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)

1…34689…131

Comments

  • #152
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

    Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.

    "Protection of an oath of silence" seems to only protect the church. A heinous crime was committed by a few priests and the church authorities had no moral or legal right to cover this up over the last few decades.

    Ever consider the hundreds of children and families that were subject to decades of abuse because he or others knowing didn't have the courage to report it.

    Outrage it's funny that you seem to think it was in the victims interests to keep it silent back then but when all victims groups now publicly call for Brady's resignation you dismiss their views.


  • #153
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    mehfesto wrote: »
    Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?

    Many reasons in the day. If you read the Ryan Report and the Murphy Report in particular you will find many instances where parents/family were made aware of abuse and chose not to take any action.


  • #154
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,658 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    the church authorities had no moral or legal right to cover this up over the last few decades.
    QUOTE]

    I do agree with you about the moral part. However based on a thread on the legal discussion forum
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055856201
    , there was no legal onus to report to the police in certain catagories of abuse?
    As well, it was only 4 years prior to this that people where allowed to take a tort action against the State. Thus there was very much a paternalistic attitude at that time.


  • #155
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,701 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    mehfesto wrote: »
    Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?
    Fear of the Church and excommunication? The RCC pretty much ran the country around then (although signs were that their grasp was beginning to loosen then).

    I wonder did the families go to the gardai then. I do know of a case in 1973 where a friend of my parents told my ma that a neighbour had raped their daughter (coincidentally the rapist was married to the woman who ran the local playgroup!). Anyhow they wento to the gardai who were very good to the family. The gardai explained that they could arrange court proceedings, etc. but that (given the judicial system of the time) the victim would be forced to take the stand (and effectively be treated as an adult). To my knowledge, the family decided that this was not in the child's interest.

    However, in an alternative tale, my grandfather was a juror in a trial in the late 40s or early 50s where a father was accused of raping his child. AFAIK the man was found guilty and jailed.

    The precedent for abusers to face trial and if required be convicted was around when Sean Brady was watching the children sign the contract. The only reason that it was never followed by the RCC was (is?) because there is a firm belief that Canon Law actually means something in the real world. However, I suspect that because of the grip the RCC had over this island up until recently, that it was simple fear that stopped families reporting cases to the civil authorities and instead going to the local bishop in the belief that they actually cared.

    When you had a society that had priests going on about fire and brimstone for pre-marital sex, could you really imagine the church would willingly declare that some of their staff were raping children. Even now they won't come clean about the acts and any information has to be prised forcefully from them although this looks more to be to protect the organisation financially.

    In my view the whole cover up is down to the likes of Crimen Sollicitationis and Herr Ratzinger's follow up letter. This culture led to people being raped and abused by clergy who should have otherwise been in jail. This culture has destroyed the lives of every victim. This culture has led to some victims taking their own lives*. This culture of cover up was decided by Rome and for this reason, it is not sufficient enough for Sean Brady (who would also have been sworn to secrecy) to resign. Ratzinger must resign also!

    Anyhow, I await Ratzinger's letter to the Irish victims (this weekend?) with anticipation!



    * I'd be curious to know the RCC's view on suicide in this scenario!


  • #156
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    kbannon wrote: »

    * I'd be curious to know the RCC's view on suicide in this scenario!

    Indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Outrage wrote: »
    I don't agree with this. I believe that the Church in Ireland will suffer for at least the next 20 to 30 years. The Eucharistic Congress in 2012 will be snubbed by the Pope and all high-ranking Cardinals for all that has gone on. We'll probably get one token high-ranking Cardinal in attendence (if we're lucky). We're going to see a big reduction in the number of bishops too. The task for new priests coming on-stream and those being sent to Ireland will be one of 21st century re-evangelisation: a hugely difficult task considering what they must compete against in this age of television and internet. That said, evangelisation has never been an easy task: we must look to the great historical figures and the saints for guidance.

    The most pressing task at the moment is to generously compensate all the abuse victims, offer them sincere apologies and beg for their forgiveness (which I think the current incumbents are attempting to do in the most sensitive manner possible). I have no problem dipping deep into my pockets and offering prayers to help comfort these victims. Unfortunately, some of them have passed away; some even have committed suicide: a tragic reality that also needs to be addressed. The faithful must also pray for the living victims and the dead victims and pray that this great cleansing of the Irish Church leads us to a purer Christian way of life.
    Do you think the RCC's institutional paedophilia is confined to Ireland? Or to Irish America?


  • #158
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    Outrage wrote: »
    You go on as if the Church denied people of free will. Man can do as he pleases (often to detrimental consequences).

    You're unreal. First you state that no child would want to report a priest for child abuse in Ireland in the 60s. Then you say that no one was denied free speech?
    Who do you think was instrumental in creating the atmosphere of fear in the first place. Don't try to tell us that was freedom of speech.


  • #159
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    Outrage wrote: »
    Let's get back on topic: the good Cardinal won't be resigning. Get over it.

    He had a cathedral full of supporters today (despite what you read about in the liberal press).

    Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?


  • #160
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Do you think the RCC's institutional paedophilia is confined to Ireland? Or to Irish America?

    You talk as if paedophilia was a distinctly Catholic phenomenon. It's not. Am I led to believe by you that because 90% of the population was Catholic, the sins of the population are all the Church's fault? The society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards also allows paedophilia to fester. The judge Curtin affair wasn't all that long ago. Your beloved State also sits by while children get abused and eventually kill themselves (there was a case a month ago where the HSE didn't even know the name of a deceased girl who'd been in and out of care for several years).


  • #161
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?

    And I'm sure the victims of child rape at the hands of catholic priests and covered up by their bishops don't go to mass either.

    That statement is like saying. "Klan Leaders receive 100% support to reintroduce slavery at the annual Ku Klux Klan meeting."
    It means nothing and is a silly argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?

    Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think? You should read the Cardinal's speech from yesterday: a very humbling and moving collection of words.

    You'd never see a liberal journo standing up publicly to acknowledge his failings and ask for forgiveness. They're a defiant bunch, a caste unto themselves.


  • #163
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    And I'm sure the victims of child rape at the hands of catholic priests and covered up by their bishops don't go to mass either.

    Actually you're wrong. Many abuse victims continue to go to Mass. But the Church does not make a song and dance about this reality (nor will I - I will not comment any further on Mass-going abuse victims after this post). They are silent witnesses to the faith and are treated with the greatest of respect by those aware of their troubled past.


  • #164
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Outrage wrote: »
    You talk as if paedophilia was a distinctly Catholic phenomenon. It's not. Am I led to believe by you that because 90% of the population was Catholic, the sins of the population are all the Church's fault? The society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards also allows paedophilia to fester. The judge Curtin affair wasn't all that long ago. Your beloved State also sits by while children get abused and eventually kill themselves (there was a case a month ago where the HSE didn't even know the name of a deceased girl who'd been in and out of care for several years).
    No, the sins of the population are their sins. But as far as I'm aware, most Catholics in Ireland do not pass paedophiles from place to place and swear their victims to silence. It is the RCC that does it.

    I'm not sure what your reference to my State, judge Curtain and the HSE mean. I'm a citizen of the U.K., not Ireland. But if you are pointing out that the Irish State was also guilty of cover-up of abusers, I agree.

    I am not saying the RCC is the only institution that tolerates abusers. All power-hungry institutions are liable to do the same - but not all have the same fear-factor built-in to make them so effective at concealment.

    So what about my comments on the RCC world-wide? Any thoughts on the geographical extent of this abuse?


  • #165
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Outrage wrote: »
    Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think? You should read the Cardinal's speech from yesterday: a very humbling and moving collection of words.

    You'd never see a liberal journo standing up publicly to acknowledge his failings and ask for forgiveness. They're a defiant bunch, a caste unto themselves.

    Brady himself said not four months ago: "Child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign"


    He has now found himself in exactly that situation. He has acknowledged it and declared himself to be ashamed. At this point anything other than a resignation makes him a hypocrite and by keeping him in charge the church is being presided over by someone who thinks that the fact that it happened a long time ago and the fact that he apparently didn't have the authority to walk into a garda station to report a crime are excuses that should allow him to get off scot free, despite the fact that he kept his mouth shut for a further 18 years after the point when he supposedly had no authority. Someone like that is compromised, there is no way he can demand the resignation of anyone who was involved in the cover up because he has admitted being involved in it himself


  • #166
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Do you think the RCC's institutional paedophilia is confined to Ireland? Or to Irish America?

    But sure when the RCC ran out of diocese to sent these sick paedophile priests in Ireland we exported them overseas

    God only knows what went on is some of the missions around the world at the hands of Irish paedophile priests. May God forgive us all.


  • #167
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    He has now found himself in exactly that situation. He has acknowledged it and declared himself to be ashamed. At this point anything other than a resignation makes him a hypocrite and by keeping him in charge the church is being presided over by someone who thinks that the fact that it happened a long time ago and the fact that he apparently didn't have the authority to walk into a garda station to report a crime are excuses that should allow him to get off scot free, despite the fact that he kept his mouth shut for a further 18 years after the point when he supposedly had no authority. Someone like that is compromised, there is no way he can demand the resignation of anyone who was involved in the cover up because he has admitted being involved in it himself

    You make it sound as if it would be so easy to simply "walk into a garda station" back at the time. Maybe the child's family didn't want the local Garda to know what happened. The point is that you don't know and I don't know, therefore it's all speculation. Cardinal Brady is not compromised. He is certainly humbled by all that has gone on, but not compromised. He is also evidently very deeply upset by all that has gone on, both as a Bishop and as a person. Cardinal Brady could have gotten all aggressive and defensive at the onslaught of criticism and anti-Church abuse thrown in his direction. But that is not in his nature - he is more of a lamb than an aggressive wolf. He is not afraid to apologise publicly to abuse victims, nor is he afraid to acknowledge wrong-doing that occurred in the Church before his time (as well as take responsibility for the short-comings that occur under his watch of the earthly institution full of human failings). I don't see what purpose forcing a great man such as Cardinal Brady into resignation would serve, apart from satisfying the insatiable appetite of the liberal media to see the Catholic Church ruined. He should stay. And God-willing, he will stay. I have every confidence in that.

    Cardinal Brady is a role-model for any person in this country. He preaches the Gospel in such a soft-handed manner that is so effective. He is highly constrained in what he can and cannot do and is acutely aware of the sex abuse issue that he was tasked with addressing when he took office in 2007. Yet still, the message gets through. He is also not afraid to admit his mistakes publicly. The fact that he is such a popular man with so many admirers is no coincidence. The fact that he has risen to such a respected position in both the Church and society is no coincidence.

    When I read the words of the Cardinal at St Patrick's Day Mass yesterday in the newspaper over lunch, I had shivers down my spine for over 5 seconds and almost started crying. Words almost never have that kind of effect on me.


  • #168
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/priests-support-cardinal-brady

    Priests support Cardinal Brady

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3


  • #169
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Outrage wrote: »
    You make it sound as if it would be so easy to simply "walk into a garda station" back at the time. Maybe the child's family didn't want the local Garda to know what happened.
    If we can't depend on the church to do what's right even when it's difficult then what are they for?
    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady is not compromised. He is certainly humbled by all that has gone on, but not compromised. He is also evidently very deeply upset by all that has gone on, both as a Bishop and as a person. Cardinal Brady could have gotten all aggressive and defensive at the onslaught of criticism and anti-Church abuse thrown in his direction. But that is not in his nature - he is more of a lamb than an aggressive wolf.
    If he's not compromised then there is nothing to be gained from investigating the cover up because we've already decided that those who participated in it will face no repercussions. If he's not compromised then who is?
    Outrage wrote: »
    He is not afraid to apologise publicly to abuse victims, nor is he afraid to acknowledge wrong-doing that occurred in the Church before his time. I don't see what purpose forcing a great man such as Cardinal Brady into resignation would serve, apart from satisfying the insatiable appetite of the liberal media to see thtive. He is e Catholic Church ruined. He should stay. And God-willing, he will stay. I have every confidence in that.
    He's not afraid to apologise but he is afraid to face the consequences of his actions. What would be served by his resignation is the same thing that is served every time someone is punished, he will be facing the consequences of his actions. If someone commits a crime and is convicted do you think the judge should first decide if any purpose will be served by sending them to prison before sentencing or is it enough to say that they committed a crime and should be punished?
    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady is a role-model for any person in this country. He preaches the Gospel in such a soft-handed manner that is so effecalso not afraid to admit his mistakes publicly. The fact that he is such a popular man with so many admirers is no coincidence. The fact that he has risen to such a respected position in both the Church and society is no coincidence.

    When I read the words of the Cardinal at St Patrick's Day Mass yesterday in the newspaper over lunch, I had shivers down my spine for over 5 seconds and almost started crying.

    Cardinal Brady kept silent about sexual abuse for 18 years. He's a role model for no one


  • #170
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    You make it sound as if it would be so easy to simply "walk into a garda station" back at the time. Maybe the child's family didn't want the local Garda to know what happened. The point is that you don't know and I don't know, therefore it's all speculation. Cardinal Brady is not compromised. He is certainly humbled by all that has gone on, but not compromised. He is also evidently very deeply upset by all that has gone on, both as a Bishop and as a person. Cardinal Brady could have gotten all aggressive and defensive at the onslaught of criticism and anti-Church abuse thrown in his direction. But that is not in his nature - he is more of a lamb than an aggressive wolf. He is not afraid to apologise publicly to abuse victims, nor is he afraid to acknowledge wrong-doing that occurred in the Church before his time. I don't see what purpose forcing a great man such as Cardinal Brady into resignation would serve, apart from satisfying the insatiable appetite of the liberal media to see the Catholic Church ruined. He should stay. And God-willing, he will stay. I have every confidence in that.

    Cardinal Brady is a role-model for any person in this country. He preaches the Gospel in such a soft-handed manner that is so effective. He is also not afraid to admit his mistakes publicly. The fact that he is such a popular man with so many admirers is no coincidence. The fact that he has risen to such a respected position in both the Church and society is no coincidence.

    When I read the words of the Cardinal at St Patrick's Day Mass yesterday in the newspaper over lunch, I had shivers down my spine for over 5 seconds and almost started crying. Words almost never have that kind of effect on me.

    He may be a role model in your eyes but to many others he stood by and facilitated the rape and abuse of many children through his (and others) inaction and subsequent years of cover-up.

    He did wrong and he now acknowledges that. If the church is to move on with child protect issues you can hardly expect him to lead it when all victim support groups state they have lost respect for him and are seeking his resignation.

    He may have done 'his duty' as it was at the time but he failed to protect the most vulnerable in society and stood by in the decades afterwards while this was being covered up. Some role model for a 'man of god'!


  • #171
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/priests-support-cardinal-brady

    Priests support Cardinal Brady

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3

    Also from the same article....

    ''His credibility is in tatters. How will he stand before parents at Confirmation now. Thankfully, however, the number of faithful at Masses hasn't fallen because people can differentiate between 'priestianity' and their 'Christianity'.''


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,701 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Outrage wrote: »
    You make it sound as if it would be so easy to simply "walk into a garda station" back at the time. Maybe the child's family didn't want the local Garda to know what happened.
    Given the uproar that has happened since this revelation, one could safely make the presumption that were it the case that he was not to contact Gardai at the request of the victim's family, then he would say this publicly rather than have the victims follow up in a legal case against him.
    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady is not compromised. He is certainly humbled by all that has gone on, but not compromised. He is also evidently very deeply upset by all that has gone on, both as a Bishop and as a person. Cardinal Brady could have gotten all aggressive and defensive at the onslaught of criticism and anti-Church abuse thrown in his direction. But that is not in his nature - he is more of a lamb than an aggressive wolf.
    He is compromised. How can the public believe that his organisation should have any involvement with children or any involvement in a process of healing when he and his organisation vehemently keeps the public unaware of past actions.

    As for his upset, is it as a result of guilt or is it purely because he doesn't like negative headlines? Could his pain be worse that that of the victims who should have been protected from monsters like Smith
    Outrage wrote: »
    He is not afraid to apologise publicly to abuse victims, nor is he afraid to acknowledge wrong-doing that occurred in the Church before his time. I don't see what purpose forcing a great man such as Cardinal Brady into resignation would serve, apart from satisfying the insatiable appetite of the liberal media to see the Catholic Church ruined.
    An apology is worthless if it isn't sincere. Like all revelations about the RCC and child abuse, it wasn't given willingly by them but was extracted painfully by external people/agencies. This episode would not be in the public arena were it not for the fact that a victim has decided to sue him personally.
    His organisation frustrated (this being a mild term) previous inquiries. Why? Sure if there was true sorrow and guilt then why hide the facts? Why did scum like Desmond Connell try and actively stop (through legal means) unsuccesfully the revelation of abuse documents?
    The "liberal media" are doing their job. The only reason they are able to do it is because the Church didn't do theirs. The church made this mess not the public, the media or indeed the victims. Please don't try and twist this because you disagree with it or have a different agenda.

    Outrage wrote: »
    He should stay. And God-willing, he will stay. I have every confidence in that.
    I pray that you are wrong! If anything, the Catholic Church in this country trust. At the moment he is in no position to offer this.
    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady is a role-model for any person in this country. He preaches the Gospel in such a soft-handed manner that is so effective. He is also not afraid to admit his mistakes publicly. The fact that he is such a popular man with so many admirers is no coincidence. The fact that he has risen to such a respected position in both the Church and society is no coincidence.
    A role model?
    Should I strive to be someone who allows someone who preys on the weakest in our society to remain free to continue their evil acts? Should I put the fear of God into children so that they do not tarnish the good name of my club?
    As for his respected position in society - I have no respect for him. I have no respect for his boss over in Rome. I have every respect for God but don't believe that they represent him. How do you know how popular and respected he is - I don't recall any surveys being done.
    As for his respected position within the Church, answer me this - would he have reached this level had he gone to the Gardai and reported Smith?


  • #173
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    kbannon wrote: »
    This episode would not be in the public arena were it not for the fact that a victim has decided to sue him personally.

    Which also doesn't fit with the idea that this person's parents told Brady not to go to the gardai


  • #174
    TravelJunkie
    Registered Users Posts: 438 ✭✭TravelJunkie


    outrage.
    You seem to be spending a lot of time defending fr Brady.

    What about defending Christ?

    The priests' sins are worse because, they claim to represent Christ, and therefore they sin against the Holy Spirit.

    And in other arguments, aren't Catholics saying that you have to practise righteousness to be saved? Well, how does the clergy (not all, just the guilty ones) fit into that?

    Another thing, there is nothing wrong with judging people if you are a Catholic christian. There is such a thing as righteous judgement.
    Even you, even thought you are trying to defend them now,
    deep down, might question these people.
    They are just men.


  • #175
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    The following is another interesting article to take note of I thought.

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3

    "Last week it looked like the Church was starting something of a fight-back against the relentless attacks on it. Today, it suddenly looks very different again with Cardinal Sean Brady under huge pressure to resign over Fr Brendan Smyth.

    I have mixed feelings about this and haven't yet come to a firm conviction one way or the other. But here is an initial thought. Any system of justice must be even-handed. A justice system that uses the law against one group but not another isn't being just at all. Instead it is engaged in injustice.

    The media often try to act as a surrogate for the justice system. They see themselves as a dispenser of justice. As often as not, however, the media pick on one group and not another.

    With respect to the abuse scandals, the media have not been at all even-handed. The Church gets regularly singled out. As I have argued in this blog before, Gerry Adams got off very lightly when it was discovered he knew about abuse complaints against his brother.

    The defenders of Roman Polanski, among them prominent Irish artists, remain unembarrassed by their defence because the media have not targetted them over it.

    No-one in the HSE is ever named and shamed, let alone resigns, because of failures to protect children, even failures that result in the death of a child.

    If Sean Brady must resign, then the same standard that is being applied to him, must be applied to everyone, including HSE staff, teachers, school principals, gardai, everyone. Justice demands an even standard, evenly applied. That is not happening at the moment."
    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/con...inal-brady-row


  • #176
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    The following is another interesting article to take note of I thought.

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3

    I absolutely agree that everyone who participated in any cover up of child abuse should be punished but does the fact that not every criminal is targeted by the media mean that the ones who are shouldn't be punished?


  • #177
    Glenster
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭Glenster


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady kept silent about sexual abuse for 18 years. He's a role model for no one


    He's clearly just having a laugh, dont be so earnest about everything.





    Joking about child abuse is wrong.. DUHHHH!


  • #178
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Glenster wrote: »
    He's clearly just having a laugh, dont be so earnest about everything.
    Have I been a victim of Poe's law

    "Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes. "

    Glenster wrote: »
    Joking about child abuse is wrong.. DUHHHH!
    I don't think so, I think the jokes are hilarious.


  • #179
    Stephentlig
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,114 ✭✭✭Stephentlig


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I absolutely agree that everyone who participated in any cover up of child abuse should be punished but does the fact that not every criminal is targeted by the media mean that the ones who are shouldn't be punished?

    Of course, however I do believe that his eminence Cardinal Sean Brady commited a blunder that contained no malicious intent of cover up.

    I forgive him for the blunder ( MAJOR BLUNDER ) made and I'm behind him for not resigning, however should he resign this will have to be due to his own conscience as to whether he thinks he should or not.

    If the rule applies to him then it must apply to all who failed to act, but this does not seem to be the case at the moment.

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3


  • #180
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Stephentlig wrote: »
    Of course, however I do believe that his eminence Cardinal Sean Brady commited a blunder that contained no malicious intent of cover up.

    I forgive him for the blunder ( MAJOR BLUNDER ) made and I'm behind him for not resigning, however should he resign this will have to be due to his own conscience as to whether he thinks he should or not.

    If the rule applies to him then it must apply to all who failed to act, but this does not seem to be the case at the moment.

    Pax Christi
    Stephen <3

    But if he tries to argue that he should keep his job despite admitting to what you say is a major blunder then surely the position of the catholic church in Ireland is that the rules should apply to no one?


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    This wasn't limited to the catholic church but was a symptom of Irish society at the time, the Irish church merely reflected Irish cultural norms for the time.

    I disagree. True paedophilia happened all over the world since time began but the systematic cover up, protection and facilitation of paedophiles members of and organisation by the superiors of that organisation seems only to be the realm of Roman Catholics all over the world

    It seems now the letter the pope was meant to issue to the victims is now postponed due to
    "similar scandals which have come to light in his own country, Germany - including one in the very town where he taught at the university and where his brother was choirmaster of a famous boys' choir."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8572875.stm

    I can only see one common denominator here. The Roman catholic church.


Advertisement