The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Jim Rockford

marienbad wrote: »

Yeah and the fact we always rush to judge the messenger and not the crime doesn't help.

The messenger should be irrelevant and virtually transparent. The news is what is important. I don't want to read half stories and opinions that merely parrot and reinforce my own limited world view, I want carefully investigated information and facts. In order to make a objective judgement I find myself in the position of having to glean information from subjectively filtered half messages and unverified information and opinion all mixed in together. People are well able to make their own minds up if presented with all the facts, correctly verified and checked. It's becoming increasingly hard to find such sources. Perhaps some of you out there have been able to find such news sources, I find it increasingly difficult. In recent years I now have to piece my news together from about a dozen different sources, and somewhere in the middle I estimate lies closest to the truth. Of course this is quite time consuming, but leaves me much better informed.

marienbad

Jim Rockford wrote: »

The messenger should be irrelevant and virtually transparent. The news is what is important. I don't want to read half stories and opinions that merely parrot and reinforce my own limited world view, I want carefully investigated information and facts. In order to make a objective judgement I find myself in the position of having to glean information from subjectively filtered half messages and unverified information and opinion all mixed in together. People are well able to make their own minds up if presented with all the facts, correctly verified and checked. It's becoming increasingly hard to find such sources. Perhaps some of you out there have been able to find such news sources, I find it increasingly difficult. In recent years I now have to piece my news together from about a dozen different sources, and somewhere in the middle I estimate lies closest to the truth. Of course this is quite time consuming, but leaves me much better informed.

If you are looking for just one source to provide your with news then you are naïve and it was ever thus .

Check multible sources and make your own mind up but still be aware you may not have the full picture . It was never any different , especially in this country

Jim Rockford

marienbad wrote: »

If you are looking for just one source to provide your with news then you are naïve and it was ever thus .

Check multible sources and make your own mind up but still be aware you may not have the full picture . It was never any different , especially in this country

I'm far from niave regarding what you post

marienbad

Jim Rockford wrote: »

I'm far from niave regarding what you post

Can you explain please.

Jim Rockford

marienbad wrote: »

Can you explain please.

No.

I don't explain things to you

marienbad

Jim Rockford wrote: »

No.

I don't explain things to you

Oh, Ok , I don't know why you take that attitude .As far as I am aware we have never had any interaction before , but so be it.

Ichabod Chrane

Any person that is an apologist for Rome shares in the pandemic of child abuse by this leprous institution. A lurking place for paedophiles and those that knew and did not report this most heinous crime. And yet here we are in 2014 still listening to those that even now lack the basic humanity to condemn the criminals involved. Get your heads out of whatever fog they are in because the blind are leading the blind and you are all deaf to the screams of anguish from countless thousands of victims. I am ashamed to be an Irishman in a country where some of its citizens defend the indefensible. You can all rot in your in your unholy catholic church but do not condone rampant paedophilia. Supposedly grown men afraid of other men because they dress differently and spout that they are men of some god.

lazybones32

Ichabod Chrane wrote: »

Any person that is an apologist for Rome shares in the pandemic of child abuse by this leprous institution. A lurking place for paedophiles and those that knew and did not report this most heinous crime. And yet here we are in 2014 still listening to those that even now lack the basic humanity to condemn the criminals involved. Get your heads out of whatever fog they are in because the blind are leading the blind and you are all deaf to the screams of anguish from countless thousands of victims. I am ashamed to be an Irishman in a country where some of its citizens defend the indefensible. You can all rot in your in your unholy catholic church but do not condone rampant paedophilia. Supposedly grown men afraid of other men because they dress differently and spout that they are men of some god.

Apologetics is the reasoned defense of a position. The RCC is guilty but one must question if the pedophilia is as rampant as media sources suggest.

Over 600 people were arrested across the UK today in relation to child porn/dissemination of material: how many of these were Catholic priests?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Apologetics is the reasoned defense of a position. The RCC is guilty but one must question if the pedophilia is as rampant as media sources suggest.

Over 600 people were arrested across the UK today in relation to child porn/dissemination of material: how many of these were Catholic priests?

How is it relevant ?

tommy2bad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Apologetics is the reasoned defense of a position. The RCC is guilty but one must question if the pedophilia is as rampant as media sources suggest.

Over 600 people were arrested across the UK today in relation to child porn/dissemination of material: how many of these were Catholic priests?

Ahh good old whataboutery!

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

How is it relevant ?

Read what it was a response to and you may piece together how it is relevant.

Penny 4 Thoughts

lazybones32 wrote: »

Apologetics is the reasoned defense of a position. The RCC is guilty but one must question if the pedophilia is as rampant as media sources suggest.

Over 600 people were arrested across the UK today in relation to child porn/dissemination of material: how many of these were Catholic priests?

The issue has never been the mere existence of priests who are pedophiles. Defenders of the Catholic church who pretend that this is the issue do so merely to deflect judgement away the actual abuses of the Catholic church. Which is in itself simply a continuation of the original crime that started decades ago with the initial abuses and cover up.

The issue is two fold. Firstly they were able to get into positions where they had easy access to children on their own who were instructed to trust, respect and not question these priests. There might be 100 times more pedophiles in the general population. But most parents don't leave their kids in the home of strangers for hours on end and tell them to do what ever they are told, so it is some what of an irrelevant statistic. We don't have a large social organisation who regularly make proclamations on morality telling parents to leave their kids with strangers, so it is some what of an irrelevant statistic.

Secondly, even if you excuse the members of the church for initially being ignorant of the risk by having such a close unquestioning relationship between priests and children, that excuse evaporates as soon as the abuse starts happening. As soon as that starts the church themselves know there is a risk here. But instead of change the organisation then set about covering up practically all instances of abuse when they did come to light.

Not only did they not learn that actually there is a risk here that should be mitigated, we shouldn't just be letting any stranger be alone with kids for hours on end just because they are a priest. They actively attempted to cover up the the real abuses.

The abused were not protected, future victims were not protected, no one as alerted to the potential risks (so parents could realize they shouldn't be leaving their kids alone), and everyone carried on like nothing was happening.

That is the crime of the Catholic church, a crime an awful lot of Catholics seem to want to ignore. Something I always find ironic given it was precisely that attitude that lead to these problems in the first place.

How little has changed. This is why the victim support groups are so angry. Their abuse is still happening, it is still going on. It hasn't stopped, it has merely morphed into another form.

lazybones32

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

The issue... has merely morphed into another form.

My reply was to the User who tries to make me responsible for child abuse that occurred before my birth, simply for trying to take a reasonable view of the information available and coming to the conclusion that the RCC isn't as 'evil' as the popular Media suggests and that it is not a systematic pedophile-ring.

Penny 4 Thoughts

lazybones32 wrote: »

My reply was to the User who tries to make me responsible for child abuse that occurred before my birth, simply for trying to take a reasonable view of the information available and coming to the conclusion that the RCC isn't as 'evil' as the popular Media suggests and that it is not a systematic pedophile-ring.

What the RCC did is indefensible. Despite this many people try to defend the behaviour of the RCC even up to today rather than being prepared to properly examine how the abuse was allowed to happen for so long. And a lot of this defense takes the form of trying to deflect away from the real issues, onto to straw man issues that are easier to defend or ignore, while blaming external forces such as the media, liberal society, or the gay agenda, for being unfair on the church.

You are guilty of that in your previous post by claiming that the charge against the RCC is that it was a "systematic pedophile-ring". You know it wasn't, so straight out the gate you have something that is easy to defend. You merely point out it wasn't one, and that gives you an easy excuse that it is unfair the charges being leveled at the church.

But then you also know (or should know), that this isn't what is actually being claimed. It is a straw man, an easy excuse to ignore the horrific things the church actually did do that you know are indefensible but that so few Catholics seem prepared to actually accept and examine.

So not only are you finding an easy straw man to defend against to feel better, you also are purposely side lining the real issues that lead to the abuse of so many children. So long as people keep doing that you keep denying justice for those abused.

lazybones32

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

What the RCC did is indefensible. Despite this many people try to defend the behaviour of the RCC even up to today rather than being prepared to properly examine how the abuse was allowed to happen for so long. And a lot of this defense takes the form of trying to deflect away from the real issues, onto to straw man issues that are easier to defend or ignore, while blaming external forces such as the media, liberal society, or the gay agenda, for being unfair on the church.

You are guilty of that in your previous post by claiming that the charge against the RCC is that it was a "systematic pedophile-ring". You know it wasn't, so straight out the gate you have something that is easy to defend. You merely point out it wasn't one, and that gives you an easy excuse that it is unfair the charges being leveled at the church.

But then you also know (or should know), that this isn't what is actually being claimed. It is a straw man, an easy excuse to ignore the horrific things the church actually did do that you know are indefensible but that so few Catholics seem prepared to actually accept and examine.

So not only are you finding an easy straw man to defend against to feel better, you also are purposely side lining the real issues that lead to the abuse of so many children. So long as people keep doing that you keep denying justice for those abused.

I didn't try to deflect the actual guilt the RCC - I even said they are guilty - but I asked if they are as guilty as popular Press say they are, which I don't think is true.
"Defending the behaviour of the RCC" what behaviour am I defending? Be precise, please.

Besides, if I come on speaking about "reasoned defense" do you think I have not examined information?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Read what it was a response to and you may piece together how it is relevant.

Is this a discussion board or a cryptic crossword ? How is your reply relating to a foreign jurisdiction a response to anything that happened in this country.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Is this a discussion board or a cryptic crossword ? How is your reply relating to a foreign jurisdiction a response to anything that happened in this country.

The person I replied to stated the RCC is "A lurking place for paedophiles..." Over 600 people were arrested across the UK for producing and disseminating child abuse images/videos. I asked him/her, how many of those arrested were priests. If the RCC is still a lurking place for paedos, then a number of those arrested should be Catholic priests. Can you follow that or does it need simplification?

What is the name of the thread? The Clerical Child Abuse Thread. It is not limited to Ireland and some of the people who post on Boards.ie are not in Ireland or are Irish. Arrests were made across the UK, including the 6 Irish Counties that are part of that UK. It happened in this Country...it is relevant.
Can you follow that or does it need simplification?

Penny 4 Thoughts

lazybones32 wrote: »

I didn't try to deflect the actual guilt the RCC - I even said they are guilty - but I asked if they are as guilty as popular Press say they are, which I don't think is true.
"Defending the behaviour of the RCC" what behaviour am I defending? Be precise, please.

You are saying that the RCC has not done what the "popular press" say they have done, that they are not "as guilty" as they are claimed to be.

Leaving aside that what you claim the press have said seems to be nothing more than a straw man, even focusing on defending the RCC from what you think is unfair accusations, is a deflection away from what they actually did.

That shouldn't be what the conversation is about. Yet for so many Catholics that is what they want the conversation to be about, because it is fair easier to defend the RCC against unfair accusations (imagined or otherwise), than it is to actually get dirty in the organisation itself.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

The person I replied to stated the RCC is "A lurking place for paedophiles..." Over 600 people were arrested across the UK for producing and disseminating child abuse images/videos. I asked him/her, how many of those arrested were priests. If the RCC is still a lurking place for paedos, then a number of those arrested should be Catholic priests. Can you follow that or does it need simplification?

What is the name of the thread? The Clerical Child Abuse Thread. It is not limited to Ireland and some of the people who post on Boards.ie are not in Ireland or are Irish. Arrests were made across the UK, including the 6 Irish Counties that are part of that UK. It happened in this Country...it is relevant.
Can you follow that or does it need simplification?

My you are an angry one ! I wonder why ? Well lets wait and see how many are cleric then . Still dos'nt excuse the RCC in Ireland though .

lazybones32

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

You are saying that the RCC has not done what the "popular press" say they have done, that they are not "as guilty" as they are claimed to be.

Leaving aside that what you claim the press have said seems to be nothing more than a straw man, even focusing on defending the RCC from what you think is unfair accusations, is a deflection away from what they actually did.

That shouldn't be what the conversation is about. Yet for so many Catholics that is what they want the conversation to be about, because it is fair easier to defend the RCC against unfair accusations (imagined or otherwise), than it is to actually get dirty in the organisation itself.

"The RCC is guilty but one must question if the pedophilia is as rampant as media sources suggest." + "...take a reasonable view of the information available and coming to the conclusion that the RCC isn't as 'evil' as the popular Media suggests" = me "saying that the RCC has not done what the "popular press" say they have done" (The first two quotes are mine, the third is yours).

Am I wrong to counter unfair and wrong accusations? If people stopped shouting so loudly about exaggerations, then maybe people can actually begin the processes that are required. I must also question how many people who are so vociferous about how bad, wrong and immoral, etc the RCC is for what it did, actually do something proactive for those who actually suffered?

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

My you are an angry one ! I wonder why ? Well lets wait and see how many are cleric then . Still dos'nt excuse the RCC in Ireland though .

Angry? No, you wrote that my posts were like a cryptic crossword clue and I ask if you understand? Do you understand?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

Angry? No, you wrote that my posts were like a cryptic crossword clue and I ask if you understand? Do you understand?

Oh I understand more than most what the RCC church is capable of, I wonder do you ?

Why do so many worry about ''unfair and wrong accusations'' when the scale of the proven accusations is so enormous as to make any such semantics just seem like more whataboutery.

Penny 4 Thoughts

lazybones32 wrote: »

Am I wrong to counter unfair and wrong accusations?

Yes if it is merely a tactic to deflect attention and examination from the real issues, particularly if the "unfair and wrong accusations" are largely invented for this task.

lazybones32 wrote: »

If people stopped shouting so loudly about exaggerations, then maybe people can actually begin the processes that are required.

I see no one shouting exaggerations except defenders of the Church looking to build straw men.

lazybones32 wrote: »

I must also question how many people who are so vociferous about how bad, wrong and immoral, etc the RCC is for what it did, actually do something proactive for those who actually suffered?

Again more deflection. Instead of attention directed to the RCC you wish to direct attention to others. It seems some Catholics want to discuss anything but the RCC.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

Oh I understand more than most what the RCC church is capable of, I wonder do you ?

Why do so many worry about ''unfair and wrong accusations'' when the scale of the proven accusations is so enormous as to make any such semantics just seem like more whataboutery.

I thought this thread was about what actually happened, not about what people and Institutions are "capable of". Can you understand the difference between these two? I am capable of committing horrendous atrocities - as are you - but we haven't done so and should not be judged guilty because of our possibilities. Why drag the argument into the realm of fantasy?

Why worry about unfair and wrong accusations? Justice, for one. For a third time I write the RCC is guilty of certain crimes and the victims need Justice. However, how can the real issues be dealt with while there are many more false and exaggerated claims being thrown around? That's a rhetorical question - I'm not seeking an 'answer' from you.

lazybones32

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

Yes if it is merely a tactic to deflect attention and examination from the real issues, particularly if the "unfair and wrong accusations" are largely invented for this task.


I see no one shouting exaggerations except defenders of the Church looking to build straw men.



Again more deflection. Instead of attention directed to the RCC you wish to direct attention to others. It seems some Catholics want to discuss anything but the RCC.

You accuse me of deflecting attention from the RCC. How exactly have I done so and what aspect of discussion have I tried to silence?

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

I thought this thread was about what actually happened, not about what people and Institutions are "capable of". Can you understand the difference between these two? I am capable of committing horrendous atrocities - as are you - but we haven't done so and should not be judged guilty because of our possibilities. Why drag the argument into the realm of fantasy?

Why worry about unfair and wrong accusations? Justice, for one. For a third time I write the RCC is guilty of certain crimes and the victims need Justice. However, how can the real issues be dealt with while there are many more false and exaggerated claims being thrown around? That's a rhetorical question - I'm not seeking an 'answer' from you.

oh I can give you graphic details of what actually happened but I suspect it would make little difference .

My attitude is quite simple - it is the victims that should set the agenda and not the perpetrators and their fellow travellers.

And in the meantime if excessive mud is thrown at the RCC then that is the price an organisation pays for being so arrogant and so derelict for so long. A little humility goes a long way.

Penny 4 Thoughts

lazybones32 wrote: »

You accuse me of deflecting attention from the RCC. How exactly have I done so and what aspect of discussion have I tried to silence?

I have already explained how you have done so, by trying to turn the discussion to unfair accusations (largely invented by Catholics as far as I can see) towards the church, rather than about what the church did.

All you have commented on with regard to the church itself is that it is "guilty" (guilty of what, and what can be done about it), and then immediately wanted to discuss bias media and unfair accusations.

How about we discuss the almost countless crimes of the RCC in the last 60 years, and when we are done with that (should only take a few decades I guess) we can get around to the horrific crime of media bias.

lazybones32

Penny 4 Thoughts wrote: »

I have already explained how you have done so, by trying to turn the discussion to unfair accusations (largely invented by Catholics as far as I can see) towards the church, rather than about what the church did.

All you have commented on with regard to the church itself is that it is "guilty" (guilty of what, and what can be done about it), and then immediately wanted to discuss bias media and unfair accusations.

How about we discuss the almost countless crimes of the RCC in the last 60 years, and when we are done with that (should only take a few decades I guess) we can get around to the horrific crime of media bias.

Excuse you. I asked a question of a poster and asked him/her a question. That question was not directed at anyone else but you and another user decided to take issue with it and the both of you have 'derailed' the discussion, not me. I have already pointed out my reasons for writing what I wrote and I never asked for Media impartiality and objectivity to be discussed - I made a statement.
Feel free to list the 'crimes' perpetrated by the RCC in the last 60 years. Wait, list 10 if you can.

lazybones32

marienbad wrote: »

oh I can give you graphic details of what actually happened but I suspect it would make little difference .

My attitude is quite simple - it is the victims that should set the agenda and not the perpetrators and their fellow travellers.

And in the meantime if excessive mud is thrown at the RCC then that is the price an organisation pays for being so arrogant and so derelict for so long. A little humility goes a long way.

True, it won't make any difference. I've listened to, and befriended, people who were sexually molested and it didn't make any difference (I know of other forms of abuse from my own experience). My listening couldn't turn back time to prevent it from happening and will not protect current and future abuse victims from being abused.

I disagree with the victims deciding on what is to be considered Justice. I cannot see that actually returning Justice but revenge/vengeance.

Are you genuinely saying it's okay to falsely accuse people of crimes you know they haven't committed because you consider them to be arrogant?


For healing to occur, the real pain must be separated from the false pain.

marienbad

lazybones32 wrote: »

True, it won't make any difference. I've listened to, and befriended, people who were sexually molested and it didn't make any difference (I know of other forms of abuse from my own experience). My listening couldn't turn back time to prevent it from happening and will not protect current and future abuse victims from being abused.

I disagree with the victims deciding on what is to be considered Justice. I cannot see that actually returning Justice but revenge/vengeance.

Are you genuinely saying it's okay to falsely accuse people of crimes you know they haven't committed because you consider them to be arrogant?


For healing to occur, the real pain must be separated from the false pain.

Just more equivocating waffle. There is none so blind as those that will not see. And a perfect illustration follows-''For healing to occur, the real pain must be separated from the false pain''- what arrogance.