Should we protest against the pope's visit?

fancy pigeon wrote: »

Caught a small snippet of 4FM today at lunch, about 13:00. Niall Boylan show. Was anyone else listening?

There were 2 callers at that moment: James and John.

Niall was expressing his hatred for the church but not the people. James was a devout christian that seemed to respect Niall's view. It seemed they were

John on the other hand was not happy at this. Instead of listening, he contradicted, argued and bickered his opinion without letting either really talk; like a spoiled little boy after eating 26 sherberts being a pathetic mess. Thankfully, the other 2 seemed to make dirt of him before I turned the radio off; you couldn't be listening to opinionated **** like John and the other 2 thought the same

Seems to me that there's 3 types of view on the papal visit as depicted above, or are there more?

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont think i've seen anybody with an opinion like James on here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sanctimonious claptrap. You know well that the above sentence reads as if he has called all victims of the church slanderers when he has done nothing of the sort. Underhand nonsense.

What you're referencing is comments he made in response to very specific accusations about one bishop (Barros) having witnessed abuse and then covered it up (which was being reported by the Chilean media when he was there on a visit). He said until he saw proof it was just calumny. He later apologised for using the word proof and launched an investigation into the accusations, lead by the Vatican’s chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, which culminated in him removing Barros. He then invited the three abuse victims at the centre of the investigation to the Vatican.



Which is precisely what he did and the main abuse victim, Juan Carlos Cruz, stayed with him in his home for a week where they spoke with each other for many hours, during which time Pope Francis apologised for what he had said in January and Juan accepted the apology as he believed him to be sincere, as he made clear in the following interview:

But yet even though Juan has accepted his apology, you, with your 'get out of it' remark, still suggest it's reasonable that people should protest his visit because of it.

Ridiculous.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sanctimonious claptrap. You know well that the above sentence reads as if he has called all victims of the church slanderers when he has done nothing of the sort. Underhand nonsense.

What you're referencing is comments he made in response to very specific accusations about one bishop (Barros) having witnessed abuse and then covered it up (which was being reported by the Chilean media when he was there on a visit). He said until he saw proof it was just calumny. He later apologised for using the word proof and launched an investigation into the accusations, lead by the Vatican’s chief prosecutor of clerical sex abuse cases, which culminated in him removing Barros. He then invited the three abuse victims at the centre of the investigation to the Vatican.

Cabaal wrote: »

He speaks about how he was treated, how he was told by a man who represented the Vatican that he was making it up and he was only in it for the money.

Survivors at loggerheads over denial of sex abuse

Survivors of sexual abuse in religious-run residential institutions are embroiled in an increasingly bitter row over how some €680m in compensation from religious orders identified in the Ryan report should be shared out, the Sunday Tribune has learned.

The dispute took a dramatic twist this weekend when the Aislinn Centre's Christine Buckley criticised a decade-old radio interview with the former mayor of Clonmel, Michael O'Brien, where he claimed not to have been sexually abused while he was incarcerated in St Joseph's industrial school, Ferryhouse.

This directly contradicts a highly-charged intervention on RTE's Questions and Answers programme in May of last year, where O'Brien detailed the extent of abuse he suffered, prompting widespread public sympathy and anger.

During the 1999 interview on a local radio station, O'Brien expresses sympathy for victims of sexual abuse who suffered at the hands of the notorious Rosminian abuser at Ferryhouse, Brother Sean Barry. He goes on to say: "But I must say, and I have to say it here and now, because I had to meet my family when this came out. And say it never happened to me, I never seen it happening, I never heard of it happening in my seven years in Ferryhouse. I never seen or heard of it."

Although O'Brien acknowledges in the interview that he was subjected to physical abuse and deprivation at Ferryhouse, he also pays tribute to the Rosminians and says that this was the state's fault, not Ferryhouse.

"We were left there to those brothers and those priests to become our parents, and look after us. And as far as I'm concerned, 99.9% of them done a good job... out of every group, no matter what organisation you're in, you'll find bad eggs, Ferryhouse is my home. And I will defend it to the end as long as I live, because I was reared by them."

"I couldn't doubt any victim of institutional abuse nor have I ever questioned anybody before. This is the first time I have done this," she said. "Being in denial is being in denial. But why be so vociferous in protecting the Rosminian order on the radio?"

Buckley added that she was passed a copy of O'Brien's radio interview in October of last year anonymously. If she had known its contents a month earlier, when she accepted a People of the Year award with O'Brien, she said she did not think she could have gone onstage with him.

When contacted by the Sunday Tribune this weekend O'Brien strongly defended the interview, which he said he had given in recognition of the fact that Ferryhouse was the "only home I ever knew".

"The reason I didn't say anything about sexual abuse on local radio was that I didn't want my family or anybody to know about it. I didn't want to talk about it... I had been mayor of Clonmel and I didn't want anyone to know about it," he said. "I want nothing off anyone out of this. I said that to the Taoiseach, I said it everywhere I went. I want nothing off you. I said it to the Bishops, personally I want nothing off of anybody. But I'll fight on my back for former residents, I do want the former residents set up. I do not want money out of it. I never wanted money out of it. And that is a fact."

Both Buckley and O'Brien were among a group of representatives of survivors who met with Taoiseach Brian Cowen last April. But O'Brien and other groups such as the Survivors of Child Abuse (SOCA) Ireland stormed out after they were informed by Cowen that just €110m out of some €680m expected total compensation from religious orders was to go into a state-administered fund for former residents of the institutions.