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

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Options
1…116117119121122…131

Comments

  • Options
    #3542
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    marienbad wrote: »
    Just more equivocating waffle. There is none so blind as those that will not see. And a perfect illustration follows-''For healing to occur, the real pain must be separated from the false pain''- what arrogance.

    Which part is waffle: the abused telling of their abuse or the due-course of Justice according to Law?

    I have excellent vision - according to my Doctor - and that last line is from a deceased, certified Counselor who worked with the L'Arche Community for many years.


  • Options
    #3543
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Which part is waffle: the abused telling of their abuse or the due-course of Justice according to Law?

    I have excellent vision - according to my Doctor - and that last line is from a deceased, certified Counselor who worked with the L'Arche Community for many years.

    How about according to conscience ? If the RCC stopped hiding behind the lawyers and acted according to their own precepts think how much suffering could have been avoided.


  • Options
    #3544
    lazybones32
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    marienbad wrote: »
    How about according to conscience ? If the RCC stopped hiding behind the lawyers and acted according to their own precepts think how much suffering could have been avoided.

    Do you mean they should have acted according to conscience? (Whose conscience?)
    The RCC was instructed by it's legal advisors to not admit guilt - disagree with that all you want but I understand why they advise it and reluctantly agree with it. An apology is what many desire but they cannot receive it officially for now.


  • Options
    #3545
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Do you mean they should have acted according to conscience? (Whose conscience?)
    The RCC was instructed by it's legal advisors to not admit guilt - disagree with that all you want but I understand why they advise it and reluctantly agree with it. An apology is what many desire but they cannot receive it officially for now.

    Yes but the RCC hold us and themselves to a higher morality do they not ? Except of course when they don't , usually when they is money involved. How un-Christ like.


  • Options
    #3546
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    marienbad wrote: »
    How about according to conscience ? If the RCC stopped hiding behind the lawyers and acted according to their own precepts think how much suffering could have been avoided.

    They are not in any way. I have no idea where this perception comes from.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3547
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes but the RCC hold us and themselves to a higher morality do they not ? Except of course when they don't , usually when they is money involved. How un-Christ like.

    I've always found it fascinating that whenever a religious group sets up, they usually start looking for cash and/or political influence.

    It's one thing to live your life by a moral code of ethics, it's something entirely different to seek a hegemony of belief.

    SD


  • Options
    #3548
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    I've always found it fascinating that whenever a religious group sets up, they usually start looking for cash and/or political influence.

    It's one thing to live your life by a moral code of ethics, it's something entirely different to seek a hegemony of belief.

    SD

    All value systems inherently seek hegemony as if you try to live by a more ethical way of living you will want others to do the same in order to gain the benefit. To not do so would make the exercise pointless. The same applies to environmentalism, veganism, the basic income movement or religions like Bahaism or Christianity. If people didn't want others to follow them it would be a poor sign indeed.


  • Options
    #3549
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    All value systems inherently seek hegemony as if you try to live by a more ethical way of living you will want others to do the same in order to gain the benefit. To not do so would make the exercise pointless. The same applies to environmentalism, veganism, the basic income movement or religions like Bahaism or Christianity. If people didn't want others to follow them it would be a poor sign indeed.

    Very amusing. Last time I checked nobody has tried to enforce the principles of veganism or vegetarianism on the whole of society by coercive means.

    Just because an individual or group of individuals believes in a flying spaghetti monster or variant of such does not mean such belief may be imposed on society as a whole.

    SD


  • Options
    #3550
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    They are not in any way. I have no idea where this perception comes from.

    Then you need to get out more.


  • Options
    #3551
    Penny 4 Thoughts
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Penny 4 Thoughts


    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Excuse you. I asked a question of a poster and asked him/her a question.

    Which is deflecting the discussion, as I said. Instead of discussing what the RCC did, you wanted to discuss how unfair it was what the poster claimed. You even invented an accusation that the poster didn't even make, in order to do this. No where did the poster say the Catholic church as a pedophile ring.
    lazybones32 wrote: »
    Feel free to list the 'crimes' perpetrated by the RCC in the last 60 years. Wait, list 10 if you can.

    Knowingly placing sex offenders in the care of children.
    Shielding known sex offenders from the law.
    Shielding known sex offenders from the parents of their victims.
    Harassing victims of sexual abuse.
    Threatening victims of sexual abuse with legal action.
    Failing to protect victims of sexual abuse from threats of violence once they had made their statements public.
    Running of homes for "fallen women", which were run like prisons
    Force adoption of illegitimate children.
    Placing of women in homes where violence was known about.
    Public shunning and denouncements of illegitimate children.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3552
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Very amusing. Last time I checked nobody has tried to enforce the principles of veganism or vegetarianism on the whole of society by coercive means.

    Just because an individual or group of individuals believes in a flying spaghetti monster or variant of such does not mean such belief may be imposed on society as a whole.

    SD

    All vegans I know would prefer if others followed their example. All Christians I know would insist that Christians practises cease to be beneficial if they are forced on people.


  • Options
    #3553
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    marienbad wrote: »
    Then you need to get out more.

    I am afraid you need to be more specific when making assertions /arguments on line.


  • Options
    #3554
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    I am afraid you need to be more specific when making assertions /arguments on line.

    No I don't ,but here are a few clues for you, going right back to our cardinal-to-be getting young boys to sign secrecy clauses right up the orders moving assets into trusts .

    Caritas in Veritate my arse.


  • Options
    #3555
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    All vegans I know would prefer if others followed their example. All Christians I know would insist that Christians practises cease to be beneficial if they are forced on people.

    Fascinating. Although when the actions of 'christian' and other mainstream organisations is taken as a whole, an entirely different picture emerges.

    As I said originally. Living your life by your own code of ethics is one thing. That code loses validity when you try to impose those beliefs on others.

    SD


  • Options
    #3556
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    As I said originally. Living your life by your own code of ethics is one thing. That code loses validity when you try to impose those beliefs on others.

    SD
    Well actually very often ethics have to be "imposed on others". I would not want to live in a society where politicians can decide to accept brown envelopes or were people are not equal before the law. Day to day life is filled with laws based on ethical ideals and really it is plain silly to dogmatically deny this.

    The difference between these and what I referred to earlier is these are moral concepts most people agree on, in contrast to specific Christian practising (e.g. Sunday worship or Lenten charity) which no one seeks to impose on others.


    marienbad wrote: »
    No I don't ,but here are a few clues for you, going right back to our cardinal-to-be getting young boys to sign secrecy clauses right up the orders moving assets into trusts .

    Caritas in Veritate my arse.

    Is there any evidence whatsoever that schools were moved to trusts to evade compensation? Speaking as someone familiar with the topic I am pretty sure it is entirely unrelated. In fact even if they were never moved to trusts the Gov would not be able to touch them. The Gov had a compensation bill to deal with and a public school would in no way reduce that bill that unless the school was to close and be sold which was never on the cards. The schools could not magically generate revenue for the state. Finally its disingenuous to refer to this as "the church" when we are dealing with about a dozen autonomous organisations (Orders). It is like blaming FIFA for the actions of the local soccer club.


  • Options
    #3557
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    Well actually very often ethics have to be "imposed on others". I would not want to live in a society where politicians can decide to accept brown envelopes or were people are not equal before the law. Day to day life is filled with laws based on ethical ideals and really it is plain silly to dogmatically deny this.

    The difference between these and what I referred to earlier is these are moral concepts most people agree on, in contrast to specific Christian practising (e.g. Sunday worship or Lenten charity) which no one seeks to impose on.

    Tell you what. When religious groups are answerable for their actions and in inaction to the electorate. When religious groups recognise the primacy of common law, statute and EC law. Then you can get back to me.

    It is one thing to have politicians acting on behalf of the electorate good or bad. Ultimately Parliament is answerable to the electorate. It has to act from a position of knowledge, which supercedes belief. It is entirely another to have an unelected, unaccountable religious group attempting to dictate public policy and statute, based on belief.

    SD


  • Options
    #3558
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    Well actually very often ethics have to be "imposed on others". I would not want to live in a society where politicians can decide to accept brown envelopes or were people are not equal before the law. Day to day life is filled with laws based on ethical ideals and really it is plain silly to dogmatically deny this.

    The difference between these and what I referred to earlier is these are moral concepts most people agree on, in contrast to specific Christian practising (e.g. Sunday worship or Lenten charity) which no one seeks to impose on others.





    Is there any evidence whatsoever that schools were moved to trusts to evade compensation? Speaking as someone familiar with the topic I am pretty sure it is entirely unrelated. In fact even if they were never moved to trusts the Gov would not be able to touch them. The Gov had a compensation bill to deal with and a public school would in no way reduce that bill that unless the school was to close and be sold which was never on the cards. The schools could not magically generate revenue for the state. Finally its disingenuous to refer to this as "the church" when we are dealing with about a dozen autonomous organisations (Orders). It is like blaming FIFA for the actions of the local soccer club.

    Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.


  • Options
    #3559
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Tell you what. When religious groups are answerable for their actions and in inaction to the electorate. When religious groups recognise the primacy of common law, statute and EC law. Then you can get back to me.

    SD

    Ordinary people are not exempt from the law. Why do you think they only apply to politicians? If cruelty against animals legislation is not based on ethics what is based on? if anti discrimination legislation is not based on ethics what is it based? Hey even taxs are based on the notion the rich should help the
    the poor. More ethics.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    It is one thing to have politicians acting on behalf of the electorate good or bad. Ultimately Parliament is answerable to the electorate. It has to act from a position of knowledge, which supercedes belief. It is entirely another to have an unelected, unaccountable religious group attempting to dictate public policy and statute, based on belief.SD

    There is no difference between knowledge and belief. All of our "knowledge" are ultimately beliefs which we presumptuously hold to be true. Politics is just as idealogical as any religion if not more.


  • Options
    #3560
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,543 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Tomorrow might see a break in the position of Cardinal Brady, with the publication of a book by Brendan Boland about his treatment by Fr (now Cardinal) Brady and other priests investigating and questioning him over his claims about the abuse he suffered at the hands of Fr Smyth. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/book-reveals-cardinals-role-in-abuse-inquiry-30444640.html. It seem's that transcripts of the actual secret church inquiry into the matter are in the book along with facsimilies of the handwritten notes made by Cardinal Brady at the time of the questions and answers (with typed transcriptions made by the cardinal of his notes). The documents were discovered and obtained by way of legal discovery.


  • Options
    #3561
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Tomorrow might see a break in the position of Cardinal Brady, with the publication of a book by Brendan Boland about his treatment by Fr (now Cardinal) Brady and other priests investigating and questioning him over his claims about the abuse he suffered at the hands of Fr Smyth. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/book-reveals-cardinals-role-in-abuse-inquiry-30444640.html. It seem's that transcripts of the actual secret church inquiry into the matter are in the book along with facsimilies of the handwritten notes made by Cardinal Brady at the time of the questions and answers (with typed transcriptions made by the cardinal of his notes). The documents were discovered and obtained by way of legal discovery.

    It would be interesting to see what that contains but it will not change what happened and thus would not seem to change his position.

    A lot of this controversy seems to stem from the mad notion that moral conventions can are retroactive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3562
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yeah, keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night.

    The internet is a public place and there is a moral compulsion to back up claims with some form of reason or evidence. Its not good enough to make grand allegations and then bluff out of it.


  • Options
    #3563
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    Ordinary people are not exempt from the law. Why do you think they only apply to politicians? If cruelty against animals legislation is not based on ethics what is based on? if anti discrimination legislation is not based on ethics what is it based? Hey even taxs are based on the notion the rich should help the
    the poor. More ethics.



    There is no difference between knowledge and belief. All of our "knowledge" are ultimately beliefs which we presumptuously hold to be true. Politics is just as idealogical as any religion if not more.

    Belief is the same as knowledge? Oh ok. Good luck with that. It's not. Whatever you as an individual may believe yourself, unless you can empirically prove it, it's not knowledge. Accordingly legislation and policy ought not be formed from a stance based on belief. By it's nature it's devisive and ultimately sectarian.

    As regards politicians, they are the elected representatives of the electorate. They derive their power from the electorate and can very easily be out of a job if the electorate decide it.

    Who are religious figures answerable to?
    It certainly looks to me that in terms of responsibility and accountability religious groups don't hold themselves accountable to anyone. The church collects money, for what? No taxation without representation.

    SD


  • Options
    #3564
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Belief is the same as knowledge? Oh ok. Good luck with that. It's not. Whatever you as an individual may believe yourself, unless you can empirically prove it, it's not knowledge. Accordingly legislation and policy ought not be formed from a stance based on belief. By it's nature it's devisive and ultimately sectarian.
    All politicians subscribe to some ideology be it social democracy, neo-liberalism, socialism or something else. Of course politicians use evidence but it is ludicrous to suggest evidence alone is influencing decision making. Thiis why political parties exist and why terms like left and right wing are used.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    As regards politicians, they are the elected representatives of the electorate. They derive their power from the electorate and can very easily be out of a job if the electorate decide it.

    Who are religious figures answerable to?
    It certainly looks to me that in terms of responsibility and accountability religious groups don't hold themselves unaccountable to anyone. The church collects money, for what? No taxation without representation.SD
    Voluntary donations are not taxes. How is Google accountable? How is Oxfam accountable? Plebiscites are not the only way to maintain accountability.

    Anyway you are completely drifting to evade the fact that I corrected you. The fact is society imposes ethics and values on people all the time.


  • Options
    #3565
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    The internet is a public place and there is a moral compulsion to back up claims with some form of reason or evidence. Its not good enough to make grand allegations and then bluff out of it.

    That grand so, as that is not what I did. Curious though that you post this right after commenting on a case where a battery of canon lawyers secretly bullied young boys into secrecy , even from their own parents ?


  • Options
    #3566
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    It would be interesting to see what that contains but it will not change what happened and thus would not seem to change his position.

    A lot of this controversy seems to stem from the mad notion that moral conventions can are retroactive.

    Are you saying that what Brady did was not wrong then ?


  • Options
    #3567
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    All politicians subscribe to some ideology be it social democracy, neo-liberalism, socialism or something else. Of course politicians use evidence but it is ludicrous to suggest evidence alone is influencing decision making.

    Voluntary donations are not taxes.

    Anyway you are completely drifting to evade the fact that I corrected you. The fact is society imposes ethics and values on people all the time.

    I'm not suggesting that politicians are perfect. They're human. Humans make mistakes. The difference between politicians and religious organisations is that politicians are answerable for their actions to the electorate. They cannot hold themselves above society because they are answerable to society. Who are religious figures answerable to? On the face of it, they don't seem to think they're answerable to anyone.

    As regards your 'voluntary donations' please don't make me laugh. If you want to participate in religious observances there are fees. How many churches will turn away an individual who hasn't been paying their subscription every week during church services. If these are not taxes what are they?

    SD


  • Options
    #3568
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that politicians are perfect. They're human. Humans make mistakes. The difference between politicians and religious organisations is that politicians are answerable for their actions to the electorate. They cannot hold themselves above society because they are answerable to society. Who are religious figures answerable to? On the face of it, they don't seem to think they're answerable to anyone.
    Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for corporations like Google? Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for civil servants, academics or international charities? These are far better comparisons. Bishops are not politicians so I don't know you imply that they are equivalent. The whole world needs more accountability not specially religions. Religions are just another set of organisations.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    As regards your 'voluntary donations' please don't make me laugh. If you want to participate in religious observances there are fees. How many churches will turn away an individual who hasn't been paying their subscription every week during church services. If these are not taxes what are they? SD
    I can't speak of every denomination but that is simply untrue in the Catholic Church, with the exception of Germany.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Are you saying that what Brady did was not wrong then ?

    You use the word "bullied" quite cynically. The procedures taken in that case like the oath of secrecy were obligatory procedures of a Canon enquiry of the time. It is simply incorrect to imply that this measure was taken specially to cover it up.

    With hind sight we would all agree a different course of action should have been taken, but you cannot judge the past by standards of today. The real wrong doing in that enquiry was committed by Smyth's superior who (appalling) totally failed to follow up on his responsibility thus allowing more abuse to occur.


  • Options
    #3569
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    robp wrote: »
    Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for corporations like Google? Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for civil servants, academics or international charities? These are far better comparisons. Bishops are not politicians so I don't know you imply that they are equivalent. The whole world needs more accountability not specially religions. Religions are just another set of organisations.

    I can't speak of every denomination but that is simply untrue in the Catholic Church, with the exception of Germany.



    You use the word "bullied" quite cynically. The procedures taken in that case like the oath of secrecy were obligatory procedures of a Canon enquiry of the time. It is simply incorrect to imply that this measure was taken specially to cover it up.

    With hind sight we would all agree a different course of action should have been taken, but you cannot judge the past by standards of today. The real wrong doing in that enquiry was committed by Smyth's superior who (appalling) totally failed to follow up on his responsibility thus allowing more abuse to occur.

    Cynically you say !! What would you call it ? Actually don't bother answering , at this stage it is obvious you can square any circle.


  • Options
    #3570
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,457 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for corporations like Google? Why aren't you pleading for plebiscites for civil servants, academics or international charities? These are far better comparisons. Bishops are not politicians so I don't know you imply that they are equivalent. The whole world needs more accountability not specially religions. Religions are just another set of organisations.

    I can't speak of every denomination but that is simply untrue in the Catholic Church, with the exception of Germany.
    .

    Hang on I'll get my net and I'll scoop up all these red herrings for you. There you go. What did you want to do with them?

    Anyway, your phrase bishops are not politicians made me laugh. As regards the likes of Google et al. They are corporations bound by law, out to make a profit and they don't care what my personal beliefs are as long as I buy their crap. Microsoft won't be asking me what my beliefs are if I want to buy an xbox and won't discriminate against me on foot of any belief or lack of belief. They just want my money.

    Religions on the other hand sell belief. If the actions of the RCC are anything to go by the attitude seems to be do as we say nevermind what we do. No accountability, no recognition of harm done beyond hand wringing. Money goes into the organisation, again no accountability and what grates for me, is that religious groups want an exemption from equality laws because they don't believe in equality. So like I said, when unaccountable religious groups want money, I ask the question. Where is the accountability?

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3571
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Hang on I'll get my net and I'll scoop up all these red herrings for you. There you go. What did you want to do with them?

    Anyway, your phrase bishops are not politicians made me laugh. As regards the likes of Google et al. They are corporations bound by law, out to make a profit and they don't care what my personal beliefs are as long as I buy their crap. Microsoft won't be asking me what my beliefs are if I want to buy an xbox and won't discriminate against me on foot of any belief or lack of belief. They just want my money.
    Social Justice Ireland cares about how you live your life. Peta cares about how you live your life. Green Peace cares about your personal beliefs and I don't see you referring to them. Double standard as you have an axe to grind. Pure and simple.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    Religions on the other hand sell belief. If the actions of the RCC are anything to go by the attitude seems to be do as we say nevermind what we do.
    Completely untrue.
    StudentDad wrote: »
    No accountability
    I guess no one told you about many senior resignations that have occurred in the last ten years or the huge effort to create child protection policy. Or the church's own self funded child protection watch dog the National Board for Safeguarding Children. You really are ignoring so much of the last 10 years. I am starting to think you are just trying to wind me up...


Advertisement