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
-
himnextdoor wrote: »I see. I missed that particular reference. Sorry.
apparently so did gigino miss several references in spite of me referring directly to them on several occasions. And he continually restates things which are not true and I continually restate the references when he states these untrue comments. But of course if I call him a liar I am banned. He however has never said he is sorry for his transgressions. He has however no doubt complained about me calling him a liar while he re posts things about me and about the Church which are not true.0 -
lol. see post 1355.
Where in post 1355 dd I make unreliable or contradictory statements?Nobody said all priests were involved in a conspiracy, but some were, as evidenced by the Brendan Smyth / church hierarchy case
Who do you claim in the church hierarchy was involved in a conspiracy?I know, you did mention him in the context of sex abuse.
Where?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.
I never stated that as a ten year old anyone in authority warned me not to tell anyone!
Where did I?
Please STOP making thinks u and attributing them to me!
Why are you claiming I am a priest?
You just seem to have these ideas in your head and project them onto other people.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?
You just have these fantastic ideas you project onto others. I already told you the brother kept the broken pole and used it subsequently although not to such extremes as it was not half its original length. The incident didn't happen in isolation or in secret. It happened in a full classroom of over 30 children.0 -
actually I have backed up everything by links to the Savi report, Newsweek article etc, and I quote from them. "according to the SAVI report etc..."And he continually restates things which are not true
Anyway, I find your testimony is unreliable and contradictory. However, maybe you did grow up in a place where one half was Gardai and the other half was Sinn Fein/ IRA. Maybe your father did entertain tramps to dinner one day, a high court judge the next day, and the President of Republican Sinn Fein the day after. You suffered a traumatic sexual experience as you say yourself at the age of ten, and your current mental state may be partly as a result of that. Maybe if you had told people about the experience at the time it would have helped. Bottling it up may not have been healthy, although you justified that by claiming to expose the Brother would have been "informing" and anyway nobody would have believed you. Telling others about child sex abuse which occured is never informing, although you claimed it is. I hope you get better soon. God Bless.0 -
I think they would have been wary of church influence and indeed many of their Superiors in the Gardai or Dept of Justice might well bury such cases.
Why do you think there was possibly such collusion between the RCC and the "Superiors in the Gardai or Dept of Justice" in the cover-ups ?0 -
actually I have backed up everything by links
Rubbish! Where in post 1355 dd I make unreliable or contradictory statements?
Where did I say i was a priest?
Where did i say i was sexually abused by a Christian Brother?
Where have you any evidence I am employed by the Church?
You have alleged that by not reporting the brother I tacidly condoned abuse.
Are you or are you not saying I condone sexual or any other form of abuse in any way?
You have run away from answering all these questions.Anyway, I find your testimony is unreliable and contradictory.
Where is it unreliable or contradictory? What links or quotes can you back this up with?
You are not telling the truth again if you say you back up everything and you cant supply the quote from me or the link.You suffered a traumatic sexual experience as you say yourself at the age of ten, and your current mental state may be partly as a result of that.
I never stated what! Where did I?
What qualifications have you to judge my current mental health?Maybe if you had told people about the experience at the time it would have helped.
I didn't have to . As I already indicated and you already know it happened in front of over 30 people.Bottling it up may not have been healthy, although you justified that by claiming to expose the Brother would have been "informing" and anyway nobody would have believed you.
You just aren't paying attention. I never told lies then or now. I would have seen no point in telling about the brother. None of the 30 plus people who witnessed it would have thought of reporting him for abuse. It would not have crossed their mind.Telling others about child sex abuse which occured is never informing, although you claimed it is. I hope you get better soon. God Bless.
I find your patronising comments quite offensive given you seem to have ignored what I actually stated and made up a story which isn't true. Please stop telling lies about my personal history.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
The answer he gave is consistent with his services being engaged by the church in a professional capacity.
Rubbish! You claimed I was a priest and you claim I was paid by the church! Can you prove that! NO!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 never claimed to be a Catholic or a christian! I try to argue from an objective point of view. What I state is based on law, reports, scientific knowledge etc. and not on personal opinion. It makes no difference whether or not i am a priest a catholic black white hetrosexual female or male. What I say and how I back it up with evidence is what matters.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.
and how did Cardinal Brady behave which was unacceptable. What mistakes or moral failures has he made since becoming a Cardinal?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 ?
Good point.
Would Jesus have accused others in the wrong?
Would Jesus have blamed the victims of abuse for abuse?
Would Jesus have accused people of being a Priest or paid by the church because they pointed out the myth of "pedophile priests"?
Would Jesus have claimed others were sexually abused as children when they were told by those people that they weren't?0 -
Despite the previous mod warning it seems as if all parties are determined to keep this personal.
If it continues the thread will be locked, and then there will be no outlet for discussing an issue that many do want to discuss.
No more about who wasn't a priest, who isn't a proper Catholic, who is or isn't a liar, or who wasn't sexually abused.
Sheesh!0 -
Despite the previous mod warning it seems as if all parties are determined to keep this personal.
If it continues the thread will be locked, and then there will be no outlet for discussing an issue that many do want to discuss.
No more about who wasn't a priest, who isn't a proper Catholic, who is or isn't a liar, or who wasn't sexually abused.
Sheesh!
Where is the evidence for widespread collusion in the RC Church?
What is the claim about Cardinal Brady doing anything against church or moral or any other law, especially since his appointment as Primate?
Where is the evidence the Church has failed to react or that the level of abuse has grown?
Where is the evidence for widespread abuse of children ( expecially pedophile targets) in the church?
Where is the evidence for clerics outside Catholicism?
How does it compare to non clergy abusers?
That is the case that is being made.
This whole "pedophile priests" case being a huge societal problem is a myth spread by people some of which have openly admitted in this thread that they hate the Church and want to attack the orginisation of the Church.
If one looks at the evidence that is the rational conclusion you will come to.
Portion of post removed by PDN due to backseat modding0 -
Inside or outside of the church. Nor was the law changed until quite recently.
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.
Some Christians evidently hold that position/opinion too.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.
... the same 'errors'? ... protected their members? But without conflicting with Church policy?
And why would any Bishop at all resign if there had been no wrong-doing? Why did those Bishops resign and why did Brady not resign? 'I was just a recorder at the proceedings, I am not responsible for anything that is not specifically attributable to me and nor do I wish to be an instrument of change, that's someone else's job' is his position and as such he cannot be trusted to do the 'right' thing.
This is fatal to his position and makes it untenable.
Now, you may feel that you have dealt with this point but I say that I have just dealt with it there.
Don't you realise that institutions often use 'fall-guys' to extricate their organisations from difficulties their policy has caused?
Resignations can shift the focus away from the problem rather than deal with it.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.
See above.Go and read what I wrote over a year ago and then tell me if I am hiding anything!
I don't have to; today you seem to be saying that there isn't a problem with child sex-abuse within the RCC and that anyone who thinks that there is is simply anti-Catholic.
By that logic, you are anti-teacher and anti-babysitter.go and read what I wrote about CPP's and tell me then I claimed anything like that!
I'm interested in what you said recently.Go and read what I wrote. And go and read what the Pope wrote.
I read what the Pope said and he said nothing. Mealy mouthed words spoken at a staged media-event designed purely to save the reputation of the Church do nothing to assist abused children.
And in the real world, the one occupied by paedophiles, praying and fasting does nothing. It didn't help those children when they were being abused and it will do nothing to protect children that are being abused today or the ones that will be abused tomorrow and the day after that...
The actions of the Church so far have done nothing to convince me that they are taking the problem of paedophilia seriously.
Saying that there is no paedophile problem does not solve the paedophile problem but extends an ongoing protection to paedophiles.0 -
Advertisement
-
himnextdoor wrote: »Some Christians evidently hold that position/opinion too.
If church of Ireland members want to say it is okay for grown men to have relationships with teenage boys that is pederasty and a different to active pedophilia. But the roman or Orthodox church never approved of that and Sex with pre pubescent children was always wrong as far as they are all concerned.... the same 'errors'? ... protected their members? But without conflicting with Church policy?
Orders like bishops/diocese were/are autonomous structures.And why would any Bishop at all resign if there had been no wrong-doing?
The Bishop might for example not have had any hand act or part in abuse or knowledge of it and arrive in a diocese and later find that an abuser is there and fail to act or react quickly enough in light of new procedures. The original wrong doing was not the Bishops's but his failure to act under new procedures affects his position. Brady was not one of these cases. One or two other Irish Bishops's were.Why did those Bishops resign and why did Brady not resign?
For the reasons I just gave.'I was just a recorder at the proceedings, I am not responsible for anything that is not specifically attributable to me and nor do I wish to be an instrument of change, that's someone else's job' is his position and as such he cannot be trusted to do the 'right' thing.
You can't resign a office for a action made by a predecessor under a different regime. If that was the case the current government would have to resign because of the last one. If a government Minister was involved in something which an opposition or a government TD heard a rumour about and the government changed and the TD later got the same Ministry themselves and didn't check the rumour out, and it was brought to his attention and he did nothing, and then the Minister was exposed then the Minister should resign. But if the TD never became a Minister, or became a minister and did do something about it, then one can't say he is not carrying out his office because in the former case he never attained that office and in the latter case when he attained that office he exercised his opffice in changing or correcting the wrong should it have existed.This is fatal to his position and makes it untenable.
Not as a Bishop or Cardinal it isn't! No more than Enda Kenny is to be blamed for something Certiue did or allthe other FF Td's are to be blamed for the Arms Trial.Now, you may feel that you have dealt with this point but I say that I have just dealt with it there.
Ther are pages and pages of the stuff! I think I dealt with all the minutae. If I havent then point to the point I have not dealt with.Don't you realise that institutions often use 'fall-guys' to extricate their organisations from difficulties their policy has caused?
do you know what "affirming a consequent" is ?
All communists have beards
himxextdoor has a beard
Therefore himnestdoor is a communist!
Sorry but because some orginisations make people resign to divert attention does not mean this happened in the RCC. It is bizarre in any case that a Bishop would resign over a sex abuse case in order to divert attention from sex abuse cases!Resignations can shift the focus away from the problem rather than deal with it.
You have no evidence any resignation was done to shift focus have you?
Again earlier in the thread I mentioned CPPs child Protection Policies! Every parish now has one.See above.
See above and show me where there are no CPPs.I don't have to; today you seem to be saying that there isn't a problem with child sex-abuse within the RCC and that anyone who thinks that there is is simply anti-Catholic.
No. people will always sin! Maybe some priests have committed murder fraud or other sins. But the structure of the Church does not have huge holes in their child protection policies. Also the level of abuse particularly pedophile abuse by RC is TINY by clergy in gernral is TINY . Non clerical abuse is a hundred times higher. A thousand times in the pedophile cases. Thisis not to say that even a single case of abuse is ever acceptable. It isnt but a single murder or speeding car might not be acceptable but we don't go hysterical aboiut it do we? We have got to the stage wher a man in the park on his own or in a swimming pool is looked upon with suspiscion. that whenever a child strays out of view a mother is screaming their name not because a dog might bite them or that they ight wander into traffic but because they might be abducted by a poedophile. the truth is this hardly ever happens even outside the clergy but hysteria has people worried about itBy that logic, you are anti-teacher and anti-babysitter.
I have had professional experience with both teaching and supervision. Years ago one might well be alone with pupils in a classroom or elsewhere. Nowadays it is not an advisable procedure. Teachers haven't changed but some pupils may now even make up fake claims.I'm interested in what you said recently.
I recently supplied a long list of references to the earlier points and supplied shakeshaft and Jenkins as evidence of the clerical myth.I read what the Pope said and he said nothing. Mealy mouthed words spoken at a staged media-event designed purely to save the reputation of the Church do nothing to assist abused children.
Reference?
Have you read this:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
or
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htmAnd in the real world, the one occupied by paedophiles, praying and fasting does nothing.
Ad that related to the above how???It didn't help those children when they were being abused and it will do nothing to protect children that are being abused today or the ones that will be abused tomorrow and the day after that...
If you see no point in prayer then sorry i can't help you on that. Other do .The actions of the Church so far have done nothing to convince me that they are taking the problem of paedophilia seriously.
Really? You haven't noticed that every parish has a CPP, that all parish adults in contact wth children are vetted that the procedures for admitting priests to priesthood and the conduce of child abuse cases and canon law has changed?
Again i cant help you if you are ignorant of these changes. Can you point an explosion in rate of offending priests maybe as counter evidence?Saying that there is no paedophile problem does not solve the paedophile problem but extends an ongoing protection to paedophiles.
I am not saying pedophiles do not exist in the world. It isnt a crime by the way. An adult ACTING on the urge is a crime and is also considered morally wrong by the Church. What I am saying is the percentage of these in the church is vanishingly tiny compared to elsewhere and that procedures have been brought in to counter them.0 -
Have you read this:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
or
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm
Ad that related to the above how???
Classic, ISAW; I post something, you post a completely unrelated reply and somehow that's my fault.
Classic ISAW.
My last but one post was an attempt to 'sweep out' some detritus from this discussion but you still seem to want to avoid the moral argument that is to be had in favour of the legal argument which is settled. And you refused to answer a single point.
Could you answer this one question directly; if there had been no 'media-hysteria' surrounding this issue of paedophile Priests, do you think the Church would have made any alterations to its policy?0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Classic, ISAW; I post something, you post a completely unrelated reply and somehow that's my fault.
Your words:I read what the Pope said and he said nothing. Mealy mouthed words spoken at a staged media-event designed purely to save the reputation of the Church do nothing to assist abused children.
I posted what the Pope actually said
did you read it?
Did he not say anything?
Are there absolutely no recommentations at all in any of the following as regards what the pope was proposing should be done rather than do nothing?
Are you aware that the church has and continued to assist formerly abused children?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm
The first of the aboive is a central encyclical as regards the sanctity of human life and the responsibility of the media is contained withing it. It also mentions the special place of children.
THe second is a specific document Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures
concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations
This is the former office of the Current Pope and in addition to the already dione actions adds updates by the current pope and his predecessor.
The third addressess a topic brought up in this thread the possible abuse of older teenage boys by homosexual priests. Though this is not pedophilia it is still acting to prevent child sexual abuse.
I have already quoted documents from classic antiquity showing the opposition of the church toi sex with children. If you don't understand how doccuments from the last decade or so specifically addressing child sex abuse are related to acting to prevent child sex abuse then that is not my problem.Classic ISAW.My last but one post was an attempt to 'sweep out' some detritus from this discussion but you still seem to want to avoid the moral argument that is to be had in favour of the legal argument which is settled.
No it isn't! If you are saying Brady for example was involved in a coverup of Smyth then what do you suggest legally should have happened to Smyth? Suppose you had access to a time machine? Suppose you went back to the 1970 and suppose you are not allowed change the laws of the day? What could you do with respect to Brady or anyone else to make things any different? Brady was aware and always knew anyone abusing a child was wrong. There is no moral argument there. So what do you assert he could have done then? Or what could anyone else have done about Smyth then?And you refused to answer a single point.
What point did I refuse to answer?
Look1 Above you said the church did nothing about sex abuse. You claimed the Pope only had empty words to cover up and didn't effect any change. I have shown you actual doccuments and procedures they adopted.
Answer me this:
Did you still not read them because they actually state actions?Could you answer this one question directly; if there had been no 'media-hysteria' surrounding this issue of paedophile Priests, do you think the Church would have made any alterations to its policy?
The media are not a moral policeman for the world. One had only to look at the News Of The World case to note how inept media are on the moral highground.
You are pandering to a myth if you think that because of the media the church made a huge change!
1. If there was abuse and the Church was aware of it and the orginisation or rules of the Church itself contributed to the problem then of course the church should change the rules
2. The media overhyped a vile activity which is tiny in the church and a hundred times bigger elsewhere.
3. THe idea that "if it was not for the media the church would have covered up abuse" is just another conspiracy theory.
There are some academics e.g. Jenkins who view this as part of a larger pattern.
In the sixties feminists began to hype rape ( also a vile act) in the media. Rape of males was not considered because men (in general -not just rapists) were being shown as aggressive . Rape and other sex crime became the worst crime ever and a rapist the most evil criminal. The perpretrator- A dirty old man in a mackintosh coat in the park.
When that Act was over they found a new subject to elevate the feminist agenda ~children.
Of course women were not to be portrayed as child abusers so the one place where they could only point at male rapists of children was clergy.
Twenty years later a "child rapist" is in popular mythology exclusively male and most probably a cleric in clerical surroundings. the fact that child abusers including those who were clerics abused people at home was not to be publicised as it raises the uncomfortable reality that other people outside the Church abused children. In fact less than a per cent of abusers were RC clergy.
that's basically Jenkin's argument on Anti catholicism.
The truth is the church always opposed child abuse.
The truth is that:
[from sources]
over the period from 1936 to 1970, a total of 170,000 children and young persons (involving about 1.2% of the age cohort) entered the gates of the 50 or so industrial schools. In the same period approximately 2,000 to 3,000 children and young persons spent time in a reformatory.
As well as Industrial Schools and Reformatories the Ryan Report covered “161 services, schools, hospitals and other facilities most of which continue in existance.
The redress board awarded 13,000 cases which vary from inadequate bedding to rape.
The thing is though that when it comes to severe cases (rated four and five on a one to five scale and the physical abuse I suffered would come under that as a four ) the numbers thin out. When it comes to sexual abuse
i.e from Sexual kissing; indecent touching of private parts over clothing all the way upo to rape it is a five
Of the of the over 170,000 children there are 31 cases at this level!
[/end source references]
There should not be a single one but the preposterous idea that 25% of people were abused by clergy is a preposterous overhyped myth!
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL5-08A.pdf0 -
Your words:
I posted what the Pope actually said
did you read it?
Did he not say anything?
Are there absolutely no recommentations at all in any of the following as regards what the pope was proposing should be done rather than do nothing?
Are you aware that the church has and continued to assist formerly abused children?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm
The first of the aboive is a central encyclical as regards the sanctity of human life and the responsibility of the media is contained withing it. It also mentions the special place of children.
THe second is a specific document Guide to Understanding Basic CDF Procedures
concerning Sexual Abuse Allegations
This is the former office of the Current Pope and in addition to the already dione actions adds updates by the current pope and his predecessor.
The third addressess a topic brought up in this thread the possible abuse of older teenage boys by homosexual priests. Though this is not pedophilia it is still acting to prevent child sexual abuse.
I have already quoted documents from classic antiquity showing the opposition of the church toi sex with children. If you don't understand how doccuments from the last decade or so specifically addressing child sex abuse are related to acting to prevent child sex abuse then that is not my problem.
No it isn't! If you are saying Brady for example was involved in a coverup of Smyth then what do you suggest legally should have happened to Smyth? Suppose you had access to a time machine? Suppose you went back to the 1970 and suppose you are not allowed change the laws of the day? What could you do with respect to Brady or anyone else to make things any different? Brady was aware and always knew anyone abusing a child was wrong. There is no moral argument there. So what do you assert he could have done then? Or what could anyone else have done about Smyth then?
What point did I refuse to answer?
Look1 Above you said the church did nothing about sex abuse. You claimed the Pope only had empty words to cover up and didn't effect any change. I have shown you actual doccuments and procedures they adopted.
Answer me this:
Did you still not read them because they actually state actions?
The media are not a moral policeman for the world. One had only to look at the News Of The World case to note how inept media are on the moral highground.
You are pandering to a myth if you think that because of the media the church made a huge change!
1. If there was abuse and the Church was aware of it and the orginisation or rules of the Church itself contributed to the problem then of course the church should change the rules
2. The media overhyped a vile activity which is tiny in the church and a hundred times bigger elsewhere.
3. THe idea that "if it was not for the media the church would have covered up abuse" is just another conspiracy theory.
There are some academics e.g. Jenkins who view this as part of a larger pattern.
In the sixties feminists began to hype rape ( also a vile act) in the media. Rape of males was not considered because men (in general -not just rapists) were being shown as aggressive . Rape and other sex crime became the worst crime ever and a rapist the most evil criminal. The perpretrator- A dirty old man in a mackintosh coat in the park.
When that Act was over they found a new subject to elevate the feminist agenda ~children.
Of course women were not to be portrayed as child abusers so the one place where they could only point at male rapists of children was clergy.
Twenty years later a "child rapist" is in popular mythology exclusively male and most probably a cleric in clerical surroundings. the fact that child abusers including those who were clerics abused people at home was not to be publicised as it raises the uncomfortable reality that other people outside the Church abused children. In fact less than a per cent of abusers were RC clergy.
that's basically Jenkin's argument on Anti catholicism.
The truth is the church always opposed child abuse.
The truth is that:
[from sources]
over the period from 1936 to 1970, a total of 170,000 children and young persons (involving about 1.2% of the age cohort) entered the gates of the 50 or so industrial schools. In the same period approximately 2,000 to 3,000 children and young persons spent time in a reformatory.
As well as Industrial Schools and Reformatories the Ryan Report covered “161 services, schools, hospitals and other facilities most of which continue in existance.
The redress board awarded 13,000 cases which vary from inadequate bedding to rape.
The thing is though that when it comes to severe cases (rated four and five on a one to five scale and the physical abuse I suffered would come under that as a four ) the numbers thin out. When it comes to sexual abuse
i.e from Sexual kissing; indecent touching of private parts over clothing all the way upo to rape it is a five
Of the of the over 170,000 children there are 31 cases at this level!
[/end source references]
There should not be a single one but the preposterous idea that 25% of people were abused by clergy is a preposterous overhyped myth!
Sources:
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/05-06.php
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/pdfs/CICA-VOL5-08A.pdf
I get it; the church acted properly in all instances. After all, one cannot be held responsible for the laws of men written by... who were they written by again?
Even a paedophile might say that paedophilia is wrong but the law could have been written by paedophiles for all you 'objectively' know. Did you think of that?
As I said before, neither God nor Satan has ever come through for a suffering child!0 -
oops they did it again :eek:0
-
The Cloyne Report, damming evidence, yet again. And as true as (is)god, the lot of them should be thrown into prison for life. And anyone supporting their pathetic, evil, organisation.
This is surely the anthesis of what Christ or god would ever have intended. I'm reminded of Jesus losing his temper in the temple...if he were here.
Damming. Having read just the headlines throughout todays media, to think anyone attached to this disgusting revelation and the organisation fostering it could be saintly, holy, revered or respected is nothing short of being divorced from reality.
Sickening. Just sickening, that suffering should be so disdained in this way.0 -
I too am just so sick of revelation after revelation which has to be dragged out of them. There are defenders of the organisation here who think it's ok to spout percentages etc as if this makes one blind bit of difference. NO other organisation has so uniformly lied, covered up and protected perpetrators of abuse. Absolutely sickening - the sooner this outdated and criminal organisation dies a death the better. They have no shame and no moral core and no right to preach at others.
It absolutley boils my blood to think of the power they had over this country. I look forward to the day when our children aren't indoctrinated into this vile organisation as a matter of course.0 -
There are defenders of the organisation here who think it's ok to spout percentages etc as if this makes one blind bit of difference..
You mean people who would actually like to get to the bottom of the abuse and what happened rather than "reading the headlines" and acting like medieval villagers with pitch-forks? Yes. Terrible.
Do you really think that repetitively spouting anger against the RCC as a whole is actually going to help anyone? Or expose/explore the issue of child sex abuse which occurs across our society? The Cloyne Report relates to abuse which occurred up to half a century ago. Almost everyday people are convicted of child sex abuse occurring in the last few years, but you don't get a report about, and often times it doesn't even make the national news.
Look at some of the details from the report..
Some victims refused/declined to make official complaints. In a number of cases parents were aware that inappropriate contact was taking place involving their children and didn't make any official complaints besides in one case tell her GP. One priest in the report had no allegations of child abuse levelled against him. In other cases the matter went through the proper channels and the DPP decided not to prosecute. Do we hold the parents responsible? If you are a mother and know that a priest, or anyone, is having inappropriate contact with not one, but two of your daughters, and you don't go straight to the gardaí what should happen there?
O'Callaghan, Magee, some officials in at least one seminary, and the Papal Nuncio. All need to pay for major incompetency, ignorance and utter professional failures.
It is a pity the State didn't bring in a legal duty for the reporting of abuse decades ago. A lot of these dirtbags could be locked up. Papal Nuncio should be made a persona non grata and expelled as an automatic diplomatic action for the failures of his predecessor.0 -
You mean people who would actually like to get to the bottom of the abuse and what happened rather than "reading the headlines" and acting like medieval villagers with pitch-forks? Yes. Terrible.
Don't presume to know what I read and what I don't.Do you really think that repetitively spouting anger against the RCC as a whole is actually going to help anyone?
Yes, me. I am livid with the organisation and have the right to spout anger against them if I chooseThe Cloyne Report relates to abuse which occurred up to half a century ago. Almost everyday people are convicted of child sex abuse occurring in the last few years, but you don't get a report about, and often times it doesn't even make the national news.
?? It really doesn't matter when it happened - it is still appalling and you can't expect people to get upset about situations they DONT know about.
.Do we hold the parents responsible? If you are a mother and know that a priest, or anyone, is having inappropriate contact with not one, but two of your daughters, and you don't go straight to the gardaí what should happen there?
those parents are guilty of collusion and child abuse themselves, yes.0 -
As was said on Prime Time last night, it is time that the RCC should be accountable to the State rather than the other way around. People should have been prosecuted and the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay such a high burden for what a particular church did.
The State should define laws, guidelines aren't enough, and if the law is broken there are consequences.0 -
Advertisement
-
philologos wrote: »As was said on Prime Time last night, it is time that the RCC should be accountable to the State rather than the other way around. People should have been prosecuted and the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay such a high burden for what a particular church did.
The problem here, of course, is that the State abdicated its responsibilities for areas of education and social services and allowed the Church to act as its agent. That was wrong on so many levels - but it means the State, in many cases, bears ultimate responsibility.
The best case scenario, IMHO, is that the RCC should reimburse the State. If they haven't got the money then they should hand over property in lieu. Ireland should then develop a proper secular educational/social services system where all citizens are treated alike. If people wish to continue availing of private Catholic schools/hospitals/whatever then they should be free to do so, providing they pay for it themselves.
Those who have committed abuse, or facilitated it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.0 -
Don't presume to know what I read and what I don't..
I was referring to the post above yours..Surion wrote:Having read just the headlines throughout todays mediaYes, me. I am livid with the organisation and have the right to spout anger against them if I choose..
Well I am glad you help yourself. Some other people would like to actually explore the whole problem.. and get a clearer picture of it, you know in a way that might help not just the victims of clerical abuse but abuse victims everywhere. So maybe they aren't just 'spouting percentages' but getting into the nitty gritty of what occurred rather than blowing off steam to help themselves.?? It really doesn't matter when it happened - it is still appalling and you can't expect people to get upset about situations they DONT know about...
Absolutely it is still appalling. Sickening and vile. However the people who are trying to raise awareness of abuse across society are the ones you accuse of 'spouting percentages'. You can't have it both ways.those parents are guilty of collusion and child abuse themselves, yes.
Do you think there will ever be a report into that? Rhetorical.0 -
They should be dragged before a court of law and sent down.
And sorry my temper got the best of me there.0 -
The problem here, of course, is that the State abdicated its responsibilities for areas of education and social services and allowed the Church to act as its agent. That was wrong on so many levels - but it means the State, in many cases, bears ultimate responsibility.
The best case scenario, IMHO, is that the RCC should reimburse the State. If they haven't got the money then they should hand over property in lieu. Ireland should then develop a proper secular educational/social services system where all citizens are treated alike. If people wish to continue availing of private Catholic schools/hospitals/whatever then they should be free to do so, providing they pay for it themselves.
Those who have committed abuse, or facilitated it, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.
While I largely agree with the above, I think that religions based schools should be in part funded by the State. Whatever the about the religious aspect of the education they receive, when the student leaves school they are educated to a curricular standard that the State demands. The State ultimately benefits from these students as they enter the workforce, so I think it only fair that the State contributes in some way.0 -
The real question here though, passing by the anger, the "there is no god" and "all priests are paedos" shouting that inevitably follows, is what are the catholics in Ireland going to do about this?
It's there in black and white that their leaders have put their own good ahead of children, that they have lied to the state that their so-called preventative measures were in place and working, that they covered up the ruining of lives....and all as recent as two years ago.
Is this an organisation that any sane person could possibly still support?
Is it maybe time to nail your Ninety-Five Theses to the door?0 -
This latest report has really gotten to me. Every report that comes out my level of disgust with this cult rises higher. Who are these bastards to be lecturing the rest of us on morality. It's an absolute joke, they have been -
- sucking cash out of the average person's pocket for centuries (all their billions have been basically conned out of the gullible public, same as any other cult)
- abusing and raping children
- covering up the abuse and rape (leading to these priests going on to rape more kids)
- beating the living sh*t out of kids in our schools
- holding immense power over our country (ask you parents, the church was by far the most powerful force in the country even as recently as 40 years ago)
- destroying families by creating an unbearable amount of shame on the family of unmarried mothers (who then had to emigrate/get sent to an institution/give up their child)
- indoctrinating children into their cult from a young age so they too grow up to be 'sheep' that let's the church continue their cycle of evil.
Exactly what good have they done to offest that? Oh they 'give some money to charity'....yeah, they give a bit alright but how much are they skimming off the top considering the incalcuable wealth they hold. Remember the reports in the newspapers of the church losing money in the recession, I remember reading about several small enough parishes getting caught for aound €2 each million...how do these small parishes have so much cash to gamble on the stock market? Because of all the money people have been handing over to them for decades/centuries. They are just like any other cult that brainwashes people into handing over their cash. They preach about charity yet they are gambling countless billions on the stock market instead of putting it towards good causes. An absolute disgrace.
It is such a pity that legislation cant be enacted retrospectively as so many of the hierarchy of the church in this country should be in jail, starting with 'The Wounded Healer' Sean Brady.0 -
I'd partially agree with Fanny Cradock. In that the current Swedish model [as per July's Specator], each child receives a per-head costing. It does not matter if the child is Privately/Publically educated. This would allow those of a faith/non-faith to exercise a choice in the matter. In my own person experience of Cloyne based clergy (compared with State body employees), I'd express a preference for the faith option.Fanny Cradock wrote: »While I largely agree with the above, I think that religions based schools should be in part funded by the State. Whatever the about the religious aspect of the education they receive, when the student leaves school they are educated to a curricular standard that the State demands.0 -
This chap O'Callaghan should really be facing a day in court over his failing as a child protection officer.0
-
That was wrong on so many levels - but it means the State, in many cases, bears ultimate responsibility.
Sorry, what? Priests rape children and the church covers it up and the state bears the ultimate responsibility? Are you for real?
I do not think that the Church should have anything to do with the education of children and it is the function of the state to provide this service and bears a great deal of responsibility.
However, I find it frankly disgusting that you can abdicate the primary responsibility of the rapist and his protector by placing ultimate blaming the state.
If a parent puts their child into a creche and that child is raped, is the parent responsible since they temporarily transferred what is ultimately their responsibility to another party?0 -
Advertisement
-
irishdude11 wrote: »This latest report has really gotten to me. Every report that comes out my level of disgust with this cult rises higher. Who are these bastards to be lecturing the rest of us on morality. It's an absolute joke, they have been -
- sucking cash out of the average person's pocket for centuries (all their billions have been basically conned out of the gullible public, same as any other cult)
- abusing and raping children
- covering up the abuse and rape (leading to these priests going on to rape more kids)
- beating the living sh*t out of kids in our schools
- holding immense power over our country (ask you parents, the church was by far the most powerful force in the country even as recently as 40 years ago)
- destroying families by creating an unbearable amount of shame on the family of unmarried mothers (who then had to emigrate/get sent to an institution/give up their child)
- indoctrinating children into their cult from a young age so they too grow up to be 'sheep' that let's the church continue their cycle of evil.
Exactly what good have they done to offest that? Oh they 'give some money to charity'....yeah, they give a bit alright but how much are they skimming off the top considering the incalcuable wealth they hold. Remember the reports in the newspapers of the church losing money in the recession, I remember reading about several small enough parishes getting caught for aound €2 each million...how do these small parishes have so much cash to gamble on the stock market? Because of all the money people have been handing over to them for decades/centuries. They are just like any other cult that brainwashes people into handing over their cash. They preach about charity yet they are gambling countless billions on the stock market instead of putting it towards good causes. An absolute disgrace.
It is such a pity that legislation cant be enacted retrospectively as so many of the hierarchy of the church in this country should be in jail, starting with 'The Wounded Healer' Sean Brady.
The post above applies to about 5% of the Church. Most people who take the decision to dedicate their lives to God don't do it for the money.
And believe me there is not Billions swimming on Bank accounts in the Church.
But yes.. anybody involved in abuse or cover-up of abuse should be jailed.
Lets not forget.. If it was not for the Catholic Church in Ireland there would have be NO education all all for Catholics!!! You mention centuries... well as a institution the church was the only only who gave an education, in the 1800's the English were no interested in educating poor Irish.
Many people involved in Education in the Church we Kind and well intentioned. Some were perverts and evil, but these same people you get outside the church.0
Advertisement