pro cathedral Dublin

Fuinseog

I went along to a service there today and it seems the church is under the attack. there were three guards inside and a drug addict interrupted the proceedings and there was some odd ball protest outside.

I noticed there were two collections. I heard Dublin does this. the second collection seemed to get less.

gugleguy

To you second question correct, dublin does do this, in all churches both north and southside I have gone to up to present day, which include Artane,Rathfarnham, Rathmines, Batchelors Walk to name but a few.

homer911

Dumb question - Why is it called the pro cathedral? provisional?

Benny_Cake

homer911 wrote: »

Dumb question - Why is it called the pro cathedral? provisional?

You've got it, it was always intended to be a temporary cathedral (essentially a parish church operating as a cathedral. There have been various proposals for a permanent cathedral over the years, the GPO was one suggestions. The archdiocese actually bought the park in Merrion Square back in the 1940s with the intention of building a cathedral there, a terrible idea which thankfully didn't come to pass.

Fuinseog

homer911 wrote: »

Dumb question - Why is it called the pro cathedral? provisional?

most of the cathedrals in Europe were built hundreds of years ago and are in prominent positions. because tehc hurch was forbidden catholic churches were put on side steets. it is a tiny cathedral, but i guess there is a lack of space for a bigger structure in Dublin.

Regarding my question on church collections, which collection is for the diocese? I have no problem supporting the priest celebrating mass, but am uneasy about supporting a fund for victims of clerical abuse.

Are there protesters outside every church or just the pro cathedral?

Benny_Cake

Fuinseog wrote: »

Regarding my question on church collections, which collection is for the diocese? I have no problem supporting the priest celebrating mass, but am uneasy about supporting a fund for victims of clerical abuse.

Are there protesters outside every church or just the pro cathedral?

As far as I know, the first collection is for the priests of the parish, the second is for Share (central diocesan fund). I'm not sure whether any of it has been used to compensate victims of abuse.

prinz

Fuinseog wrote: »

Regarding my question on church collections, which collection is for the diocese? I have no problem supporting the priest celebrating mass, but am uneasy about supporting a fund for victims of clerical abuse.

The first is sometimes for the care of retired and ill priests in the diocese, Which is something I refuse to contribute to on the grounds that some of the priests named and IIRC some of those convicted are still being housed and cared for in diocesan homes. I don't know what the alternative is, but I don't want my money paying their way. The second collection is the collection for the running of the diocese.

Fuinseog wrote: »

Are there protesters outside every church or just the pro cathedral?

I was at a mass a few months back and there was a protest outside before and after. Pretty much accusing the parishioners of being complicit in a cover-up. Felt bad for the people if they were abused but I think they're going about his protests all the wrong way. It was a bit of a cheap shot and had a rent-a-mob feel to it.

Fuinseog

hmm, i am still unsure which one is which and maybe it differs around Dublin? at least Fianna Fail do not seem to be having a gate collection anymore.

recedite

Fuinseog wrote: »

I have no problem supporting the priest celebrating mass, but am uneasy about supporting a fund for victims of clerical abuse.

Why is that? You don't think they should be compensated?

Fuinseog

recedite wrote: »

Why is that? You don't think they should be compensated?

I am definitely not financing their compensation. let the government compensate them, they are as guilty. secular society knew what was happeneing and chose to ignore it.

Peregrinus

Fuinseog wrote: »

I am definitely not financing their compensation. let the government compensate them, they are as guilty. secular society knew what was happeneing and chose to ignore it.

So you’ll pay taxes to enable the government to compensate people who it failed to protect from abuse by your church, but you won’t make donations to enable your church to compensate the people it abused?

recedite

Fuinseog wrote: »

let the government compensate them, they are as guilty

Government ministers didn't do the abusing. What you are saying is you want the whole of society to take the blame, and let the actual perpetrators off the hook.

Peregrinus

The actual perpetrators, in many cases, are dead. Or, if they’re not dead, they’re poor, which makes then unable to provide any monetary or resource-based compensation.

But, while I’m all for dealing with the actual perpetrators, and calling them to account in every way - morally, financially, criminally - for what they have done, we need to recognize the danger of pointing to the perpetrators as a mechanism for avoiding any scrutiny of our own responsibility as a community.

And, by “community” here I mean both the church (if we’re members of the church) and the nation. Both as a church and as a nation we have a heavy responsibility here, and we need to face up to it. Demanding that the church should pay so that the state doesn’t have to sickens me. Demanding that the state should pay so that the church doesn’t have to sickens me just as much.

recedite

Lets say a priest rapes a child, and a few years later the parents find out. They complain to the bishop, and attend an internal inquiry, swearing themselves to secrecy in the process. The Gardai are not told about it. The result is that the priest gets moved away. A diocesan report is sent to the Vatican, but nobody else outside the meeting is told about the events.

How can the rest of society be blamed for either the rape or the cover-up?

Misty May

I think you will find we are discussing where the money goes for the two church collections in the Procathedral.

The first collection is usually for the priests of the parish & the second for share but it may vary in different churches.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Lets say a priest rapes a child, and a few years later the parents find out. They complain to the bishop, and attend an internal inquiry, swearing themselves to secrecy in the process. The Gardai are not told about it. The result is that the priest gets moved away. A diocesan report is sent to the Vatican, but nobody else outside the meeting is told about the events.

Well, you haven’t said anything about how the priest came to rape the child. Was the child in an institution? A school? A “home”? Who put him there? Why? Who regulated the institution? How did they regulate it?

Why did the parents complain to the bishop, rather than the guards? Why did they agree to be sworn to secrecy?

recedite wrote: »

How can the rest of society be blamed for either the rape or the cover-up?

On the facts you give, I think we can accuse the church of primary responsibility for the cover-up - though to be strictly honest we could ask some difficult questions about the role of the parents. It’s a hard thing to say to them, but could they possibly be complicit in the cover up? And if - as I suspect is the case - they were cowed by convention and expectation into accommodating the cover up, is the church - the institutional church - solely to blame for that, or can we ask awkward questions about the nature and responsibility of wider society? I don’t mean to excuse the church here, but in the end the church only had such influence as the nation allowed it, and if we as a nation cultivated the idea that it was right to take a “hands off” approach and let the church handle its own, so to speak, and if we found devious ways to isolate and punish those who challenged that convenient abdication of responsibility, can we really say that we have no collective responsibility for the outcome of that?

And that only deals with the cover-up. Who - beyond the individual priest - bears responsibility for the rape itself? Your scenario gives us nothing here. It could be that the institutional church is responsible - if, e.g., they knew this bloke had form. Or if they placed him, ill-trained and under-resourced, in a situation he foreseeably couldn’t deal with. But it could also be that others outside the institution had responsibility, if they knew of previous issues with this bloke, but decided (or found it easier) to “let the church handle its own”. And if we are talking about a child in a state-inspected school, or a child in the care of the state consigned to a “home”, well, there’s an obvious layer of responsibility there.

I stress, I’m not defending or excusing the church. They deserve everything they get over this, and more. But there’s a real danger that this way of thinking turns into a “they’re responsible, so we’re not” form of self-absolution. And I don’t think that’s good. Nor is it a solid foundation for protecting children into the future, if our main concern is in fact to reassure ourselves that child abuse is not our concern; it was all the fault of those nasty people over there last time, and it will be next time too.

Fuinseog

recedite wrote: »

Lets say a priest rapes a child, and a few years later the parents find out. They complain to the bishop, and attend an internal inquiry, swearing themselves to secrecy in the process. The Gardai are not told about it. The result is that the priest gets moved away. A diocesan report is sent to the Vatican, but nobody else outside the meeting is told about the events.

How can the rest of society be blamed for either the rape or the cover-up?

what kind of parents would consent to such a thing?

people lamp on about abuse in catholic orphanages, yet it happened in protestant and secular homes as well.

The Vatican is a statelet and hardly going to go down on its knees for a few paddies with an axe to grind. it is no coincidence that they are pushing for compensation once the recession kicked in.

whenever the topic comes up the same faces are wheeled out in front of the cameras. its their sole claim to fame as they appear to be failures in life, blaming the church for all their woes.They really need to get over themselves.

Benny_Cake

Fuinseog wrote: »

whenever the topic comes up the same faces are wheeled out in front of the cameras. its their sole claim to fame as they appear to be failures in life, blaming the church for all their woes.They really need to get over themselves.

Colm O'Gorman is a failure?Marie Collins?Andrew Madden? They must have had great foresight to get abused years ago in order that they could claim compensation in the future. You seem very bitter.

recedite

Misty May wrote: »

The first collection is usually for the priests of the parish & the second for share but it may vary in different churches.

Once upon a time Share was used for building new churches, but nowadays with the decline in attendances, the money is used for "support" operations within the diocese, which could include legal costs and compo.

Fuinseog wrote: »

what kind of parents would consent to such a thing?

"In March 2010 it became widely known that the then Father Seán Brady had participated in an internal Church legal process in 1975 that required victims of Father Brendan Smyth to remain silent about their abuse. Smyth went on to abuse dozens of children before being brought to justice in 1994. Taken alongside his statement in December, this led to widespread calls for Cardinal Brady's resignation.The information of this internal process had been publicly available as far back as 10 August 1997 in an article by Declan White in the Mirror.
One of those who was a child interviewed in the internal process is suing Cardinal Brady on the grounds that complaints about Fr. Smyth were not reported to the Garda, that steps were not taken to prevent Fr. Smyth from committing further assaults, that the children were required to sign oaths not to discuss the complaints and that the failure to report the complaints led to the plaintiff and others not receiving appropriate medical treatment."
source

Doc Farrell

Fuinseog wrote: »

what kind of parents would consent to such a thing?

people lamp on about abuse in catholic orphanages, yet it happened in protestant and secular homes as well.

The Vatican is a statelet and hardly going to go down on its knees for a few paddies with an axe to grind. it is no coincidence that they are pushing for compensation once the recession kicked in.

whenever the topic comes up the same faces are wheeled out in front of the cameras. its their sole claim to fame as they appear to be failures in life, blaming the church for all their woes.They really need to get over themselves.

Perhaps you should watch Diarmuid Martin on 60 minutes before deciding to anonymously refer to children who were molested and raped by Catholic adults as failures in life.

http://www.irishcentral.com/story/news/periscope/archbishop-diarmuid-martin-sheds-tears-on-60-minutes-describing-meeting-victims-of-clerical-abuse-141377463.html

I'm playing nice but if you actually think that your vicious views are a benefit to the future rebuilding of the Catholic church you should pick up a Gospel and read what Jesus had to say about adults who hurt children.

Fuinseog

recedite wrote: »

Once upon a time Share was used for building new churches, but nowadays with the decline in attendances, the money is used for "support" operations within the diocese, which could include legal costs and compo.
"In March 2010 it became widely known that the then Father Seán Brady had participated in an internal Church legal process in 1975 that required victims of Father Brendan Smyth to remain silent about their abuse. Smyth went on to abuse dozens of children before being brought to justice in 1994. Taken alongside his statement in December, this led to widespread calls for Cardinal Brady's resignation.The information of this internal process had been publicly available as far back as 10 August 1997 in an article by Declan White in the Mirror.
One of those who was a child interviewed in the internal process is suing Cardinal Brady on the grounds that complaints about Fr. Smyth were not reported to the Garda, that steps were not taken to prevent Fr. Smyth from committing further assaults, that the children were required to sign oaths not to discuss the complaints and that the failure to report the complaints led to the plaintiff and others not receiving appropriate medical treatment."
source

a lack of civil courage it would appear.

everyone knew but nobody knew. the church is blamed for all of this but irish society is equally guilty. I know there was a school in the west where one of the priests used to walk into the showers to 'make sure the boys were showering properly'. it was an open secret that the priest was a little 'strange' but nobody did anything about it. this was the late eighties and i refuse to believe the church dictated everything at this time.

I work in the field of education and parents will complain and bitch about anything and everything, yet those same parents tolerated sexual abuse and did nothing.

recedite

Fuinseog wrote: »

I work in the field of education...

Christian Brother?

gimmebroadband

Another huge sex abuse scandal looming in Ireland, but not priests this time!

"The scale of numbers a doctor can abuse, as compared to a priest, are huge," said the former nurse-turned-whistleblower.

http://www.themediareport.com/2012/03/07/sex-abuse-scandal-explodes-in-ireland/

Fuinseog

recedite wrote: »

Christian Brother?

without the brothers generations of Irish would have never received an education.

Fuinseog

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman is a failure?Marie Collins?Andrew Madden? They must have had great foresight to get abused years ago in order that they could claim compensation in the future. You seem very bitter.

not really bitter, just sick and tired of them going on on and on about their abuse. it seems to be all they are about and seem to have made a career out of it. time to move on.
I had a deprived childhood because no priest ever abused me which is strange because they are all supposed to be abusers.

I think its also important not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
these folk you have named seem to working an anti clerical agenda., which is music to the ears of the growing number of aggressive secularist. its the same church that does a lot for the poor. Does the government organise soup kitchens?

Fuinseog

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Another huge sex abuse scandal looming in Ireland, but not priests this time!



http://www.themediareport.com/2012/03/07/sex-abuse-scandal-explodes-in-ireland/

no, it cannot be. only the catholic church is guilty of sex abuse. The medical profession is too respected to entertain such allegations.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.