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
-
most christian religions are more open, and the sheep are under less control of the church,sexual complaints against the ministers would naturally be higher, only the catholic church is trying to cover up for its its priests molesting children,when will it stop ?0
-
most christian religions are more open, and the sheep are under less control of the church,sexual complaints against the ministers would naturally be higher, only the catholic church is trying to cover up for its its priests molesting children,when will it stop ?
And back in circular arguments we go!
Where is your evidence that Catholics are less investigated than every other denomination?
Where is your evidence that the Vatican is covering up any sexual abuse of a child by a priest?
You just trot out accusation without any backup and when asked for backup you claim that the trotting out of accusations proves something. It doesn't!0 -
And back in circular arguments we go!
Where is your evidence that Catholics are less investigated than every other denomination?
Where is your evidence that the Vatican is covering up any sexual abuse of a child by a priest?
You just trot out accusation without any backup and when asked for backup you claim that the trotting out of accusations proves something. It doesn't!
circular arguments indeed ISAW , and none better than your good self, when anyone mentions a legitimate proven case you will blame everybody and anybody rather than except that the Church as an institution has any even a smidgin of responsibility for the whole sorry mess.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Look up "argument from ignorance" "proving a negative" and "conspiracy theory" will you?
the problem with the tiny tiny minority of priests who were pedophiles was at its worst about 40 years ago and the church dealt with it. Some bishops didn't! by some I mean say about ten in 10,000 or even in 100,000!
They are not sensationaliust they are pointing out logoical fallacies. Look them up. e.g Ad ignorandum,
http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Logical%20Fallacies.htm
Argument from ignorance; would the statement: 'I do not perceive that the given evidence supports the claim that the Vatican took part in a cover-up therefore the claim is false.' qualify as an argument from ignorance?0 -
Advertisement
-
No i didn't I said Crimen solicitatis only applied to confession!
Of course state secrets could be extended by any State to apply to anything.
But they are not and arguing that the Vatican is using "State Secrets" to hide pedo priests is argument from ignorance as well as a clearly ludicrous thing to do.
You are clutching at straws again. This has nothing to do with the claim of "Vatican hiding the complaints against Pedo priests"! Deal with the issue. If you want to suggest ther should be no Structure to the church start another discussion or post it in the Protestant/Catholic thread.
And claims of paedophile Priests reported to the RCC are subject to 'Pontifical Secrecy'!
The RCC is a hierachical organisation and as such there exists a 'chain of command' with the Pope at the top and nuns at the bottom with alter-boys and yet to be ordained Priests. Each 'link' in the chain answers for the link below to the link above. A bit like the army. Or Tesco's.
If a store is failing then the area manager gets on to the store-manager who gets on to the supervisors who in turn get onto the shelf-stackers and till-operators.
Priests have to answer to Bishops who in turn have to answer to Cardinals and so on and the buck stops at the Pope.
In 1975, Brendan Smyth was reported to the Church for abusing children. Brendan Smyth was allowed to continue putting children at risk for a further eighteen-years by the Church authorities before the state took action against him.
If a Tesco's supervisor finds that an employee has been routinely stealing stock, he would report it to the manager who would then sack the employee, a report would be sent to head office and legal action might follow.
That is, of course, provided that the chain of command is operating as it should.
If it turns out that a supervisor has turned a blind eye to the stealing, would his position be questionable? Could he expect to be fired? Prosecuted even?
What about the manager of a store that is losing stock? Mightn't he have a problem too? Head office might decide that the manager should be replaced by someone better at implementing security protocols that should prevent such theft.
So, if a Bishop didn't seek a Cardinal's direction on what action to take regarding a paedophile Priest, that Bishop is partly culpable in any future offences committed by that particular Priest.
And ought to be sacked from his position and possibly prosecuted.
Equally, if a Cardinal doesn't pass it up the chain then he too is partly culpable. And so on, all the way to the top.
If information about Brendan Smyth was deliberately hidden from or not reported to superior ranks in the RCC then something is structurally wrong with the chain of command and needs to be investigated.
If Brendan Smyth was able to operate under RCC auspices and allowed access to children for a further eighteen-years after being reported to Church authorities because of a Bishop's failure to notify his superior then there is something wrong and needs to be investigated.
Whether they knew about it or not, the Pope's office should have been aware of the danger posed by Brendan Smyth. If they were not aware of this threat then they should today be demanding to know why they weren't informed.
This isn't about the one percent or the ninety-nine percent, it is about the RCC's reaction to the suffering of children at the hands of its acolytes.
And let me ask you this: If paedophile Priests are not good candidates for excommunication then how can the threat of excommunication be applied to anyone at all?
Henry VIII was excommunicated for attacking religious shrines; is attacking religious shrines worse in the eyes of God than raping children?
What about breaking an oath of silence; is that more abominable to God than the rape of a child?0 -
What about the space aliens or the unicorns being behind it all?
the argument was about a different conspiracy theory- VATICAN involvement and how the
Vatican were meant to have buried cases that they know about. You can't now move the goalposts to change this to non Vatican cases.
This is way off the mark! You are clutching at straws now! Just because the Pope is believed to influence the church and is elected by bishops to lead it does not mean he can solve all the current problems in mathematics or physics either! By the way God apparently does inform us what evil is but that does not mean the Pope or anyone else has omniscience does it?
How about solving some of the problems, rather than making more of them?
The Papacy/Vatican State/Roman Church has been at the kidnapping and abuse of kids for centuries, as their beliefs allowed them to do it. Here's one classic example, involving no less a saintly being than a pope himself:
On the evening of 23 June 1858, in Bologna, then part of the Papal States, police arrived at the home of a Jewish couple, Salomone ("Momolo") and Marianna Padovani Mortara, to take one of their eight children, six-year-old Edgardo, and transport him to Rome to be raised as a ward of the state.
The police had orders from Holy Office authorities in Rome, authorized by Pope Pius IX. Church officials had been told that a 14-year-oldCatholic servant girl of the Mortaras, Anna Morisi, had baptized Edgardo while he was ill because of his proximity to death and hope for eternal life. Under Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, baptism performed by any human being, man or woman, even if they be a non-Christian, is considered valid. This ostensibly made him a Christian. By canon law, which was enforced in the Papal States, non-Christians could not raise a Christian child, even their own. In 1912, in his testimony in favour of the beatification of Pope Pius IX, Edgardo himself noted that the laws of the Papal States did not allow Catholics to work in the homes of Jewish families (one reason being to prevent this very situation from happening).[3] That law was widely disregarded due to the ability of Catholic servants to work on the Jewish Shabbat (see shabbos goy).[2]
It has been questioned whether the baptism, which had no witnesses, actually took place. In his 1998 book The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortara, David Kertzer investigates the story and quotes extensively from contemporary testimony. It appears that Morisi told the local priests her story at a time when she was seeking to obtain a dowry from the Church, and investigations on behalf of the Mortaras revealed that she was reputed to be a woman of low moral character. It was reported that Edgardo's illness had not been life-threatening, and so should not have required an emergency baptism. On the other hand, other testimony was consistent with Morisi's story, and the Church authorities were evidently persuaded that she was telling the truth.
Edgardo was taken to a house for Roman converts (a "House of Catechumens") in Rome, maintained at state expense. His parents were not allowed to see him for several weeks, and then not alone. Pius IX took a personal interest in the case, and all appeals to the Church were rebuffed. Church authorities told the Mortaras that they could have Edgardo back if they would convert to Catholicism, but they refused.
Reaction and Opposition
The incident soon received extensive publicity both in Italy and internationally. In the Kingdom of Sardinia, the largest independent state in Italy and the centre of the liberal nationalist movement for Italian unification, both the government and the press used the case to reinforce their claims that the Papal States were ruled by medieval obscurantists and should be liberated from Papal rule.
Protests were lodged by both Jewish organizations and prominent political and intellectual figures in Britain, the United States, Germany, Austria, and France. Soon the governments of these countries added to calls for Edgardo to be returned to his parents. The French Emperor Napoleon III, whose troops garrisoned Rome to protect the Pope against the Italian anti-clerical unificationists, also protested.
When a delegation of prominent Jews saw the Pope in 1859, he told them, "I couldn't care less what the world thinks." At another meeting, he brought Edgardo with him to show that the boy was happy in his care. In 1865 he said: "I had the right and the duty to do what I did for this boy, and if I had to, I would do it again."[5][6] In a speech in 1871 defending his decision against his detractors, Pius said: "Of these dogs, there are too many of them at present in Rome, and we hear them howling in the streets, and they are disturbing us in all places."
If the pope is the example to the people, then no wonder the people are so confused as to even basic principles of morality.
Link
Nothing changes where the Beast rides high.0 -
circular arguments indeed ISAW , and none better than your good self, when anyone mentions a legitimate proven case
Care to mention one?you will blame everybody and anybody rather than except that the Church as an institution has any even a smidgin of responsibility for the whole sorry mess.
Where did I say the church has no responsibility?
Clearly you have not been paying attention!
I pointed out that the church accepted responsibility and acted in advance of the State..
It compensated people and it brought in new procedures .
I also pointed out that the myth of a "Vatican coverup" is just that -a myth.0 -
himnextdoor wrote: »Argument from ignorance; would the statement: 'I do not perceive that the given evidence supports the claim that the Vatican took part in a cover-up therefore the claim is false.' qualify as an argument from ignorance?
No it would qualify as circular argument since the argument assumes the conclusion as a premise. i.e. when you say "given the Vatican took part in a cover up" to prove the Vatican took part in a cover up you are assuming the consequent.0 -
Care to mention one?
Where did I say the church has no responsibility?
Clearly you have not been paying attention!
I pointed out that the church accepted responsibility and acted in advance of the State..
It compensated people and it brought in new procedures .
I also pointed out that the myth of a "Vatican coverup" is just that -a myth.
What proof have you that the church acted in advance of the state in cases of child abuse? Did it act ahead of the state when it allowed Brendan Smith to go back into other parishes to continue his abuse?
What proof do you have?
I'm sick to death of your attitude and uncaring approach to this subject. I have seen first hand the damage abuse has caused to a family. I have plenty of proof for you if you want it on that one!
Furthermore, I have first hand PROOF of the inability of the RCC to deal with cases of abuse, in many cases their complete ineptitude to deal with a 6 year old boys mental anguish and torture. The RCC only acts to pass it's priests around it's large institution.
I am starting to find your posts on the subject very offensive, derogatory and very very sickening.
I hope I speak for everybody else here on this thread by saying you are using your long winded replies to detract from the subject of clerical child sex abuse, and it's damage on society in general.
Clerical sexual abuse happened, it should not have! End of story0 -
Advertisement
-
himnextdoor wrote: »And claims of paedophile Priests reported to the RCC are subject to 'Pontifical Secrecy'!
Argument from ignorance. You may as well say such claims were subject to space aliens hiding the facts. You have no actual evidence so you cant assume it is certainly true because it is possibly true. It is possible unicorns did it but I have no evidence of that either. I can not therefore assume they did!The RCC is a hierachical organisation and as such there exists a 'chain of command' with the Pope at the top and nuns at the bottom with alter-boys and yet to be ordained Priests. Each 'link' in the chain answers for the link below to the link above. A bit like the army. Or Tesco's.
Wrong!
1. There are only two links in the hierarchy ~ Bishops and priests. yo umight also include the Pope but he is a bishop anyway.
2. Bishops are autonomous and run their diocese in their own way. ther are few exceptions to this. Policy on clerical abusers is on of those exceptions.Priests have to answer to Bishops who in turn have to answer to Cardinals and so on and the buck stops at the Pope.
Wrong! many cases will never get to the Pope or even to Rome. They are dealt with locally but Rome is informed of the outcome.In 1975, Brendan Smyth was reported to the Church for abusing children.
Where ?Brendan Smyth was allowed to continue putting children at risk for a further eighteen-years by the Church authorities before the state took action against him.
Wrong!
Smyth received no such permission from the Church!even under the old rules this would have been dealt with by the local Bishop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Smyth_%28priest%29In some cases, his order did not inform the diocesan bishop that Smyth had a history of sexual abuse.Reviewers of the case differ as to whether there was a deliberate plot to conceal Smyth's behaviour, incompetence by his superiors at Kilnacrott Abbey, or some combination of factors.That is, of course, provided that the chain of command is operating as it should.
It clearly wasn't but your "chain of command" senario is factually wrong anyway.So, if a Bishop didn't seek a Cardinal's direction on what action to take regarding a paedophile Priest, that Bishop is partly culpable in any future offences committed by that particular Priest.
1. the Bishop was not aware
2. Cardinals don't come into it. They are temporal offices and dont "outrank" Bishops as you seem to think. Nor did ( and this was BEFORE the above exceptions existed) bishops have to seek directions from cardinals or anyone else.
Wrong again as your "chain" senario is wrong.Equally, if a Cardinal doesn't pass it up the chain then he too is partly culpable. And so on, all the way to the top.If information about Brendan Smyth was deliberately hidden from or not reported to superior ranks in the RCC then something is structurally wrong with the chain of command and needs to be investigated.
If is a supposition which you haven't supported!
AS i stated the reporting and prevention procedures were changed.
By the way when did "One in four" bring in mandatory reporting? Last year was it? 2010?If Brendan Smyth was able to operate under RCC auspices and allowed access to children for a further eighteen-years after being reported to Church authorities because of a Bishop's failure to notify his superior then there is something wrong and needs to be investigated.
Correct but again yur senario is all supposition and based on a senario that didn't exist.Whether they knew about it or not, the Pope's office should have been aware of the danger posed by Brendan Smyth.
How could you be aware of something about which you know nothing?If they were not aware of this threat then they should today be demanding to know why they weren't informed.
All dealt with decades ago by the Church!And let me ask you this: If paedophile Priests are not good candidates for excommunication then how can the threat of excommunication be applied to anyone at all?
I don't think you understand what excommunication actually is.0 -
What proof have you that the church acted in advance of the state in cases of child abuse?
Asked and answered.
They brought in manditory reporting
they brought in child protection policies
They compensated victims without the victims requiring any legal proof or process.
The compensation was in excess of those offered by other states which did require such long drawn out legal processess e.g. UK ;australia.
Al the references have already been given in this thread.Did it act ahead of the state when it allowed Brendan Smith to go back into other parishes to continue his abuse?
False premise. The Church didn't give Smyth permission to abuse anyone.
Look up "shifting the burden" and "proving a negative" under "logical fallacy" would you?What proof do you have?I'm sick to death of your attitude and uncaring approach to this subject. I have seen first hand the damage abuse has caused to a family. I have plenty of proof for you if you want it on that one!
Look up "ad hominem" as well . As I have already stated I was a victim of abuse by a Christian Brother so when you can't stand the argument don't go attacking the person making it!Furthermore, I have first hand PROOF of the inability of the RCC to deal with cases of abuse, in many cases their complete ineptitude to deal with a 6 year old boys mental anguish and torture. The RCC only acts to pass it's priests around it's large institution.
Can you supply that "proof"? how does it show the Church as failing to deal with a cases? Note "cases" plural?I am starting to find your posts on the subject very offensive, derogatory and very very sickening.
You are deluded! i have not personally attacked you ! What deragatory remarks have i made? In what way do you assume I am sick? I think you had better come up with some evidence to support your ad hominem. Oh look that up under "logical fallacy" as well would you?I hope I speak for everybody else here on this thread by saying you are using your long winded replies to detract from the subject of clerical child sex abuse, and it's damage on society in general.
Look up "argument from authority" and "ad populum" as well.Clerical sexual abuse happened, it should not have! End of story
I stated that hundreds of posts ago but some people don't see it as an end at all and view it as a means to attack the Church. But when the actual facts are exposed they whinge and whine and claim the actual facts must be wrong. but they don't supply any facts themselves . Just personal attack!0 -
circular arguments indeed ISAW , and none better than your good self, when anyone mentions a legitimate proven case you will blame everybody and anybody rather than except that the Church as an institution has any even a smidgin of responsibility for the whole sorry mess.
AS opposed to cases like this
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1006/apology.html
to which the myth of "pedo priests" panders. don't the people who promulgate the media myth have any smidgeon of responsibility?
Hardly a mention of it on boards. Hardly a replier to anything drawing attention to it. But if the priest (whose work was destroyed by this false accusation) had been guilty of anything then we would have wall to wall coverage and endless boards threads.
Edit: well to now I found two threads with few replies on it in after Hours
But ther is now a thread in Christianity
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=20564128570 -
AS opposed to cases like this
http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1006/apology.html
to which the myth of "pedo priests" panders. don't the people who promulgate the media myth have any smidgeon of responsibility?
Hardly a mention of it on boards. Hardly a replier to anything drawing attention to it. But if the priest (whose work was destroyed by this false accusation) had been guilty of anything then we would have wall to wall coverage and endless boards threads.
Edit: well to now I found two threads with few replies on it in after Hours
But ther is now a thread in Christianity
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056412857
Your a gas character ISAW, soon you will debating and contradicting yourself in this thread, because nobody else will be left to argue and debate with you. I for one are off to discuss interesting topics in the politics forum.
See you later and enjoy arguing with yourself.0 -
i admire anyone who stands up to defend their beliefs,but one must know when its a lost cause, there are 30,000 women fighting for justice from the abuses over the magdalene laundries,14,000 cuban children in care of catholic nuns, were used as guinea pigs to test a new drug,the nuns say they had their mothers written authority,but the paperwork has accidently been burned .check out magdalenalaundriesabuse.blogspot.com/0
-
Many of these abuses were from years ago and from a different era, and I'm not trivialising those who were hurt! Since these abuses came to light, (and a good thing too), there is now a less chance of abuses happnening. The church of today has guidelines in place to protect children, guidelines that would put the Irish Government to shame! These abuses didn't occur in the name of the Church or Religion, but by men and women who hid under the cloth!(Wolves in sheeps clothing).
I believe 100% what the church teaches, even if some of it's members don't practice what they preach!0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »These abuses didn't occur in the name of the Church or Religion, but by men and women who hid under the cloth!(Wolves in sheeps clothing).
This is always such a handy catch-all to have, ye must be so glad for it.0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »Many of these abuses were from years ago and from a different era, and I'm not trivialising those who were hurt! Since these abuses came to light, (and a good thing too), there is now a less chance of abuses happnening. The church of today has guidelines in place to protect children, guidelines that would put the Irish Government to shame! These abuses didn't occur in the name of the Church or Religion, but by men and women who hid under the cloth!(Wolves in sheeps clothing).
Okay the church did this, it did that. Wonderful, what it hasn't done is publicly cast out these 'wolves.' Where is the root and branch culling of these people? Why does the church not open its doors to public scrutiny?
So long as the church continues to behave in a manner that excludes external audit of its activities how can anyone have faith in it?
Guidelines are all well and good. Again though who oversees these 'guidelines.' As the saying goes 'self-regulation is no regulation.'
SD0 -
Your a gas character ISAW, soon you will debating and contradicting yourself in this thread, because nobody else will be left to argue and debate with you. I for one are off to discuss interesting topics in the politics forum.
See you later and enjoy arguing with yourself.
I assume that means you won't produce the so called "first hand evidence" you claimed to have of a church coverup/conspiracy?
It is very funny how "nobody likes debating with you" is taken to mean "I won". NB You are the one who is running away.
Run away of you want. I doubt you would have lasted much longer if you continued the personal attacks. I suppose running away saves you apologising for your personal attacks. I however shows you failed to support the claims you made.0 -
i admire anyone who stands up to defend their beliefs,but one must know when its a lost cause,
My personal beliefs don't come into it. I'm just indicating what I view as the church's position and the myth of antiCatholic media spin.there are 30,000 women fighting for justice from the abuses over the magdalene laundries,
And her we go with another myth. Okay it isnt clerical abuse but what evidence do you have for this bizzarre claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylumMagdalene asylums were institutions from the 18th to the mid-20th centuries ostensibly for "fallen women", a term used to imply sexual promiscuity. The first asylum in Ireland opened on Leeson Street in Dublin in 1765, founded by the Protestant Lady Arabella Denny.
...
In Ireland, such asylums were known as Magdalene laundries. It has been estimated that up to 30,000 women passed through such laundries in Ireland
So you conclude that all people attending were abused? Particularly sexually?
Same source:This paralleled the practice in state-run asylums in Britain and Ireland in the same period, where many people with alleged "social dysfunction" were committed to asylums.14,000 cuban children in care of catholic nuns, were used as guinea pigs to test a new drug,the nuns say they had their mothers written authority,but the paperwork has accidently been burned .check out magdalenalaundriesabuse.blogspot.com/
Oh so your source is a BLOG. Which it appears when you look for it does not exist!0 -
Advertisement
-
StudentDad wrote: »Okay the church did this, it did that. Wonderful, what it hasn't done is publicly cast out these 'wolves.' Where is the root and branch culling of these people? Why does the church not open its doors to public scrutiny?
Please try to keep up!
The church acted by changing procedures.
It isnt for the church to put sex offenders in prison. All they can do is report the cases.
The church procedure is In all cases wher the local law requires it the offender is reported. If the local law has not caught up don't blame the church.
And the clerical offenders constituted less than a per cent of offenders and less than a tenth of a percent of clerics. That is the priests. As to root and branch. Few if any bishops were involved say as many as ten or twenty in 100,000 .So long as the church continues to behave in a manner that excludes external audit of its activities how can anyone have faith in it?
What do you mean by that? what "external audit" can one have of a confession or a Mass to decide if it is a "true" Mass or a "real" confession?
What "external audit" does any state have?Guidelines are all well and good. Again though who oversees these 'guidelines.' As the saying goes 'self-regulation is no regulation.'
The Church only regulates the clerical office. i.e. they tell abusing priests not to say mass or hear confession. As to criminal law that is a matter for the state and the church policy is to inform the State should the state require it.0 -
StudentDad wrote: »Okay the church did this, it did that. Wonderful, what it hasn't done is publicly cast out these 'wolves.' Where is the root and branch culling of these people? Why does the church not open its doors to public scrutiny?
Please try to keep up!
The church acted by changing procedures.
It isnt for the church to put sex offenders in prison. All they can do is report the cases.
The church procedure is In all cases wher the local law requires it the offender is reported. If the local law has not caught up don't blame the church.
And the clerical offenders constituted less than a per cent of offenders and less than a tenth of a percent of clerics. That is the priests. As to root and branch. Few if any bishops were involved say as many as ten or twenty in 100,000 .So long as the church continues to behave in a manner that excludes external audit of its activities how can anyone have faith in it?
What do you mean by that? what "external audit" can one have of a confession or a Mass to decide if it is a "true" Mass or a "real" confession?
What "external audit" does any state have?Guidelines are all well and good. Again though who oversees these 'guidelines.' As the saying goes 'self-regulation is no regulation.'
The Church only regulates the clerical office. i.e. they tell abusing priests not to say mass or hear confession. As to criminal law that is a matter for the state and the church policy is to inform the State should the state require it.
That reply smacks of a bloody awful attitude either on your part or that of the church. One that says, 'we'll do what we bloody well like and if anything illegal is going on well that's for you (the state) to find out and if we choose to divulge any information we'll only do so if it is in the churches interest. Not very christian.
SD0 -
I assume that means you won't produce the so called "first hand evidence" you claimed to have of a church coverup/conspiracy?
It is very funny how "nobody likes debating with you" is taken to mean "I won". NB You are the one who is running away.
Run away of you want. I doubt you would have lasted much longer if you continued the personal attacks. I suppose running away saves you apologising for your personal attacks. I however shows you failed to support the claims you made.
If winning means all that much to you, well then congrats, you won! And what is it you won?
Defending the RCC for clerical child sexual abuse and it's cover up. Really well done, something to be very proud of.0 -
-
locking young girls up [some only 14 years old ] at times for life,working them seven days a week,babies taken away from them and sent to the USA for adoption with and without the parents permission,[false signatures are on some documents] all of those children had a mother and father,it was wrong and has been proven in law,that is child abuse,its not just sexual abuse this thread is about,the only reason this is not happening as much as in the passed is that the church has been found out,and it knows it can no longer get away with it.My personal beliefs don't come into it. I'm just indicating what I view as the church's position and the myth of antiCatholic media spin.
And her we go with another myth. Okay it isnt clerical abuse but what evidence do you have for this bizzarre claim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum
So you conclude that all people attending were abused? Particularly sexually?
Same source:
Oh so your source is a BLOG. Which it appears when you look for it does not exist!0 -
locking young girls up [some only 14 years old ] at times for life,working them seven days a week,babies taken away from them and sent to the USA for adoption with and without the parents permission,[false signatures are on some documents] all of those children had a mother and father,it was wrong and has been proven in law,that is child abuse,its not just sexual abuse this thread is about,the only reason this is not happening as much as in the passed is that the church has been found out,and it knows it can no longer get away with it.
Their own families put the young girls there, some of them got pregnant due to incest. I myself worked in the Magdalen Laurdries.0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »Their own families put the young girls there, some of them got pregnant due to incest. I myself worked in the Magdalen Laurdries.
And your point is ?0 -
And your point is ?
The situation at home was far worse for some of those poor girls, and many of them could leave of their own accord and some of them did repeatedly. Some were mildy retarded, and AFAIK, it was the Dublin institution that was the worst! I worked in one in a different County.0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »The situation at home was far worse for some of those poor girls, and many of them could leave of their own accord and some of them did repeatedly. Some were mildy retarded, and AFAIK, it was the Dublin institution that was the worst! I worked in one in a different County.
I don't doubt that the situation was worse at home for some, but two wrongs dont make a right ! But there is little point in rehashing this whole sorry tale as yourself and ISAW will not accept any responsibilty by the church for any of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
circular arguments indeed ISAW , and none better than your good self, when anyone mentions a legitimate proven case you will blame everybody and anybody rather than except that the Church as an institution has any even a smidgin of responsibility for the whole sorry mess.
One swallow does not male a Spring. Individual cases ( and there is no surfeit of them) do not prove a general rule. Yes some priests did terrible things but this does not prove any church wide coverup conspiracy! As to the church having responsibility you seem to have ignored the Churches response.StudentDad wrote: »That reply smacks of a bloody awful attitude either on your part or that of the church. One that says, 'we'll do what we bloody well like and if anything illegal is going on well that's for you (the state) to find out and if we choose to divulge any information we'll only do so if it is in the churches interest. Not very christian.
SD
Also not anything to do with what I stated!
Where did i say the church policy is "'we'll do what we bloody well like"?
Where did I say " if anything illegal is going on well that's for you (the state) to find out"?
Where did I say " if we choose to divulge any information we'll only do so if it is in the churches interest"?
You have completely misrepresented what was stated!
What part of "The church will abide by the local State law" do you not understand?0
Advertisement