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

Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

Options
1…1113151617

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    the_dark_side
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭the_dark_side


    Biggins wrote: »
    * Try to imagine an organisation that staffs itself knowingly with people accused of rape, abusers, staff that has no sympathy for the public its supposed to be serving.
    * Try to imagine an organisation that smuggles its numbers around the country and out of it, in order to cover-up the few publicly reported cases of their vile actions.
    * Imagine an organisation that when caught knowing of such abuses, tries and in some cases successfully does hide the facts, names and further details from the legal authorities.
    * Imagine an organisation that is found responsible for decades of the above and when held to account basically says "here is a miserable few quid, now go away and let the taxpayers of the country pay for our crimes".
    * Imagine an organisation that literally has billions of Euro in money, stock (shares), other investments, property, art works, gold and valuables such as jewellery and other building and personal adornments. Then think of that organisation saying to the government and the people it further abused saying "we sinned, we know it, we know you know it but by god, we are not going to pay for our actions. What is more we will continue to stall, non-report firstly any other mis-deeds to the Gardi but instead keep the reports in-house"

    ...now finally imagine such an organisation existing 18 different times, in different forms within our borders.

    ...and they still think they can get away with it!!!

    I am absolutely disgusted, astounded, enraged with anger that such scumbags can treat us, the rest of the country with such vile contempt.
    Not only did such organisations treat for generations, the people of Ireland extremely badly hidden behind closed doors, they continue with their pig-headed effrontery and adopted self-righteousness to think they are better than the rest of us!

    If these 18 organisations were listed as criminal organisations previously, they would now be further banned completely under the eyes of the law for their latest exposed actions.
    I can't see much of a difference right now to be honest!

    +1
    Here here!

    An organisation who also ensured safe passage of Nazi war criminals to South America in exchange for wealth and valuables accumulated during the persecution of the Jews, this became known as the Vatican Ratline
    http://www.srpska-mreza.com/History/after-ww2/ratline.html


  • Options
    #363
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    TequilaMockingBird wrote: »
    Yes they are guilty.
    I am referring to WHEN they were working in the institutions and how they would not have been listened to had they tried to speak out. The state would not have listened to them and was inextricably linked with the church, so who could they have told?


  • Options
    #364
    the_dark_side
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭the_dark_side


    correct, they had no one to turn to, and no one to protect them.... the church WILL answer for this....

    meanwhile, back to my point about the Vatican Ratline, providing safe passage for Nazis to South America....
    Please...dont take my word for it
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gLJFRQUy2o


  • Options
    #365
    TequilaMockingBird
    Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    Dudess wrote: »
    I am referring to WHEN they were working in the institutions and how they would not have been listened to had they tried to speak out. The state would not have listened to them and was inextricably linked with the church, so who could they have told?


    Okay, they weren't guilty then, but they have been guilty for the last twenty/thirty years. That's a long time to remain silent if they were people with normally accepted morals.


  • Options
    #366
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    the_dark_side wrote: »
    the church WILL answer for this
    Sadly, I don't think it will. It's frightening how protected it is - even now.
    As for the Argentina thing, not remotely surprising. There's a brilliant film called Amen about how the Vatican turned a blind eye to pleas for intervention during the Holocaust: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280653/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Didn't the Vatican not keep hundreds of Jews safe in the Vatican? I don't think we really need to get into a huge discussion about World War II though. Theres enough material to come from both sides of the fence with that.


  • Options
    #368
    luckat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭luckat


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Didn't the Vatican not keep hundreds of Jews safe in the Vatican?

    Not really, Jakkass. Individual priests and nuns did, but not with Vatican approval:

    http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/reviewsh43.htm

    But you're right, this is thread creep.


  • Options
    #369
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I don't think it is, tbh. Part of this discussion is what the catholic church, at institutional level, has been capable of and allowed get away with.


  • Options
    #370
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Dudess wrote: »
    I think that's terribly unfair. Of course such a guard isn't guilty. How do you propose he would have got out of there? One man against the might of the Third Reich? Be realistic. Ditto those who weren't abusers but remained working in these institutions - firstly there were those who tried to alert the authorities to what was happening but they weren't listened to, secondly there were those who chose to stay to do their best to protect the children... even just saying a few kind words to them, whatever they could.
    It's ironic how people are so quick to condemn every member of the clergy while at the same time acknowledging the state was happy to prop up the church's regime. So let's face it - attempts to dismantle what was going on in these monstrous places from the inside... would have been futile.
    And there were members of the laeity who were also abusers - should all those who were state-employed care workers at the time be blanketly condemned?
    The abusers were guilty, the church powers that be who turned a blind eye/covered things up... were guilty, the top/middle state bureaucrats were guilty... the genuinely christian members of the clergy/state employees who went to work in these organisations to make a difference/were forced into the clergy only to find themselves in the middle of such horror... were not guilty.

    You are missing the point entirely. Be remaining in the organisation they strengthened it. If they adhered to their beliefs then they must have realised that what the chuch was doing was completely incompatible with them. It wasn't about standing up to the church and causing a ruckuss, it was about remaining inside it and therefore supporting it. Complacency and inaction can be just as guilty as direct action.

    Would you work for a company, keeping it going, if you knew it raped, tortured and killed innocent children?


  • Options
    #371
    the_dark_side
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭the_dark_side


    Dudess wrote: »
    I don't think it is, tbh. Part of this discussion is what the catholic church, at institutional level, has been capable of and allowed get away with.

    My very point... thanks

    By the way, you have probably all seen this clip....its worth a quick look. It gets to the point after the first 50 seconds

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSyFSZjApc


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Biggins wrote: »
    * Try to imagine an organisation that staffs itself knowingly with people accused of rape, abusers, staff that has no sympathy for the public its supposed to be serving.
    * Try to imagine an organisation that smuggles its numbers around the country and out of it, in order to cover-up the few publicly reported cases of their vile actions.
    * Imagine an organisation that when caught knowing of such abuses, tries and in some cases successfully does hide the facts, names and further details from the legal authorities.
    * Imagine an organisation that is found responsible for decades of the above and when held to account basically says "here is a miserable few quid, now go away and let the taxpayers of the country pay for our crimes".
    * Imagine an organisation that literally has billions of Euro in money, stock (shares), other investments, property, art works, gold and valuables such as jewellery and other building and personal adornments. Then think of that organisation saying to the government and the people it further abused saying "we sinned, we know it, we know you know it but by god, we are not going to pay for our actions. What is more we will continue to stall, non-report firstly any other mis-deeds to the Gardi but instead keep the reports in-house"

    ...now finally imagine such an organisation existing 18 different times, in different forms within our borders.

    Now "imagine" that the State actually employed such organisations and still employs them, and that when the State held an enquiry into what these organisations had been up to, it decided not only to shelter the organisations from financial damage, but not to name any names or prosecute. WTF like?


  • Options
    #373
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    mloc wrote: »
    You are missing the point entirely. Be remaining in the organisation they strengthened it. If they adhered to their beliefs then they must have realised that what the chuch was doing was completely incompatible with them. It wasn't about standing up to the church and causing a ruckuss, it was about remaining inside it and therefore supporting it. Complacency and inaction can be just as guilty as direct action.
    I touched upon that - I said maybe some of them chose to stay in order to use the limited resources they had to protect the children as best they could, even if it was meagre.
    Would you work for a company, keeping it going, if you knew it raped, tortured and killed innocent children?
    If I found out the organisation I was working for right now was carrying out such monstrosities and there was nobody I could turn to, I don't know if I'd be comfortable about walking out the door and turning my back on those children.
    And to return to your nazi analogy - the above isn't even applicable because a guard who would have asked to leave the concentration camp would have been seen as a traitor and sent to a death camp himself.


  • Options
    #374
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Whilst condemning the state we must realise that as the state is democratic, we have the ability to change what the "state" is by electing a new government. Thus the government changes and evolves dramatically from one generation to the next.

    The church on the other hand is not democratic in the true sense. The fact that many current members of the church were present and involved in the atrocities is one point. The fact that the church STILL does its best to lie, cover up and impede in any way the actions of those affected is even more telling; if it was true to its word it would do its best to have all, from priest to pope, brought to justice.


  • Options
    #375
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    Dudess wrote: »
    I touched upon that - I said maybe some of them chose to stay in order to use the limited resources they had to protect the children as best they could, even if it was meagre.

    If you read the report you will see that any efforts made by anyone to protect the children were rare and generally speaking, non-significant.
    And to return to your nazi analogy - the above isn't even applicable because a guard who would have asked to leave the concentration camp would have been seen as a traitor and sent to a death camp himself.

    Well then my case is clearer... there was no threat to the life of the Brothers for leaving.


  • Options
    #376
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.


  • Options
    #377
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    mloc wrote: »
    The church on the other hand is not democratic in the true sense. The fact that many current members of the church were present and involved in the atrocities is one point. The fact that the church STILL does its best to lie, cover up and impede in any way the actions of those affected is even more telling; if it was true to its word it would do its best to have all, from priest to pope, brought to justice.

    Does the Catholic Church not have anything like a synod or a general assembly where laypeople and ministers can vote for who becomes bishop of particular dioceses? That's the way it always operated in the Church of Ireland anyway.

    If you haven't researched it though, I think it's a bit rash to say that the Catholic Church isn't democratic. If anyone could shed some light on the issue it'd be much appreciated.


  • Options
    #378
    treasher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭treasher


    corribdude wrote: »
    Explain this to me - the experience of Irish people with religion is the RCC. It has been shown to be seriously corrupt and evil. Now do you expect the Irish people to go looking for another religion? Why the hell would we? What do we need it for anyway? People aren't so thick and evil that they need some religion to tell them how to live their lives.

    And are we supposed to treat religion like going to the shops for a loaf of bread or something? You say there are the following organisations - Christian denominations. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism / Evangelicalism, Methodism, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, non-denominational - how do suggest we chose one? Do you think we should read into them a bit and then say 'oh I like the sound of that one, Ill go with that' as if it's dessert in your local restaurant....what is the basis for selecting a religion?

    Learn what for ourselves?? What exactly is the big secret? People know the difference between right and wrong they dont need a religion to tell them it. Its up to ourselves to apply it, which is the case whether a religion tells us to or not.

    Whats it based on then? Solid scientific fact? The whole concept of religion is based on 'faith'. Nice get-out clause for something that can't be proved.

    So you think overall religion has been positive in Ireland. Tell me what excellent benefits religion has bestowed on Ireland in order to make up for all the years of oppression, abuse, rape and murder? It must be some seriously impressive sh*t if it makes up for all that evil. I can't wait to hear you tell me what these great benefits of religion in Ireland is.

    Name one other organization in Ireland that systematically raped and abused children for decades while simultaneously telling everyone how what's right and what's wrong and how they should be living their lives?

    What do you mean if atheism never existed? Atheism isn't a concept or a belief, its just a word used for someone who doesn't believe in a God.
    I am new to this having just joined, so I beg your indulgence on my ignorance of the protocol. I would just like to say that religion as such is not the cause of abuse, it is people who abuse. That is why we need Christianity. If we really practised it there would be no abuse and no war.


  • Options
    #379
    TequilaMockingBird
    Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    Dudess wrote: »
    And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.

    Uh huh, because we are being inundated with stories of those lone nuns and priests who fought so hard for those little children, aren't we... :rolleyes:

    Granted, there was no where for them to go at the time if they did find it abhorrent, but why did they not leave, why did they stay - why are they STILL there? Why did they not come forward in the last twenty years to help these victims get recognition?


  • Options
    #380
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Once it's pure, uncorrupted christianity - and that includes dogma like no sex before marriage.

    I agree fully TMB. But I just can't believe all were evil and none were good. Letters WERE written by members of the orders begging the Department of Education to intervene but nothing was done. But I see what you're saying.


  • Options
    #381
    treasher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭treasher


    Dudess wrote: »
    And what about what I said about people being unable to leave those children? I really don't think I could have.
    I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    mloc
    Registered Users Posts: 2,567 ✭✭✭mloc


    treasher wrote: »
    I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??

    A ridiculous notion. Prototypically Irish "sure it was different back then" bull****. Nobody could honestly justify, with a clear mind, the action of these criminals. The actions were still illegal 50, 100 years ago. And they remain unaccounted for. There is simply no excuse for any of it.


  • Options
    #383
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dudess wrote: »
    Once it's pure, uncorrupted christianity - and that includes dogma like no sex before marriage.

    Christianity without the Bible? Is that even possible? This teaching of no sex before marriage is a part of genuine and uncorrupted Christianity. It's no doubt an unpopular teaching, but it's one that I would advocate and encoruage. This has been taught since the first teachers of the Gospel in Europe and in Asia Minor, and infact it was taught by the Jewish prophets before Jesus came on the scene.


  • Options
    #384
    TequilaMockingBird
    Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    treasher wrote: »
    - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??


    Not beating, raping and torturing children isn't a new concept. It's been the general way to rear children for thousands of years. The Catholic Church just decided they were BIG enough, and powerful enough to change that.

    Karma is a wonderful thing.


  • Options
    #385
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I don't believe in karma at all - I have no reason to believe these filthbags will ever get their comeuppance... :(


  • Options
    #386
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    treasher wrote: »
    I know, it is hard to imagine. but things were so different way back then. It is hard to judge when we have never been put in that situation ourselves. Hindsight is great. We could all ask ourselves - what are we doing now that in fifty years or so will be looked on with horror but we think is ok in the here and now??
    Oh come on! Ok, granted, corporal punishment - a few thumps, even a beating - was accepted and seen as the norm. It shouldn't have been, but it was.
    But rape, and beatings to the point of unconsciousness, and torture? (And there were things done in those places that would definitely be recognised as torture).


  • Options
    #387
    TequilaMockingBird
    Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    Dudess wrote: »
    But I just can't believe all were evil and none were good.

    Me either. Neither could the children. But it's seem they were, this has been apparent for a long, long time, so please stop trying to excuse them.

    If it makes it clearer for you: If my husband repeatadly raped our child in our home, and I was terrified of him so I ignored the situation, and I then smiled at the neighbours and gave them f*cking moral advice on how to be a good person - would I be guilty of abuse?

    F*cking right I would.


  • Options
    #388
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    You have nothing to suggest that "all" were. Infact it's ridiculous logic to jump from some to all.


  • Options
    #389
    the_dark_side
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭the_dark_side


    mloc wrote: »
    A ridiculous notion. Prototypically Irish "sure it was different back then" bull****. Nobody could honestly justify, with a clear mind, the action of these criminals. The actions were still illegal 50, 100 years ago. And they remain unaccounted for. There is simply no excuse for any of it.

    ah there is though... all the women in Ireland back then were afraid of sex, they thought it was a sin... isnt it any wonder that men had to turn to the church, then on each other and finally on the alter boys and students for gratification....


  • Options
    #390
    TequilaMockingBird
    Registered Users Posts: 4,392 ✭✭✭TequilaMockingBird


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You have nothing to suggest that "all" were. Infact it's ridiculous logic to jump from some to all.

    Please, please disprove my logic.

    I don't consider it ridiculous to acknowledge that there has been no glut of devastated nuns or priests letting us know what they tried to do to stop this.

    Ridiculous logic? I'm afraid I may be guilty of dismissing most of what you say simply because of your sig, but I did actually read this post of yours only because you quoted me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    TequilaMockingBird wrote: »
    Please, please disprove my logic.

    You are making idle assumptions about all priests and all nuns in Ireland, I would like you to substantiate your reasoning.
    TequilaMockingBird wrote: »
    I don't consider it ridiculous to acknowledge that there has been no glut of devastated nuns or priests letting us know what they tried to do to stop this.

    I consider it absolutely ridiculous to assume that all priests and all nuns were involved in this yes. I find it as ridiculous to assume that all Germans participated in Nazi activity during the 1930s and the 1940's.
    TequilaMockingBird wrote: »
    Ridiculous logic? I'm afraid I may be guilty of dismissing most of what you say simply because of your sig, but I did actually read this post of yours only because you quoted me.

    It's ridiculous yes. I'm not even a Roman Catholic and I never have been so you can regard my views as an outsider to the Catholic Church.


Advertisement