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
-
StudentDad wrote: »The abuse of people by the religious is a myth now is it?
Yes the pedo priest myth when priests are less than one percent of pedophiles and pedo priests ( at their height in the 1960-70 period) were less than a tenth of a percent of priests
And the Magdalen Laundry story was dealth with in David Quinn's "Myth history" articleFirst you justify the churches actions by claiming that the abuse is tolerable
Where ANYWHERE did claim anyone should tolerate children being sexually abused?
Not MY statisticsbecause according to your statistics of reported cases the number is low.
The Central Statistics Office and various reports about child abuse from official agencies.Now you say it's a myth. Right. I suppose you can justify any sort of behaviour if you produce enough statistics.
I didn't justify ANY behavior. I pointed out clerical abuse is blown out of proportion and singled out and fake stories made up in the media. I gave examples. The "Pedo priest protected by the Vatican" is a myth! you have produced no examples of a Vatican cover up!0 -
I have just come across this thread and am amazed some people are defending the Catholic church, whose hierarchy fostered, allowed and hid so much abuse.
The experience of many of us, unfortunately, is that many priests - and nuns, lets not forget the magdalene laundries etc - did terrible things, for so called Christians. Christians they were not.Yes some priests did terrible things0 -
I have just come across this thread and am amazed some people are defending the Catholic church, whose hierarchy fostered, allowed and hid so much abuse.
REally? Where did the Vatican or hierarchy hide abuse?
In the few instances of non Vatican members of the hierarchy making mistakes did this happen in isolation i.e. made just by a senior Church member or were other members of the hierarchy involved in a conspiracy?
In thoise cases wher other non church agencies also involved or intentionally not acting?The experience of many of us, unfortunately, is that many priests - and nuns,
How many?
Just dealt withlets not forget the magdalene laundries etc
Not clerical sexual abuse and not set up ny the roman Catholic Church. You also have the evidence of a poster here who worked in a Magdalen Laundry. I thought you stated you have read through this thread? Imean that was only in the last page or two.- did terrible things, for so called Christians. Christians they were not.
Indeed and Stalin did terrible things and Mao and Genghis Khan. But they didn't do it at the behest of the Vatican nor were their deeds Church policy or covered up by the church..0 -
I have just come across this thread and am amazed some people are defending the Catholic church, whose hierarchy fostered, allowed and hid so much abuse.
The experience of many of us, unfortunately, is that many priests - and nuns, lets not forget the magdalene laundries etc - did terrible things, for so called Christians. Christians they were not.
An yes, they are christians, their actions weren't - christians are not exempt from sin. (condemn the sin not the sinner- Jesus)
Contrary to what the tabloids would have you believe, the church never facilitated abuse.cybercellesta wrote: »While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, the claim that they facilitated abuse is false.
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.0 -
StudentDad wrote: »The abuse of people by the religious is a myth now is it?
Yes the pedo priest myth when priests are less than one percent of pedophiles and pedo priests ( at their height in the 1960-70 period) were less than a tenth of a percent of priests
And the Magdalen Laundry story was dealth with in David Quinn's "Myth history" articleFirst you justify the churches actions by claiming that the abuse is tolerable
Where ANYWHERE did claim anyone should tolerate children being sexually abused?
Not MY statisticsbecause according to your statistics of reported cases the number is low.
The Central Statistics Office and various reports about child abuse from official agencies.Now you say it's a myth. Right. I suppose you can justify any sort of behaviour if you produce enough statistics.
I didn't justify ANY behavior. I pointed out clerical abuse is blown out of proportion and singled out and fake stories made up in the media. I gave examples. The "Pedo priest protected by the Vatican" is a myth! you have produced no examples of a Vatican cover up!
Given the terror the victims suffered at the hands of the church, the brick wall of silence those victims who chose to speak out were met with. The legalistic and frankly horrific manner in which the church has acted coupled with the demonisation of those who chose to speak. Is it not reasonable to assume that any figures produced will be innacurate?
Considering the veil of secrecy under which the church operates. I find it difficult to accept the accuracy of your 'statistics.'
SD0 -
Advertisement
-
StudentDad wrote: »Given the terror the victims suffered at the hands of the church, the brick wall of silence those victims who chose to speak out were met with.
Care to give examples?
How was this church wide and only in the Roman Catholic church?
How was this not elsewhere and why only at the hands of the Church?
What do you mean by a "wall of silence" constructed by the church?
Are you asserting the church didn't respond to victims when victims spoke out?The legalistic and frankly horrific manner in which the church has acted
What "legalistic" manner? In fact you have it the wrong way around and that also has been dealt with in this thread. In the UK and Australia they went into legal trials and paid out les compensation compared to the church in Ireland who didn't enter into legal trials and paid out "victims" without the victims having to legally produce evidence.coupled with the demonisation of those who chose to speak. Is it not reasonable to assume that any figures produced will be innacurate?
Given 13,000 people were compensated without having to supply evidence could you give a list of how many of these were demonised?
And No the figures are accurate. If you have any better sources then supply them!Considering the veil of secrecy under which the church operates. I find it difficult to accept the accuracy of your 'statistics.'
What "veil of secrecy"? You have been shown the policy is that reporting to the civil authority is done if the civil authority requires it.0 -
StudentDad wrote: »Given the terror the victims suffered at the hands of the church, the brick wall of silence those victims who chose to speak out were met with.
Care to give examples?
How was this church wide and only in the Roman Catholic church?
How was this not elsewhere and why only at the hands of the Church?
What do you mean by a "wall of silence" constructed by the church?
Are you asserting the church didn't respond to victims when victims spoke out?The legalistic and frankly horrific manner in which the church has acted
What "legalistic" manner? In fact you have it the wrong way around and that also has been dealt with in this thread. In the UK and Australia they went into legal trials and paid out les compensation compared to the church in Ireland who didn't enter into legal trials and paid out "victims" without the victims having to legally produce evidence.coupled with the demonisation of those who chose to speak. Is it not reasonable to assume that any figures produced will be innacurate?
Given 13,000 people were compensated without having to supply evidence could you give a list of how many of these were demonised?
And No the figures are accurate. If you have any better sources then supply them!Considering the veil of secrecy under which the church operates. I find it difficult to accept the accuracy of your 'statistics.'
What "veil of secrecy"? You have been shown the policy is that reporting to the civil authority is done if the civil authority requires it.
Just so this clear. You think that because the church paid out some money - without admitting liability - so the victims will shut up and go away? You think this is good? You don't view this as a form of stonewalling?
If the church was so confident why was it unwillling to go to court?
If the church has acted above and beyond the call of duty why did Enda Kenny feel it necessary to stand up in the Dail and say what he said regarding the church?
If what he said was true is it any wonder your statistics are so low. From what you are saying it seems that anyone who was abused who doesn't stand up and get 'counted' does not count!
SD0 -
StudentDad wrote: »Just so this clear. You think that because the church paid out some money - without admitting liability - so the victims will shut up and go away? You think this is good? You don't view this as a form of stonewalling?
If the church was so confident why was it unwillling to go to court?
Can you provide a link where it says that the church was unwilling to go to Court?
His rant was based on misinterpreting church documents, to which the Cloyne Report didn't make any reference to.If the church has acted above and beyond the call of duty why did Enda Kenny feel it necessary to stand up in the Dail and say what he said regarding the church?0 -
gimmebroadband wrote: »StudentDad wrote: »Just so this clear. You think that because the church paid out some money - without admitting liability - so the victims will shut up and go away? You think this is good? You don't view this as a form of stonewalling?
If the church was so confident why was it unwillling to go to court?
Can you provide a link where it says that the church was unwilling to go to Court?
His rant was based on misinterpreting church documents, to which the Cloyne Report didn't make any reference to.If the church has acted above and beyond the call of duty why did Enda Kenny feel it necessary to stand up in the Dail and say what he said regarding the church?
I can only go on what the church did do. Not on what they might have done. The fact that they opted for payment without liability says to me anyway that they did not want public litigation which would have put the spotlight on their activities.
As regards Endas speech. I don't think it was a rant. He asked pertinent questions and as car as I can see they haven't been answered.
SD0 -
StudentDad wrote: »Just so this clear.
Yes let us be clear and have no alleged "veil of secrecy".You think that because the church paid out some money
"some" meaning "more than the state and to more people " when compared to similar cases in Australia and the UK
http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xbrynestynireland.htmAnother country which has developed a particularly intense and dangerous crusade against child abuse is the Republic of Ireland.
...
No evidence has been produced that any such letter ever existed. Yet, as a direct result of the rumours which now swept the country, confidence in the ruling establishment was undermined and the Fianna Fail government of Albert Reynolds fell, amidst talk of a dark conspiracy involving politicians, members of Opus Dei, the Knights of Columbus and others
...
Goldenbridge...The woman ‘survivor’ at the centre of the film claimed that, on one occasion, she had been caned by Sister Xavieria so severely that the entire side of her leg was split open from her hip to her knee...treated in the casualty department of the local hospital and believes that she received 80 to 120 stitches. No medical evidence has ever been produced to substantiate this bizarre claim.
...
States of Fear...- without admitting liability - so the victims will shut up and go away? You think this is good? You don't view this as a form of stonewalling?
Actually quite the opposite. In 2002 the government set up the Residential Institutions Redress Board of Ireland, whose purpose was ‘to make fair and reasonable awards to people who, as children, were abused while resident in various institutions in Ireland’. The maximum payment to any individual was set at the very high level of €300,000 (or £200,000). Legal rigamarole was avoided.
From webster above again:It would indeed be remarkable if the creation of the Redress Board, which has extended extraordinarily generous terms both to complainants and to their lawyers, did not lead to a very high level of false allegations.
What has certainly happened already in Ireland is that journalists and politicians have inadvertently created a witch-hunt of their own – one in which the members of religious orders have effectively been demonised and in which false allegations have already played an extremely significant role. Just as the story of North Wales was wholeheartedly accepted in Britain by a number of distinguished journalists, including Paul Foot and Nick Davies, so in Ireland something similar happened. There, a narrative in which a significant amount of history is mixed with a great deal of fantasy or fabrication appears to have been adopted, with few reservations, by some of the country’s leading journalists.If the church was so confident why was it unwillling to go to court?
False assumption. It wasn't. Some have and do pursue that legal line. Very few since the standards of evidence is required. Just saying " a nun split my leg open and I required 80 stitches " may be enough for the Redress Board but it isn't enough for a court. The Church wanted to avoid the rigamarole in order to ensure victims were compensated even if some fake applications were made.If the church has acted above and beyond the call of duty why did Enda Kenny feel it necessary to stand up in the Dail and say what he said regarding the church?
As Bertie Ahern did? Well maybe???Reacting to media attention.States of Fear, which was written, produced and directed by the journalist Mary Raftery. The programmes contained much historical material which appeared to be soundly based. They portrayed the industrial schools as part of a grossly underfunded and chaotic child-care system, in which Dickensian conditions had prevailed for decades longer than most people would have assumed possible. Most of the schools had clearly been inadequate both pastorally and educationally. Corporal punishment was frequently used and it seems beyond doubt that some regimes were both repressive and brutal. The programmes also featured a series of claims by former residents of the schools that they had been physically or sexually abused by members of orders such as the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy and the Sisters of Charity. References were also made to a number of unexplained deaths which allegedly took place in these schools. Raftery herself has explicitly rejected the ‘bad apple’ theory which seeks to explain the acts of abuse which were alleged as aberrations from a system which was essentially benign:
...
The series provoked a huge public response. As Raftery puts it, ‘Outrage at the crimes committed against these children was expressed continuously for the three weeks of the series, across acres of newsprint and hours of radio broadcasts all over the country.
to restate it " journalists and politicians have inadvertently created a witch-hunt of their own"If what he said was true is it any wonder your statistics are so low. From what you are saying it seems that anyone who was abused who doesn't stand up and get 'counted' does not count!
It may 'seem' like that to you but as someone who didn't claim and who did suffer "abuse" at the hands of the Christian Brothers the legal process is open to those who wish to pursue it. If they don't claim it has no bearing on whether or not they were victims. If they were victims they were victims. The legal problem arises only when you assert damages should be awarded. The Church decided to allow fake claims in order to get compensation to as many real victims as quickly as possible.0 -
Advertisement
-
StudentDad wrote: »I can only go on what the church did do. Not on what they might have done. The fact that they opted for payment without liability says to me anyway that they did not want public litigation which would have put the spotlight on their activities.
You have been shown that going through every single case legally would have taken decades and many would be dead or not take adversarial cases. Of course the fake claims wuld also be derailed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016947/Irish-PM-Enda-Kenny-attacks-narcissism-Vatican-paedophile-priests-cover-up.htmlAs regards Endas speech. I don't think it was a rant. He asked pertinent questions and as car as I can see they haven't been answered.
http://todayinthedoyle.blogspot.com/2011/09/scum-blood-traitors-mud-bloods-filth.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-is-not-going-to-wait-forever-for-vaticans-response-to-cloyne-report-2829454.html
Thread on Kenny's rant:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74231566&postcount=721 . the numbers of child sex abusers who were non clergy (e.g. swimming coaches , teachers, family members) are a hundred times more than clergy!
2. The Church never organised child sexual abuse. In the worst cases of church run institutions there are between 14 and 26 Priests listed as abusers over 70 years and from a population of 170,000 children and 25,000 religious brothers nuns and priests ( at any one time so the numbers are higher) maybe a fifth of which ( im guessing 5,000 but I gave the Census data earlier) were priests
That's 170k kids
5,000 Priests
14-26 sexual abusing Priests ( not all pedophiles) over 70 years!
Enda was wrong in his assertion of a Vatican Cover up. what questions do you assert he asked which remain unanswered? Care to list them? and don't forget Gilmore's part in this.0 -
The Fr. Brendan Smyth case for example. Shameful - but not surprising - action on the part of the Church to cover it up, which was the norm.Care to give examples?as someone who didn't claim and who did suffer "abuse" at the hands of the Christian Brothers .....
Most of the many people who were raped by the Christian Brothers never claimed. And yet most people know people like you who were abused by the Brothers or by Priests , even if they were not themselves. Many emigrated, some became alcoholics, some moved on with thir lives, some found the Brothers died or were moved on. Those terrified victims who dared complain were usually put in a closed room with a few stern , all powerful Priests and left in no doubt that they should not complain, as in the Fr. Smyth case. And you wonder why most people view the Church as the haven of abusers ? Propoganda by yourself will not change peoples views / experience.0 -
This has been dealt with on several occasions in this threadThe Fr. Brendan Smyth case for example. Shameful - but not surprising - action on the part of the Church to cover it up, which was the norm.
I can give you references if you so desire
The most recent being http://www.richardwebster.net/print/xbrynestynireland.htmhere was a delay of several months during which the Irish attorney general took no action in relation to the extradition request. Unfounded reports began to circulate in Dublin that the process was being deliberately delayed in response to a request made at the highest level by the Catholic Church. An Irish opposition deputy, Pat Rabbitte, then referred in parliament to the possible existence of a document that would ‘rock the foundations of this society to its very roots’. He apparently had in mind the rumoured existence of a letter written by the Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Cathal Daly, to the attorney general in Dublin. In this letter the Cardinal had supposedly interceded on behalf of Father Brendan Smyth and requested the delay in his extradition which had in fact taken place.
No evidence has been produced that any such letter ever existed
How was this case and example a church action to cover up?
How does it it show "the victims suffered at the hands of the church, the brick wall of silence those victims who chose to speak out were met with."?Most of the many people who were raped by the Christian Brothers never claimed.
How many of these do you claim existed? What evidence do you have to support it?
Most of the people raped in society in general outside the Christian Brothers never claimed anything from anyone either. What were the comparative number of those?
How many brothers? How is it comparable to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics ?
While it is true that http://www.childabusecommission.ie/rpt/04-06.php6.29Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.
This refers to orders not the church hierarchy or the Broad church as a whole.
The following paragraph also says:6.30The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.
So the above is not evidence of a church cover up or that the Church cover up in particular was a "norm" as you claimed!And yet most people know people like you who were abused by the Brothers or by Priests , even if they were not themselves.
Most people know about Klaus Barbi, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin... your point being?
Most people because of the media myth might also believe a Vatican cover up happened or that clerical abuse was widespread and frequent by large numbers of priests but if you bother to look you find otherwise.Many emigrated, some became alcoholics, some moved on with thir lives, some found the Brothers died or were moved on. Those terrified victims who dared complain were usually put in a closed room with a few stern , all powerful Priests and left in no doubt that they should not complain, as in the Fr. Smyth case.
Again another myth dealt with earlier in the thread. It was the family requested the case be shelved. the church had no legal standing in taking any criminal case. all the church could do in terms of law was in canon law. In the case of Smyth his order protected him but several bishops did report him and did send him back to this order expecting that the abbot or Brother Superiour of Order was dealing with the issue.
the case was also influenced by the cross border nature and the political opposition to
legal extradition as well as the mistrust of the RUC.And you wonder why most people view the Church as the haven of abusers ? Propoganda by yourself will not change peoples views / experience.
No I don't wonder. It is part of the anti Catholic media myth you are promulgating.
We know there were offensive priests but I'll ask you again
1. Where is your evidence of a Vatican or hierarchical cover up of any priests abusing
2. Where is your evidence of widespread and large percentages of clerics sexually abusing pre pubescent children?0 -
the big problem is that the catholic church just does not get it,they do not believe that child abuse is that big a thing, look at england and wales for instance,since 2001, 22 catholic priests have been convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than one year in prison, over half of them still remain in church priesthood,only nine of them have been dismissed, why ?0
-
StudentDad wrote: »I can only go on what the church did do. Not on what they might have done. The fact that they opted for payment without liability says to me anyway that they did not want public litigation which would have put the spotlight on their activities.
You have been shown that going through every single case legally would have taken decades and many would be dead or not take adversarial cases. Of course the fake claims wuld also be derailed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016947/Irish-PM-Enda-Kenny-attacks-narcissism-Vatican-paedophile-priests-cover-up.htmlAs regards Endas speech. I don't think it was a rant. He asked pertinent questions and as car as I can see they haven't been answered.
http://todayinthedoyle.blogspot.com/2011/09/scum-blood-traitors-mud-bloods-filth.html
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-is-not-going-to-wait-forever-for-vaticans-response-to-cloyne-report-2829454.html
Thread on Kenny's rant:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74231566&postcount=721 . the numbers of child sex abusers who were non clergy (e.g. swimming coaches , teachers, family members) are a hundred times more than clergy!
2. The Church never organised child sexual abuse. In the worst cases of church run institutions there are between 14 and 26 Priests listed as abusers over 70 years and from a population of 170,000 children and 25,000 religious brothers nuns and priests ( at any one time so the numbers are higher) maybe a fifth of which ( im guessing 5,000 but I gave the Census data earlier) were priests
That's 170k kids
5,000 Priests
14-26 sexual abusing Priests ( not all pedophiles) over 70 years!
Enda was wrong in his assertion of a Vatican Cover up. what questions do you assert he asked which remain unanswered? Care to list them? and don't forget Gilmore's part in this.
Ah yes the redress board • we won't admit liability • but if you come along sign a non-disclosure agreement • we'll give you some money so you can piss off and leave us alone • Fantastic!
The victims get a cheque, a pat on the head and nobody in the church is held accountable.
If the church is unwilling to admit liability why pay anything?
Sweeping the problem under the mat Irish style.
SD0 -
the big problem is that the catholic church just does not get it,they do not believe that child abuse is that big a thing, look at england and wales for instance,since 2001, 22 catholic priests have been convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than one year in prison, over half of them still remain in church priesthood,only nine of them have been dismissed, why ?
because its part of the culture of many such celibate priests.
"An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm0 -
because its part of the culture of many such celibate priests.
"An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8059826.stm
From the link you posted:
What’s worse, this abuse took place with the full knowledge and backing of the Irish government and the Vatican.0 -
and so it proved in dark days gone by that Home Rule was Rome Rule, and the government then was under the control of / afraid of the Church.cybercellesta wrote: »From the link you posted:
What’s worse, this abuse took place with the full knowledge and backing of the Irish government and the Vatican.
Thankfully the UN and the Taoiseach are now not totally afraid to stand up to the Church. Thankfully times have changed.0 -
the big problem is that the catholic church just does not get it,they do not believe that child abuse is that big a thing,
It is a Church position that it is always wrong and has been for thousands of years. How much more can you "get it"?look at england and wales for instance,since 2001, 22 catholic priests have been convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than one year in prison,
Source?
What age were the victims? were they pre pubescent. We are discussing pedophiles in particular. did the abuse happen since 2001 or do the cases date back decades.
I am not conversant with UK statistics.
I assume these were under Search Sexual Offences Act 2003. How many were rape, how many assault and how many were of a victim under 13 years of age?
Over the same period how many rapes or indecent assaults happened in the UK? More than 22? More than 220? More than 2200?
Well if you look here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
you will find:
page 61Analysis of
the 2009/10 BCS self-completion module showed that only 11 per cent of victims of serious
sexual assault told the police about the incident (Smith et al., 2011). There were 54,982
sexual offences recorded by the police in 2010/11,
This suggests about a 600,000 offences per year. 22 Priests over ten years is about 2 per year. This is about 0.006 per cent of offences.
I don't know. I doubt any are in active priesthood. No priest can have Holy Orders removed.over half of them still remain in church priesthood,only nine of them have been dismissed, why ?
Care to list the 13 and we can go through them case by case.
We don't however have space to go through the 600,000 cases of non priests but I assume more than 13 of them are walking the streets.StudentDad wrote: »Ah yes the redress board • we won't admit liability • but if you come along sign a non-disclosure agreement • we'll give you some money so you can piss off and leave us alone • Fantastic!
As opposed to the Australian and UK State examples where people got less or died before the legal process was exhausted?The victims get a cheque, a pat on the head and nobody in the church is held accountable.
Victims are free to take legal cases or opt for the "fasttrack" method wher they fdon't require proof.
False premise.If the church is unwilling to admit liability why pay anything?
The church isn't unwilling to admit liability. It isn't however willing to say there is/was widespread abuse which the Vatican conspired to cover up because that isn't true.
SD[/QUOTE]
And we are back to the false "celibacy causes child abuse" argument. Why not go and pick on the Buddhist monks then? Oh yeah because you somehow believe only catholic priests suffer from this celibacy related problem. How come that?because its part of the culture of many such celibate priests."An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions."
We dealt with the false "endemic" argument back before gigino did a runner from the thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73077537&postcount=1261cybercellesta wrote: »From the link you posted:
What’s worse, this abuse took place with the full knowledge and backing of the Irish government and the Vatican.0 -
and so it proved in dark days gone by that Home Rule was Rome Rule,
Which is a phrase borrowed from anti catholic fundamentalist sectarian hardline Protestants who smuggled guns into Ireland. Not a very apt metaphor.and the government then was under the control of / afraid of the Church.
If you have any evidence the Vatican controlled the State in a cover up of abuse then care to produce it?Thankfully the UN and the Taoiseach are now not totally afraid to stand up to the Church. Thankfully times have changed.
The Taoiseach and Tainiste made a mistake in their claims and Kenny has climbed down on it. The points you raise are dealt with elsewhere.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74226588&postcount=48
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74230038&postcount=63
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74257992&postcount=90
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74286558&postcount=1160 -
Advertisement
-
the big problem is that the catholic church just does not get it,they do not believe that child abuse is that big a thing,
It is a Church position that it is always wrong and has been for thousands of years. How much more can you "get it"?look at england and wales for instance,since 2001, 22 catholic priests have been convicted for child abuse and sentenced to more than one year in prison,
Source?
What age were the victims? were they pre pubescent. We are discussing pedophiles in particular. did the abuse happen since 2001 or do the cases date back decades.
I am not conversant with UK statistics.
I assume these were under Search Sexual Offences Act 2003. How many were rape, how many assault and how many were of a victim under 13 years of age?
Over the same period how many rapes or indecent assaults happened in the UK? More than 22? More than 220? More than 2200?
Well if you look here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary
you will find:
page 61Analysis of
the 2009/10 BCS self-completion module showed that only 11 per cent of victims of serious
sexual assault told the police about the incident (Smith et al., 2011). There were 54,982
sexual offences recorded by the police in 2010/11,
This suggests about a 600,000 offences per year. 22 Priests over ten years is about 2 per year. This is about 0.006 per cent of offences.
I don't know. I doubt any are in active priesthood. No priest can have Holy Orders removed.over half of them still remain in church priesthood,only nine of them have been dismissed, why ?
Care to list the 13 and we can go through them case by case.
We don't however have space to go through the 600,000 cases of non priests but I assume more than 13 of them are walking the streets.StudentDad wrote: »Ah yes the redress board • we won't admit liability • but if you come along sign a non-disclosure agreement • we'll give you some money so you can piss off and leave us alone • Fantastic!
As opposed to the Australian and UK State examples where people got less or died before the legal process was exhausted?The victims get a cheque, a pat on the head and nobody in the church is held accountable.
Victims are free to take legal cases or opt for the "fasttrack" method wher they fdon't require proof.
False premise.If the church is unwilling to admit liability why pay anything?
The church isn't unwilling to admit liability. It isn't however willing to say there is/was widespread abuse which the Vatican conspired to cover up because that isn't true.
SD
And we are back to the false "celibacy causes child abuse" argument. Why not go and pick on the Buddhist monks then? Oh yeah because you somehow believe only catholic priests suffer from this celibacy related problem. How come that?because its part of the culture of many such celibate priests."An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys' institutions."
We dealt with the false "endemic" argument back before gigino did a runner from the thread. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73077537&postcount=1261
[/Quote]cybercellesta wrote: »From the link you posted:
What’s worse, this abuse took place with the full knowledge and backing of the Irish government and the Vatican.
Not a false premise. The redress board was a vehicle to sweep church crimes under the carpet and not have to worry that at some point in the future the church would have to deal with a full criminal trial where the names of abusers would be read into the public record. Further to that the church would be unable to contain the flow of information stemming from such actions. There would be the fear that if a conviction was obtained further prosecutions may follow. So please don't dress it up as if the church was doing the victims a favour.
By settling the way it did the church avoided its responsibility to the people who were in their care and ensured that the bill would be smaller.
This is how I expect a corporation to behave, not a church
SD0 -
SD
1. please reformat you message to remove your attribution of yourself saying my lines.
2. please dont cut and paste ALL my message and only include the parts you whant to quote
you can just put "[" a square bracket "quote]" before
and "[" a square bracket "/quote]" after the parts you want to quote and cut out the rest.StudentDad wrote: »Not a false premise. The redress board was a vehicle to sweep church crimes under the carpet and not have to worry that at some point in the future the church would have to deal with a full criminal trial where the names of abusers would be read into the public record.
That isn't true because the same people could have taken a legal case if they wished. The redress board ponly meant the legal option would be set aside for those taking that option in order to speed up the process. The option of a full criminal trial was still ther for those who wanted it. In Ireland "class action" law suits do not exist in law.Further to that the church would be unable to contain the flow of information stemming from such actions. There would be the fear that if a conviction was obtained further prosecutions may follow.
But as i stated people are free to take that option. You conjecture that the Church control court decisions or that "it must be true but we can't see it" is about as useful as all the claims of WMD in Iraq.So please don't dress it up as if the church was doing the victims a favour.
Well if that is true why did the "victims" ( many of which might be false claims) not adopt the court route which you claim was preferable?By settling the way it did the church avoided its responsibility to the people who were in their care and ensured that the bill would be smaller.
You have already been shown compensation from State legal processess in the UK and Australia was comparitively smaller. The fact that lawyers increase the over all bill in addition to whatever compensation is paid out is additional to the lower compensation by relying on the courts only option.This is how I expect a corporation to behave, not a church
SD
If you had the actual facts to back up your argument you might have a point but already the Australian and UK lower compensation facts have been offered which refute you claim.0 -
SD
1. please reformat you message to remove your attribution of yourself saying my lines.
2. please dont cut and paste ALL my message and only include the parts you whant to quote
you can just put "[" a square bracket "quote]" before
and "[" a square bracket "/quote]" after the parts you want to quote and cut out the rest.StudentDad wrote: »Not a false premise. The redress board was a vehicle to sweep church crimes under the carpet and not have to worry that at some point in the future the church would have to deal with a full criminal trial where the names of abusers would be read into the public record.
That isn't true because the same people could have taken a legal case if they wished. The redress board ponly meant the legal option would be set aside for those taking that option in order to speed up the process. The option of a full criminal trial was still ther for those who wanted it. In Ireland "class action" law suits do not exist in law.Further to that the church would be unable to contain the flow of information stemming from such actions. There would be the fear that if a conviction was obtained further prosecutions may follow.
But as i stated people are free to take that option. You conjecture that the Church control court decisions or that "it must be true but we can't see it" is about as useful as all the claims of WMD in Iraq.So please don't dress it up as if the church was doing the victims a favour.
Well if that is true why did the "victims" ( many of which might be false claims) not adopt the court route which you claim was preferable?By settling the way it did the church avoided its responsibility to the people who were in their care and ensured that the bill would be smaller.
You have already been shown compensation from State legal processess in the UK and Australia was comparitively smaller. The fact that lawyers increase the over all bill in addition to whatever compensation is paid out is additional to the lower compensation by relying on the courts only option.This is how I expect a corporation to behave, not a church
SD
If you had the actual facts to back up your argument you might have a point but already the Australian and UK lower compensation facts have been offered which refute you claim.
Firstly, this jurisdiction is not bound by the rulings in Australia or New Zealand, so it does not follow that an Irish court will necessarily award the same level of damages.
Secondly, the church is a monolithic institution that has almost limitless resources when compared to your average victim of the church.
Thirdly, when presented with an ogres choice what would you expect a victim to do?
If anything has come out of this it's the fact that the church doesn't give a tuppeny damn about those people harmed in its care.
If it did it would not have acted as it has. Hand wringing and cringing apologies do not cut it.
SD0 -
I'll ask you again
1. please reformat you message to remove your attribution of yourself saying my lines.
In case you didn't understand that above you are using my lines and attributing them to yourself
2. please don't cut and paste ALL my message and only include the parts you want to quote
You just ignored that point didn't you?StudentDad wrote: »Firstly, this jurisdiction is not bound by the rulings in Australia or New Zealand, so it does not follow that an Irish court will necessarily award the same level of damages.
I didn't claim it should or should not. I pointed out that in the UK and Australia where they went to courts and paid over bucket loads to lawyers ion addition to a sum per victim we will call X and a maximum amount which we will call Y that X and Y were still much less in the UK and Australia than the X and Y offered by the Irish redress board.
Here :http://www.rirb.ie/updates_article.asp?NID=70
Can you show ANY legal court only system which paid more per victim? Particularly in countries without "class action"?Secondly, the church is a monolithic institution that has almost limitless resources when compared to your average victim of the church.
So what? That is just another unproven conspiracy theory claim. It is a circular argument and assumes what it is trying to prove i.e. that the Church is a monolithic institution of self preservation of wealth. You can't prove this by assuming to begin with that the Church is a monolithic institution of self preservation of wealth. It is a fallacy!Thirdly, when presented with an ogres choice what would you expect a victim to do?
I pointed out that many claimants may not be victims at all. I would naturally expect the fakers to take the easier path... which isn't the "courts only" one!
If you ae claiming the courts offer a more just system then it is up to people to take it. But you can't claim it is a better system and then also claim you expect people will take the less difficult "better" system of the redress board.If anything has come out of this it's the fact that the church doesn't give a tuppeny damn about those people harmed in its care.
You unsupported opinion of course. Which flies in the face of the Church being adverse to the setting up a fast track system which paid more than courts only systems elsewhere.
The facts just don't agree with you wild conjecture but Im sure you won't let actual facts get in the way of your uninformed opinion..If it did it would not have acted as it has. Hand wringing and cringing apologies do not cut it.
Apparently when you ask the question if someone is sorry for something the words "I am sorry" don't actually mean anything to you . apologies from people make no difference to someone whose mind is so closed they will never believe the apology anyway.0 -
I'll ask you again
1. please reformat you message to remove your attribution of yourself saying my lines.
In case you didn't understand that above you are using my lines and attributing them to yourself
2. please don't cut and paste ALL my message and only include the parts you want to quote
You just ignored that point didn't you?StudentDad wrote: »Firstly, this jurisdiction is not bound by the rulings in Australia or New Zealand, so it does not follow that an Irish court will necessarily award the same level of damages.
I didn't claim it should or should not. I pointed out that in the UK and Australia where they went to courts and paid over bucket loads to lawyers ion addition to a sum per victim we will call X and a maximum amount which we will call Y that X and Y were still much less in the UK and Australia than the X and Y offered by the Irish redress board.
Here :http://www.rirb.ie/updates_article.asp?NID=70
Can you show ANY legal court only system which paid more per victim? Particularly in countries without "class action"?Secondly, the church is a monolithic institution that has almost limitless resources when compared to your average victim of the church.
So what? That is just another unproven conspiracy theory claim. It is a circular argument and assumes what it is trying to prove i.e. that the Church is a monolithic institution of self preservation of wealth. You can't prove this by assuming to begin with that the Church is a monolithic institution of self preservation of wealth. It is a fallacy!Thirdly, when presented with an ogres choice what would you expect a victim to do?
I pointed out that many claimants may not be victims at all. I would naturally expect the fakers to take the easier path... which isn't the "courts only" one!
If you ae claiming the courts offer a more just system then it is up to people to take it. But you can't claim it is a better system and then also claim you expect people will take the less difficult "better" system of the redress board.If anything has come out of this it's the fact that the church doesn't give a tuppeny damn about those people harmed in its care.
You unsupported opinion of course. Which flies in the face of the Church being adverse to the setting up a fast track system which paid more than courts only systems elsewhere.
The facts just don't agree with you wild conjecture but Im sure you won't let actual facts get in the way of your uninformed opinion..If it did it would not have acted as it has. Hand wringing and cringing apologies do not cut it.
Apparently when you ask the question if someone is sorry for something the words "I am sorry" don't actually mean anything to you . apologies from people make no difference to someone whose mind is so closed they will never believe the apology anyway.
Ah here we go, I won't just accept what you and the church say as gospel, so I'm closeminded. That's funny.
You present statistics as if that's all you need to do. That's not good enough.
Regarding the payment of money to victims whatever the amount, that's not good enough either. What the victims want is justice, not cash. Money will not restore their childhoods, or repair the damage done.
You can say what you like about the church not behaving like a monolithic entity concerned solely with it's lands and property. As far as I can see, that is how it behaves. Again a Bishop or priest saying 'we're really really sorry' isn't good enough.
SD0 -
Ill ask you a third time and after that ill just complain about you.
1. please reformat i.e. EDIT IT your message to remove or reformat your attribution using my comment and attributing them to yourself
2. please don't cut and paste ALL od another message and try to include the parts you want to quote. That's what the quote function of for.StudentDad wrote: »Ah here we go, I won't just accept what you and the church say as gospel, so I'm closeminded. That's funny.
funny but true. See point 2 above.You present statistics as if that's all you need to do. That's not good enough.
If you have some actual facts which you can post in defence of your position and not just unsupported opinion then that certainly isn't good enough. why do you propose a lesser standard for yourself that you demand of others?
Why do you contradict yourself by saying the church view is not to be accepted but apparently your uninformed opinion is?Regarding the payment of money to victims whatever the amount, that's not good enough either.
Good enough for what? what else should be done?
They pay in excess of state enquiries elsewhere.
They issue apologies, change reporting procedures and bring in child protection policies
They do this in advance and to a higher level than the State and non State agencies.
What more do you want?What the victims want is justice, not cash.
Well then why are you harping on about courts rather then redress boards? In them you get the law and cash and not justice.Money will not restore their childhoods, or repair the damage done.
Your point being? How is this relevant to courts being a better option for victims when by the very use of the process victims prefer not to exercise the court option?You can say what you like about the church not behaving like a monolithic entity concerned solely with it's lands and property.
You miss the point... it is a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning" to say something is proven true based on that conclusion being the initial assumption!As far as I can see, that is how it behaves.
And apparently you see no forther than your own nose since you depend on uninformed opinion and not fact. Well maybe not "uninformed" ..."informed by myth history" might be true as well.Again a Bishop or priest saying 'we're really really sorry' isn't good enough.
Again that was not the issue! Saying the church does not care is one thing So suppose you are asked what you expect and you say "I expect them to care and be sorry and say so" And then you are told "But they did say so" your reply is "I dont believe them and that isn't good enough anyway" and when asked "why not believe them " you say "I believe they are not sorry"
You have combined circular reasoning with "only true Scotsman"
Look them up.0 -
Ill ask you a third time and after that ill just complain about you.
1. please reformat i.e. EDIT IT your message to remove or reformat your attribution using my comment and attributing them to yourself
2. please don't cut and paste ALL od another message and try to include the parts you want to quote. That's what the quote function of for.StudentDad wrote: »Ah here we go, I won't just accept what you and the church say as gospel, so I'm closeminded. That's funny.
funny but true. See point 2 above.You present statistics as if that's all you need to do. That's not good enough.
If you have some actual facts which you can post in defence of your position and not just unsupported opinion then that certainly isn't good enough. why do you propose a lesser standard for yourself that you demand of others?
Why do you contradict yourself by saying the church view is not to be accepted but apparently your uninformed opinion is?Regarding the payment of money to victims whatever the amount, that's not good enough either.
Good enough for what? what else should be done?
They pay in excess of state enquiries elsewhere.
They issue apologies, change reporting procedures and bring in child protection policies
They do this in advance and to a higher level than the State and non State agencies.
What more do you want?What the victims want is justice, not cash.
Well then why are you harping on about courts rather then redress boards? In them you get the law and cash and not justice.Money will not restore their childhoods, or repair the damage done.
Your point being? How is this relevant to courts being a better option for victims when by the very use of the process victims prefer not to exercise the court option?You can say what you like about the church not behaving like a monolithic entity concerned solely with it's lands and property.
You miss the point... it is a logical fallacy called "circular reasoning" to say something is proven true based on that conclusion being the initial assumption!As far as I can see, that is how it behaves.
And apparently you see no forther than your own nose since you depend on uninformed opinion and not fact. Well maybe not "uninformed" ..."informed by myth history" might be true as well.Again a Bishop or priest saying 'we're really really sorry' isn't good enough.
Again that was not the issue! Saying the church does not care is one thing So suppose you are asked what you expect and you say "I expect them to care and be sorry and say so" And then you are told "But they did say so" your reply is "I dont believe them and that isn't good enough anyway" and when asked "why not believe them " you say "I believe they are not sorry"
You have combined circular reasoning with "only true Scotsman"
Look them up.
If those who abused people in the care of the church, or knew about it and did nothing, publically confessed, on the altar, world wide, in detail. Then I might take any 'apology' seriously.
SD0 -
You are correct, StudentDad.StudentDad wrote: »You can say what you like about the church not behaving like a monolithic entity concerned solely with it's lands and property. As far as I can see, that is how it behaves.
SD
The cause of the Catholic clergy's sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?
Because the Roman Catholic Church is more concerned with its lands and property. They do not want partners and large families living in church property. The fact ibrothers and priests are all male has traditionally attracted the type of man who prefers male company. The fact the hierarchy covered up cases of sex abuse in this all male club - as shown by example in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case shows it has been a safe have for certain individuals. Sad but true. Many people have been affected by abusing priests / religous from the Catholic church. Isaw is not the only one. The fact this thread has got 2157 replies, probably more than all the other threads in "Christianity" put together, shows there is widespread concern about the abuse committed by the Church in Ireland. I cannot understand why someone would justify or defend such abuse. <snip!>0 -
You are correct, StudentDad.
The cause of the Catholic clergy's sex-abuse scandal is no mystery: insular groups of men often do bad things. So why not break up the all-male club?
Again missing the point! Why do you selectively apply this only to Catholics? why not apply it to other celibate non catholic priests? and why only to men? Why not all women groups? and why not to non church e.g. men only or women only golf clubs?
Can you tell me the difference between an anti Catholic bigot and someone who applies one standard to critique only Catholics and a different standard to everyone else?Because the Roman Catholic Church is more concerned with its lands and property. They do not want partners and large families living in church property.
But that has nothing to do with the issue of child abuse. Other clergy are married and have higher rates of child abuse than Roman Catholics whether or not they own the property in which they are living.The fact brothers and priests are all male has traditionally attracted the type of man who prefers male company.
But even if true how is that in any way significant? Unless you claim a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. do you?The fact the hierarchy covered up cases of sex abuse in this all male club
That isn't a fact that is a myth. In very rare instances some bishops didnt report crimes or assist the police.- as shown by example in the Fr. Brendan Smyth case shows it has been a safe have for certain individuals. Sad but true.
Smyth was not one of these cases. The hierarchy i.e. the Vatican didn't cover up. His Abbot did t some extent but the family and the lack oif trust in the RUC and the non existance of an extradition treaty added to the problems. In the final analysis when the State did bring in extradition it was a delay in the state Solicitor and AG's office ( nothing to do with the Church) which held up the case.Many people have been affected by abusing priests / religous from the Catholic church.
and? Many people have been affected by non religious abusers too, The poiint is that whether religious or non religious being affected is not proof of a Vatican cover up as claimed!Isaw is not the only one. The fact this thread has got 2157 replies, probably more than all the other threads in "Christianity" put together, shows there is widespread concern about the abuse committed by the Church in Ireland.
Your point being? THe fact that less than one percent of abusers are priests but at least 50% of the coverage or more is about priests suggests this "widespread concern2 is mis directed.I cannot understand why someone would justify or defend such abuse. Maybe ISAW's name should be changed to ISAWNOTHING ?
I can not understand why you think I ever anywhere justified or defended or denied child sex abuse and I demand you take back this scurrilous accusation!0 -
Advertisement
-
Because Catholic clergy and Brothers are a large group of celibate people - well, not that large - there are probably only a few thousand priests in the country - but there have been many cases of sex abuse and child abuse levelled against people from this celibate group. Even the Taoiseach had strong things to say in the Dail about a month ago. Other groups eg golf clubs ( as you mention them ) do not have instances of their hierarchy shielding the offenders. There must be what - a hundred thousand golfers, if not hundreds of thousands of golfers in the country, and yet no scandals have surfaced involving golf clubs in sex scandals. In the golfing section there is not a thread with almost 2200 posts on golfing child abuse. Yet there is one with almost 2200 posts on clerical child abuse here. Maybe if golf clubs enforced life long celibacy on its male members, did not allow female involvement / members, and have a culture and hierarchy like the Church, then child sex abuse in golf clubs would be comparable with clerical child sex abuse ?Again missing the point! Why do you selectively apply this only to Catholics? why not apply it to other celibate non catholic priests? and why only to men? Why not all women groups? and why not to non church e.g. men only or women only golf clubs?
Have you statistics for that ? Here in the Republic of Ireland most if not all clerical abuse seems to have been committed by Catholic clergy.Other clergy are married and have higher rates of child abuse than Roman Catholics whether or not they own the property in which they are living.0
Advertisement