The NMH at St. Vincents

volchitsa

Woodville56 wrote: »

So in essence, you have an objection in principal to the state taking any site donation from a religious body irrespective of the purpose or assurances of non intervention ? There's an awful lot of state infrastructure built on lands owned originally by religious communities etc - that a problem for you too ? Need more sack cloth and ashes stuff from the religious groups to atone for their past misdeeds ? I'm all for the state i.e. the taxpayer providing its own healthcare and education facilities etc so let them at it. I also agree that the religious communities involved in the reparation payments should pay over the agreed settlement and leave it at that. If those who would like the state to buy out all the religious donated properties on which schools, hospitals, community and resource centers etc were built to assuage their high moral ground principals and anti church /anti religious sentiments then let's do the sums and see how the balance sheet looks . The church and religious orders need to refocus their efforts towards their true charism for those who have faith and let the state look after its sick and young. Let's have our secular state - the nirvana so many here seem to be so excited about !

Hilarious that people still try to make out the church and the orders aren't just in it for the money! They won't want to "refocus their charism" towards true believers unless those true believers have enough ready cash to make up for losing the nice little earners that are our schools and hospitals.

Especially when the state pays to build them before then handing ownership over to the orders.

BlinkingLights

That's it. I'm refusing to vote FG or FF again.

We need a major centre for the treatment of Stockholm Syndrome.

Samaris

Widdershins wrote: »

Calm down. You're not making much sense. You've just admitted many were outraged. You're not content that people aren't in a perpetual state of outrage. Leave Catholics alone to worship in their way. A few bunches of flowers for decoration is not profligate . People are not morally obliged to live like ascetics, it is up to the individual how and when they wish to contribute to charity, as many Catholics often do. Your preaching is worse than anything I've ever heard from a Catholic.

I had similar views when I first learned about the maternity hospital but it was pointed out that a couple of other hospitals in Dublin are managed by a religious order, so it might not be quite the cataclysmic event you're making it out to be.

Well. Actually, under the teachings of the Catholic Church, they -are- required to live ascetic lives and give their money and time to help the poor and hungry. It's a pretty central tenet of the Catholic religion and Christianity in general. The Church hasn't been doing that very faithfully in a long time. Bits of it work for it, but the Vatican has amassed a staggering amount of wealth and property which would, following the teachings of Christ, be better served being sold to benefit the poor rather than hoarded.

That's one of the things that annoy so many ex-Catholics. The Church, the central structure of "our" religion is subsumed by "Do as I say, not as I do". The whole moral authority rather falls over at that point and that's even before the Church covered up the most horrific abuse against vulnerable people, the poor Christ protected and against children, the most valued of souls in Christian mythology.

Matthew 25:40 - And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

If Catholics are okay with the breaking of their own religion's central tenets and the protection afforded to those who broke these rules and the harm that was done, well, that's their own problem. But the State should not be rewarding one of these orders with another place in which to exercise moral authority over vulnerable people, even in part. The hospital, even if it cost more for it, should have been built elsewhere and remained a State-owned institution.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Graces7 wrote: »

Oh dear! Supports my point fully so thank you.

I am not sneering; far from it. But there we are. There are ways to live the life Jesus asks of us in simpler ways.

Just because something has always been done does not make it right. We are seeing a huge rise in poverty here; would far rather see food for the needy than costly flowers in a church. Very costly flowers.... far more of Jesus to obey. His teachings.

Life did end for very many. Period.
Prematurely and painfully. At the hands of those who above all should have known better, who set out to be the moral examples and dictators

"lest we forget.." And it may prevent future victims.

Commemorating the Easter Rising is one thing; no elegy for the ones who dies at the hands of the church.

Deeply thankful so many are outraged at this event.Gives hope for humanity

It really does!

Tuam was one step too far then. this is even more so. Of the world,worldly.

Takes the breath away. Maternity hospital in their hands? A sick joke.

Is there any chance this could be rewritten to make sense?

Bottom line really is, what has this to do with patronage of the hospital going forward?

Woodville56

volchitsa wrote: »

Woodville56 wrote: »

So in essence, you have an objection in principal to the state taking any site donation from a religious body irrespective of the purpose or assurances of non intervention ? There's an awful lot of state infrastructure built on lands owned originally by religious communities etc - that a problem for you too ? Need more sack cloth and ashes stuff from the religious groups to atone for their past misdeeds ? I'm all for the state i.e. the taxpayer providing its own healthcare and education facilities etc so let them at it. I also agree that the religious communities involved in the reparation payments should pay over the agreed settlement and leave it at that. If those who would like the state to buy out all the religious donated properties on which schools, hospitals, community and resource centers etc were built to assuage their high moral ground principals and anti church /anti religious sentiments then let's do the sums and see how the balance sheet looks . The church and religious orders need to refocus their efforts towards their true charism for those who have faith and let the state look after its sick and young. Let's have our secular state - the nirvana so many here seem to be so excited about !

Hilarious that people still try to make out the church and the orders aren't just in it for the money! They won't want to "refocus their charism" towards true believers unless those true believers have enough ready cash to make up for losing the nice little earners that are our schools and hospitals.

Especially when the state pays to build them before then handing ownership over to the orders.

So all the church / religious donated properties are motivated as a source of income for the church yeah ? Like the church land in our parish given over for a social services centre, or land in a nearby town offered for a traveller halting site - real money spinners there !

volchitsa

Woodville56 wrote: »

So all the church / religious donated properties are motivated as a source of income for the church yeah ? Like the church land in our parish given over for a social services centre, or land in a nearby town offered for a traveller halting site - real money spinners there !

Because Travellers don't give money to the church, right? :rolleyes:

And I don't know the details of your other specific example, but going by the ones I do know, they always end up making money out of these actions. Always.

The new hospital being the latest example : the Sisters of Charity "gave" the land to the state, which built a state of the art hospital on it, at tax payers' expense, and now the SoC end up as sole owners.

Well, if you want to come to my house, I "give" you a big piece of my garden for you to build me a fabulous extension to my house, of which I'll then be the sole owner.

Very kind of me to give you such a present, I'm sure you'll agree.

Widdershins

Samaris wrote: »

Well. Actually, under the teachings of the Catholic Church, they -are- required to live ascetic lives and give their money and time to help the poor and hungry. It's a pretty central tenet of the Catholic religion and Christianity in general. The Church hasn't been doing that very faithfully in a long time. Bits of it work for it, but the Vatican has amassed a staggering amount of wealth and property which would, following the teachings of Christ, be better served being sold to benefit the poor rather than hoarded.

I'm not Catholic but its the first I've heard that Catholics are instructed to live ascetic lives. But this is about the decoration of the local churches at Easter time. With bunches of flowers. It's not about the wealth of the Vatican. That wasn't Graces7's complaint. Can you direct me to where it tells them to, please? And I didn't say they aren't supposed to ''give their money and time to help the poor and hungry''. I said many Catholics do. There is a difference between contributing to charity and dedicating your life to their poor and needy, which seems to be what is be being implied now.
Why should it annoy ex Catholics that ordinary Catholics live like ordinary people in 2017 and not like a religious order? I find that notion perverse.


You've heard of the expression ''Holier than thou''?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Hilarious that people still try to make out the church and the orders aren't just in it for the money! They won't want to "refocus their charism" towards true believers unless those true believers have enough ready cash to make up for losing the nice little earners that are our schools and hospitals.

Especially when the state pays to build them before then handing ownership over to the orders.

How much money do you imagine they're going to make out of this particular event? Just so we can gauge your assertion that they're just in it for the money, you understand.....

Widdershins

Woodville56 wrote: »

So in essence, you have an objection in principal to the state taking any site donation from a religious body irrespective of the purpose or assurances of non intervention ? There's an awful lot of state infrastructure built on lands owned originally by religious communities etc - that a problem for you too ? Need more sack cloth and ashes stuff from the religious groups to atone for their past misdeeds ? I'm all for the state i.e. the taxpayer providing its own healthcare and education facilities etc so let them at it. I also agree that the religious communities involved in the reparation payments should pay over the agreed settlement and leave it at that. If those who would like the state to buy out all the religious donated properties on which schools, hospitals, community and resource centers etc were built to assuage their high moral ground principals and anti church /anti religious sentiments then let's do the sums and see how the balance sheet looks . The church and religious orders need to refocus their efforts towards their true charism for those who have faith and let the state look after its sick and young. Let's have our secular state - the nirvana so many here seem to be so excited about !

Apparently some people like that sort of thing. shudder


Interesting points..I wonder if it would cost the taxpayer more for the state to run it.

One eyed Jack

Widdershins wrote: »

Apparently some people like that sort of thing. shudder


Interesting points..I wonder if it would cost the taxpayer more for the state to run it.

It would, just like all the calls for the State to "get religion out of schools and hospitals". In order to do that, they'd have to compensate the religious orders for their properties, which would come to quite a bit more than E300m. It would bankrupt the State and we'd all be back to eating meal so we could afford to pay our taxes. People shat themselves at austerity already, no way they'd want to go back to paying 60% tax on their incomes to fund State services such as education, healthcare and welfare, yet the Catholic Church was doing that 100 years before the foundation of the State.

RobertKK

I don't care as the HSE and HIQA have the ultimate responsibility for the hospital, and it is in no ones interest to do a bad job.

Walter H Price

Widdershins wrote: »

Apparently some people like that sort of thing. shudder


Interesting points..I wonder if it would cost the taxpayer more for the state to run it.

The state will be running it , the church and the orders don't pay for maintenance , building , wages for doctors , nurses , porters etc.. same as they don't pay teachers wages. The state pays for the building , the state pays for the facilitys and salerys , the church just own the lad which the hand over but maintain a presence on the board so the Hospital/School is kept within their ethos.

With what these fcukers owe the state in unpaid compensation , its an utter utter disgrace that we haven't seized their assets , land etc.. and pushed them to the very fringes of public life , they have literally no role to play in Healthcare or Education , yet here we are again.

Widdershins

Walter H Price wrote: »

The state will be running it , the church and the orders don't pay for maintenance , building , wages for doctors , nurses , porters etc.. same as they don't pay teachers wages. The state pays for the building , the state pays for the facilitys and salerys , the church just own the lad which the hand over but maintain a presence on the board so the Hospital/School is kept within their ethos.

With what these fcukers owe the state in unpaid compensation , its an utter utter disgrace that we haven't seized their assets , land etc.. and pushed them to the very fringes of public life , they have literally no role to play in Healthcare or Education , yet here we are again.

I've no real objection to that, just to say the punishment shouldn't be applied to innocent members of the clergy.

Walter H Price

Widdershins wrote: »

I've no real objection to that, just to say the punishment shouldn't be applied to innocent members of the clergy.

Your punishing the institution , like it or not the RCC cover up child abuse , perverted the course of justice and paid off victims.

The organisation as a whole committed and covered up criminal acts , if they were a company they be bankrupted and liquidated to pay back victims , if it was an individual they'd be in prison. whats happening instead is we're asking them polity to pay money the owe the state to compensate victims which they are not paying and at the same time we are continuing to pay them for land they own and giving them positions on boards of management its an absolute insanity.

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

Your punishing the institution , like it or not the RCC cover up child abuse , perverted the course of justice and paid off victims.

I think you understand the point has been made numerous times already that the RCC as a whole, did not and does not cover up child abuse. A small minority of members of the RCC covered up child abuse, perverted the course of justice, and attempted to silence the victims. The whole seeking compensation deal they struck with the State was a complete waste of money IMO on the States behalf and has cost the State far more than it has received.

The organisation as a whole committed and covered up criminal acts , if they were a company they be bankrupted and liquidated to pay back victims , if it was an individual they'd be in prison.

I'm guessing by your principled stand, you don't own any technology or practically any clothing? How do you even feed yourself?

whats happening instead is we're asking them polity to pay money the owe the state to compensate victims which they are not paying and at the same time we are continuing to pay them for land they own and giving them positions on boards of management its an absolute insanity.

The State didn't pay for the land, it's paying €300m for the building of the hospital block.

pilly

Widdershins wrote: »

I've no real objection to that, just to say the punishment shouldn't be applied to innocent members of the clergy.

Who is suggesting that individual members of the clergy are punished for anything?

On this subject I mean.

Walter H Price

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you understand the point has been made numerous times already that the RCC as a whole, did not and does not cover up child abuse. A small minority of members of the RCC covered up child abuse, perverted the course of justice, and attempted to silence the victims. The whole seeking compensation deal they struck with the State was a complete waste of money IMO on the States behalf and has cost the State far more than it has received.





I'm guessing by your principled stand, you don't own any technology or practically any clothing? How do you even feed yourself?





The State didn't pay for the land, it's paying €300m for the building of the hospital block.

Senior figures in the church here and all the way up to the previous Pope , were complicit in covering up child sex abuse , they moved paedo priests from parish to parish and paid of victims/ victims family's to protect their own interest etc... the orders committed a liteney of abuse in those laundries , homes and industrial schools including the selling of Irish children abroad and the dumping of babies in make shift mass graves. They should be made pay the money they owe and the should be removed from public life.

To be honest religion is a personal choice that alone should mean it plays no role in state owned , state funded Healthcare or Education. If Catholics want catholic Schools and Hospitals they should pay for them privately , state owned tax funded institutions should be secular and of no particular ethos.

pilly

No-one on this subject has suggested the hanging or quartering of an individual member of any order. So please avoid these red herrings always thrown in.

As an organisation Sisters of Charity should not be gifted this hospital, full stop.

RobertKK

Walter H Price wrote: »

The state will be running it , the church and the orders don't pay for maintenance , building , wages for doctors , nurses , porters etc.. same as they don't pay teachers wages. The state pays for the building , the state pays for the facilitys and salerys , the church just own the lad which the hand over but maintain a presence on the board so the Hospital/School is kept within their ethos.

With what these fcukers owe the state in unpaid compensation , its an utter utter disgrace that we haven't seized their assets , land etc.. and pushed them to the very fringes of public life , they have literally no role to play in Healthcare or Education , yet here we are again.

That is great if one is a supporter of Communism.

Walter H Price

RobertKK wrote: »

That is great if one is a supporter of Communism.

Red my posts on other threads Rob i'm far from a communist or even any form of socialist , tbh id rather the hospitals were all private and had no state or religious involvement, ditto for schools.

I just firmly believe that religion is a personal private matter and should be completely separate to public life it should play no role in law , education , healthcare etc... That's not Communisim

listermint

Woodville56 wrote: »

So in essence, you have an objection in principal to the state taking any site donation from a religious body irrespective of the purpose or assurances of non intervention ? There's an awful lot of state infrastructure built on lands owned originally by religious communities etc - that a problem for you too ? Need more sack cloth and ashes stuff from the religious groups to atone for their past misdeeds ? I'm all for the state i.e. the taxpayer providing its own healthcare and education facilities etc so let them at it. I also agree that the religious communities involved in the reparation payments should pay over the agreed settlement and leave it at that. If those who would like the state to buy out all the religious donated properties on which schools, hospitals, community and resource centers etc were built to assuage their high moral ground principals and anti church /anti religious sentiments then let's do the sums and see how the balance sheet looks . The church and religious orders need to refocus their efforts towards their true charism for those who have faith and let the state look after its sick and young. Let's have our secular state - the nirvana so many here seem to be so excited about !

I have a massive problem with these same religious organisations not paying what they legally owe. And more besides i think they got a cosy deal that made sure the tax payer picked up the bulk of their tab i think there should have been a CPO in this case.

But i also think if there was any back bone in government we would have made sure that these organisations didn't get the cosy deals they got and that we made sure they paid in cash or assets.

But that won't sit well with your anti Catholic bashing Jibes nonsense. I understand that , you won't have the church paying a dime because it seems to interfere with your sensibilities.

Any other organisation got away with this and you'd no doubt be giving out to all assunder.

osarusan

andekwarhola wrote: »

governments go running to them to outsource the cost of schools and hospitals.

How much does the CC actually pay towards the cost of schools and hospitals these days though?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

That is great if one is a supporter of Communism.

Desiring a secular state is in no way communism.

Walter H Price

osarusan wrote: »

How much does the CC actually pay towards the cost of schools and hospitals these days though?

Literally Nothing , don't see the ASTI going running to the Bishops Palace every time teachers want an increase do you ???? Parents cover the Books , Uniforms and "voluntary" contributions and the state picks up the tab for maintenance and building.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

Who is suggesting that individual members of the clergy are punished for anything?

On this subject I mean.

It was just an aside really. For example, I feel sorry for the decent priests. If the church is pushed to the fringes of society I wouldn't like it to affect them too negatively.

RobertKK

Walter H Price wrote: »

Red my posts on other threads Rob i'm far from a communist or even any form of socialist , tbh id rather the hospitals were all private and had no state or religious involvement, ditto for schools.

I just firmly believe that religion is a personal private matter and should be completely separate to public life it should play no role in law , education , healthcare etc... That's not Communisim

The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare and education on the planet after state provided healthcare and education.

It was shown on Newsnight how in the poor regions of the world that the only providers in some of these areas are the religious provided services and which are open to all.
So the world would be in a much worse state without it.

murpho999

RobertKK wrote: »

That is great if one is a supporter of Communism.

Why? If an individual or a company had this debt they would be pursued and made to pay.

Why anybody, religious or atheist would want religious institutions near our health system is beyond me.

Religion should not have any influence over science matters!

Parchment

RobertKK wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare and education on the planet after state provided healthcare and education.

It was shown on Newsnight how in the poor regions of the world that the only providers in some of these areas are the religious provided services and which are open to all.
So the world would be in a much worse state without it.

They are in it to push their nonsense on desperate uneducated people to ensure the future of their religion business.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare and education on the planet after state provided healthcare and education.

It was shown on Newsnight how in the poor regions of the world that the only providers in some of these areas are the religious provided services and which are open to all.
So the world would be in a much worse state without it.

We are talking about Ireland. How other countries run themselves is their business.

RobertKK

Walter H Price wrote: »

Literally Nothing , don't see the ASTI going running to the Bishops Palace every time teachers want an increase do you ???? Parents cover the Books , Uniforms and "voluntary" contributions and the state picks up the tab for maintenance and building.

The church is letting the state use church owned property to provide state education.
It was Bertie who said that the church saved the state billions by not having to buy property to provide state education.