Mass unmarked grave for 800 babies in Tuam

kylith

Spring Onion wrote: »

What I don't understand is this - does anyone in the Catholic church have any cop on? I am not including that vile man Sean Brady in that question.
But the rest of them know that now is the time to come clean about all their "crimes" and try to salvage something from the ruins of their organisation. There must be many people in the church hierarchy that knew they had children buried in mass graves with no recognition - surely that kept them awake at night? Why didn't they admit it and apologise and then fix it?
Are they dumb animals or what?

I see it like a man who is having an affair. His wife found out about his previous affairs but if he swears to her that he's not having another one maybe she won't find out, even though she's already suspicious.

The RCC has had people find out about some of its atrocities, but if they swear to us that this pile of tiny bones is the very last pile of bones and that they have nothing else to hide then maybe we won't find out about any of the other skeletons they have hidden away.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

I Heart Internet / jank

Just want to ask you both some questions
1. Do you think the catholic church's handling of the previous sex abuse cases and investigations have been done to an acceptable and good standards?

No. It's been handled in a manner that could not have been worse, even if one tried.

Cabaal wrote: »

2. Do you think it is ok for the Vatican to refuse to co-operate with the UN investigations.

I must admit to not knowing the details of the interaction and how/on what grounds the Vatican refuse to co-operate. But generally, no, it's not OK at all.

Cabaal wrote: »

3. Do you think it is acceptable for a Sean Brady to remain in his position given his involvement in a previous abuse cover up and his awareness of victims of abuse and their details which could have allowed him to stop victims from being abused by a particular priest.

No. He should have been sacked long ago. He's not, given his past failings in the area, and appropriate person to lead the RCC's response to abuse.

Cabaal wrote: »

4. Do you think its acceptable for the Vatican to stand idly by and say nothing to the catholic organisations that have refused to meet their commitments to the victim compensation scheme.

No. it should light a fire under them.

Cabaal wrote: »

Surely if the Vatican can comment on a countrys laws, then its not a big deal for them to give direction to a catholic organisation that they have far closer links to?

Yes.

Cabaal wrote: »

You're both great for calling for investigations for this case, but lets see some meaningful responses to the questions outlined above.

I don't see what many, if not all, of the above questions have to do with the Tuam case we've been discussing. But happy to answer your queries.

Cabaal wrote: »

You don't seem particularly outraged about all this in alot of people's eye's in this thread

I am outraged, and I want to find out the truth. I'm so outraged that I want to find out all the facts and act on them.

robindch

Spring Onion wrote: »

What I don't understand is this - does anyone in the Catholic church have any cop on?

At this point, I'm inclined to think there are very few indeed - Diarmuid Martin seems much the best of them; I'm sure there are more, but their voices are not heard.

The rest of the people on the RCC benches are those like Quinn, Waters, McKevitt, Breda O'Brien and the rest of them. Unapologetic, spewy, shrill, finger-pointing, sophistic whataboutists of the worst kind. I have no idea why the decent people who make up the vast majority of churchgoers allow these people to represent them.

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

The rest of the people on the RCC benches are those like Quinn, Waters, McKevitt, Breda O'Brien and the rest of them........ I have no idea why the decent people who make up the vast majority of churchgoers allow these people to represent them.

The people you list are individual columnists and commentators. They are also (I think) individual catholics. They are not spokespeople for the Catholic Church. The only people who tend to maintain that they are, are people who dislike them.

They do not represent the Catholic Church (or, for that matter, me). And I don't think they ever claim to.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

And I don't think they ever claim to.

Nonetheless they are (a) the loudest and most persistent voices to be heard and (b) nobody has denied that they talk for the catholic church, despite their not being involved with managing it and (c) nobody in the catholic church seems to disagree with what they say.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The people you list are individual columnists and commentators. They are also (I think) individual catholics. They are not spokespeople for the Catholic Church. The only people who tend to maintain that they are, are people who dislike them.

They do not represent the Catholic Church (or, for that matter, me). And I don't think they ever claim to.

But they clearly have no cop on, none the less.
It seems rather lacking with a large percentage of the actual people of power in the catholic church as well as people that represent catholic "value's".

Take this group, http://www.catholiccomment.ie

People representing Catholic comment regularly comment on The Journal when it comes to stories about gay and lesbian people, these comments don't not paint Catholics in a good light,

One thing they will never address is when they are asked why they never post comments on any of the abuse stories posted on The Journal,

They don't even post on these stories to condemn the crimes committed by nuns and/or priests, any good sane person clearly knows these actions were wrong...so why not say so?

In fairness, is it any wounder so many non-catholics see Catholics as completely uncaring and unfazed by these awful crimes?

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

Nonetheless they are (a) the loudest and most persistent voices to be heard and

They write for newspapers. It's their job to be heard. Being heard is not a failing on their part.

robindch wrote: »

(b) nobody has denied that they talk for the catholic church, despite their not being involved with managing it.

I have. I just said it right there. And, as I said, I've never heard them say or read them saying that they represent the church on any matter.

robindch wrote: »

and (c) nobody in the catholic church seems to disagree with what they say.

How do you know that?

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

In fairness, is it any wounder so many non-catholics see Catholics as completely uncaring and unfazed by these awful crimes?

It is certainly a compelling picture to paint alright. The bitter, twisted, cruel, bigotted catholics against the enlightened unbeliever.

Flippyfloppy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is certainly a compelling picture to paint alright. The bitter, twisted, cruel, bigotted catholics against the enlightened unbeliever.

You seem amused by this?

I Heart Internet

Flippyfloppy wrote: »

You seem amused by this?

Yes. Because I see it has a hopelessly silly narative.

Flippyfloppy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yes. Because I see it has a hopelessly silly narative.

Well, like it or not, the narrative that you wrote is quite apt. And it's not amusing.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Because I see it has a hopelessly silly narative.

So why did you write it then?

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It is certainly a compelling picture to paint alright. The bitter, twisted, cruel, bigotted catholics against the enlightened unbeliever.

Its hard for non-catholics to care too much about Catholics when Catholics honestly don't seem to care about the organisation they've joined and how its viewed, the very fact they don't pressure the Irish Catholic Church on matters like this shows this.

Where is your campaign for justice from the catholic church? You want to be represented in a good light, then show that things have changed, show that people care. All people see from the Irish Catholic church as a whole is forced apology's.

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

So why did you write it then?

It was a response Cabaal's point about non-catholics seeing catholics as uncaring. I was suggesting, in a tongue-in-cheek way, that this was the narritive being developed.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Where is your campaign for justice from the catholic church? You want to be represented in a good light, then show that things have changed, show that people care. All people see from the Irish Catholic church as a whole is forced apology's.

I'm not interested in optics.

I think the RCC has changed and will continue to change for the better and be more responsive and responsible for it's failures.

I'm interested in actual change, not perceptions.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It was a response Cabaal's point about non-catholics seeing catholics as uncaring. I was suggesting, in a tongue-in-cheek way, that this was the narritive being developed.

err, it was my comment you responded to.

i don't have develop anything, thats how most non-catholics see the catholic church as an organisation. An organisation that only says sorry when they are forced into it.

As for your mention of bigoted, yes they organization is. But thats not a topic for this thread so I won't go into it.

if the catholic church wants to be seen as a caring organization in modern Ireland they they must care about and take action about their past failings, failure to do so will lead to the eventually destruction of the church.

Personally i won't weep the day the catholic church in Ireland copies the catholic church in the Netherlands, but its an awful shame to see good people that do exist in the church sink with the bad people that don't care.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not interested in optics.

I think the RCC has changed and will continue to change for the better and be more responsive and responsible for it's failures.

I'm interested in actual change, not perceptions.

But where's the change?
The Vatican still refuses to co-operate with abuse investigations, this is the game they played back when Ireland was doing the Murphy Report etc.

You want it to be seen better?, then they should open their reports. What do they have to loose?.....people finding out about alot more abuse perhaps?

Is the change the new pope perhaps?

Autonomous Cowherd

robindch wrote: »

At this point, I'm inclined to think there are very few indeed - Diarmuid Martin seems much the best of them; I'm sure there are more, but their voices are not heard.

The rest of the people on the RCC benches are those like Quinn, Waters, McKevitt, Breda O'Brien and the rest of them. Unapologetic, spewy, shrill, finger-pointing, sophistic whataboutists of the worst kind. I have no idea why the decent people who make up the vast majority of churchgoers allow these people to represent them.

The ''decent people who make up the vast majority of churchgoers'' should ask them selves some serious questions. How they have not asked them before with all the buggery and abuse of those placed in their care I don't know, but at least now they have another opportunity for rational evaluation. Newsflash...the Catholic Church does not control the sole telephone line to God...the rest of us are NOT damned to Hell, these are all fairytales told to control you. You can be a decent, moral, spiritual human being who is seeking evolution to their highest consciousness and communion with God without going within a million miles of a Church. Continuing to support the organisation that has committed these crimes by attending their weekly services is akin to voting repeatedly for a cruel government and then lamenting over the atrocities they have committed. I just don't get it. Don't go back. You won't go to hell for it.

Spring Onion

robindch wrote: »

So why did you write it then?

Because he sees himself as a martyr to the Catholic cause.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

You want it to be seen better?

I want it to be better. As I said, I'm not interested in optics.

eviltwin

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

The ''decent people who make up the vast majority of churchgoers'' should ask them selves some serious questions. How they have not asked them before with all the buggery and abuse of those placed in their care I don't know, but at least now they have another opportunity for rational evaluation. Newsflash...the Catholic Church does not control the sole telephone line to God...the rest of us are NOT damned to Hell, these are all fairytales told to control you. You can be a decent, moral, spiritual human being who is seeking evolution to their highest consciousness and communion with God without going within a million miles of a Church. Continuing to support the organisation that has committed these crimes by attending their weekly services is akin to voting repeatedly for a cruel government and then lamenting over the atrocities they have committed. I just don't get it. Don't go back. You won't go to hell for it.

If the abuse of living kids wasn't enough for them I doubt the treatment of dead ones will be.

I Heart Internet

Spring Onion wrote: »

Because he sees himself as a martyr to the Catholic cause.

Nah, just someone who's not happy to stamp the file for this Tuam case with: "THE NUNS DID IT" and wash our collective hands of it.

robindch

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not interested in optics.

Based upon what you've written here this morning, I would suggest that you are interested only in optics.

Cabaal

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I want it to be better. As I said, I'm not interested in optics.

Ok, but its not better.

The church has a new slightly younger and what some people see as a more progressive pope (he is compared to the last guy in fairness),

But bottom line is outside of inviting some poor people to lunch, washing some people's feet and deciding not to sit in a gold throne he hasn't actually progressed the church at all since the last pope.

If you want to call Vatican actually blocking UN investigations as optics then go right ahead, I consider it a crime to hide evidence in this manner.

robindch

Belfast Telegraph:

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/mass-grave-of-796-babies-found-in-septic-tank-at-former-catholic-church-orphanage-in-tuam-galway-30327483.html

The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/04/children-galway-mass-graves-ireland-catholic-church

I Heart Internet

robindch wrote: »

Based upon what you've written here this morning, I would hazard that you are interested only in optics.

I thought I made it abundantly clear by now that I'm outraged by the revelations and allegations emerging from Tuam.

I am not interested in mouthing-off about it without having as many facts as possible at my disposal.

I Heart Internet

Cabaal wrote: »

Ok, but its not better.

The church has a new slightly younger and what some people see as a more progressive pope (he is compared to the last guy in fairness),

But bottom line is outside of inviting some poor people to lunch, washing some people's feet and deciding not to sit in a gold throne he hasn't actually progressed the church at all since the last pope.

If you want to call Vatican actually blocking UN investigations as optics then go right ahead, I consider it a crime to hide evidence in this manner.

The Irish Catholic Church is now perhaps the safest organisation in the country for children to be involved with. I call that progress.

Zubeneschamali

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I am not interested in mouthing-off about it without having as many facts as possible at my disposal.

So stop?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm not interested in optics.

I think the RCC has changed and will continue to change for the better and be more responsive and responsible for it's failures.

I'm interested in actual change, not perceptions.

Responsible for its failures? You have got to be joking. If this mass grave hadn't been uncovered would the RCC have told people about its existence? Will it now reveal if there are more mass graves? Will it out the priests who were abusing children and ex communicate them? Will it stop the abuses that continue to occur in less developed regions of the world at the hands of priests? Will it ever actually hold its hand up and apologize without being forced by media pressure? Will it ever contribute to victim compensation funds? Will it co operate with UN investigations? Would you like me to go on?

The RCC could not be less responsible for its actions. Its evils have to be dragged kicking and screaming to public attention, and even then we get no real action from the higher ups in the church. All we ever get is apologists like you who seem to want to sweep this under the carpet and apportion blame to anyone except the perpetrators. The entire RCC makes me sick to my stomach.

Kiwi in IE

The Iona Institute must be appalled and horrified about this case given their 'concern' for the welfare of children and 'families'.

Then I remembered that 'children' only matter when they are not children at all but unwanted zygotes and foetuses, or if there is any potential that they may be adopted by gay parents.

Why are so many blind to the supposed 'morals' of the Catholic church?