Ferns and other scandals

lazydaisy · 26-10-2005 6:07pm #1

How accountable, if at all, do you feel the government [including the guards, lawmakers, policy makers, judges & deparment of education] should be held for the sex abuse scandals of the Church and the victimisation of children?

Hagar · 26-10-2005 6:18pm

100%. We elect/pay them to protect us from harm.
We never said don't protect us or our children from these sick people.

26-10-2005 6:41pm

Hagar wrote:

100%.

Huh?

You don't associate any responsibility with the people who actually perpetrated the acts? The government are entirely responsible?

In fairness, I don't think I would generalise and say the gardai were to blame. Clearly, those who knew have a case to answer, as do teachers and even parents who knew and kept quiet. Dunno if I'd allocate any blame to Judges, they can only deal with what's before them and cannot go out seeking out abusers.

netwhizkid · 26-10-2005 6:48pm

The state were as much to blame as the clergy. They knew of such despicable acts going on and they stood idly by and did nothing. Just watching the Magdalene Sisters film the other night on More4 and what they did what the biggest f8cking disgrace ever. Why anyone in their right mind would attend and Catholic Religious service is quite beyond me. Like we are always bashing the protestants over NI both in fairness they never* did anything like this to their own. People ranted on about Bishop Casey and his grave sins, the man did what was normal and if Catholic Clergy were allowed marry and have sexual relation like ever other person there would be none of this carry on. What does Ratzi the Nazi do then, He says that married men will never become priests. :rolleyes:

Religion eh?

*There was abuse by protestant clergy too, but never on the scale of these perverts.

Hagar · 26-10-2005 6:58pm

The individuals were responsible for the initial acts. The State must accept responsibility for all acts after the initial reports were squashed/hushed up.

If the wrong-doer had been locked up after the first offence he wouldn't have been in a position to carry out any further acts, would he?

26-10-2005 6:58pm

netwhizkid wrote:

The state were as much to blame as the clergy. They knew of such despicable acts going on and they stood idly by and did nothing.

As did Gardai, teachers, parents, friends, neighbours. Maybe society should shoulder the blame, and not just throw it back yet again to the Government.

netwhizkid wrote:

if Catholic Clergy were allowed marry and have sexual relation like ever other person there would be none of this carry on.

I am no expert on sexual behaviour, but I wouldn't have thought that child abuse was some relief from pent up sexual frustration, sort of like they can't have a wife so a child will do. I believe it's something that's a bit deeper, pperhaps people with a predeliction for such deviency and a lack of any interest in normal sexual relations saw the Church as a refuge from having to marry and a way of bringing them closer to potential victims. I mean, swimming coaches can marry, but they seem to have a percentage of high profile abusers that exceeds other occupations. Child abuse is not some substitution for normal sexual conduct, I don't believe one would turn to children after a long peroid of celibacy.

Hagar · 26-10-2005 7:01pm

Deleted User wrote:

people with a predeliction for such deviency and a lack of any interest in normal sexual relations saw the Church as a refuge from having to marry and a way of bringing them closer to potential victims.

Bang on the money there Conor74.

netwhizkid · 26-10-2005 7:04pm

Deleted User wrote:

As did Gardai, teachers, parents, friends, neighbours. Maybe society should shoulder the blame, and not just throw it back yet again to the Government.

You must remember in 1950's and 1960's ireland if you were an unmarried woman and you had a child out of wedlock. You were deemed an outcast of society. The church really were a power similar to Nazism (well they still are) People were afraid to speak up. Grown men were jailed for innocent thing like raiding a few dozen apples that would otherwise have rotted from those huge single person parocial house and from the nuns. The state shoulders the biggest blame here as does Fianna Fail they were consistently in Power during these time and constantly played it into the churches hands. When will we see the day of a secular Ireland?

Hagar · 26-10-2005 7:14pm

I think before everyone starts jumping up and down and pointing the finger of blame at the State I should remind you the WE are the State. You / We cannot abdicate your own / our own responsibility to a non-existant third party. The people of Ireland are the State. We allowed the bastards to do it and we should now redress that as best we can by bringing them to justice. Better late than never.

26-10-2005 7:16pm

netwhizkid wrote:

as does Fianna Fail

So now it goes from blaming 'the Government' to blaming one particular political party? I must have missed the big enquiries into Church behaviour 1973-1977 or 1982-1987 or 1994-1997, and the great moves to investigate scandals in those years.

Do Fine Gael and Labour take the blame for Anne Lovett dying alone in a graveyard in Granard on their watch then? Or what about that epitome of what a wonderful liberal country we had - the Kerry Babies Case, when the Gardai were again up to their eyes in it. Were FG stalwarts like Oliver J Flanagan known for their liberal and open minded attitude? Remind me which FG TD professed amazement on the Late Late that one man could be interested in another man's back passage in the 80s? FF has a lot to answer for, most certainly, but to point the finger at them and absolve others form their deeds ignores history.

26-10-2005 7:21pm

Hagar wrote:

I think before everyone starts jumping up and down and pointing the finger of blame at the State I should remind you the WE are the State. You / We cannot abdicate your own / our own responsibility to a non-existant third party. The people of Ireland are the State. We allowed the bastards to do it and we should now redress that as best we can by bringing them to justice. Better late than never.

Precisely. And I mean that, it's not just some quid pro quo for your compliments!!

It's patently petty to use child abuse to score some points off FF. It would be easy for all of us to point to a single entity like FF and say 'they're to blame, not us'. Society should examine itself and its role. There are friends and neighbours of yours who knew child abuse was going on and looked the other way, and now hide behind rubbish like 'I couldn't go against the Church, sure it had the country in its grip'. This stuff continued until very very recently, it's not something that just happened in the 30s or 50s.

ArthurDent · 26-10-2005 7:23pm

netwhizkid wrote:

You must remember in 1950's and 1960's ireland if you were an unmarried woman and you had a child out of wedlock. You were deemed an outcast of society. The church really were a power similar to Nazism (well they still are) People were afraid to speak up. Grown men were jailed for innocent thing like raiding a few dozen apples that would otherwise have rotted from those huge single person parocial house and from the nuns. The state shoulders the biggest blame here as does Fianna Fail they were consistently in Power during these time and constantly played it into the churches hands. When will we see the day of a secular Ireland?

Not just in the 50's and 60's - at the same time and in the same diocese as this abuse was happening, they sacked a teacher for having a child out of wedlock. Nice eh?
http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/cases/d5310_85.htm

So who is to blame - well the church definitely, gardai and other authorities, yes, but can the govt shift the blame away from themselves - no way. Since the start of this state every successive govt has been happy to hand over the running of school, orphanages, institutional homes and hospitals to the denominations and have put precious few protection mechanisms in place.
And don't even start me on the sweetheart deal Dr Woods arranged for the 18 congregations wrt immunity and paltry payments (which they are still trying to wriggle out of) for abuse in institutions. Did anyone see the smirking, self satisfied b@st@rd on "Altered States" last night on RTE justifying this by saying he rushed the deal through only to help the victims and nothing else:eek: .

26-10-2005 7:29pm

ArthurDent wrote:

Not just in the 50's and 60's - at the same time and in the same diocese as this abuse was happening, they sacked a teacher for having a child out of wedlock. Nice eh?
http://www.ucc.ie/law/irlii/cases/d5310_85.htm

From a labour law point of view, I think it was a bit more specific. They didn't sack her for having a child out of wedlock. They sacked here because the school was run by a religious order and having a child out of wedlock was seen as inconsistent with conduct expected of an employee in that specific environment ie. had she been employed in another school, her dismissal may well have been unfair, but in a religious school it was reasonable to expect a different standard. Of course thankfully all that has changed, but I don't think it was as black and white as you make out...

ArthurDent · 26-10-2005 10:30pm

Deleted User wrote:

From a labour law point of view, I think it was a bit more specific. They didn't sack her for having a child out of wedlock. They sacked here because the school was run by a religious order and having a child out of wedlock was seen as inconsistent with conduct expected of an employee in that specific environment ie. had she been employed in another school, her dismissal may well have been unfair, but in a religious school it was reasonable to expect a different standard. Of course thankfully all that has changed, but I don't think it was as black and white as you make out...

They sacked her for her "lifestyle" - she was having an affair with a married man and had a child by him. They said this was inconsistent with the ethos of the school. The school authorities (under the patronage of the bishop, like all catholic schools) sacked her but did not sack those that buggered, abused and raped children in other schools in the diocese. What's not black and white about that?
And by the way what makes you think that "all that has changed" - still Catholic schools - still catholic ethos.I'll admit in practise things probably are different now, but in law, denominational schools can hire and fire (and enrol children) on the basis of their ethos. Don't believe me - ask any teacher that hasn't qualified from the catholic training colleges how easy it is to get a permenant job in a catholic school.

Hotblack Desiato · 26-10-2005 11:38pm

The continuing Church domination of education in this country is, IMO, a disgrace. Schools funded by the State should be completely secular. If a particular religion wants to provide indoctrination/brainwashing out of school hours at their own expense, that's their problem. But tbh I find it disturbing that religions insist on getting in there before kids are old enough to be able to think for themselves.

Edit: Sorry I sent before commenting on the main point of the thread. The institutions of the State have to bear some responsibility for what went on - to the extent that they knew, or should have known, about what was happening. But you simply can't get away from the fact that the Church effectively operated a conspiracy to protect its members (and most importantly, its assets) from justice.

lostexpectation · 27-10-2005 1:33pm

ninja900 wrote:

The continuing Church domination of education in this country is, IMO, a disgrace. Schools funded by the State should be completely secular.

I agree although its a grey area.

Why do I get the impression that still a large number officials of the church, state and law who either activily hid abuse (carried out by others) or did nothing once they knew about them, still have their titles and power and jobs.

I believe for every for every priest who abused somone there were 5 to 10 who knew something was up, these priest should also have the postions taken away.

please tell me im way off

lazydaisy · 27-10-2005 4:08pm

What frightens me is how possibly normative this abuse may have been/is.

I know of three people who brought stories of childhood abuse to their parents and it was their parents who shut them up. One mother even said to this girl "Can't you just get over it? Sure weren't we all?" There has to be a place for children to go when not even their parents will help them. We cannot underestimate the power of church ideology and fear, families are still keeping shtum and sweeping the shame under the rug. Former generations lived in fear of the clergy and it would have taken some courage for them to stand up and accuse a priest of sexual misconduct.

My dad went to a carmelite school for boys in Dublin and he said they were all massaged in their private areas by the brothers. Whether or not the rape of little boys was rare, common, or non existent practise he didn't say but he did say that those massages were better than the beatings. Sad eh? However, because it was a private school, he is not entitled to any compensation and neither is anyone who went there, despite having been subject to the guidelines of the department of education which sent inspectors around.

There are a couple of questions I have. One is what kind of sentencing do judges enforce when it comes to child rape/sex abuse? Are the guards trained to handle these complaints? What is the burden of proof on the vicitim? Are those who know something is going on but say nothing also complicit? Can non parents make official allegations?

"Why do I get the impression that still a large number officials of the church, state and law who either activily hid abuse (carried out by others) or did nothing once they knew about them, still have their titles and power and jobs."

I entirely have the same suspicion and have often wondered what the delay is in a national tribunal which survivors have been crying out for. I often wonder how involved state officials were in turning blind eyes, and possibly even being active participants.

The government is initiating an audit to see if diocese are properly following Church guidelines when it comes to handling sex abuse complaints. My question is are the church guidelines enough? Shouldn't there be government enforced legal guidelines?

Here's a link about the audit for anyone who hasnt heard.
http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/topstories/6599592?view=Eircomnet

Hydroquinone · 27-10-2005 4:29pm

lazydaisy wrote:

Are those who know something is going on but say nothing also complicit?

Absolutely.
Any adult in a position of authority over a child who sexually molests that child is a sick ****er. But once they've done it once, they'll do it again.
A person who isn't doing that to a child, but who knows that others are and who says nothing is guilty of prolonging that particular child's exposure to abuse. And not only that particular child, all the children who also end up being abused by the abuser.
So if a person knows another person is an abuser and says/does nothing they are absolutely complicit in covering up the abuse and protecting the abuser.
Adults with a sexual interest in a child are deviant in my eyes, so on the one hand, they might not be able to control themselves, but the person who isn't sexually interested in a child but who knows someone else is sexually abusing a child and does nothing is also warped, because they do know it's wrong, whereas the abuser might not think it is wrong.

27-10-2005 5:16pm

lazydaisy wrote:

I know of three people who brought stories of childhood abuse to their parents and it was their parents who shut them up. One mother even said to this girl "Can't you just get over it? Sure weren't we all?" There has to be a place for children to go when not even their parents will help them. We cannot underestimate the power of church ideology and fear, families are still keeping shtum and sweeping the shame under the rug. Former generations lived in fear of the clergy and it would have taken some courage for them to stand up and accuse a priest of sexual misconduct.

I don't buy completely into that whole 'fear of the priest' thing tbh. I mean, I appreciate its relevance in the 1950s, but where I lived in the 80s frankly noone really gave a damn about the local priest. Sesame Street characters had more power in the community.

But I am interested in the bit you say about parents who shut up their children. You posed the question initially as to how culpable organs of the State are. In the instances you cite, just how culpable were the parents? I can honestly say that if anything happened to me back then my parents, and those of most of my friends, would have sorted it out very very quickly and it wouldn't have involved much respect for the priest or fear of their 'power'. This was a long time after the day of McQuaid after all, a time when Nell McCafferty was on the telly more often than the Archbishop.

Hotblack Desiato · 28-10-2005 1:57am

lostexpectation wrote:

I believe for every for every priest who abused somone there were 5 to 10 who knew something was up, these priest should also have the postions taken away.

It's not going to happen - but if it did, how many priests would be left?
I doubt there'd be too many bishops left - perhaps only those who were appointed during the last few years.

Deleted User wrote:

I don't buy completely into that whole 'fear of the priest' thing tbh. I mean, I appreciate its relevance in the 1950s, but where I lived in the 80s frankly noone really gave a damn about the local priest. Sesame Street characters had more power in the community.

Sure, you could skip Mass or eat meat on a Friday without being denounced from the pulpit, but it was still a big deal when Annie Murphy went on the Late Late Show, and that was as late as 1992.

The very idea that a priest or bishop might be having sex with a consenting adult, never mind raping a child, was still inconceivable to a huge number of people. Many people insisted Annie Murphy's story was all lies to 'damage the church'. Given the reception she got for consensual adult sex, imagine how intimidating it would have been for someone reporting child sex abuse.

The known extent of abuse scandals has taken years to unravel and I don't think we're anywhere near getting the full story yet.

lostexpectation · 28-10-2005 8:59am

It's not going to happen -

and so the impression that the church got away lightly prevades

but if it did, how many priests would be left?
I doubt there'd be too many bishops left - perhaps only those who were appointed during the last few years.

exactly, who needs priest and churches anyway? that would be a good subject for a seperate thread what do the organised Roman Catholic church of Ireland do anyway?

eg How many schools do they run or hold sway in still?

ArthurDent · 28-10-2005 9:39am

lostexpectation wrote:

eg How many schools do they run or hold sway in still?

98% of primary schools are denominational schools (ie run by one of the major religions). 95% of National schools are Roman Catholic schools run by the local Bishop.The Board of managment (BOM)consists of 2 patron appointees (typically local Parish priest and one other) 2 teachers (employed by the BOM), 2 parent reps and 2 community reps (appointed by BOM).

The other denominations running national schools are CoI, Presbyterian, Methodist (although not sure if any are still under this Ethos) and Muslim(2 schools). National schools that are not under the patronage of the denominations are under ET patronage, Gaelscoilleanna are generally under joint patronage of one of the denominations and An Forus Patrunach (1 is under joint ET/Foras Patrunach patronage)
For secondary schools - the situations is more varied. Non-fee paying schools are either run by a particular denomination (ie Christian Brother, Presentation Sisters etc) or are Community Schools/Colleges. Community Schools and colleges are either designated or non-designated, designated means that a particular denomination sits on the Board of Managment of that school and the ethos of the schools reflects this, non-designated means they are either multidenominational or non-denominational. Fee paying schools are typically of specific denominational ethos and their BOM structure reflects this.

mickd · 28-10-2005 11:17am

They are 100% funded by the taxpayer. There has never been a better time to introduce leglislation to remove religious control of schools. Sadly I don't think this will happen. The hierarchy should get down on its kness and beg for forgiveness, their ability to preach the gospel (not that i believe in it) has been severly compromised.

lostexpectation · 08-11-2005 6:49am

I have to come back to this cos the point being made about clerical abuse was that it was only 3% of all abuse in a certain time period.

but who are they talking about of the other 97% per cent.

is it lay people running industrial schools or other institutions? abuse in the home from family and relativies would make up bulk of the unfortunate numbers, or abuse from say sports coaches, what makes up the other 97%?

i still believe the schools should be taken from churches hands and they still have to much power, but who'd ya have been handing it over to would be the question, was the repression in society when this abuse happening more to with "the times" then religion?

I havn't been following it that closely but is the institutional redress board only dealing with non-clerical abuse.

who exactly ran the industrials schools and where are they now (old or passed?)

Ferns and other scandals

Comments