'Christians' not prepared to pay Ryan commission legal fees

kevo1

It’s very hard to have patience with Cori and the catholic church in general. Personally I’m convinced that God exists…and cares about us in a big way. (Of course I could be wrong on both counts. But so far, I have found that any of the alternative logic in regard to existence, make far less scientific and common sense. I feel that Atheism, for example, is very naive and requires an almost illogical leap of faith. ) Yet in Ireland we have people who have caused vast damage to our nation while openly professing not just to believe in ‘God’ but specifically claim to be followers of Jesus Christ. The Ryan report documented how badly this nation abused so many of it’s most vulnerable. But I really think that the condemnation should be strongest for those of us who profess to be followers of Jesus. The mindset of religious people (such as Edmund Garvey speak for) are very dangerous for our society. There seems so little Christ like-ness in them. Gandhi was right.

I’ve considered a lot of the ‘ism’s’. Communism, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism… as well as the popular -not having to think about it - ism. But all of these religions appear to offer simplistic and ‘magic’ rules and activities that proclaim to be the answer to the deficits and longings of humanity. Their aspirations and claims look good in theory but I find that far too often the actions or ‘fruit’ can taste very sour. I keep coming back to Jesus’ message of Grace and his clear and two liner COMMANDMENT! to LOVE. To “Love God with all your heart, mind and strength and to love your neighbour as yourself”

But of course we are just people – not Jesus. Our transformation into creatures of Love does not come easy to us. And when I think about the evil caused by my ‘christian’ brothers and sisters…. again I thank God that he is so patient with us. And for his undeserved gift of Grace.

---

Any national anger is understandable. It’s very hard to not want to put up the two fingers at Irish society and our system (by the ‘system’ I mean our politicians, institutions (such as HSE/ Gardai etc) and our blind or ‘couldn’t care less about it’ adult population.) And i also fear there is far more lurking beneath the surface.... probably far more we should confront than just the evils we have so far been exposed within the catholic church.

Bankruptcy of the guilty should absolutely be an option. And far far more. These people and organizations should arrange (years to late already) a national event to illustrate their repentance and apology. They need to humble themselves and ask for the nations forgiveness. Ultimately they have nothing to fear because God does forgive everyone even the worst of us – even if us humans refuse to. (Of course Jesus also recommended that us humans should always forgive also, without exception and continually).

But forgiveness doesn’t mean no jail term or bankruptcy. These people claim to follow Christ. So through that lens their actions can be judged. There should be nothing short of a huge 180 degree change in the walk and talk of all guilty individuals and organizations.

Glenster

Long post there buddy!

Swerved a bit into the realms of manic there a few times too.

I'll level with you, I didn't read it all but there seemed to be a lot of anger in it for people who dont believe in exactly the way you believe, and if you are arguing for people to be more like Jesus maybe thats where you should start. You even quote the relevant passage........wait a minute!

Troll!

Troll in the dungeon!

Galvasean

kevo1 wrote: »

I feel that Atheism, for example, is very naive and requires an almost illogical leap of faith.

FYI, if you want to have a go at the Catholic Church in a forum populated by atheists you probably would have been better off leaving that bit out. You have essentially guaranteed that the thread will be derailed now.

Sam Vimes

kevo1 wrote: »

I feel that Atheism, for example, is very naive and requires an almost illogical leap of faith

To follow on from Galvasean's prediction of the thread being derailed, it takes exactly zero faith to not believe that some Jewish guy rose from the dead. You might be labouring under the misconception that atheism is the belief that there is no god. It's not, it's the lack of belief in a god. I am more than open to someone presenting evidence for the existence of a deity but until such evidence is presented I'm not prepared to accept the claims of anyone who thinks they know something about the nature of any being that may or may not exist outside our universe

fitz0

Sam Vimes wrote: »

To follow on from Galvasean's prediction of the thread being derailed, it takes exactly zero faith to not believe that some Jewish guy rose from the dead. You might be labouring under the misconception that atheism is the belief that there is no god. It's not, it's the lack of belief in a god. I am more than open to someone presenting evidence for the existence of a deity but until such evidence is presented I'm not prepared to accept the claims of anyone who thinks they know something about the nature of any being that may or may not exist outside our universe

Can we sticky this just so that in future we can avoid this misconception?

robindch

kevo1 wrote: »

But of course we are just people – not Jesus. Our transformation into creatures of Love does not come easy to us.

The Given that the Vatican has had 2,000 during which it's failed completely to produce a loving society, do you think it might be time to try something different?

Dades

"After two thousand years of mass, we've got as far as poison gas"

Thomas Hardy (1840-1928)

number10a

I can't believe the cheeky backstards!! And I wouldn't be one bit surprised if Fianna Fáil gave in to them.

TwoShedsJackson

They are legally entitled to apply for free legal aid etc. And I for one sincerely hope they get it, because if they do it will simply hasten the erosion of the Church's power in Ireland.

When people see these hypocrites unable to do the moral thing in this case, whilst simultaneously trying to tell people how we should be conducting our own lives, it will simply drive people away all the faster.

Sam Vimes

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

They are legally entitled to apply for free legal aid etc. And I for one sincerely hope they get it, because if they do it will simply hasten the erosion of the Church's power in Ireland.

When people see these hypocrites unable to do the moral thing in this case, whilst simultaneously trying to tell people how we should be conducting our own lives, it will simply drive people away all the faster.

They've already shown they won't do the moral thing simply by applying. If they now don't get it it's win win

Dades

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

They are legally entitled to apply for free legal aid etc.

www.citizensinformation.ie wrote:

"In order to qualify for either legal advice or legal aid, you must complete a Means Test Form, which is available at all Legal Aid offices...

...As well as having disposable income of less than €18,000, you must also have disposable capital of less than €320,000. Your family home is not considered when assessing disposable capital."

I think they might have difficulty getting Free Aid!

However:

the judge may grant legal aid in exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances include the following:

If you are very ill
If you are immature
If you lack any formal education
If you are emotionally disturbed or lack the mental capacity to understand the process of the court case.

They could always apply under one of these exemptions.

Irlandese

Glenster is right there buddy. The reason his posts are so long is that he is copying his posts verbatim from the tribune comments pages. I will respond by copying here the reply he got from one guy who really shot him out o the water, probably prompting him to come here to peddle his sad wares:
Copied from same tribune pages:
http://www.tribune.ie/article/2010/feb/07/religious-orders-seek-millions-in-legal-costs/#c10565
" #13 jack meskill commented, on February 8, 2010 at 6:15 p.m.:

Kevo, you find a lack of logic in atheism and believe in catholicism? "This is the same faith that believes a cosmic Jew who was his own father by a virgin can enable you to live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh, drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from something invisible called your soul that is present because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree."
I use quote marks as I copied this bit a while ago and thought I could no do better in a pithy way to show what a farce you people want us to believe in. Do you actually know what logic is??
But, I agree with your contempt for the RC Church in Ireland but do not believe it matters. They have the power to abuse children AND have the state pay their bills after , while and before they continue to abuse same.

vibe666

now they're asking their parishioners to pay up to support their paedophile habit.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0302/abuse.html


Vibe, have moved this post from the "Interesting Stuff" thread to here.
Seems more relevant!
Dades

Irlandese

vibe666 wrote: »

now they're asking their parishioners to pay up to support their paedophile habit.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0302/abuse.html


Vibe, have moved this post from the "Interesting Stuff" thread to here.
Seems more relevant!
Dades

And not just their parishoners. WE ALL are paying out for the results of their raping of children and their covering up and moving their active priest rapists around to rape fresh victims, possibly to increase the pool of available children for rape and molestation, in organised and paid-priest-paedofile-rings. Yes, it is that bad!
Would anyone believe I was sane or on the same planet if I suggested that in say five years time, we would discover that a gang of muslim mullah's had been raping children in say pakistan and that the pakistan state was going to pay the compensation for their victims out of state taxes and that the offending rapists would not be named for their own protection and that of the muslim religion or that most of them would not even be prosecuted because the islamic church hid them and their details and moved them around the world, denying access to the Pakistani gardai and that a lot of them were being given soft state jobs in a fictional Islamic state (invented here in place of the vatican state) ?? No ??
Are we all mad then to accept it here in little old Ireland, the home, safe haven and breeding ground of the world's biggest most successful and most secure from prosecution priest-child-raping circles the world has ever known ! God, we are so lucky to have the church to look after our kids, eh? God love them all !
"Sure it's only God's love after all" I can imagine I hear the shades of Archbishop McQuaide whispering in the shadows of the real corridors of Irish power, those in his old archbishops palace................

fatmammycat

I have no sympathy for those parishioners. If they continue to support that corrupt organisation they can't cry when said organisation act in a harsh and thoughtless manner.

MrPudding

fatmammycat wrote: »

I have no sympathy for those parishioners. If they continue to support that corrupt organisation they can't cry when said organisation act in a harsh and thoughtless manner.

Why can't they ask the vatican for the required funds?

MrP

fatmammycat

Hahah, why Mr Pudding, cough up money?? Why that would require the Vatican to care about the little people.

seamus

MrPudding wrote: »

Why can't they ask the vatican for the required funds?

The Vatican doesn't actually have all that much money.

Of course they do have half a square kilometre of prime real estate in the middle of Rome, large parts of which are constructed entirely of gold.

It would fetch a few hundred euro, I'm sure.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Why can't they ask the vatican for the required funds?

Because the Vatican will refuse, for three main reasons:

• They probably don't have that much money to start with -- as somebody said recently, they're asset-rich, but cash-poor, and there aren't too many people who want the Vatican to part with their collection of Da Vinci's etc.
• As Ratzinger pointed out in December, under canon law, the bishops are responsible for the church's affairs within each diocese, not the church itself. Under international law, I believe that the Vatican is not legally responsible for the actions of the local churches in each country either, though the bishops who run each local church are appointed by the Vatican (which then denies corporate responsibility for what they do).
• From the Vatican's perspective, it would set a damaging precedent if they were to shell out. Ireland first, then Argentina, then Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Germany next -- they'd have to sell the Vatican state itself and the pope into white slavery to pay for just the first few hundred abuse victims, let alone the remainder.

Sam Vimes

robindch wrote: »

From the Vatican's perspective, it would set a damaging precedent if they were to shell out. Ireland first, then Argentina, then Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Germany next -- they'd have to sell the Vatican state itself and the pope into white slavery to pay for just the first few hundred abuse victims, let alone the remainder.

I fail to see the problem

strobe

Obviously the church are asset rich, but are they really cash poor? It seems like they spend massive amounts of cash without having to cash in thier assets every year. I find it hard to believe the contributions they receive and have received in the past, perferctly equal thier expenses (church upkeep, wages ect), although I don't know too much about it, could be wrong. Even if that was the case however, that would make them cash poor through choice not necessity..., easily rectifiable in other words.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

Because the Vatican will refuse, for three main reasons:

• They probably don't have that much money to start with -- as somebody said recently, they're asset-rich, but cash-poor, and there aren't too many people who want the Vatican to part with their collection of Da Vinci's etc.
• As Ratzinger pointed out in December, under canon law, the bishops are responsible for the church's affairs within each diocese, not the church itself. Under international law, I believe that the Vatican is not legally responsible for the actions of the local churches in each country either, though the bishops who run each local church are appointed by the Vatican (which then denies corporate responsibility for what they do).
• From the Vatican's perspective, it would set a damaging precedent if they were to shell out. Ireland first, then Argentina, then Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Germany next -- they'd have to sell the Vatican state itself and the pope into white slavery to pay for just the first few hundred abuse victims, let alone the remainder.

Let them re-mortgage or sell a few paintings.

EDIT: Submitted too quickly. So what if that is what canon law says? Why would canon law have any more legal standing than a companies rule and regulations? And if the vatican appoints the bishops how can they deny responsibility for their actions?

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Let them re-mortgage or sell a few paintings.

Not going to happen.

MrPudding wrote: »

Why would canon law have any more legal standing than a companies rule and regulations?

I could be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, here's the situation -- in national law, canon law has no more standing than a golf-club's rules and regs. However, since the Vatican is also a nation-state with full standing in international law, canon law does have legal standing, though only within the Vatican itself. Hence, the Vatican can implement canon law, with the backing of international law, but only on its own territory.

MrPudding wrote: »

And if the vatican appoints the bishops how can they deny responsibility for their actions?

For interesting historical reasons, but more basically, because they can.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

For interesting historical reasons, but more basically, because they can.

It would make an interesting test case. Could the vatican be held vicariously viable for the activities of its priests and bishops?

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

It would make an interesting test case. Could the vatican be held vicariously viable for the activities of its priests and bishops?

I doubt it, since I'm not sure how many extradition treaties the Vatican is party to, or how the diplomatic niceties are split between the Vatican and Rome. Nor am I very clear exactly how corporate responsibility, or individual responsibility, is treated across national boundaries -- with a very long arm, I'd imagine, bearing incidents like Bhopal in mind. Though, that said, under the Lisbon Treaty, I seem to recall that EU member governments are bound to approve extradition requests for people accused of crimes for which there is similar legislation in place in the source and target countries. I'd imagine that most countries have laws requiring the police to be informed of allegations of child-abuse, so perhaps people could be hauled up under those terms.

It does seem that a lot of people in the USA would like to have Cardinal Law return home to face justice, but the Vatican has effectively provided him with diplomatic immunity since he scarpered following his resignation from Boston around ten years back. So if they're prepared to flip the diplomatic finger to the USA over a cardinal, they're unlikely to consider to giving any serious consideration to sending Ratzinger or other senior members of the Curia to the Irish (or any other) courts.

And legal backing and forthing notwithstanding, it would also require some serious political will to do this and given FF's supine attitude to the church in this country, I see no chance of that happening before all the main participants die of old age.

MrPudding

Hmmm, all good points. I suppose ti is unlikely they are going to out themselves into a position where a mere human can dictate to their grand wizard and tell him how to run his business.

They are a dispicable bunch. I don't inderstand how the followers can't see the true nature fo this organisation.

How many child rapists do they need to protect before people realise that they deserve no respect? How many euros of tax payers money has to be spent on paying compensation to victims of abuse before people say enough? It makes me mad...:mad:

MrP

Erren Music

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, all good points. I suppose ti is unlikely they are going to out themselves into a position where a mere human can dictate to their grand wizard and tell him how to run his business.

Will have to nick this peach of a quote sometime.

MrPudding wrote: »

They are a dispicable bunch. I don't inderstand how the followers can't see the true nature fo this organisation.

I know, its impossible to understand.

MrPudding wrote: »

How many child rapists do they need to protect before people realise that they deserve no respect? How many euros of tax payers money has to be spent on paying compensation to victims of abuse before people say enough? It makes me mad...:mad:

MrP

Don't forget they are murderers too. How many kids disappeared from institutions here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/24/60II/main697498.shtml

http://lanic.utexas.edu/la/region/news/arc/lasnet/1995/0470.html

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/garda-authorities-and-their-affiliation-to-mother-church-played-a-key-role-in-case-1962846.html

How can an organisation with the power to silence the police, with a grand wizard in charge who knew at least since 2001 about the abuse of children still exist?

What else could they possibly do thats worse.

Look at their commandments.

(1) I am your god

(2) Dont take the p1ss outta my name

(3) Don't p1ss me off by doing anything on a sunday

(4) Love ur ma and da

you have to get to number 5 before it says do not kill


HOW DO PEOPLE SWALLOW THIS SH!T


WHY ARE THEY STILL NEAR OUR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Dades

Erren Music - relax.

You're amongst many who share such opinions but don't feel the need to SHOUT and bold them in every post.

Dan133269

MrPudding wrote: »

It would make an interesting test case. Could the vatican be held vicariously viable for the activities of its priests and bishops?

MrP

The Canadian Supreme Court held the Catholic Church vicariously liable for rape committed by its priests. Doe v Bennett 2004 SCC 17
I don't know if that meant the Vatican would have to shell out of the Catholic Church in Canada couldn't pay.

MrPudding

Dan133269 wrote: »

The Canadian Supreme Court held the Catholic Church vicariously liable for rape committed by its priests. Doe v Bennett 2004 SCC 17
I don't know if that meant the Vatican would have to shell out of the Catholic Church in Canada couldn't pay.

Cheers for that. I had intended to look for some cases, but did not get a chance.

I have had a quick look at the case and it seems that they did not find the church itself liable. They found the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St George's, the secular arm of the bishop, liable. It was St George’s that tried to argue that the church itself was liable.

McLACHLIN CJ wrote:

III. The liability of the Roman Catholic Church
[34] The appellant St George's argues that the Roman Catholic Church should be found liable. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal unanimously rejected this proposition. I decline to deal with this argument on the record before us in this case.
[35] The Roman Catholic Church is a religious organisation operating in many countries of the world, including Canada. It possesses a hierarchical structure with the Pope at its apex, and works through diverse orders, groups and individuals. On the record before us, it is impossible to answer the questions as to procedure and remedies for recovery which the claim against the Church raises. The record does not provide the clear picture of the details of the Church's hierarchy, or of the relationship between the Church and its constituent parts, necessary to delineate the boundaries of the institution, the nature of its legal status and its potential liability. Nor does the record offer much assistance on the procedural questions that would need to be answered before the Church, as a global institution, could be found liable for the wrongs committed by Father Bennett in the diocese of St George's. Although named as a party, the Church was not represented during the proceedings in this case, and issues relating to procedure and remedies for recovery were left unexplored.
[36] Without suggesting that the full organisational structure of the Roman Catholic Church and its relations with its various constituent organisations must be apparent on the evidence before a finding of Church liability could be made, I am satisfied that the record before us is too weak to permit the court in this case to responsibly embark on the important and difficult question of whether the Roman Catholic Church can be held liable in a case such as this.
[37] For these reasons, I decline to deal with the appellant's second argument.

So it looks like the liability of the church itself was not even considered as the court felt it did not have enough information to deal with it.

MrP

eoin5

Willie Walsh hasnt ruled out a similar request. Really theyve got to cough it up themselves.

Its unfair that the parishioners have to shell out for it twice since theyre already paying legal fees for some unknown reason.

Its like the screw-up Johney Boy who keeps conning Charlie because he loves him. I'd really like to see what they would write on the collection envelopes. The 'I swear we wont screw it all up again its not really all our fault anyway now give us money' collection?

Irlandese

MrPudding wrote: »

Cheers for that. I had intended to look for some cases, but did not get a chance.

I have had a quick look at the case and it seems that they did not find the church itself liable. They found the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of St George's, the secular arm of the bishop, liable. It was St George’s that tried to argue that the church itself was liable.

So it looks like the liability of the church itself was not even considered as the court felt it did not have enough information to deal with it.

MrP

It is good to see some real research happening re this debate.
Commenting about what the church might or might not do should be irrelevant. What is important is what they could be forced to do if the right legal actions were taken against them in appropriate fora.
The "International question" is important. Yes, the RC Church have wangled recognition as a seperate legal state through the Lateran Treaties with Mussolini. This means that as a state they have to taken to an international tribunal, like some states have before. I do not know whether a case has to be brought by an international organisation, a state itself or an individual, to name just three options. There could be more. But, unless someone starts the process, possibly by exerting political pressure on FF to bring a case as the Irish state for reparations against the statelet of the vatican for the actions of their minions etc we will stay at the level of wittering and bum-scratching. Ideas and volunteers needed.
The Canadian judgement indicated that they could not then examine the church's liability as they lacked a lot of data. The initiation of an international case against the Vatican would clarify this, in time.
Whether the Vatican would like to give up some of its riches or say cede ownership of schools and colleges already totally support-funded by various states, (as one example of a useful easy option for cash transfers in asset form ) would be irrelevant if an international court held that they must. Canon law has no international standing outside of church/faith-related matters like mixed marraiges and annulments etc and could have no jurisdiction to bar any such reparations decisions. Let's not fall into the trap of imagining false barriers against what would really be a very feasible and hopefully popular public movement for justice and truth, real truth, not Vatican/Church lies and paedofilia.

Irlandese

robindch wrote: »

Because the Vatican will refuse, for three main reasons:

• They probably don't have that much money to start with -- as somebody said recently, they're asset-rich, but cash-poor, and there aren't too many people who want the Vatican to part with their collection of Da Vinci's etc.
• As Ratzinger pointed out in December, under canon law, the bishops are responsible for the church's affairs within each diocese, not the church itself. Under international law, I believe that the Vatican is not legally responsible for the actions of the local churches in each country either, though the bishops who run each local church are appointed by the Vatican (which then denies corporate responsibility for what they do).
• From the Vatican's perspective, it would set a damaging precedent if they were to shell out. Ireland first, then Argentina, then Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Germany next -- they'd have to sell the Vatican state itself and the pope into white slavery to pay for just the first few hundred abuse victims, let alone the remainder.

There have been relevant precedents.
1.Germany was forced to pay reparations to France and others for damages caused by their state actions through it's soldiers, after the first world war.
2. Jewish organisations successfully took legal action against the Swiss banking system to have billions of dollars in reparations for their collusion in the salting away of assets stolen or coerced from Jews during the nazi era in Germany.
Italy lost a large tract of territory to Yugoslavia after the war as reparations for their part in helping Hitler.
Yes, it would be complicated and the church would fight tooth and nail to avoid paying their just reparations, but that is not to say they would not lose in the end and that the moral victory would be almost as important as the financial one for the suffering people of the world who have been abused for generations by the clearly evil aspects of this religio/politico organisation.
Please lets not be distracted by red herrings about the good works done by the church or the rest of it. This is about a huge multi-national corporation using all sorts of unjustifiable and specious arguaments to avoid paying for the awful crimes of it's staff, who raped and beat children with impunity and will full protection, for generations and will continue to do so if they are not stopped by those outside their organisation.

My earlier post was incomplete in that I failed to add that the international legal actions should of course be accompanied by multiple country-specific, internal civil and criminal legal actions. These will help to assist and clarify matters for the international cases and vice versa.

Irlandese

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music - relax.

You're amongst many who share such opinions but don't feel the need to SHOUT and bold them in every post.

Yes, agreed, we need to be cool with language here, but we need somehow/everyhow to get the message out there into real life, where these people are still in charge of not only schools and hospitals but of our very government.
Never forget that Ireland is a strange place. ALL social legislation is routinely passed to the RC Church, by relevant gov. ministers, before putting it before the Dail, for comments and, depending on the minister, for editing. This is still true today.
For many in the church/Irish politics conspiracy, the real crime of former health minister, Dr.Noel Browne in his admittedly vitriolic but arguably necessary and over-due book "Against the Tide" was to reprint, inside, in full, un-edited, the powerfully politically revealing officaial church to state letter from Archbishop Mc Quaid, as national high wizard of the RC Church, telling the then taoiseach that the Irish Government had no business proposing legislation to provide a national health service for pregnant women and mothers and young children, as this was a matter for the church and families themselves. It went on to define the actions that the Taoiseach should take, to comply with the wishes of the real power in the country. So, we have, according to the church, a theocracy, not a democracy. Dev. was in full agreement, of course.

(I will avoid ref to Mc Quaides alleged violent paedofilic history as a young priest or any suggestion that any ring of priest rapists could of course justifyably feel threatened by any proposed state care for children currently under almost total protection by priests while out at school, hospital or at games etc. etc.)

I suspect that many young people and not-so-young people are really quite ignorant of these critical but all too real facts and need to be informed, to help them use their political votes to clean out the nest of complicit politicians who actively promotethe continuation of the theocratic nature of our political system. But how? Who? When? Practical and effective Ideas ??

Dan133269

Irlandese wrote: »

Yes, agreed, we need to be cool with language here, but we need somehow/everyhow to get the message out there into real life, where these people are still in charge of not only schools and hospitals but of our very government.
Never forget that Ireland is a strange place. ALL social legislation is routinely passed to the RC Church, by relevant gov. ministers, before putting it before the Dail, for comments and, depending on the minister, for editing. This is still true today.
For many in the church/Irish politics conspiracy, the real crime of former health minister, Dr.Noel Browne in his admittedly vitriolic but arguably necessary and over-due book "Against the Tide" was to reprint, inside, in full, un-edited, the powerfully politically revealing officaial church to state letter from Archbishop Mc Quaid, as national high wizard of the RC Church, telling the then taoiseach that the Irish Government had no business proposing legislation to provide a national health service for pregnant women and mothers and young children, as this was a matter for the church and families themselves. It went on to define the actions that the Taoiseach should take, to comply with the wishes of the real power in the country. So, we have, according to the church, a theocracy, not a democracy. Dev. was in full agreement, of course.

(I will avoid ref to Mc Quaides alleged violent paedofilic history as a young priest or any suggestion that any ring of priest rapists could of course justifyably feel threatened by any proposed state care for children currently under almost total protection by priests while out at school, hospital or at games etc. etc.)

I suspect that many young people and not-so-young people are really quite ignorant of these critical but all too real facts and need to be informed, to help them use their political votes to clean out the nest of complicit politicians who actively promotethe continuation of the theocratic nature of our political system. But how? Who? When? Practical and effective Ideas ??

very true. I haven't read "Against the tide" but I've read Noel Browne's "Church and State in Modern Ireland", basically a 24 page essay on the influence of the church on Ireland since the beginning of the State. It's one of the most passionate and memorable things I have ever read.

Are there any Dail debates or other documentation showing cabinet ministers actively seeking the input of the church into social policy legislation? I didn't know that still went on.

Also, while on the topic of religion and law, it is perhaps not surprising that Archbishop McQuaid who had an influence in the drafting of our Constitution, was found by the Murphy report to have covered up child rape, relocated priests to new parishes where they re-offended, the report concluded that he was much more interested in covering up the actions rather than the welfare of the victims and potential victims.

Erren Music

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music - relax.

You're amongst many who share such opinions but don't feel the need to SHOUT and bold them in every post.

Must resist using one of Zillahs European quotes.........

Zillah

Erren Music wrote: »

Must resist using one of Zillahs European quotes.........

My what?

Irlandese

Dan133269 wrote: »

very true. I haven't read "Against the tide" but I've read Noel Browne's "Church and State in Modern Ireland", basically a 24 page essay on the influence of the church on Ireland since the beginning of the State. It's one of the most passionate and memorable things I have ever read.

Are there any Dail debates or other documentation showing cabinet ministers actively seeking the input of the church into social policy legislation? I didn't know that still went on.

Also, while on the topic of religion and law, it is perhaps not surprising that Archbishop McQuaid who had an influence in the drafting of our Constitution, was found by the Murphy report to have covered up child rape, relocated priests to new parishes where they re-offended, the report concluded that he was much more interested in covering up the actions rather than the welfare of the victims and potential victims.

Are there any Dail debates or other documentation showing cabinet ministers actively seeking the input of the church into social policy legislation? I didn't know that still went on.

You won't see it in the Dail records, it is usually conducted through phone calls and private meetings between senior civil servants and sometimes politicians and senior clerics, more than a bit like Iran, really. This is all made very simple as well by the high proliferation of well placed senior and mid-level civil servants who are, by no coincidence, active and silent members of important catholic lay groups, not just Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus, but also much smaller shadowy groups like Cruseo ( my spelling may be wrong as I was once verbally invited to join until I told them I was an agnostic )
Yes, it most certainly still goes on and at least three of the present cabinet are members of one or more of these same semi-secret and clearly un-democratic organisations.

robindch

Dan133269 wrote: »

I've read Noel Browne's "Church and State in Modern Ireland", basically a 24 page essay on the influence of the church on Ireland since the beginning of the State.

Professor Google isn't returning any hits for this -- any idea where this might be? Or do you have a copy you can post?

Gregor Samsa

robindch wrote: »

Professor Google isn't returning any hits for this -- any idea where this might be? Or do you have a copy you can post?

Here's some info, inclding ISBN. Doesn't seem to be any copies on sale, though:

http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/Church_and_State_in_Modern_Ireland/0853893853/

(I haven't read it, I sadly just enjoy a Google challenge... )

Dan133269

robindch wrote: »

Professor Google isn't returning any hits for this -- any idea where this might be? Or do you have a copy you can post?

I found it in the University of Limerick library. I'd say other colleges would probably have it.
It's not even a proper book to be honest, no publisher or date on it. Seems to be just a written account of a lecture given in Queen's University Belfast.

Irlandese

Yes, an important contribution, as was the book, "Against the tide". I used to criticize Dr. Browne for never having used the personal evidence he had, as the treating doctor in the contentious case of the alleged violent rape and other abuse of a dublin publican's son, by a priest, who later became a most powerful catholic bishop. Instead, he spoke about this, freely, in small, safe, social gatherings and private meetings. He did attack a bishop in various publications, but shied away from the admittedly daunting step of speaking out in a formal, legal way with the data at his disposal. Maybe I do him a wrong? Maybe he felt tied by patient-doctor confidentiality? certainly, at least one journalist would have been saved a lot of legal and other personal hassle, for publishing the allegations, if Browne had placed the proof in the public domain, when he could have. I avoid the name here too, to save the blog from any legal action etc. Read between the lines, if you must.......
The point is that when one has evidence of wrong-doing, one should place it before the proper authorities and in the public domain, or you carry a part of the blame for subsequent actions of that person, if they continue as before.

Can one person wreak great harm to society? One powerful bishop almost single-handedly wreaked terrible harm to our constitution, our legal-political infrastructures, our successive legislation, our social and political freedoms. Based on un-supported allegations, widely believed in many quarters, he reputedly, protected and moved around a possibly organised ring of priest-rapists, for years and years, until his late death.
Much of what should be known and condemned in our society and it's history still needs to be revealed and will not until the links between church and state are clearly severed, by force of law. Membership of a religious or ideologically driven group or organisation by politicians or public servants or officers should be illegal and subject to severe penalties, not a guarantee of promotion and special appointments, as it is today.

Erren Music

Zillah wrote: »

My what?

Your lovely german quote used after a certain mod asked you to cool it last week. Made me laugh out loud.

Erren Music

Dades wrote: »

Erren Music - relax.

You're amongst many who share such opinions but don't feel the need to SHOUT and bold them in every post.

I know many share my opinions but the simple fact is I do need to do this. It is 2010 and we still have this charade going on. I understand some of you are happy with wishy washy live and let live but I am not.

Is there any other current organisation on the planet that has perpetrated this level of rape on children?

How can an organisation with the power to silence the police, with a leader who knew at least since 2001 about the abuse of children still exist?

What else could they possibly do thats worse.

WHY ARE THEY STILL NEAR OUR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Flamed Diving

Erren Music wrote: »

WHY ARE THEY STILL NEAR OUR PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN

Dun, dun, dunnnnnnnnnnnn!