(Merged) RC Child Abuse Issues/Comments

philologos

This has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ, or of His church (the Christian Church in general). I'm appalled by this, and I'm appalled that people are not only abusing children which is certainly the worst part but destroying the image of Christianity in Ireland. They should be getting jail time. People who do this generally don't get away with abusing children so why should they? This gets right down to the bottom of my stomach.

EDIT: To the atheists, lighten up, much worse about Christians and Christianity has been posted in the A&A forum and in After Hours.

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

The abuse has nothing to do with the teachings of the Catholic church as a whole.

I'm not so sure about that.

Part of the problem seems to have been that the church sincerely believed its own teachings about itself and saw itself as an organization which was incapable of making a mistake. This was not helped by things like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the personality of the church leaders, particularly McQuaid, who exuded political power and were not afraid to use it whenever it suited them.

In such circumstances, it's not surprising that the church as a whole, and almost everybody in it, were simply unable to see, and unable to appreciate, that they were doing enormous harm to many people.

Flamed Diving

The fact that the govt took a payment in exchange for indemnity makes it all the worse. It shows you how complicit both state and church were in all of this.

Genghiz Cohen

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that.

Part of the problem seems to have been that the church sincerely believed its own teachings about itself and saw itself as an organization which was incapable of making a mistake. This was not helped by things like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the personality of the church leaders, particularly McQuaid, who exuded political power and were not afraid to use it whenever it suited them.

In such circumstances, it's not surprising that the church as a whole, and almost everybody in it, were simply unable to see, and unable to appreciate, that they were doing enormous harm to many people.

Quite possibly.
But I think it was the people, not the doctrine, "do unto others" comes to mind.


Side note: I was sat down on the papal infallibility once before, IIRC it has only been called into effect once or twice, ever.

Flamed Diving

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that.

Part of the problem seems to have been that the church sincerely believed its own teachings about itself and saw itself as an organization which was incapable of making a mistake. This was not helped by things like the doctrine of papal infallibility and the personality of the church leaders, particularly McQuaid, who exuded political power and were not afraid to use it whenever it suited them.

In such circumstances, it's not surprising that the church as a whole, and almost everybody in it, were simply unable to see, and unable to appreciate, that they were doing enormous harm to many people.

In addition, the position of respect that religion assumed in society meant that they were above criticism for too long. Thankfully, we seem to be moving away from this and I hope we can both (religious and non-religious) learn from the mistakes of the past and see how dangerous it can be to give uncritical respect to belief systems (political too).

dvpower

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Sorry, but if that's true, it kind of proves my point about the problem not being with the Church per se but with the nation.

You must accept that there are levels of culpability here.

First the individuals that perpetrated the abuse; then the religious organisations which where directly responsible for the those in their care and who knew about the abuse and chose not to act; then the state who failed in their responsibility to oversee these organisations and then society in general who were happy enough to brush the whole thing under the carpet.

But there isn't an equivalence; a child rapist isn't the same as an official who failed to act because he had a 'deferential and submissive attitude' to the church authorities and the official who failed in their duty isn't the same as the individual who chose to block these people out of their mind.


Its hard not to conclude that there was a specific problem with the Church itself, most certainly with specific religious orders. 216 institutions involved, more than 1700 victims who gave evidence (more coming forward as we speak and over 15000 applications for compensation), more than 800 abusers implicated.

luckat

Still - from today's Indo:

But the inquiry was hampered by the unexplained disappearance of files on almost three-quarters of the children admitted to the institutions under investigation.

The report found:

- More than 25,000 children were sent to 55 industrial and reformatory schools in the years between 1937 and 1978.

- Files relating to 18,000 children sent to these schools and other Church-run institutions are missing.

robindch

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Side note: I was sat down on the papal infallibility once before, IIRC it has only been called into effect once or twice, ever.

Once only, I think, for the doctrine of the "Assumption of Mary" in the fifties. However, I'd imagine that many catholics are unfamiliar with exactly what infallibility means, or how it's exercised and what things fall into the infallible category and what don't.

BTW, it seems that the new archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, has landed himself in hot water on the first day in the job. On the ITV news last night, he apparently said that one shouldn't forget the abusers also did some good things and that they were displaying "courage" in facing their crimes. More on that strange story here.

luckat

How long can this have been going on? The investigations only go back so far.

The 'Christian' Brothers were running Letterfrack from 1887. Was this going on then?

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

The fact that the govt took a payment in exchange for indemnity makes it all the worse.

It's not as simple as that. As dvpower points out, there were failures of oversight on the part of the state too.

One can argue endlessly about whether it was appropriate to split the liability equally between certain religious organizations and the state. But a figure had to be arrived at and it seems as fair as any. But what was undeniably underhand was the subsequent move by the same organizations to ignore the spirit of the indemnity agreement and to engage a topflight city-center law firm to cap their liability at 50% of the initial estimate, which liability turned out to be less than 10% of the estimated final bill.

Interestingly, the Tanaiste has said that, in the light of the report, the state may revisit the agreement. More on that here.

hiorta

The Catholic Church spent 40 years

* moving abusers on, after complaints, to new parishes where they continued to abuse
* hiding documentation of complaints
* denying the evidence of people who had been abused
* refusing to give compensation
* denying any responsibility.

...... luckat

The Roman Catholic Church should be run out of Ireland and made to be judicially examined at the highest European Court.
Their properties should be forfeit and sold with the proceeds going to their victims.

O'Coonassa

dvpower wrote: »

First the individuals that perpetrated the abuse; then the religious organisations which where directly responsible for the those in their care and who knew about the abuse and chose not to act; then the state who failed in their responsibility to oversee these organisations and then society in general who were happy enough to brush the whole thing under the carpet.

Surely the State that put such organisations in charge of the welfare of it's Citizens has to be the primary culprit in all of this?

If say I had a bus company and hired an alcoholic driver who got drunk behind the wheel and mowed into a crowd of people can I really just blame the driver?

CiaranC

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Surely the State that put such organisations in charge of the welfare of it's Citizens has to be the primary culprit in all of this?

If say I had a bus company and hired an alcoholic driver who got drunk behind the wheel and mowed into a crowd of people can I really just blame the driver?

I think you are confused. You seem to be thinking in terms of todays times, when the power lies with the government.

The church ran the country in this period, nobody else. It held all the power, the state was its servant.

O'Coonassa

CiaranC wrote: »

I think you are confused. You seem to be thinking in terms of todays times, when the power lies with the government.

The church ran the country in this period, nobody else. It held all the power, the state was its servant.

Well I'd agree with the sentiment but that's really not how things stood legally on paper, in the Constitution.

It's as if I were afraid of the alcoholic bus driver and had allowed myself to be bullied into hiring him. It wouldn't make me any less culpable for letting him out on the road.

CiaranC

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Well I'd agree with the sentiment but that's really not how things stood legally on paper, in the Constitution.

It's as if I were afraid of the alcoholic bus driver and had allowed myself to be bullied into hiring him. It wouldn't make me any less culpable for letting him out on the road.

The constitution wasnt worth the paper it was written on. None of the freedoms supposedly guaranteed within it existed. Ireland was a state run by the catholic church. The government, the civil service, the police and the education system were under its control.

In that context, the catholic church was directly guilty. It had many collaborators, but thats where it started.

O'Coonassa

CiaranC wrote: »

The constitution wasnt worth the paper it was written on. None of the freedoms supposedly guaranteed within it existed. Ireland was a state run by the catholic church. The government, the civil service, the police and the education system were under its control.

In that context, the catholic church was directly guilty. It had many collaborators, but thats where it started.

Well I see what you're saying but what has changed and when? Where were the Citizens who challenged the State over not respecting the constitution. It wasn't and isn't percieved as a problem. So far as I can see the education system is still under its control. Garda stations still get blessed by priests, hospitals etc still display Catholic imagary and have wards named after Catholic saints. Secular Republic it isn't and I can't blame the Church for that but have to place the blame at the feet of the Citizens and the State.

The level and degree of abuse that has happened here has not happened anywhere else and yet the Catholic Church exists everywhere else. What is more in those places where it has been found guilty of a lesser degree of abuse there has generally been some Irish connection.

CiaranC

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Well I see what you're saying but what has changed and when? Where were the Citizens who challenged the State over not respecting the constitution. It wasn't and isn't percieved as a problem. So far as I can see the education system is still under its control. Garda stations still get blessed by priests, hospitals etc still display Catholic imagary and have wards named after Catholic saints. Secular Republic it isn't and I can't blame the Church for that but have to place the blame at the feet of the Citizens and the State.

The level and degree of abuse that has happened here has not happened anywhere else and yet the Catholic Church exists everywhere else. What is more in those places where it has been found guilty of a lesser degree of abuse there has generally been some Irish connection.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

Have a look at the above. While you are blaming the Citizens of the Irish Republic for the abuse here, youll need to add a few more types and locations of state to the list.

This list is unbelievable.

dvpower

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Surely the State that put such organisations in charge of the welfare of it's Citizens has to be the primary culprit in all of this?

If say I had a bus company and hired an alcoholic driver who got drunk behind the wheel and mowed into a crowd of people can I really just blame the driver?

No. Both are culpable. I would primarily blame the bus driver for getting drunk and then getting behind the wheel and then driving into a crowd of people. The bus company would be next in my line of fire.

But we don't really need an analogy for this one. This analogy does narrow the boundaries, but a good analogy makes an opaque situation clearer. This one does not.

A rapist is always primarily responsible for his rapes.

Flamed Diving

Rupert Murdoch? Is that you?

Fanny Cradock

fryup, your post has been deleted and you are banned for a month.

O'Coonassa

CiaranC wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country

Have a look at the above. While you are blaming the Citizens of the Irish Republic for the abuse here, youll need to add a few more types and locations of state to the list.

This list is unbelievable.

Agreed, bad fruit from a rotten tree, but that doesn't alter the fact that even in Oz and the USA many of the names involved are Irish ones and the scale of the abuse in this country leads the field by a long way.

getz

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Agreed, bad fruit from a rotten tree, but that doesn't alter the fact that even in Oz and the USA many of the names involved are Irish ones and the scale of the abuse in this country leads the field by a long way.

and less get convicted

RAMADAN

There is mighty outrage against the priests, brothers and nuns who abused children in the industrial schools. It matters little whether it was physical, sexual or emotional. The uproar is well deserved and these organizations have a lot to answer for.
It is interesting that there was so little public response to the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland report (SAVI) which showed the extent of sexual abuse in Ireland toward children and adults and in which religious/church figures were a tiny minority. Why was there no outcry over the 95% of abuse that goes on in our society not connected to church figures?

JimiTime

RAMADAN wrote: »

There is mighty outrage against the priests, brothers and nuns who abused children in the industrial schools. It matters little whether it was physical, sexual or emotional. The uproar is well deserved and these organizations have a lot to answer for.
It is interesting that there was so little public response to the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland report (SAVI) which showed the extent of sexual abuse in Ireland toward children and adults and in which religious/church figures were a tiny minority. Why was there no outcry over the 95% of abuse that goes on in our society not connected to church figures?

Its the hypocricy and abuse of power. People are appauled that a religious order, with its alledged alliegence to Jesus Christ and his teachings would allow, cover up, and actually give offenders fresh victims. Child abuse is one of the most dispicable acts we can think of, the way it was done in the Catholic intitutions is particularly evil. The fact that this one organisation is guilty of such evil, means there is a focal point to point the finger. The other 95%, where's the focal point? Do we point the finger at fathers? Uncles? etc. Make no mistake, 'ALL' the child abuse is dispicable, but here we have a a whole organisation responsible for its going on. Every man or woman in that organisation that 'knew' it was happening, even if they themselves did not offend are responsible for the sufferring of all those children. Apostolic sucession indeed!! Disgusting.

hiorta

Is there any record giving details of 'whistle-blowing' by decent clergy, highlighting the extent and the perpetrators of child abuse?
Did the Church ever act on any of it, apart from moving those paedophiles around?
How many were reported to the police authorities?

Flamed Diving

What is the Bible's position on child abuse*? Just curious.

Surely there must be something in there that would have told the nuns/priests that they weren't playing by the book?



*Physical or otherwise.

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What is the Bible's position on child abuse*? Just curious.

Surely there must be something in there that would have told the nuns/priests that they weren't playing by the book?



*Physical or otherwise.

First of all, the nuns/priests etc do not need the bible to inform them that these acts were dispicable. The perpetrators, and the ones that passively let it happen all knew their wrongs, and they needed no bible to know that. So I want to clear up that misconception first.

Secondly, I seem to recall the death penalty for people who defiled a child sexually in biblical times. As far as the 'rod' is concerned, the bible encourages corrective discipline. Unfortunately, there are both wicked folk and idiots out there, both Christian and otherwise. The 'Christian' idiot will quote such passages to justify beating a child to a pulp. The non-christian idiot will quote the passage to show how beating a child to a pulp is encouraged. The wicked will just look for any way to get away with carrying out what he desires.

Flamed Diving

JimiTime wrote: »

First of all, the nuns/priests etc do not need the bible to inform them that these acts were dispicable. The perpetrators, and the ones that passively let it happen all knew their wrongs, and they needed no bible to know that. So I want to clear up that misconception first.

Secondly, I seem to recall the death penalty for people who defiled a child sexually in biblical times.

1) Ok, I'm not trying to score points here, because it would be really inappropriate. But it is Christians who claim that all morals come from the Bible, and that we need to derive ours from this text. Maybe I am wrong with that assumption, but it seems to be the vibe I get.

2) So it is in the Bible? Is there some commandment stating this? I have never read the bible, so I'm just trying to see if there is something in there that would have suggested they not do this.

luckat

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1)So it is in the Bible?

1At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

2And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,

3And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

4Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.

6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

7Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

10Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.

11For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18)

JimiTime

Flamed Diving wrote: »

1) Ok, I'm not trying to score points here, because it would be really inappropriate. But it is Christians who claim that all morals come from the Bible, and that we need to derive ours from this text. Maybe I am wrong with that assumption, but it seems to be the vibe I get.

If a christian claims that morality comes from the bible, I as a christian myself would say they are gravely mistaken. I think the common idea is that morality comes from God. The bible can inform our conciences etc, but essentially, we are pre-programmed with a certain sense of right and wrong. A child from its youngest age will know certain things are wrong before they are told they are.

2) So it is in the Bible? Is there some commandment stating this? I have never read the bible, so I'm just trying to see if there is something in there that would have suggested they not do this.

There is tons to 'suggest' (By which I mean do a hell of alot more than suggest) they not do this. In fact, it can be taken as a given. I can't recall where, or indeed 'if' there is a 'specific' mention of child sexual abuse. I have some vague recollection of such people being called 'dogs'. I'll see if I can find the reference. Even without such reference though, there is an abundance of passages that show such an act is wrong. Again though, I must stress, its of little consequence if its in the bible or not.

Also, and more specifically to the Catholic institutions, they take a vow of celibacy. This vow, although non-biblical, is another reason (as if we need any more) that would inform all involved that they are doing something wrong.