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?
Nixonbot wrote: » The man literally called victims of Church child abuse slanderers, get out of it.
“As far as my role, I acknowledge, and ask you to convey faithfully, that I have made grave errors in assessment and perception of the situation, especially as a result of lack of information that was truthful and balanced. From this time I ask forgiveness to all those that I offended and I hope to do so personally, in the following weeks"
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.
fancy pigeon wrote: » Caught a small snippet of 4FM today at lunch, about 13:00. Niall Boylan show. Was anyone else listening?
Cabaal wrote: » I'm just going to leave this here, its something everyone should watch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iQGczIx6Sg
Sycamore Tree wrote: » The Niall Boylan show is terrible and it's callers tend to be brainless. How can you listen to that muck?
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.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Seems to me however that some people won't be happy no matter what he says or does. Even many of those who were victims of abuse at the hands of the evil men and women within the ranks of the church have accepted that this Pope has a genuine desire to do what needs to be done and have no problem acknowledging all he has done. So why not with others? Well, to me the reason is crystal clear and that is because they are vehemently anti church & state and wish to continue to use these people's injustices as a makeshift battering ram.
Pope Francis’s record on child protection ‘has been a dismal failure’
In July, Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro wrote a personal letter to Pope Francis, warning him that "a comprehensive investigation" by his office had found "widespread sexual abuse of children and a systemic coverup by leaders of the Catholic Church." Shapiro says he never received a response.
An_Toirpin wrote: » work wrote: » Really everything people are angered at? Women can now become priests? He is helping all authorities with investigating paedophile cover ups. Read the OP. Far from everything. Like previous popes he may talk a good game but action is always too late or too little and often because he has no real choice. What did he do to help the recent Australian prosecution of a bishop and was the said bishop demoted or punished by the CC, NO he will be looked after. Most Catholics globally don't wnat women priests. It won't happen and I hope it doesnt too.
work wrote: » Really everything people are angered at? Women can now become priests? He is helping all authorities with investigating paedophile cover ups. Read the OP. Far from everything. Like previous popes he may talk a good game but action is always too late or too little and often because he has no real choice. What did he do to help the recent Australian prosecution of a bishop and was the said bishop demoted or punished by the CC, NO he will be looked after.
StupidLikeAFox wrote: » Nothe gonna wade through every page, bit is there actually any protests organised for this? Not interested in participating, just curious
fancy pigeon wrote: » It just happened to be on the radio as I pulled into a car park; I wouldn't bother listening to it either. I heard the topic and thought of this thread At the very least, it seems by me talking about that show, it's sparked some small conversation
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » They have a grip insofar as they are legally allowed to discriminate with regards to entry to State-funded primary schools - THAT needs to change - but again, this is not what the OP or anyone else wants to protest. If it was, they would have portested a long time ago.
SEPT 23 1989 wrote: » Not looking forward to the long q's at the bars will you get away with a hip flask or are they searching people on the way in?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Heard the white wiz is bringing the wine.
Seth Brundle wrote: » I heard a rumour that Frankie will be making it himself from just plain tap water!
Water John wrote: » I think that Rememberance gathering is being organised by Colm O'Gorman in a personal capacity. Would go if I was in Dublin. My heart goes out to the survivors and those who didn't survive.
professore wrote: » Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » They have a grip insofar as they are legally allowed to discriminate with regards to entry to State-funded primary schools - THAT needs to change - but again, this is not what the OP or anyone else wants to protest. If it was, they would have portested a long time ago. That's the governments fault.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c33618a99b1d02afaf5370e8c02bf147.svg)
