Vigil for mothers and unborn babies in Knock with alleged PAEDO protector Sean Brady

the culture of deference

I seriously worry about the future of this country when we see the stupidity with a crowd of around 4,000 people taking part in a rosary procession around Knock Shrine as part of a national prayer vigil for mothers and the unborn. The manager of Knock, (why does it need a manager) Pat Lavelle, is expecting a larger number of people to attend a mass in the Basilica at 3pm, where the chief celebrant will be Cardinal Sean Brady.


A widely suspected paedophile enabler saying mass for the rights of the unborn.





"A blessing of expectant mothers will be performed during the service.
Pilgrims attending the vigil have been expressing their concern about proposed legislation that would allow for termination of pregnancy in limited circumstances. Many of those who have travelled to take part in today's event say they fear any liberalisation of the abortion laws here could lead to terminations on demand in future."








The event is being supported by the Irish Bishops' Conference and comes after they said the proposed Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill represented a dramatic and unacceptable change to Irish law.



http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0504/390390-knock-prayer-pregnancy/

PopePalpatine

Is it just me, or do those hooded nuns look a bit Klanish?

Ironic considering the KKK were anti-Catholic - and not "anti-Catholic" as defined by butthurt pro-lifers.

Zombrex

Given how organized and well funded the Christian anti-abortion movement is in Ireland I never take numbers reported at these things all that seriously.

By that I don't mean I doubt the numbers, but this is the same people being "mobilized" and bused across the country to appear at all these things. It isn't a spontaneous 5,000 just showed up at Knock.

If anything it would suggest that in Ireland total there are only about 5,000 people who actually care about this stuff enough to protest, and they just get shunted around to where ever they are need.

lazygal

How many Klan members members of the faithful would there be knocking about in Knock of a regular Saturday?

freyners

found this in YLYL

MGMCH

There is no need to be in doubt as to the figures that attended the vigil. The figure of 5000 is actually incorrect-final figures show that nearer to 10000 people attended.

Also, it is possible to voice an opinion while showing respect for others. Unless 'Culture of Deference' presumes him/herself to be above the law, the mantra 'innocent until proven guilty' still applies in this country.

The post by the aforementioned is both offensive and defamatory and based on bitter predjudice rather than fact, and I have requested that it be removed.

I worry about the state of our country when people can display such utter ignorance on a public forum or indeed that there are people out there who would consider posting such hatred.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, if you want yours to be taken seriously, you would be well advised to display a bit of manners and then you might come across as better informed.

The Black Oil

Ah, bless.

ardmacha

Not reporting a act is not the same as committing it and not reporting one act is not a guide to your standing on other acts. And one can logically be opposed to the killing of unborn children while still having failings in your conduct.

michael999999

What a vile human being!

Nodin

MGMCH wrote: »

.....

Also, it is possible to voice an opinion while showing respect for others. .................

It is, true. I doubt he's any respect for Brady though, no more than meself. You wouldn't want him to be dishonest, would you?

catallus

It is worrying that there is such unbridled hatred on display for people who wish to voice their deeply held beliefs on any issue.

The OP is an example of the stupidity he decries.

michael999999

catallus wrote: »

It is worrying that there is such unbridled hatred on display for people who wish to voice their deeply held beliefs on any issue.

The OP is an example of the stupidity he decries.

Not really, just hatred of a man who threatened kids who he knew were the victims of a dirty child molesting priest!

Nodin

catallus wrote: »

It is worrying that there is such unbridled hatred on display ......

You've an unelected person asking politicians to ignore the result of three referenda...an unelected person who swore children to silence in regards to child abuse in the church...a church that says it "didn't know" about the damage child abuse had, while during the same era ranting away about sexual relations between consenting adults.......

Do you think that might have caused just a bit of resentment?

MGMCH

As I said previously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just don't think its hard to show respect. Every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. People jumping on the bandwagon presuming they know all the facts just incite more hatred in others and ruin lives. I have no wish to comment on who is guilty or not guilty of anything until there is proof. It is not for me to decide as it is not for others to decide. It is also possible to say that you don't have much respect for someone without resorting to derogatory name-calling.

People being victimised on the strength of opinion without proof is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

catallus

Resentment isn't really an excuse for bigotry.

Using belligerent abuse (calling an innocent man a "paedo") in a juvenile attempt to validate one's disparagement of the protesters' views is the worst form of rhetoric.

nowanathiest

MGMCH wrote: »

As I said previously, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I just don't think its hard to show respect. Every accused person is entitled to a fair trial. People jumping on the bandwagon presuming they know all the facts just incite more hatred in others and ruin lives. I have no wish to comment on who is guilty or not guilty of anything until there is proof. It is not for me to decide as it is not for others to decide. It is also possible to say that you don't have much respect for someone without resorting to derogatory name-calling.

People being victimised on the strength of opinion without proof is reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

Cardinal Brady admitted that he had not informed the police of criminal activities within his organisation, by subordinates whom he had responsibilty for.........he had an even bigger responsibility to the children he denied justice and medical care to. This is not in dispute, and pointing out these facts is not victimising Cardinal Brady. You appear to be displacing responsibility in this matter.

Obliq

catallus wrote: »

It is worrying that there is such unbridled hatred on display for people who wish to voice their deeply held beliefs on any issue.

What a strange thing to complain about catallus. Surely a person can generate mass hatred by the things he has done?




This has gone too far eh? I need to talk to a priest, asap. In fact I think I'll look for a meeting with a few of them. The IRISH Catholic church, as opposed to the ROMAN Catholic church should separate from Vatican rule over this issue. The priests we can talk to need to be talked to, politely, by as many people who want to know WHY exactly this church denies the reality of so many women's lives. In fact, there are good priests who'd love to stop letting Vatican thought police run your holy show.

michael999999

nowanathiest wrote: »

Cardinal Brady admitted that he had not informed the police of criminal activities within his organisation, by subordinates whom he had responsibilty for.........he had an even bigger responsibility to the children he denied justice and medical care to. This is not in dispute, and pointing out these facts is not victimising Cardinal Brady. You appear to be displacing responsibility in this matter.

Do as I say, not as I do!

catallus

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

Pherekydes

catallus wrote: »

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

So, what else can you excuse because of the 'social culture' at the time?

nowanathiest

catallus wrote: »

Resentment isn't really an excuse for bigotry.

Using belligerent abuse (calling an innocent man a "paedo") in a juvenile attempt to validate one's disparagement of the protesters' views is the worst form of rhetoric.

The Culture of Deference didn't call Cardinal Brady a "Paedo", he called him a "Paedo Protector" and quite rightly so.

michael999999

catallus wrote: »

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person "must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

With views like this, its no wonder that people continue to turn there back on the catholic church!

catallus

Pherekydes wrote: »

So, what else can you excuse because of the 'social culture' at the time?

I'm not excusing anything, I'm taking issue with the OP using idiotic name calling the blacken a group of protesters. I don't even agree with what they want, but it's hard to watch such dumb arguments being used against them.

kate.m

catallus wrote: »

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

It was wrong when it happened - and it's wrong now.
The priests and religious leaders didn't live up to their apparent position as the 'moral authority' at the time. Their faith based morals haven't changed since this happened.

If they were not able to do what they were their for - provide moral guidance - what was the point of them at all.

I

Turtwig

For a group that supposedly follows an absolute morality using 'culture' as an excuse is very weak.

nowanathiest

catallus wrote: »

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

The man has presided over a culture of systemic criminal abuse of children and women, incited hatred against homosexuals and interfered with politics at the highest level in this small island.....unacceptable in any age or culture and he has concocted enough excuses, please do not aid and abet him. He is only concerned with preserving his organisation and lifestlye.

Dades

catallus wrote: »

The OP is an example of the stupidity he decries.

Careful now. A veiled insult is an insult nonetheless.

People here are talking about "respect". Well, respect must be earned and in the minds of many here the church have done nothing to earn that respect and in fact have done plenty to earn contempt.

In the same way they are entitled to organise vigils and give their opinions we are entitled to point out hypocrisy and give our own.

swampgas

catallus wrote: »

I can understand the attraction of using the current moral stance on the issue of child-abuse and using it as a basis of castigating the behaviour of people in the past: it gives great succour to us insofar as that we feel morally superior to those who did not act to prevent such abuse. But this feeling must be seen to be false: the social culture at the time was one of turning a blind eye, whatever the cost. And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

I'm sorry, but raping children, and not reporting it, didn't suddenly become a crime yesterday.

This is about moral authority. Cardinal Brady has none, nor has the Roman Catholic Church. Yet he still has the arrogance think that he can get up in front of the Irish people and dictate right and wrong to them.

Anyone defending people like Cardinal Brady must realise that his past actions cannot simply be dismissed as something in the past that can now be ignored. Whatever moral authority he might have had is long, long gone.

electro222

Why has Enda gone into hiding as soon as the Bishops statement comes out,
Poor old Gilmore fall guy again.
Chuch will win this one, no way can the state force catholic hospitals to perform abortions
Church 1 Gov 0

Obliq

catallus wrote: »

And any thinking person must be able to see that nailing people to the wall because they didn't live up to the present standard is disingenuous at best and bigoted misrepresentation at worst.

Hello? How the hell is the "present standard" any better than it was then? The Catholic heirarchy is still full of bigoted old men at the top, marginalised/back-biting bishops, and a shed load of priests in varying degrees of emotional trauma that was inflicted on them during their training. Oh, and lets not forget the PROFESSIONAL Catholic version of the freemasons with their ritualistic behaviour - Ladies and Gents, I give you Opus Dei. The more messed up bunch of loud-mouth evangelists I never did see.

Nothing is BETTER, show me how you're making life better catallus, by taking this stance on abortion?

Obliq

electro222 wrote: »

Why has Enda gone into hiding as soon as the Bishops statement comes out,
Poor old Gilmore fall guy again.
Chuch will win this one, no way can the state force catholic hospitals to perform abortions
Church 1 Gov 0

That's bollix. We ARE the state. Whatcha going to do about it? Don't give up....cos you have friends...


Hope everyone else was singing along to that...