:34
Emanuel, my article addressed the situation in the Catholic Church. That would be why Murray has brought to your attention Wikipedia on THIS subject, not one that I have not written about. This is my article. I have no problem with Murray directing readers to the above links.

Anyway, aren't you absolutely disgusted that it is happening in every Christian Church? Doesn't that just make it ten times worse? Isn’t this showing up the whole of the Christian Faith? Don’t Christians ever stop to wonder what they are believing in? If it was just one priest, an isolated case, all could be forgiven, as long as once it was known, that priest was dealt with by the LAW of the land. That is not the case. The despicable thing that most are repulsed by, is the lack of concern for the victims and the preservation of the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church. Integrity? The Roman Catholic Church no longer has any integrity, given how they have handled child sex abuse, or any abuse, physical and mental. It is criminal in itself and you should be aware of how people who think, actually think. That is why I write as I do, to let people know like yourself, that not all think like you do. Not everyone has a narrow view point, set in dogma and tradition.
The Roman Catholic Church burned witches at the stake, shaved women naked, tared and feathered them for being witches, when in actual fact they were deeply spiritual healers. Now that is outlawed when it was deemed unacceptable. Times have changed, yet you still live in the past. You still live by 18th century philosophy and values. You have not progressed in your thinking on humanitarian terms. You still vilify women as you have done me on Ovi Magazine. You strive to show your superiority over me because you are a professor and I have no degrees. I certainly have the capability to have several degrees if I wanted them, I have chosen not to. I don’t see the same value in them as you do. I am a philosopher. I don’t need to study philosophy; and I don’t need a degree to think the way I do and to know what I know.

As for making absurd monetary bets with Murray I find very childish.


Eleana2013-04-07 13:59:10
There is nothing wrong with bias as long as it is towards good and against evil.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-07 15:39:30
How does the saying go? Birds of a feather….And so it goes. Here is another comment for your perorations and lectures Professor Hunter. One would have thought that people who claim to be “enlightened” in an enlightened technologically savvy culture would consider insinuations, innuendoes and slander always wrong in themselves and no virtue and not right if used in the defense of what one considers good intentions despite what progressivism may claim: that what comes at the end and is modern is always the best of all possible outcomes, that despite Machiavelli and Hobbes and Hegel the end does not justify the means and corrupt means will eventually corrupt even good ends. Indeed the ancients still have much to teach us on virtue; but even closer at home it would be enough to read Kant’s deontological ethics to get the picture of the fallacy of using extremism and bad means to promote what one considers a good. These ideas are expressed in some 300 articles and I am glad that you Professor Hunter will now be passing them on and disseminate them to your students; they may even understand them better than yourself and have some comments in the class discussion on the fact that you are presenting them as the comments of a psychotic and thus invalidating the objectivity of your theory. They may even point out that defamation is still wrong and slanderous even when used to promote one's pet theory.

So I would exercise some prudence in that regard. Aristotle who is also available publicly to anyone interested would define prudence or harmony as the avoidance of extremes and suggested that virtue may be in between extremes. Food for thought.


Eleana2013-04-07 15:53:51
How does anyone know that the sex scandals are not anathematizare/anatitemi? It could well be that those guilty men are despised by the god of Israel, the god of the Christian bible. And why not? Or perhaps the entire fold consisting of those guilty parties who knew about abuses and refused to do anything about it? Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that the god in the bible would be mad as hell at his men behaving disgustingly? If he were to forgive these men, what does that say about that god. To me it says that he sanctions such behaviour. How will these vile specimens of human being ever learn that what they did is a sin, a vile inhuman act, despicable behaviour and punishable by law. If there is no punitive action, then they are free to commit again and again, and again, and again.

Who of you can justify the praeservare of integrity under false pretences, when children’s lives are being ruined? Those who are religiose, rusted on Catholics, I ask you to rethink your beliefs. What do you believe in? Why do you believe it? Is your life better than mine for having believed it? When did you decide that you believed it? From what age? And what makes you think that what you believe in is truth?





Emanuel Paparella2013-04-07 16:18:20
P.S. Some progress is being made however, by saying that there is nothing wrong with bias as long as it is for good Ms. Winter-Irving has indirectly acknowledged that her egregious pronouncements against the Church were biased from the beginning, in the name of the greater good, of course; and so the good end justifies any bad means. Sounds slightly fascistic to me but predictably and true to form Professor Hunter will now counsel not to listen to a deranged psychotic who admires the ancients and thinks that evil is always evil no matter the end one has in mind.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-07 17:13:05
Professor Hunter, I take due notice that you have also gone back to the Martin Lafevre snafu in Ovi; here again the insinuation is that I had something to do with it. I have always wondered how much of a role you yourself have played in staging what happened, behind the stage, so to speak. Perhaps you can enlightened us on this, but I doubt it.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-07 23:20:48
Dear Professor Hunter,
You are very welcome and in fact I’d like to thank you in kind for your own intriguing and revealing comments which (in a eureka moment of my own serepentipedously stimulated by your own “aha moment”) I may also submit to my students as an example of the culture of logical positivism devoid of imagination and the poetical alive and well in the 21st century. Then perhaps we can put the two sets of comments together and come out with an e-book titled Modern Psychosis and Folly in Academia. Of course due footnotes and credits will be given to your theory of academic psychosis, but perhaps you'd agree that furnishing both sides of the issue may at the very least make your book appear more fair and objective and less biased and defamatory; and it may even prevent a libel suit, don’t you think?


Murray Hunter2013-04-08 06:28:25
Thank you Professor Paparella. I'm deeply touched by your invitation to write a book together. Coming from you I take that as a great complement. In the meantime I will keep you posted on the progress of the manuscript of my current project.
Yes I do remember very well how both Martin and your good self were highly critical of my article on the "God Paradigm". Unfortunately Martin's sharp criticism of my article was the only contact I ever had with him. You will recall he didn't want to elaborate on his comment and explain why he had the criticism he did. Don't worry too much about libel issues as the editors at Cengage are fantastic in this respect and I have great faith in them. They certainly know their job. Unfortunately not much room for creative imagination when writing exercises to fit a text that has already been pre-planned. It is not a theory of academic psychosis, it is about picking up signs of various psychosis within any narrative text, very much emoto-based.


Emanuel Paparella2013-04-08 15:36:24
Indeed Professor Hunter, had Martin LeFevre been around Ovi for the Papal conclave he would have immediately flocked to your bias and bashing of Catholicism and would have ardently wished for its demise with Ms. Winter-Irving. He too let some negative experiences of his Catholic education (of being forced to go to Church six days a week) with the Church color the objectivity and clarity of his over-all assessment of the same. I chided him that such a stance was too bad because it means that one throws out the baby with the dirty water. You and Ms. Winter-Irving on the other hand would all have been in perfect sinc with him in re-inventing the wheel and on a biased criticism of the Church which goes back to the Gnostic heresies. That was what my disagreement with him was about: the reinvention of the wheel wishing to pass as something new, an aha moment of sorts, when it was as old as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas about whom I suspect he had no inkling, despite his alleged Catholic education. So he took it personally, descended to the ad hominem arguments, even impugned the veracity of the editor of the magazine Thanos, and managed to ostracize himself from the magazine then blaming Thanos after his request for having deleted his contributions, as you well know or ought to know.

You would also have been in perfect sync in the assessment of human nature as determined by the mere external positivistic observation of the psychology of our nature (brutish, coarse and rotten according to Hobbes...), that is to say, the gathering of psychological data to determine the mechanical machinery of such a nature and how we ought to manage it, never mind what it ought to be and why it is flawed.

He would therefore not have been much help to you in gaining a greater clarity on you “psychotic organizational psychologies” because he would have agreed with you that human nature is determined by those psychologies, we are all in Plato’s cave, and not underpinned by universal free will. To make your future book objective you would need more than bias against those who disagree with your determinism, you would need to include the Augustinian and Kierkegaardian and Heidegerrian view on existential dread at the choosing of one's destiny, which your logical positivism clearly lacks. In other words you would have to desist from bias in privileging what you consider progressive, modern and politically correct because it arrived at the end of a process, and not be reluctant to show the other side of the coin which resides in another culture called humanistic and liberal arts.


Murray Hunter2013-04-08 18:05:25
Maybe the metaphor "hall of mirrors" is more apt.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi