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)
Comments
-
-
What institution and what's your name? Anonymous MSc's have no standing. To compare your half-hearted MSc to a Papal Letter is laughable.I had to write a similar length report for my Msc recently.
The Church's mission is to save souls.What exactly is the Church's mission?0 -
underclass wrote: »Cardinal Brady won't be resigning. Surely getting to the bottom of the child abuse scandal is saving the organisation? And yes, saving the organisation is of critical importance: there are over 4 million souls in Ireland, most of whom, for all I can see, are going to hell. Of course the Pope is concerned with penance, apology, recompense and truth. For the Pope to write a 4,500 word letter directly to the Catholics of Ireland is a hugely significant step on this long road that we're on. Knocking the Church off this road and putting them on a different path for dubious reasons, is counterproductive. The Church needs support in her mission, not cowardly sniping and continual moaning from the sidelines.
Can you get your spiritual guidance from an organisation that did not rape generations of our children and do (and is still doing) everything it could to cover it up?0 -
-
I've heard it all now. "dubious reasons"???underclass wrote: »Cardinal Brady won't be resigning. Surely getting to the bottom of the child abuse scandal is saving the organisation? And yes, saving the organisation is of critical importance: there are over 4 million souls in Ireland, most of whom, for all I can see, are going to hell. Of course the Pope is concerned with penance, apology, recompense and truth. For the Pope to write a 4,500 word letter directly to the Catholics of Ireland is a hugely significant step on this long road that we're on. Knocking the Church off this road and putting them on a different path for dubious reasons, is counterproductive. The Church needs support in her mission, not cowardly sniping and continual moaning from the sidelines.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »I've heard it all now. "dubious reasons"???
You're obviously not tasked with having to cleanse an organisation on the scale of the Irish Church. I'll leave you to your cribbing and moaning until you come up with a better solution. It must be that you are more learned and know better than Cardinal Brady.0 -
(a) The thread title refers to Catholics, are you Catholic..or even
Christian?
(b) If you don't have anything constructive to add there are plenty of threads on After Hours more suited to you.
(c) It's not "his church"
Oh, but it is "his" church. If you think the lay people have any legal rights of ownership, or any influence over decisions, then you are mistaken. in the catholic church, what the pope says in law, which pretty much makes it "his" church.0 -
underclass wrote: »Where do you get your spiritual guidance from? Secular society?
I don't need any spiritual guidance thanks but you seem to and I don't see why you have to get it from these specific people. You say "secular society" as if it's a ridiculous idea to get your spiritual guidance from there but is it any less ridiculous to get it from an organistion that has done so much evil and is still hiding its crimes? Church=/=god. You can believe in god without giving your support to the catholic church0 -
I don't need any spiritual guidance thanks but you seem to and I don't see why you have to get it from these specific people. You say "secular society" as if it's a ridiculous idea to get your spiritual guidance from there but is it any less ridiculous to get it from an organistion that has done so much evil and is still hiding its crimes? Church=/=god. You can believe in god without giving your support to the catholic church
Best of luck with that.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
any response from under class on this post? maybe it's easier to ignore this post as you have learned to do by your false Gods in robes. I'm still waiting on an answer' " do you think the Pope would have circulated his letter if nobody had been caught"?I have not seen any action by the church in recent times to suggest that this is what the Church wants.
The primate of Ireland recently tried to stop the disclosure of documents.
The church actively tried to stop the publication of the Murphy report.
AFAIK nobody in the church to date has stood forwards voluntarily and said such and such happened 10/20/30/40... years ago. Everything has been done with a pitchfork up their rear end!
This is not just in Ireland - this is the case in several countries!
Ha Ha Ha
Why? Am I one? Because I like heavy metal and I feel that I have the right to question the Church that I'm supposed to be a part of?
Is it because I think contraception is a good thing?
Is it because I managed to overcome the Christian Brother upbringing and now have no ill-feeling to homosexuals?
Is it because I don't think that the church should have an active role in the running of our country?
Is it because I think?
I had to write a similar length report for my Msc recently. It was on something I don't fully understand and have no intention of ever using again and also feel that it was a waste of my time. I had to do it, I did it and it was hopefully well received. That doesn't mean that I successfully addressed all of the requirements though!
Could any of the above apply to the letter at all?
What exactly is the Church's mission?0 -
Ok - just to clarify on the 'anecdotal evidence' issue. Outrage used anecdotal evidence to illustrate the 'support' that the cardinal has. I used anecdotal evidence to refute it. So if you dismiss my evidence you have to dismiss his - understand?
Neiother of you have evidence. Both have offered OPINION based on what yu claim are other peoples opinion. However he is claiming people want Brady to stay in office. he does not really have to prove this. Brady will prove it himself if he says a substantial number wanted him to leave. If you are claiming that a substantial number want him to leave then yu do in fact need more than hearsay to support this.Obviously its only wrong to abuse anyone outside the church. :rolleyes:
I never made any such claim. what I claimed was that being a victim does not mean leaving the church. There are few if any victims who were not already members of the church at the time.So why don't ye have a vote to settle the issue?
I already explained this process is very rare. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3020875 for an example.
Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, April 1860 to July 1860
By Henry Burgess p. 168
it wanst really common practice snce the first millennium. Abbots of a monastery would probably be an exception to this - technically they are bishops and are elected. In practice the Priests of a diocese are salso consulted abut the elevation of a new Bishop.True. So seeing as most 'catholics' don't go to mass,
do you mean most catholics who have been confirmed i.e. do you include per teens in this? You soe most or a large cohort may be in the 0-8 age group. then the teenage Catholics would not be the type you might consider affecting policy - just as they don't vote in civil elections.
But given the confirmed catholics where is your evidence most don't go to Mass?and, as you've stated, some of those aren't necessarily catholics anyway, I wonder how small a minority catholics actually are in this country?
In Ireland? they arent a minority at all. They are about 90 per cent of the population.Out of fear no doubt.
No i would assume out of shame and scandal. Just as a woman raped might not want it to get out. or even a woman not raped at that time who was an "unmarried mother"Or maybe he just wanted to protect the chutch.
You are the one who asked why he didn't report a crime. Your have been given several possibilities as to why maybe he didn't. You can;t conclude the only reason he didn't was he wanted to protect the orginisation!One fact is known. He abused more than once after that meeting that Brady attended. I would be surprised if Brady didn't know about that subsequent abuse.
I would! Because if he did know about subsequent abuse why didn't he say so when he revealed he had interviewed the two teenage boys?Even if he didn't, the church leaders at the time certainly did.
that is a separate issue! You can't say the Bishop of Armagh at the time is the one responsible when you are claiming that Fr Brady a priest in Armagh at the time is responsible. The issue we are discussion here is not wherer someone was responsible but whether Brady was responsible.If someone else was responsible as you claim then Brady clearly wasn't!You can hardly blame the Gardai in this case - it was never reported to them - remember?
You are the one going off the particular case into other cases and making general points about "if someone knew they were responsible and should have done something"
Gardai knew and parents knew in similar cases and yes the church knew . In particular we know that Orders in the church knew about clerical abuse and covered it up inside their own order. Gardai who knew probably knew they couldn't charge a cleric with rape of a male or knew how difficult it would be to make a charge stick and how the family and victim would suffer for even trying to make it stick.0 -
problemchimp wrote: »any response from under class on this post? maybe it's easier to ignore this post as you have learned to do by your false Gods in robes. I'm still waiting on an answer' " do you think the Pope would have circulated his letter if nobody had been caught"?
I'll remind you that this is the Christianity forum. And I don't do nit-picking. Go find someone else who wants to enter your fly trap.
I wonder will the regional health boards be issuing letters of apology any time soon? They're only too happy for the Church to deal with the abuse victims and take the public flak while they simply write the cheques in the background. Brendan Drumm will be retiring soon and will no doubt have happy days in his suburban residence. Deacons, priests and bishops never fully retire from the Church. They are on duty 24-7 until the day they die. The levels of accountability demanded by you for your beloved secular society are very different to the levels of accountability you insist on from an organisation that you have such limited knowledge of.0 -
that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.underclass wrote: »I'll remind you that this is the Christianity forum. And I don't do nit-picking. Go find someone else who wants to enter your fly trap.
I wonder will the regional health boards be issuing letters of apology any time soon? They're only too happy for the Church to deal with the abuse victims and take the public flak while they simply write the cheques in the background. Brendan Drumm will be retiring soon and will no doubt have happy days in his suburban residence. Deacons, priests and bishops never fully retire from the Church. They are on duty 24-7 until the day they die.0 -
What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.underclass wrote: »What institution and what's your name? Anonymous MSc's have no standing. To compare your half-hearted MSc to a Papal Letter is laughable.
My point was that I have written documents of similar length to that of the Pope's letter and that quantity does not equal quality.
OK I misunderstood because it appears that the only thing that the church upper hierarchy is interested in is saving itself. This certainly appears to be the case.underclass wrote: »The Church's mission is to save souls.
Also can you please answer why you feel that most of the people in Ireland are going to hell and of these will those who did not speak out against child abuse (regardless of their role in either society or the church) be part of this group?0 -
I have to say this is an extremely disturbing post. There is a hint of 'condoning their actions' about it.
Where ANYWHERE in that post or anywhere else did condone child sexual abuse?
I clearly state in ever case it is morally wrong. Your invective and inability to deal with the actual issues and trying to label me as "disturbed" isn't getting the discussion anywhere.Apart from the fact that it is nonsense. If this abuse was not illegal in the 70s, how come so many priests have been convicted of crimes committed in that time?
So many priests haven't been convicted! care to list them? They run to ten or maybe twenty. The one not involving girls or not involving cases after the law was changed? If they were convicted they were not convicted of rape. They to my knowledge number from 1977 for a sentence like rape - six years - made against boys is zero . The whole point being made about 1977 is that charges were not taken because and if they were people believed they would not stick. The law and culture changed since then. But again going by what we now know most of the abuse was not by priests.
Smith do not forget was not convicted in the Republic of Ireland! fortune was awaiting trial but.The Mc Coy report, Galway, which was begun in 1999 and made public in December 2007, found that eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965–1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. ill bet the two convictions were not of males and were from laws AFTER the legal changes. And again these were not clergy! It doesn't make it acceptable but they were not clergy and probably not charged for what they did to boys.
I wont go into a long list of abusers the reason the point is valid is that we know from the most widespread investigation so far (the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) of thousands of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. The report drew on the testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses, men and women who attended more than 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.
As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.
See how legal rights to damages crept in there?
the point again as I stated is that MOST institutional abuse was of boys according to that report.
Given rape of boys didn't exist then that therefore means that most institutional abusers
will never face the sentences they would face today.So, you see, it was seen as wrong even then.
It was always wrong and slavery was always wrong. Just don't expect that people who did it to boys when is wasn't such a serious crime as it is now can have the heaviest penalty under law brought to bear on them.And if the church were operating in a different standard as now, why did they cover it up?
Elements WITHIN THE CHURCH covered it up. religious orders and families being the main elements. the church always looked upon it was wrong but again look at slavery. If the Church knew slavery was being operated in or from the UK did they sent over people from the Vatican to force the UK to change the law or did they encourage bottom up support from those on the ground?
And if the orders covered up the priests (let us say there were about 50) there were 5000 other abusers who weren't priests. Most of these were covered u ias well because we certainly don't have 5000 convictions of non priests from before the 1980s.Why bother if it wasn't wrong? Because they knew it was wrong & still allowed it to happen again & again.
i already answered that. Scandal shame lack of possibility of a conviction lack of laws etc. You can't just conclude that if part of the church covered it up that right across the hierarchy worldwide (or in Ireland) there was knowledge of such vile acts and a concerted effort to prevent justice.Maybe you should look at Jesus' teachings again. Or should those teachings be looked at as something of their time that has no relevance to today?
Jesus was accused of something he didn't do. You accuse me of supporting disturbed sexual offenders and condoning their actions.0 -
do you think the abuse is still going on in Africa where children don't have a voice?0
-
problemchimp wrote: »I read the Popes letter and it doesn't change things one bit. Ask yourself this question, if nobody had been caught would the Pope have circulated this letter? I personally don't think so. It all seems to be about saving the organisation and not getting to the bottom of the truth. I say the cardinal should resign for the sake of his organisation.
and I have pointed out that most institutional abuse was against males in 1977 and that nobody could be caught for rape of a male in 1977 because the law referred to FEMALES only.
so the answer to the quwstin of "if nobody had been cought would the pope have issued that" is YES.
Even if the Dail brought in a special law indemnifying all priests from prosecution (as they did in south africa for other offences) the church should still act on something which is morally wrong.0 -
Right - he claims that Brady has enough support to stay in office & he doesn't need to prove it. I claim that he doesn't have the support but I do have to prove it. Seems fair. :rolleyes:Neiother of you have evidence. Both have offered OPINION based on what yu claim are other peoples opinion. However he is claiming people want Brady to stay in office. he does not really have to prove this. Brady will prove it himself if he says a substantial number wanted him to leave. If you are claiming that a substantial number want him to leave then yu do in fact need more than hearsay to support this.
Irrelevant - victims are victims whether they were in the church or not. Anyway, did you ever hear of the saying that there is no such thing as catholic children - only the children of catholic parents?I never made any such claim. what I claimed was that being a victim does not mean leaving the church. There are few if any victims who were not already members of the church at the time.
So until there is a democratic vote no one can claim anything one way or the other - agree?I already explained this process is very rare. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3020875 for an example.
Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, April 1860 to July 1860
By Henry Burgess p. 168
it wanst really common practice snce the first millennium. Abbots of a monastery would probably be an exception to this - technically they are bishops and are elected. In practice the Priests of a diocese are salso consulted abut the elevation of a new Bishop.
Simple. There are approx 4 million people in Ireland. You claim that 90% of those are catholic. 90% of 4 million = 3.6 million. Claiming that the majority goes to mass is claiming that 51% of that 3.6 million go to mass regularly - i.e. 1.8+ million. What do you think? (Note: yoau are the one who claims 90% - not me)do you mean most catholics who have been confirmed i.e. do you include per teens in this? You soe most or a large cohort may be in the 0-8 age group. then the teenage Catholics would not be the type you might consider affecting policy - just as they don't vote in civil elections.
But given the confirmed catholics where is your evidence most don't go to Mass?
Just as well the RCC was there to support those victims eh? :rolleyes:No i would assume out of shame and scandal. Just as a woman raped might not want it to get out. or even a woman not raped at that time who was an "unmarried mother"
Yes, because in your blinkered view you can't see that it is the most obvious explanation.You are the one who asked why he didn't report a crime. Your have been given several possibilities as to why maybe he didn't. You can;t conclude the only reason he didn't was he wanted to protect the orginisation!
Uhm - because he lied? Or no - sorry - I meant that maybe he used 'mental reservation'. :rolleyes:I would! Because if he did know about subsequent abuse why didn't he say so when he revealed he had interviewed the two teenage boys?
Wasn't he the only church representative at that meeting?that is a separate issue! You can't say the Bishop of Armagh at the time is the one responsible when you are claiming that Fr Brady a priest in Armagh at the time is responsible. The issue we are discussion here is not wherer someone was responsible but whether Brady was responsible.If someone else was responsible as you claim then Brady clearly wasn't!
Gardai knew? But the whole issue is that Brady did not report this abuse to the Gardai as he should have. So how do you know they knew about this case?You are the one going off the particular case into other cases and making general points about "if someone knew they were responsible and should have done something"
Gardai knew and parents knew in similar cases and yes the church knew . In particular we know that Orders in the church knew about clerical abuse and covered it up inside their own order. Gardai who knew probably knew they couldn't charge a cleric with rape of a male or knew how difficult it would be to make a charge stick and how the family and victim would suffer for even trying to make it stick.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Can you get your spiritual guidance from an organisation that did not rape generations of our children and do (and is still doing) everything it could to cover it up?
Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.0 -
Cunsiderthis wrote: »Oh, but it is "his" church. If you think the lay people have any legal rights of ownership, or any influence over decisions, then you are mistaken. in the catholic church, what the pope says in law, which pretty much makes it "his" church.
According to what evidence do you claim that everything the pope says is law? accodding to what do you say non clergy have no influence?0 -
I would for the abuse victims. I would not for the "renewal of the Church in Ireland". There are a few things I'd like to do/live up to but I think they are against the charter of the forum.0
-
Where ANYWHERE in that post or anywhere else did condone child sexual abuse?
I clearly state in ever case it is morally wrong. Your invective and inability to deal with the actual issues and trying to label me as "disturbed" isn't getting the discussion anywhere.
So many priests haven't been convicted! care to list them? They run to ten or maybe twenty. The one not involving girls or not involving cases after the law was changed? If they were convicted they were not convicted of rape. They to my knowledge number from 1977 for a sentence like rape - six years - made against boys is zero . The whole point being made about 1977 is that charges were not taken because and if they were people believed they would not stick. The law and culture changed since then. But again going by what we now know most of the abuse was not by priests.
Smith do not forget was not convicted in the Republic of Ireland! fortune was awaiting trial but.The Mc Coy report, Galway, which was begun in 1999 and made public in December 2007, found that eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965–1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. ill bet the two convictions were not of males and were from laws AFTER the legal changes. And again these were not clergy! It doesn't make it acceptable but they were not clergy and probably not charged for what they did to boys.
I wont go into a long list of abusers the reason the point is valid is that we know from the most widespread investigation so far (the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) of thousands of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. The report drew on the testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses, men and women who attended more than 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.
As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.
See how legal rights to damages crept in there?
the point again as I stated is that MOST institutional abuse was of boys according to that report.
Given rape of boys didn't exist then that therefore means that most institutional abusers
will never face the sentences they would face today.
It was always wrong and slavery was always wrong. Just don't expect that people who did it to boys when is wasn't such a serious crime as it is now can have the heaviest penalty under law brought to bear on them.
Elements WITHIN THE CHURCH covered it up. religious orders and families being the main elements. the church always looked upon it was wrong but again look at slavery. If the Church knew slavery was being operated in or from the UK did they sent over people from the Vatican to force the UK to change the law or did they encourage bottom up support from those on the ground?
And if the orders covered up the priests (let us say there were about 50) there were 5000 other abusers who weren't priests. Most of these were covered u ias well because we certainly don't have 5000 convictions of non priests from before the 1980s.
i already answered that. Scandal shame lack of possibility of a conviction lack of laws etc. You can't just conclude that if part of the church covered it up that right across the hierarchy worldwide (or in Ireland) there was knowledge of such vile acts and a concerted effort to prevent justice.
Jesus was accused of something he didn't do. You accuse me of supporting disturbed sexual offenders and condoning their actions.
Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia. I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was. Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.
Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.0 -
I don't need any spiritual guidance thanks but you seem to and I don't see why you have to get it from these specific people.
Fine don't see why somewhere else then and don't bring it to a discussion with Catholics.
You don't have to turn every thread into "prove god exists" or "prove the church has authority" .You say "secular society" as if it's a ridiculous idea to get your spiritual guidance from there
Technically it IS silly to get spiritual guidance from non spiritual sources isn't it?but is it any less ridiculous to get it from an organistion that has done so much evil and is still hiding its crimes?
As opposed to atheistic regimes who did much more evil and killed much more people?
See what happens when we go off on the "church authority" tangent?You can believe in god without giving your support to the catholic church
Indeeedd you can. You can believe in Allah or Yahwed although One might claim they are the same God anyway. You could believe in Thor or Zeus maybe. Which is why the discussion is alsong Catholics in a christian forum to discuss it. You are quite welcoms to chip in even if you are an atheist but you cant change the issue into a question of 2which denomination is right" or "does catholicism have authority" It is assumed you are discussing within those confines.0 -
I wonder how many of those victims could actually give a fiddlers what the pope instructs his flock to do.0
-
Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia. I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was. Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.
Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.
I was shocked by that statement too. Rape is rape and is wrong in any time frame.
In regards to the earlier comment that the majority are going to hell, maybe he's right, especially when the organisation that is here to represent god does everything in its power to protect it's image rather than protecting the most vulnerable in society.0 -
Indeed, however non priest offenders have nowhere to hide, and only receive protection from other sex offenders. Clerical sex offenders were protected, and protected by a powerful organization at that. An organization that through fear and spiritual intimidation made it seem "wrong" for families of victims to speak ill of priests.Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right - he claims that Brady has enough support to stay in office & he doesn't need to prove it. I claim that he doesn't have the support but I do have to prove it. Seems fair. :rolleyes:
When you are discussing criminal charges is is what ios considered fair.
ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty" . Brady does not have to prove innocence if you are accusing him of being guilty.
But yes he is relying on hearsay . the point is whether he need to prove his hearsay.Irrelevant - victims are victims whether they were in the church or not. Anyway, did you ever hear of the saying that there is no such thing as catholic children - only the children of catholic parents?
i didn't bring up the point about abusers leaving the church. go back through the thread an you will see where I replied on this.So until there is a democratic vote no one can claim anything one way or the other - agree?
Nope. if child abuse or slavery is wrong I don't have to wait for a referendum on it to say it is wrong. How does that relate to the church being a democracy? well the church should inform you conscience even if others try to subvert that. But the specific point was about electing Bishops. AS I pointed out only abbots today are elected but there is input into the process by local people for a Bishop. The pope doe not just appoint some pal from the Vatican. But don't expect it to be a popular election. However ther is a precident whereby if all the people of Dublin turned up and demanded such and such a priest be the next Bishop then he technically IS.Simple. There are approx 4 million people in Ireland. You claim that 90% of those are catholic. 90% of 4 million = 3.6 million.
that is about right. 3.6 million or so.Claiming that the majority goes to mass is claiming that 51% of that 3.6 million go to mass regularly - i.e. 1.8+ million. What do you think? (Note: yoau are the one who claims 90% - not me)
Nope as i pointed out a one year old child isnt assumed to be a mass goer. and "regularly" wasnt in the original claim was it? ~what do you mean by that? Once a mointh once a year or once a week?
My figures come fromn the 2006 census.
http://www.cso.ie/Census/census2006_volume_13.htm
You will find of the 3.6 million over one million are children/minors. that leaves about 2.6 million.
http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/117563-mass-attendance-ireland-up.html
The Red C poll, conducted between October 19th and 21st last, for the Catholic Iona Institute and based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over, found that weekly church attendance is now 46 per cent while monthly attendance is 65 per cent.
Mind you the criterion of mass attendance was not introduced by me was it?Just as well the RCC was there to support those victims eh? :rolleyes:
In the case you were replying to yes. Cherish was founded and supported by Catholics.Yes, because in your blinkered view you can't see that it is the most obvious explanation.
No because in your blinkered view you assert that something is true WITHOUT EVIDENCE! Then when called on for evidence you ask "what other explanation could there be" . when you are offered several you jump back to unsupported bald assertion which you claim must be right because the numerous alternatives are "blinkered"? i dont have to prove Im not closed minded. I offered you several explanations and you rejected then in favour of your own unsupported one. what is your definition of "blinkered" ? do you apply it to anyone who doesn't accept your unsupported opinion?Uhm - because he lied? Or no - sorry - I meant that maybe he used 'mental reservation'. :rolleyes:
You are the one claiming he lied and he knows about other cases and covered them upi . when you are asked for evidence the evidence is your opinion that he lied. While you are struggling for a definition of blinkered look up "bigot" as well will you? If you insist that you must be right in spite of no supporting evidence and being offered alternative explanations then you have a bigoted position.Wasn't he the only church representative at that meeting?
Two meetings and as far as I know from the reports I have seen so far NO he wasn't! You don't seem to have read your brief!Gardai knew? But the whole issue is that Brady did not report this abuse to the Gardai as he should have. So how do you know they knew about this case?
I didn't refer to this particular case. I referred to the other 99 per cent of cases in society.
Gardai eventually knew about Smith and he was not charged. He was eventually extradited and convicted in Northern Ireland.0
Advertisement