Journal.ie Comments moderation (or lack of)

qrrgprgua

Anyone else noticed how when a Catholic related article gets published the amount of ignorant comments that follow at the bottom?



http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-benedict-vigorously-rings-bell-to-promote-eucharistic-congress-383745-Mar2012/

Keylem

Matthew: 5:11

Blessed are you when people insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven will be great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you!

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Anyone else noticed how when a Catholic related article gets published the amount of ignorant comments that follow at the bottom?



http://www.thejournal.ie/pope-benedict-vigorously-rings-bell-to-promote-eucharistic-congress-383745-Mar2012/

Shows I guess how badly the Catholic church's handling of the sexual abuse scandals still causes anger in Irish people with relation to the Church.

It is the ironic nature of the whole thing, while putting the public image of the Church above the interests of abused children, those who tried to hide the scandals from public view have actually ended up harming the public imagine far longer than I think they could have imagined, possibly irrevocably.

JimiTime

Zombrex wrote: »

Shows I guess how badly the Catholic church's handling of the sexual abuse scandals still causes anger in Irish people with relation to the Church.

It is the ironic nature of the whole thing, while putting the public image of the Church above the interests of abused children, those who tried to hide the scandals from public view have actually ended up harming the public imagine far longer than I think they could have imagined, possibly irrevocably.

As irritating as it is to see ignorance on parade (Especially when it comes in the form of self righteous indignation), one must empathise with why people have the impression they do. The damage goes beyond the walls of the RCC too. Christianity is tarnished by all its adherents wrongdoings.

tommy2bad

So are you saying that they should censor the comments section?
Trim them maybe to the most common points or insist on ballance and alow 1 positive for every 1 negative comment.
Its a vox populi, shows how far we have fallen in general and how much needs to be done to reboot the church.

Benny_Cake

Internet comments are a free for all, and if you're offended by those on a Journal article, try reading those on Youtube. Any video will do.

There's a lot of anger out there towards the Catholic church authorities,most of it justified,and this is an expression of it. Unfortunately there appears to be a bit of a persecution complex out there among a minority of Catholics, which is unfortunate, but it's ultimately their problem. It would be better if they listened to why people were hurt or upset by the church, and sought to positively change those perceptions through their own actions, rather than wallowing in self pity.

Onesimus

Why get rid of the comments? Afterall it was comments such as these that put me forth to become a Christian.:)

qrrgprgua

Zombrex wrote: »

Shows I guess how badly the Catholic church's handling of the sexual abuse scandals still causes anger in Irish people with relation to the Church.

It is the ironic nature of the whole thing, while putting the public image of the Church above the interests of abused children, those who tried to hide the scandals from public view have actually ended up harming the public imagine far longer than I think they could have imagined, possibly irrevocably.

you miss the point.. Did you read the articule? What has a delegation from Dublin lead by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin got to do with abuse?

Diarmuid Martin didn't cover anything... If anything he has broken ranks and been extremely vocal about reform.

Gregor Samsa

All articles on thejournal.ie get their fair share of ignorant comments. Hey, there's even fools down voting the "R.I.P" posts on the article on the Swiss bus crash that killed 22 children and 6 adults. For some reason, it's a haven for trolls and ignoramuses.

Zombrex

qrrgprgua wrote: »

you miss the point.. Did you read the articule? What has a delegation from Dublin lead by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin got to do with abuse?

Very little. But then why would you expect people angry with the Catholic church to only comment on articles dealing specifically with child abuse?

People protest Scientology at Tom Cruise film premires, despite the movies having nothing to do with Scientology and Tom Cruise not being directly involved in any of the unsavory aspects of Scientology (at least as far as I'm aware).

People do not turn off their anger and annoyance at a religious group that have acted the way the Church has simply because something unrelated to the crimes the group have committed is being discussed.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Diarmuid Martin didn't cover anything... If anything he has broken ranks and been extremely vocal about reform.

Correct, and I think Martin would be one of the first to understand why any mention of the Catholic Church still receives such a reaction from the people of Ireland.

Unlike others he seems to realize that the anger this whole sordid affair has generated in the hearts of Irish people isn't something that will just disappear or be forgotten over night, despite what others may think.

Manach

Well such comments are usually absent in Government press releases which over the recent decade or two has performed poorly in children's issues or in the allocation of funds for same.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Well such comments are usually absent in Government press releases which over the recent decade or two has performed poorly in children's issues or in the allocation of funds for same.

Any number of government agencies, from the HSE to the Gardai to NAMA regularly come in for harsh comments even if the article isn't directly discussing the thing that people are angry at the group for.

It should be also pointed out that the level of trust broken was of particular significance given the role the church played in society during the time the sexual abuse scandals took place.

While people expect that say a government agent, be it a TD, a social worker, or a Garda, should do the right thing they aren't shocked to their core when they find out they didn't.

Priests though are supposed to be of a higher moral standing, and to find that not only were some of them abusing children but their colleagues were covering it up to avoid embarrassment did genuinely shock people to their core.

The greatest failing I think of many Catholics who are impatient that there hasn't been a forgive and forget attitude from the rest of society is failing to adequately recognise the level of betrayal felt and the mistrust and anger that has generated.

prinz

Get used to it. If you aren't hearing those kind of comments in person on a regular basis then either you've surrounded yourself with Catholics are you aren't very upfront about your faith. If you see any that break the charter on the site report them. Apart from that it's time to build a bridge.

Zombrex wrote: »

The greatest failing I think of many Catholics who are impatient that there hasn't been a forgive and forget attitude from the rest of society is failing to adequately recognise the level of betrayal felt and the mistrust and anger that has generated.

It should never be forgotten and it will be a long time before it can be forgiven.

However very little of the vitriol being poured out against the church and religious minded people in general has anything to do with the mistrust and anger at abuse and cover-up and is more good old fashioned bandwagon church-bashing by people informed by tabloid headlines.. and it's not confined to the Roman Catholic Church either.

If that people were concerned about the abuse and cover up as they so claim to be they'd be angry at all it's forms, they'd be questioning the role their parents played, what role their grandparents played. It's very easy to finger point at "the Church" but who was the church? Irish men and Irish women of the Church but also parishoners, parents, teachers, gardaí, Dept. of Education officials, doctors etc etc.. thousands of people across this country knew what was going on (sexual and physical abuse) and did nothing and so it continued...and it still continues it's almost a daily occurence before the courts at the moment we see a man being convicted of raping and abusing his children. What has changed? This abuse has been happening on the last 15 years. The vast majority of the Church abuse happened well before that 30-50 years ago. We saw during the week a spokesman for the medical patients group who said they were taking case for hundreds of Irish people who have claims that they were sexually abused by medical staff. Did that make headline news? If people were truly concerned about abuse and cover-up they'd be demanding an immediate inquiry into those cases... but who has said anything?
Most people I have mentioned it to never noticed it. Patients? Sexual abuse? Nah only priests do that. Oh well as long as we have the church in our sights...

It's an interesting phenomenon that leads to us not really learning anything and prone to make the same mistakes.

If you look at the bank and property crisis you will see the same thing. We blame "the banks" "the developers" "the builders" etc etc.... but who was also to blame? Average Joe Soaps. Your family, your friends, your relations. The people who willingly took on mortgages they could never hope to afford longterm on property that was grossly overvalued. What happens "oh, it wasn't my fault, the banks made me do it".... The same abdication of responsibility for anything.

It is right to be angry and feel betrayed, but those feelings are only useful if they serve to create an atmosphere where this kind of thing doesn't happen again and focusing 100% of the backlash onto the Catholic Church doesn't serve that purpose and it will happen again and again.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

It should never be forgotten and it will be a long time before it can be forgiven.

You say that but then you dismiss those who expresses anger at the church as being hypocritical and dishonest and interested only in church bashing, not genuinely interested in preventing sexual abuse. Who exactly are the people who can legitimately feel anger and betrayal at how these events were handled?

And your attitude is not limited to yourself, it is found throughout the Catholic community, in Ireland and abroad particularly in the more conservative areas of the Church.

Is it any wonder that the anger towards Catholicism has not abated when people can see the same defensive dismissive and arrogant attitude that lead to the cover up of sexual abuse in the first place?

What exactly do you think the Catholic church, in general as a community, has learned from this? That it is all someone else's fault seems to be the prevailing message.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Shows I guess how badly the Catholic church's handling of the sexual abuse scandals still causes anger in Irish people with relation to the Church.

You mean badly handling by not actually challenging the media myths that it was widespread or that clergy represented any significant percentage of abusers i.e. more than about 1%? Or that they didnt tackle the myth about a vatican cover up conspiracy? Just like people were told there were WMD and Al Khyda bases supported by Saddam in iraq? The difference being we know there were no WMD but people still believe in a vatican civer up and believe there were large numbers of priests abusing kids when the fugures are dozens of abusers in tens of thousands of priests and in thousands of non priest abusers.

Badly handled to some degree maybe but not entirely the churches fault.

It is the ironic nature of the whole thing, while putting the public image of the Church above the interests of abused children,

i try to redress the handling issue. Where and when did the church put the "public image of the Church above the interests of abused children"
Ill bet you go back to the same stock set of cases -just like the WMD claimants. But Ill also bet you cant demonstrate "widespread" nor "collusiuon" nor "vatican conspiracy"

those who tried to hide the scandals from public view have actually ended up harming the public imagine far longer than I think they could have imagined, possibly irrevocably.

I agree. but list the cases and you will see such "trying to hide" scandals are not widespread and are very very few. By which i mean concerning maybe ten bishops out of 10,000 worldwide. I guessing at the ten. im only aware of about five people at that level who might be construed to have "covered up" and even then they didnt do it always for all cases brought to their attention.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

Any number of government agencies, from the HSE to the Gardai to NAMA regularly come in for harsh comments even if the article isn't directly discussing the thing that people are angry at the group for.

not true!

i have posted about the fact that over 200 minors DIED in HSE care in Ireland in the last ten years when under HSE care and little if anything was stated about it. If i posted abut a priest from 30 years ago was suspected of child abuse i would get massive coverage and response.

It should be also pointed out that the level of trust broken was of particular significance given the role the church played in society during the time the sexual abuse scandals took place.

And other institutions. And families. where most abuse happened and continues to happen. But while i agree some evil people gravitated to clerical office to get near children the level was low. thqt does not make it acceptable. the level of the offenders that hierarchy didnt act on was even lower but that also does not justify the ones they did not rapidly act on.

While people expect that say a government agent, be it a TD, a social worker, or a Garda, should do the right thing they aren't shocked to their core when they find out they didn't.

Priests though are supposed to be of a higher moral standing, and to find that not only were some of them abusing children but their colleagues were covering it up to avoid embarrassment did genuinely shock people to their core.

I agree. Their selection procedures and chld protection policies have changed.

The greatest failing I think of many Catholics who are impatient that there hasn't been a forgive and forget attitude from the rest of society is failing to adequately recognise the level of betrayal felt and the mistrust and anger that has generated.

i partly agree. Young people toiday dint live yesterday. I dont blame old Germans for living in Nazi germany even if they did vote for the Nazi Party. the question is how far they went after that . catholics rejected the Nazi Party to begin with but i dont visit the "you voted for him" on german Protestants every time I meet them.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

You mean badly handling by not actually challenging the media myths that it was widespread or that clergy represented any significant percentage of abusers i.e. more than about 1%? Or that they didnt tackle the myth about a vatican cover up conspiracy?

I mean badly handled by putting the public perception of the Church above the interests of the children who were being sexual abuse or at risk of being sexual abused.

Good to see that Catholics have learnt that lesson ... :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

The difference being we know there were no WMD but people still believe in a vatican civer up and believe there were large numbers of priests abusing kids when the fugures are dozens of abusers in tens of thousands of priests and in thousands of non priest abusers.

Are you saying that the cases of sexual abuse and their cover up were as fabricated as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

ISAW wrote: »

Badly handled to some degree maybe but not entirely the churches fault.

Again the focus so many Catholics seem to have is on managing the public perception that the church has done wrong, not on learning and dealing with what had happened. Again the pre-occupation has been with public perception and defense. That is the same problem that lead to the cover up in the first place.

So why would people be expected to think that the attitudes prevailing in the church have changed. They seem exactly the same.

ISAW wrote: »

i try to redress the handling issue. Where and when did the church put the "public image of the Church above the interests of abused children"

What, other than what you did just there? What prinz did a few posts ago? What Catholics have been doing consistently since these stories broke and what they did during the period of sexual abuse itself?

This is why the anger still exists, you are all still doing it. The attitudes still exist, why would anything think the Church, both the priests and bishops themselves and the wider community of Catholics, has actually learnt from the scandals and changed?

Or put it another way, how much effort have you and your fellow Catholics expelled trying to counter negative perceptions of the Catholic Church since the sexual abuse scandals broke. If the amount of effort spent learning from what happened and learning how to ensure it doesn't happen again was more than 1% of the effort spent trying to restore the public image of the Church I would be surprised.

ISAW wrote: »

Ill bet you go back to the same stock set of cases -just like the WMD claimants.

Nope, I'll go back to your last post, the one I'm quoting now.

Penn

People are entitled to voice their opinions, and with online news media, the largest age group of readers would be 18-30. This age group is a lot more liberal than previous generations, and while a large number of them might be Catholics, they may have become disenfranchised with the Vatican. They may still hold true to the beliefs of the religion, but disagree with the Vatican on many issues. I can't think of anyone I know personally in that age group who would care if the Pope came to visit, even though most people I know in that age group are Catholics.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

not true!

i have posted about the fact that over 200 minors DIED in HSE care in Ireland in the last ten years when under HSE care and little if anything was stated about it. If i posted abut a priest from 30 years ago was suspected of child abuse i would get massive coverage and response.

Where did you post about that?

ISAW wrote: »

And other institutions. And families. where most abuse happened and continues to happen. But while i agree some evil people gravitated to clerical office to get near children the level was low. thqt does not make it acceptable. the level of the offenders that hierarchy didnt act on was even lower but that also does not justify the ones they did not rapidly act on.

Yet you still have to constantly point out that the Church isn't as bad as anyone else. If it isn't acceptable then surely it isn't acceptable, even if other institutions are worse?

Or again is this about public perception, not helping children?

ISAW wrote: »

I agree. Their selection procedures and chld protection policies have changed.

Has the focus on protecting public perception changed? Not if this thread, and many like it on this forum, are anything to go by.

ISAW wrote: »

i partly agree. Young people toiday dint live yesterday. I dont blame old Germans for living in Nazi germany even if they did vote for the Nazi Party. the question is how far they went after that . catholics rejected the Nazi Party to begin with but i dont visit the "you voted for him" on german Protestants every time I meet them.

Catholics haven't rejected the obsession with protecting public perception at the expense of reflection and genuine learning. When they do the anger might start to subside.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

You say that but then you dismiss those who expresses anger at the church as being hypocritical and dishonest and interested only in church bashing, not genuinely interested in preventing sexual abuse..

No I didn't dismiss everyone. I dismissed those whose only interest in sexual abuse is church bashing. I dismiss those posters who rally to any anti-Catholic thread in AH for example with their angry outpourings, but when it comes to other news on sexual abuse by others are oddly silent at best or contribute something witty like the old South Park 'luckiest boy in the world' nonsense or whatever it is. I dismiss those who have no more interest in preventing sexual abuse than a lamppost. I dismiss those who talk the big talk ad nauseum on what should have been done, and by whom, when a recent poll in Ireland found that more than half of people still wouldn't report concerns they have about sexual abuse happening. What have they learnt? What has all the anger achieved? Sweet f all, because attitudes haven't changed. It seems the majority of people are still willing to look the other way rather than take a stand.

Zombrex wrote: »

Who exactly are the people who can legitimately feel anger and betrayal at how these events were handled?..

People with a real interest in stopping abuse and the enabling of abusers wherever they find it and whatever form it comes in, be it familial, clerical, spousal, teachers, sports coaches whatever. It's all well and good ranting about the church did this, the church did that, while the vast majority of abuse in this coutry slides by with hardly a mention. There are many people who were victims of clerical abuse who I greatly respect and admire, because they are speaking out about abuse everywhere.

Zombrex wrote: »

And your attitude is not limited to yourself, it is found throughout the Catholic community, in Ireland and abroad particularly in the more conservative areas of the Church..

What attitude would that be? That the majority of people who rail against the church particularly on sites such as this and thejournal are in fact spoofers on a bandwagon who fail to stick by their child protection policies when it comes to other cases of abuse?

Zombrex wrote: »

Is it any wonder that the anger towards Catholicism has not abated when people can see the same defensive dismissive and arrogant attitude that lead to the cover up of sexual abuse in the first place?..

What have I dismissed? How have I been 'defensive'? I am merely pointing out that abuse wherever it occurs is serious. I am pointing out that everyone who commits abuse and covers it up should be subject to the same scrutiny and penalties. How is that the attitude that lead to a cover up?

Zombrex wrote: »

What exactly do you think the Catholic church, in general as a community, has learned from this? That it is all someone else's fault seems to be the prevailing message.

The Catholic Church as a community has learned a lot more than those outside it, that's for sure. Some people are still humming and hawing about whether abuse should be reported to the gardaí for crying out loud, and that's 2012 not a fool bishop in 1962..

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/criticism-of-child-abuse-mandatory-reporting-plans-185853.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0926/abuse.html

What has wider society learned? Let's see, still no mandatory reporting legislation AFAIK, the Irish public in many surveys have grossly overestimated the extent of clerical abuse, and many people would still not report concerns of sexual abuse...

That it is all "those evil priests" seems to be the prevailing message.

robindch

prinz wrote: »

However very little of the vitriol being poured out against the church and religious minded people in general has anything to do with the mistrust and anger at abuse and cover-up and is more good old fashioned bandwagon church-bashing by people informed by tabloid headlines. and it's not confined to the Roman Catholic Church either.

After the drip-feed over the last twenty years, first from the media, and then from the government, into what the institutional church and its employees got up to in this country, I'm surprised that anybody can set aside their mistrust and anger for long enough to leave a warm bed on a Sunday morning. It has nothing to do with "bandwagon church-bashing", and everything to do with a straightforward anger that the people who installed themselves up as the moral guardians of society turned out to be far more interested in themselves than in practicing any of the love they believed themselves to be preaching.

Let's not forget either that had the media, tabloid and otherwise, not begun reporting this -- to similar, but much louder calls of "church-bashing" -- it's possible that the full scale of the church's abuse of people and power might never have come to light.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

What, other than what you did just there? What prinz did a few posts ago? What Catholics have been doing consistently since these stories broke and what they did during the period of sexual abuse itself?

For one thing I am not Roman Catholic. Secondly I have shown how 'public perception' is grossly wrong, and thirdly I am saying that to stoke the fires of this completely wrong public perception about what the church did 30/40 years ago is completely wrong, irresponsible and misguided when we have children in our society being sexually abused this very day.

Why do you worry so much about the fact that all aspects of our society should be facing up to their responsibilities, RCC included? Where have I said that the RCC should not be held to account fully? Where have I said that those found guilty should not be punished to the extent of the law? Where have I said that people with real concerns do not have a right to express anger and resentment towards the church? Where have I said that I am more concered about public perceptions than victims? That's right I haven't said any of those things.

What I have said is that it's ludicrous to be encouraging a witch-hunt on one hand, and be blind to abuse occuring all around us on the other. What's so wrong with that position? Or is a negative public perception of the church more important to you than the abuse victims of today?

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

I mean badly handled by putting the public perception of the Church above the interests of the children who were being sexual abuse or at risk of being sexual abused.

So you mean the media put their public perception of the Church above the interests of the children who were being sexual abuse? I agree.

If you mean the Church did i disagree.
It was never church policy to hide abuse. Even in the tiny number of cases where a bishop
knew about an abuser and dint report it he didnt necessarily do it because he saw it as protecting the interest of the church but sometimes because the victims family wanted it that way or because a senior policeman had advised it.

Of course it did happen that some bishops knew about individual cases and erred in not acting rapidly or appropriately. But these cases are rare by "rare" i mean in of 100,000 bishops maybe ten did it. but i agree they could have done better. so could the other millions or so of none priests and non bishops who knew about abuse and did not act in the interest of the children.

Good to see that Catholics have learnt that lesson

the church acted decisively and in advance of others. for example "one in Four" which is specifically set up as an institution for victims didn't have a full disclosure pllicy until about a year ago. the church has polices in every parish for years and has policies changed for decades.

Are you saying that the cases of sexual abuse and their cover up were as fabricated as Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

Yes. Actually probably worse. Im saying I have heard allegations of a Vatican cover up for years but never seen any proof produced. People today know there were no WMD as alleged but they still believe in vatican cover ups on child abuse.

Im sayting the people at the top -bishops who decided not to act or acted inappropriately numbbr in the tens of hundreds of thousands of bishop s and of millions or tens of millions of priests. the abusers who were priests number maybe in the hundreds of possibly tens of millions. ther hasnt been a single case of child abuse by a priest in over a decade. Before that there were four or five in the previous two decadfes and maybe tzwenty or thirty if you go back a half century. In the last decade in irleandd ther are hundreds of convicted child abusers per year.

But people still believe it is widespread to the church and ongoing and was and still is covered up.

Again the focus so many Catholics seem to have is on managing the public perception that the church has done wrong, not on learning and dealing with what had happened.

And again you are wrong!
the church acted to avoid long litigation and offered free counciling and support and offered compensation without any need to prove abuse. Other states e.g. UK or Australia offered less compensation and required proof and legal cases and court time. the church acted for victims and brought in policies in advance of even the victims bodies themselves!

Again the pre-occupation has been with public perception and defense.

Yes the media preoccupation is blanket coverage of a minority of allegations of abuse. The Fr Reynolds case in Mayo is ample evidence of that.

That is the same problem that lead to the cover up in the first place.

what cover up? In Ireland today and in the past there are 100 cases a year convicted. Let us assume 200 victims. Or 20,000 per decade. r 50,000 per half century. How many of these are you suggesting a bishop or the Vatican covered up. Of them ther are about say 30 priests in the last century most of them dad. how many do you assert the vatican or a bishop covered up? One five , twenty? Can you list ANY ?

So why would people be expected to think that the attitudes prevailing in the church have changed. They seem exactly the same.

You are correct. they are the same. they always opposed child abuse. But the policies to protect children have changed.

Or put it another way, how much effort have you and your fellow Catholics expelled trying to counter negative perceptions of the Catholic Church since the sexual abuse scandals broke.

But you contradict yourself here!
Above you are saying the church should support victims. If the negative perception is based on false WMD then the people of Iraq suffer. So too the negative perception of an uncaring Church may convince people that the church is the big culprit rather then the child abusers -of which the church clerics were less than 1% even in the worst of times.

Im n,ot about protecting the church . i am about protecting the truth. The truth is ther were no WMD in Iraq as claimed. Do you accept that?
Likewise the Vatican is not covering up anything.

If the amount of effort spent learning from what happened and learning how to ensure it doesn't happen again was more than 1% of the effort spent trying to restore the public image of the Church I would be surprised.

So why do you complain about non existent current levels of abuse which were at their highest at about the 1% level fifty years ago?

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

After the drip-feed over the last twenty years, first from the media, and then from the government, into what the institutional church and its employees got up to in this country, I'm surprised that anybody can set aside their mistrust and anger for long enough to leave a warm bed on a Sunday morning. It has nothing to do with "bandwagon church-bashing", and everything to do with a straightforward anger that the people who installed themselves up as the moral guardians of society turned out to be far more interested in themselves than in practicing any of the love they believed themselves to be preaching.

Let's not forget either that had the media, tabloid and otherwise, not begun reporting this -- to similar, but much louder calls of "church-bashing" -- it's possible that the full scale of the church's abuse of people and power might never have come to light.

And what do you claim is the full scale?
Is it anything like the full scale slaughter of tens of millions by atheistic regimes like stalins russia or Mas china or Pol Pots Cambodia who killed something like 50000 priests and monks and religious?

what tabloid reports are right and should they just report anything sordid?
Why do they wrongly report Fr Reynolds and not report others who are of a different political persuasion?

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

What attitude would that be?

The attitude that what should be focused on is how unfair everyone is being to the Catholic church, not the child abuse that took place in the Catholic community and what contributed to covering it up (which includes a focus on protecting the public image of the Catholic church).

Or to put it another way, really Catholics should be far less concerned about how unfair all of this and far more concerned on honestly tackling the attitudes that allowed it to happen in the first place.

For example why was the Vatican opposing mandatory reporting as late as 2001. What was the logic behind that, and does that logic still exist among many Catholics?

That is one of hundreds of other issues that have been totally glossed over by Catholics as in the past and the result of a tiny minority of priests, ie not something worth assessing going forward.

Far easier to complain about how everyone is being unfair than to actually look inwards towards the attitudes in the Church itself that existed till recently (and thus probably still exist in a large number of quarters).

prinz wrote: »

That the majority of people who rail against the church particularly on sites such as this and thejournal are in fact spoofers on a bandwagon who fail to stick by their child protection policies when it comes to other cases of abuse?

That sort of attitude. By that logic most people are in fact perfectly happy with the Catholic church, and the majority of angry is expressed by those who just want to have a go anyway.

That is a delusion of the highest order, and it is simply a defense mechanism. It is the XFactor contestant dismissing the boos she gets from the audience as "They are all just jealous at how talented I am"

Or it is like if you go on the Politics forum and say the IRA shouldn't be blowing up shopping centres you get dismissed by the IRA supporters as a west brit who must support the British Army. This of course ignores the central question, should the IRA be blowing up shopping centres.

It is a natural human reaction to go into defense mode when a group they cherish comes under attack. But it is expect that if someone is genuinely interested improving the group they are apart of that they over come this instinct.

prinz wrote: »

What have I dismissed? How have I been 'defensive'? I am merely pointing out that abuse wherever it occurs is serious.

No, that isn't what you are pointing out. You are pointing out that those who complain and are angry at the Catholic church don't really care about abuse and thus can be dismissed at not being worth listening to.

That is both defensive and dismissive. Its not us, it must be them. The fault lies with them. They are wrong, they are biased, they are disingenuous, we haven't done anything to deserve this etc etc.

happyman81

Just stumbled upon this thread. I have to say it saddens me to see that some Christians are still very clearly living in denial about clerical child abuse. One poster mentioned that (only) 1% of priests committed the act, and that the media blew this up. While ignoring the obvious depraved nature of this type of thinking, it really ignores the most important element of this (apart from the victims), and that is the cover-up of these events that went right to the very upper echelons of The Vatican. Even Ratzinger himself played a part in this cover-up in Germany, and was since 'divinely ordained' as Pope. I guess this must be the root of the denial, because to admit that this really happened means that God himself chose a person complicit in this horrendous series of events.
Must be a tough one to deal with.

ISAW

Zombrex wrote: »

why was the Vatican opposing mandatory reporting as late as 2001.

and you evidence that they were is?
Tell me why were One in four opposed to up to last year?
Or why the HSE dont investigate it?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0915/1224304143613.html

What was the logic behind that, and does that logic still exist among many Catholics?

Well reporting false allegations can cost the victim his job as in the Reynolds case.
To make a false allegation of sexual abuse is a truly terrible act. It can permanently destroy the good name of the falsely accused and cause immense distress and suffering to him or her. It is also very damaging to genuine victims of sexual crimes, supporting the old myth that allegations of sexual violence were likely to be malicious untruths. The broadcasting of false allegations against Fr. Kevin Reynolds illustrates this clearly. The hurt endured by Fr. Reynolds must be immense, and it is a relief that he has been vindicated in such a public way.

That is one of hundreds of other issues that have been totally glossed over by Catholics as in the past and the result of a tiny minority of priests, ie not something worth assessing going forward.

you are mis reporting.
It has been assessed.
It is tiny in comparison to non priests but the church did act.
It acted in advance of even the victims bodies. a decade on the policy of disclosure according to your own source.
It brought in selection and child protection policies.
It brought in immediate suspension of any cleric even accused of abuse even if the abuse happened somewhere else in the world decades ago.

Far easier to complain about how everyone is being unfair than to actually look inwards towards the attitudes in the Church itself that existed till recently (and thus probably still exist in a large number of quarters).

strain the gnats and miss the camels!

That sort of attitude. By that logic most people are in fact perfectly happy with the Catholic church, and the majority of angry is expressed by those who just want to have a go anyway.

Most Catholics are happy with the policies on child protection. If anything they find some policies overly intrusive and cumbersome. Likewise do sports coaches or teachers.

That is a delusion of the highest order, and it is simply a defense mechanism. It is the child in front of the teacher saying "But Miss, Billy did it as well"

If you are a Garda commissioner and there is not even a single priest convicted in a decade and there are over a hundred others convicted are you going to put equal resources into investigating the non runner cases of clerical child abuse or deal with the actual abuse happening?

Or it is like if you go on the Politics forum and say the IRA shouldn't be blowing up shopping centres

the IRA have not done that for over 20 years!

you get dismissed by the IRA supporters as a west brit who must support the British Army. This of course ignores the central question, should the IRA be blowing up shopping centres.

no it ignores the central issue of the IRA not blowing them up . they changed their policy! But it was an IRA wide policy supported by supporters of the IRA. child abuse was never supported by the church. Anyway i dont post to politics. i believe the place has a biased group who post. the same media bias I refer to here.

It is a natural human reaction to go into defense mode when a group they cherish comes under attack. But it is expect that if someone is genuinely interested improving the group they are apart of that they over come this instinct.
[/quote)
Do you always attack the person when you cant deal objectively with the issue?
where anywhere have I stated I am a christian or a catholic?
My interest is in the truth and how perception of it is spun.

for example returning to the central issue of media spin:

In 1994 Emmet Stagg, a Minister of State in the Fianna Fail and Labour coalition government, openly admitted indiscretion with a rent-boy in the Phoenix Park.

For weeks Stagg's resignation seemed imminent but eventually salvation came in the form of support from Tanaiste Dick Spring and Taoiseach Albert Reynolds who said "charity and restraint" should be shown to the government minister.

The Labour Party demanded a Garda inquiry into who told the press about Mr Stagg's late-night trips to the Phoenix Park.

Where were the high standards in high office then?

No, that isn't what you are pointing out. You are pointing out that those who complain and are angry at the Catholic church don't really care about abuse and thus can be dismissed at not being worth listening to.

i think you may be confusing me with another poster who pointed this out to you in relation to after hours posts. i dont post after hours either .

That is both defensive and dismissive. Its not us, it must be them. The fault lies with them. They are wrong, they are biased, they are disingenuous, we haven't done anything to deserve this etc etc.

Correct. if there is an attack on the church the argumn,et is in defensive of that attack. i am also dismissive of spin. But i dont claim to represent the church. I do however claim that I believe in the truth and i believe that what I am posting does not contradict what the church might say; Im only pointing to fair play and media spin and witchhunts.

ISAW

happyman81 wrote: »

Just stumbled upon this thread. I have to say it saddens me to see that some Christians are still very clearly living in denial about clerical child abuse. One poster mentioned that (only) 1% of priests committed the act, and that the media blew this up.

You are misquoting me.
I stated at the highest level (i reckon the 1950sto 1970s) about 1% of abusers were Catholic Priests.
Matter of fact less thanb 0.1% of priests today or less than 0.01% would be fair i reckon.

Now if you have any different data post it to the clerical child abuse thread.

While ignoring the obvious depraved nature of this type of thinking,

that is a personal attack and in calling me depraved you dont ignore it you draw attentio to it -without offering any evidence for you position; i hhave ample evidence in the other thread; Please feel free to try to prove me wrong.

If you have any evidence
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692

it really ignores the most important element of this (apart from the victims), and that is the cover-up of these events that went right to the very upper echelons of The Vatican. Even Ratzinger himself played a part in this cover-up in Germany, and was since 'divinely ordained' as Pope.

Again all dealt with there. Please provide you evidence for this claim there.

I guess this must be the root of the denial, because to admit that this really happened means that God himself chose a person complicit in this horrendous series of events.
Must be a tough one to deal with.

i guess you will post no evidence to support you "vatican conspiracy" claim?
I hope you do continue with this debate and examine the details for yourself as i did. You will be surprised to find your beliefs challenged.

happyman81

Ordinarily, I would. However, I do feel that taking any further part in this would be akin to debating Kim Il-Sung with a North Korean, if you get me.

Slàn.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

For one thing I am not Roman Catholic. Secondly I have shown how 'public perception' is grossly wrong, and thirdly I am saying that to stoke the fires of this completely wrong public perception about what the church did 30/40 years ago is completely wrong, irresponsible and misguided when we have children in our society being sexually abused this very day.

Whether you are a Catholic or not is irrelevant. Public perception is not completely wrong, but even if it was that does not mean by are not genuinely angry at the Church. And lastly no one thinks the Catholic church were the only abusers of children.

prinz wrote: »

Why do you worry so much about the fact that all aspects of our society should be facing up to their responsibilities, RCC included? Where have I said that the RCC should not be held to account fully? Where have I said that those found guilty should not be punished to the extent of the law? Where have I said that people with real concerns do not have a right to express anger and resentment towards the church? Where have I said that I am more concered about public perceptions than victims? That's right I haven't said any of those things.

Where have you said that Catholics should focusing on the public perception of the Church and instead face up to the attitudes that lead to the culture that facilitated this abuse.

That's right, you haven't.

prinz wrote: »

What I have said is that it's ludicrous to be encouraging a witch-hunt on one hand, and be blind to abuse occuring all around us on the other. What's so wrong with that position?

No one is blind to the abuse happening all around us. This red herring is again simply another example of not being genuine about the abuse in the Church.

It is exactly the same thing you get on the politics forum when you criticize the IRA. The first, almost automatic, response is always "Oh but you don't care about what the British Army does"

Again this is merely a defense mechanism.

ISAW

happyman81 wrote: »

Ordinarily, I would. However, I do feel that taking any further part in this would be akin to debating Kim Il-Sung with a North Korean, if you get me.

Slàn.

thats ok. Run away if you want. I dint expect you could prove you case anyway. I am not surprised at your drive by shooter tactics. The funny thing is you are being invited to discuss and look at the evidence but you prefer to live in willfull ignorance. Ironically this is the very thing you accuse others of! and you have the gall to call them depraved? LOL

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

The attitude that what should be focused on is how unfair everyone is being to the Catholic church, not the child abuse that took place in the Catholic community and what contributed to covering it up (which includes a focus on protecting the public image of the Catholic church)..

No I never said that is what should be focused on. That's your imagination that ran wild. Could you show me where I said we should focus on bad press instead of the actual abuse?

Zombrex wrote: »

Or to put it another way, really Catholics should be far less concerned about how unfair all of this and far more concerned on honestly tackling the attitudes that allowed it to happen in the first place...

Eh, and that is exactly what I have been saying all along. That Catholics and others should tackle the attitudes that allowed abuse to happen. This is not what is happening when you have surveys of Irish people and the majority are still unsure about reporting concerns of abuse. We've got a lot of people inside and outside the Church doing just that. Working hard. We've also got a lot of armchair pundits who seem to do nothing but attack the church.

Zombrex wrote: »

For example why was the Vatican opposing mandatory reporting as late as 2001. What was the logic behind that, and does that logic still exist among many Catholics? ...

Probably for the same reason other lobby groups are opposing it in 2012. Once again we have current issues being sidelined and current children being put at risk to satisfy this crusade against the Church. Why can't you refer to both?

Zombrex wrote: »

It is a natural human reaction to go into defense mode when a group they cherish comes under attack. But it is expect that if someone is genuinely interested improving the group they are apart of that they over come this instinct....

If someone is genuinely interested in child protection they see weaknesses everywhere. Not just in one institution.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, that isn't what you are pointing out. You are pointing out that those who complain and are angry at the Catholic church don't really care about abuse and thus can be dismissed at not being worth listening to.....

No, not those who complain and are angry. Those who do nothing other than contribute snide insults and pathetic attempts to win online friends in thread after thread on clerical abuse on this site and it's sister sites when the abuse victims coming forward daily get barely a mention. When the attitude about people towards reporting abuse concerns doesn't seem to have changed one bit. When people are grossly overestimating the extent of clerical abuse.

Zombrex wrote: »

it is both defensive and dismissive. Its not us, it must be them. The fault lies with them. They are wrong, they are biased, they are disingenuous, we haven't done anything to deserve this etc etc.

Where have I said anything of the sort? As for are they wrong? Yes more often than not they are, let's not forget that in one poll almost one fifth of respondents thought that over 50% of priests were abusers. Are they wrong? Yes of course they are wrong.

Zombrex wrote: »

Whether you are a Catholic or not is irrelevant..

It's very relevant when you make sweeping comments like "you all"... and Catholics this, Catholics that.

Zombrex wrote: »

Public perception is not completely wrong, but even if it was that does not mean by are not genuinely angry at the Church...

Genuine anger is one thing. Posturing for 'thanks' is quite another.

Zombrex wrote: »

Where have you said that Catholics should focusing on the public perception of the Church and instead face up to the attitudes that lead to the culture that facilitated this abuse. That's right, you haven't....

That's a given. I don't need to say that.

Zombrex wrote: »

No one is blind to the abuse happening all around us.....

Is that why the majority of people still wouldn't report abuse if they had suspicions?... because they've learned the lessons of the clerical abuse?

Zombrex wrote: »

This red herring is again simply another example of not being genuine about the abuse in the Church..

Reported.

qrrgprgua

There was a 2nd Articule yesterday on Journal.ie ... You can see the comments on it

So is this the Media on the day?? Journal.ie panders to the trolling sentiment ,, Ultimately the comments become part of the article.


I have no problem with people attacking my faith if they have good solid reason.

What I can't abide are unfounded trolled comments tags to an articule.



Example

Who gives a flying f@ck…outdated, outmoded and immoral. Go back to torturing young children.

Couldn’t give a flying fu.k whether he does or not!

I find this offensive.. Its not dialogue, its ignorant.


and the editor of Journal.ie does not care, I reported the comments, which are offensive #

Editor did not have them removed.



Gavan Reilly ✆ gavan@thejournal.ie

14 Mar (1 day ago)


We do not pre-moderate any comments on the site, though we of course keep a close eye on comments which are posted or reported to us.

Regards,
Gavan

tommy2bad

True qrrgprgua, bet if you added a racist comment it would get removed sharpish.
I'm no fan of censorship but a certain amount of, shall we say, trimming is necessary.
On the other hand it dose let us know the mood of the extreme ends of a spectrum are.

qrrgprgua

tommy2bad wrote: »

True qrrgprgua, bet if you added a racist comment it would get removed sharpish.
I'm no fan of censorship but a certain amount of, shall we say, trimming is necessary.
On the other hand it dose let us know the mood of the extreme ends of a spectrum are.

The Media forms opinions of the masses.. like it or not it happens newspapers, Television, .. Journal.ie is the huffington post of Ireland (near abouts) its a media source.

Most newspapers, media sources that allow user comments usally vet them before they are published. Journal.ie does not.

I see a very light handed approach to vetting comments on Church Articules, infact I see not effort at all.

Strange how in the Norris Pres Campaign they were quick to remove degrading remarks about him, and quiet rightly so, they were degrading and insulting.. But their standards are not universal. They don't seem to be an independent media source that takes an objective view, they lead the reader..

Any who is to say the editor him/helself is not posting some of the comments? who are the posters? anonymous twit accounts? Like boards.ie.. except there are moderators here.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

No I never said that is what should be focused on. That's your imagination that ran wild. Could you show me where I said we should focus on bad press instead of the actual abuse?

I didn't say you said that, I said you are.

prinz wrote: »

Eh, and that is exactly what I have been saying all along. That Catholics and others should tackle the attitudes that allowed abuse to happen. This is not what is happening when you have surveys of Irish people and the majority are still unsure about reporting concerns of abuse.

It is also not what is happening when the church and believers in the church are not looking honestly at the attitudes that lead to this but are instead focusing on managing PR.

prinz wrote: »

We've got a lot of people inside and outside the Church doing just that. Working hard. We've also got a lot of armchair pundits who seem to do nothing but attack the church.

You have no idea if all they do is attack the church. But they do attack the church. And the response is been to try and manage the bad imagine that such attacks generate, not turn the attention inward and look at why they are angry at the church in the first place.

prinz wrote: »

Probably for the same reason other lobby groups are opposing it in 2012. Once again we have current issues being sidelined and current children being put at risk to satisfy this crusade against the Church. Why can't you refer to both?

The "crusade" as you put it is precisely to stop the current issue being sidelined. The church still has not faced up to the realities that lead to the sexual abuse in the first place.

And the more attempts are made to distract against this by turning attention to anyone but the church the less likely it is that this will take place.

prinz wrote: »

If someone is genuinely interested in child protection they see weaknesses everywhere. Not just in one institution.

No one I'm aware of states otherwise. But what does that have to do with the church facing up to why child protection failed in its organisation?

Again how does attempting to shift the spot light from the church to, apparently, any other organisation help the church deal with its own issues.

It simply leaves the impression that it doesn't want to deal with its own issues, it wants people to stop shining the spot light on it.

prinz wrote: »

No, not those who complain and are angry. Those who do nothing other than contribute snide insults and pathetic attempts to win online friends in thread after thread on clerical abuse on this site and it's sister sites when the abuse victims coming forward daily get barely a mention.
...
When people are grossly overestimating the extent of clerical abuse.

Complaining both that these people don't care about the sexual abuse while at the same time stating that the sexual abuse is being overestimated again highlights the attitude I'm talking about.

The focus is on shifting attention away from the church, be it through dismissal of those angry at the church, or through the establishing of the idea that this is all over blown and out of proportion.

prinz wrote: »

Where have I said anything of the sort? As for are they wrong? Yes more often than not they are, let's not forget that in one poll almost one fifth of respondents thought that over 50% of priests were abusers. Are they wrong? Yes of course they are wrong.

Wow, thank you for demonstrating my point in the very response where you demanded to know.

prinz wrote: »

It's very relevant when you make sweeping comments like "you all"... and Catholics this, Catholics that.

It is not relevant at all, I'm greatly concerned about your actions not your religious beliefs.

prinz wrote: »

Genuine anger is one thing. Posturing for 'thanks' is quite another.

More dismissal. Anyone who is angry is not genuinely angry.

prinz wrote: »

That's a given. I don't need to say that.

How is it a given? You complain that people are not complaining enough about abuse in care homes and the HSE etc etc. Is it not a given as well that people don't think the HSE should tolerate abuse either?

prinz wrote: »

Is that why the majority of people still wouldn't report abuse if they had suspicions?... because they've learned the lessons of the clerical abuse?

I don't know. If I had to hazard a guess it is because institutions such as the Catholic church were telling them for a long time it was a bad idea. Just an idea of course ...

prinz wrote: »

Reported.

What ever makes it easier for you to ignore what I'm saying ...

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

and you evidence that they were is?
Tell me why were One in four opposed to up to last year?
Or why the HSE dont investigate it?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0915/1224304143613.html

So they didn't but if they had it was because other groups do as well?

What does the HSE or the One in Four's position on mandatory reporting have to do with whether the Church should have had mandatory reporting, or the Vatican should have suggested against it?

ISAW wrote: »

Well reporting false allegations can cost the victim his job as in the Reynolds case.

And does this attitude still exist among Catholics and the workers in Catholic institutions tasked with care of children?

ISAW wrote: »

Most Catholics are happy with the policies on child protection. If anything they find some policies overly intrusive and cumbersome. Likewise do sports coaches or teachers.

Wow, I could really just use you as the poster boy for how the Catholic church has not learnt its lesson.

So would you agree that there is still an attitude in the Catholic community that mandatory reporting is too risky to the good name of priests and that child protection policies that have been introduced are overly intrusive.

What could possibly go wrong ...

ISAW wrote: »

If you are a Garda commissioner and there is not even a single priest convicted in a decade and there are over a hundred others convicted are you going to put equal resources into investigating the non runner cases of clerical child abuse or deal with the actual abuse happening?

So, mandatory reporting is too risky, current child protection is too intrusive and putting resources into investigating cases of child abuse in the church is a waste of time.

Wow, yes it is really difficult to imagine how the attitude that allowed the cover up in the first place managed to manifest itself in society ...

ISAW wrote: »

no it ignores the central issue of the IRA not blowing them up .

There was a bombing in Northern Ireland 4 months ago. But that is missing the point, the point is that defensive red herrings do nothing to show a genuine interest in dealing with the problems of an organisation you support.

ISAW wrote: »

Do you always attack the person when you cant deal objectively with the issue?
where anywhere have I stated I am a christian or a catholic?
My interest is in the truth and how perception of it is spun.

Where did I claim you were a Catholic or even a Christian?

ISAW wrote: »

In 1994 Emmet Stagg, a Minister of State in the Fianna Fail and Labour coalition government, openly admitted indiscretion with a rent-boy in the Phoenix Park.

For weeks Stagg's resignation seemed imminent but eventually salvation came in the form of support from Tanaiste Dick Spring and Taoiseach Albert Reynolds who said "charity and restraint" should be shown to the government minister.

The Labour Party demanded a Garda inquiry into who told the press about Mr Stagg's late-night trips to the Phoenix Park.

Where were the high standards in high office then?

Again more attempts at deflection. Don't look at the Catholic church, look at this group instead. Look at this group. Now look at this group. But what ever you do don't look at the Catholic church.

ISAW wrote: »

i think you may be confusing me with another poster who pointed this out to you in relation to after hours posts. i dont post after hours either .

I'm not.

ISAW wrote: »

Correct. if there is an attack on the church the argumn,et is in defensive of that attack. i am also dismissive of spin. But i dont claim to represent the church. I do however claim that I believe in the truth

And can you explain how brining up a TD propositing a rent boy in the Phoenix part facilitate getting to the truth of what happend in the Catholic church?

You are not interested in the truth,you are interested in shifting focus away from organisations that you support or feel defensive of, shifting focus away to apparently anything else so long as it is not focused on serious critical assessment of the faults of said organisation.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't say you said that, I said you are..

Where? I've asked before where I said public perception was more important than the actual abuse or investigating the actual abuse but so far you haven't provided any examples.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is also not what is happening when the church and believers in the church are not looking honestly at the attitudes that lead to this but are instead focusing on managing PR.

Really? And how would you know this? Have you discussed Child Protection measures and rules with many groups? Have you discussed with a priest never accused of any wrongdoing in his life why he was warned not to be alone with his own young niece?

Zombrex wrote: »

The "crusade" as you put it is precisely to stop the current issue being sidelined. The church still has not faced up to the realities that lead to the sexual abuse in the first place..

Who has? Nobody it seems. However the group that have made the biggest leap forward is the Roman Catholic Church, but either you'll ignore what they have done or you are just ignorant to it.

Zombrex wrote: »

Again how does attempting to shift the spot light from the church to, apparently, any other organisation help the church deal with its own issues.

Because child protection across our society does not depend on what the church does or doesn't do. The RCC has done more than most in dealing with its issues.

Zombrex wrote: »

It simply leaves the impression that it doesn't want to deal with its own issues, it wants people to stop shining the spot light on it.

Have you any evidence of this whatsoever?

Zombrex wrote: »

Complaining both that these people don't care about the sexual abuse while at the same time stating that the sexual abuse is being overestimated again highlights the attitude I'm talking about.

They don't genuinely care about child abuse if they choose to remain willfully ignorant about the realities of child abuse in our country.

Zombrex wrote: »

The focus is on shifting attention away from the church, be it through dismissal of those angry at the church, or through the establishing of the idea that this is all over blown and out of proportion.

No, it's not about shifting attention away. It's about everybody focusing attention where the problems are within the Church and outside of the Church. There's nothing to gain longterm in focusing 100% of attention on clerical abuse when the vast majority of abuse is non-clerical.

Zombrex wrote: »

Wow, thank you for demonstrating my point in the very response where you demanded to know.

Many people are wrong. That's a fact. 17% of respondents thought 50+% of priests were abusers. THAT IS WRONG. THEY ARE WRONG. Simple.

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not relevant at all, I'm greatly concerned about your actions not your religious beliefs.

You don't know who I am or what actions I have done.

Zombrex wrote: »

How is it a given? You complain that people are not complaining enough about abuse in care homes and the HSE etc etc. Is it not a given as well that people don't think the HSE should tolerate abuse either?

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that as a society we won't make progress across our society in combatting child and adult sexual abuse as long as we think that child abuse is confined to the RCC... and that is exactly the picture that is forming when people are grossly overestimating clerical abuse. The Catholic priest is now the bogey-man. However far more abuse is carried out by people who are not priests. We as a society need to tackle sexual abuse everywhere it occurs..in a church, or in a home, or in a school, or in a hospital whereever. But that's not happening.

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't know. If I had to hazard a guess it is because institutions such as the Catholic church were telling them for a long time it was a bad idea. Just an idea of course...

...and not the RCC has mandatory reporting and our state doesn't. Still the RCC's fault?

Zombrex wrote: »

What ever makes it easier for you to ignore what I'm saying ...

You should know, you've been deliberately misrepresentating what a number of posters have contributed on this thread in an attempt to justify your own prejudices and ignorance.

robindch

happyman81 wrote: »

One poster mentioned that (only) 1% of priests committed the act, and that the media blew this up.

Figures released by the Dublin Archdiocese suggest that around 6.5% of the priests who worked during that time were convicted of child abuse, or who had credible allegations made against them. This percentage is roughly the same as the figures produced by the Government in respect of clerical abuse elsewhere and is in line with figures arrived at by other means.

I don't have the references to hand here, but if you trawl through this thread, you'll find them.

No idea where ISAW's 1% figure comes from (it may be the rate amongst the general population, though it seems high). The church itself admits the figure is far higher.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

You should know, you've been deliberately misrepresentating what a number of posters have contributed on this thread in an attempt to justify your own prejudices and ignorance.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm simply calling the bull spit when I see it.

This is not a genuine concern that in the mad dash race to deal with Catholic sexual abuse other institutions will be glossed over.

It is a sad and some what blatant attempt to deflect attention away form blaming the Catholic church for its own failing by dismissing those who criticize the church and by trying to turn the spot light to any other organisation other than the church itself.

It is a "stop picking on them everyone else does it too pick on some one else" excuse, rather than "hey guys just make sure you don't forget to look at these guys too"

Plowman

This post has been deleted.