A question about Church sexual abuse

NickNickleby · 17-01-2018 10:30PM

When I was a child, "you'll go to Artane" was the threat of choice. And I was living in England at the time . Now, it wasn't English people who were saying it, but rather ex-pats we knew.

CeilingFly · 17-01-2018 10:40PM

Society has to share blame for the church scandals.

In the 50's-70's (and before) having a gay son or a son that was interested in young children would bring shame on the family.

Talk to the right people and you were put in direction of the church and "vocation".

Hence a good few of those seeking "vocations" were gay or interested in young children, but at the same time you had many genuine priests.

It was all kept quiet especially as there was no real solution and whilst the gay priests were left to their own, those interested in children were moved from pillar to post whenever it became obvious they were being offside.

You never hear of any more recent priests (since 80's) being under suspicion as society has changed as have the church.

Odhinn · 17-01-2018 10:44PM

NickNickleby wrote: »

you know my own story, which I've now deleted as my identity is known to others on here.

I hope that you can get to a stage where this something you can put behind you. I think you think a little like i do, that there are 'levels' of evil, and the behaviour of the 'authorities' in this case is appalling. Not only have they failed to protect you, they have actively sought to destroy you. This witch hunt isn't some sad man with a sudden uncontrollable urge, its premeditated and dare I suggest, worse than the original offence (and of course that is not to minimise the seriousness of that either).

Good luck with everything.

My last attempt to convince somebody to take up my case took roughly 9 years. I named the worst offender (not mentioned in previous posts) and they - unbeknownst to me - having some connections, looked into it. Suffice to say that they and the two-three others who they told will not discuss the matter now. My former employer knew about it, but would not say the name aloud, out of sheer terror of what he might do. And of course, its not violence that was threatened, but essentially defamation. You can't fight rumours and innuendo from somebody in a position of respect in society, though the last few years have seen that somewhat diminished.

Of course I was wild in my teenage years - insane with rage, really, but again, I never did anything to warrant an arrest.

Odhinn · 17-01-2018 10:49PM

NickNickleby wrote: »

When I was a child, "you'll go to Artane" was the threat of choice. And I was living in England at the time . Now, it wasn't English people who were saying it, but rather ex-pats we knew.

A well known criminal - would have been in their late 50's/early 60's now - told me - in broad terms - what went on in one of those places. You could not mention either the church, religion or priests around him, as it would set him off. And of course part of what fuelled his rage (which was terrifying) was that the gardai and the authorities ultimately knew what was going on, but because of social class, snobbery and everything else, it was taken at the least that they deserved it, and at worst that "their sort" knew no better anyway.

NickNickleby · 17-01-2018 10:51PM

Odhinn wrote: »

My last attempt to convince somebody to take up my case took roughly 9 years. I named the worst offender (not mentioned in previous posts) and they - unbeknownst to me - having some connections, looked into it. Suffice to say that they and the two-three others who they told will not discuss the matter now. My former employer knew about it, but would not say the name aloud, out of sheer terror of what he might do. And of course, its not violence that was threatened, but essentially defamation. You can't fight rumours and innuendo from somebody in a position of respect in society, though the last few years have seen that somewhat diminished.

Of course I was wild in my teenage years - insane with rage, really, but again, I never did anything to warrant an arrest.

Oh God, Odhinn,

There can't be anyone on here who doesn't feel the pain coming through in your last couple of posts. I hope Karma is a thing and live my life so that Karma won't have cause to reproach me. I hope that for you there is Karma, and that its a positive type of Karma that gives you peace, which I think will ultimately be more important than revenge.

You are in my thoughts and I'm sure, everyone else's here.

falinn merking · 17-01-2018 10:54PM

Odhinn wrote: »

A well known criminal - would have been in their late 50's/early 60's now - told me - in broad terms - what went on in one of those places. You could not mention either the church, religion or priests around him, as it would set him off. And of course part of what fuelled his rage (which was terrifying) was that the gardai and the authorities ultimately knew what was going on, but because of social class, snobbery and everything else, it was taken at the least that they deserved it, and at worst that "their sort" knew no better anyway.

You have dropped a real bombshell here tonight I am really sorry.
I hope you have been able to get some joy out of your life.

Odhinn · 17-01-2018 11:01PM

NickNickleby wrote: »

Oh God, Odhinn,

There can't be anyone on here who doesn't feel the pain coming through in your last couple of posts. I hope Karma is a thing and live my life so that Karma won't have cause to reproach me. I hope that for you there is Karma, and that its a positive type of Karma that gives you peace, which I think will ultimately be more important than revenge.

You are in my thoughts and I'm sure, everyone else's here.

I've gone to the state and the state threatened me. Others have looked into it, seen the truth of it, and been intimidated enough to maintain their silence to this day. Worse still, I eventually suffered a breakdown, and this means that as of that incident, any claim I make can be instanteously dismissed. Still, I live in a good area, I have no worries about money and such, though I'm not wealthy.

The gas thing is, the harrassment actually ramped up when I went back to school. He told me I was wasting my time as I'd never get a job in this country, but I did. He tried to **** that up too, but thanks to whatever my ultimate employer was a tough nut and socially and politically well connected and could afford to ignore his threats. My immediate boss in the place, who knew what went on, would never say his name aloud though, for fear of the whispering campaign that would ensue.

Odhinn · 17-01-2018 11:02PM

Verpiss dich wrote: »

You have dropped a real bombshell here tonight I am really sorry.
I hope you have been able to get some joy out of your life.

I enjoy me cups of tae, my friends who I've had since my early teens, and other things. As I say, it could have been a lot worse.

up for anything · 18-01-2018 12:39AM

Verpiss dich wrote: »

It was the 90s all the sexual scandals broke their way into the media.

For people who lived in the 60s I am sure many had to be aware.
What did you do did you just keep your mouth shut?

Let's face it the local kiddie fiddler priests held high places of respect.
Was it the children can go to Hell I am not losing face?

For any priests that were not dirty perverts they kept their silence and they were every bit as guilty.

What baffles me is so called decent people kept their mouths shut.
Can anybody in their late 50s or 60s explain this to the rest of us?

Are you as obnoxious as this when you hector people in real life?

Go back and rejig your math.

I'm heading into my late 50s but I was only 9 when the 60s ended so really, no I didn't call out anyone I suspected because I didn't bloody suspect any priests and I'd hardly have had the language to accuse if I did. So be off with your 'the children can go to Hell because I'm not losing face' - I was one of the children.

But there was a culture of silence. When anything suspect would have been raised about nuns to mothers back then - there was the nun who would sit beside my cousin on her bed and when my cousin would move to get a bit more personal space the nun would move with her - they used to play chase round the bed or there was the nun who would stand behind the girls seated at desks in secondary school who would knead their shoulders with her hands while teaching or the one who would touch their knees at their desks or the nuns that when we were in secondary school in the 70s we suspected of having inappropriate relations with each other/with a priest/random chappie and if we mentioned this lightly at home you'd be told you had a bad mind and to stop and that probably more because you'd be more likely to act loosely if you thought that nuns were rather than because of shock horror.

I think you'll find that you have to go back to people in their 70s and 80s to get any answers and you'd be told that they didn't know for the most part. Do you think that the religious really used to advertise their sins anyhow and that the entire country was under a blanket ban not to mention it? Most people knew one or two transgressors but probably not the molesters of children but more those priests or nuns who had 'fallen from grace' themselves but it was hushed up and because every family had something to hush up people didn't throw stones at glasshouses because they were too busy fixing broken panes in their own.

It didn't take a Christian Brother to physically beat or emotionally abuse a child back then, there were enough lay school teachers doing it to boys in school and as as badly as any story I've ever heard about a CB. Same with the nuns - there were as many vicious lay auld biddies humiliating and physically hurting kids in and out of school as there were nuns at it. There were as many loving and gentle nuns and kindly priests as there were bad.

iamstop · 18-01-2018 01:09AM

CeilingFly wrote: »

Society has to share blame for the church scandals.

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The church branded itself as a place of solace, a place of no wrong-doing, a place to be held in the highest regard and respected etc.
And for most, that is how they did view it. In my opinion they had full responsibility to live up to that self championing by self governing themselves. If this meant kicking the bad apple out of the organisation then that is what should have been done.
Instead they sheltered and protected the predators and ostracized, shunned and hushed the victims with fear and other nefarious means. I feel the church must take full responsibility for the actions of it's members and the subsequent cover ups.
Blaming society is as lazy a cop out as you can get and as far as I'm concerned is offensive to the many victims.

18-01-2018 01:13AM

Ubbquittious wrote: »

100 previous threads similar to this one.

as you will see further down the thread, there is a reason why people should have 100+ threads talking about this.

it happened, and there is very little/no closure for those that were affected by it.

One eyed Jack · 18-01-2018 03:28AM

iamstop wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more with this statement. The church branded itself as a place of solace, a place of no wrong-doing, a place to be held in the highest regard and respected etc.
And for most, that is how they did view it. In my opinion they had full responsibility to live up to that self championing by self governing themselves. If this meant kicking the bad apple out of the organisation then that is what should have been done.
Instead they sheltered and protected the predators and ostracized, shunned and hushed the victims with fear and other nefarious means. I feel the church must take full responsibility for the actions of it's members and the subsequent cover ups.
Blaming society is as lazy a cop out as you can get and as far as I'm concerned is offensive to the many victims.

But sure Irish society was mostly made up of Irish Catholics at the time who made up the Church. Of course society is responsible for protecting it's most vulnerable members, and it's just as important to note too that the State accepted 50-50 responsibility for how it treated it's citizens then too. It's anything but a lazy cop-out, it's putting the responsibility for the way people were treated then, on the very people who treated them that way, including one Catherine Corless who treated another child in school like this, when even as a child she knew better herself, but treating the 'other' children this way was not only acceptable, but encouraged -

She feels uneasy about her behaviour towards the children. "I thought it would be funny to copy a trick played by an older girl – she had wrapped up an empty sweet paper and handed it to a home girl. The little girl grabbed it, of course. There was nothing in it. At the time, being seven, being the butt of teasing myself, I thought this was great fun. I did the same and handed it to another girl – a stone wrapped in a sweet paper. She opened it and dropped it.

"When I found out later about the home children, that God help them, they'd never got a sweet in their life, they wouldn't have got any treats in the home … It's only now I realise the impact that must have had on that little girl – to think that she was getting a treat, and that someone was just playing a mean trick on her.

"I feel that the nuns should have told us that these were special children, to take care of them, to mind them. That would have been the proper thing to have done. Instead of that, they treated them differently. They ignored them, more than anything. I don't remember them being hostile. They were ignored. They were left to one side of the classroom."

You're saying Irish society "didn't know"? That's insulting.

professore · 18-01-2018 09:41AM

You're saying Irish society "didn't know"? That's insulting.

They knew far less about it than we know in 2018 about the homeless, the travelling community, domestic abuse, global warming Garda corruption etc. What are YOU doing about any of these? YOU are society now.

As other posters alluded to, they picked their victims. They treated the children of wealthy and middle classes like royalty. No one would believe little Tommy or Mary from the flats on a pay when you can basis that lovely Fr Jack or Sister Bridget abused them - least of all their parents.

It's why I get so worked up when the media go on about not giving people a platform. That's exactly what the church did. I'd much rather listen to some nutter on TV than miss someone genuine. Sinead O'Connor spoke out on the Late Late but everyone at the time thought she was nuts.

My dad wouldn't believe for ages that Eamonn Casey had a son. It finished him with religion.

They also used shame to silence people, in the same way SJWs are doing today in the US. Unmarried mother's were fallen women, sex was dirty and shameful so to accuse a religious person of that was equivalent to masturbating in mass.

Wanderer78 · 18-01-2018 09:46AM

The church had great control over our society for a long time, thankfully that's coming to an end now, but unfortunately we ve just moved the goal posts, and placed other institutions into the same or similar role, which uses similar tactics such as fear, in order to control us!

18-01-2018 05:56PM

It seems to be hard for people to understand that in a pre internet age information did disseminate in the same way, I was an adult before I even heard of child abuse and that would not have been uncommon there was a lot more emphases on privacy things were not discussed in the way they are today.

There is a difference between having a vague suspicion and having evidence.

The Children often did not tell their parents or any adult what was happening and even if they did in the vast majority of time the parents did not go to the police they wanted it hushed up as well they did not want the family talked about, or the child might not have the language to talk about what was happening or they might not have names for body parts as the body was seen as private and not talked about.

There was a lack of understanding of the devastating consequences of abuse, there were cases of fines for what was child abuse indicating the level of seriousness it was see as.

The power of the church was diffused through out society.

Hundreds of other reasons

Its not as simple as saying why didn't people do something.

Odhinn · 18-01-2018 06:08PM

mariaalice wrote: »

It seems to be hard for people to understand that in a pre internet age information did disseminate in the same way, I was an adult before I even heard of child abuse and that would not have been uncommon there was a lot more emphases on privacy things were not discussed in the way they are today.

There is a difference between having a vague suspicion and having evidence.

The Children often did not tell their parents or any adult what was happening and even if they did in the vast majority of time the parents did not go to the police they wanted it hushed up as well they did not want the family talked about, or the child might not have the language to talk about what was happening or they might not have names for body parts as the body was seen as private and not talked about.

There was a lack of understanding of the devastating consequences of abuse, there were cases of fines for what was child abuse indicating the level of seriousness it was see as.

The power of the church was diffused through out society.

Hundreds of other reasons

Its not as simple as saying why didn't people do something.

Unfortunately for all concerned, abuse was associated with "sex" and even if you weren't too sure on the details, you got the impression it was "wrong" and a complete no-no.

A question about Church sexual abuse

Comments