Prime Time last week. Parish Priest and Serial Abuser Walsh

JimiTime

Its crazy, I was born and raised in Ballyfermot, the parish of the serial abuser, Walsh. By the time I was in School, he had been moved, but his infamy as the 'Elvis' priest remained.

Here's the thing. I have a friend who's in his fifties who recalls Walsh, and we were only talking about him the other night after Prime Time's programme about him. He said that loads of people knew what he did at the time, other clergy, members of the community etc, yet he was still treated with reverence.:eek: I was flabbergasted! Such a fear existed of the RCC, that even the community allowed it to go on. I was completely shocked!

Not only did the RCC hierarchy enable him to abuse, and provide him with victims, but the community knew it was happening and done nothing??!!

I grew up at a time when the RCC's grip on the country was slipping steadily, so I've only got the stories of when the RCC had such power over the people. It seems that this great shame of abuse perpetrated and covered up by the RC clergy, is also a great shame on both the state and the communities that knew and done nothing. Its so frightening, so sad, and so frightening.

SonOfAdam

And that is the real tragedy in all of this; that they were allowed to continue to abuse even after it was discovered they were abusers. The attitude of the 'church' towards victims, where in some circles were deemed as culpable as the perpetrator, is truly shocking but should not surprise in a fallen world where self-interest is king. Unfortunately, attitudes won't change while damage limitation is preferable to repentance.

antiskeptic

SonOfAdam wrote: »

Unfortunately, attitudes won't change while damage limitation is preferable to repentance.

Every cloud has a silver lining. Folk aren't stupid: they know when the truth is being twisted and spun to own end. Which can only further damage the structure the twister resides in.

Fr. McNamee (of Murphy Report infamy) was called Father Smack My Gee by the kids who used the pool (of all things) he had built at his house. It's the kind of thing which might have sounded like a nickname to our parents at the time. Hopefully parents in future will pay more attention to the subtleties

ubertrad

antiskeptic wrote: »

Every cloud has a silver lining. Folk aren't stupid: they know when the truth is being twisted and spun to own end. Which can only further damage the structure the twister resides in.

Fr. McNamee (of Murphy Report infamy) was called Father Smack My Gee by the kids who used the pool (of all things) he had built at his house. It's the kind of thing which might have sounded like a nickname to our parents at the time. Hopefully parents in future will pay more attention to the subtleties

What's a gee? I might be a parent some day, so I need to be initiated into the subtleties.

A priest should not have a swimming pool at his house, inviting local kids around nor do Elvis impersonations. St. John Vianney would be scandalised.

antiskeptic

ubertrad wrote: »

What's a gee? I might be a parent some day, so I need to be initiated into the subtleties.

A priest should not have a swimming pool at his house, inviting local kids around nor do Elvis impersonations. St. John Vianney would be scandalised.

Gee was the universally known name for a vagina when I was a lad. Indeed, when told by someone that the real name for a gee was a vagina I didn't believe him.

A priest shouldn't be abusing kids is the full stop of what should and shouldn't be. Just prior to that we have a system of church that allows priests to build private pools- that shouldn't be either.

Whether or not the shrivelled mortal remains of a man are scandalised comes somewhere towards the bottom of the list of concerns. I would have thought.

Dempo1

Its appalling stuff and Tony Walsh was the worst of the very worst. I am concerned about the History of Pedophile priests seemingly posted to Ballyfermot. Another notorious abuser, Bill Carney was also posted there and there have been suggestions in the media of a pedophile ring involving Carney and a number of other priests.

ubertrad

Dempo1 wrote: »

Its appalling stuff and Tony Walsh was the worst of the very worst. I am concerned about the History of Pedophile priests seemingly posted to Ballyfermot. Another notorious abuser, Bill Carney was also posted there and there have been suggestions in the media of a pedophile ring involving Carney and a number of other priests.

Most of the abuse was actually homosexual predation. Not sure about the Walsh case but I would expect it would be the same.

In America, the vast majority of the abuse cases were homosexual predation.

AhSureTisGrand

ubertrad wrote: »

Most of the abuse was actually homosexual predation. Not sure about the Walsh case but I would expect it would be the same.

In America, the vast majority of the abuse cases were homosexual predation.

Ah yes, blame homosexuality. Ignore the fact that priests had greater access to boys, and that sexual abuse is about control rather than the buttsecks itself

Fanny Cradock

ubertrad wrote: »

Most of the abuse was actually homosexual predation. Not sure about the Walsh case but I would expect it would be the same.

In America, the vast majority of the abuse cases were homosexual predation.

Not sure what the significance of this is. Crimes were committed and they were covered up.

Dempo1

ubertrad wrote: »

Most of the abuse was actually homosexual predation. Not sure about the Walsh case but I would expect it would be the same.

In America, the vast majority of the abuse cases were homosexual predation.

I'm not entirely sure why you mentioning homosexuality in relation to my contribution to this thread, i raised the spectra of a pedophile ring operating in Ballyfermot parish by a number of Priests, thankfully now defrocked, most notably Bill Carney.

In relation to your bizarre point, Bill Carney had no preferences, any child would do, an extremely nasty individual.

ubertrad

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Ah yes, blame homosexuality. Ignore the fact that priests had greater access to boys, and that sexual abuse is about control rather than the buttsecks itself

The thing is multi-faceted. Child sex-abuse is about defilement and this is an act of hatred by sick and wicked men, many of whom were themselves abused in childhood. But much of the abuse, according to the John Jay Report in the USA, was of a different nature: predatory homosexuality. This is really then homosexual rape/seduction/initiation, which in no way diminishes the gravity of the crime nor the vile wickedness of the practitioner. But we need to understand what happened and why if it is to be prevented from happening again.

I think a lot of politically correct thinking prevails, including within the Catholic Church, which prevents the Church addressing the core issues.

Read the article I posted above (I know most people don't read links on forums!)

Zombrex

ubertrad wrote: »

Most of the abuse was actually homosexual predation. Not sure about the Walsh case but I would expect it would be the same.

In America, the vast majority of the abuse cases were homosexual predation.

Er, that article is blaming homosexuality for child abuse and making a not so veiled attempt to link homosexuality with child abuse (and blaming research into this for apparently trying to cover this up in the interests of political correctness)

If that isn't your point I would suggest you distance yourself such positions.

If that is your point I wish you good luck on Boards, as I might wish a condemned man about to face 20 lions in a pit ...

ubertrad

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, that article is blaming homosexuality for child abuse and making a not so veiled attempt to link homosexuality with child abuse (and blaming research into this for apparently trying to cover this up in the interests of political correctness)

If that isn't your point I would suggest you distance yourself such positions.

If that is your point I wish you good luck on Boards, as I might wish a condemned man about to face 20 lions in a pit ...

Lifesitenews is a reliable outlet for news. I trust also in the research which produced the John Jay Report in the USA which supports what I have said.

Lion, where is thy bite?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

georgieporgy

Am I to understand that none of these abusers were homosexuals?

Or to reword it for absolute clarity, were they all heterosexuals?

or shall we hush it up to avoid a scandal?

or is it something wishy washy like maybe they were or maybe they were not but it doesn't make a difference because one is not supposed to ask questions like that. (at least I'm glad they weren't jewish or we'd be into charges of anti semitism).

AhSureTisGrand

ubertrad wrote: »

Lifesitenews is a reliable outlet for news.

Opinion is not news

efb

Homosexuality is post pubesent.
Prior to puberty its paedophela.

ubertrad

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But that is just it - in America most of the victims were male, aged between 11-14.

If you look at the writings of the homosexual culture, you will indeed find that many are attracted to males of various ages. Oscar Wilde, for instance.

I don't think human sexuality is quite as compartmentalised as you would like to think. I am sure many men have felt attractions for young ladies which would be quite criminal if acted upon. You know, that is why God gave us Commandments!!

The PC crowd will have us tiptoe around the truth, but the dog in the street knows that the emperor has no clothes.

zoomtard

Plowman, what you fail to realise is that somehow connecting paedophilia to homosexuality will help the Catholic Church deal with the scandal of innocent children abused by its priests who were called to serve in persona Christi.

Still, don't feel bad. It would take a rare bit of logic to make the connection fit.

I am at my most unecumenical when I encounter arguments of the style Ubertrad is currently espousing but I don't wish to derail the thead.

Can I ask if anyone has considered a possible connection between the socio-economic deprivation in Ballyfermot at the time of these abuse cases (especially in terms of political or cultural influence of the average Catholic person in Ballyer) and the trend of putting what they used to call "troublesome" priests there?

AhSureTisGrand

georgieporgy wrote: »

Am I to understand that none of these abusers were homosexuals?

Or to reword it for absolute clarity, were they all heterosexuals?

or shall we hush it up to avoid a scandal?

or is it something wishy washy like maybe they were or maybe they were not but it doesn't make a difference because one is not supposed to ask questions like that. (at least I'm glad they weren't jewish or we'd be into charges of anti semitism).

The point is you can't pin paedophilia on homosexuality. Yes of course there homosexuals who abuse children. There are gingers who abuse children too, but nobody tries to establish a link there

ubertrad

efb wrote: »

Homosexuality is post pubesent.
Prior to puberty its paedophela.

That is correct. But puberty is not a one-time event. I guess the age of 11 or 12 would be the norm for boys. Hence, most of the abuse was indeed homosexual predation.

(I've had this argument out with other people in the real world, and they can't accept the elephant in the room!)

ubertrad

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The point is you can't pin paedophilia on homosexuality. Yes of course there homosexuals who abuse children. There are gingers who abuse children too, but nobody tries to establish a link there

Nobody is doing that. What we are saying, in layman's terms, is that most of the abuse was done by men on boys who were going through puberty. Now call that what you like, but it's not pedophilia. The technical term is ephebophilia, which is attraction to adolescents, which in street terms, is homosexual attraction. You will find that in the homosexual subculture there s a pre-occupation with youthfulness.

efb

What elephant?
You seem to know alot regarding the profile of the abusers and the abused, care to detail your sources.

I would have gone for 13 to have completed puberty. 11 seems quite low.

Regardless it is illegal in this country to have sexual activity with someone under 17.

efb

ubertrad wrote: »

Nobody is doing that. What we are saying, in layman's terms, is that most of the abuse was done by men on boys who were going through puberty. Now call that what you like, but it's not pedophilia. The technical term is ephebophilia, which is attraction to adolescents, which in street terms, is homosexual attraction. You will find that in the homosexual subculture there s a pre-occupation with youthfulness.

Really I don't find that, both me and my partner are in our thirties and there doesn't seem to be the same obsession with young pop stars as some trashy magazines have with teen female stars, but I would certainly not tar all the heterosexual community with that brush.

ubertrad

efb wrote: »

What elephant?
You seem to know alot regarding the profile of the abusers and the abused, care to detail your sources.

I would have gone for 13 to have completed puberty. 11 seems quite low.

Regardless it is illegal in this country to have sexual activity with someone under 17.

John Jay Report is my main source. From the Wikipedia article:

Profile of the victims
The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.

Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila. Additionally, most of the abusers had not been abused as kids so don't fit the pedo profile of one having been abused oneself and going on to victimise others.

efb wrote: »

Really I don't find that, both me and my partner are in our thirties and there doesn't seem to be the same obsession with young pop stars as some trashy magazines have with teen female stars, but I would certainly not tar all the heterosexual community with that brush.

I don't know what your point is.

efb

I would say 73% is paedophelia

ubertrad

efb wrote: »

I would say 73% is paedophelia

There are 3 types of abuse there in that report. One is pedophilia, the other is epebophilia, whilst the rest is homosexual.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

efb

So allowing for All perpetrators being male that puts homosexual abuse at 21%

AhSureTisGrand

The Catholic Church being a male-dominated institution, boys and young menare always going to be more vulnerable to abuse. For example, until 1983, only males could be altar servers (altar boys).

Church-run all-boys schools (in every case that I know of) were run by priests, while all-girls schools were run by nuns. Thus priests would have had far greater access to boys than to girls

efb

And you are forgetting the heterosexual abuse (of minors) at 6%

AhSureTisGrand

Let's not forget either that much of the institutional abuse was non-sexual, or had sex as one aspect of many

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Fanny Cradock

zoomtard wrote: »

Can I ask if anyone has considered a possible connection between the socio-economic deprivation in Ballyfermot at the time of these abuse cases (especially in terms of political or cultural influence of the average Catholic person in Ballyer) and the trend of putting what they used to call "troublesome" priests there?

That's an interesting suggestion.

ubertrad

efb wrote: »

So allowing for All perpetrators being male that puts homosexual abuse at 21%

Where are you getting 21% from?

efb

81% of 27%

georgieporgy

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

The point is you can't pin paedophilia on homosexuality. Yes of course there homosexuals who abuse children. There are gingers who abuse children too, but nobody tries to establish a link there

I wasn't really trying to establish that link. I am merely asking what is the sexual orientation of the abusers.

For example, take a 40 year old man who abuses a 7 year old girl, can we safely assume that his sexual orientation is homo? (yeah we know he is a paedophile also). No! you object- he is obviously heterosexual (and a deviant)

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.

(what was the sexual orientation of Jeffrey Dahmer?)

StupidLikeAFox

georgieporgy wrote: »

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo[/SIZE]

I would put the reasons for those statistics being like that as-

1. The lack of physical intimacy with other people
2. The easy access priests had to young boys
3. The huge influence they had over the boys, which could be used to silence them


Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

ubertrad

georgieporgy wrote: »

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.
[/SIZE]

I can see the sense in what you are saying.

The truth is not politically correct. Many heterosexual sports coaches get into big trouble because of natural attraction to their young teenage charges. I'm not condoning it, to be sure - it is an abuse of a position of trust and so on and is damaging to the victim. But does that mean that sports coach is a pedo? I think not. Yet he will probably find himself labelled as such.

efb

georgieporgy wrote: »

I wasn't really trying to establish that link. I am merely asking what is the sexual orientation of the abusers.

For example, take a 40 year old man who abuses a 7 year old girl, can we safely assume that his sexual orientation is homo? (yeah we know he is a paedophile also). No! you object- he is obviously heterosexual (and a deviant)

if the age of the female victim is 13, 15, 17.....do we say he may be homosexual? or in fact do we say he is obviously heterosexual?

Let me make it easy and jump to the conclusion; if all the perpetrators are adult males and 90-95% of the victims are male, it's a fair bet that the sexual orientation of the abusers is homo, albeit said abusers are criminal deviants. Not all homosexuals are abusers just like not all hetersexuals are abusers.

(what was the sexual orientation of Jeffrey Dahmer?)

Georgie as detailed earlier it has to post pubescent to be considered homosexuality

ubertrad

ColHol wrote: »

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

Watch it that branch is awful high up!

Check this:
http://www.reformation.com/

Bear in mind also most pedophilia happens in the family home.

efb wrote: »

Georgie as detailed earlier it has to post pubescent to be considered homosexuality

Puberty is not a discrete, one-time event. It's a process.

Zombrex

ubertrad wrote: »

Now we can see that 22% was authentic pedophilia, but the 11-14 and 15-17 age ranges, which made up the majority of the victims, well they were teenagers and what I would describe as young men. That is homosexual abuse, not pedophila.

No it isn't, it is hebephilia abuse.

After hebephilia you have ephebophilia (teenagers not yet adult men/women).

Homosexuality is a form of teleiophilia (adult attraction).

Both hebephilia and ephebophilia abuse can fall under the term child abuse, given that it is sexual contact with a minor.

I stress the "abuse" part. Simply having hebephilia attraction is not in of itself illegal. Acting on it is.

A priest having sex with a 12 year old boy is no more homosexual abuse than him having sex with a 12 year old girl is heterosexual abuse, and studies into paedophila abuse and hebephilia have given indication that in a lot of abusers there is no teleiophilia present (ie they don't have attraction to adult men or adult women at all)

Zombrex

ColHol wrote: »

Im gonna go out on a limb and say that if priests were allowed to marry they wouldnt have had the same pent up sexual urges which were acted out on these kids.

That is unlikely. Pedophilia or hebephilia tends to be the primary philia (sexual attraction) of the abuser. They tend (not always mind) not to have any adult sexual attraction preference.

This is why, as has been pointed out, you tend not to get a child abuser priest also found to regularly use prostitutes.

It would be probably inaccurate to say that priesthood causes this. A more plausible explanation would be those with such anti-social philia preferences attempt to hide out in the priesthood, where their lack of adult sexual relationships will not seem surprising and they have access to children.

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

No it isn't, it is hebephilia abuse.

After hebephilia you have ephebophilia (teenagers not yet adult men/women).

Homosexuality is a form of teleiophilia (adult attraction).

Both hebephilia and ephebophilia abuse can fall under the term child abuse, given that it is sexual contact with a minor.

I stress the "abuse" part. Simply having hebephilia attraction is not in of itself illegal. Acting on it is.

A priest having sex with a 12 year old boy is no more homosexual abuse than him having sex with a 12 year old girl is heterosexual abuse, and studies into paedophila abuse and hebephilia have given indication that in a lot of abusers there is no teleiophilia present (ie they don't have attraction to adult men or adult women at all)

And lets not forget, whatever fancy title you may wish to give it, it is still rape and sexual assault.

MrP

Zombrex

MrPudding wrote: »

And lets not forget, whatever fancy title you may wish to give it, it is still rape and sexual assault.

MrP

Agreed.

The issue is that, in a sort of bizarre attempt at deflection, some in the Catholic community, even in the Vatican, have been attempting to link the sexual abuse of minors with homosexuality and then extend that link to the gradual acceptance of homosexuality in society.

It is like they are trying to say this isn't our fault, we warned people that homosexuality was bad the rest of you didn't listen and started to tolerate homosexuals and now look what happened.

If it wasn't so serious it would be high on hysterical.

I would point out this seems a very minor fringe response among Catholics. I know quite a few Catholic people and I've never met in person someone who expressed this view. It seems to confined largely to the Internet opinion-sphere.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

we warned people that homosexuality was bad the rest of you didn't listen and started to tolerate homosexuals and now look what happened.

I would point out this seems a very minor fringe response among Catholics. I know quite a few Catholic people and I've never met in person someone who expressed this view. It seems to confined largely to the Internet opinion-sphere.

The Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman is gravely sinful.

The Catholic Church holds all other sexual activity to be disordered, whether that be homosexuality, general fornication, or sexual abuse. It's all sin.

Homosexuality is just one element on a sliding scale of sin. Your little summary above, in bold, is not far from the mark.

You won't find many everyday Catholics who share this view, but it is the truth. I've had this conversation with others, and they are so brainwashed about the normality and acceptance of homosexuality, that they just can't accept that there were some gay priests who abused youths. They just can't make the link - it is against the way they have been trained to think. The Catholics who hold the alternative view are either common sense straight-talking people (like my brother!) or Catholics formed in their faith and not afraid to challenge the prevailing culture (like myself and others).

This is not to say that all homosexuals are abusers, nor is it about scape-goating an entire group of people, just to say that most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature. If that is the case, then the Church needs to look carefully at what happened in the Church and how to prevent it in future. I surmise that the Church knows more about humanity than any of us on boards.ie and therefore has a pretty good idea of what happened.

georgieporgy

would I be right in thinking that all these new phelia subgroups are the invention of the noble science of psychology?

I must confess I know very little about psychology ... and I intend to keep it that way. :pac:

efb

Ignorance is certainly bliss, it seems...

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman is gravely sinful.

It doesn't teach that homosexuals are more likely to abuse children though, and neither does the Bible.

Despite this that hasn't stopped some Catholics from attempting to divert attention away from the cover up of sexual abuse by priests and bishops in the church by attempting to make an unsupported link between homosexuality and the widening acceptance of homosexuality (a adult philia) and paedophilia and hebephilia abuse.

Is it a sin to be disingenuous and to mislead? If so perhaps the Catholic church should stop worrying so much about the sin of homosexuality and look at little closer to home.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

You won't find many everyday Catholics who share this view, but it is the truth.

What is the truth, that homosexuality is a sin or that homosexuals have a tendency to molest children?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I've had this conversation with others, and they are so brainwashed about the normality and acceptance of homosexuality, that they just can't accept that there were some gay priests who abused youths. They just can't make the link - it is against the way they have been trained to think.

That is probably because the link relies on a inaccurate and overly simplistic notion of sexual attraction.

One of the disadvantages for the Catholic Church with the greater acceptance of homosexuality is that there is a much lesser acceptances of outdated and inaccurate notions of homosexuals. Excuses that perhaps would have been accepted 50 or so years ago no longer stand up.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

This is not to say that all homosexuals are abusers, nor is it about scape-goating an entire group of people, just to say that most of the abuse was of a predatory homosexual nature.

Most of the abuse happened to children younger than 17. Therefore it was not homosexual in nature. No more than if I had a strong sexual desire to abuse a 15 year old girl that would be "heterosexual" in nature.

You are correct when you say that pedophilia is often inaccurately used to classify sexual desire towards children in or completing puberty.

But then you use the same sort of inaccuracy when classifying sexual desire towards pubescent children is homosexuality. It is neither the property of heterosexual attraction nor homosexual attraction to desire sexual contact with children. This is why other classifications are used for such desires.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

If that is the case, then the Church needs to look carefully at what happened in the Church and how to prevent it in future.

The Church have always known how to prevent child abuse. They have simply chosen not to to save the individuals and the organisation embarrassment.

This fixation with blaming homosexuality is just another disingenuous attempt to deflect responsibility or to claim that what was happening could not have been anticipated or prevented, or that what was happening was sanctioned outside the Church as well so it is unfair to blame the Church.

Again I'm pretty sure there is a sin in there some where ....

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

would I be right in thinking that all these new phelia subgroups are the invention of the noble science of psychology?

I must confess I know very little about psychology ... and I intend to keep it that way. :pac:

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

They are an invention of psychiatry, and thus medical terms.

I confess I am not sure of the exact link between psychiatry and psychology, other than psychiatry being a medical profession and psychology being an academic one.

Psychology is for things have gone a bit wrong, whereas psychiatry is for when the **** hits the fan.