The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

If winning means all that much to you, well then congrats, you won! And what is it you won?

I won the fact that some people like to make unsupported allegation and run away and pretend that they are still correct. It is that sort of behaviour of assuming guilt and accusing the innocent that destroyed Fr Reynolds parish life.

Defending the RCC for clerical child sexual abuse and it's cover up. Really well done, something to be very proud of.

LOL! What "widespread abuse"? WHAT "coverup"?
You produce allegations of conspiracy and when pressed you produce non existant blogs conspiracy theory sites and no actual evidence . Then you run away with your fingers in your ears ignoring the actual facts and real evidence only to come back later with the same unsupported accusations!

Where is your evidence of any coverup by the Vatican?
Where is your evidence of widespread clerical asexual abuse of young children?

dclane wrote: »

Are you running this thread?

Are you paying attention? Try and at least read some of the evidence presented. You will then avoid having to confront it again when you make the same unsupported allegations.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

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.

You really have to at least try to keep up! The Church accepted responsibility for clerics who abused children. They reacted to the problem compensated victims in excess of other state compensation e.g in UK or Australia without the alleged victims having to go through la legal trial process or even prove they were victims. They brought in child protection measures in advance of the State. They brought in mandatory reporting in advance of organisations such as "One in Four" for example. But after all this you still claim they "covered up" and "didn't respond" and denied responsibility! You believe as you do in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and no evidence being produced by you for you own claims.
QUOTE=getz;74802683]locking young girls up [some only 14 years old ]
[/quote]

How many 14 year old girls were "locked up for life" and by whom?

at times for life,working them seven days a week,

How many were made to work seven days a week? What role the the Vatican have in it and how did the Vatican seek to cover up anything?

babies taken away from them and sent to the USA for adoption with and without the parents permission,

How many cases of that. By the way we have strayed far from clerics being pedophiles by now but none the less there is a Magdalen Laundries thread.
You can have it reopened if you wish
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72824874&postcount=50

It refers to this which I suggest you read:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-magdalene-inquiry-must-lift-veil-and-uncloak-anticatholic-myths-2677561.html
It says

according to the Government's own report to the UN committee, the overwhelming majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were there voluntarily.

[false signatures are on some documents] all of those children had a mother and father,it was wrong and has been proven in law,

Where has it 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 [past] is that the church has been found out,and it knows it can no longer get away with it.

This is rubbish! Where is your evidence that the church was involved in covering up something which was "found out"? Where is you r evidence the church "got away" with child abuse for the last 2000 years? I have provided evidence from the early church and Middle ages. Where is yours?

also take the specific case of "Holy Catholic" Ireland in the 20th century. the evidence I provided suggests a peak in the 1960s period. I refer only to the one per cent or less of clerical abuse and not to the other 99 per cent of abusers outside of that. Then was after the 1920-1950s period when the church had much more control. If the Church was less powerful how do you explain the increase in abuse rate being correlating with church power?

By the way in addition to not supporting your own claims you also just ignored first hand evidence from someone who worked in one of these Laundries.

getz

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.

yes in most cases their own families did put them there,why ? because of the catholic churches moral doctrine,they [the church] created the situation that brainwashed the catholic people into thinking it is a sin for girls to have sex or children outside of marriage, well i have news for you,its not a sin or crime to have sex or babies out of marriage, BUT IT IS A SIN AND A CRIME TO LOCK YOUNG GIRLS UP AND USE THEN AS SLAVES,

ISAW

getz wrote: »

yes in most cases their own families did put them there,why ? because of the catholic churches moral doctrine,they [the church] created the situation that brainwashed the catholic people into thinking it is a sin for girls to have sex or children outside of marriage,

You have been shown these Magdalen Institutions were not founded by Catholics but by Protestants!

well i have news for you,its not a sin or crime to have sex or babies out of marriage,

You would be out of line with Christian teaching. Christians ( Catholic and Protestsnts) suggest that sex be used in a loving monogamous relationship and the type of sex to which you are referring is sinfull. From what christian source did you get this "news" because it is out of step with christian theology?

BUT IT IS A SIN AND A CRIME TO LOCK YOUNG GIRLS UP AND USE THEN AS SLAVES,

No matter how much you shout it won't change the fact that according to the Government's own report to the UN committee, the overwhelming majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were there voluntarily.

getz

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown these Magdalen Institutions were not founded by Catholics but by Protestants!



You would be out of line with Christian teaching. Christians ( Catholic and Protestsnts) suggest that sex be used in a loving monogamous relationship and the type of sex to which you are referring is sinfull. From what christian source did you get this "news" because it is out of step with christian theology?



No matter how much you shout it won't change the fact that according to the Government's own report to the UN committee, the overwhelming majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were there voluntarily.

in june 2011 the UN committee against torture,the panel has urged ireland to investigate allegations that for decades women and girls sent to work in catholic laundries were tortured, in 2001 the irish goverment has admitted the children were abuse victims,over 155 unmarked graves of young girls and women have been found in those institutions.its not going to just go away, the evidence of crerical abuse is just building up

gimmebroadband

getz wrote: »

in june 2011 the UN committee against torture,the panel has urged ireland to investigate allegations that for decades women and girls sent to work in catholic laundries were tortured, in 2001 the irish goverment has admitted the children were abuse victims,over 155 unmarked graves of young girls and women have been found in those institutions.its not going to just go away, the evidence of crerical abuse is just building up

The Goverment also put girls there instead of sending them to jai!

getz

gimmebroadband wrote: »

The Goverment also put girls there instead of sending them to jai!

that is very true,remember the goverment like most irish citizens were under the thumb of the church,who was going to stand up in those days and complain ? remember all the schools,hospitals, ect were under their control ,who dare stand up and accuse them , no one would believe them anyway ,it was often said,before any laws were passed it would first have to be run by the bishops,

StudentDad

ISAW wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

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?

I don't think I have. The general tenor of your replies is aggressive and condescending. For a man who claims to be christian you don't portray Christianity in a very good light.

There is a huge gulf between faith and religion and frankly the way you try and defend the actions of the church would turn anyone away from religion.

We are not living in an era where adherence to an unelected, unaccountable institution is practiced. If the church wants people to follow its customs it has to lead from the front.

Rather than do that we get a mixture of arrogance and attempted justification for immoral and illegal behaviour.

When a body such as a church adopts this stance it has already lost the battle.

It isn't good enough to say that only a minority of individuals did this or that. The longer the church keeps up with this stance only serves to illustrate that it has lost its moral authority.

SD

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

I assume that means you won't produce the so called "first hand evidence" you claimed to have of a church coverup/conspiracy?

In the same way that the RCC won't produce evidence to the contrary?

They can't!

The RCC definitely wanted the 'paedophile Priest' scandal brushed under the carpet.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Circular argument? You claim that the premise is false!

The claim being that RCC rules facilitate paedophilia rather than oppose it.

cybercellesta

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, the claim that they facilitated abuse is false.

When the Church's Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2)

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia.

ISAW

getz wrote: »

in june 2011 the UN committee against torture,the panel has urged ireland to investigate allegations that for decades women and girls sent to work in catholic laundries were tortured, in 2001 the irish goverment has admitted the children were abuse victims,over 155 unmarked graves of young girls and women have been found in those institutions.its not going to just go away, the evidence of crerical abuse is just building up

1. "Allegations"
2. What evidence of 155 graves? Are you suggesting that in these laundries 155 people were murdered?
3. These laundries were NOT run by or staffed by any clerics! They have nothing to do with clerical sex abuse of children.

ISAW

getz wrote: »

that is very true,remember the goverment like most irish citizens were under the thumb of the church,who was going to stand up in those days and complain ?

So you are saying that the government and families who put women into these institutions did so because the church told them to do it? So when the family and State do something is it only because of "Church control" over them? that is just another conspiracy theory.

remember all the schools,hospitals, ect were under their control ,who dare stand up and accuse them ,

Yep a conspiracy theory.
The State and families made decisions but it must have been the church making the decisions all along?

no one would believe them anyway ,it was often said,before any laws were passed it would first have to be run by the bishops,

Oh so now we have hearsay and "people often said" dressed up as fact?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

In the same way that the RCC won't produce evidence to the contrary?

Sorry but you need to look up the logical fallscioes of "proving a negative" and "shifting the burden"

The RCC definitely wanted the 'paedophile Priest' scandal brushed under the carpet.

Which is a different claim to sayng they actually conspired to brush anything under the carpet. But none the less...Where is your evidence to support this claim?

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Circular argument? You claim that the premise is false!

You really should learn a bit about logic. A "circular argument" is one in which the premise is the conclusion. It is fallacious because the conclusion is assumed true and also used as a premise to prove the conclusion.

The claim being that RCC rules facilitate paedophilia rather than oppose it.

The RCC rules have changed as you have been shown. But the point I made was that the RCC never strove to facilitate pedophilia.

ISAW

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't think I have. The general tenor of your replies is aggressive and condescending. For a man who claims to be christian you don't portray Christianity in a very good light.

When you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person?
Please deal with the issued of your own claims and leave me or your opinion of me out of it!

There is a huge gulf between faith and religion and frankly the way you try and defend the actions of the church would turn anyone away from religion.

More of the same! Waffle! Care to state what you are trying to say the Church did which is a "wrong action"?

We are not living in an era where adherence to an unelected, unaccountable institution is practiced. If the church wants people to follow its customs it has to lead from the front.

More waffle!
1. What are you claiming the Church did wrong?
2. What are you claiming they should be "leading" with?

Rather than do that we get a mixture of arrogance and attempted justification for immoral and illegal behaviour.

More waffle! Where did I justify anything illegal?

StudentDad

ISAW wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't think I have. The general tenor of your replies is aggressive and condescending. For a man who claims to be christian you don't portray Christianity in a very good light.

When you are losing the argument do you always resort to attacking the person?
Please deal with the issued of your own claims and leave me or your opinion of me out of it!

There is a huge gulf between faith and religion and frankly the way you try and defend the actions of the church would turn anyone away from religion.

More of the same! Waffle! Care to state what you are trying to say the Church did which is a "wrong action"?

We are not living in an era where adherence to an unelected, unaccountable institution is practiced. If the church wants people to follow its customs it has to lead from the front.

More waffle!
1. What are you claiming the Church did wrong?
2. What are you claiming they should be "leading" with?

Rather than do that we get a mixture of arrogance and attempted justification for immoral and illegal behaviour.

More waffle! Where did I justify anything illegal?

Well done, just the type of response I was expecting. By the way you say that the laundries were not run by clerics. Do nuns not count? Are they a special sub-category?

The more you rant and rave it makes me wonder where all the anger is coming from.

SD

gimmebroadband

StudentDad wrote: »

Well done, just the type of response I was expecting. By the way you say that the laundries were not run by clerics. Do nuns not count? Are they a special sub-category?

The more you rant and rave it makes me wonder where all the anger is coming from.

SD

I worked in the Magdalen Laundry over thirty years ago and the nuns I worked with were lovely - it was a married layman with family who was managing the workers! I can't vouch for the laundry in Dubln, but not all nuns were tyrants!

gent9662

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I worked in the Magdalen Laundry over thirty years ago and the nuns I worked with were lovely - it was a married layman with family who was managing the workers! I can't vouch for the laundry in Dubln, but not all nuns were tyrants!

Where is your proof?

gimmebroadband

dclane wrote: »

Where is your proof?

Where is yours that ALL were tyrants. I said I couldn't vouch for others! The ones I worked with during the time I was there weren't tyrants.....geeesh!! Maybe during previous years there was some abuse, I don't know.

cybercellesta

I think the majority of abuse occurred during the early 1960s and tapering off after that. It was a sad time in Irish History for those poor girls, many of them emigrated to the UK and never recovered from the beatings they got.

It was perceived as an "Irish Problem".

How Ireland Hid Its Own Dirty Laundry

PDN

dclane wrote: »

Where is your proof?

Moderator's Note:
This is an internet discussion forum, not a court of law. Posters are free to share their experiences and their impressions of people here without silly demands for proof.

ISAW

dclane wrote: »

Where is your proof?

I find it ironic that you claim a conspiracy theory and cant support it and when someone else provides a personal statement you ask them to prove it. But the think is this isnt a thread about laundries. Ther is another thread you can post about that. It is a thread about abuse and you seem not to be abloe to support claims about Vatican cover ups so you sideline it into accusing other institutional elements. Please don't try to create a side argument and then shift your burden opf evidence of proving your claim of a Vatican coverup of pedo priests onto someone else and ask them to prove they worked in an institution which has nothing to do with the pedo priest or coverup of it issues.

ISAW

cybercellesta wrote: »

I think the majority of abuse occurred during the early 1960s and tapering off after that. It was a sad time in Irish History for those poor girls, many of them emigrated to the UK and never recovered from the beatings they got.

It was perceived as an "Irish Problem".

How Ireland Hid Its Own Dirty Laundry

and there is statistical support for your assertion.

cybercellesta

ISAW wrote: »

and there is statistical support for your assertion.

Not really, I remember that the the movie of the same name depicted abuse from 1960s to 1970s!

ISAW

cybercellesta wrote: »

Not really, I remember that the the movie of the same name depicted abuse from 1960s to 1970s!

No yes really. I supplied it earlier in the thread.
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php

7.13 Table 19 for males 85% ( over the 1920-1990 period) was pre 1970 43% in the sixties

For females 9.74 Table 36 67% pre 1970 50% in the 60-69 decade

gimmebroadband

I worked there at a time when the laundry was employing locals, and there were very few inmates left, and they were old ladies who had been there many years. I hadn't heard of Magdalene abuses until years later, and it would seem that there were nuns there at one time that were not as nice as the one's I came in contact with - I hope the survivors get the justice they deserve!

cybercellesta

ISAW wrote: »

No yes really. I supplied it earlier in the thread.
http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/03-07.php

7.13 Table 19 for males 85% ( over the 1920-1990 period) was pre 1970 43% in the sixties

For females 9.74 Table 36 67% pre 1970 50% in the 60-69 decade

Ooops sorry ISAW, I thought you were asking me to provide stats!

ISAW

StudentDad wrote: »

Well done, just the type of response I was expecting. By the way you say that the laundries were not run by clerics. Do nuns not count? Are they a special sub-category?

The more you rant and rave it makes me wonder where all the anger is coming from.

SD

Let me clarify.
If you want to include all nuns brothers and priests I have produced CSO statistics on that. Cleric is taken to mean "ordained priest" and the numbers were in the thousands. If you want to change the group to all "religious" then their membership was in the tens of thousands. This means the levels of abuse are affected because the numbers of total group is bigger. You also then have to broaden the "institution" definition to non Church and non religious.
So it is you who are treating nuns as a special sub category by cherry picking out a single order of nuns and picking out a subset of the Magdalen asylums both of which are not connected to the issue of the "pedo priests" myth.

StudentDad

ISAW wrote: »

StudentDad wrote: »

Well done, just the type of response I was expecting. By the way you say that the laundries were not run by clerics. Do nuns not count? Are they a special sub-category?

The more you rant and rave it makes me wonder where all the anger is coming from.

SD

Let me clarify.
If you want to include all nuns brothers and priests I have produced CSO statistics on that. Cleric is taken to mean "ordained priest" and the numbers were in the thousands. If you want to change the group to all "religious" then their membership was in the tens of thousands. This means the levels of abuse are affected because the numbers of total group is bigger. You also then have to broaden the "institution" definition to non Church and non religious.
So it is you who are treating nuns as a special sub category by cherry picking out a single order of nuns and picking out a subset of the Magdalen asylums both of which are not connected to the issue of the "pedo priests" myth.

The abuse of people by the religious is a myth now is it? First you justify the churches actions by claiming that the abuse is tolerable because according to your statistics of reported cases the number is low. Now you say it's a myth. Right. I suppose you can justify any sort of behaviour if you produce enough statistics.


SD