The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

underclass · 22-03-2010 1:35am

The Pope wrote in his letter that all Irish Catholics should "devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention [an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength]. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace"

Rome can only do so much - it is up to every Catholic in Ireland to follow through. This is a very serious challenge that every Catholic in Ireland must live up to, including laypersons.

underclass · 22-03-2010 1:40am

J C wrote: »

... why do you think the 'inspectors from Rome' will do anything about the RE programmes when they must have been kept fully aware of the RE programme in Ireland all along?

... what is this Alive-O progrmme all about ... and why does it do 'great great damage to young people'? ?

Alive O is full of half truths. Is a watered down version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible. I'll hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10, it's taught by teachers who aren't in full communion with the Church. I'd even go so far as to say that some don't even believe in God. My religion teacher in school was an open atheist - a Catholic school would you believe. This was in the 1990s. Thankfully, I met some great people when I left school who led me back to the light.

Stephentlig · 22-03-2010 1:40am

underclass wrote: »

The Pope wrote in his letter that all Irish Catholics should "devote your Friday penances, for a period of one year, between now and Easter 2011, to this intention [an outpouring of God’s mercy and the Holy Spirit’s gifts of holiness and strength]. I ask you to offer up your fasting, your prayer, your reading of Scripture and your works of mercy in order to obtain the grace of healing and renewal for the Church in Ireland. I encourage you to discover anew the sacrament of Reconciliation and to avail yourselves more frequently of the transforming power of its grace"

Rome can only do so much - it is up to every Catholic in Ireland to follow through. This is a very serious challenge that every Catholic in Ireland must live up to, including laypersons.

Thank you underclass, I'd actually missed this part of the letter whilst listening today, couldnt quite catch it.

Pax Christi
Stephen

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:55am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

I'm not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal. I have said my piece and have tired of aiming at moving targets.

If you don't wish to debate then that is up to you but please don't try to claim that by not debating each point therefore you must be right. Also you are now claiming that I changed the issue. I didn't! People said Brady should resign and clerics be charged with rape. The particular cleric in this case is now dead but i pointed out that that person could not be charged with rape in this case. The point was made in general that those responsible knew and should have reported such people. I pointed out it is the local Bishop who is the one responsible and Brady was NOT the local Bishop in this case. So, Brady was not responsible for that particular clerical abuse and he could not have reported rape. Nor could the parents. Nor did the parents want to.

I also pointed out in spite of other people claiming that they haven't that things have however changed!!! A priest in a similar position today would report rape and a parent would also but we can't judge the 1970s based on the law or the culture today. Yes the act was just as wrong then but neither society or the law would have dealt with it. Just as slavery was just as wrong when it was legal but society would have dealt with it differently.

I will however clear up one misconception which you are throwing around like confetti. I do have some training in law (do you?).

the only thing being thrown around like confetti is the charge you made that I support child abuse by having a morally repugnant position on it. You have made that claim against me personally several times and you have not withdrawn it.

If you have criminal law training you should know what "argument from authority" is! for those of you who don't it means that claiming you know about the law isn't winning any points - citing the relevant law is!

And I know that there are criminal charges that can (and in my mind should) be brought. So in direct answer to:
"if you think he should be charged with a criminal offence i am quite simply asking what one! What do you think he is guilt of under Irish criminal law?"

I will refer you to an excellent piece written by people with far better qualifications than mine. They say:
"numerous options available to the DPP should he wish to pursue criminal prosecutions including the possibility of conspiracy, the common law offence of perverting the course of justice and the common law offence of misconduct in public office"

Thier professional opinion is that it would take "ingenuity" to make the first two stick but that the third is very possible.

1. they say this in relation to:
The Report of the Murphy Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin

Brady is Archbishop of Armagh.

2. the specific case being referred to is about Brendan Smith being interviewed by Fr. Brady when Brady was a priest in Armagh.

3. Please read your own sources the third very possible offence you refer to above
is only a possible offence and it is a common law offence and not a criminal law offence. The question to which you are replying above is "if you think he should be charged with a criminal offence i am quite simply asking what one! What do you think he is guilt of under Irish criminal law?

Further more in the honourable jurors opinion on the common law above they say " inaction would be insufficient to constitute the offence" and it would probably have to involve "a corrupt inducement or of a reward or some other benefit" citing the English case of R. v. Dytham [1979].

They conclude "It would seem unlikely that prosecutions in relation to institutional failures from that same time period would have a realistic prospect of success."
Murphy Report covers 1975 - 2004 . we are here talking about something Brady did in 1977.

But - yet again - I will say that the civil authorities will do what they do and no-one can influence that. There is either evidence to prosecute or there is not.

People can and will influence that! If 100 people came forward and made complaints the civil authorities would have to act. If these were fairly investigated and processed and a conviction was made in ONE of these 100 cases in relation to Brady I would think we would have a wholly DIFFERENT matter to all the accusation and innuendo about how evil Brady was in 1977 and how he should be sacked and behind bars.

But his actions indicate a total lack of morality (to say nothing of compassion) and that is why I feel he should resign. He has shown himself unfit for office irrespective of any criminal charges he may face.

And there you go again setting yourself up as the moral guardian of the Cardinal's conscience. What gives YOU the authority to decide if someone has a "total lack of morality"? On WHAT evidence is the accusation of "a total lack of morality" based? On what is it based in relation to the same accusation you made against me? You claim due process should be followed and the DPP should be allowed to do his job but at the same time you hare happy to pronounce judgement without evidence and without even bringing a single charge!

Ill ask you again WHAT do you claim Brady did in 1977 which mean he should never have been considered for office as Bishop of Armagh in 1998?

Look ill give you another example. the Bishop of Galway had a child. That was wrong and as far as the church was concerned it was scandalous but it wasn't enough to remove him from office as Bishop at the time. It was the taking of money from a fund over which he had personal control which brought his actions as Bishop into dispute. And the use of this money was not illegal he was totally allowed under law to do what he wanted with that money. The point is that even if he did something which was morally reprehensible 30 years ago in a woman having a son for him that was not enough to say he shouldn't be Bishop 30 years later. It was only his actions as Bishop which affected that.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:56am

goat2 wrote: »

if i deny deny something that really happened
then i am lying
plain and simple

Where did Brady deny that Smith was a child abuser?

ISAW · 22-03-2010 4:40am

91011 wrote: »

For most people the blame seems to rest soley at the door of bishops / cardinals / pope.

I don't accept you are right in that assumption but s what if you were. Most people believeing something is true will not make it true if it isn't true.

What age are those that have brought shame to the church. How many priests under the age of 50 are involved in any scandals?

None as far as i know.
How many priests under the age of fifty full stop? In fact I'm not aware of any abusers but there are less and less new priests. Not that there is anything wrong in that. it just means the church is changing and has to adapt. and plans are already being made for that.

Then look at Irish society from the 50's though to the 70's. Traditionally families targeted to have one son as a guard & one son as a priest - many did not become priest voluntarily.

Yes good point but so what - nothing to do with child abuse.

If a parent noticed that their son had strange sexual tendencies or even if they thought he was gay, then the only option was to place him into the priesthood as then, rather than bring shame onto the family, he becomes a credit to the family.

so what? again being gay has nothing to do with child abuse either. whether a priest or not.

In the eighties, communiction was better, the people with paedophile tendencies could meet like minded people elsewhere - thus the emergence of paedophile cells around europe.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Today communication is better than the eighties. Perhaps you mean organised pedophelia was easire. But that would probably also be wrong.
By the way there are about 50 let us say clergy over the last fifty years in Ireland involved in sexual abuse. even if it is fifty that is a lot. None of these to my knowledge were involved in a european pedophile ring of the type you mention.

the worst known case is probably brendan smith who was found guilty on 30 counts. The broadest department of education (in 2009 http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/) report found 370 allegations in 250 institutions over about 50 years. They found that these institutions covered up clerical abuse in the sense that they reported lay abuse but dealt with clerics internally. It also found more institutionalised sexual abuse against boys and that this didn't happen to girls.

Being gay was accepted by most in society as normality and as such for most parents there was no longer any shame in a son / daughter being gay (unfortunately there are still a few homopobhic eejits out there), so finally by the eighties, only those who really had a vocation joined the catholic church and as such priests who joined since then have not been accused of any wrongs.

Given my above last sentence i should be quite clear - reports (internal and external to the Church) have concluded that there is no link between homosexuality or offenders and sexual abuse.

So maybe there needs to be a study on all the priests who have abused children.

there are but given the small number of clerical abusers it would be difficult to statistically
bring valid results since they constitute such a small percentage of abusers.

Find out the real reason the joined the church, find out their family background and see if irish society itself back in the 50's to 70's played a part in the creation of these monsters.

we already know that it did and society has changed. By the way I dont accept Whig history either. There are other things we have lost in changing from the ireland of yesterday.

Mind you people themselves still have personal responsibility. It is a but like blaming society for the Nazis but never any single German person. i don't subscribe to that either. I think if society was different that some people would still chose to do wrong. we cant excuse personal wrong in that way. Sure it is easier not to steal if you grow up in a rich area but you still have a choice.

Time Magazine · 22-03-2010 4:45am

--amadeus-- wrote: »

So I will simply politley point out that - as far back as 1996 - 80% of people not only didn't think that "anal sex is wrong" (I assume that you are happy enough with lesbian couples?) but they supported the idea of giving same sex couples legal recognition (albeit something short of full marriage). This is a link to the Irish Times report of teh survey, I'm sure Google has many more of teh same ilk. Since in teh recent census ~80%+ of teh population tagged themselves as RC I assume that being catholic and being comfortable with teh idea of homosexuality (or even being a gay catholic) is extremly common.

I think lying is wrong but think that liars should have the same rights as everyone else.

So it's not inconsistent to think that sodomy is wrong but that gays should have full marital rights.

CiaranC · 22-03-2010 5:02am

Teresa Round Trio wrote: »

From what I've read, I don't think a priest is more likely to be a paedophile than any other member of the population (maybe even less likely!).

Where did you read this? Source?

ISAW · 22-03-2010 5:33am

Macros42 wrote: »

Brady not being a bishop then does not absolve him of responsibility.

His responsibility OF BEING A BISHOP. exactly my point. Why should he resign his job AS BISHOP?

He was aware of abuse and he was complicit in a cover up.

How was he complicit in a cover up. If a garda took a statement and the statement was sent to the local superintendant or DPP and they decided not to press charges is the Garda complicit in a cover up?

That makes him a criminal in my view.

Luckily peoples personal views are not acted out in law. That's how lynchings and witch hunts happen.

His bull**** about it not being his responsibility is ridiculous. And it makes his current position untenable. He should resign (or be fired) for having committed a criminal act.

would you mind actually LSITING the crime yu think he committed? I have asked several people this and none of them have come close to listing a criminal offence. Not alone that but people in the past have committed horrible acts but still been Bishops after that.

That's completely apart from him being prosecuted as an accomplice after the fact which he should be too.

Please list the crime he shuold be listed for being an accessory after the fact? What crime in Ireland can he be charged with for being accessory to after the fact?

I did say take it to PM. This will be my last comment on this. Ratzinger is a disgrace of a human being. I thought this long before all this came out. The day his name was read out I actually felt ill. While I have to accept him as the leader of a church I do not and will not call him by any name other than Joseph Ratzinger. I considered his election to be a vile act and his appointment to be disgusting. This is completely irrelevant to the child abuse scandals and his letter.

Then all you are doing is bring non related personal opinions about ratzinger into a discussion about clerical child abuse in Ireland. Please try to stay on topic. If I don't liek george bush that does not mean I don't accept he is the President of the US.

If you really want to have a discussion about it start a new thread here on in A&A or PM me. I have no problem discussing my position on this man but this thread is not about him or my opinion of him.

Exactly! so why bring it up? You can't base the decisions of the church in Ireland on your personal opinion of the Pope.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 5:36am

J C wrote: »

Just read page 6 of the Irish Mail on Sunday ...
Does anybody know what this man is talking about?

No that's why I asked about new cases. so where is your answer?

ISAW · 22-03-2010 5:37am

underclass wrote: »

Good points he raises. Fear not though, because when the inspectors from Rome arrive, they will also be inspecting schools and the Catholic education system. The influence of the crusty liberals who so dangerously misinterpreted Vatican II and now find themselves pulling the strings in schools/teacher training colleges (not to mention being highly paid) are in for a rude awakening.

The question arises: which senior cleric is going to grab the bull by the horns and tackle the failed ideologies of people in permanent jobs? We might need to pay for early retirement packages and this will be an expensive business.

This may well be a valid debate but it is wholly off topic. start another discussion on catholic education if you want to but not in popes pastoral letter please.

J C · 22-03-2010 9:13am

ISAW wrote: »

This may well be a valid debate but it is wholly off topic. start another discussion on catholic education if you want to but not in popes pastoral letter please.

... what is off topic about it ... the Letter is dealing with all aspects of child safety including presumably their spiritual safety ... which was also a major casualty of the sexual abuse cases.

According to the Mail on Sunday article the Pope's Letter says that there is going to be an investigation by the 'Apostolic Visitations' into the Alive-O programme ... "Pope Benedict's proposal for an Apostolic Visitation of Irish Dioceses should be greatly welcomed. I am sure this will be a real eye-opener to those in Rome who labour under the illusion that most Irish bishops either teach or make sure the Catholic Faith is put into practice in the institutions they run" ...
... "The Alive-O Catechetical series which they approve does great damage to thousands of young people who are churned out after 14 years of so-called 'Catholic' education - faithless and ignorant"

Obviously, the Roman Catholic Faith wasn't put into practice in the past when children were being physically and sexually abused - but this article is suggesting that the Roman Catholic Faith still isn't being put into practice in RC schools.

If the suggestion that the Mail on Sunday article makes that the Alive-O Programme is 'doing great damage to young people' is true then almost every child in Ireland is being affected by it, one way or another ... so what is the story with this Alive-O Religious Education programme?

J C · 22-03-2010 9:15am

underclass wrote: »

Alive O is full of half truths. Is a watered down version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible. I'll hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10, it's taught by teachers who aren't in full communion with the Church. I'd even go so far as to say that some don't even believe in God. My religion teacher in school was an open atheist - a Catholic school would you believe. This was in the 1990s. Thankfully, I met some great people when I left school who led me back to the light.

Do you have any examples of these half truths and watered down versions of the Bible in this 'Alive-O Catechetical Series' ?

J C · 22-03-2010 9:31am

ISAW wrote: »

No that's why I asked about new cases. so where is your answer?

I have asked a question ... about what Hermann Kelly is talking about.

... so what is he talking about in relation to the Alive-O series?

Bduffman · 22-03-2010 9:40am

ISAW wrote: »

Having just claimed you are not pursuing anecdotal evidence as a line of debate and having rebuked me for not ignoring your hearsay you immediately set of on a line of anecdotal evidence!

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?

ISAW wrote: »

the people abused were people IN the church! There are many many people nothing to do with sexual abuse outside the Church which the Church does care for. to claim the church does not care about all of them is ludicrous!

Oh - I'm sorry. I didn't realise that priests were allowed to have their way with children in the church. Obviously its only wrong to abuse anyone outside the church. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

It isn't. If most catholics opposed him in Ireland (or even if a significant number did) he would leave his office.

So why don't ye have a vote to settle the issue?

ISAW wrote: »

I assume you mean roman Catholic? going to mass on a sunday does not make one a Catholic - you should know that!

True. So seeing as most 'catholics' 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?

ISAW wrote: »

No read the reference given. It is a gagging order on the PROCEEDINGS and the clergy not on the victims. But I will accept in paractice the victims may have viewed it as such. their family it seems certainly didnt want the abuse made public.

Out of fear no doubt.

ISAW wrote: »

He being Brady? well i dont know. Maybe he thought he had no locus standi and it was for the family or the victims to do so? maybe ther was no law of rape of a male teenager? Maybe he felt bound by vows? maybe something else? you would have to ask him.

Or maybe he just wanted to protect the chutch.

ISAW wrote: »

Im nmot aware of the Smith case. Maybe smith was in another juristiction ? I think he was extradited eventually was he not? maybe all the other reasons aboive?

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. Even if he didn't, the church leaders at the time certainly did.

ISAW wrote: »

so we should fire all RUC Gardai nurses or anyone else?

You can hardly blame the Gardai in this case - it was never reported to them - remember?

Bduffman · 22-03-2010 9:55am

ISAW wrote: »

The question was asked why didnt Brady go to the gardai and report rape. I pointed out that he couldnt do that since rape didnt exist at the time under law for males. similarly at one point in time slavery was legal. If I lived then I could say I believed slavery was wrong but i could not go to the police and report someone for having slaves since it was not illegal at the time. and it is important that we consider why it was not illegal but as I keep stating we cant operate as if the 1977 is today and operated on today's standards and laws.

That does not mean I think child sexual abuse is wrong. I have stated that sex between an adult and a child is wrong in my opinion even if it is legal!

got it?

I hope you are not suggesting that I at any stage approved of such abuse.

I have to say this is an extremely disturbing post. There is a hint of 'condoning their actions' about it.
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, you see, it was seen as wrong even then.
And if the church were operating in a different standard as now, why did they cover it up? Why bother if it wasn't wrong? Because they knew it was wrong & still allowed it to happen again & again.
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?

PDN · 22-03-2010 10:12am

Bduffman wrote: »

I have to say this is an extremely disturbing post. There is a hint of 'condoning their actions' about it.
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, you see, it was seen as wrong even then.
And if the church were operating in a different standard as now, why did they cover it up? Why bother if it wasn't wrong? Because they knew it was wrong & still allowed it to happen again & again.
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?

Let's keep false personal accusations out of this.

ISAW has (wrongly in my opinion) made a point that certain acts were not actually illegal some tears ago. He has explicitly stated that he does not condone or support child abuse in any shape or form whatsoever.

You are free to refute his legal point, but you are bang out of order to suggest that he is condoning the actions of paedophiles, when he has clearly stated the opposite. Any further suggestions of that nature will be treated as extremely serious allegations and the thread will be locked and the person making such allegations will be perma-banned.

getz · 22-03-2010 10:17am

underclass wrote: »

Cardinal Brady resigning will serve nothing only to satisfy the insatiable lust of those seeking the ruin of the Church. If he resigns, they'll make more and more demands and will never be happy until their ultimate goals are achieved. It's like negotiating with terrorists.

He should stay in office to fulfil the duties which he was tasked with in 2007, and have no doubt that he will stay in office. Today's direct intervention from Rome has been a huge help to all Irish Catholics. The work must continue. There are others lined up to replace Cardinal Brady for when he can no longer continue, but things are not going to be passed over just yet. At 71, he's still only a baby as far as the College of Cardinals goes.

he was only doing what his bosses had told him to do ,in 2001 this pope was head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith[he was the churches formost theologian] he sent a letter to all bishops, that said,confidentiality is formost in the protection of the church [cover it up] so do not put all the blame on the bishops, he was following orders,if he had not he would have lost his job then

underclass · 22-03-2010 10:31am

getz wrote: »

he was only doing what his bosses had told him to do ,in 2001 this pope was head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith[he was the churches formost theologian] he sent a letter to all bishops, that said,confidentiality is formost in the protection of the church [cover it up] so do not put all the blame on the bishops, he was following orders,if he had not he would have lost his job then

You haven't seen this letter that you refer to. The Cardinal has important work to continue and will not be distracted by the populist opinions of secularists.

WesternNight · 22-03-2010 10:32am

getz wrote: »

he was only doing what his bosses had told him to do ,in 2001 this pope was head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith[he was the churches formost theologian] he sent a letter to all bishops, that said,confidentiality is formost in the protection of the church [cover it up] so do not put all the blame on the bishops, he was following orders,if he had not he would have lost his job then

Well god forbid (so to speak) he'd lose his job. Would that not have struck most people as odd, even in those days, that one would lose their job for protecting children?

Blueboyd · 22-03-2010 10:41am

underclass wrote: »

You haven't seen this letter that you refer to. The Cardinal has important work to continue and will not be distracted by the populist opinions of secularists.

I think he means this one

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

getz · 22-03-2010 10:54am

Blueboyd wrote: »

I think he means this one

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm

thanks

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2010 10:59am

underclass wrote: »

Cardinal Brady resigning will serve nothing only to satisfy the insatiable lust of those seeking the ruin of the Church. If he resigns, they'll make more and more demands and will never be happy until their ultimate goals are achieved. It's like negotiating with terrorists.

So as someone who finds his (and many other bishops) position (and the Pope's position) untenable, I am comparable to a terrorist?

underclass wrote: »

He should stay in office to fulfil the duties which he was tasked with in 2007, and have no doubt that he will stay in office.

Then, to me, the RCC in Ireland has not changed!

underclass wrote: »

Today's direct intervention from Rome has been a huge help to all Irish Catholics. The work must continue.

How? Whilst the letter's main content was read out in our local church, it wasn't read out in my parents church (the priest had about 50 photocopies in the sacristy (which he apparently accidentally took away with him after mass) nor was it said in my in-laws church - the priest put it online (which is no use to the many of the congregation).
The letter did not answer many of the questions that I have in my head and whilst the apology is welcomed it still appeared to be about protecting the church. The fact that Herr Ratzinger believes that clerical child abuse was down to the secularisation of the church is laughable. IMO it is only because society is becoming more secular that we are hearing of these things. Were society still under the grip of the likes of JC McQuaid then we would still think that it is correct to cleanse women after giving birth and all that other nonsense. The secularisation of society has allowed us to question the church's leadership which in the time the letter is referring to would have been considered akin to blasphemy!
The letter did not help many to the point that they require.
Furthermore, its not that long ago when Desmond Connell went to the high court to stop Diarmuid Martin revealing documents about the extent of the abuse. Yes, the work must continue but in my view the church is should not have a role in deciding the terms of reference.

underclass wrote: »

There are others lined up to replace Cardinal Brady for when he can no longer continue, but things are not going to be passed over just yet. At 71, he's still only a baby as far as the College of Cardinals goes.

Which says something about the College of Cardinals!
I don't think anyone who server with Charles Haughey should have been allowed to remain in office as they were tainted. Similarly, anyone who was or is in a poisition of power within the Church whilst these scandals were (and still are) covered up (and where the secret was actively kept hidden) should resign and have no input into the running of the church. The fact remains that the body that most of us rely on for moral leadership is involved in a scandal whereby they kept details of acts of child abuser and murder committed by their members hidden from the authorities because they wanted to protect the organisation.
Any Catholic who stands by this organisation by defending this is doing a disservice to the morals that the organisation is supposed to represent and is part of what kept the culture in place for so long.

underclass · 22-03-2010 11:04am

kbannon wrote: »

So as someone who finds his (and many other bishops) position (and the Pope's position) untenable, I am comparable to a terrorist?
Then, to me, the RCC in Ireland has not changed!
How? Whilst the letter's main content was read out in our local church, it wasn't read out in my parents church (the priest had about 50 photocopies in the sacristy (which he apparently accidentally took away with him after mass) nor was it said in my in-laws church - the priest put it online (which is no use to the many of the congregation).
The letter did not answer many of the questions that I have in my head and whilst the apology is welcomed it still appeared to be about protecting the church. The fact that Herr Ratzinger believes that clerical child abuse was down to the secularisation of the church is laughable. IMO it is only because society is becoming more secular that we are hearing of these things. Were society still under the grip of the likes of JC McQuaid then we would still think that it is correct to cleanse women after giving birth and all that other nonsense. The secularisation of society has allowed us to question the church's leadership which in the time the letter is referring to would have been considered akin to blasphemy!
The letter did not help many to the point that they require.
Furthermore, its not that long ago when Desmond Connell went to the high court to stop Diarmuid Martin revealing documents about the extent of the abuse. Yes, the work must continue but in my view the church is should not have a role in deciding the terms of reference.
Which says something about the College of Cardinals!
I don't think anyone who server with Charles Haughey should have been allowed to remain in office as they were tainted. Similarly, anyone who was or is in a poisition of power within the Church whilst these scandals were (and still are) covered up (and where the secret was actively kept hidden) should resign and have no input into the running of the church. The fact remains that the body that most of us rely on for moral leadership is involved in a scandal whereby they kept details of acts of child abuser and murder committed by their members hidden from the authorities because they wanted to protect the organisation.
Any Catholic who stands by this organisation by defending this is doing a disservice to the morals that the organisation is supposed to represent and is part of what kept the culture in place for so long.

Jeez, you stopped short of declaring me a paedophile supporter - something I'd expect from a Sunday Independent reader such as yourself.

I prefer reasoning based on evidence, not on opinion and hearsay. Did you even read the Pope's letter?

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2010 11:10am

underclass wrote: »

The Cardinal has important work to continue and will not be distracted by the populist opinions of secularists.

So all opinions should be dismissed just like that? (clicks fingers)

Who are these secularists that you mention? Do they include disillusioned Catholics? Does it include Catholics who are sick and tired of the stories that they head on a drip drip drip basis? Does it include people of non-RC denominations who want to send their children to a state school? Does it include those who oppose the views of the RCC when they try and have input into the legislative process?
I agree that the Cardinal should not be distracted by populist opinions but:
a. don't be so arrogant to think that only Catholics can comment on his views
b. his decision is a moral one that should not take that long. His (and several others) inaction led to many others being abused - its quite simple really. Passing the buck to his superiors, comparing the 1% of church abuse to that by HSE etc, is simply to make his inactions appear less that they were. Nobody is defending the other bodies and would like to see similar resignations but that's not the point being discussed.

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2010 11:11am

underclass wrote: »

Jeez, you stopped short of declaring me a paedophile supporter - something I'd expect from a Sunday Independent reader such as yourself.

I do not and would not read the Sindo! :eek:

(and yes I did)

problemchimp · 22-03-2010 11:11am

underclass wrote: »

Jeez, you stopped short of declaring me a paedophile supporter - something I'd expect from a Sunday Independent reader such as yourself.

I prefer reasoning based on evidence, not on opinion and hearsay. Did you even read the Pope's letter?

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.

underclass · 22-03-2010 11:29am

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.

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.

problemchimp · 22-03-2010 11:42am

you haven't answered my question, " would we have gotten this letter if nobody had been caught"? I don't think people are trying to derail the church for a laugh, it's just that people don't have confidence in the present admin. in Ireland. I didn't think the catholic church still believed in hell.

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2010 11:52am

underclass wrote: »

Cardinal Brady won't be resigning. Surely getting to the bottom of the child abuse scandal is saving the organisation?

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!

underclass wrote: »

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.

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?

underclass wrote: »

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.

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?

underclass wrote: »

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.

What exactly is the Church's mission?

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments