Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

Dudess

mloc wrote: »

Is a guard at Auschwitz innocent just because he didn't personally put the gas in the chamber or torture the prisoners? No. By empowering the church and through complacency or otherwise, any member of the church who was aware of the abuse and yet remained a part of it is guilty.

I think that's terribly unfair. Of course such a guard isn't guilty. How do you propose he would have got out of there? One man against the might of the Third Reich? Be realistic. Ditto those who weren't abusers but remained working in these institutions - firstly there were those who tried to alert the authorities to what was happening but they weren't listened to, secondly there were those who chose to stay to do their best to protect the children... even just saying a few kind words to them, whatever they could.
It's ironic how people are so quick to condemn every member of the clergy while at the same time acknowledging the state was happy to prop up the church's regime. So let's face it - attempts to dismantle what was going on in these monstrous places from the inside... would have been futile.
And there were members of the laeity who were also abusers - should all those who were state-employed care workers at the time be blanketly condemned?
The abusers were guilty, the church powers that be who turned a blind eye/covered things up... were guilty, the top/middle state bureaucrats were guilty... the genuinely christian members of the clergy/state employees who went to work in these organisations to make a difference/were forced into the clergy only to find themselves in the middle of such horror... were not guilty.

Ann22

What about the Jersey care home? I don't think it was run by a religious order. I wonder were there many places across the world that weren't run by the church that had a lot of abuse cases? Was this sort of stuff going on in many places, not only church run institutions? Remember the film Sleepers, it was meant to've been loosely based on a true story. That place was called the Wilksinson's home for boys (though I doubt that was the real name of the place), the priest in that was the good guy.

the_dark_side

Morlar wrote: »

Lets not get carried away here. . .. .

Ok... I did get a bit carried away... I'll edit it

the_dark_side

the_dark_side wrote: »

The Roman Catholic Church found the perfect formula for "evil". Part of the formula: take men, remove marriage, remove women from any decision making, create a global hierarchy controlled by a state within a state (thus immune from any law).

Begin by annihilating millions of competing "heathens," aka European women, and practice that age old creed: kill one and the world weeps, kill millions and it barely notices.

And make sure to insist there is only one way to salvation...their way. Add immense guilt, bordering itself on child abuse, to assure compliance.

Convert by force, subject governments to influence of the papacy. Infuse police forces, unions, and any other social mechanisms with your followers.

Newly edited post, re-posted

Anyone have any thoughts on this statement by the way?

partyatmygaff

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They control it, thats fine ok.

The basis of this organisation (I.e. Biblical teaching) does not endorse but it prohibits this type of abuse. The leaders changed it and corrupted it, the organisation itself has more than likely a majority of good people in it and in any large organisation there are the corrupt and evil.

What better way to protest the leaders than to stop going to mass for a while (which involves throwing money at the leaders) then?

Dudess

Ann22 wrote: »

What about the Jersey care home?

/shudder

the_dark_side

when loyalty is placed as the highest moral good, then anything can be done in its name... The trouble the church is that it insists on unthinking, uncritical subservience..... blind loyalty

"There is the story of the politician who accused a follower of never being loyal. The follower was nonplussed. 'But I always support you when I think you're right,' he said. 'Anyone can do that,' said the politician. 'I want people who support me when I'm wrong.'"

Biggins

* Try to imagine an organisation that staffs itself knowingly with people accused of rape, abusers, staff that has no sympathy for the public its supposed to be serving.
* Try to imagine an organisation that smuggles its numbers around the country and out of it, in order to cover-up the few publicly reported cases of their vile actions.
* Imagine an organisation that when caught knowing of such abuses, tries and in some cases successfully does hide the facts, names and further details from the legal authorities.
* Imagine an organisation that is found responsible for decades of the above and when held to account basically says "here is a miserable few quid, now go away and let the taxpayers of the country pay for our crimes".
* Imagine an organisation that literally has billions of Euro in money, stock (shares), other investments, property, art works, gold and valuables such as jewellery and other building and personal adornments. Then think of that organisation saying to the government and the people it further abused saying "we sinned, we know it, we know you know it but by god, we are not going to pay for our actions. What is more we will continue to stall, non-report firstly any other mis-deeds to the Gardi but instead keep the reports in-house"

...now finally imagine such an organisation existing 18 different times, in different forms within our borders.

...and they still think they can get away with it!!!

I am absolutely disgusted, astounded, enraged with anger that such scumbags can treat us, the rest of the country with such vile contempt.
Not only did such organisations treat for generations, the people of Ireland extremely badly hidden behind closed doors, they continue with their pig-headed effrontery and adopted self-righteousness to think they are better than the rest of us!

If these 18 organisations were listed as criminal organisations previously, they would now be further banned completely under the eyes of the law for their latest exposed actions.
I can't see much of a difference right now to be honest!

Dudess

Biggins wrote: »

...and they still think they can get away with it!

... but they can. And there are people who will STILL support this organisation.

TequilaMockingBird

Dudess wrote: »

Indeed. It's one thing to have been unable to be heard while the system was in place... but not coming forward in the last 20 years, as you say, when the church's power diminished so dramatically? Pretty unforgivable really...

Dudess wrote: »

I think that's terribly unfair. Of course such a guard isn't guilty. How do you propose he would have got out of there? One man against the might of the Third Reich? Be realistic. Ditto those who weren't abusers but remained working in these institutions - firstly there were those who tried to alert the authorities to what was happening but they weren't listened to, secondly there were those who chose to stay to do their best to protect the children... even just saying a few kind words to them, whatever they could.
It's ironic how people are so quick to condemn every member of the clergy while at the same time acknowledging the state was happy to prop up the church's regime. So let's face it - attempts to dismantle what was going on in these monstrous places from the inside... would have been futile.
And there were members of the laeity who were also abusers - should all those who were state-employed care workers at the time be blanketly condemned?
The abusers were guilty, the church powers that be who turned a blind eye/covered things up... were guilty, the top/middle state bureaucrats were guilty... the genuinely christian members of the clergy/state employees who went to work in these organisations to make a difference/were forced into the clergy only to find themselves in the middle of such horror... were not guilty.

Yes they are guilty.

the_dark_side

Biggins wrote: »

* Try to imagine an organisation that staffs itself knowingly with people accused of rape, abusers, staff that has no sympathy for the public its supposed to be serving.
* Try to imagine an organisation that smuggles its numbers around the country and out of it, in order to cover-up the few publicly reported cases of their vile actions.
* Imagine an organisation that when caught knowing of such abuses, tries and in some cases successfully does hide the facts, names and further details from the legal authorities.
* Imagine an organisation that is found responsible for decades of the above and when held to account basically says "here is a miserable few quid, now go away and let the taxpayers of the country pay for our crimes".
* Imagine an organisation that literally has billions of Euro in money, stock (shares), other investments, property, art works, gold and valuables such as jewellery and other building and personal adornments. Then think of that organisation saying to the government and the people it further abused saying "we sinned, we know it, we know you know it but by god, we are not going to pay for our actions. What is more we will continue to stall, non-report firstly any other mis-deeds to the Gardi but instead keep the reports in-house"

...now finally imagine such an organisation existing 18 different times, in different forms within our borders.

...and they still think they can get away with it!!!

I am absolutely disgusted, astounded, enraged with anger that such scumbags can treat us, the rest of the country with such vile contempt.
Not only did such organisations treat for generations, the people of Ireland extremely badly hidden behind closed doors, they continue with their pig-headed effrontery and adopted self-righteousness to think they are better than the rest of us!

If these 18 organisations were listed as criminal organisations previously, they would now be further banned completely under the eyes of the law for their latest exposed actions.
I can't see much of a difference right now to be honest!

+1
Here here!

An organisation who also ensured safe passage of Nazi war criminals to South America in exchange for wealth and valuables accumulated during the persecution of the Jews, this became known as the Vatican Ratline
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/after-ww2/ratline.html

Dudess

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Yes they are guilty.

I am referring to WHEN they were working in the institutions and how they would not have been listened to had they tried to speak out. The state would not have listened to them and was inextricably linked with the church, so who could they have told?

the_dark_side

correct, they had no one to turn to, and no one to protect them.... the church WILL answer for this....

meanwhile, back to my point about the Vatican Ratline, providing safe passage for Nazis to South America....
Please...dont take my word for it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gLJFRQUy2o

TequilaMockingBird

Dudess wrote: »

I am referring to WHEN they were working in the institutions and how they would not have been listened to had they tried to speak out. The state would not have listened to them and was inextricably linked with the church, so who could they have told?

Okay, they weren't guilty then, but they have been guilty for the last twenty/thirty years. That's a long time to remain silent if they were people with normally accepted morals.

Dudess

the_dark_side wrote: »

the church WILL answer for this

Sadly, I don't think it will. It's frightening how protected it is - even now.
As for the Argentina thing, not remotely surprising. There's a brilliant film called Amen about how the Vatican turned a blind eye to pleas for intervention during the Holocaust: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280653/

philologos

Didn't the Vatican not keep hundreds of Jews safe in the Vatican? I don't think we really need to get into a huge discussion about World War II though. Theres enough material to come from both sides of the fence with that.

luckat

Jakkass wrote: »

Didn't the Vatican not keep hundreds of Jews safe in the Vatican?

Not really, Jakkass. Individual priests and nuns did, but not with Vatican approval:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsh43.htm

But you're right, this is thread creep.

Dudess

I don't think it is, tbh. Part of this discussion is what the catholic church, at institutional level, has been capable of and allowed get away with.

mloc

Dudess wrote: »

I think that's terribly unfair. Of course such a guard isn't guilty. How do you propose he would have got out of there? One man against the might of the Third Reich? Be realistic. Ditto those who weren't abusers but remained working in these institutions - firstly there were those who tried to alert the authorities to what was happening but they weren't listened to, secondly there were those who chose to stay to do their best to protect the children... even just saying a few kind words to them, whatever they could.
It's ironic how people are so quick to condemn every member of the clergy while at the same time acknowledging the state was happy to prop up the church's regime. So let's face it - attempts to dismantle what was going on in these monstrous places from the inside... would have been futile.
And there were members of the laeity who were also abusers - should all those who were state-employed care workers at the time be blanketly condemned?
The abusers were guilty, the church powers that be who turned a blind eye/covered things up... were guilty, the top/middle state bureaucrats were guilty... the genuinely christian members of the clergy/state employees who went to work in these organisations to make a difference/were forced into the clergy only to find themselves in the middle of such horror... were not guilty.

You are missing the point entirely. Be remaining in the organisation they strengthened it. If they adhered to their beliefs then they must have realised that what the chuch was doing was completely incompatible with them. It wasn't about standing up to the church and causing a ruckuss, it was about remaining inside it and therefore supporting it. Complacency and inaction can be just as guilty as direct action.

Would you work for a company, keeping it going, if you knew it raped, tortured and killed innocent children?

the_dark_side

Dudess wrote: »

I don't think it is, tbh. Part of this discussion is what the catholic church, at institutional level, has been capable of and allowed get away with.

My very point... thanks

By the way, you have probably all seen this clip....its worth a quick look. It gets to the point after the first 50 seconds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSyFSZjApc

O'Coonassa

Biggins wrote: »

* Try to imagine an organisation that staffs itself knowingly with people accused of rape, abusers, staff that has no sympathy for the public its supposed to be serving.
* Try to imagine an organisation that smuggles its numbers around the country and out of it, in order to cover-up the few publicly reported cases of their vile actions.
* Imagine an organisation that when caught knowing of such abuses, tries and in some cases successfully does hide the facts, names and further details from the legal authorities.
* Imagine an organisation that is found responsible for decades of the above and when held to account basically says "here is a miserable few quid, now go away and let the taxpayers of the country pay for our crimes".
* Imagine an organisation that literally has billions of Euro in money, stock (shares), other investments, property, art works, gold and valuables such as jewellery and other building and personal adornments. Then think of that organisation saying to the government and the people it further abused saying "we sinned, we know it, we know you know it but by god, we are not going to pay for our actions. What is more we will continue to stall, non-report firstly any other mis-deeds to the Gardi but instead keep the reports in-house"

...now finally imagine such an organisation existing 18 different times, in different forms within our borders.

Now "imagine" that the State actually employed such organisations and still employs them, and that when the State held an enquiry into what these organisations had been up to, it decided not only to shelter the organisations from financial damage, but not to name any names or prosecute. WTF like?

Dudess

mloc wrote: »

You are missing the point entirely. Be remaining in the organisation they strengthened it. If they adhered to their beliefs then they must have realised that what the chuch was doing was completely incompatible with them. It wasn't about standing up to the church and causing a ruckuss, it was about remaining inside it and therefore supporting it. Complacency and inaction can be just as guilty as direct action.

I touched upon that - I said maybe some of them chose to stay in order to use the limited resources they had to protect the children as best they could, even if it was meagre.

Would you work for a company, keeping it going, if you knew it raped, tortured and killed innocent children?

If I found out the organisation I was working for right now was carrying out such monstrosities and there was nobody I could turn to, I don't know if I'd be comfortable about walking out the door and turning my back on those children.
And to return to your nazi analogy - the above isn't even applicable because a guard who would have asked to leave the concentration camp would have been seen as a traitor and sent to a death camp himself.

mloc

Whilst condemning the state we must realise that as the state is democratic, we have the ability to change what the "state" is by electing a new government. Thus the government changes and evolves dramatically from one generation to the next.

The church on the other hand is not democratic in the true sense. The fact that many current members of the church were present and involved in the atrocities is one point. The fact that the church STILL does its best to lie, cover up and impede in any way the actions of those affected is even more telling; if it was true to its word it would do its best to have all, from priest to pope, brought to justice.

mloc

Dudess wrote: »

I touched upon that - I said maybe some of them chose to stay in order to use the limited resources they had to protect the children as best they could, even if it was meagre.

If you read the report you will see that any efforts made by anyone to protect the children were rare and generally speaking, non-significant.

And to return to your nazi analogy - the above isn't even applicable because a guard who would have asked to leave the concentration camp would have been seen as a traitor and sent to a death camp himself.

Well then my case is clearer... there was no threat to the life of the Brothers for leaving.

Dudess

And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.

philologos

mloc wrote: »

The church on the other hand is not democratic in the true sense. The fact that many current members of the church were present and involved in the atrocities is one point. The fact that the church STILL does its best to lie, cover up and impede in any way the actions of those affected is even more telling; if it was true to its word it would do its best to have all, from priest to pope, brought to justice.

Does the Catholic Church not have anything like a synod or a general assembly where laypeople and ministers can vote for who becomes bishop of particular dioceses? That's the way it always operated in the Church of Ireland anyway.

If you haven't researched it though, I think it's a bit rash to say that the Catholic Church isn't democratic. If anyone could shed some light on the issue it'd be much appreciated.

treasher

corribdude wrote: »

Explain this to me - the experience of Irish people with religion is the RCC. It has been shown to be seriously corrupt and evil. Now do you expect the Irish people to go looking for another religion? Why the hell would we? What do we need it for anyway? People aren't so thick and evil that they need some religion to tell them how to live their lives.

And are we supposed to treat religion like going to the shops for a loaf of bread or something? You say there are the following organisations - Christian denominations. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism / Evangelicalism, Methodism, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, non-denominational - how do suggest we chose one? Do you think we should read into them a bit and then say 'oh I like the sound of that one, Ill go with that' as if it's dessert in your local restaurant....what is the basis for selecting a religion?

Learn what for ourselves?? What exactly is the big secret? People know the difference between right and wrong they dont need a religion to tell them it. Its up to ourselves to apply it, which is the case whether a religion tells us to or not.

Whats it based on then? Solid scientific fact? The whole concept of religion is based on 'faith'. Nice get-out clause for something that can't be proved.

So you think overall religion has been positive in Ireland. Tell me what excellent benefits religion has bestowed on Ireland in order to make up for all the years of oppression, abuse, rape and murder? It must be some seriously impressive sh*t if it makes up for all that evil. I can't wait to hear you tell me what these great benefits of religion in Ireland is.

Name one other organization in Ireland that systematically raped and abused children for decades while simultaneously telling everyone how what's right and what's wrong and how they should be living their lives?

What do you mean if atheism never existed? Atheism isn't a concept or a belief, its just a word used for someone who doesn't believe in a God.

I am new to this having just joined, so I beg your indulgence on my ignorance of the protocol. I would just like to say that religion as such is not the cause of abuse, it is people who abuse. That is why we need Christianity. If we really practised it there would be no abuse and no war.

TequilaMockingBird

Dudess wrote: »

And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.

Uh huh, because we are being inundated with stories of those lone nuns and priests who fought so hard for those little children, aren't we... :rolleyes:

Granted, there was no where for them to go at the time if they did find it abhorrent, but why did they not leave, why did they stay - why are they STILL there? Why did they not come forward in the last twenty years to help these victims get recognition?

Dudess

Once it's pure, uncorrupted christianity - and that includes dogma like no sex before marriage.

I agree fully TMB. But I just can't believe all were evil and none were good. Letters WERE written by members of the orders begging the Department of Education to intervene but nothing was done. But I see what you're saying.

treasher

Dudess wrote: »

And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.

I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??

mloc

treasher wrote: »

I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??

A ridiculous notion. Prototypically Irish "sure it was different back then" bull****. Nobody could honestly justify, with a clear mind, the action of these criminals. The actions were still illegal 50, 100 years ago. And they remain unaccounted for. There is simply no excuse for any of it.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Once it's pure, uncorrupted christianity - and that includes dogma like no sex before marriage.

Christianity without the Bible? Is that even possible? This teaching of no sex before marriage is a part of genuine and uncorrupted Christianity. It's no doubt an unpopular teaching, but it's one that I would advocate and encoruage. This has been taught since the first teachers of the Gospel in Europe and in Asia Minor, and infact it was taught by the Jewish prophets before Jesus came on the scene.

TequilaMockingBird

treasher wrote: »

- what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??

Not beating, raping and torturing children isn't a new concept. It's been the general way to rear children for thousands of years. The Catholic Church just decided they were BIG enough, and powerful enough to change that.

Karma is a wonderful thing.

Dudess

I don't believe in karma at all - I have no reason to believe these filthbags will ever get their comeuppance...

Dudess

treasher wrote: »

I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??

Oh come on! Ok, granted, corporal punishment - a few thumps, even a beating - was accepted and seen as the norm. It shouldn't have been, but it was.
But rape, and beatings to the point of unconsciousness, and torture? (And there were things done in those places that would definitely be recognised as torture).

TequilaMockingBird

Dudess wrote: »

But I just can't believe all were evil and none were good.

Me either. Neither could the children. But it's seem they were, this has been apparent for a long, long time, so please stop trying to excuse them.

If it makes it clearer for you: If my husband repeatadly raped our child in our home, and I was terrified of him so I ignored the situation, and I then smiled at the neighbours and gave them f*cking moral advice on how to be a good person - would I be guilty of abuse?

F*cking right I would.

philologos

You have nothing to suggest that "all" were. Infact it's ridiculous logic to jump from some to all.

the_dark_side

mloc wrote: »

A ridiculous notion. Prototypically Irish "sure it was different back then" bull****. Nobody could honestly justify, with a clear mind, the action of these criminals. The actions were still illegal 50, 100 years ago. And they remain unaccounted for. There is simply no excuse for any of it.

ah there is though... all the women in Ireland back then were afraid of sex, they thought it was a sin... isnt it any wonder that men had to turn to the church, then on each other and finally on the alter boys and students for gratification....

TequilaMockingBird

Jakkass wrote: »

You have nothing to suggest that "all" were. Infact it's ridiculous logic to jump from some to all.

Please, please disprove my logic.

I don't consider it ridiculous to acknowledge that there has been no glut of devastated nuns or priests letting us know what they tried to do to stop this.

Ridiculous logic? I'm afraid I may be guilty of dismissing most of what you say simply because of your sig, but I did actually read this post of yours only because you quoted me.

philologos

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Please, please disprove my logic.

You are making idle assumptions about all priests and all nuns in Ireland, I would like you to substantiate your reasoning.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I don't consider it ridiculous to acknowledge that there has been no glut of devastated nuns or priests letting us know what they tried to do to stop this.

I consider it absolutely ridiculous to assume that all priests and all nuns were involved in this yes. I find it as ridiculous to assume that all Germans participated in Nazi activity during the 1930s and the 1940's.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Ridiculous logic? I'm afraid I may be guilty of dismissing most of what you say simply because of your sig, but I did actually read this post of yours only because you quoted me.

It's ridiculous yes. I'm not even a Roman Catholic and I never have been so you can regard my views as an outsider to the Catholic Church.

TequilaMockingBird

Jakkass wrote: »

You are making idle assumptions about all priests and all nuns in Ireland, I would like you to substantiate your reasoning..

I would like you to explain why the nuns and priests who were not carrying out abuse towards these children - did not and have not spoken out about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

I consider it absolutely ridiculous to assume that all priests and all nuns were involved in this yes. I find it as ridiculous to assume that all Germans participated in Nazi activity during the 1930s and the 1940's..

I'll keep out of the Nazi part of it thanks.

As for the rest of your comment, my question above applies.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ridiculous yes. I'm not even a Roman Catholic and I never have been so you can regard my views as an outsider to the Catholic Church.

I dunno, sounds like you'd fit right in. Far right much?

philologos

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I would like you to explain why the nuns and priests who were not carrying out abuse towards these children - did not and have not spoken out about it.

You will find priests in the Roman Catholic Church who have spoken about about abuses in the past and who have condemned them. Actually I think the Church has condemned it several times. Most recently by the Archbishop of Dublin who has himself condemned it several times:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16114
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090525/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse_3

The Pope in 2006 specifically referring to Ireland:
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-10017002.html

Priest slams abuse deal:
http://www.carlow-nationalist.ie/tabId/511/itemId/2985/Ovation-for-priest-who-slams-sex-abuse-deal.aspx

Bishops tell orders to pay more over abuse:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0526/1224247405119.html?via=mr

Now, you're clearly talking nonsense if you are saying that there hasn't been condemnation now and in the past by Catholic bishops and priests when revelations have come to light. So yes, I'm going to call you out when you say that all priests and nuns were involved and supported this because it's wrong, plain wrong.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I dunno, sounds like you'd fit right in. Far right much?

I don't think I'm extreme in any respect. I think points of views like yours are actually more unreasonable and extreme. I'm not going to jump on the anti-Catholic bandwagon, but rather I will give criticism where it is truly due to the priests who perpetrated these acts and to anyone who facilitated them, and they and they alone should be the ones receiving jailtime over this but the State unfortunately gave indemnity.

I disagree with Catholic theology, so I'm not likely to be joining the Church any time soon, but I won't be giving undue criticism to anyone without researching it more.

TequilaMockingBird

Jakkass wrote: »

Christianity without the Bible? Is that even possible? This teaching of no sex before marriage is a part of genuine and uncorrupted Christianity. It's no doubt an unpopular teaching, but it's one that I would advocate and encoruage. This has been taught since the first teachers of the Gospel in Europe and in Asia Minor, and infact it was taught by the Jewish prophets before Jesus came on the scene.

I apologise, as I said I don't read your posts due to your sig - tbh honest I find that type of religious fervour irritating. But, I have just read the post above from earlier today, and I now realise that I would consider your opinions completely barking and I should not have entered into a discussion with you.

philologos

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

I apologise, as I said I don't read your posts due to your sig - tbh honest I find that type of religious fervour irritating.

I would see that as more your issue more than mine. To live in a peaceable society tolerating people for believing different things to you is a positive aspect of mature life.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

But, I have just read the post above from earlier today, and I now realise that I would consider your opinions completely barking and I should not have entered into a discussion with you.

Yes, because it's barking to refuse to criticise people unfairly, and to view the situation from a more objective view than most would? As I say I'm an outsider on the issue, I see what the orders did in those industrial schools as outright appalling and sickening, but I appreciate the efforts that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin and others are doing to genuinely renew the church and to sort out the issue as effectively as possible.

The bishops when they met in Maynooth last week or this week insisted that the religious orders pay more to provide for the victims. They have since refused.

I oppose both the orders who are being so stubborn, and I oppose the State for not insisting a renegotiation. I don't however feel the need to insist hatred towards those who are Catholics, or their church.

lickarse2

galwayrush wrote: »

I doubt if it's on line yet, looks like quite a large report.

It'll be a big download; 5000 pages or thereabouts

Biggins

lickarse2 wrote: »

It'll be a big download; 5000 pages or thereabouts

Total full report in PDF format is 111 mb in size.
Downloaded it myself.

Terrifying, shocking read. Awful stuff done that you'd expect from scum from the worst of torture chambers of the world.
Really evil episodes.

CICA-VOL3-08 PDF - Section 8 - subsection 10:

Many witnesses described the overwhelming nature of the childcare
task, including eight witnesses who described having to assist toddlers with rectal prolapse.
I distinctly remember the babies would be on potties for a long time and sometimes the
older children would lift them up and with a cloth push this thing ...(rectal prolapse).... I
didn’t know what was going on at the time.

Some young children were TIED to the potties so long that the internals actually fell out and others had the job of shoving it all back in.

What the fcuk day and age are we living in that we are letting these still alive scumbags that brought about this, away with it???
SERIOUSLY!

Some never saw food for days!

A small number of witnesses stated that they were so hungry that they helped themselves to food provided for the
babies, replacing milk with water in the babies’ bottles.

...and just in case the inspectors turned up!

Section 8:50

In the period prior to 1970 toilet paper and toiletries such as soap and toothbrushes were
provided for the duration of inspections in most Schools:
We were told to be on our best behaviour, we were all lined up, I’d be dying to say
something but knew I would get into trouble. The floors were polished, new towels and
bars of soap would be put out, but you couldn’t touch them. When they left everything
was put back.
In addition to the physical preparations, 62 witnesses reported being coached and warned about
how to behave and what to say to the inspectors’ and that staff were present for the duration of
the inspection. ‘We were all done afraid to blink an eye, we were schooled in what to say,
you knew you’d get punished.’

towel401

I am not bothered by this at all and don't think the church should have to pay anything. stop dredging up the past and move on

towel401

Biggins wrote: »

Total full report in PDF format is 111 mb in size.
Downloaded it myself.

Terrifying, shocking read. Awful stuff done that you'd expect from scum from the worst of torture chambers of the world.
Really evil episodes.

how long did it take you to read?

Biggins

towel401 wrote: »

how long did it take you to read?

I have not read it all yet - on purpose.
There is only some much I can read and stomach per day while trying to control my absolute seething anger!

Wibbs

Its an awful situation. Truly awful. These people should get compensation, but TBH why the hell am I and everyone else going to pay for it? Why the hell am I and everyone else going to pay a red cent for a previous governments suck on the church teat? Lets not forget the church got paid to look after these children, in good faith or not. Well enough paid too. Half the average industrial wage a year IIRC.

They should foot the bill entirely. If I pay a babysitter to look after a kid and they break stuf in the house and injure my kid, who do I hit for compensation? The neighbours? Enough is fúcking enough. Cop on people, we're not the ones with Raphaels and Titians on the marbled walls in headquarters and the silk robes and the numerous banks and the billions locked up in property and investments while the poor of the world, their own Catholic poor, starve in ditches all over that world. I say again fúck that.

What is the truth in all this? I look to a maybe strange source for some. Machiavelli and his take on effectual truth. The truth as put forward by the church is that they are the conduit for the person they claim as their God and their reason to be. The effectual truth is that for the vast majority of it's history it has been a purely political/economic force. End of. Oh sure a great many of it's genuine adherents were and are looking to a higher truth for themselves. All good, but as I say look at the reality.

We have bailed out the banks and likely made our grandkids broke on the back of it. If they think I'll pay to bail out an institution that has already gotten enough from this state and it's people, I say again they can fúck right off(IMHO a fair amount of the proposed property tax will be píssed away on this).

This is not a religious thing anymore, but trust me they will make it one, to protect and cover their own rotten arses. Let's see it for what it is and treat it for what it is. Personally if they didn't cover the entire cost of the reparations to these victims, yes I would freeze and sell off their assets. Sadly too few would have the stomach for it, which makes me even sadder.

The comparison to the oul Nazis is an interesting one. Like those involved in the Nazi lark, people knew this was going on and were (naturally) afraid to speak out, or too ignorant to dare question. The pain of these times is written in many hands and not just the hands that abused. They knew or turned a blind eye, lay and clergy, yet it went on and continued until remarkably recently. Most of those are now dead, but the organisation and it's well oiled mechanism that protected them and did so until incredibly recently is still there and they should pay.

To those devout Catholics, I say my best wishes to you and long may you find comfort in your faith and do the good works that you do, but you don't need an invented hierarchy, especially a top down endemically corrupt one, a corrupt one based on power and control, that has ignored the cries of its children for too long to profess your faith. The very person you worship didn't have to and indeed fought against such things, so why should you and why should you pay now or feel guilty for the sins of the past? It was their past, their organisation, their denial, their head turning and they should damn well pay every cent for it. If you don't make them pay and pay hard, then you may end up makings someone elses child pay for it in the future.

End rant.