The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

Yes there are a section of society that identify with my observation.The "agenda" of course being to preserve the child's right to live and experience all life has to offer.The church will always be prevalent in opposing something as heinous,my opinion,as abortion.You can go back to the 1st century and the Didache to find her reason's for such opposition.

Very keen to preserve the life of the unborn so, but as per Tuam, not so interested in keeping born babies alive. Seems I'm not the only one making that observation either.

Your question could be construed as an oxymoron but it's self answering.No I don't see how a devout Christian could support the taking on innocent human life as its in complete contradiction to the 6th commandment.

Exactly, devout Christians tend towards a pro-life position because it is demanded of them by their religious doctrine. At the same time, recent polls show that a majority of Irish people support repealing the 8th, so these people by your logic must be either non-religious or non-devout Christians. Given the last census showed 93% of the population as nominal Christians, the latter would appear to be true. So while there may be many exceptions, this illustrates that the pro-life, pro-choice stance does largely coincide with religiosity.

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

Abortion is one of the main causes of maternal mortality each year in the world.Should we ban abortion?

You missed a bit there, unsafe abortion is one of the main causes of maternal death. Most of the others are pregnancy related and can avoided by early abortion where indications are that carrying the pregnancy to full term would put the mothers life at risk. The Savita Halappanavar case is good example of why we need this.

fran17

smacl wrote: »

You missed a bit there, unsafe abortion is one of the main causes of maternal death. Most of the others are pregnancy related and can avoided by early abortion where indications are that carrying the pregnancy to full term would put the mothers life at risk. The Savita Halappanavar case is good example of why we need this.

Ah yes I believe it was Bill Clinton who famously said abortion should be legal,safe and rare.The main issue I see there is that every abortion results in the death of at least 50% of those involved and the rest result in the death of 100% involved,no?

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

Ah yes I believe it was Bill Clinton who famously said abortion should be legal,safe and rare.The main issue I see there is that every abortion results in the death of at least 50% of those involved and the rest result in the death of 100% involved,no?

I'm with 100% Bill on that one, interesting sentiment from a self proclaimed a loyal Southern Baptist. I guess some practising Christians are pro-choice after all. Of course it does rather come down to your definition of abortion. The Vatican for example considers the use of the morning after pill to constitute abortion, which is going to lead to some rather unfortunate conflicts for any Catholic woman who don't want to be pregnant. The fact that they're also against contraception and sex outside of marriage does rather put that bit of extra pressure on women to make that trip to the UK now doesn't it? Also rather telling that this is not a problem that Catholic men have to face first hand, and that all these rules regarding sex are coming from Catholic men who aren't supposed to be getting any.

marienbad

fran17 wrote: »

Abortion is one of the main causes of maternal mortality each year in the world.Should we ban abortion?

Have we not got enough abortion threads as it is without colonising this one ?

fran17

marienbad wrote: »

Have we not got enough abortion threads as it is without colonising this one ?

Wait a moment there,if you review the previous few pages you'll see it's the repeal the 8th crew who introduced it.

smacl

marienbad wrote: »

Have we not got enough abortion threads as it is without colonising this one ?

Fair enough, got a bit side tracked myself there too. Mea Culpa.

fran17

smacl wrote: »

Very keen to preserve the life of the unborn so, but as per Tuam, not so interested in keeping born babies alive. Seems I'm not the only one making that observation either.



Exactly, devout Christians tend towards a pro-life position because it is demanded of them by their religious doctrine. At the same time, recent polls show that a majority of Irish people support repealing the 8th, so these people by your logic must be either non-religious or non-devout Christians. Given the last census showed 93% of the population as nominal Christians, the latter would appear to be true. So while there may be many exceptions, this illustrates that the pro-life, pro-choice stance does largely coincide with religiosity.

You seem to have omitted one of the most important conclusions drawn from that poll.There is little appetite among the Irish public to fully repeal the 8th amendment.

Delirium

MOD NOTE

Anyone who wishes to discuss abortion, please you the appropriate mega-thread.

Thanks for your attention.

aloyisious

I put my hands up on the abortion intro angle that Fran refers to. I made it as an example, along with the Pope's visit in 1979, in reference to the esteem the irish population paid to the RC church teachings circa the 60's and 70's. I offered to Fran to delete the mention to the 1983 abortion referendum, when he/she commented that it was not what the thread was debating, if he/she wanted but the offer was not taken up. Instead my referencing it has been seized on by Fran to make references to it and another recent referendum item, which is also different to this thread issue. As a result, I left my original post intact (till now) as it was a response to a third party post and deleted my two follow-up responses to Fran's comments. My apologies.

brian_t

smacl wrote: »

Very keen to preserve the life of the unborn so, but as per Tuam, not so interested in keeping born babies alive. Seems I'm not the only one making that observation either.

You are using an article from Waterford Whispers News to support your claim - seriously !

smacl

brian_t wrote: »

You are using an article from Waterford Whispers News to support your claim - seriously !

As a piece of satirical humour I think it works well in illustrating just how ridiculous the positions of certain religious advocates are to very many people.

Cabaal

So anyway, lets get back on track shall we?

In light of the findings on Friday I think this really gives new insight and light to this June 2015 broadcast

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/06/18/i-was-put-into-a-bag-and-told-i-was-going-into-a-bog-hole/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rjzjFbPduE

Last night TV3’s The People’s Debate With Vincent Browne took place in the Galway East constituency.

During the show, historian Catherine Corless introduced two former residents of the Tuam Mother and Baby Home, Peter Mulryan and PJ Haverty.

Ms Corless said Peter has a sister buried at the home but explained that he doesn’t know where she’s specifically buried.

Back then the man in question (Peter Mulryan) doesn't know if his sister was buried dumped at the home or not, but at this stage he is starting to think she was sold off as records relating to her from the nuns are very suspect and unreliable.

His reasoning for believing that the nuns records are false have good reason as per the Irishtimes

An examination of birth and death certificates “remarkably” show the same informant as being at the birth and death of all 796 children between 1925 and 1961, he said.

That person was with the Bon Secours from infancy until her death and provided a name on documents on “which the Order had no wish to place its own fingerprints”, he alleged.

Thats some achievement, that the exact same employee slave oversaw the birth and was at the death of every single child that died while in that home, never missed a day or nothing. Seriously suspicious indeed.

Its clear that by getting a slave to be on the forms the nuns could wash their hands of the whole situation.

The poor man is extremely ill, he deserves an answer and he deserves to know where her sisters body is and to ensure its buried inline with his wishes at this stage.

aloyisious

Peter Mulryan may well be correct in his thoughts about his sister.

EDIT: a link somewhere on the past few pages either here or on the Tuam Mother and Baby thread includes a mention that recidivist women (the term used to describe women who gave birth to more than one child outside marriage at the home) were sent to The Magdalene Laundries after their second child was born at the home.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Careful now Ted, talk like that could land you on the naughty list. I think there's a bit more to syncretism than pandering to the crowd mind you. Simplifying the process of assimilating the local yokels with their whacko beliefs into the fold would appear to be the main point. Once they're in, pandering pretty much ceases unless it looks like they might be getting out. Kind of surprised the RCC hasn't been doing a bit more pandering in recent years, as the flock seem to be wandering all over the place these days, including into the neighbour's field

Oh I imagine Hinault can easily handle the notion that he doesn't speak for every member of his denomination. Yes, syncretism is even more than pandering to the crowds, it's a well founded strategic pandering with a purpose, and that explains that when it doesn't serve a purpose it's not done. Would you expect anything less? And it does indeed show that the Church has for a long time understood that preaching a message palatable to her audience's tastes is a worthwhile exercise. Like I said.

fran17

aloyisious wrote: »

I put my hands up on the abortion intro angle that Fran refers to. I made it as an example, along with the Pope's visit in 1979, in reference to the esteem the irish population paid to the RC church teachings circa the 60's and 70's. I offered to Fran to delete the mention to the 1983 abortion referendum, when he/she commented that it was not what the thread was debating, if he/she wanted but the offer was not taken up. Instead my referencing it has been seized on by Fran to make references to it and another recent referendum item, which is also different to this thread issue. As a result, I left my original post intact (till now) as it was a response to a third party post and deleted my two follow-up responses to Fran's comments. My apologies.

I fully refute the suggestion that I seized upon the issue or any alternative verb which would suggest I attempted to take advantage of the situation.To intertwine the Tuam babies tragedy and the introduction of the right to life of the unborn into our constitution was ill judged aloyisious and quite distasteful.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, syncretism is even more than pandering to the crowds, it's a well founded strategic pandering with a purpose, and that explains that when it doesn't serve a purpose it's not done. Would you expect anything less? And it does indeed show that the Church has for a long time understood that preaching a message palatable to her audience's tastes is a worthwhile exercise. Like I said.

So you seem to be saying by implication that the Catholic clergy in 1950s Ireland were really just pandering to the masses when it came to preaching misogyny and the mistreatment of single mothers? Sounds like rather far fetched apologetics from where I'm sitting.

smacl

fran17 wrote: »

I fully refute the suggestion that I seized upon the issue or any alternative verb which would suggest I attempted to take advantage of the situation.To intertwine the Tuam babies tragedy and the introduction of the right to life of the unborn into our constitution was ill judged aloyisious and quite distasteful.

When we're dealing with septic tanks full of dead babies, we've moved on a bit from quite distasteful, and I think atrocity describes the event rather better than tragedy.

fran17

smacl wrote: »

When we're dealing with septic tanks full of dead babies, we've moved on a bit from quite distasteful, and I think atrocity describes the event rather better than tragedy.

I would be more inclined to await our own commission of enquiry to report it's findings smacl.Rather than the Irish/British tabloids or your source at Waterford Whispers.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

So you seem to be saying by implication that the Catholic clergy in 1950s Ireland were really just pandering to the masses when it came to preaching misogyny and the mistreatment of single mothers? Sounds like rather far fetched apologetics from where I'm sitting.

Well, if it seems to you that someone is saying something that sounds to you like something is implied, it's likely all down to your own twisted perceptions. After all, you know what I explicitly said, and you're not quoting it in support of your ideas. Though it's pretty apparent that whatever the clergy were preaching wasn't sufficiently misaligned with public opinion to cause any great outrage at the time. Was it?

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

Well, if it seems to you that someone is saying something that sounds to you like something is implied, it's likely all down to your own twisted perceptions. After all, you know what I explicitly said, and you're not quoting it in support of your ideas. Though it's pretty apparent that whatever the clergy were preaching wasn't sufficiently misaligned with public opinion to cause any great outrage at the time. Was it?

Explicit? You're posts are so circumspect they'd have Machiavelli asking you to get to the point. And no, I think it is both wrong and a cop out to suggest that the Catholic church weren't leading public opinion with respect to moral outlook in 1950s Ireland.

lazybones32

smacl wrote: »

When we're dealing with septic tanks full of dead babies, we've moved on a bit from quite distasteful, and I think atrocity describes the event rather better than tragedy.

Except we're not exactly dealing with that, are we?
The Comm. "has not determined if the second structure was ever used as a septic tank" and they haven't determined if it was ever used for whatever purpose. The septic tank that was used was filled with rubble; covered with topsoil and grassed. No remains in the septic tank.
The Comm. said it found "a significant number" of remains. A vague description at a time when clarity is needed. The testimony of one of the boys said he saw maybe 20 remains, which is a far cry from the images of a tank filled to the brim with bones a la Pol Pot. Be angry by all means, but at least be angry about the truth of what happened, not a sensationalised version based more on imagination than fact.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

Except we're not exactly dealing with that, are we?
The Comm. "has not determined if the second structure was ever used as a septic tank" and they haven't determined if it was ever used for whatever purpose. The septic tank that was used was filled with rubble; covered with topsoil and grassed. No remains in the septic tank.
The Comm. said it found "a significant number" of remains. A vague description at a time when clarity is needed. The testimony of one of the boys said he saw maybe 20 remains, which is a far cry from the images of a tank filled to the brim with bones a la Pol Pot. Be angry by all means, but at least be angry about the truth of what happened, not a sensationalised version based more on imagination than fact.

So as long as it isn't a septic tank you are ok with it?

MrP

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

I fully refute the suggestion that I seized upon the issue or any alternative verb which would suggest I attempted to take advantage of the situation.To intertwine the Tuam babies tragedy and the introduction of the right to life of the unborn into our constitution was ill judged aloyisious and quite distasteful.

You made reference to the marriage equality issue in your reply to smacl at 10.19 on page 253 yesterday, which has nothing to do with this thread, and that was the other referendum I subsequently referred to as being introduced to this thread by you. Also please stop making false claims, inclusions and inferences about what I wrote, thank's. I fully agree with your opinion on that intertwine fake inference of yours.

lazybones32

MrPudding wrote: »

So as long as it isn't a septic tank you are ok with it?

MrP

I want to know the truth about what happened there. Misleading newspaper headlines that still persist two years later don't help the process.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Explicit? You're posts are so circumspect they'd have Machiavelli asking you to get to the point. And no, I think it is both wrong and a cop out to suggest that the Catholic church weren't leading public opinion with respect to moral outlook in 1950s Ireland.

So explicit and circumspect yet you still need to come up with something that seems to sound like an implication instead? The actual (explicit and circumspect) suggestion was that if more tolerant attitudes were prevalent in our society at the time, perhaps the Church might have felt obliged to preach a message equally palatable to their audience's tastes.

fran17

aloyisious wrote: »

You made reference to the marriage equality issue in your reply to smacl at 10.19 on page 253 yesterday, which has nothing to do with this thread, and that was the other referendum I subsequently referred to as being introduced to this thread by you. Also please stop making false claims, inclusions and inferences about what I wrote, thank's. I fully agree with your opinion on that intertwine fake inference of yours.

No I did not reference it in relation to this thread,I used it as an example in relation to the individuals who led that campaign and how they are now drawing on their experience from that to conduct this campaign.Your good self however,I believe,hoped to capitalise from the very raw emotions the public are feeling regards the Tuam tragedy and transfer that emotion into support for the repeal campaign which you are a leading advocate for.
You may have withdrawn the insinuation from your own record,which I welcome,however my opinion on your motives will not change.

aloyisious

fran17 wrote: »

No I did not reference it in relation to this thread,I used it as an example in relation to the individuals who led that campaign and how they are now drawing on their experience from that to conduct this campaign.Your good self however,I believe,hoped to capitalise from the very raw emotions the public are feeling regards the Tuam tragedy and transfer that emotion into support for the repeal campaign which you are a leading advocate for.
You may have withdrawn the insinuation from your own record,which I welcome,however my opinion on your motives will not change.

Rubbish................

Your's, very sincerely, Aloyisious

aloyisious

Going to Australia re the coverage of a response from Denis Hart, RC Archbishop for Melbourne to the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Keep in mind that part of his response, that he's prepared to be jailed for failing to report child sex abuse by priests, was made in reference to what children said in confession about their being abused by paedophile priests. It has had an effect on listeners and media in Australia. His statement was apparently in response to the Commission statement that there should be “no excuse, protection nor privilege” for clergy who failed to alert police of abuse. There is nothing new in that RC stance on confessional secrecy being inviolate and above human law.

Archbishop Hart reportedly went on to state [in his response] that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

I don't know in what context the archbishop was thinking when it came to that last part of his statement, possibly some sort of theology though pattern. I can only think that any other thinking person would consider that NOT to be adult thinking on what is a criminal offence against minors and children.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjr1eLOx-_VAhWDF8AKHbtKDzIQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fcommentisfree%2F2017%2Faug%2F18%2Fwhen-i-was-16-i-went-to-confession-i-wish-the-priest-had-reported-what-id-told-him&usg=AFQjCNG5d1idli8_ApnLCmXwqlznAXMF_Q

Other online sites/sources have reported on Archbishop Hart's statement to the commission. I don't know the history of those sources; COUNTERCURRENT NEWS and NEON NETTLE so didn't include their reportage versions of his statement to the commission, even though they were similar in content, just differently worded from that in the above The Guardian.com link.

EirWatchr

aloyisious wrote: »

that sexual abuse was “a spiritual encounter with God through the priest” and was “of a higher order” than criminal law.

That is not what was said. His quotes - correct, and in context - were about the inviolable seal of the confessional, not acts of sexual abuse.

"I believe [confession] is an absolute sacrosanct communication of a higher order that priests by nature respect"
"We are admitting a communication with God is of a higher order,” he said. “It is a sacred trust. It’s something those who are not Catholics find hard to understand but we believe it is most, most sacred and it’s very much part of us."

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/aug/15/melbourne-archbishop-says-hed-rather-go-to-jail-than-report-child-abuse-heard-in-confession