Irish Clerical Dress

kicom

I see from the 6-1 news that the bishops have dropped the airy-fairy garb that they insist on wearing and have made themselves presentable appearing before the Pope in Rome.

Those creamy outfits with celtic swirly stuff on them look awful.

homer911

Dress-down Tuesday?

There seems to be an increasing trend for ministers/priests to dress down. In the Presbyterian church the ministers seldom wear a dog collar except for weddings, funerals, communion etc.

Glenster

I was listening to Newstalk on the way in this morning and the journalist was interviewing someone acting as a church spokesman (I turned it on halfway through - sorry about the vagueness) and the journalist was asking the spokesman to respond to criticism by victims groups that the Bishops were acting innappropriately by wearing their fancy gowns and kissing the Pope's ring.

Preumably they though that the bishops were distancing themselves from the people or something.

I just found it an odd thing for victims groups (who have an awful lot of other things to rightly be upset about) to be upset about.

Any thoughts?

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

I just found it an odd thing for victims groups (who have an awful lot of other things to rightly be upset about) to be upset about.
Any thoughts?

It might indicate a lack of humility? Maybe people are expecting something a bit less showy in the face of all the horror?

PDN

Glenster wrote: »

I was listening to Newstalk on the way in this morning and the journalist was interviewing someone acting as a church spokesman (I turned it on halfway through - sorry about the vagueness) and the journalist was asking the spokesman to respond to criticism by victims groups that the Bishops were acting innappropriately by wearing their fancy gowns and kissing the Pope's ring.

Preumably they though that the bishops were distancing themselves from the people or something.

I just found it an odd thing for victims groups (who have an awful lot of other things to rightly be upset about) to be upset about.

Any thoughts?

It may be that the victims have understood that the whole clerical dress thing is symptomatic of the system that enabled abuse to be covered up for so long.

Child abuse occurs in all walks of life where adults have responsibility over children. In many cases the rate of abuse by priests was far less than committed by adults in other professions (eg swimming coaches). But the whole mystique that surrounded the priest as being in a class of his own enabled the cover-ups to occur and caused complaints to be more easily repressed and ignored.

For example, child abuse occurs in other churches apart from Catholicism - evil perverts will insinuate themselves into anywhere. But those other churches have had much less of an issue with cover-ups, because the children usually complained and their complaints were usuallly listened to and acted upon. I believe part of this is that many other churches see the minister or pastor as simply one of their own who happens to have a gift for preaching or leadership - rather than as a separate class of human being. The fancy garments perpetuate the clergy/laity divide, erodes the biblical doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, and encouraged children to see priests as special people who weren't subject to the same rules as everybody else.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

It might indicate a lack of humility? Maybe people are expecting something a bit less showy in the face of all the horror?

I suppose so......

But those are their clothes, that's what they are suposed to wear when they meet the Pope. Maybe it would be nice if they wore something else but I cant see it as a slight against the victims.

I dont look at a bishops dress and think "look at him lording it over me" any more than I would think that if I saw a doorman or a policeman or something.

I dont think bishops put on their dress robes and look at themselves in the mirror and think about how intimidating or flamboyant they look any more then I would when I put on my suit in the morning, It's just one of the thing's I have to wear, a mark of respect for the people I'm meeting that day.

I got the impression that it was something to do with them just resenting the institutions of the Church and wanting to see them taken down a peg or two (which is fair enough maybe)

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Child abuse occurs in all walks of life where adults have responsibility over children. In many cases the rate of abuse by priests was far less than committed by adults in other professions (eg swimming coaches).

This statement is disingenuous to say the least. As every child goes through the education system and only a small proportion of children have swimming coaches, there was bound to be a 'greater rate of abuse' because you only need a very small number of abusive swimming coaches to have a greater rate of abuse than that in the education system.

As you well know, the point is not just the abuse itself, but the systematic cover-up. Any organisation whether they are swimming organisations or churches should be treated in exactly the same way - by banning them from ever having any control over children.

Very cleverly worded though.

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

I dont think bishops put on their dress robes and look at themselves in the mirror and think about how intimidating or flamboyant they look any more then I would when I put on my suit in the morning, It's just one of the thing's I have to wear, a mark of respect for the people I'm meeting that day.

I got the impression that it was something to do with them just resenting the institutions of the Church and wanting to see them taken down a peg or two (which is fair enough maybe)

Well, maybe as a protest vote? These bishops are off to meet with a man who had a pretty significant role in the cover up of sexual abuse. Maybe if a bishop had spoken out against it all and refused to dress up to meet the pope, it might have been a pretty strong signal?

doctoremma

Bduffman wrote: »

This statement is disingenuous to say the least. As every child goes through the education system and only a small proportion of children have swimming coaches, there was bound to be a 'greater rate of abuse' because you only need a very small number of abusive swimming coaches to have a greater rate of abuse than that in the education system.

As you well know, the point is not just the abuse itself, but the systematic cover-up. Any organisation whether they are swimming organisations or churches should be treated in exactly the same way - by banning them from ever having any control over children.

Very cleverly worded though.

Can I just dissociate my thanks form these types of comments. I let them go in favour of the general message.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

This statement is disingenuous to say the least. As every child goes through the education system and only a small proportion of children have swimming coaches, there was bound to be a 'greater rate of abuse' because you only need a very small number of abusive swimming coaches to have a greater rate of abuse than that in the education system.

Yes, that is how percentages work. :rolleyes:

We could use your reasoning to argue that secular teachers abuse far more children than do priests - and it would be true because, around the world, there are thousands of times more secular teachers than there are priests. That is why it is fairer to talk about percentages rather than raw numbers.

My point, which I think is eminently reasonable, is that the incidence of child abuse among Catholic priests is not actually that high when compared to other segments of the population. I'm not quite sure why you want to argue about that, other than a Pavlovian response by which you feel you have to disagree with everything I say, even when I'm agreeing with you.

As you well know, the point is not just the abuse itself, but the systematic cover-up.

Er, that's what I just said in my post.

Any organisation whether they are swimming organisations or churches should be treated in exactly the same way - by banning them from ever having any control over children.

Your wording is somnewhat ambiguous. Do you mean 'any organisation' full stop. Or 'any organisation where an individual abused a child' or 'any organisation that operated a cover up of abuse'?

If you mean 'any organisation that operated a cover-up' then I fully agree with you - and I've never said anything otherwise. I'm just puzzled as to what that has to do with anything I posted or indeed to do with clerical dress.

Very cleverly worded though.

Well, thank you. But i don't know about cleverly. Certainly, however, more clearly worded than your own post.

Glenster

doctoremma wrote: »

Well, maybe as a protest vote? These bishops are off to meet with a man who had a pretty significant role in the cover up of sexual abuse. Maybe if a bishop had spoken out against it all and refused to dress up to meet the pope, it might have been a pretty strong signal?

My knowledge of the cover ups is incomplete at best, but I wasn't aware that the pope had a guiding hand in it. Obviously he's guilty by virtue of being the head of the organisation but in term of activly covering things up he compares favourably with some of the bishops who were meeting him.

Refusing to dress up to meet the Pope would have been seen (by me anyway) as a specific condemnation of the office of Pope itself. Which is quite an extreme step.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Yes, that is how percentages work. :rolleyes:

We could use your reasoning to argue that secular teachers abuse far more children than do priests - and it would be true because, around the world, there are thousands of times more secular teachers than there are priests. That is why it is fairer to talk about percentages rather than raw numbers.

My point, which I think is eminently reasonable, is that the incidence of child abuse among Catholic priests is not actually that high when compared to other segments of the population. I'm not quite sure why you want to argue about that, other than a Pavlovian response by which you feel you have to disagree with everything I say, even when I'm agreeing with you.

I am not arguing about percentages (as I think you know but choose to ignore). The real point is not about numbers, but the aggressive manner in which the RCC covered up the entire abuse. Any organisation that covered up the way that it did does not deserve to operate in a civil society. And I think most organisations would not have acted the way they did. To infer that the RCC were no worse thatn any other organisation because of the percentages involved is quite frankly missing the point.

PDN wrote: »

Your wording is somnewhat ambiguous. Do you mean 'any organisation' full stop. Or 'any organisation where an individual abused a child' or 'any organisation that operated a cover up of abuse'?

If you mean 'any organisation that operated a cover-up' then I fully agree with you - and I've never said anything otherwise.

Yes that is exactly what I mean. So you would be in favour of banning the RCC from all activities involving children?

PDN wrote: »

I'm just puzzled as to what that has to do with anything I posted or indeed to do with clerical dress.

I was wondering that myself WHEN YOU BROUGHT IT UP in a post about clerical dress.

PDN wrote: »

Well, thank you. But i don't know about cleverly. Certainly, however, more clearly worded than your own post.

Yes, because you are so much more eloquent than us atheists. :rolleyes: I'm sure it all makes sense to you.

Bduffman

doctoremma wrote: »

Can I just dissociate my thanks form these types of comments. I let them go in favour of the general message.

dvpower

Glenster wrote: »

My knowledge of the cover ups is incomplete at best, but I wasn't aware that the pope had a guiding hand in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/17/religion.childprotection

The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a 'blueprint for deception and concealment'.

[...]

Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger

doctoremma

Glenster wrote: »

My knowledge of the cover ups is incomplete at best, but I wasn't aware that the pope had a guiding hand in it. Obviously he's guilty by virtue of being the head of the organisation but in term of activly covering things up he compares favourably with some of the bishops who were meeting him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

Edit: sorry dv, I always just jump in as the need arises, rather than check if others have picked up the same point!

Dades

Bduffman wrote: »

The real point is not about numbers, but the aggressive manner in which the RCC covered up the entire abuse.

I always thought the salient point was that the RCC held themselves as the guardians of public morals. Something not typical of swimming coaches.

Glenster

I knew that they were trying to deal with it in-house, cover-up implies that action was taken to prevent it becoming public. Which is what some Bishops did. Moving priests around, telling victims not to come forward, etc.

Ratzy just didn't order the church to volunteer someone elses personal confession to the police. We'd (I'd) be up in arms if he did.

Bduffman

Dades wrote: »

I always thought the salient point was that the RCC held themselves as the guardians of public morals. Something not typical of swimming coaches.

True, but I personally don't hold them as guardians of public morals. To me whether they are swimming coaches, scout leaders, priests or parents, they all should be treated the same.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

True, but I personally don't hold them as guardians of public morals. To me whether they are swimming coaches, scout leaders, priests or parents, they all should be treated the same.

And I think they should be treated the same as well.

Therefore, I would indeed support legislation banning the Catholic Church from activities involving children providing that such a ban was equally applied to other organisations.

If the Department of Education were involved with covering up any child abuse then they must also be banned from any activities involving children. The same goes for the Gardai, the GAA, or anyone else that has covered up child abuse. And, as the Brendan Smyth case demonstrated - the State was complicit in covering up child abuse. So, to be even-handed, the Irish State must also be banned from all activities involving children.

What I would not support is any legisation or action that singled out the Church as a special case deserving different treatment from everybody else.

homer911

Maybe this thread should be renamed...

PDN

homer911 wrote: »

Maybe this thread should be renamed...

Or we could get the Mossad to raid the thread and shoot the hijackers!

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

And I think they should be treated the same as well.

Therefore, I would indeed support legislation banning the Catholic Church from activities involving children providing that such a ban was equally applied to other organisations.

If the Department of Education were involved with covering up any child abuse then they must also be banned from any activities involving children. The same goes for the Gardai, the GAA, or anyone else that has covered up child abuse. And, as the Brendan Smyth case demonstrated - the State was complicit in covering up child abuse. So, to be even-handed, the Irish State must also be banned from all activities involving children.

What I would not support is any legisation or action that singled out the Church as a special case deserving different treatment from everybody else.

Now you are just being silly. Its easy to remove a church from involvement with children. Impossible to remove democratically elected authorities & the recognised state security service from doing the same. But I presume you know that already & were just being facetious. Not the subject to take so lightly methinks.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Now you are just being silly. Its easy to remove a church from involvement with children. Impossible to remove democratically elected authorities & the recognised state security service from doing the same. But I presume you know that already & were just being facetious. Not the subject to take so lightly methinks.

Not at all. You say you wanted the Church not to be treated as a special case, but then you want everbody else involved in the cover up to be treated differently from the Church. Democratically elected has nothing to do with it (heck, I'm democratically elected to my position and I got more votes than Brian Cowen ) you either treat everyone the same or you start making special cases out of those you do like or don't like. I'm for treating them all the same.

I'm not the one taking this lightly, but neither do I carry the same ideological baggage that you do. I have no axe to grind either for or against the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic, I have never been a Catholic, and I want them to be treated just like any other institution or organisation, be they private or State-run.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. You say you wanted the Church not to be treated as a special case, but then you want everbody else involved in the cover up to be treated differently from the Church. Democratically elected has nothing to do with it (heck, I'm democratically elected to my position and I got more votes than Brian Cowen ) you either treat everyone the same or you start making special cases out of those you do like or don't like. I'm for treating them all the same.

Ok - fine. Ban the state & the police & the church from having anything to do with children. Lets see where that gets us. The fact is, the only body that won't be missed in this matter is the church - wouldn't you agree?

PDN wrote: »

I'm not the one taking this lightly, but neither do I carry the same ideological baggage that you do. I have no axe to grind either for or against the Catholic Church. I am not a Catholic, I have never been a Catholic, and I want them to be treated just like any other institution or organisation, be they private or State-run.

And I WAS a catholic so you are proably right - I do have an axe to grind. And maybe you would too if you grew up under their influence.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Ok - fine. Ban the state & the police & the church from having anything to do with children. Lets see where that gets us. The fact is, the only body that won't be missed in this matter is the church - wouldn't you agree?

Actually I think all the bodies would be missed. That's why it would be better to see them all follow an agreed and effective code of practice to prevent such things ever happening again. That's how I would prefer to see things done in a tolerant and enlightened secular society. We get organisations to reform themselves (so in time even the Blueshirts can become a nicer bunch of people).

But, if you want to go down the banning route, it needs to be done in an even-handed way that treats everyone the same. Otherwise you simply end up conducting a witch-hunt that undermines the very basis of secularism.

Fanny Cradock

Bduffman wrote: »

The fact is, the only body that won't be missed in this matter is the church - wouldn't you agree?

I suspect you miss the point. However, in response you your question: I seriously doubt it. For example, if the RCC was suddenly divested of all educational responsibilities there would be nothing in place to pick up the slack.

moonpurple

what? which one of them was wearing a dress? will it never end:eek:

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

Actually I think all the bodies would be missed. That's why it would be better to see them all follow an agreed and effective code of practice to prevent such things ever happening again. That's how I would prefer to see things done in a tolerant and enlightened secular society. We get organisations to reform themselves (so in time even the Blueshirts can become a nicer bunch of people).

But, if you want to go down the banning route, it needs to be done in an even-handed way that treats everyone the same. Otherwise you simply end up conducting a witch-hunt that undermines the very basis of secularism.

I would treat the RCC the same as any other non-state organisation that acted they way it did.

Bduffman

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I suspect you miss the point. However, in response you your question: I seriously doubt it. For example, if the RCC was suddenly divested of all educational responsibilities there would be nothing in place to pick up the slack.

The state pays for education anyway. Its about time they lived up to their responsibilities & made sure they are getting what they pay for.

Back to the topic, I think the issue of clerical dress has a far greater effect on people than anyone would imagine. I remember being 'taught' by christian brothers wearing huge black dresses. I also remember being walloped by the same men of god - nothing like the abuse handed out to report victims by any means - but those memories stick.
When the average catholic / ex-catholic over a certain age see these old men in their frocks kissing the ring of another old man in a frock, oblivious to the real feelings of normal people, living in their own bubble, it only re-enforces the belief that these men have no humility, no understanding. They are driving another nail into their own coffin.