(Merged) RC Child Abuse Issues/Comments

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 11:05am

kelly1 wrote: »

I fully realize that the the religious perpetrated these crimes and the their superiours covered them up but the dogs in the street knew what the Christian Brothers and other orders were like. They had too much power and the state didn't intervene. The state is guilty in their complicity. They sent the "offenders" to these institutions knowing full well what was going on behind closed doors. I'm not trying to remove blame from the Church, I'm trying to bring some fairness and balance to the discussion.

The fact is, if it was anyone other body - other than a religious body - that perpetrated these crimes, they would not be allowed to operate in this country again.
We can remove religion from education but we cannot remove the state - regardless of their past crimes.

PDN · 28-05-2009 1:34pm

Bduffman wrote: »

So what you are suggesting is that the state contracted the religious orders to rape & assault children?

No, and I don't see how anyone who speaks English could get that meaning out of what I posted.

The State contracted the religious orders to fulfil part of any modern State's obligations and, while they were under the State's supervision, members of the religious orders raped and assaulted children.

The rapists were individuals who are directly responsible for their crimes and guilty as hell.

The religious orders to which those individuals belonged are one stage removed from direct responsibility, but still guilty.

The State which contracted education out to those religious orders are two stages removed from direct responsibility, but still guilty.

Saint Ruth · 28-05-2009 4:39pm

Skrynesaver wrote: »

And that's precisely what is being advocated:
If you wish to indoctrinate your children, you do it on your own time without state support.
if you want to run a school that includes the teachings of the sky fairy in class time, it receives no state subsidy
If the teachers of a school are paid for by the state, no religion is taught in the school
What I'm trying to say is that we do not have a secular society, and for those of us who live in rural Ireland there is enormous difficulty in raising our children without this medieval superstition being foisted upon them:mad:

Such actions would be unconstitutional as:

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

and

Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious denominations, nor be such as to affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending religious instruction at that school...

Refusing state aid to a school because of it's religious ethos would be unconstitutional.

You complain that religious views are "foisted upon" you, which is fine, so it's a bit ironic you don't have a problem with "foisted" your secular beliefs on every child in the country.

And while there should be nondenominational schools for those who want it in rural areas, many do want their children to have a religious upbring and no not want a secular education "foisted upon them" by the state.

Let the market decide. Open up non-denomination schools and see where parents want to send their children.

Replacing one lack of choice (all Religious) with another lack of choice (secular) is not an improvement just because you personally agree with the second...

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 4:42pm

PDN wrote: »

No, and I don't see how anyone who speaks English could get that meaning out of what I posted.

The State contracted the religious orders to fulfil part of any modern State's obligations and, while they were under the State's supervision, members of the religious orders raped and assaulted children.

The rapists were individuals who are directly responsible for their crimes and guilty as hell.

The religious orders to which those individuals belonged are one stage removed from direct responsibility, but still guilty.

The State which contracted education out to those religious orders are two stages removed from direct responsibility, but still guilty.

How I got that meaning was simply from your reply & some of your previous comments on this thread. You seem to be implying that the two crimes (those of the state & the religious) are the same. I reached that conclusion from your statement that (from my analogy) the gardai would be guilty of murder if they did not catch the murderer.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, I would say that would make the gardai guilty of murder themselves.

Whereas I would say, it would make the state guilty, but nowhere near equally guilty.
Which comes to the solution - remove the religious from education? Easy enough. Make the RCC pay - why not?
But how do you intend to reprimand the state?

Saint Ruth · 28-05-2009 4:43pm

Bduffman wrote: »

...
We can remove religion from education but we cannot remove the state - regardless of their past crimes.

Not without the will of the people you can't.

Most people would agree that the Christian Brothers should not be in the education game, but that does not mean that most people want non-denomination schools.

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 4:46pm

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Such actions would be unconstitutional as:
and
Refusing state aid to a school because of it's religious ethos would be unconstitutional.

Bring on the referendum!!!!!!!

Saint Ruth wrote: »

You complain that religious views are "foisted upon" you, which is fine, so it's a bit ironic you don't have a problem with "foisted" your secular beliefs on every child in the country.
And while there should be nondenominational schools for those who want it in rural areas, many do want their children to have a religious upbring and no not want atheism "foisted upon them" by the state.

How on earth would a secular education system involve the teaching of atheism?? Do you know what secular means?

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 4:47pm

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Not without the will of the people you can't.

Most people would agree that the Christian Brothers should not be in the education game, but that does not mean that most people want non-denomination schools.

As I said - bring it on. But unfortunately I believe any government we have would lack the backbone to call a referenduum

Saint Ruth · 28-05-2009 4:51pm

Bduffman wrote: »

How on earth would a secular education system involve the teaching of atheism?? Do you know what secular means?

Yeah, I made a mistake...I edited it...

JimiTime · 28-05-2009 4:54pm

Bduffman wrote: »

So what you are suggesting is that the state contracted the religious orders to rape & assault children?

My word. Any thread here that I've ever seen you involved in, you have managed to completely misunderstand a post or poster. i forget the last time I seen you post here, but I remember thinking, 'Does this guy actually speak English or what?' I was going to post something about it then, but thought 'meh'. Seeing you do it so plainly again, I do have to question your linguistic uptake

As someone with a form of dislexia myself, I often have to re-read my own, and others posts. I suggest such a process for yourself. It certainly helps me.

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 4:56pm

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Yeah, I made a mistake...I edited it...

You caught me by surprise there. Thanks for admitting your mistake.

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 5:01pm

JimiTime wrote: »

My word. Any thread here that I've ever seen you involved in, you have managed to completely misunderstand a post or poster. i forget the last time I seen you post here, but I remember thinking, 'Does this guy actually speak English or what?' I was going to post something about it then, but thought 'meh'. Seeing you do it so plainly again, I do have to question your linguistic uptake As someone with a form of dislexia myself, I often have to re-read my own, and others posts. I suggest such a process for yourself. It certainly helps me.

Re-read my post 185. If you don't understand that I'd suggest you have a bigger problem than you'd care to admit.
But just to help you out.
If the gardai is guilty of murder for not stopping a murderer then, by PDNs logic, the state is guilty of rape & assault (or the contracting of) for not stopping the child abuse. What part of that do you not understand?

JimiTime · 28-05-2009 5:06pm

Bduffman wrote: »

Re-read my post 185. If you don't understand that I'd suggest you have a bigger problem than you'd care to admit.
But just to help you out.
If the gardai is guilty of murder for not stopping a murderer then, by PDNs logic, the state is guilty of rape & assault (or the contracting of) for not stopping the child abuse. What part of that do you not understand?

Indeed, when you have misunderstood in the past, you have a tendancy never to see it too. Seriously, and in the friendliest way, you really should try a bit harder to see what others are 'actually' saying. The above shows your misunderstanding. If you can't re-read and see that, fair enough. You are 100% off the mark with your understanding though.

I wont derail the thread though by arguing about it. I thought it may do you some good for it to be pointed out though. Fair enough if you don't think its a problem.

seansmith06 · 28-05-2009 5:12pm

is that supposed to be some sort of justification??

PDN · 28-05-2009 6:36pm

seansmith06 wrote: »

is that supposed to be some sort of justification??

Maybe you could use the quote function so people have some idea who you are addressing and what you asking?

PDN · 28-05-2009 6:40pm

Bduffman wrote: »

Re-read my post 185. If you don't understand that I'd suggest you have a bigger problem than you'd care to admit.
But just to help you out.
If the gardai is guilty of murder for not stopping a murderer then, by PDNs logic, the state is guilty of rape & assault (or the contracting of) for not stopping the child abuse. What part of that do you not understand?

What he probably doesn't understand is the way you take leaps of logic and conflate and confuse totally separate issues or ideas. I have, in other threads, just given up trying to respond to you because you seem to get yourself so muddled.

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 9:24pm

JimiTime wrote: »

Indeed, when you have misunderstood in the past, you have a tendancy never to see it too. Seriously, and in the friendliest way, you really should try a bit harder to see what others are 'actually' saying. The above shows your misunderstanding. If you can't re-read and see that, fair enough. You are 100% off the mark with your understanding though.

I wont derail the thread though by arguing about it. I thought it may do you some good for it to be pointed out though. Fair enough if you don't think its a problem.

How incredibly patronising - not surprising really.

I know exactly what PDN was saying & the sad thing is your may well agree with him. It was a pretty obvious attempt to share the blame. 'Oh the church were bad - but look at what the state did. I blame society.' Anything to deflect attention from the fact that it was 'men of god' who did this. And they used their position to take advantage of the most vulnerable in society.

If you honestly believe that the state were just a bad as that scum running those institutions, then you are seriously deluded.

Bduffman · 28-05-2009 9:29pm

PDN wrote: »

What he probably doesn't understand is the way you take leaps of logic and conflate and confuse totally separate issues or ideas. I have, in other threads, just given up trying to respond to you because you seem to get yourself so muddled.

Did you, or did you not, state that if the gardai acted in a murder case the way the state did in these abuse cases, that they would be guilty of murder?

That is what you said. Read it. If you're embarrassed by that I understand.

I have been the one trying to get back to the point of this thread - abuse by the RCC. You are the one who wants to confuse things by trying to blame everyone else.

But somehow, I think you not responding says more about you than me.

JimiTime · 28-05-2009 11:11pm

Bduffman wrote: »

How incredibly patronising - not surprising really.

Its why I didn't point it out the first time I was going to, as it is a bit patronising. It is a genuine observation though. It sticks out, because I remember I first encountered it on a thread about a nurse in England you posted on. I then seen it happen in a few other threads, and now this one.

Bduffman · 29-05-2009 8:11am

JimiTime wrote: »

Its why I didn't point it out the first time I was going to, as it is a bit patronising. It is a genuine observation though. It sticks out, because I remember I first encountered it on a thread about a nurse in England you posted on. I then seen it happen in a few other threads, and now this one.

I'm sure we can all point out things about other posters we don't like - straw men, personal attacks, snide comments, patronising remarks, arrogance - the list goes on (all of which I have encountered by professed christians on this forum).
But I'd prefer to stick to the actual topic of the thread. If you want to discuss the traits of individual posters that annoy you, I'd suggest opening a new thread.

Fanny Cradock · 29-05-2009 8:44am

Bduffman, I would strongly suggest that if you want to keep posting here you ditch the righteous indignation that underlies your most recent posts.

Also, I find how you consistently miss PDN's point to be quite tedious.

Bduffman · 29-05-2009 8:48am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Bduffman, I would strongly suggest that if you want to keep posting here you ditch the righteous indignation that underlies your most recent posts.

Fair enough - I accept that.

But a little even-handedness wouldn't go astray.

Fanny Cradock · 29-05-2009 9:01am

Please PM me any incidences where you belive I have not been even-handed and I'll rectify my position if I agree. On this thread - certainly the last page or two - you have stood out as the source of heated argument. PDN's points seem quite clear to me, and I just don't see the need for your apparent confusion which lead to heated posts. This is why I warned you, and not, I contend, because of any imbalance on my part.

If you want to pursue this further it would be best to do so via PM.

Jason Mc · 29-05-2009 12:48pm

Too many excuses being made for these sick sick men.

They have been harbored by the RC church and it is an absolute disgrace. I for one will not be back groveling at the altar of a place which has done so much to hide these crimes to humanity

kelly1 · 29-05-2009 1:05pm

Jason Mc wrote: »

Too many excuses being made for these sick sick men.

Nobody's condoning the abominable behaviour of the abusers. But the fact is that the state turned a blind eye and are therefore guilty of doing nothing to help the victims. The state put the victims in these institutions!

Jason Mc wrote: »

They have been harbored by the RC church and it is an absolute disgrace.

I agree but keep in mind that the Church isn't one monolithic unit. The wrongful actions of the few doesn't make the entire Church bad. There were bad priests, religious and bishops and they don't represent the entire Church.

North_West_Art · 29-05-2009 1:11pm

certain members of the clergy tortured and sexual abused children, the state put them in charge of the children and chose to turn a blind eye, the church also chose to ignore it, and still havent fully addressed the issue.

ALL GUILTY, 100% GUILTY... its as simple as that

dvpower · 29-05-2009 1:40pm

kelly1 wrote: »

The wrongful actions of the few doesn't make the entire Church bad. There were bad priests, religious and bishops and they don't represent the entire Church.

I agree. By the same measure, can we conclude that some of the religious organisations, notably the Christian Brothers, are rotten to the core? The abuse was so endemic, far more than a few bad apples, that it does come to 'represent' the entire organisation.

Jason Mc · 29-05-2009 1:45pm

kelly1 wrote: »

I agree but keep in mind that the Church isn't one monolithic unit. The wrongful actions of the few doesn't make the entire Church bad. There were bad priests, religious and bishops and they don't represent the entire Church.

If this is the case why has the Pope not stepped in and done something to deal with this issue

Maybe he is a little worried about admitting liability. Or at least thats how it seems.

It might be time for proper confessions

Bduffman · 29-05-2009 3:15pm

Again, why does it matter if not all involved in the RCC are bad? Why does it matter if there were others to blame outside the RCC?

The fact remains, if it was any other organisation other than a religious one it would be either banned or not be allowed to be involved in education in this country.
I feel that this sharing of the blame is simply to remove the spotlight from the RCC. If the state & society are also guilty (which they are) then lets deal with that separately.

philologos · 30-05-2009 10:12pm

I bought Christopher Hitchen's God is not Great at a church sale today would you believe!

Anyhow, I started reading through the start of it, or his introduction. Concerning the Catholic abuse scandals he says the following and it intrigues me:

I am inflicting all this upon you because I am not one of those whose chance at a wholesome belief was destroyed by child abuse or brutish indoctrination. I know that millions of human beings have had to endure these things, and I do not think that religions can or should be absolved from imposing such miseries. (In the very recent past, we have seen the Church of Rome befouled by it's complicity with the unpardonable sin of child rape, or as it might be phrased in Latin form, "no child's behind left".) But other non-religious organisations have committed similar crimes, or even worse ones.

If non-religious organisations have committed similar crimes or worse is the blame disproportionately on religion or the Catholic Church?

robindch · 31-05-2009 12:45am

Jakkass wrote: »

If non-religious organisations have committed similar crimes or worse is the blame disproportionately on religion or the Catholic Church?

I'm not sure what Hitchens is referring to here, but off the top of my head, I can't think of any other place or time in which the church and state colluded to produce something similar to the Irish industrial school system and its results (that said, I'm sure there probably are).

However, in all the clamor that's been raised over the contents of the Ryan Report, I see few people making any genuine attempt to understand why what happened, happened. Seems to me that a bit of institutional introspection would shed some light on the actions of the religious orders concerned, particularly if it's done bearing in mind the unpleasant and considerable power of the situation that these people found themselves in.

Philip Zimbardo did a short talk in which he discussed situations in which similar abuses took place -- Abu Ghraib, the Milgram Experiment, the Stanford Prison Study and others. The talk's here:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html