A question about Church sexual abuse

falinn merking

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?


Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

tomwaterford

Verpiss dich wrote: »

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

My dad would be in your target age group with the question and genuinely didn't know....(but my family wouldn't be most religious going back generations anyways)

The priest in his parish growing up was seemingly shell shocked from ww1 so deffo didn't get up to anything funny



But the fact other priests known and not told anyone and kept quiet put him off going to mass

donegaLroad

It was fear. You didn't speak out against the church because of fear. Im not of that vintage op, but I know enough people who were affected, and who are not afraid to speak about it now.

Ubbquittious

Only a small few % of priests were at that kind of carry on so for most it just wasn't an issue.

The auld "all priests are kiddy fiddlers" mantra is getting a bit worn out at this stage.

falinn merking

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Only a small few % of priests were at that kind of carry on so for most it just wasn't an issue.

The auld "all priests are kiddy fiddlers" mantra is getting a bit worn out at this stage.

That is not in my post and you know it but nice strawman there.;)

Ipso

I'd say society rotted the church almost as much as the church rotted society. Irish people like a good scape goat; 800 years o f oppression, the catlick church, the bankers repeat until bored etc
Don't get me wrong, the church needs to have the abuse scandal held over its head until the end of time, but if the can of worms is completely opened there would be plenty of blame to go around.

Ubbquittious

Verpiss dich wrote: »

That is not in my post and you know it but nice strawman there.;)

Indeed it isn't but the usual suspects will be along shortly bringing with them the same auld nonsense they posted in the 100 previous threads similar to this one.

falinn merking

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Indeed it isn't but the usual suspects will be along shortly bringing with them the same auld nonsense they posted in the 100 previous threads similar to this one.

So there not here yet.

While we wait for them what do you think of the question I asked in the opening post?
What is your opinion on peoples silence and lack of action?

P. Breathnach

The revelations were a big surprise to many of those who lived through the time.

The only questionable thing of which I had even a rudimentary awareness was the Magdalen laundries, but I had no idea how harsh the regime was, nor that the women found it very hard to leave them.

FatherTed

When I went to secondary school back in the 80's run by the Christian Brothers, there was one Brother we called Brother Feeler for obvious reasons. It was well known not to be caught alone with him. He was "transferred" to another school after a few stories came out.

splinter65

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Indeed it isn't but the usual suspects will be along shortly bringing with them the same auld nonsense they posted in the 100 previous threads similar to this one.

They never get bored with how boring they are.

salmocab

We really can’t throw our current values through a time warp onto older generations. Things were different and people really saw the church as a higher authority than the law. So even though plenty knew what was going on and I’m sure plenty of them wanted to do something they probably just felt they couldn’t and that they should keep their mouths shut for fear of being pariahs In their own communities.

splinter65

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The revelations were a big surprise to many of those who lived through the time.

The only questionable thing of which I had even a rudimentary awareness was the Magdalen laundries, but I had no idea how harsh the regime was, nor that the women found it very hard to leave them.

The women couldn’t leave because they had no where to go.
Their families who had dumped them in the convent in the first place definitely didn’t want them back .

falinn merking

salmocab wrote: »

We really can’t throw our current values through a time warp onto older generations. Things were different and people really saw the church as a higher authority than the law. So even though plenty knew what was going on and I’m sure plenty of them wanted to do something they probably just felt they couldn’t and that they should keep their mouths shut for fear of being pariahs In their own communities.

A bit like saying something very un PC these days?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Verpiss dich wrote: »

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?


Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

This may surprise you and, I suspect, is not what you want to hear but the vast majority of people knew nothing about it and were as taken aback when it started to be reported. So, what did decent people do? Nothing, because they didn't know the slightest thing about it. Of course somebody did but you asked about people in general.

One eyed Jack

Verpiss dich wrote: »

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?


Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

Having talked to many people who were the victims of such abuses back then, it was simply the case that people didn't care.

Now obviously if a person didn't care, they were never going to admit that, and it's rather like the whole situation that's going on in Hollywood at the moment - everyone knew, but nobody knew.

In other words, it simply suited peoples own purposes back then, as it does now, to turn a blind eye and pretend these things don't happen any more, pretend to be shocked when it comes out that actually these things do happen, and they are still happening, and they will continue to happen.

For one simple reason - children do not have the power that adults do, and when it is reinforced in children that they have no power, it can take decades for them as adults to overcome that fear of social exclusion, humiliation and embarrassment, often times only after they feel that the perpetrators are no longer a threat to their safety, either because the perpetrators are dead, or the system in which the perpetrators thrived and were protected no longer exists.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

salmocab wrote: »

We really can’t throw our current values through a time warp onto older generations. Things were different and people really saw the church as a higher authority than the law. So even though plenty knew what was going on and I’m sure plenty of them wanted to do something they probably just felt they couldn’t and that they should keep their mouths shut for fear of being pariahs In their own communities.

You can replace 'plenty' with 'some'. Most people hadn't the foggiest notion anything was amiss.

falinn merking

Ayden Fast Dove wrote: »

This may surprise you and, I suspect, is not what you want to hear but the vast majority of people knew nothing about it and were as taken aback when it started to be reported. So, what did decent people do? Nothing, because they didn't know the slightest thing about it. Of course somebody did but you asked about people in general.

I accept your full post to be true.

A small percentage did have awareness and this small percentage was a lot of people.

stimpson

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Indeed it isn't but the usual suspects will be along shortly bringing with them the same auld nonsense they posted in the 100 previous threads similar to this one.

Sorry I’m late. Anyway, I think Fr Ted put it best:

Not all Catholic priests are paedophiles. Let’s say there are 200 million priests in the world and 5% are paedophiles, that is only ten million.

I’ll stop spouting the same old nonsense when the church open their files on the pedophine priests, pay the pitifully small amount of damages they agreed to and hand back control of the schools and hospitals. Sorry if it makes you uncomfortable.

salmocab

Ayden Fast Dove wrote: »

You can replace 'plenty' with 'some'. Most people hadn't the foggiest notion anything was amiss.

Well plenty is subjective, I certainly didn’t mean to suggest a majority or even a large minority but I’d still think in relation to what happened that plenty of people knew.

Odhinn

Verpiss dich wrote: »

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?


Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

I opened my gob in the 1980's (79/80 to be precise). I was ostracised, slandered and generally portrayed as satan by both members of the religous order in question and the rest of the school for 'breaking the school code' (which meant discussing what happened in school outside school). Teachers were forbidden from talking to me unless in the strict course of their duties. The head of the order in that school was still speaking about me "in confidence" in the mid 90's, afaik. I was denied jobs, friendships and access to some medical facilities in the area. All of the bastards are dead now, but I still have to deal with the fallout.

So no, you wouldn't go complaining if you knew what was good for you.

falinn merking

Odhinn wrote: »

I opened my gob in the 1980's (79/80 to be precise). I was ostracised, slandered and generally portrayed as satan by both members of the religous order in question and the rest of the school for 'breaking the school code' (which meant discussing what happened in school outside school). Teachers were forbidden from talking to me unless in the strict course of their duties. The head of the order in that school was still speaking about me "in confidence" in the mid 90's, afaik. I was denied jobs, friendships and access to some medical facilities in the area. All of the bastards are dead now, but I still have to deal with the fallout.

So no, you wouldn't go complaining if you knew what was good for you.

Jesus.

Odhinn

Verpiss dich wrote: »

Jesus.

I'm 48 now, and there are still places I can't go. There's a lot more to it, but its best not mentioned publically. Could be worse though - I'm not on smack, I managed to (eventually )finish my education, get a job and work for two decades, the proceeds of which I saved and do me in emergencies now and have a roof over my head.

There's no way I could take on the order involved in court, given their finances and connections - they are actually conspicous by their absence from the official inquiries. Essentially it didn't and doesn't suit anyone that it comes out, given the prestige associated with most of their schools (I was a "pay what you can" student at a private school - a few were taken on each year). The priest who abused me wasn't particularily rough, and I hold no great grudge against him personally, as others were far worse. It's the blackening of my name by that order and the senior priest in that community I hate them for. By the time I tried to report again, I was 16. The gardai didn't even take notes, and said no abuse had ever taken place, leaving with a not well veiled threat or two. That being said, there were out of court payments, and I know who to, but again, I lack the resources.

looksee

I came to Ireland in 1973. My husband was a Catholic and our children were reared as Catholics. He was a teacher in a small, private boys' boarding school run by an order of priests, some of the priests would come to the house on occasion and have a cup of tea. He also had an uncle who was a priest and visited occasionally.

I had no previous experience of priests beyond the ones that very reluctantly married us abroad. I had no reason to have any opinion on them one way or another. The one or two from the school that called on us to chat were pleasant enough, and I had some interesting discussions with one in particular.

In all aspects of life the Church was there, which did get on my nerves. You could not organise anything of a social nature without there being a priest involved somewhere along the line. In one case I joined a casual, social discussion group where we talked about life, the universe and everything (but nothing contentious, like sex or women's rights) and the PP saw fit to join the group, freely admitting it was to ensure that we didn't discuss anything 'inappropriate'.

In another case the Parish Priest/Chairman was asked by the primary school management board (on which I was a Parents' Representative, which was very open minded of the parents ) to go to the DoE with a specific request. He had a different opinion, but everyone else was in agreement. We found out more or less by accident that he had actually put his own opinion rather than the Board's (and had been turned down, which destroyed our options). We could do nothing about it as the DoE would not talk to anyone but the Chairman - the priest. He thought he knew best, the department thought he knew best and there was nothing anyone else could do about it. That was what you were up against.

However, at no time did I hear anything that might suggest any impropriety at all, not at the secondary school or the primary school, or indeed anywhere. I am not suggesting that there was nothing happening, just that I, or anyone I knew, was not aware of any issues.

I did have a run-in with a nun who wanted my daughter to write with her right hand even though she was left handed. There was no abuse, she told me that Sister said she should use her right hand, I went and had words with Sister and that was the end of that.

I know that it is difficult now to understand this level of unawareness. There are different attitudes to what is acceptable and what is not. There is an entirely different outlook on what can be repeated outside the home. There is a different approach to guilt and fault. People had far less communication with each other and discussion of what might or might not be happening was 'gossip' and not to be encouraged. Communication with 'authority' was pretty much impossible for the average person.

It is easy now to say 'why didn't people do this' or 'you should have done that'. It was a different time. It does not make anything right to say that, but time has moved on and we need to make sure that things continue to improve.

In 40 years time I wonder what the new generation will look back at and say, how could you allow it to happen.

How could you allow the Travelling community to not educate their children, to live in caravans by the roadside, to not pay tax, or whatever the mores of that future time considers to be most important?

How could you allow an education system that dictated a person's entire working life by two weeks of exams in their teens? Will they say 'could you not see how unfair - and unproductive - this was'?

How could you allow a criminal on the streets to re-offend, or imprison him/her without attempting to reehabilitate them? You must have seen how much damage they did?

How could you allow anti-social families to raise anti-social children to continue the spiral of criminality? You must have known about them?

Or any number of other things that may in the future be seen as utterly unacceptable? This is not comparing clerical child abuse with the leaving cert of course, this is trying to point out that from a distant vantage point things are much easier to sort than they were on the ground, at the time.

The church has lost a lot of its power and influence, it will eventually fizzle into insignificance. The next question is, for the benefit of those who like or need to be told how to live, what will take its place? If it becomes a toothless ceremonial as it is in many countries, maybe that will be sufficient. For the moment it is more important that the grip that it still has on some parts of life that do not concern it be loosened, so that it becomes a more accountable and manageable entity that serves, rather than controls, those parts of society that need it. That we can and are doing, and it is much more useful that trying to look back and find someone to blame.

tara73

Odhinn wrote: »

I opened my gob in the 1980's (79/80 to be precise). I was ostracised, slandered and generally portrayed as satan by both members of the religous order in question and the rest of the school for 'breaking the school code' (which meant discussing what happened in school outside school). Teachers were forbidden from talking to me unless in the strict course of their duties. The head of the order in that school was still speaking about me "in confidence" in the mid 90's, afaik. I was denied jobs, friendships and access to some medical facilities in the area. All of the bastards are dead now, but I still have to deal with the fallout.

So no, you wouldn't go complaining if you knew what was good for you.

I think this post says it all. It's always easy to be on moral high ground when times changed and ask the people from that times 'why didn't you do anything? why didn't you open your mouth.'

Solomon Pleasant

As someone who was only born in the late 90’s, I had only heard about, but never fully comprehended, the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland when the institution was at the height of it’s power.

Some of the insights on this thread are a real eye opener and have definitely given me an understanding of how much control the church really had.

falinn merking

tara73 wrote: »

I think this post says it all. It's always easy to be on moral high ground when times changed and ask the people from that times 'why didn't you do anything? why didn't you open your mouth.'

I had no idea this is the first time I heard of anybody standing up to the church.
That is why I started the thread as a question.

And that post was a shocking eyeopener.

NickNickleby

Odhinn wrote: »

I'm 48 now, and there are still places I can't go. There's a lot more to it, but its best not mentioned publically. Could be worse though - I'm not on smack, I managed to (eventually )finish my education, get a job and work for two decades, the proceeds of which I saved and do me in emergencies now and have a roof over my head.

There's no way I could take on the order involved in court, given their finances and connections - they are actually conspicous by their absence from the official inquiries. Essentially it didn't and doesn't suit anyone that it comes out, given the prestige associated with most of their schools (I was a "pay what you can" student at a private school - a few were taken on each year). The priest who abused me wasn't particularily rough, and I hold no great grudge against him personally, as others were far worse. It's the blackening of my name by that order and the senior priest in that community I hate them for. By the time I tried to report again, I was 16. The gardai didn't even take notes, and said no abuse had ever taken place, leaving with a not well veiled threat or two. That being said, there were out of court payments, and I know who to, but again, I lack the resources.

you know my own story, which I've now deleted as my identity is known to others on here.

I hope that you can get to a stage where this something you can put behind you. I think you think a little like i do, that there are 'levels' of evil, and the behaviour of the 'authorities' in this case is appalling. Not only have they failed to protect you, they have actively sought to destroy you. This witch hunt isn't some sad man with a sudden uncontrollable urge, its premeditated and dare I suggest, worse than the original offence (and of course that is not to minimise the seriousness of that either).

Good luck with everything.

One eyed Jack

Verpiss dich wrote: »

I had no idea this is the first time I heard of anybody standing up to the church.
That is why I started the thread as a question.

And that post was a shocking eyeopener.

People were standing up to, and rallying against the Church or the religious orders back then too though btw. It's simply that nobody was prepared to listen then, but the massive abandonment of the RCC in the '90's had less to do with people's revulsion to any scandals, and much more to do with the fact that people generally became wealthier - the poorer classes simply moved up to the middle classes, and the RCC simply wasn't needed any more in people's lives, and that's how the RCC lost it's power and influence in Irish society - it simply became unnecessary, and thereby became irrelevant and held in less regard than it once was.

AllForIt

I don't know but just one thing from my youth. When I was a very young my farther would threaten to send us to Letterfrack when we were bold - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Joseph%27s_Industrial_School,_Letterfrack . I recall vividly him saying things like "They'll sort ya out there" and similar comments along those lines. I also recall how I felt when he made such comments.

He had no intention of sending anyone to Letterfrack - it was just an idel threat. My farther would be a stereotypical rural Irish working class farmer who wouldn't be in any way well read, well educated or well travelled. The point is how did he know of this place when he didn't even live in the same county as the so called institution. The only explanation for me is that it was 'common knowledge'.

Odhinn

Verpiss dich wrote: »

I had no idea this is the first time I heard of anybody standing up to the church.
That is why I started the thread as a question.

And that post was a shocking eyeopener.

I might point out that had I a clue of what was going to happen, I never would have said anything.

The specific incident involved "swimming classes" led by a certain priest - a charming, well read and intelligent man, seemingly, but an arch manipulator as many molesters are. He announced in the first week that we had currently no access to the swimming pool and thus would run to 'build up strength'. After the run it was back to the school for a shower. He had selected certain boys for abuse - in hindsight most of them were also "pay what you can" students with no family connection to the school. He would select the "best boy of the week" and you'd be brought to his rooms and violated therein after the showers. I was got once, and never went back. However I remembered the scream out of one of the lads (who had brain trauma and wasn't quite right) and couldn't keep my gob shut.

I rang the gardai, they talked to the priest, and though nothing came of it for various reasons he was barred from leaving the school grounds, from teaching, and from being in a closed room with a child. This was solely because he had caused the gardai to arrive in the school, I might add. He was known as an abuser at least two years beforehand, so his crime to the order was indiscretion, rather than molestation. Another Priest there was quite open in front of me about his preference for teenage lads (my name being mud, it didn't matter what I said), but he said he preferred to "pay for his pleasure". I knew he frequented a certain place within walking distance of the school used by rent boys, but at this stage had aquired enough sense to keep that to myself.

NickNickleby

When I was a child, "you'll go to Artane" was the threat of choice. And I was living in England at the time . Now, it wasn't English people who were saying it, but rather ex-pats we knew.

CeilingFly

Society has to share blame for the church scandals.

In the 50's-70's (and before) having a gay son or a son that was interested in young children would bring shame on the family.

Talk to the right people and you were put in direction of the church and "vocation".

Hence a good few of those seeking "vocations" were gay or interested in young children, but at the same time you had many genuine priests.

It was all kept quiet especially as there was no real solution and whilst the gay priests were left to their own, those interested in children were moved from pillar to post whenever it became obvious they were being offside.

You never hear of any more recent priests (since 80's) being under suspicion as society has changed as have the church.

Odhinn

NickNickleby wrote: »

you know my own story, which I've now deleted as my identity is known to others on here.

I hope that you can get to a stage where this something you can put behind you. I think you think a little like i do, that there are 'levels' of evil, and the behaviour of the 'authorities' in this case is appalling. Not only have they failed to protect you, they have actively sought to destroy you. This witch hunt isn't some sad man with a sudden uncontrollable urge, its premeditated and dare I suggest, worse than the original offence (and of course that is not to minimise the seriousness of that either).

Good luck with everything.

My last attempt to convince somebody to take up my case took roughly 9 years. I named the worst offender (not mentioned in previous posts) and they - unbeknownst to me - having some connections, looked into it. Suffice to say that they and the two-three others who they told will not discuss the matter now. My former employer knew about it, but would not say the name aloud, out of sheer terror of what he might do. And of course, its not violence that was threatened, but essentially defamation. You can't fight rumours and innuendo from somebody in a position of respect in society, though the last few years have seen that somewhat diminished.

Of course I was wild in my teenage years - insane with rage, really, but again, I never did anything to warrant an arrest.

Odhinn

NickNickleby wrote: »

When I was a child, "you'll go to Artane" was the threat of choice. And I was living in England at the time . Now, it wasn't English people who were saying it, but rather ex-pats we knew.

A well known criminal - would have been in their late 50's/early 60's now - told me - in broad terms - what went on in one of those places. You could not mention either the church, religion or priests around him, as it would set him off. And of course part of what fuelled his rage (which was terrifying) was that the gardai and the authorities ultimately knew what was going on, but because of social class, snobbery and everything else, it was taken at the least that they deserved it, and at worst that "their sort" knew no better anyway.

NickNickleby

Odhinn wrote: »

My last attempt to convince somebody to take up my case took roughly 9 years. I named the worst offender (not mentioned in previous posts) and they - unbeknownst to me - having some connections, looked into it. Suffice to say that they and the two-three others who they told will not discuss the matter now. My former employer knew about it, but would not say the name aloud, out of sheer terror of what he might do. And of course, its not violence that was threatened, but essentially defamation. You can't fight rumours and innuendo from somebody in a position of respect in society, though the last few years have seen that somewhat diminished.

Of course I was wild in my teenage years - insane with rage, really, but again, I never did anything to warrant an arrest.

Oh God, Odhinn,

There can't be anyone on here who doesn't feel the pain coming through in your last couple of posts. I hope Karma is a thing and live my life so that Karma won't have cause to reproach me. I hope that for you there is Karma, and that its a positive type of Karma that gives you peace, which I think will ultimately be more important than revenge.

You are in my thoughts and I'm sure, everyone else's here.

falinn merking

Odhinn wrote: »

A well known criminal - would have been in their late 50's/early 60's now - told me - in broad terms - what went on in one of those places. You could not mention either the church, religion or priests around him, as it would set him off. And of course part of what fuelled his rage (which was terrifying) was that the gardai and the authorities ultimately knew what was going on, but because of social class, snobbery and everything else, it was taken at the least that they deserved it, and at worst that "their sort" knew no better anyway.

You have dropped a real bombshell here tonight I am really sorry.
I hope you have been able to get some joy out of your life.

Odhinn

NickNickleby wrote: »

Oh God, Odhinn,

There can't be anyone on here who doesn't feel the pain coming through in your last couple of posts. I hope Karma is a thing and live my life so that Karma won't have cause to reproach me. I hope that for you there is Karma, and that its a positive type of Karma that gives you peace, which I think will ultimately be more important than revenge.

You are in my thoughts and I'm sure, everyone else's here.

I've gone to the state and the state threatened me. Others have looked into it, seen the truth of it, and been intimidated enough to maintain their silence to this day. Worse still, I eventually suffered a breakdown, and this means that as of that incident, any claim I make can be instanteously dismissed. Still, I live in a good area, I have no worries about money and such, though I'm not wealthy.

The gas thing is, the harrassment actually ramped up when I went back to school. He told me I was wasting my time as I'd never get a job in this country, but I did. He tried to **** that up too, but thanks to whatever my ultimate employer was a tough nut and socially and politically well connected and could afford to ignore his threats. My immediate boss in the place, who knew what went on, would never say his name aloud though, for fear of the whispering campaign that would ensue.

Odhinn

Verpiss dich wrote: »

You have dropped a real bombshell here tonight I am really sorry.
I hope you have been able to get some joy out of your life.

I enjoy me cups of tae, my friends who I've had since my early teens, and other things. As I say, it could have been a lot worse.

up for anything

Verpiss dich wrote: »

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?


Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

Are you as obnoxious as this when you hector people in real life?

Go back and rejig your math.

I'm heading into my late 50s but I was only 9 when the 60s ended so really, no I didn't call out anyone I suspected because I didn't bloody suspect any priests and I'd hardly have had the language to accuse if I did. So be off with your 'the children can go to Hell because I'm not losing face' - I was one of the children.

But there was a culture of silence. When anything suspect would have been raised about nuns to mothers back then - there was the nun who would sit beside my cousin on her bed and when my cousin would move to get a bit more personal space the nun would move with her - they used to play chase round the bed or there was the nun who would stand behind the girls seated at desks in secondary school who would knead their shoulders with her hands while teaching or the one who would touch their knees at their desks or the nuns that when we were in secondary school in the 70s we suspected of having inappropriate relations with each other/with a priest/random chappie and if we mentioned this lightly at home you'd be told you had a bad mind and to stop and that probably more because you'd be more likely to act loosely if you thought that nuns were rather than because of shock horror.

I think you'll find that you have to go back to people in their 70s and 80s to get any answers and you'd be told that they didn't know for the most part. Do you think that the religious really used to advertise their sins anyhow and that the entire country was under a blanket ban not to mention it? Most people knew one or two transgressors but probably not the molesters of children but more those priests or nuns who had 'fallen from grace' themselves but it was hushed up and because every family had something to hush up people didn't throw stones at glasshouses because they were too busy fixing broken panes in their own.

It didn't take a Christian Brother to physically beat or emotionally abuse a child back then, there were enough lay school teachers doing it to boys in school and as as badly as any story I've ever heard about a CB. Same with the nuns - there were as many vicious lay auld biddies humiliating and physically hurting kids in and out of school as there were nuns at it. There were as many loving and gentle nuns and kindly priests as there were bad.

iamstop

CeilingFly wrote: »

Society has to share blame for the church scandals.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The church branded itself as a place of solace, a place of no wrong-doing, a place to be held in the highest regard and respected etc. 
And for most, that is how they did view it. In my opinion they had full responsibility to live up to that self championing by self governing themselves. If this meant kicking the bad apple out of the organisation then that is what should have been done. 
Instead they sheltered and protected the predators and ostracized, shunned and hushed the victims with fear and other nefarious means. I feel the church must take full responsibility for the actions of it's members and the subsequent cover ups.
Blaming society is as lazy a cop out as you can get and as far as I'm concerned is offensive to the many victims.

justfillmein

Ubbquittious wrote: »

100 previous threads similar to this one.

as you will see further down the thread, there is a reason why people should have 100+ threads talking about this.

it happened, and there is very little/no closure for those that were affected by it.

One eyed Jack

iamstop wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The church branded itself as a place of solace, a place of no wrong-doing, a place to be held in the highest regard and respected etc. 
And for most, that is how they did view it. In my opinion they had full responsibility to live up to that self championing by self governing themselves. If this meant kicking the bad apple out of the organisation then that is what should have been done. 
Instead they sheltered and protected the predators and ostracized, shunned and hushed the victims with fear and other nefarious means. I feel the church must take full responsibility for the actions of it's members and the subsequent cover ups.
Blaming society is as lazy a cop out as you can get and as far as I'm concerned is offensive to the many victims.

But sure Irish society was mostly made up of Irish Catholics at the time who made up the Church. Of course society is responsible for protecting it's most vulnerable members, and it's just as important to note too that the State accepted 50-50 responsibility for how it treated it's citizens then too. It's anything but a lazy cop-out, it's putting the responsibility for the way people were treated then, on the very people who treated them that way, including one Catherine Corless who treated another child in school like this, when even as a child she knew better herself, but treating the 'other' children this way was not only acceptable, but encouraged -


She feels uneasy about her behaviour towards the children. "I thought it would be funny to copy a trick played by an older girl – she had wrapped up an empty sweet paper and handed it to a home girl. The little girl grabbed it, of course. There was nothing in it. At the time, being seven, being the butt of teasing myself, I thought this was great fun. I did the same and handed it to another girl – a stone wrapped in a sweet paper. She opened it and dropped it.

"When I found out later about the home children, that God help them, they'd never got a sweet in their life, they wouldn't have got any treats in the home … It's only now I realise the impact that must have had on that little girl – to think that she was getting a treat, and that someone was just playing a mean trick on her.

"I feel that the nuns should have told us that these were special children, to take care of them, to mind them. That would have been the proper thing to have done. Instead of that, they treated them differently. They ignored them, more than anything. I don't remember them being hostile. They were ignored. They were left to one side of the classroom."


You're saying Irish society "didn't know"? That's insulting.

professore

You're saying Irish society "didn't know"? That's insulting.

They knew far less about it than we know in 2018 about the homeless, the travelling community, domestic abuse, global warming Garda corruption etc. What are YOU doing about any of these? YOU are society now.

As other posters alluded to, they picked their victims. They treated the children of wealthy and middle classes like royalty. No one would believe little Tommy or Mary from the flats on a pay when you can basis that lovely Fr Jack or Sister Bridget abused them - least of all their parents.

It's why I get so worked up when the media go on about not giving people a platform. That's exactly what the church did. I'd much rather listen to some nutter on TV than miss someone genuine. Sinead O'Connor spoke out on the Late Late but everyone at the time thought she was nuts.

My dad wouldn't believe for ages that Eamonn Casey had a son. It finished him with religion.

They also used shame to silence people, in the same way SJWs are doing today in the US. Unmarried mother's were fallen women, sex was dirty and shameful so to accuse a religious person of that was equivalent to masturbating in mass.

Wanderer78

The church had great control over our society for a long time, thankfully that's coming to an end now, but unfortunately we ve just moved the goal posts, and placed other institutions into the same or similar role, which uses similar tactics such as fear, in order to control us!

mariaalice

It seems to be hard for people to understand that in a pre internet age information did disseminate in the same way, I was an adult before I even heard of child abuse and that would not have been uncommon there was a lot more emphases on privacy things were not discussed in the way they are today.

There is a difference between having a vague suspicion and having evidence.

The Children often did not tell their parents or any adult what was happening and even if they did in the vast majority of time the parents did not go to the police they wanted it hushed up as well they did not want the family talked about, or the child might not have the language to talk about what was happening or they might not have names for body parts as the body was seen as private and not talked about.

There was a lack of understanding of the devastating consequences of abuse, there were cases of fines for what was child abuse indicating the level of seriousness it was see as.

The power of the church was diffused through out society.

Hundreds of other reasons

Its not as simple as saying why didn't people do something.

Odhinn

mariaalice wrote: »

It seems to be hard for people to understand that in a pre internet age information did disseminate in the same way, I was an adult before I even heard of child abuse and that would not have been uncommon there was a lot more emphases on privacy things were not discussed in the way they are today.

There is a difference between having a vague suspicion and having evidence.

The Children often did not tell their parents or any adult what was happening and even if they did in the vast majority of time the parents did not go to the police they wanted it hushed up as well they did not want the family talked about, or the child might not have the language to talk about what was happening or they might not have names for body parts as the body was seen as private and not talked about.

There was a lack of understanding of the devastating consequences of abuse, there were cases of fines for what was child abuse indicating the level of seriousness it was see as.

The power of the church was diffused through out society.

Hundreds of other reasons

Its not as simple as saying why didn't people do something.

Unfortunately for all concerned, abuse was associated with "sex" and even if you weren't too sure on the details, you got the impression it was "wrong" and a complete no-no.