Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
Fair enough Mr.P. You've got to understand though, that hating the Church is hating it's members, we are the Church, and very many are doing everything they can...it's difficult for us to seperate hatred of our Church and hatred for us as it's members in todays society who are dealing with the fallout from yesterdays.
I hope you understand where I am coming from.0 -
The Irish government in its report in 2009 found sexual abuse, and cover ups, within the Irish Roman Catholic Church " endemic". Their word, not mine.
In institutions which were owned and managed by orders within the Catholic church.
And endemic in sciety as well and not exclusively in church run institutions.If you look up the cambridge dictionary online, its defines endemic as follows :
especially of a disease or a condition, regularly found and very common among a particular group or in a particular area
Malaria is endemic in many of the hotter regions of the world.
You mare mixing up a "hot region" of Irish institutions with the whole church and you are assuming only the church had such hot regions.As someone else said, "Cue yet more "whataboutery" from ISAW and the rest of the apologists for this despicable organisation."
this would be the same someone who in their next post themselves mentioned "What about..." A phrase I actually had not used?
It is quite clear the poster is biased and sees the Church as despicable and views me as trying to cover something up. In fact I only want the truth to be shown. I have no doubt that poster is anti Church and is probably an atheist who wants an atheist society. Such atheistic movements caused hundreds of millions of dead but they would prefer to concentrate on one per cent of child abusers rather than look into the other 99 per cent or rather than address the anti church pogroms and the slaughter of religious believers in their millions by atheistic regimes. They will tell you all about myths and blow them out of proportion as long as it is a myth about the Church without stats to back it up e.g they will blow the Crusades or Inquisition up to rediculous proportions but dont expect them to tackle the body count of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot who went after religious believers in their millions.
Yes child abuse is wrong but 99 per cent of abusers were not Priests! Why are the other 99 per cent ignored?0 -
In institutions which were owned and managed by orders within the Catholic church.
And endemic in sciety as well and not exclusively in church run institutions.
You mare mixing up a "hot region" of Irish institutions with the whole church and you are assuming only the church had such hot regions.
this would be the same someone who in their next post themselves mentioned "What about..." A phrase I actually had not used?
It is quite clear the poster is biased and sees the Church as despicable and views me as trying to cover something up. In fact I only want the truth to be shown. I have no doubt that poster is anti Church and is probably an atheist who wants an atheist society. Such atheistic movements caused hundreds of millions of dead but they would prefer to concentrate on one per cent of child abusers rather than look into the other 99 per cent or rather than address the anti church pogroms and the slaughter of religious believers in their millions by atheistic regimes. They will tell you all about myths and blow them out of proportion as long as it is a myth about the Church without stats to back it up e.g they will blow the Crusades or Inquisition up to rediculous proportions but dont expect them to tackle the body count of Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot who went after religious believers in their millions.
Yes child abuse is wrong but 99 per cent of abusers were not Priests! Why are the other 99 per cent ignored?
Because the other abusers were acting alone, or in very small groups. Whereas the church has a proven history of covering up child abuse by relocating priests, not turning them over to the authorities despite the fact that what they did was illegal, and trying to contain the stories of abuse.
It isn't just about the fact that some priests abused children, or that 1% of all children abused were abused by priests. It's the cover-up. The shameful and downright sickening lack of proper action by the church. The fact that priests are supposed to be among the most trustworthy of all people but used that position to commit some of the most horrendous acts imaginable.
5%. 1%. 0.00003%. Doesn't matter. What matters is the fact that not only did these acts occur, but the Churches response to these acts were, quite frankly, almost as horrendous as the act itself. And it wasn't one abuser, or a small group, it was one of the largest religious organisations in the world.0 -
If you cannot see yourself as existing outside the church, then that is an issue for you. I am capable of separating the church from those that are in it, and in general I do not hate the simple persons that make up the majority of the church.Fair enough Mr.P. You've got to understand though, that hating the Church is hating it's members, we are the Church, and very many are doing everything they can...it's difficult for us to seperate hatred of our Church and hatred for us as it's members in todays society who are dealing with the fallout from yesterdays.
I hope you understand where I am coming from.
That said, I do have trouble reconciling the fact the people in the church don't seem to do much about trying to call the church to account.
MrP0 -
That said, I do have trouble reconciling the fact the people in the church don't seem to do much about trying to call the church to account.
MrP
That should read certain MEMBERS of the Church should be called to account. As has already been said in previous posts, the clergy and the laity make up the body of the Church and Christ is the Head, the Pope His Emmisary. Those who did such terrible crimes and coverups should be held accountable to the criminal justice system, on Judgement Day they will be held accountable before God who is THE judge!0 -
Advertisement
-
This is where we have a difference of opinion. I think it is perfectly reasonable to concentrate of clerical sex abuse when one is talking about clerical sex abuse.
No it isn't! If you can't compare it to non clerical abuse then as i pointed out you are missing the big picture.This is not to reduce the impact or wrongness of other sex abuse, simply concentrating one's attentions to a particular area.
Yes it is! If you are concentrating on highlighting one per cent of abusers you are reducing the impact of drawing attention to the other 99 per cent!
Why are you not interested in the other 99 per cent? What is your argument as to whay it is "reasonable" to focus on a group which are only one per cent or less of the population of abusers?
It is totally unreasonable. I am reminded of how a "bear tax" was introduced in the Simpsons. scapegoating causes things like that. Look up the episode "much Apu About Nothing" The title lends itself to the analysis of the issue as unreasonable.So, having identified a particular area of interest, in this case clerical child sex abuse, it seems reasonable to further focus on a particular section of that, say for example a section that is of particular interest in a particular country or has a lot written about it.
I believe you have it backwards. People who for unstated reasons focus on one per cent of abusers cause the myth to be created and more column inches to be spent on the one per cent of abusers than on the other 99 per cent. You can't then claim that the reason for focusing on it is because so much is written about it. That is called a "circular argument" because the amount written was because people decided to focus on that group in the first place.Again, not unreasonable and again not taking away from any abuse carried out by other organisations.
Of course it does. But let you first acknowledge that clerical abuse is at the one per cent level of abusers. Roman Catholic clerics are also statistically less likely to be abusers than any other clerics. You do acknowledge that do you?It is not ignorance. I am well aware of abuse i other circles, it just so happens that in a thread about clerical sex abuse I am more interested in clerical sex about, rather than whataboutery.
LOL! Coming from the only per son who mentioned "what about..." I find that ironic.
I have been over this ground before and I believe you reasons for focusing on clerics may become apparent. what are they?
There are some people who are simply outraged and only want action rather than a solution. such people are whipped up by the likes of tabloid press and actually feel they are assisting justice.I will freely admit, I despise the rcc. And I mean really despise, with every fibre of my being.
Well then you r biased motivation has become apparent as I earlier stated it might.
You want to get rid of the church just like the atheistic regimes did. You want to ignore the hundreds of millions of people slaughtered by atheistic regimes and you want to ignore the other 99 per cent of abusers because you hate the church so much you only want to attack clerics. You don't care about the victims of the other 99 per cent of abusers so long as you can attack Clergy and try to link almost all the Clergy with the terrible things done by a handful of them.
The statistics show that about one per cent of abusers were clergy. If you have done this with the 50 clergy what are you going to do about the other 5,000 abusers? Are you going to try them too? At a cost of 5 to ten billion Euro? for what purpose?It disgusts me, everything about it, but leaving that aside, my hatred does not change what he church did and what it might still be doing in 3rd world countries.
Indeed it does! By attacking the church you are negatively affecting the good work they are doing in developing countries. What work did you ever do there?I hate and despise the organisation, the actual church, not all its members.
i.e. you hate Clergy. No wonder then you only want to attack Clergy and not deal with the victims of child abuse and the 99 per cent of abusers that are non clergy.0 -
I'm a fricking atheist telling me they will be punished on judgement day is tantamount to letting them off as far as I am concerned. If someone told you Thor would sort out the bad people in Valhalla would you be happy with that?gimmebroadband wrote: »Those who did such terrible crimes and coverups should be held accountable to the criminal justice system, on Judgement Day they will be held accountable before God who is THE judge!
MrP0 -
-
I'm a fricking atheist telling me they will be punished on judgement day is tantamount to letting them off as far as I am concerned. If someone told you Thor would sort out the bad people in Valhalla would you be happy with that?
MrP
I beg your pardon, I SAID the justice system should hold them accountable, AS WELL AS God judging them on Judgement Day.
So what if you 'choose' not to believe, doesn't make a bit of difference!!! Why are you lambasting Christian beliefs, this is after all a Christian Forum - perhaps you'd feel more at home in A&A!!0 -
It can be compared, but if talking about clerical abuse, then talk about clerical abuse.No it isn't! If you can't compare it to non clerical abuse then as i pointed out you are missing the big picture.
No. Not when the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the 1%. That does not take away from the 99%. I don't see why you have a problem with talking about the 1% when the thread is specifically about the 1%...it is! If you are concentrating on highlighting one per cent of abusers you are reducing the impact of drawing attention to the other 99 per cent!
I am interested in the other 99%, but for different reasons. I am particularly interesting in the 1% because of what the organisation is and how it has tried to cover up the crimes of its employees. it is reasonable to focus on a subset when that subset is unapologetic uses weasel words to try to deflect blame.are you not interested in the other 99 per cent? What is your argument as to whay it is "reasonable" to focus on a group which are only one per cent or less of the population of abusers?
It is totally unreasonable. I am reminded of how a "bear tax" was introduced in the Simpsons. scapegoating causes things like that. Look up the episode "much Apu About Nothing" The title lends itself to the analysis of the issue as unreasonable.
How does the 99% make what the church did any less bad?
This is not just about column inches, we also have the small matter of things like the Ryan Report.I believe you have it backwards. People who for unstated reasons focus on one per cent of abusers cause the myth to be created and more column inches to be spent on the one per cent of abusers than on the other 99 per cent. You can't then claim that the reason for focusing on it is because so much is written about it. That is called a "circular argument" because the amount written was because people decided to focus on that group in the first place.
No. It doesn't.Of course it does.
Why? I don't care if it is 0.0001%, it is the subject of the discussion, so the percentage is not relevant.But let you first acknowledge that clerical abuse is at the one per cent level of abusers. Roman Catholic clerics are also statistically less likely to be abusers than any other clerics. You do acknowledge that do you?
What is the churches solution?LOL! Coming from the only per son who mentioned "what about..." I find that ironic.
I have been over this ground before and I believe you reasons for focusing on clerics may become apparent. what are they?
There are some people who are simply outraged and only want action rather than a solution. such people are whipped up by the likes of tabloid press and actually feel they are assisting justice.
Yawn.Well then you r biased motivation has become apparent as I earlier stated it might.
You want to get rid of the church just like the atheistic regimes did. You want to ignore the hundreds of millions of people slaughtered by atheistic regimes and you want to ignore the other 99 per cent of abusers because you hate the church so much you only want to attack clerics.
oh but i do care about the other 99%. And if you started a thread in the appropriate forum to talk about them, I would probably join in. However, in a thread about clerical abuse, i will confine my discussion to the topic of the thread.You don't care about the victims of the other 99 per cent of abusers so long as you can attack Clergy and try to link almost all the Clergy with the terrible things done by a handful of them.
Indeed, so you keep saying, again and again and again and again and again.The statistics show that about one per cent of abusers were clergy.
Sorry. Are you asking for what purpose do we hold people to account for their crimes?If you have done this with the 50 clergy what are you going to do about the other 5,000 abusers? Are you going to try them too? At a cost of 5 to ten billion Euro? for what purpose?
Oh, sorry, so if I haven't done any work in 3rd world countries I can't criticise those that do? Do you think that going good work excuses abuse? How many children are priests allowed to rape for each well they did? How many rapes is a school worth?Indeed it does! By attacking the church you are negatively affecting the good work they are doing in developing countries. What work did you ever do there?
With respect, how do you know i don't deal with the 99%? You seem to be able to infer a lot from that fact I am talking about the 1% in a thread about the 1%...i.e. you hate Clergy. No wonder then you only want to attack Clergy and not deal with the victims of child abuse and the 99 per cent of abusers that are non clergy.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Barrington wrote: »Because the other abusers were acting alone,
In all cases. In fact did the police not recently crack an international ring of pedos?or in very small groups.
Group = NOT ALONE! Please don't try to fudge!Whereas the church has a proven history of covering up child abuse by relocating priests, not turning them over to the authorities
In fact you will find State Psychologists the DPP Gardai and other "authorities" concurred with this treatment.despite the fact that what they did was illegal, and trying to contain the stories of abuse.
Care to cite a few cases and state what they did which was illegal and the sentence for it?
Oh... and add the overall number of "relocations" you think happened in Ireland.It isn't just about the fact that some priests abused children,
Not some very few of the order of a per cent or less of abusers and of an even smaller percentage of Priests.or that 1% of all children abused were abused by priests.
I never claimed that because it isn't true! In fact clergy being authority figures were more likely to have a larger number of victims.It's the cover-up. The shameful and downright sickening lack of proper action by the church. The fact that priests are supposed to be among the most trustworthy of all people but used that position to commit some of the most horrendous acts imaginable.
So your problem isn't with the act of abuse - It is with abusers who happened to be in authority positions. Why then don't you focus on babysitters , teachers and others who all on their own constitute a larger number of abusers?5%. 1%. 0.00003%. Doesn't matter.
So if your child is going to buy a motor bike and cant chose and you find the above stats are death rates of owners for three different models it doesnt really matter to you that they would buy the bike where 5% of owners die rather then the 0.00003% fatalities bike?
Obviously you don't believe in washing your hands before eating just after using the toilet as it is only a statistical difference that infections spread by unwashed people are only twenty times higher than those who wash???What matters is the fact that not only did these acts occur, but the Churches response to these acts were, quite frankly, almost as horrendous as the act itself.
so it isn't the acts you care about just pinning some of it on the Church!
By the way for Ireland can you list say five of these alleged "cover ups" and then list how many clerical abusers and then list how many non clerical abusers?And it wasn't one abuser, or a small group, it was one of the largest religious organisations in the world.
Do you really believe people won't notice when you coalesce the definition of "group" ( of abusers - a definition which above you tried to ignore) with that of a the "group " of organisation of the whole Church?
As if the whole Church was rife with clerical abusers.0 -
I'm a fricking atheist telling me they will be punished on judgement day is tantamount to letting them off as far as I am concerned. If someone told you Thor would sort out the bad people in Valhalla would you be happy with that?
MrP
Mr.P, I think the law should indeed have the scope and capability to lock up priests who abused. Very many victims are taking cases and they are going through the system, the same way as any other way justice is met out in the wider population for this type, or indeed any type of abuse.
A person must be found guilty. That is absolutely a 'must'.
There is a problem with the justice system in Ireland ( an under statement in so many ways ) in that, if the Law of the land cannot be amended in order to prosecute properly, than that is not the fault of the Church?
The Church have paid out millions apon millions in compensation, but that's just 'money'. We have seen the same thing happen with bankers etc. in this country, all of a sudden there are 'blocks' in the system and the current laws don't facilitate the reality and need to have clear guides that are fair and swift are a secondary minefield of manipulation and endless rhetoric.
I would wonder why, why, why the State don't want to persue and meet out justice? we've had a recognition of 'fault' right the way up in our society, although most concentrate on the Church alone ( perhaps justly so, as it was seen at that time as moral guardians etc. and it's so shocking )
It seems it's easier for our state to just point the finger and hide in the background with a promise of 'money' than to actually follow through on behalf of the victims. This really pisses me off, both as a Catholic and an Irish Citizen.
The same thing with schools etc. We use the Church when it meets our needs to be educated, and it provided excellent education to Irish people when we couldn't educate ourselves - but we're very quick to isolate it's members as 'fundamental' when society changes - I wouldn't mind but it's so off the wall mad that Catholics want to impose their 'parenting' or 'education' on others that it actually beggars belief to most of us. I think most Catholics would be all for freedom..yours, mine, theirs etc. Nothing is real if it is imposed, freedom lends itself to being 'genuine' which is a good thing.
The directive from Rome is to co-operate fully with the Law of the land. Perhaps they recognised this too late, but Ireland has been pretty insular as far as this is concerned too, and not so quick to bring the quickest and soundest resolution. In the UK they had laws to facilitate and it was dealt with pronto...
So, the Law needs to get it's head out from wherever it is firmly buried in the sand. Between the Church scandal and the Bankers and and and..the list goes on..
The 'justice' you seek has many levels, and I think that should be ok to talk about on this thread? ...because believe it or not, I want 'justice' too.0 -
Ask away. You constantly bring up the 99%. Whataboutery is what you do.
MrP
I never used the words "What about..."
I am referring to your claim I am an apologist for abusers. I do not and never have condoned abuse and you are alledging I do condone it and try to cover it up and make excuses for it.ISAW and the rest of the apologists for this despicable organisation.0 -
Ask away. You constantly bring up the 99%. Whataboutery is what you do.
MrP
That's not fair Mr.P. It's a word that is thrown about...while engaging in it? It's ok to say, 'well this is a thread about 'clerical' abuse' so that's all I want to speak of - but that doesn't equate to outrage for children, that only equates to putting your fingers firmly in your ears? No? I have no wish to engage in statistics, I've already informed myself of those and finger pointing is never a good road..
What's more important, hatred or constructive dialogue?
We need to get real and deal with it properly without bias or hatred. That's not what we're about collectively, or at least that is something I would love to see in our future....neither you or I, or anybody else who loves freedom and despises excuses and 'whataboutery' in it's many guises to murky the road ahead, and highlight the road behind with a brush of hatred for dramatic effect that undermines so many good people. We're surely beyond such things now.0 -
In all cases. In fact did the police not recently crack an international ring of pedos?
Group = NOT ALONE! Please don't try to fudge!
I wasn't "trying to fudge". You took two parts of the same sentence to try and make it seem like I had contradicted myself, where I was actually describing more than one thing.In fact you will find State Psychologists the DPP Gardai and other "authorities" concurred with this treatment.
Care to cite a few cases and state what they did which was illegal and the sentence for it?
Oh... and add the overall number of "relocations" you think happened in Ireland.
The number I think happened, or an official number? I was also not talking about Ireland, but Worldwide. Have you ever seen Deliver Us From Evil?Not some very few of the order of a per cent or less of abusers and of an even smaller percentage of Priests.
Like Mr.Pudding, this thread is about Clerical Child Abuse. That is what we are discussing. Besides, "some" is a subjective term, as is "very few".I never claimed that because it isn't true! In fact clergy being authority figures were more likely to have a larger number of victims.
I was merely using 1% as an example number.So your problem isn't with the act of abuse - It is with abusers who happened to be in authority positions. Why then don't you focus on babysitters , teachers and others who all on their own constitute a larger number of abusers?
I don't see how you extrapolated that from what I said. The number one problem being discussed here, is the abuse of children. I really doubt anyone disagrees with that. I said that priests abused their position as what many would consider to me one of the most trustworthy figures in society. I agree that babysitters, teachers and others also did this, but I think most people, years ago, would trust a priest more than the teacher. Again, that's just my opinion though.So if your child is going to buy a motor bike and cant chose and you find the above stats are death rates of owners for three different models it doesnt really matter to you that they would buy the bike where 5% of owners die rather then the 0.00003% fatalities bike?
Obviously you don't believe in washing your hands before eating just after using the toilet as it is only a statistical difference that infections spread by unwashed people are only twenty times higher than those who wash???
I was trying to make the point that this thread isn't about what percentage of children abused were abused by priests, but that children were abused by priests. Again, you are taking part of what I said to drag it out of context with what follows.so it isn't the acts you care about just pinning some of it on the Church!
By the way for Ireland can you list say five of these alleged "cover ups" and then list how many clerical abusers and then list how many non clerical abusers?
To claim that it isn't the acts I care about but the cover-up is a complete and utter misrepresentation of my position. So I'll repeat what I actually said:What matters is the fact that not only did these acts occur, but the Churches response to these acts were, quite frankly, almost as horrendous as the act itself.Do you really believe people won't notice when you coalesce the definition of "group" ( of abusers - a definition which above you tried to ignore) with that of a the "group " of organisation of the whole Church?
As if the whole Church was rife with clerical abusers.
Firstly, I have explained the "group" thing above, which was a misunderstanding or intentional misrepresentation, of what I had actually said.
Secondly, I have never said the whole Church was rife with clerical abusers. I have met enough priests throughout my life, having had priests in the family, to know that the VAST majority of priests, would not commit such acts. However, some (again, a subjective term, so don't bother asking me for official numbers) priests did commit these acts. And the Churches handling of these events were ****ing disgraceful.0 -
I wrote"
The Irish government in its report in 2009 found sexual abuse, and cover ups, within the Irish Roman Catholic Church " endemic". Their word, not mine. "
Actually the government is borrowing approx 20 billion, taking 32 billion in taxes and spending 52 billion ( approx ) a year on social welfare, pensions, hospitals, public service pay etc ....and social welfare , pensions here are considerably higher than virtually all other countries , so your claims about " taxes millions of people who are destitute " etc are a classic case of "whataboutery". If you want to discuss government taxes, welfare spending etc then the economy forum or politics or some such place is the place for that.gimmebroadband wrote: »The previous Government abused tax-payers for years, and lied about turning a corner! The same Government that taxes millions of people who are destitute and can ill afford to put a roof over their heads and food on the table.
The Irish government studied sexual abuse in the RCC because of widespread concern. In its report in 2009 it said it was endemic in the Irish RCC. Look up the meaning of the word endemic in the dictionary. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/endemic : " Prevalent in or peculiar to a particular locality, region, or people." The Irish government did not study sexual abuse in McDonalds or in other churches because it knew there was a widespread problem in the RCC. Earlier studies for example had found 5.8% of boys sexually abused had been abused by Priests / religous. ( page 88 / 89 of http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf )
The "locality, region, or people" where child abuse + child abuse cover-ups which our government obviously referred to , was the Irish Roman Catholic Church. Thats what the government 2009 study was on, and what it concluded. Because you disagree with the reports findings and conclusion, that abuse + cover-ups was "endemic" ( their word, not mine ) in the Irish RCC, is not a reason or justification for your response to be " what about the governments economy....etc"
+1. While I agree the organisation is despicable, many Priests and ordinary Roman Catholics are fine people....just as there are fine people in all churches and none.Cue yet more "whataboutery" from ISAW and the rest of the apologists for this despicable organisation.0 -
It can be compared, but if talking about clerical abuse, then talk about clerical abuse.
And where did you get the idea that because
1. when clerical abuse is mentioned in other threads the posters are directed to this one
that that means this discussion is only concerned with clerical abuse and not any other abuse or related discussions?
If anyone wants to discuss non clerical child abuse it will be moved here.No. Not when the purpose of this discussion is to discuss the 1%. That does not take away from the 99%. I don't see why you have a problem with talking about the 1% when the thread is specifically about the 1%...
Where do you get that idea from?I am interested in the other 99%, but for different reasons. I am particularly interesting in the 1%
You are but that does not mean the thread must only discuss the 1 % of abusers and not discuss non clerical abuse!because of what the organisation is and how it has tried to cover up the crimes of its employees.
[/quiote]
So your real motive is in attaching the church organisation because you hate it?it is reasonable to focus on a subset when that subset is unapologetic uses weasel words to try to deflect blame.
To you it is because your interest is in attacking the church. Other people here want to discuss child abuse because they care abiut helping victims and reducing the level of it in the future.How does the 99% make what the church did any less bad?
the Church didnt do it! Some people who were clergy in the church did.
the church always had rules and policies against it even when society didn't.This is not just about column inches, we also have the small matter of things like the Ryan Report.
Actually it is! you actually claimed it was ! You claimed that the reason for focusing on it is because so much is written about it.
Remember?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72704726&postcount=1021it seems reasonable to further focus on a particular section of that, say for example a section that is of particular interest in a particular country or has a lot written about it.
Oh Tempora O Mores! It seems you don't recollect your own words.
If the Church do less than only one per cent of abuse you are happy they get 99 per cent of the headlines on it. How then can you say you want to focus on the one per cent because of the coverage it gets when you already said 99 per cent of column inches may only reflect one per cetn of abuse anyway? More circular argument!No. It doesn't.
Of course focusing on less than one per cent clerical abuse and giving it 99 per cent of headlines ( as you want) take away from coverage of any abuse carried out by others.
You are claiming that giving 99 per cent coverage to one percent of abusers is not focusing less on the other 99 per cent of abusers ? LOL!Why? I don't care if it is 0.0001%, it is the subject of the discussion, so the percentage is not relevant.
It is what YOU want to discuss so of course you have to avoid acknowledging the published statistics because they show it around 1%. All you want to do is attack the Church. If it happened to be 50 per cetn you of course be all over the stats like a rash!
That is called bigotry - avoiding the objective facts you don't like because they dont support your need to hate despise and attack the Church.
To helping victims?What is the churches solution?
You are not interested in discussing victims . You already stated you are only interseted in clergy bashing.Yawn.
You contradict yourself and indulge in fallacy and when your motives are exposed ( as i predicted they would) all you can do is yawn? Suit yourself.
You can't have it both ways. You cant claim it is about abuse and then claim it is about something else like cover ups. It is a DIFFERENT issue. Im happy to discuss it but you have to then admit it is part of the broader issue of the societal problem child and teenage sexual abuse by adults.oh but i do care about the other 99%. And if you started a thread in the appropriate forum to talk about them, I would probably join in. However, in a thread about clerical abuse, i will confine my discussion to the topic of the thread.
You have been shown before this thread is not only about clerical abuse. Any discussions elsewher in which clerical abuse arised have been directed here. Mainly because people like you who only wanted to have a go at Clergy arrived in threads and brought such topics up. That does not mean this thread is not about non clerical abuse. In fact iof such a discussion on non clerical abuse started elsewher e and some came in and suggested comparing it to clerical abuse then they would be diorected here to this thread.
You have been told all this before but you seem to suffer from selective memory.
Yes because you try to suggest the thread is only about that one per cent and have been told it isn't! It isn't! The fact that you only want to discuss clerics because you hate the church wont change that.Indeed, so you keep saying, again and again and again and again and again.Sorry. Are you asking for what purpose do we hold people to account for their crimes?
No I am asking what is the purpose of prosecuting old nazis in their ninties if it costs billions and might not result in a conviction when we could just give the billion to the families of the thousand victims still alive?Oh, sorry, so if I haven't done any work in 3rd world countries I can't criticise those that do?
No But it is an indicator that atheists who criticise religious organisation who do good work are usually not involved in any such activities themselves . they would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.Do you think that going good work excuses abuse? How many children are priests allowed to rape for each well they did?
Im not aware of any Church policy of justifying a single rape based on what good a person does before that.How many rapes is a school worth?
You have evidence of such rapes?With respect, how do you know i don't deal with the 99%? You seem to be able to infer a lot from that fact I am talking about the 1% in a thread about the 1%...
How many times do you have to be told? the thread isnt about the 1% Any discussion which mentions clerical abuse is moved here. That does not mean only clerical abuse can be discussed here.
If child abuse is a bad thing for society we can't ignore the vast majority of it and concentrate only on one per cent of it. You were also told that before.
Because you don't recall something of which you are ignorant you conclude that it isn't true!= "specious reasoning" - Also drawn to your attention in relation to non clerical abuse.
You are wrong about non Clerical child abuse being allowed elsewhere in this forum
If anyone wants to discuss non clerical child abuse it will be moved here.0 -
This thread is called "The Clerical Child Abuse Thread". It is about Clerical child abuse. If someone posts elsewhere on Boards about child abuse, the only reason why it would be moved here would be if it is to do with clerical child abuse.0
-
Barrington wrote: »I wasn't "trying to fudge". You took two parts of the same sentence to try and make it seem like I had contradicted myself, where I was actually describing more than one thing.
Your words:
Because the other abusers were acting alone, or in very small groups. Whereas the church has a proven history of covering up child abuse ...
And it wasn't one abuser, or a small group, it was one of the largest religious organisations in the world.The number I think happened, or an official number? I was also not talking about Ireland, but Worldwide.
I was talking about Ireland.
No. Thanks Ill check it out.Have you ever seen Deliver Us From Evil?Like Mr.Pudding, this thread is about Clerical Child Abuse. That is what we are discussing.
I told him before - no it isn't! Any child abuse discussion or any discussion mentioning it clerical or not will be moved here!I was merely using 1% as an example number.
I was using it as a reported statistic.I don't see how you extrapolated that from what I said. The number one problem being discussed here, is the abuse of children. I really doubt anyone disagrees with that.
Mr Puding does . He only wants to discuss Church related child abuse and not the other 99 per cent plus.I said that priests abused their position as what many would consider to me one of the most trustworthy figures in society. I agree that babysitters, teachers and others also did this, but I think most people, years ago, would trust a priest more than the teacher. Again, that's just my opinion though.
It isnt a question of who people trusted. it is a question of statistics showing clergy at around one per cent and baby sitters, teachers and others at a higher level.I was trying to make the point that this thread isn't about what percentage of children abused were abused by priests, but that children were abused by priests. Again, you are taking part of what I said to drag it out of context with what follows.
In fact the Clerical abuse was mostly of teenager adolescents and not pre pubecent children.Secondly, I have never said the whole Church was rife with clerical abusers. I have met enough priests throughout my life, having had priests in the family, to know that the VAST majority of priests, would not commit such acts. However, some (again, a subjective term, so don't bother asking me for official numbers) priests did commit these acts. And the Churches handling of these events were ****ing disgraceful.
Okay If I misjudged your position I am sorry. I disagree with you but from your own admission you do not seem to hate the Church or want to attack Clergy and respect the good job almost all of them do. Mistert Pudding however has a different position. He hates the church.0 -
Advertisement
-
gigino, for just one moment did you ever consider that 'endemic' doesn't equate to 'soley confined', or every single person? Did you ever bother to look at reality? or educate yourself on development of understanding and history and science and stats etc. etc. that actually inform judgement?
Do you even want justice, or just want justice served on 'some' to satisfy a want in you...If so, you are no better than those you accuse of being Catholic and are 'endemic' of all bad things.
I'm more interested in reformation and protection. I'll continue to acknowledge greater understanding and ask questions, and seek justice, without condemnation from a media that are very unimaginative..and seem to delight in phobias and selling opinions to opinion buyers.
I don't 'buy' an opinion from anybody.
I love my country. I wish my country loved me as a Catholic now, and continues to allow freedom for everybody, and doesn't silently tolerate bigotry in any fashion for extended periods, but recognises and is educated in all things.0 -
Barrington wrote: »This thread is called "The Clerical Child Abuse Thread". It is about Clerical child abuse. If someone posts elsewhere on Boards about child abuse, the only reason why it would be moved here would be if it is to do with clerical child abuse.
Wrong!
Mr Pudding was also told this before:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65681145&postcount=930
Here is a link to the sticky and update
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1
Now you also know so you can't deny it.0 -
OK. You don't actually have to literally say "what about". It is possible to engage in whataboutery without using the words "what about." You, for example, are a prime example of this.I never used the words "What about..."
I said you were an apologist for the catholic church. If you want to equate that to being an apologist for abusers then that is your problem.I am referring to your claim I am an apologist for abusers. I do not and never have condoned abuse and you are alledging I do condone it and try to cover it up and make excuses for it.
No. I am a parent and I abhor child abuse in all its forms. In a thread titled "The Clerical Child Abuse Thread" I will try to restrict my comments to clerical abuse.That's not fair Mr.P. It's a word that is thrown about...while engaging in it? It's ok to say, 'well this is a thread about 'clerical' abuse' so that's all I want to speak of - but that doesn't equate to outrage for children, that only equates to putting your fingers firmly in your ears? No? I have no wish to engage in statistics, I've already informed myself of those and finger pointing is never a good road..
Constructive dialogue? With who? The organisation that kept 200 reports of abuse from its own abuse commission? The organisation that complained to the Irish government during the Ryan commission report and told the government to stop the commission asking questions or to send them through diplomatic channels? That organisation?What's more important, hatred or constructive dialogue?
Indeed there are many. That is in spite of the church's behaviour, not because of it.Mr.P, I think the law should indeed have the scope and capability to lock up priests who abused. Very many victims are taking cases and they are going through the system, the same way as any other way justice is met out in the wider population for this type, or indeed any type of abuse.
I agree 100%.A person must be found guilty. That is absolutely a 'must'.
I don't believe there is a lacuna in the law here. It is not a problem with the law, it is a problem with the will to apply it, both from the secular and church authorities.There is a problem with the justice system in Ireland ( an under statement in so many ways ) in that, if the Law of the land cannot be amended in order to prosecute properly, than that is not the fault of the Church?
I think there are a number of reasons, not least, the government is worried about skeletons being dragged out. We are in a different time now, thankfully. The church does not have the respect and control it used to have. Back in the bad old days a quick call from the bishop and problems disappeared. That does not happen anymore, at least I hope it doesn't. I think many fear that the reasons they may have had for behaving in a particular way in the past might not hold up to modern scrutiny. I understand that.
I would wonder why, why, why the State don't want to persue and meet out justice? we've had a recognition of 'fault' right the way up in our society, although most concentrate on the Church alone ( perhaps justly so, as it was seen at that time as moral guardians etc. and it's so shocking )
What else can they give? You can't unrape someone. Compensating them is as good as it gets. Of course an admission of the wrongs that have been perpetrated by the organisation would also be nice.It seems it's easier for our state to just point the finger and hide in the background with a promise of 'money' than to actually follow through on behalf of the victims. This really pisses me off, both as a Catholic and an Irish Citizen.
Secular education is, like abuse by those other than cleric is IMO for another thread.The same thing with schools etc. We use the Church when it meets our needs to be educated, and it provided excellent education to Irish people when we couldn't educate ourselves - but we're very quick to isolate it's members as 'fundamental' when society changes - I wouldn't mind but it's so off the wall mad that Catholics want to impose their 'parenting' or 'education' on others that it actually beggars belief to most of us. I think most Catholics would be all for freedom..yours, mine, theirs etc. Nothing is real if it is imposed, freedom lends itself to being 'genuine' which is a good thing.
Too little too late. The previous directives telling the bishops not to co-operate expose the real feeling of your precious church.The directive from Rome is to co-operate fully with the Law of the land. Perhaps they recognised this too late, but Ireland has been pretty insular as far as this is concerned too, and not so quick to bring the quickest and soundest resolution. In the UK they had laws to facilitate and it was dealt with pronto...
My hatred of the church is born of the abuse. The abuse came first.
So your real motive is in attaching the church organisation because you hate it?0 -
"Of course an admission of the wrongs that have been perpetrated by the organisation would also be nice."
This would be ideal. Just own up and admit it, like. But there hasn't been an apology, really, or has there? Just money thrown at the problem in the hopes that it'd go away.0 -
Unfortunately 90% of the money thrown at survivors has come from the taxpayer, not from the RCC church, under the deal the previous FF govt "done" with the RCC church authorities. What an embarassment to FF now, as Prime Time pointed out last Tuesday evening.Just money thrown at the problem in the hopes that it'd go away.
Of course. I even pointed out in 2 different posts 2 different dictionary explanations of the word endemic. And of course child sexual abuse was not solely confined to Priests / religous ; just 5.8% of boys who were sexually abused were abused by Priests / religous, according to the study whose link I gave ; that means 94.2% of boys were abused by others. However when you consider such a small proportion of the population is / was Priests / religous, you can see the problem. Plus the fact that priests had the power to keep things quiet / hushed up / covered up by their superiors. Currently less than 00.1% of the population - and declining - are priests.gigino, for just one moment did you ever consider that 'endemic' doesn't equate to 'soley confined', or every single person?0 -
There have been numerous apologies Asry, but no amount will ever be good enough - and people will hate one way or the other.
MrP, you are free to hate the Church if you feel like it. I'm glad this thread got bumped up so that people can air their views in the one spot. That's what it's for I guess...0 -
-
Unfortunately 90% of the money thrown at survivors has come from the taxpayer, not from the RCC church, under the deal the previous FF govt "done" with the RCC church authorities. What an embarassment to FF now, as Prime Time pointed out last Tuesday evening.
Oh I didn't see Prime Time. Don't watch TV generally. What was it saying? Is that the thing with Pat Kenny? Either way, that was the agreement that the Church made with the government of this country, so money has been flung about everywhere in an attempt to stop the outrage. Whether it comes from the taxpayer or the Church coffers is irrelevant, I suppose - it's just interesting to see what our previous government had decided to condemn us to.0 -
OK. You don't actually have to literally say "what about". It is possible to engage in whataboutery without using the words "what about." You, for example, are a prime example of this.
And how about
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65585211&postcount=889The abuse is one thing, but the institutionalised cover up is quite another.
i.e. "Whatabout " the coverup...?
You cant claim it is about abuse and then claim "whatabout" something else.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64934395&postcount=5
You were discussing Brady resigning but YOU brought in other non church matters such as the law of the state (which applies to ALL abusers not only to the one per cent of clerics)
YOU also brought in the Gardaí who are non Church and who have to react to ALL abuses reported whether church or non church. But it seems you only really wanted to discuss the "special case" of the one per cent of Church related clerical abusers.
Why was that? It now transpires you admit you are are an atheist so it can't be because you are interested in improving the Church. so why is it you are only interested in discussing the one per cent of clerical abusers and you are not at all interested in the other 99 per cent of abusers?I said you were an apologist for the catholic church. If you want to equate that to being an apologist for abusers then that is your problem.
No it isn't! Since you siad this in realtion to your claim[ that you were only discussing clerical abuse. You were not discusssing any other matters of the RCC just clerical child abuse. You described the behaviour of the Church ( re clerical abuse) as "despicable" and you linked ME to apologising to that i.e. to making excused for abusers.
Whe you are in a hole don't dig deeper.
You accused me of being an apologist for clerical abusers and I want you to retract that and clarify that I never in any way accepted abuse or trieds to excuse iut.
Can you do that?No. I am a parent and I abhor child abuse in all its forms. In a thread titled "The Clerical Child Abuse Thread" I will try to restrict my comments to clerical abuse.
So you accuse me of being an apologist for clerical child abuse?I don't believe there is a lacuna in the law here. It is not a problem with the law, it is a problem with the will to apply it, both from the secular and church authorities.
What do you think an abuser from say 1970 who abused a boy of say eight to ten years of age should be charged with ?Back in the bad old days a quick call from the bishop and problems disappeared.
Which bishops called the DPP or Gardai and got them to drop charges? Have you any evidence of this happening?What else can they give? You can't unrape someone.
So you are suggesting abusers of males from 1970 be charged with rape? How?
Wher is the crime of raping a male in 1970?
In what act will one find it?Compensating them is as good as it gets. Of course an admission of the wrongs that have been perpetrated by the organisation would also be nice.
It would and has already been made by Bertie Ahearn.
Too little too late. The previous directives telling the bishops not to co-operate expose the real feeling of your precious church.
Which directives? Have you a source for these?My hatred of the church is born of the abuse. The abuse came first.
So two wrongs make a right?0 -
Advertisement
-
"Of course an admission of the wrongs that have been perpetrated by the organisation would also be nice."
This would be ideal. Just own up and admit it, like. But there hasn't been an apology, really, or has there? Just money thrown at the problem in the hopes that it'd go away.
And you know there has not been an apology because?
http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2009/07/church-apologises-to-child-abuse.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ireland/7466347/Head-of-Irish-Catholic-Church-apologises-over-child-abuse-scandal.html0
Advertisement