The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

Deleted due to extensive backseat modding.

ISAW, if you wish to discuss moderating decisions then please do so via PM.

PDN

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I have explained it to you many times. The SAVI group mentions " religous ministers" and " religous teachers".

No you haven't ONCE explained what there terms mean. You don't even bother to spell them right!

These 2 groups put together are religous professionals, and account for 6% of the sex abuse to boys in Ireland, according to the SAVI findings.

The phrase "religious professionals" is mentioned where in SAVI?
Why put together your two undefined groups?

And they dont account for 6 % of anything. They account for twelve cases in a sample of 3000 people 700 of which said they had experienced a wide range of experiences up to the age of seventeen!
We have no way of knowing what "abuse" consisted of in the case of the six Ministers.
We have no way of knowing what age they were.
We have no knowledge if the Ministers were roman Catholic clergy!

but in society is is the case to report to the police theft, terrorism, and most of all child sex abuse.

I have just told you it WAS NOT the case!

You are saying it was not the done thing, and you did not do it yourself , to "inform" on child sex abusers.

You were referring to specific cases of what now would be considered abuse. I didnt consider it to be abuse then nor did others. As to sexual abuse I never heard of or witnessed any by Christian Brothers.

You said nothing would have been done about it, and people may not have believed you etc.

People would have thought that at that time yes.

Your language + attitude say it all....many people nowadays ( who do not work for the RC church like you )

You have alleged several times I work for the RC Church as if it is an accusation! Where is your evidence for this assertion that I work for the Church?

generally think that people who inform the authorities on Clerical sex abusers are doing the correct thing and are not "informers".

Really? and Gerry Adams was one of then was he? why do yo think his family didn't go to the RUC and inform about sexual abuse then?

The thing is that clerical abuse was so limited in relation to non clerical that very very few cases happened. Particularly of children ( which is the context we are discussing) I would doubt if more than one offender in a thousand was a Roman Catholic Cleric.

I have lived in different parts of the Rep. of Ireland and I never found a place where " half the place was Gardai and a lot of the other half were active Sinn Fein"

Let me be clear . Where I lived there were about 300 houses. On each street there were about 15-30 per street. On my side there was speical branch amone the 15. On the opposite side ther was another two detectives on that fifteen. On the road behind that there were more gardai. On the one behind that several more. ASat the top of my road as you rounded the corner the first house had a Sargeant and a superintendant. Two roads down lived the Assistant Commissioner of the Gardai. There was one on every road.

Now several doors from me there were meetings of people from "the North" shall we say.
On the other end from the super was another road. One of the houses there had a senior SF /IRA supporter from the north. On the same road was a family where the daughter is since married to one of the groups that are so hardline that they didn't sign the Good Friday agreement. Her brother is currently a Garda. Opposite the super and Sargant was the secretart of Republican sinn féin.

when I was not living ther I was living in another part of Ireland. My da kept company he enjoyed . He could be drinking with High court Judge one day and with the local tramp the next. In that other part of Ireland my father brought home all sorts. I hade dinner and lunsh with a very eclectic bunch including prominent Journalists, total toerags, Secretaries of the Pope one who became a Bishop and subsequently resigned, the President of Republican Sinn Féin ( in the mid seventies when things were very hot). One family who had a house near us there was the RSF dublin secretary ( the one who lived opposite the Super and sargeant) in Dublin. that guy now had Alzheimers poor man. Very nice family.
Actually all told the non Gardaí seemed to have a better sense of enjoyment. anyway you can believe me or not. I have no reason to lie and don't tell lies in any case.

But rape against boys did exist, as you well know.

no actually legally it didn't and I have posted the reference to the law in the lase few pages.

The RC church hierarchy did not want people knowing about it, as for example shown in the Brendan Smyth scandal.

also posted the reference to that. Where are you saying the Pope or Vatican were hiding Smyth. Certainly mistakes were made I don't deny that but i do deny conspiracy.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/chris-moore-club-protecting-monster-went-all-the-way-to-top-2100001.html

What are you suggesting that source claims which you support?

If people like you did not think it was better to keep quiet about it, then more people would have been aware of it.

Again you misinterpret things! I didn't suggest anyone actively kept quite so much as not realise anything wrong was happening. and I referred specifically to physical beatings for example. A minority of which were done by clergy. They went on in families too! Just as sexual abuse did. In many cases children didn't complain but that was not because the children were "covering up2 but in some cases it might have been. It is no use trying to blame these victims as you keep trying to do in your attempts to attack the Church.

Brothers went north to "get involved in the republican struggle". Given that you said earlier this was of more concern than child sex abuse, do you think terrorism was a very Christian thing for the Brothers to be involved in ?

That is off topic.

If you knew about them, did you notify the Gardai ? I suppose when you did not "inform" on a child sex abusers who happened to be a Brother, you would not have "informed" on suspected terrorists.

Most certainly not! and you seem to have the view that all IRA were regarded as terrorists. They were not. Many were the only think protecting Catholics as some Catholics viewed it.

So you admit the RC Brothers were very sectarian / sympathetic to the PIRA. We all had teachers like that or were aware of them, nothing new there.

This would not be historically true. The PIRA didn't exist then. It was before the Provisional /Official split! But you would be right that they would be more Republican than Socialist. I wouldn't see them in the OIRA.

So it was collusion between the State and the RC church to prevent justice being done, you say.

I NEVER stated anything of the sort!

The pressure that the RCC put on people to be silent and the cover-ups did not extend to pressure being put on Gardai not to force charges.

I am not aware of this "pressure" you keep going on about...threats of excommunication etc.

What about just subtle pressure...being told it was anti-catholic to accuse a Priest / Brother of child sex abuse etc.

There were no cases of child abuse by any biothers or nuns in about 15 schools around where I grew up. about ten years ago I discovered a priest in a neighbouring parish was an abuser but he arrived there after I had left school.

I lived in the day too, you would be surprised what I understand.;)

I don't think I would really. You seem to think RC clerical sexual abuse of children was widespread. It wasn't.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Without getting involved in increasingly convoluted discussions on all the other points ....

This thread was set up for discussion of "Child Abuse and the Catholic Church". Not child abuse in general. Child abuse as it specifically relates to the RCC. So it covers clerical abuse. It covers abuse perpetrated by employees such as teachers (clerics, brothers or lay people) who were acting as the employees of, or agents of, Catholic institutions.

The Discussion of child abuse in general is for other fora.

With all due respect the thread title does not make it clear this is a Catholic Church specific thread.

The thread title "The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)" would suggest this discussion is open to examine clerical child abuse regardless of whether the religious in question are Catholic or not.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You seem to think RC clerical sexual abuse of children was widespread. It wasn't.

It was the Irish government in its 2009 report on child abuse in the RCC that said it was "endemic." I gave you the dictionary definitions of endemic. You argued it was endemic in all of society, and you argued that is this the same government that had low standards in other areas etc etc. ( a bit like you condemnded the UN's Committee on Torture's comments on RCC child sex abuse in Ireland a few weeks ago by belittling the UN ).

Now you say it was'nt widespread. It was endemic but not widespread you are now claiming.

ISAW wrote: »

Really? and Gerry Adams was one of then was he? why do yo think his family didn't go to the RUC and inform about sexual abuse then?

I never mentioned Gerry Adams. I wrote "generally think that people who inform the authorities on Clerical sex abusers are doing the correct thing and are not "informers". " Do you understand the word "generally". And Gerry Adams is one person ; he happens to live in a different jurisdiction. Was he one of the guests who visited your father at home for evening tea too, in this jurisdiction ? lol lol. No ? After all you wrote " my father brought home all sorts. I hade dinner and lunsh with a very eclectic bunch including prominent Journalists, total toerags, Secretaries of the Pope one who became a Bishop and subsequently resigned, the President of Republican Sinn Féin ( in the mid seventies when things were very hot). One family who had a house near us there was the RSF dublin secretary ....

ISAW wrote: »

There were no cases of child abuse by any biothers or nuns in about 15 schools around where I grew up. about ten years ago I discovered a priest in a neighbouring parish was an abuser but he arrived there after I had left school.

You claim in the last post ( first sentence ) I cannot spell, but you spell "biothers"? Anyway, earlier in the thread you admitted , when talking exclusively about sexual abuse, that a Brother had abused you sexually at the age of ten. Now you are rowing back and claiming "There were no cases of child abuse by any biothers or nuns in about 15 schools around where I grew up. about ten years ago I discovered a priest in a neighbouring parish was an abuser but he arrived there after I had left school. "

I have come to the conclusion you are very confused. You claim to have lived where " half the place was Gardai and a lot of the other half were active Sinn Fein". I feel sorry for you ..you are obviously engaged in damage limitation for the church but as a witness I am afraid you have lost credibility. I pray you will get better soon and hope the abuse the Brother inflicted on you when you were ten has not damaged your mental state . God bless.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

It was the Irish government in its 2009 report on child abuse in the RCC that said it was "endemic." I gave you the dictionary definitions of endemic. You argued it was endemic in all of society, and you argued that is this the same government that had low standards in other areas etc etc.

that was someione else's argument not mine. But I am happy to concur that you misuse the word "endemic2 just as you misuse the scant evidence you keep misinterpreting i.e. A Newsweek story and the SAVI Report.

( a bit like you condemnded the UN's Committee on Torture's comments on RCC child sex abuse in Ireland a few weeks ago by belittling the UN ).

LOL!
Where did I do that? The UN has not effective juristiction to intervene in Ireland. The procedure is that a relolution goes to the SC and a decision is made to respons and certain nations opt in or out. this happened in Cyprus Lebanon Iraq etc. It has never happened in Ireland or N Ireland.

Now you say it was'nt widespread. It was endemic but not widespread you are now claiming.

NO YOU are claiming a conspiracy to cover up and widespread abuse.

I'm counterclaiming that in particular the "pedophile roman Catholic Priest" syndrome
is of less than a tenth of a per cent of child sex offenders.

It is a myth.
You have been shown ther is a developed bopdy of literature which is constantly growing Jenkins and Shakeshaft are examples of it showing anti catholic and anti clerical and anti christian bias in this line of argument. It just does not stand up!

You claim in the last post ( first sentence ) I cannot spell, but you spell
"biothers"?

I won't get into a flame war on spelling! No you haven't ONCE explained what the terms "religious teacher " and "religious Minister " mean. they have no link to Catholic Priests or particularly to "pedophile priests" which is usually where the myth creators try to go.
You know ther is no evidence supporting this. It is very easy for you to contact the authors and ask if the "boys" referred to were under 12 or who abused them. If and when you do you may expect you 1.9 % abused by "ministers" to dissolve because yo will end up with less than a per cent of them being roman Catholic abusing young children. As for the other paert of the 5.8% you also have no idea to what it referrs because you dint give the definition. I also drew attention to the p value given in the report. It is present in the previous section but absent in the table about abusers in authority positions. This is unusual. it means the statistical reliability of the table is questionable.

Anyway, earlier in the thread you admitted , when talking exclusively about sexual abuse, that a Brother had abused you sexually at the age of ten.

You really have comprehension problems. I never stated that!

Now you are rowing back and claiming "There were no cases of child abuse by any biothers or nuns in about 15 schools around where I grew up. about ten years ago I discovered a priest in a neighbouring parish was an abuser but he arrived there after I had left school. "

I am not rowing back on anything! WHERE do you say I made a claim that that a Brother had abused me sexually at the age of ten? I never made such a claim!

I have come to the conclusion you are very confused. I feel sorry for you ..you are obviously engaged in damage limitation for the church but as a witness I am afraid you have lost credibility.

I am getting severely irritated at this repeated accusation that I am employed by the church and that I made claims which I never made. They just are not true. I don't like to call you a liar but either that are you have severe comprehension problems.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I never mentioned Gerry Adams. I wrote "generally think that people who inform the authorities on Clerical sex abusers are doing the correct thing and are not "informers". "

No I did. Gerry Adams was in a family where abuse was occurring and he didn't report it to the RUC! Any inking why? Hint: please re read the discussion immediately preceeding the point I made about Adams.

Do you understand the word "generally". And Gerry Adams is one person ; he happens to live in a different jurisdiction. Was he one of the guests who visited your father at home for evening tea too, in this jurisdiction ?

One of his predecessors. Ruairí was his name.
He announced his retirement in 2009. the point is Smyth was also in the other jurisdiction under RUC control.

CiaranMT

ISAW wrote: »

I am getting severely irritated at this repeated accusation that I am employed by the church and that I made claims which I never made. They just are not true. I don't like to call you a liar but either that are you have severe comprehension problems.

Now now, ISAW, people in glasshouses and all that...

And gigino said engaged, not employed.

Bob Cratchet

gigino wrote: »

We already know that 4% of the RC clergy in the states between 1950 and 1992 alone ( when some people thought they risked excommunication and hell if they complained ! )were accused of child sex abuse. A very high figure, I think you will agree.

I thought far more that that would be accused, given that 4% of the general adult lay population actually do abuse children, never mind the higher % again that are accused of it.

ISAW

CiaranMT wrote: »

Now now, ISAW, people in glasshouses and all that...

And gigino said engaged, not employed.

If you think I made any accusation against anyone her or an any other discussion which was not justified then please bring it to my attention. Id you can't then save you paatitudes about people in glasshouses.

"engaged" or "employed" gigino claimed I was a priest! On what basis? On the basis that anyone who asks for evidence supporting the myth that priests are abuser must themselves be involved in a clerical coverup?

CiaranMT

ISAW wrote: »

If you think I made any accusation against anyone her or an any other discussion which was not justified then please bring it to my attention. Id you can't then save you paatitudes about people in glasshouses.

"engaged" or "employed" gigino claimed I was a priest! On what basis? On the basis that anyone who asks for evidence supporting the myth that priests are abuser must themselves be involved in a clerical coverup?

Someone's a bit techy. All I was getting at is that you shouldn't really be talking about liars after yesterday's run-in with gvn. Gigino may have gotten the wrong end of the stick but he's certainly been honest so far.

And where did he claim you were a priest? I missed that.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

If you think I made any accusation against anyone her or an any other discussion which was not justified then please bring it to my attention. Id you can't then save you paatitudes about people in glasshouses.

"engaged" or "employed" gigino claimed I was a priest! On what basis? On the basis that anyone who asks for evidence supporting the myth that priests are abuser must themselves be involved in a clerical coverup?

But you did fudge the issue by introducing your experience of child-abuse in terms of excessive punishment which as you say was not considered as 'abuse' at the time into an argument that is examining paedophilia. Gigino probably thought you had been sexually abused. I got that impression myself.

CiaranMT

himnextdoor wrote: »

I got that impression myself.

Same here.

gimmebroadband

CiaranMT wrote: »

Same here.

+

I somewhat vaguely remember Gigino inferring that ISAW was a priest in one of the posts!

I didn't get the impression that ISAW was sexually abused!

PDN

More Mod Guidance

OK, everybody step back, take a deep breath, and calm down.

Let's stop getting personal. We can talk about the issues without picking over the bones of who was abused, or who is a proper Catholic, or who you imagine is a priest, or who is a liar.

And the next person who tries to cause cheap points by pretending to be the spelling police will face infracshuns.

lmaopml

CiaranMT wrote: »

Now now, ISAW, people in glasshouses and all that...

And gigino said engaged, not employed.

Gigino wondered whether ISAW was a priest a while back. Gigino has now wondered whether ISAW was abused for some odd reason, he even think he/she saw a post - maybe it was something confusing in Newsweek he/she read and got mixed up about. Gigino wondered whether everybody knew a Catholic that was abused. Gigino wondered whether the Pope was a Nazi. Gigino wondered whether the Church has 90billion up it's sleeve, and could end world hunger. Gigino wondered why the Church doesn't allow women priests. Gigino wondered spectacularly over a Newsweek article and the SAVI report - really spectacular wondering went on there. Gigino surmises a lot and wonders a whole lot all over the place.

Gigino claims he/she is a Catholic.

Me, I'm 'wondering' whether he/she is not. Maybe one of the last Lorraine Boettner fans left with the dusty book.

gimmebroadband

lmaopml wrote: »

Gigino wondered whether ISAW was a priest a while back. Gigino has now wondered whether ISAW was abused for some odd reason, he even think he/she saw a post - maybe it was something confusing in Newsweek he/she read and got mixed up about. Gigino wondered whether everybody knew a Catholic that was abused. Gigino wondered whether the Pope was a Nazi. Gigino wondered whether the Church has 90billion up it's sleeve, and could end world hunger. Gigino wondered why the Church doesn't allow women priests. Gigino wondered spectacularly over a Newsweek article and the SAVI report - really spectacular wondering went on there. Gigino surmises a lot and wonders a whole lot all over the place.

Gigino claims he/she is a Catholic.

Me, I'm 'wondering' whether he/she is not. Maybe one of the last Lorraine Boettner fans left with the dusty book.

Exactly!!!

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

If you think I made any accusation against anyone her or an any other discussion which was not justified then please bring it to my attention. Id you can't then save you paatitudes about people in glasshouses.

"engaged" or "employed" gigino claimed I was a priest! On what basis? On the basis that anyone who asks for evidence supporting the myth that priests are abuser must themselves be involved in a clerical coverup?

How about just clearing this up:

It can be said that no Bishop nor other clergy member except for abusive priests actually broke any law in a legal and prosecutable kind of way. In that sense one would have to agree that insofar as the law is concerned no wrong-doing has occured.

However, I think there is a question mark around the issues of morality and integrity of an institution that seems to have got it so wrong; can the defence of "I was just following orders" exhonorate the custodians of morality in their failure to protect the children?

Mr Brady, or whatever he was called at the time, was part of a mechanism that allowed Brendan Smyth to abuse many, many children; even if he was only present to make the tea, Brady should have become a thorn in the side of the church on that issue until it was resolved. As should everyone else present at such meetings.

But he didn't. Noone did.

Do you think that with hindsight, Cardinal Brady might realise that that looks quite bad, that it reflects badly on him if he refuses to acknowledge the catastrophic failure of the church to deal with paedophilia within its ranks?

Do you think he did the 'right' thing? Not the 'legally right' thing but the 'morally right' thing? Was he of good service to those children? Should he have a few regrets and maybe a few self-recriminations?

I ask because I get the impression that you are hiding the moral argument with the legal one; do you accept that the church got it wrong with child-protection?

I accept that child sex-abuse is under-reported across the whole spectrum of society but you can't say 'Ignore the paedophilia within the church because there are more paedophiles outside.'

And would you agree that it will take more than praying and fasting to sort it out?

lmaopml

himnextdoor wrote: »

I accept that child sex-abuse is under-reported across the whole spectrum of society but you can't say 'Ignore the paedophilia within the church because there are more paedophiles outside.'

And would you agree that it will take more than praying and fasting to sort it out?

In fairness to ISAW he was debating with 'somebody' who was trying to say and portray the opposit to what you acknowledge ie That there is MORE peadophilia inside the Church than outside, that badness is endemic - which quite rightly, he should oppose and refute - and did so, with style imo.

Also, you are quite correct that our society, including the Church who were moral guardians dealt woefully with children who were in state run institutions under the guardianship of religious orders - A mindless 'can't believe this is so...' went on for too long. So many turned a blind eye, others thought that hard disciplin was a 'good' thing - and yet others couldn't have given a shyte.

However, as far as 'this' society is concerned a whole lot needs to be ironed out before a witch hunt gathers. The 'Law' as ISAW alludes needs to be fair and accurate in it's proceedings. Otherwise what is the 'law'? It also needs to be brought up to date to deal with Children and their protection everywhere...

The Pope in Rome can do very little about the conscience of another in another society, who never committed a crime, but 'yes' may be haunted by memories - that's all I have to say. He has called for them to be honest and truthful and deal within their own societies and all their legal jurisdictions.

If one good thing comes of this experiment on analysis of child abuse - centred as it is on the Catholic faith. I hope, as a Catholic that it empowers children-that's what I'm working for...

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

Gigino wondered whether ISAW was a priest a while back.

I do recall me asking ISAW if he was a Priest. I thought he/she was being very defensive in a faithful and loyal way; a bit like Cardinal Brady would be, in fact.

lmaopml

Well, it appears ISAW is not.

I'm wondering whether you are a red head - I bet ye are..lol...

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

In fairness to ISAW he was debating with 'somebody' who was trying to say and portray the opposit to what you acknowledge ie That there is MORE peadophilia inside the Church than outside, that badness is endemic - which quite rightly, he should oppose and refute - and did so, with style imo.

Also, you are quite correct that our society, including the Church who were moral guardians dealt woefully with children who were in state run institutions under the guardianship of religious orders - A mindless 'can't believe this is so...' went on for too long. So many turned a blind eye, others thought that hard disciplin was a 'good' thing - and yet others couldn't have given a shyte.

However, as far as 'this' society is concerned a whole lot needs to be ironed out before a witch hunt gathers. The 'Law' as ISAW alludes needs to be fair and accurate in it's proceedings. Otherwise what is the 'law'? It also needs to be brought up to date to deal with Children and their protection everywhere...

The Pope in Rome can do very little about the conscience of another in another society, who never committed a crime, but 'yes' may be haunted by memories - that's all I have to say. He has called for them to be honest and truthful and deal within their own societies and all their legal jurisdictions.

If one good thing comes of this experiment on analysis of child abuse - centred as it is on the Catholic faith. I hope, as a Catholic that it empowers children-that's what I'm working for...

There is one thing that the Pope could have done to be more actively helpful to the children of the world; he could have amended the rules on pontifical secrety to exclude and allow Priests and Bishops to simply turn paedophiles into state hands.

He could have done that couldn't he?

I mean, praying and fasting? Come on. I bet those poor children prayed; 'Please God, make him walk past!' but he doesn't walk past; the footsteps stop outside your door.

It opens.

A simple acknowledgement; why can't ISAW say 'The church authorities let down those children twice. First by letting them be abused and then by seeking to be an obstacle to justice. That's the cause of public opinion; the church appears to be very dismissive of the whole thing.

himnextdoor

lmaopml wrote: »

Well, it appears ISAW is not.

I'm wondering whether you are a red head - I bet ye are..lol...

LOL. Now I know that you're a girl.

lmaopml

I understand what you are saying, and I am trying to understand more, and be honest too. Perhaps hindsight has 20:20 vision.

Have there been 'bad' priests/religious/clergy etc - A resounding 'YES' there have. I read all the reports. I squirmed and got outraged with the best of em..but nobody can do anymore if the 'law' doesn't have a 'course' set...I would like to eject 'bad' people with expedience as much as anybody else would from anywhere they hide, but with some prudence too.

It makes me mad too that it takes so long for justice. I think in order to understand one must try to not only look at the 'institution' of the Church, and it's psychology of faith and forgiveness, but also at the psychology of the times and in particular that of a peadophile. It's not black and white. If it were looked on that way, that it's 'black and white' then we might as well just go back to before any enlightenment ever happened at all...and I know I don't want that!

I think our history is very great and very sad in many ways, it matters more how we pick ourselves up and move on and learn imo.... I am a Catholic, and one of billions that will never hit the news in controversy for anything because only controversy is reported, and imo, it has set itself a bullseye that is not exactly moral in it's pinpointing of a 'solution' to the overall problem...but could help to be useful one day, for the greater good. That's my hope.

gigino

himnextdoor wrote: »

I do recall me asking ISAW if he was a Priest. I thought he/she was being very defensive in a faithful and loyal way; a bit like Cardinal Brady would be, in fact.

The answer he gave is consistent with his services being engaged by the church in a professional capacity. Nevertheless he is passionate about his church, as he is entitled to be, so he is also arguing from his personal point of view. I'm just a lay person, I believe in God and I have respect for good and decent clergy ( of all denominations for that matter ). I 'm sure if Jesus was here he would not have behaved like Cardinal Brady. I agree the church appears to be very dismissive of the whole thing. If + when I am faced with a moral question, I ask myself ; what would Jesus have done ?

lmaopml wrote: »

I am a Catholic, and one of billions that....

I agree with much of what you say, but there are only 1.1 billion Catholics in the world, so you are one of just over a billion, not one of billions.

CiaranMT

lmaopml wrote: »

Gigino wondered whether ISAW was a priest a while back. Gigino has now wondered whether ISAW was abused for some odd reason, he even think he/she saw a post - maybe it was something confusing in Newsweek he/she read and got mixed up about. Gigino wondered whether everybody knew a Catholic that was abused. Gigino wondered whether the Pope was a Nazi. Gigino wondered whether the Church has 90billion up it's sleeve, and could end world hunger. Gigino wondered why the Church doesn't allow women priests. Gigino wondered spectacularly over a Newsweek article and the SAVI report - really spectacular wondering went on there. Gigino surmises a lot and wonders a whole lot all over the place.

Gigino claims he/she is a Catholic.

Me, I'm 'wondering' whether he/she is not. Maybe one of the last Lorraine Boettner fans left with the dusty book.

What does any of that have to do with my post you quoted?

gimmebroadband

CiaranMT wrote: »

What does any of that have to do with my post you quoted?

I belive lmaopml was replying to the following comment you posted!

CiaranMT wrote: »

Someone's a bit techy. All I was getting at is that you shouldn't really be talking about liars after yesterday's run-in with gvn. Gigino may have gotten the wrong end of the stick but he's certainly been honest so far.

And where did he claim you were a priest? I missed that.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

But you did fudge the issue by introducing your experience of child-abuse in terms of excessive punishment which as you say was not considered as 'abuse' at the time into an argument that is examining paedophilia. Gigino probably thought you had been sexually abused. I got that impression myself.

I never made such a claim. Maybe like gigino you also have the wrong impression that my testimony is unreliable and contradictory and that priests are involved in a conspiracy to cover up widespread abuse? Also, it was not the first or only time I mentioned that brother.
I would thin the reference to a brother who broke the pole from a sideline flag over my back was not a reference to sexual abuse at all but you somehow thought it was. How come that?
Ironically gigino referred to not reporting this several times as if it was a stick to beat me with.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

I never made such a claim. Maybe like gigino you also have the wrong impression that my testimony is unreliable and contradictory and that priests are involved in a conspiracy to cover up widespread abuse? Also, it was not the first or only time I mentioned that brother.
I would thin the reference to a brother who broke the pole from a sideline flag over my back was not a reference to sexual abuse at all but you somehow thought it was. How come that?
Ironically gigino referred to not reporting this several times as if it was a stick to beat me with.

I see. I missed that particular reference. Sorry.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

How about just clearing this up:

It can be said that no Bishop nor other clergy member except for abusive priests actually broke any law in a legal and prosecutable kind of way. In that sense one would have to agree that insofar as the law is concerned no wrong-doing has occured.

However, I think there is a question mark around the issues of morality and integrity of an institution that seems to have got it so wrong; can the defence of "I was just following orders" exhonorate the custodians of morality in their failure to protect the children?

Mr Brady, or whatever he was called at the time, was part of a mechanism that allowed Brendan Smyth to abuse many, many children; even if he was only present to make the tea, Brady should have become a thorn in the side of the church on that issue until it was resolved. As should everyone else present at such meetings.

But he didn't. Noone did.

Inside or outside of the church. Nor was the law changed until quite recently.

Do you think that with hindsight, Cardinal Brady might realise that that looks quite bad,

It does not just look quite bad. the church always had rules against pedophilia and always stated it was wrong. It was bad . it was always bad. The church has never had a relativist stance that in Ancient Greece or anywhere else in the past or future that sex with children was in any way acceptable. some relativist/atheists today hold that position. The church does not.

that it reflects badly on him if he refuses to acknowledge the catastrophic failure of the church to deal with paedophilia within its ranks?

The procedure was to leave the local Bishop deal with it. Obviously several local Bishops failed in this regard. Of the tens of thousands of Bishops worldwide over the period about ten have resigned because of clerical abuse or because after the abuse they didn't act to bring in procedures or act against the cleric involved. I would not call that a widespread catastrophic failure. In some countries like Ireland or the USA there was an extended problem of orders who also made the same errors and who protected their members.

Do you think he did the 'right' thing? Not the 'legally right' thing but the 'morally right' thing? Was he of good service to those children? Should he have a few regrets and maybe a few self-recriminations?

Brady? I have been over the whole issue with respect to him very early in this thread. go and read it! It is where I came into this thread. about five pages in from the beginning.

I ask because I get the impression that you are hiding the moral argument with the legal one; do you accept that the church got it wrong with child-protection?

Go and read what I wrote over a year ago and then tell me if I am hiding anything!

I accept that child sex-abuse is under-reported across the whole spectrum of society but you can't say 'Ignore the paedophilia within the church because there are more paedophiles outside.'

go and read what I wrote about CPP's and tell me then I claimed anything like that!

And would you agree that it will take more than praying and fasting to sort it out?

Go and read what I wrote. And go and read what the Pope wrote.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe like gigino you also have the wrong impression that my testimony is unreliable and contradictory

lol. see post 1355.

ISAW wrote: »

and that priests are involved in a conspiracy to cover up widespread abuse?

Nobody said all priests were involved in a conspiracy, but some were, as evidenced by the Brendan Smyth / church hierarchy case

ISAW wrote: »

Also, it was not the first or only time I mentioned that brother.

I know, you did mention him in the context of sex abuse. You did'nt "inform" on him as "informing" was not the done thing. As a ten year old you were warned not to tell anyone about it. You said nobody would have believed you anyway. Well if you showed the broken flag pole someone would have believed you, but it was not that kind of pole, was it ? If it was a flagline stick from a pitch it would have occured in a more public place, and the Brother hitting you with a stick would not be something so secretive that you could not mention it or you would be "informing", would it?