Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Are all irish people to blame for the abuse in the Catholic Church?

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    I accept absolutely no liability for how people acted, and I think many people my age (18) feel the same.


  • Options
    #63
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Gonna disagree with most and say the OP has a good point.

    Think of all the parents who put their own daughters in magdalane homes, they seem exactly the kind of people who's turn a blind eye to child abuse.
    Still don't get how that renders "all Irish people to blame".


  • Options
    #64
    deadhead13
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,034 ✭✭✭deadhead13


    CliffHuxtabel wrote: »
    Im in my mid 20s. I wasnt around during era in which the abuse took place.

    While I have total sympathy for the poor kids who were abused, I wasnt to blame.

    The report deals with incidents right up to 2004.


  • Options
    #65
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Piste wrote: »
    I accept absolutely no liability for how people acted, and I think many people my age (18) feel the same.

    I dont think anyone is suggesting that everyone is to blame, certainly not those who have just reached the age of majority/responsibility. But the question is whether the large numbers of people who did not do anything actively to abuse/conspire but who did turn a blind eye or through fear or whatever, ignored their suspicions rarther than acting on them have any responsibility (albeit small) to bear.


  • Options
    #66
    bleg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    This thread is a joke.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    KindOfIrish
    Registered Users Posts: 454 ✭✭KindOfIrish


    I moved to Ireland 8 years ago. After living here for 3-4 years I already new many people who was sexually abused as a child and not just by priests. I know people who were sexually abused by family members, by doctors etc.; I know those who reported rape to Gardai. GP, social services etc. and no action was taken (it happened in 80’s and early 90’s). I have found out that there is an organization “One in Four” and what does it mean.
    I have spoken to few Irish Americans about the matter and they say it always has been here.
    And when I hear that just the church to blame, it makes me sick. I am sure, 99% of Irish people know what has been going on in this country for decades and did nothing.
    I wonder why?
    So, whom to blame?


  • Options
    #68
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    1 in 4 was set up to help people who have been sexually abused and it's name that as it has happened to 1 in 4 people according to the statics.

    http://www.oneinfour.org/about/
    One in Four Ireland is a registered charity (CHY 15289) with offices in Dublin, Ireland.

    Our Purpose

    One in Four offers a voice to and support for women and men who have experienced sexual abuse and/or sexual violence and also to their family and friends.

    In Ireland research has shown that one in four children (27%) will experience sexual abuse before the age of 18 (view source of this statisitc). Society has thus far been unwilling to face up to the deep rooted nature of this problem or the sheer scale of the long term damage it leaves in its wake.

    The Murphy report took a sample of 46 priest, 46 is not the total number of abusers in the dublin dioces alone between 1975 to 2004, during which the archbisop was the patron of all the catholic shools in dublin.

    There are 3,200 aprox primary schools in the country and the catholic church own's and is partron to 3,000 of them, the same church that protected pedophiles, moved them from parish to parish did not report to the garda and refused to open thier files for years.


  • Options
    #69
    MementoMori
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,492 ✭✭✭MementoMori


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    The Murphy report took a sample of 46 priest, 46 is not the total number of abusers in the dublin dioces alone between 1975 to 2004, during which the archbisop was the patron of all the catholic shools in dublin.

    There are 3,200 aprox primary schools in the country and the catholic church own's and is partron to 3,000 of them, the same church that protected pedophiles, moved them from parish to parish did not report to the garda and refused to open thier files for years.

    From the report
    1.109 Of the 46 priests (which, of course, is a representative sample of 102 within remit) examined for this report, the Commission has identified approximately 320 people who complained of child sexual abuse during the period 1975 - 2004. A further 130 complaints against priests operating under the aegis of the Dublin Archdiocese have been made since May 2004 (the end date of the Commission's remit).

    Anyone else see something truely vomitous as regards the main activities of the Archdiocese ?
    3.5 The Archdiocese engages in many activities. Its main activities are the running of parishes, the patronage of 477 national schools, the provision of services to these schools and to 189 post-primary schools, and the provision of services through its Catholic Youth Care programme and its Crosscare programme, which provides social services for less well-off people. Its many other activities include agencies to assist marriage and families and chaplaincy services to prisons, the defence forces and almost 50 hospitals. The Archbishop is involved in appointing members of the boards of a number of hospitals.


  • Options
    #70
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Dudess wrote: »
    Still don't get how that renders "all Irish people to blame".

    I think what the poster meant by that assertion was that people around at that time had an idea of what was going on and failed to act, therefore being somewhat to blame.


  • Options
    #71
    baalthor
    Registered Users Posts: 1,241 ✭✭✭baalthor


    drkpower wrote: »
    Sadly, this is the key and its why so many are to blame. The majority knew, possibly not the full extent, but they knew. For anyone of a certain age, we all remember the jokes that would be told about the dodgy christian brother at school - that didnt come from nothing; there was a widespread knowledge that 'something' was going on and the average Joe wasnt strong enough to make an issue of it.

    I wouldn't necessarily use the word blame but as you've said, people knew that "stuff" was happening.

    My parents are pensioners now but they have recollections of various incidents from the 60s/70s

    In a rural town where one of them grew up, the parish priest announced during Mass one day that Fr. xxx was "unwell" and was going away for treatment. But most people in town knew why he was "unwell".

    Another priest in a rural parish was well known for his inappropriate advances towards young girls and women. Many parishioners actually thought this was funny.

    Most people didn't speak out for various reasons:

    1. Obviously priests and the church had huge status and power in the community. Along with this, people believed that the priest was God's representative and had been chosen by God to do this job - the "vocation" concept. Therefore even if the priest did something wrong, people still thought: "well God still wanted him to be a priest"

    2. They were hazy on the details. Frank and detailed discussion of sexual acts didn't really occur in Ireland during this time. So people might use euphemisms like "interfered with" or "made a tear after".
    Devout Catholics believed that it was a sin to think about sex never mind discuss it.
    And for many believers, the idea that the people who told you that you would go to hell for looking at a woman's chest could themselves be guilty of engaging in sexual acts was just unthinkable.

    3. They didn't want to cause "scandal" for the church.
    Exposing priests as abusers would cause embarrassment for the church and the laity and possibly invite attacks from non-Catholics. So better to let the Church handle the issue internally.


    4. They felt that because priests were doing God's work and had given up a normal life to do so, they deserved more sympathy and understanding when they did something wrong.
    So any transgression would be seen as a failing of the priest that could be overcome by prayer and treatment. After all, the priest used prayer and his vocation to overcome his desire for women so presumably he could eventually overcome other desires as well.

    5. Abuse of children wasn't taken as seriously in those days. "Interfering" with kids was often seen as a "failing" rather than a crime.


    And of course on a practical level, the Church could exercise immense power.
    If you were (are) a teacher the local PP could determine whether you got a job or not.
    People were afraid that if they got in the Church's bad books,they would be refused the last rites on their death-bed.
    Others actually had a superstitious fear that if they went against the clergy something "bad" would happen to them or their families.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    MementoMori
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,492 ✭✭✭MementoMori


    baalthor wrote: »
    And of course on a practical level, the Church could exercise immense power.
    If you were (are) a teacher the local PP could determine whether you got a job or not.

    Sickeningly in a legal sense this still holds true today, although thankfully it seldom (if ever) occurs.


  • Options
    #73
    Chorcai
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 2,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chorcai


    1.113 The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period covered by the Commission‟s remit. The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up. The State authorities facilitated the cover up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes. The welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages. Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members – the priests.
    Documents held by Rome 2.23 The Commission wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome in September 2006 asking for information on the promulgation of the document Crimen Sollicitationis (see Chapter 4) as well as information on reports of clerical child sexual abuse which had been conveyed to the Congregation by the Archdiocese of Dublin in the period covered by the Commission. The CDF did not reply. However, it did contact the Department of Foreign Affairs stating that the Commission had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels. The Commission is a body independent of government and does not consider it appropriate for it to use diplomatic channels.
    2.24 The Commission wrote to the Papal Nuncio in February 2007 requesting that he forward to the Commission all documents in his possession relevant to the Commission‟s terms of reference, “which documents have not already been produced or will not be produced by Archbishop Martin”. The letter further requested the Papal Nuncio, if he had no such documentation, to confirm this. No reply was received. The Commission does not have the power to compel the production of documents by the Papal Nuncio or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Commission again wrote to the Papal Nuncio in 2009 enclosing extracts from the draft report which referred to him and his office as it was required to do. Again, no reply was received.

    says it all really makes you sick to think they are above the law.


  • Options
    #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CliffHuxtabel wrote: »
    Im in my mid 20s. I wasnt around during era in which the abuse took place.

    While I have total sympathy for the poor kids who were abused, I wasnt to blame.

    Yes it's perfectly OK to say that. You should never need to be made to feel guilty for things that happened before your time.

    My mother "escaped" from Ireland in the late 1950's (along with many thousands of others) She has never spoken of any abuse of this nature, I shall never know is she was even aware of it.


  • Options
    #75
    Run_to_da_hills
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,009 ✭✭✭✭Run_to_da_hills


    No.


  • Options
    #76
    CliffHuxtabel
    Registered Users Posts: 407 ✭✭CliffHuxtabel


    deadhead13 wrote: »
    The report deals with incidents right up to 2004.


    Im surprised by that but the church stopped being a presence in my life long before 2004.


  • Options
    #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    CliffHuxtabel wrote: »
    Im surprised by that but the church stopped being a presence in my life long before 2004.


    tbh.. it's quite frightening that it has been reported as happening that recently, my children are at school age right now!, nothing hapening to the best of my knowledge, but still worrying!


  • Options
    #78
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    baalthor wrote: »
    I wouldn't necessarily use the word blame but as you've said, people knew that "stuff" was happening.

    My parents are pensioners now but they have recollections of various incidents from the 60s/70s

    In a rural town where one of them grew up, the parish priest announced during Mass one day that Fr. xxx was "unwell" and was going away for treatment. But most people in town knew why he was "unwell".

    Another priest in a rural parish was well known for his inappropriate advances towards young girls and women. Many parishioners actually thought this was funny.

    Most people didn't speak out for various reasons:

    1. Obviously priests and the church had huge status and power in the community. Along with this, people believed that the priest was God's representative and had been chosen by God to do this job - the "vocation" concept. Therefore even if the priest did something wrong, people still thought: "well God still wanted him to be a priest"

    2. They were hazy on the details. Frank and detailed discussion of sexual acts didn't really occur in Ireland during this time. So people might use euphemisms like "interfered with" or "made a tear after".
    Devout Catholics believed that it was a sin to think about sex never mind discuss it.
    And for many believers, the idea that the people who told you that you would go to hell for looking at a woman's chest could themselves be guilty of engaging in sexual acts was just unthinkable.

    3. They didn't want to cause "scandal" for the church.
    Exposing priests as abusers would cause embarrassment for the church and the laity and possibly invite attacks from non-Catholics. So better to let the Church handle the issue internally.


    4. They felt that because priests were doing God's work and had given up a normal life to do so, they deserved more sympathy and understanding when they did something wrong.
    So any transgression would be seen as a failing of the priest that could be overcome by prayer and treatment. After all, the priest used prayer and his vocation to overcome his desire for women so presumably he could eventually overcome other desires as well.

    5. Abuse of children wasn't taken as seriously in those days. "Interfering" with kids was often seen as a "failing" rather than a crime.


    And of course on a practical level, the Church could exercise immense power.
    If you were (are) a teacher the local PP could determine whether you got a job or not.
    People were afraid that if they got in the Church's bad books,they would be refused the last rites on their death-bed.
    Others actually had a superstitious fear that if they went against the clergy something "bad" would happen to them or their families.

    Not a bad summary.

    People where in fear and tbh, a bit thick. The Church was your better and that was it.

    Similar, but vastly different thing happened recently with Banks.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    K-9 wrote: »
    Not a bad summary.

    People where in fear and tbh, a bit thick. The Church was your better and that was it.

    Similar, but vastly different thing happened recently with Banks.

    In these days of free and easily obteinable information, it is easy to look back and think of "how simple those people were" but never forget that they did NOT have access to what we have access to now.

    As for the banks, well the info was there (along with the warning signs, but not read) perhaps the expression "a bit thick" is appropiate.


  • Options
    #80
    PFJSplitter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,575 ✭✭✭✭PFJSplitter


    Spacedog wrote: »
    ...and had no control over what so ever.

    Those responsible are: *looks in the mirror*

    How very shallow.


  • Options
    #81
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Deleted User wrote: »
    In these days of free and easily obteinable information, it is easy to look back and think of "how simple those people were" but never forget that they did NOT have access to what we have access to now.

    As for the banks, well the info was there (along with the warning signs, but not read) perhaps the expression "a bit thick" is appropiate.

    Property became the new religion.

    Anyway, they are still covering up what happened.. They still don't get it!

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Four-Too
    Registered Users Posts: 223 ✭✭Four-Too


    All those who knew it was going on and did nothing, all those, both men and women over (maybe) 18 years of age are all to blame. Collective responsibility. People probably said, "it has nothing to do with me". But that is wrong, if even they saved one innocent life from abuse then surely the Lord would have been pleased with such a person, very pleased.


  • Options
    #83
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    The old mantra, hide it untll it is unhideable!


  • Options
    #84
    CliffHuxtabel
    Registered Users Posts: 407 ✭✭CliffHuxtabel


    Four-Too wrote: »
    All those who knew it was going on and did nothing, all those, both men and women over (maybe) 18 years of age are all to blame. Collective responsibility. People probably said, "it has nothing to do with me". But that is wrong, if even they saved one innocent life from abuse then surely the Lord would have been pleased with such a person, very pleased.


    being over 18 years old, how exactly could I have changed things?


  • Options
    #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Four-Too wrote: »
    All those who knew it was going on and did nothing, all those, both men and women over (maybe) 18 years of age are all to blame. Collective responsibility. People probably said, "it has nothing to do with me". But that is wrong, if even they saved one innocent life from abuse then surely the Lord would have been pleased with such a person, very pleased.
    Ireland in 2009 is a very diffenent place to that of the 1970's or earlier.
    As a suggestion, just read any book written by authers of the mid 20th century (angelas ashes, frank McCourt, springs to mind) it may give you an insight into Ireland "of the priests"


  • Options
    #86
    dustyrip
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭dustyrip


    I haven't gone to mass in around 12 years(am 23). I am numb to what has come out in the news. I know its awful what has happened but its as if these revelations are to be expected given what has happened in the past. I am not 'shocked' by this, as when you think of the Irish priests this is the first thing that comes to your mind. If I ever have kids in the future I will be keeping them away from priests/swimming Instructors etc..Its a disgrace, I don't know how it went on for so long. They should let Catholic priests marry, might keep them away from thinking about kids?


  • Options
    #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    dustyrip wrote: »
    I haven't gone to mass in around 12 years(am 23). I am numb to what has come out in the news. I know its awful what has happened but its as if these revelations are to be expected given what has happened in the past. I am not 'shocked' by this, as when you think of the Irish priests this is the first thing that comes to your mind. If I ever have kids in the future I will be keeping them away from priests/swimming Instructors etc..Its a disgrace, I don't know how it went on for so long. They should let Catholic priests marry, might keep them away from thinking about kids?

    Don't tar all with the brush!

    This thread is about abusive priests.. Swimming instructors don't factor into it at all!


  • Options
    #88
    waitinforatrain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 267 ✭✭waitinforatrain


    nlgbbbblth wrote: »
    There's your answer.

    Want to blame someone?

    Blame the abusers and no one else.

    Might seem obvious but it's the right answer. Ever heard of personal responsibility?

    Bull****. there's a clear connection between the catholic church and abuse, it's not just some random people acting outside the scope of the insttution. This rotten institution sought to cover up the abuse for their own purposes, ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP.

    If abuse to such an extent occured in another institution, say, a private company, are you telling me that the company would be in no way responsible or liable?


  • Options
    #89
    seraphimvc
    Registered Users Posts: 3,356 ✭✭✭seraphimvc


    i jus get home from Church bar at Henry's street.:pac: it is awesome.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    seraphimvc wrote: »
    i jus get home from Church bar at Henry's street.:pac: it is awesome.
    10 heil marys before breakfast!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    dustyrip
    Registered Users Posts: 153 ✭✭dustyrip


    Deleted User wrote: »
    10 heil marys before breakfast!!!

    Is that the place with the really hard toilets to find. The Grand Central on O'Connell street is impossible also!!


Advertisement