Cardinal Desmond Connell dead.

eviltwin · 21-02-2017 02:52PM

holyhead wrote: »

Guilt is a lifetime burden. A legal sentence has a finite term at least in Ireland.

That's assuming he felt any guilt in the first place.

infogiver · 21-02-2017 02:55PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

It is understandable but not forgivable that weak leadership in some organisations would seek to minimise publicity about a small number of paedophile. For an organisation which proclaims itself to be doing gods work and has a huge (relative to the norm in society) number of paedophiles in its ranks with an epidemic of paedophile activity going on to do the same isn't comparable. Someone trying to equate the situations is very alarming.

Who's trying to pretend? It must be a nightmare when a family discovers one of their own is a paedophile and has likely victimised another family member but family members report other family members all the time. They may not want to as in they would prefer if the situation didn't exist but your assertion that the country is populated with families hiding paedophiles is a completely made up and biased viewpoint designed to serve your own questionable motives.

https://www.ispcc.ie/advice/advice/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse-in-the-community/8932

If family members are reporting other family members all the time then why do the ISPCC feel the need to spell it out?
Why are most cases only exposed either when a teacher or a GP or an outsider blow the whistle or when the child reaches an age where they can? Why do so many family members take the side of the perpetrator?
Do you not see the irony in accusing me of having questionable motives?

infogiver · 21-02-2017 02:56PM

eviltwin wrote: »

That's assuming he felt any guilt in the first place.

I don't believe he felt any guilt.

infogiver · 21-02-2017 02:58PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not relevant to this man. No one has said only priests abuse, no one has said lay people don't hurt children but it's got nothing to do with the actions of this individual. We can have a discussion about his legacy without bringing other irrelevant stuff into it can't we?

I don't think that trying to highlight the fact that thousands of vulnerable people are suffering silently at the hands of family members today is "other irrelevant stuff".

54and56 · 21-02-2017 02:59PM

infogiver wrote: »

No that's just your opinion.

I love it. You sound like the sort of person who doesn't believe in gravity yet won't step off a 10 storey building.

infogiver wrote: »

In MY opinion, until you have some evidence that it IS just a fairytale, then an opinion is all you have.

That equates religion with leprechauns, the lock ness monster, the tooth fairy and all other made up stories for which there is no evidence. By your logic they are all equally true unless someone presents evidence that they are not.

Carry on, nothing more to see here

eviltwin · 21-02-2017 03:00PM

infogiver wrote: »

I don't think that trying to highlight the fact that thousands of vulnerable people are suffering silently at the hands of family members today is "other irrelevant stuff".

It's irrelevant to this individual and his actions.

infogiver · 21-02-2017 03:03PM

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I love it. You sound like the sort of person who doesn't believe in gravity yet won't step off a 10 storey building.

That equates religion with leprechauns, the lock ness monster, the tooth fairy and all other made up stories for which there is no evidence. By your logic they are all equally true unless someone presents evidence that they are not.

Carry on, nothing more to see here

All just your opinion once again, nothing more nothing less, no more or less relevant than mine. No evidence one way or the other so no facts whatsoever.

54and56 · 21-02-2017 03:10PM

infogiver wrote: »

https://www.ispcc.ie/advice/advice/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse-in-the-community/8932

If family members are reporting other family members all the time then why do the ISPCC feel the need to spell it out?

For the same reason the RSA spell out the Safe Cross Code - So people are in no doubt about what to do in that situation, or (trying to adopt your logic) maybe the RSA spell out the safe cross code because no one ever crosses the road??

infogiver wrote: »

Why are most cases only exposed either when a teacher or a GP or an outsider blow the whistle or when the child reaches an age where they can?

For a number of reasons:-

1. Kids may feel too embarrassed or afraid to confide in another family member, particularly if the paedophile has warned them about telling Mum or Dad etc.

2. Because GP's and Teachers are (thankfully) now far more aware of and trained to look for the signs and help kids to talk about it. Parents rarely have such skills or training.

3. Because they may live in a religious household where bad things happening (whether it's thousands killed in an earthquake, a child dying from cancer, someone breaking a leg or a child being abused) is seen as just one more example of god acting in mysterious ways and as such shouldn't be questioned.

infogiver wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in accusing me of having questionable motives?

Not at all, please elaborate.

54and56 · 21-02-2017 03:13PM

infogiver wrote: »

All just your opinion once again, nothing more nothing less, no more or less relevant than mine. No evidence one way or the other so no facts whatsoever.

....... · 21-02-2017 03:14PM

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin · 21-02-2017 03:15PM

infogiver wrote: »

https://www.ispcc.ie/advice/advice/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse-in-the-community/8932

If family members are reporting other family members all the time then why do the ISPCC feel the need to spell it out?
Why are most cases only exposed either when a teacher or a GP or an outsider blow the whistle or when the child reaches an age where they can? Why do so many family members take the side of the perpetrator?
Do you not see the irony in accusing me of having questionable motives?

What source is telling you that most disclosures are made by teachers or GP's?

For those that are how do you know they are not making the disclosure on behalf of, and with the full cooperation of, the family?

54and56 · 21-02-2017 03:19PM

infogiver wrote: »

And I've given my opinion of O'Connell. I'm concerned that while we need to continue calling on RCC to check itself re clerical sex abuse, that not enough is being done in the media to highlight what amounts to 90%+ of child sex abuse. I don't know what you mean by a "family in denial". The ISPCC say that the child is believed in the vast majority of cases but it's decided within the family to keep it a secret.
There's a whole section of society out there who believe that only priests can be paedophiles, that all priests are paedophiles and that every male that is welcomed into the family home is completely benign.
That's the most worrying "denial".

Is that another of your opinions or is there any real evidence* to support what you are asserting?

* Actual data, public records, surveys even?????

21-02-2017 04:09PM

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What about this man do you personally think deserves respect?

Well he died. That automatically gets you respect... or something

21-02-2017 04:10PM

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't get why Boards.ie insist to be 'respectful' about dead people.

Firstly, dead people legally cannot be libelled.

Also, why should people who are broadly disrespected, such as criminals or dictators?

No sinners in the graveyard!

Fred Swanson · 21-02-2017 04:11PM

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE · 21-02-2017 04:20PM

Mod:

The mod warning earlier in this thread was a bit rushed and ended up being badly worded, angering a few people. I've deleted it and some of the responses to clean the place up.

Going forward, the same rules apply in this thread as any other thread; criticisms of the man's life actions and discussions of the outcome that are documented are fine, but any unfounded allegations are not. Libel laws still apply, even if the person is deceased.

Feel free to PM me (or any other mod) if things are unclear, but I don't think we can be any fairer than that.

54and56 · 21-02-2017 04:57PM

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod:

The mod warning earlier in this thread was a bit rushed and ended up being badly worded, angering a few people. I've deleted it and some of the responses to clean the place up.

Going forward, the same rules apply in this thread as any other thread; criticisms of the man's life actions and discussions of the outcome that are documented are fine, but any unfounded allegations are not. Libel laws still apply, even if the person is deceased.

Feel free to PM me (or any other mod) if things are unclear, but I don't think we can be any fairer than that.

Hi Nicolas, not an easy job so not having a go but I (and I think some others) would appreciate if you elaborated/clarified the statement I have highlighted.

I know a libel case taken before someone dies can survive their death and damages awarded can accrue to the benefit of the persons estate but AFAIK once someone has died anything subsequently said about them cannot trigger a libel/defamation action of any sort.

Happy to be corrected on this.

PS: I do agree that just because someone can't be libelled it shouldn't mean totally unfounded accusations can be made against them or actions attributed to them which aren't supported by actual evidence i.e. real data or credible references.

infogiver · 21-02-2017 05:04PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's irrelevant to this individual and his actions.

More of the "let's not shine a light on the 90+% of shameful child abuse going on behind the front door of homes all over Ireland, let's keep concentrating on the 9% of child abuse which was at the hands of clerics"
It's too uncomfortable and scarey to think that parents are abusers or they invited (innocently or not) abusers into the home.
Much easier to blame the bogeyman in the collar.

RobertKK · 21-02-2017 05:05PM

He is dead now, he was not perfect, no one is, I just find it hard to get worked up about anyone who has died to post negative stuff about them, I don't see what good holding a bitterness towards someone does anyone.

volchitsa · 21-02-2017 05:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

He is dead now, he was not perfect, no one is, I just find it hard to get worked up about anyone who has died to post negative stuff about them, I don't see what good holding a bitterness towards someone does anyone.

Surely unless you are one of the victims whose crimes he actively covered up, or some of the other people who wrongly trusted him to do the right thing for these victims, then it's not up to you to say what they should do or say?

RobertKK · 21-02-2017 05:25PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Surely unless you are one of the victims whose crimes he actively covered up, or some of the other people who wrongly trusted him to do the right thing for these victims, then it's not up to you to say what they should do or say?

Everyone has someone who wronged them. When was ever being held back by the past and by anger good for anyone?
How can anyone get on with their lives if they fail to find a way to let their past go if it is negative?
I do think one should get help if they hold feelings of bitterness, as it is damaging to one's own health, both mentally and physically.
Can you say what good it is to anyone, to let themselves be defined by what happened to them, to live their lives based on their past, and to allow it to make them angry and depressed?
I think anyone who is like that needs professional help for their own good.

eviltwin · 21-02-2017 05:29PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone has someone who wronged them. When was ever being held back by the past and by anger good for anyone?
How can anyone get on with their lives if they fail to find a way to let their past go if it is negative?
I do think one should get help if they hold feelings of bitterness, as it is damaging to one's own health, both mentally and physically.
Can you say what good it is to anyone, to let themselves be defined by what happened to them, to live their lives based on their past, and to allow it to make them angry and depressed?
I think anyone who is like that needs professional help for their own good.

It's not bitterness to call a spade a spade and say someone was a bad individual when they were alive. There's too much 'can't speak ill of the dead' crap out there and people are entitled to give their opinion on the man good or bad. It doesn't mean they need help or that they are living in the past.

volchitsa · 21-02-2017 05:30PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Everyone has someone who wronged them. When was ever being held back by the past and by anger good for anyone?
How can anyone get on with their lives if they fail to find a way to let their past go if it is negative?
I do think one should get help if they hold feelings of bitterness, as it is damaging to one's own health, both mentally and physically.
Can you say what good it is to anyone, to let themselves be defined by what happened to them, to live their lives based on their past, and to allow it to make them angry and depressed?
I think anyone who is like that needs professional help for their own good.

Hmm. So would you say the same to someone who wanted a rapist to be tried for the crime against them?

Telling someone they need to put it all behind them when the criminals have not been sanctioned is arrogant and probably extremely unhelpful for the victim.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 21-02-2017 05:32PM

DrumSteve wrote: »

I'd imagine the wave of disappointment now hitting him when he realises his whole career was a waste of time would be something to behold.

Can you imagine the wave of shock which will hit some if O'Connell's career wasn't a waste of time. Might start feeling a bit toasty.

54and56 · 21-02-2017 05:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you say what good it is to anyone, to let themselves be defined by what happened to them, to live their lives based on their past, and to allow it to make them angry and depressed?
I think anyone who is like that needs professional help for their own good.

I agree 100% but I also think its healthy to be able to call people out for their actions (regardless if it's just because they died or not) and to remind people what individuals and institutions did and some continue to do. For far too long not talking about things like this was not just relied upon but was preyed upon by paedophiles and enabled them to continue to operate with little or no risk of being caught.

volchitsa · 21-02-2017 05:34PM

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not bitterness to call a spade a spade and say someone was a bad individual when they were alive. There's too much 'can't speak ill of the dead' crap out there and people are entitled to give their opinion on the man good or bad. It doesn't mean they need help or that they are living in the past.

Yeah, it's just yet another attempt at shutting people up, shaming victims into silence because what they've got to say is difficult to hear.

....... · 21-02-2017 05:45PM

This post has been deleted.

Fleawuss · 21-02-2017 05:52PM

A condescending fool who ruined lives protecting paedophiles because they were priests and theologically an "alter christus" whose character has been forever changed by the imprint of ordination. This is the mumbo jumbo for which children's lives were destroyed. This is the mumbo jumbo which is still allowed to dominate education. Connell was a despicable human being.

Laeot · 21-02-2017 06:06PM

Is there anything to be said for saying another mass?

Fred Swanson · 21-02-2017 06:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Cardinal Desmond Connell dead.

Comments