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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

1…6970727475…79

Comments

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


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

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

    SD

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

    Caritas in Veritate my arse.


  • #3555
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


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

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

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

    SD


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


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

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

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


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

    Caritas in Veritate my arse.

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


  • #3557
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


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

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

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

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

    SD


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


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

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





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

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


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


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

    SD

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

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


  • #3560
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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


  • #3563
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


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



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

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

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

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

    SD


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


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

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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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

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


  • #3567
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


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

    Voluntary donations are not taxes.

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

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

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

    SD


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


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

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

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


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


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

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



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

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

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


  • #3570
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭StudentDad


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

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

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

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

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

    SD


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


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

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


  • #3572
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭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


  • #3573
    robp
    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.


  • #3574
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,547 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #3575
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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.


  • #3576
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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
  • #3577
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • #3578
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,547 ✭✭✭✭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...'


  • #3579
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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:


  • #3580
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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


  • #3581
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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
  • #3582
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


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

    So what are we discussing?

    MrP


  • #3583
    Corkfeen
    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.


  • #3584
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,547 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    hinault wrote: »
    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:

    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?


  • #3585
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,983 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #3586
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    7,000 babies and children died in Mother and Baby Homes.


  • #3587
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 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.


  • #3588
    marienbad
    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 ?


  • #3589
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 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:


  • #3590
    marienbad
    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:


  • #3591
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭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
  • #3592
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #3593
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,964 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #3594
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,676 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    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.


  • #3595
    porsche959
    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.


  • #3596
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    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.


  • #3597
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 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.


  • #3598
    Festus
    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.


  • #3599
    Festus
    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


  • #3600
    RikuoAmero
    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
  • #3601
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Number of posts regarding child abuse moved to appropriate thread.

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



Advertisement