Vatican rejects Taoiseach’s criticism over Cloyne sex abuse report

Keylem

"THE VATICAN HAS this morning denied claims that it interfered in efforts to report priests implicated in the Cloyne report into sexual abuse in the Cork diocese to authorities and criticised the Taoiseach’s unprecedented attack on the Catholic Church."

http://www.thejournal.ie/vatican-rejects-taoiseachs-criticism-over-cloyne-sex-abuse-report-217135-Sep2011/

catbear

Rome, go home.

alex73

catbear wrote: »

Rome, go home.

Did you read the report before you made your 3 word comment?

Cybercelesta

alex73 wrote: »

Did you read the report before you made your 3 word comment?

Obviously not!

I have downloaded the report and will read it later!

The response in full:

http://www.news.va/en/news/cloyne-holy-see-response-in-full

darealtulip

Lets believe the vatican over the indepent researchers that made the raport. I read a good bit of it and it is the approach they always take. Take no responsibility and pass the bucket.

Cybercelesta

darealtulip wrote: »

Lets believe the vatican over the indepent researchers that made the raport. I read a good bit of it and it is the approach they always take. Take no responsibility and pass the bucket.

The blame lies with the bishops in charge, those who didn't follow Vatican guidelines!

Enda Kenny deliberately quoted an old document out of context to make it look like the Vatican was implicated in the Cloyne Report, that is misleading and dishonest, and you suggest we believe the Government!?

smokingman

darealtulip wrote: »

Lets believe the vatican over the indepent researchers that made the raport. I read a good bit of it and it is the approach they always take. Take no responsibility and pass the bucket.

I expect the response to be full of "cognitive dissonance".

Duke Leonal Felmet

Cybercelesta wrote: »

The blame lies with the bishops in charge, those who didn't follow Vatican guidelines!

Enda Kenny deliberately quoted an old document out of context to make it look like the Vatican was implicated in the Cloyne Report, that is misleading and dishonest, and you suggest we believe the Government!?

I wouldn't believe a word from either institution.

jhegarty

catbear wrote: »

Rome, go home.

They are , this was issued from Rome.

PatricaMcKay2

jhegarty wrote: »

They are , this was issued from Rome.

Har, har, har...The Vatitican since gave the Norman elite Ireland in the same way she them gave them England before us in order to rob us of our native Christian hertitage and Church government has been a curse upon these shores.

smokingman

PatricaMcKay2 wrote: »

Har, har, har...The Vatitican since gave the Norman elite Ireland in the same way she them gave them England before us in order to rob us of our native Christian hertitage and Church government has been a curse upon these shores.

Is there meant to be something coherent in those letters bundled together up there?

All I could glean was something about "native christian heritage".
Surely she means "native pagan heritage" if she's talking about Éire?

Spacedog

smokingman wrote: »

Is there meant to be something coherent in those letters bundled together up there?

All I could glean was something about "native christian heritage".
Surely she means "native pagan heritage" if she's talking about Éire?

Stop talking sense, this is the Christianity board.

Fanny Cradock

Spacedog wrote: »

Stop talking sense, this is the Christianity board.

Yo, dog! If you presuppose that no sense can be talked here because this is the Christianity forum then please stop posting. In the mean time you can spare us the sarky comments. K?

Keaton

This comment was left below an excellent blog post:

The response of the Vatican was professional, respectful and studied. Gilmore and Kenny's rants were none of those things. They have made fools of themselves, as future historians will note.

You can read the post here:

Scum, blood traitors, mud-bloods, filth.

PDN

Spacedog wrote: »

Stop talking sense, this is the Christianity board.

Enjoy your holiday from the Forum.

Woof!

darealtulip

Cybercelesta wrote: »

The blame lies with the bishops in charge, those who didn't follow Vatican guidelines!

Enda Kenny deliberately quoted an old document out of context to make it look like the Vatican was implicated in the Cloyne Report, that is misleading and dishonest, and you suggest we believe the Government!?

The most significant sentence in the Vatican’s response to the Irish Government about the Cloyne Report comes on the second-last page, just before the concluding remarks. It says: “From the foregoing considerations, it should be clear that the Holy See expects the Irish Bishops to cooperate with the civil authorities, to implement fully the norms of canon law and to ensure the full and impartial application of the child safety norms of the Church in Ireland.”

This sounds reasonable on the face of it. But it conceals a vital distinction that the Catholic Church has already used to mislead people in Ireland on the same issue. Look again carefully at the wording: the Bishops should implement “fully” the norms of canon law, and ensure the “full and impartial” application of the Church’s child safety norms. Yet when it comes to cooperating with the civil authorities, as opposed to the internal rules of the Church, the important word “fully” is missing.

This missing word “fully” is the exact formulation that the Dublin Archdiocese used in 1997 to mislead people about its response to the sexual abuse of Marie Collins. When the priest who had abused Collins was convicted, the Archdiocese issued a press statement claiming that it had cooperated with police in relation to her complaint. Collins was upset by this and told her friend Father James Norman. Father Norman told police that he had asked the Archdiocese about the statement and the explanation he received was that “we never said we cooperated ‘fully’, placing emphasis on the word ‘fully’.”

darealtulip

And the Irish Times must have it wrong too?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0905/1224303498653.html?fb_ref=.TmSTYPswwfo.like&fb_source=home_oneline

I can see you need blind faith to follow a religion, but having blind faith in the vatican which has all reason not to take responsibility is wrong and I am happy to hear that many Catholics are not having the blind faith in the Vaticans motivations anymore.

It is in the vaticans interest to avoid responsibility since that will be the cheapest way out for them.

gimmebroadband

Isn't it amazing how things can be read out of context to suit the mindframe of the person reading it?!

The same thing could be said of the 1997 Vatican Letter that the Irish Government alluded to before it did a "Hitler" impression!

An extract from yesterday's Sunday Independent!

"The Cloyne report based much of it's accusations against the Holy See on a 1997 letter from the Vatican's 'ambassador to Ireland' to the country's bishops expressing "serious reservations" about their policy requiring bishops to report abusers to gardai.
The Cloyne Report had admonished the Vatican for diminishing the bishop's abuse policy as a mere "Study Document" in the 1997 letter, implying that it wasn't an offical policy that needed to be followed.
The policy had been presented at the time as mandatory for all of Ireland's bishops. The Vatican however, said the policy was never a legally binding policy because the Irish bishops themselves had never sought to make it so by submitting it for official approval by the Vatican.
The reports "contain no evidence to suggest the Holy See meddled in the internal affairs of the Irish State or for that matter was involved in the day-to-day managment of Irish dioceses or religous congregations with respect to sexual issues."


More ......

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/09/04/ireland.vatican.sex.abuse/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3

The bishop is successor to the apostles, and as head of a dioscese is responsible for policing it, the buck falls with him.

Baggio1

i mean how can anyone take Gilmore seriously??

the guy who was trumpeting on about, "we've turned the corner, our economy is getting stronger, we have growth this year" bla bla hahahaha its enough to make ya cry or laugh hey yeah let him pop over to Barossa you know? that other clown? yeah the guy who ALSO believes there's no euro crisis and the Euro zone is strong,,, hahaha
lets face it.. Kenny and Gilmore jumped on the anti church punch bag because they needed a side show, as people were starting to cop on about them and their veryy naughty social policies and basic screwing of people for every penny they could get... so yeahh lets bash the baddies in Rome "their the ones guys lets get em!"

anyway they really should know their details before making diplomatic gafs.. uggh Irish politicians?? all the professionalism of a pair of blind dart throwers

ISAW

[QUOTE=darealtulip;74217171
I can see you need blind faith to follow a religion,
[/quote]

Your opinion is only one way of looking at it. In fact the roman Catholic position would be that Christianity requires faith and reason. Blind faith without reason isn't their philosophy.

but having blind faith in the vatican which has all reason not to take responsibility

The vatican does not have a reason not to take responsibility. But as it happens the church always opposed the practice of sex with children. They had laws against it in the early church. And in the period in 1997 of which we are discussing, the Irish State decided not to pursue a policy of mandatory reporting by legislating for it but the church did decide to pursue that very policy.

is wrong and I am happy to hear that many Catholics are not having the blind faith in the Vaticans motivations anymore.

While in their view there might be a requirement for a pope there is no theological faith based requirement for the Vatican in the Roman Catholic Church. It is a temporal construct which is quite efficient for its size but it is not a requirement of faith.

It is in the vaticans interest to avoid responsibility since that will be the cheapest way out for them.

One would have to assume the Vatican were "IN " something to begin with. The Vatican didn't organise child sexual abuse or strive to cover up such abuse through any policy. Senior people i.e;. bishops ( who run their own diocese) did make mistakes in policy but of the numbers of bishops might at best reach ten out of thousands of them worldwide in the last half century or so. In addition there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of priests. The numbers involved in child sex abuse may be as much as a hundred. Even if as high as a thousand it is under 0.1 per cent of priests.

Now tell me this if 0.1 per cent of men are guilty of rape would you say all men have a culture of rape and it is a "male thing"?

PDN

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Isn't it amazing how things can be read out of context to suit the mindframe of the person reading it?!

The same thing could be said of the 1997 Vatican Letter that the Irish Government alluded to before it did a "Hitler" impression!

Come off it, Dragging Hitler into this is to dredge the gutter.

People criticising the Vatican does not equate them to one of the greatest mass-murderers in history.

optogirl

Cybercelesta wrote: »

The blame lies with the bishops in charge, those who didn't follow Vatican guidelines!

Enda Kenny deliberately quoted an old document out of context to make it look like the Vatican was implicated in the Cloyne Report, that is misleading and dishonest, and you suggest we believe the Government!?

And do you blame the salespeople in the banks for giving out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them or the management and culture in the bank?

PDN

optogirl wrote: »

And do you blame the salespeople in the banks for giving out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them or the management and culture in the bank?

Indeed. If an organisation appoints people into positions of responsibility, then the organisation is responsible for ensuring their appointees remain accountable. As the notice on Harry Truman's desk famously read - "The buck stops here."

After centuries of running an organisation that claims to be the one true Church on earth, it is a bit rich for the leadership to hold up their hands and say, "It was nothing to do with us!"

gimmebroadband

optogirl wrote: »

And do you blame the salespeople in the banks for giving out mortgages to people who couldn't afford them or the management and culture in the bank?

No more than I blame the people for voting in an inept Government!!!

Table Top Joe

I have to say im genuinely stunned at some of the comments here,people are disgusted with the church and all involved for a very good,valid reason,its very black and white,the church has knowingly covered up child rape!,how can people still defend them?? people here talk of disgust with Gilmore and Kenny?? are you people for real?? they are finally giving a voice to those who never had one,the church and its followers used to make me angry now it just makes me sad


When i was a kid in school i believed in and loved Jesus,thought he was great! i was easily the most religious in my class.....then as i got older i came across his "followers" and i felt conned,the Jesus i learned about in school and mass obviously wasnt the same one some of you learned about,if he was here today he'd be repulsed by the Vatican


You think Jesus would put a money making organisation over the well being of children? really? the church has no one to blame for so many atheists in this country(and apathy towards it in general)than itself


Its a well known cliched quote but its as true today as it ever was


"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi




Im just appalled by some of you,i know a guy in his 60s who sleeps with the lights on every night because of the abuse he suffered as a kid,this is very real,please remember those people next time your moaning about the poor ol hard done by church

Cybercelesta

PDN wrote: »

Come off it, Dragging Hitler into this is to dredge the gutter.

People criticising the Vatican does not equate them to one of the greatest mass-murderers in history.

I think GB is reffering to his speaking style, which is much the same as Paisley - mouthing off! Jesus is the head of the Church, the Pope is the custodion of the keys.

darealtulip

It was brought to my attention that the term "blind faith" was offensive.

This was not my intention since using offensive language stops a proper discussion.

Also I did not came on this thread to discuss religion and therefore my word choice is counter productive.

Keaton

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I have to say im genuinely stunned at some of the comments here,people are disgusted with the church and all involved for a very good,valid reason,its very black and white,the church has knowingly covered up child rape!,how can people still defend them?? people here talk of disgust with Gilmore and Kenny?? are you people for real?? they are finally giving a voice to those who never had one,the church and its followers used to make me angry now it just makes me sad

When you realise that Mr Gilmore is desiring to introduce abortion to Ireland, you can see through his stinking hypocrisy.

Bad things happened in the past. Mistakes were made, sins committed. But today, the RCC is the safest place for young people in Ireland today. That's a fact.

This is good:

Dr Martin also rejected as “a bit unfair” Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore’s description of the Vatican’s response as “very technical and legalistic”. Speaking in Dublin, yesterday, he said: “The Vatican responded to the questions they were asked and some of the questions were about norms and legislation. It is a bit unfair to say that they gave technical answers – they were technical questions.”

darealtulip

@ ISAW

see my post above for the "blind faith" bit. Wrong word choice.

You can't compare man as a group with an organisation which has a strict hierarchy. Man did not move offenders around so they could do more harm etc.

The head of a organisation is responsible to make sure mistakes made in the past will not happen again. So the least they are guilty of is misconduct and bad management (in my opinion). If this was a political party we would ask the leader to resign.

The way the vatican is handeling the issue is not good for the followers of their Church and certainly not for the abuse victims.

optogirl

Keaton wrote: »

But today, the RCC is the safest place for young people in Ireland today. That's a fact.

no, it simply is NOT a fact.

soterpisc

optogirl wrote: »

no, it simply is NOT a fact.

It is a fact. No priest is going to been seen with a Child today. Its all open and monitored.

Table Top Joe

Keaton wrote: »

When you realise that Mr Gilmore is desiring to introduce abortion to Ireland, you can see through his stinking hypocrisy.

Bad things happened in the past. Mistakes were made, sins committed. But today, the RCC is the safest place for young people in Ireland today. That's a fact.

This is good:

I see your point regarding Gilmore,i happen to be pro-choice(pretty much because of rape victims and harm to the mother,i just cant be anti-abortion because of this as much of a horrible an act it is)



"Bad things happened in the past..." this is what i have a problem with and what infuriates me to be honest,the attitude i get from this kind of thing is "yeah we made mistakes get over it",this is the very attitude of the Vatican which drives people mad,i just dont see any responsibility being taken,just finally a begrudging acknowledgment that they've been shamed into giving



And if the RCC is indeed the safest place for young people today(i dont know how you can say that but lets just say its true)why is it the safest place for young people today? if the RCC hadnt been shamed into owning up to its "sins" would it still be that? i think you know the answer to that one



And as far as that quote goes,well,i dont see it how you do,i see it as the RCC doing the bare minimum as usual,they answer the questions they are asked,no more no less,if they had any humanity or shame they wouldnt have put everything in such legal and technical terms,they would given a more thoughtful and humble reply instead of the typical damage control response

optogirl

soterpisc wrote: »

It is a fact. No priest is going to been seen with a Child today. Its all open and monitored.

Why is that I wonder? It still does not make a fact of your statement.

Table Top Joe

soterpisc wrote: »

It is a fact. No priest is going to been seen with a Child today. Its all open and monitored.

If the abuses withing the RCC hadnt been brought to the attention of the public it would still be going on today,its the brave people who came forward who have made the RCC safer today,the RCC themselves fought it every step of the way,its certainly not safer because of them....just saying

gimmebroadband

Table Top Joe wrote: »

If the abuses withing the RCC hadnt been brought to the attention of the public it would still be going on today,its the brave people who came forward who have made the RCC safer today,the RCC themselves fought it every step of the way,its certainly not safer because of them....just saying

Exactly!!! The abuse of minors needed to be exposed, and thus prompted the Vatican to sit up and take notice. They will have to replace those bishops who knew of or suspected priests who abused minors on their watch, and did nothing about it!

It's only right too that abuses done in secular society as a whole be also dealt with, eg. HSE etc. Then will society be a safer place for children. It's no good pointing out abuses in one sector whilst ignoring neglect and abuses done in others....just saying!

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Indeed. If an organisation appoints people into positions of responsibility, then the organisation is responsible for ensuring their appointees remain accountable. As the notice on Harry Truman's desk famously read - "The buck stops here."

But the Us have been involved in over 100 military incursions in the last century or so ( and I mean outside WWI WWI and Korea) and they haven't been called to account for that. the buck didn't stop at all.

After centuries of running an organisation that claims to be the one true Church on earth, it is a bit rich for the leadership to hold up their hands and say, "It was nothing to do with us!"

Except they didn't say that! They did admit that of the the several thousand people they appointed (or recogniused the appointment of) i.e. Bishops that ten or twenty of these did make errors of judgement with respect to child sexual abuse. I have no knowledge of any Bishop actually being an abuser but some did (in collusion with the State) act in the wrong way against pedophiles.

Keaton

OK, so he didn't slam him, I just like saying that!:p

Bishop calls on Irish PM to explain 'global' statement

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny should explain his claim that the Vatican interfered in the affairs of the Irish state, Bishop Noel Treanor has said.

The Vatican has rejected Mr Kenny's claim it sabotaged efforts to report child-molesting priests to police.

His remarks followed publication of the damaging Cloyne report into clerical sexual abuse.

Bishop Treanor said the statement had now "gone global" and had even been cited by the Chinese government.

prinz

optogirl wrote: »

no, it simply is NOT a fact.

Could you provide us with examples of clerical abuse (sexual, physical, emotional etc) of children occuring say in the last year?

The Church's guidelines, as written and hopefully as enforced today put the RCC ahead of the curve when it comes to child protection measures. This has been widely accepted including by the way in the Cloyne Report itself..

The Commission acknowledges that the standards which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children. The standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement

These days they are fully implemented. The State hasn't caught up. Have you ever read a parish's child protection policy?

As regards the Vatican v State spat. It's turning into a tit-for-tat battle of press releases and soundbites. Ugly. There has been a clear Government climb down from their initial position though...

A few months ago 'The letter from the Vatican caused bishops not to report abuse'....

Up to this week 'It's possible it may perhaps have played some part in some bishops deciding not to report abuse.... that's what we meant'.

Both sides behaving appallingly.

Table Top Joe

Wow.....do the RCC really want the Irish government to go into detail about the cover ups?? bring it on

Table Top Joe

prinz wrote: »

Could you provide us with examples of clerical abuse (sexual, physical, emotional etc) of children occuring say in the last year?

This statement is just incredible,as myself and others have pointed out this is only the case because they have been exposed,had the RCC not been exposed it would still be happening,because why wouldnt it still be happening if it hadnt been exposed?? the RCC never had any intention whatsoever of making this public(or dealing with apart from moving priest around)


And lets not forget the reason there arent any recent reports is because no sane person would let their child alone with priest,the opportunity isnt there any more so of course it isnt happening

gimmebroadband

Keaton wrote: »

OK, so he didn't slam him, I just like saying that!:p

Bishop calls on Irish PM to explain 'global' statement

Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny should explain his claim that the Vatican interfered in the affairs of the Irish state, Bishop Noel Treanor has said.

The Vatican has rejected Mr Kenny's claim it sabotaged efforts to report child-molesting priests to police.

His remarks followed publication of the damaging Cloyne report into clerical sexual abuse.

Bishop Treanor said the statement had now "gone global" and had even been cited by the Chinese government.

With the result that the Chinese Government used Kenny's speech to support their persecution of the Church! They arrested dozens lay people and priests who would not support the State for their choice of bishop.

Fair play to ya Enda, you must be proud of yourself!!

ISAW

Table Top Joe wrote: »

This statement is just incredible,as myself and others have pointed out this is only the case because they have been exposed,

Let us get this straight you are claiming the only reason sexual abuse of children by priests does not happen today is because the less than one per cent of abusers who are priests and less than 0.1 per cent of priests who abused children were "exposed" by some process which the Church had no hand act or part in?

had the RCC not been exposed it would still be happening,

Even assuming that your false premise of "exposure" is true this is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance"

because why wouldnt it still be happening if it hadnt been exposed??

That is called a "double negative" but in any case
State institutions acted slower than the church and sexual abuse of children still decreased. Probably because culturally and legally adults can not be even in the same room with children who are not their own kids unless ther are other adults present and their presence is accepted and known to all.

the RCC never had any intention whatsoever of making this public

Making WHAT public? the fact that of the tens of thousands of clergy ther were 26 reported cases of sexually abusing priests to State ( not church) redress boards and these
happened over 70 years!

(or dealing with apart from moving priest around)

Some bishops did this. given the low number of cases it is difficult to see any pattern but the point is these cases of priests being moved were not directed by the Vatican!

And lets not forget the reason there arent any recent reports is because no sane person would let their child alone with priest,the opportunity isnt there any more so of course it isnt happening

But they would let their child alone with a swimming instructor babysitter teacher ???
The stats are that non priests make up over 99 per cent of abusers. So the reason there are lower levels of child abusers (if there are) hs little to do with the less than one per cent of abusers who are clergy.

Read the stats! Even if all sexually abusing priests were removed from society instantly that would make a decrease at best of less than one per cent of child sexual abusers!

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

But the Us have been involved in over 100 military incursions in the last century or so ( and I mean outside WWI WWI and Korea) and they haven't been called to account for that. the buck didn't stop at all.

Your ability to miss the point really is astounding at times.

Pres Truman's notice meant that he was responsible for what happened on his watch. It's what we call leadership.

Table Top Joe

ISAW wrote: »

Let us get this straight you are claiming the only reason sexual abuse of children by priests does not happen today is because the less than one per cent of abusers who are priests and less than 0.1 per cent of priests who abused children were "exposed" by some process which the Church had no hand act or part in?



Even assuming that your false premise of "exposure" is true this is a logical fallacy called "argument from ignorance"



That is called a "double negative" but in any case
State institutions acted slower than the church and sexual abuse of children still decreased. Probably because culturally and legally adults can not be even in the same room with children who are not their own kids unless ther are other adults present and their presence is accepted and known to all.



Making WHAT public? the fact that of the tens of thousands of clergy ther were 26 reported cases of sexually abusing priests to State ( not church) redress boards and these
happened over 70 years!



Some bishops did this. given the low number of cases it is difficult to see any pattern but the point is these cases of priests being moved were not directed by the Vatican!



But they would let their child alone with a swimming instructor babysitter teacher ???
The stats are that non priests make up over 99 per cent of abusers. So the reason there are lower levels of child abusers (if there are) hs little to do with the less than one per cent of abusers who are clergy.

Read the stats! Even if all sexually abusing priests were removed from society instantly that would make a decrease at best of less than one per cent of child sexual abusers!

Wow,the "it really wasnt that many of them" argument,for one thing we dont know of all priests who abused(we cant know this but it would be incredibly naive to think we know of all of them)




Anyway,yes im saying the reason there arent abuse cases nowadays(as far as we know at least)is because the opportunity isnt there,and the opportunity isnt there because everyone knows the story now,if the RCC had its way this wouldnt be known and children would still be in danger,this is very straight forward stuff in fairness



Why bring swimming instructers or whoever in to it? were discussing the RCC,and what difference does it make how long ago something happened anyway? is it any less real for those it happened too??

prinz

Table Top Joe wrote: »

Why bring swimming instructers or whoever in to it? were discussing the RCC,and what difference does it make how long ago something happened anyway? is it any less real for those it happened too??

It goes back to the paedophile/abuse scandal that rocked the Irish Swimming Association back in the day... and how it wasn't dealt with by various authorities at the time. You'd rarely hear people these days worrying about how unsafe swimming classes are for kids, that's the point.

gimmebroadband

prinz wrote: »

It goes back to the paedophile/abuse scandal that rocked the Irish Swimming Association back in the day... and how it wasn't dealt with by various authorities at the time. You'd rarely hear people these days worrying about how unsafe swimming classes are for kids, that's the point.

Four members of my family including myself were abused by a family member, and I had the added sexual abuse by a school bully on top of that!

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

Your ability to miss the point really is astounding at times.

Pres Truman's notice meant that he was responsible for what happened on his watch. It's what we call leadership.

So you are saying that Obama is personally responsible for every rape and murder in the US? Or even only for those done by US Military personnel ( him being the commander in chief)?
And that bush is personally responsible for all torture done in Iraq and the tribulations of all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? that he is personally responsible for the Chagos Islanders etc. That is funny because the US or International media don't seem to be saying any President is responsible and no buck has stopped.

In fact your idea that Ratzinger should roll up his sleeves and tidy up the Irish church runs against church policy. Bishops are responsible for their own Diocese. The Pope does not micro manage every diocese.

ISAW

Table Top Joe wrote: »

I see your point regarding Gilmore,i happen to be pro-choice(pretty much because of rape victims and harm to the mother,i just cant be anti-abortion because of this as much of a horrible an act it is)

"Bad things happened in the past..." this is what i have a problem with and what infuriates me to be honest,

Indeed - try asking Gilmore about any Official IRA connections.

And if the RCC is indeed the safest place for young people today(i dont know how you can say that but lets just say its true)why is it the safest place for young people today? if the RCC hadnt been shamed into owning up to its "sins" would it still be that? i think you know the answer to that one

Yes the answer would be instead of no Priests sexually abusing children less than 0.1% of priests would be sexually abusing children and less than 1% of abusers would be priests.

Why is the other 99 % ignored an a whole caffuffle made about the Church which Gilmore and a bunch of other like minded atheist politicians does not support anyway ?

And as far as that quote goes,well,i dont see it how you do,i see it as the RCC doing the bare minimum as usual,they answer the questions they are asked,no more no less,if they had any humanity or shame they wouldnt have put everything in such legal and technical terms,they would given a more thoughtful and humble reply instead of the typical damage control response

AS pointed out in:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74212486&postcount=14
It apparently was Gilmore who demanded a comprehensive reply from Rome.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gilmore-is-not-going-to-wait-forever-for-vaticans-response-to-cloyne-report-2829454.html

And the objective facts are children were abused in the care of the church. The objective fact is it was covered up and not reported," he said.

"And the objective fact is the Vatican interfered in the affairs of this country and the way in which that was being dealt with by church people who were under the influence of the Vatican and under their regime," he added.

The Tanaiste said he expected to get a comprehensive response in "a reasonable time", specifying that this should be formulated "not beyond the end of August".

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

So you are saying that Obama is personally responsible for every rape and murder in the US?

Or even only for those done by US Military personnel ( him being the commander in chief)?

If there was a scandalous track record of rape and murder being committed by US military personnel, and if the US military had covered up such rapes and murders, ands if Obama's appointees as Generals etc had failed to implement procedures to curb such events - yes, absolutely. The commander in chief carries the can.

And that bush is personally responsible for all torture done in Iraq and the tribulations of all prisoners in Guantanamo Bay? that he is personally responsible for the Chagos Islanders etc. That is funny because the US or International media don't seem to be saying any President is responsible and no buck has stopped.

I really can't be expected to comment on your failure to read what is printed in the international media. I have seen a heap of articles and TV reports that do indeed blame Bush for Guatanamo Bay and for Iraq.

In fact your idea that Ratzinger should roll up his sleeves and tidy up the Irish church runs against church policy. Bishops are responsible for their own Diocese. The Pope does not micro manage every diocese.

Where did I mention him rolling up his sleeves and micromanaging? He is responsible for the appointments of Cardinal and Bishops. If his appointees prove to be duds then he bears ultimate responsibility.

This is hardly radical stuff. It's basic leadership principles. You would think that the man who claims to be God's vicar on earth could grasp it.

hangon

How can anybody defend the Vatican?
what has happened over centuries worldwide and in Ireland in the name of the holy sea is unforgivable,so many lives ruined.
it is a no brainer that the Catholic church should hang its head in shame.
it became a disgusting institution and should just say a humble sorry.
it disgraced the name of Jesus whoever you believe him to be.
none so blind as those who cannot see.

gimmebroadband

hangon wrote: »

How can anybody defend the Vatican?
what has happened over centuries worldwide and in Ireland in the name of the holy sea is unforgivable,so many lives ruined.
it is a no brainer that the Catholic church should hang its head in shame.
it became a disgusting institution and should just say a humble sorry.
it disgraced the name of Jesus whoever you believe him to be.
none so blind as those who cannot see.

I'm currently reading a book "Double Standards" by Dave Pierre:
Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church.

Yes, Catholic priests terribly abused minors, and bishops failed to stop the unspeakable harm. That’s an undeniable truth.
However, major media outlets are unfairly attacking the Catholic Church, and this compelling book has the shocking evidence to prove it.

Double Standard addresses numerous topics, including:
… appalling cases of abuse and cover-ups happening today – but they’re not happening in the Catholic Church;
… proof that Catholic clergy do not offend more than teachers or those of other religious denominations;
… data that shows that the Catholic clergy scandal is not about “pedophilia”;
… affirmation that the Catholic Church may be the safest place for children today;
… research that uncovers the shady relationships between SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests), lawyers, and the media;
… convincing documentation that the national spokesperson of SNAP once failed to report suspected child abuse himself – while he was SNAP’s spokesperson;
… the astonishing connection between SNAP and ACORN;
… the surprising truth about “repressed memories”;
… unheard, agonized priests who vehemently deny the accusations against them;
… evidence of how the Hollywood “documentary” Deliver Us From Evil deceived moviegoers.
plus much more …


http://www.themediareport.com/book.htm