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)

1117118120122123131

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,455 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    robp wrote: »
    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.

    Completely untrue.


    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...

    Wind you up. Don't think so. As regards a few resignations and window dressing, that's all it is. PR. I have not seen any meaningful reform of the institution worth considering. As far as I'm aware laity have no meaningful input into the running of the organisation. From what I can see whenever there is a crisis the buck gets passed faster than a live grenade.

    Everything I've seen in relation to the church reminds me of a multinational protecting it's interests. Not a church interested in it's members or the societies they live in.

    SD


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


    To be crystal clear, of course more accountability is good and it is reasonable to say that as the Catholic church is a very ancient organisation it does not have the best protocols for this. However it is unfair to say there is no accountability and it is unreasonable to insist that plebiscite elections are the only option. Huge effort has gone to increase transparency, modernise and improve standards in all areas and more of this is very welcome. However it will never be enough for some over zealous secularists who seem to be unable to let go of this outdated 19th cen Grand narrative.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    The Catholics are soo soo sorry

    Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

    RTE Story here


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    The Catholics are soo soo sorry

    Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

    RTE Story here

    A lack of sensibility, again. Para 5. corporate responsibility V the buck stops here

    Para 6; every precaution taken AKA move the offender on to another parish.

    Then again, he was formerly a major figure in the Australian branch before being moved to Rome. Cardinal Pell is now one of the most important figures in the Catholic Church, charged with helping overhaul the Vatican's much-criticised central administration following a wave of scandals.

    Sarcastically speaking, were there experience-requirements set out for applicants for the position?

    Will the church ever learn, as age doesn't seem to have given enlightenment to the upper echelons, no matter how closer they get to God.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    The Catholics are soo soo sorry

    Their sorrow is so deep and visceral that it cant be put in crude monetary terms

    RTE Story here

    His analogy is just incorrect , so lets change it , if an ambulance driver for the HSE ....

    The point is when you have a duty of care because of your position the authority is negligent .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    George Pell is correct.

    If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.
    If in fact the authority figure has been remiss through bad preparation, bad procedures or has been warned and has done nothing or insufficient, then certainly the church should be held responsible

    Of course the RTE link did not contain the above quote for some reason


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    hinault wrote: »
    George Pell is correct.

    If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.

    Hinalut, if only you could understand as efficiently as you misunderstand.

    This is an organisation who routinely shuffled their staff around when an abuse allegation arose. Surely you are not suggesting that constitutes having "undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening".

    Shuffling perpetrators around, sushing victims, frustrating investigations, or as you might be calling it 'undertaking every policy and...'


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


    Hinalut, if only you could understand as efficiently as you misunderstand.

    This is an organisation who routinely shuffled their staff around when an abuse allegation arose. Surely you are not suggesting that constitutes having "undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening".

    Shuffling perpetrators around, sushing victims, frustrating investigations, or as you might be calling it 'undertaking every policy and...'

    I agree with Pell's reported comments.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731340/Cardinal-George-Pell-compares-priests-truck-drivers-claims-Catholic-Church-leaders-not-held-responsible-child-sex-abuse.html?printingPage=true

    RTE's reporting on this matter is different for some reason:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    hinault wrote: »
    George Pell is correct.

    If an organisation has undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent something from happening, and subsequently something happens, then that organisation cannot be held directly responsible.
    In terms of vicarious liability, which is what we are talking about here, you are wrong. Even where an organisation has done absolutely sverything possible, they can still be held liable.

    Have a look at this case:

    Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

    It is a case from the forties and is still good law in vicarious liability. This is about a petrol tanker driver that like to smoke whilst delivering fuel. Smoking whilst delivering thousands of litres of fuel was against company policy. There were signs to this effect and staff training reenforced this idea. Additionally, this driver had been previously warned for smoking and had received additional training. When he, enevitably, set a filling station on fire his employer was held liable.

    Vicarious liability is not necessarily about holding the factually correct person or organisation liable, sometime it is, probably for public policy reasons, holding the person or organisation best able to handle the Liability responsible.

    In the case of finding the church liable for the misdeeds of its priests it seems that in many cases, due to their behaviour in covering up the acts, moving offenders and not reporting matters to the police, it seems more than appropriate that they be held liable. There seems little reason to need to fall back on a public policy argument for liability. They said, the public policy justification is also good. A priest is unlikely to ha e the kind of money needed to adequated compensate his rape victim, particularly as many of them were quite prolific with their rapes. Holding the wider organisation liable means that, with the obvious outrageous exception of Ireland, victims will be able to secure compensation from the church, rather than the tax-payer. Everyone's a winner.

    MrP


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


    MrPudding wrote: »
    In terms of vicarious liability, which is what we are talking about here, you are wrong. Even where an organisation has done absolutely sverything possible, they can still be held liable.

    Have a look at this case:

    Century Insurance Co Ltd v Northern Ireland Road Transport Board

    It is a case from the forties and is still good law in vicarious liability. This is about a petrol tanker driver that like to smoke whilst delivering fuel. Smoking whilst delivering thousands of litres of fuel was against company policy. There were signs to this effect and staff training reenforced this idea. Additionally, this driver had been previously warned for smoking and had received additional training. When he, enevitably, set a filling station on fire his employer was held liable.

    I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    hinault wrote: »
    I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.

    So what are we discussing?

    MrP


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    hinault wrote: »
    I would dispute that we're discussing vicarious liability in this instance.

    The RCC is their employer, they were aware of numerous allegations so their preventative measure was to move them each time allegations arose. This system did not work, they were aware of this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,873 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    hinault wrote: »

    Yeah to be fair, in the Mail, it doesn't really say whether he thinks the catholics are liable or not.

    Basically he says 'if they did all they could they are not liable, and if they did not then are liable'. Is seems obvious to most people that they did not do all they could to prevent abuse, instead they did all they could to keep it from coming to light. But I suspect that everyone can read what they want from the statement.

    Hinault, do you think, at the time, the Catholics had undertaken every policy and every procedure to try to prevent the abuse from happening?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,521 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Reading this report, it seem's Pope Francis is, at least, clearing the upper decks within the South American Church. One thing that is clear is he was based there for a good many years within the church, so he may have become aware of rumours within that section of the church whilst there, or other people who knew him there have told him of them.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/pope-sends-clear-strong-message-on-sex-abuse-1.1943306

    Now the next thing is for people within the other continental branches of the church to take courage at his actions and let the truth be known about those abusers at all levels within those branches. There's no point in clearing the upper decks and promoting others if those filling the vacancies are cut from the same cloth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,813 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine




  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Trite. A journalist's article which while fine at pushing a particular agenda fails to address the historical economic problems faced by Irish at the time which the government sought to address by exporting the poor and leaving the Church to cope with the remnant.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Manach wrote: »
    Trite. A journalist's article which while fine at pushing a particular agenda fails to address the historical economic problems faced by Irish at the time which the government sought to address by exporting the poor and leaving the Church to cope with the remnant.

    And you are not pushing a particular agenda ?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,639 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    marienbad wrote: »
    And you are not pushing a particular agenda ?
    Find me an unbiased chronicler of the past & current deeds then can set a baseline. At least I'm more open about my views that the pretence of objectivity that passes for some reports. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Manach wrote: »
    Find me an unbiased chronicler of the past & current deeds then can set a baseline. At least I'm more open about my views that the pretence of objectivity that passes for some reports. :rolleyes:

    A quite meaningless and irrelevant statement :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Manach wrote: »
    Find me an unbiased chronicler of the past & current deeds then can set a baseline.
    Well, we could compare infant mortality rates within the mother and baby homes with the general infant mortality rates than prevailed in Ireland at the time, couldn't we?

    If there was excess mortality in the homes, it wouldn't necessary follow that this was due to poor standards of care, or other negligence; it could also be influenced by, e.g, the socioeconomic background of the women who came to these homes. And possibly further research would be required to see how much infant mortality in Ireland at the time was affected by socioeconomic background, and whether the socioeconomic background of mothers in these homes was materially different to the socioeconomic background of mothers not in the homes.

    The point is, though, that these enquiries could be made.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,813 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Manach wrote: »
    Trite. A journalist's article which while fine at pushing a particular agenda fails to address the historical economic problems faced by Irish at the time which the government sought to address by exporting the poor and leaving the Church to cope with the remnant.

    I was wondering why I haven't added you to my Ignore List yet.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,813 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    I doubt Manach's going to read the evidence against the RCC detailed below:

    Mortality rates of babies born to married mothers vs unmarried mothers:
    mortality-rates.jpg

    Note that the fatality rate for the babies of unmarried mothers never exceeded 35% between 1923 and 1950. On the other hand, mortality rates in Bessborough hit 55% in the late 1940s, while the mortality rate for the babies of unmarried mothers as a whole was an average of 16% in the latter half of the 1940s. In 1943, the mortality rate in Bessborough hit 68%.

    Now, you're probably going to claim that the Church was doing it all it could with limited resources. According to the book "Banished Babies", a child would be sold for between £2-3,000 (or about €70-82,000 today). I have little doubt that little of that money went to the inmates - after all, if you couldn't cough up the £100 fee, you were held in debt bondage for three years.

    The Church saw unmarried mothers as Untermenschen. Your ignorance (or perhaps admiration) of the totalitarian society they created is nothing short of vile.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,907 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Now, you're probably going to claim that the Church was doing it all it could with limited resources. According to the book "Banished Babies", a child would be sold for between £2-3,000 (or about €70-82,000 today). I have little doubt that little of that money went to the inmates - after all, if you couldn't cough up the £100 fee, you were held in debt bondage for three years.
    But surely this points to those running the homes having a strong incentive to reduce infant mortality? You can only sell a live child, after all. So I don't think this analysis of the motivations of those involved in these terms is a good explanation of the observed facts.

    What would be useful, I think, is a further breakdown of the mortality rates for illegitimate births between those taking place in homes, and those taking place elsewhere.

    The other very striking thing that comes out in the tables is a dramatic change over the years 1947-50. Prior to that the illegitimate mortality rate is consistently 3 to 4 times higher than the general/legitimate mortality rate and then, over a very short period, this gap declines dramatically. The general mortality rate also falls, but the illegitimate mortality rate falls much, much faster.

    Why? I't not as if the mother and baby home system was being dismantled over that period; it continued for another 20 years. The mother and child scheme was proposed by Noel Browne in 1947 but of course not implemented; it wasn't until 1953 that a watered-down version was implemented by the Fianna Fail government, and that cannot account for what we see happening to mortality rates in 1947-50.

    Still, there was a white paper on infant mortality in 1947. I'm going to hazard a wild guess that, despite the stimying of the Mother and Child Scheme, other changes to the delivery of maternal and infant health services were made in light of that paper, changes which particularly benefited the less economically advantaged, where illegitimate births were concentrated.

    Which, if true, in turn suggests that previous high illegitimate mortality rates might not have been entirely the fault of the wicked nuns; it may have been down to crappy access to adequate medical care if you didn't have the cash.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, we could compare infant mortality rates within the mother and baby homes with the general infant mortality rates than prevailed in Ireland at the time, couldn't we?

    If there was excess mortality in the homes, it wouldn't necessary follow that this was due to poor standards of care, or other negligence; it could also be influenced by, e.g, the socioeconomic background of the women who came to these homes. And possibly further research would be required to see how much infant mortality in Ireland at the time was affected by socioeconomic background, and whether the socioeconomic background of mothers in these homes was materially different to the socioeconomic background of mothers not in the homes.

    The point is, though, that these enquiries could be made.

    Certainly, but for a fair and objective study they should also be compared with equivalents from another jurisdiction, in the UK to see if there was similarly a differential between welfare metrics for those youngsters bought up in state care and those brought up in family homes from that era.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    The Church saw unmarried mothers as Untermenschen. Your ignorance (or perhaps admiration) of the totalitarian society they created is nothing short of vile.

    Statements such as, and particularly an emotive word like 'Untermenschen', indicates to me that you have a strong emotional reaction against the Roman Catholic Church, which may well be for understandable reasons, but don't seem disposed towards an objective and fair-handed assessment of the whole issue. The danger is that government, and 'society' i.e. - let's face it, us or our ancestors - are let off the hook.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Festus wrote: »
    Myth: Pedophile priests have been the problem.
    Fact: Homosexual priests have been the problem. Proof: 81 percent of the victims have been male, and more than 95 percent have been postpubescent. When males have sex with postpubescent males, it is called homosexuality.


    Myth: The problem is on-going.
    Fact: The homosexual scandal took place mostly between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s. In the last ten years, the average number of credible accusations made against 40,000 priests is in the single digits.
    Why do you think the "homosexual scandal" was restricted between 1960 to 1980? There's nothing to say the Catholic church hasn't been attracting homosexual men since it first said women are yucky.

    If your going to say this is a homosexual problem then it seems probable that the catholic church has always been run by repressed homosexuals. Why should we believe that the church just so happened to attract a load of gay men in 1960 and they had all left by 1980?

    Maybe most the crimes were carried out by repressed and confused homosexuals (although I don't really believe you, I'd need to see that coming from a credible source), but that doesn't take away from the fact that the real crime was that the church as an institution decided the best course of action was to cover it up and let it continue up until society changed on them and brought their secrets out into the open.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Marian isn't the one throwing homophobic or sexist language around...

    I accept I made a mildly sexist comment but I did not say anything homophobic.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    ScumLord wrote: »
    Why do you think the "homosexual scandal" was restricted between 1960 to 1980? There's nothing to say the Catholic church hasn't been attracting homosexual men since it first said women are yucky.

    that's inflammatory
    ScumLord wrote: »
    If your going to say this is a homosexual problem then it seems probable that the catholic church has always been run by repressed homosexuals. Why should we believe that the church just so happened to attract a load of gay men in 1960 and they had all left by 1980?

    that's an inflammatory unfounded sweeping generalization
    ScumLord wrote: »
    Maybe most the crimes were carried out by repressed and confused homosexuals (although I don't really believe you, I'd need to see that coming from a credible source), but that doesn't take away from the fact that the real crime was that the church as an institution decided the best course of action was to cover it up and let it continue up until society changed on them and brought their secrets out into the open.

    that's continuing the debate with unfounded assertions despite warnings from the mod that this is not the place for this discussion


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Festus, just so there's no confusion here...are you saying as per here
    that's continuing the debate with unfounded assertions

    that in your view, there was no cover-up by the RCC of child sex abuse cases? If so...wow. Talk about being wilfully blind. I seem to remember government inquiries into this! Ever hear of the Ryan Commission?

    Mods, I don't mind if this gets moved, I just want Festus to say plainly what he means.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators Posts: 51,683 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Number of posts regarding child abuse moved to appropriate thread.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



Advertisement