eviltwin wrote: » Are you going? :eek::D
One eyed Jack wrote: » I won’t be attending any event that Colm O’ Gorman is at, because personally, I can’t stand him tbh.
pleas advice wrote: » nothing like a bit of good ol' catholic bashing though, wha?
rainbow kirby wrote: » It's not bashing when it's the truth.
Graces7 wrote: » This kind of bashing is never the truth. It is warped and distorted and serves no positive purpose read one eyed jack;s balanced and accurate post. I rarely come to this thread for that reason. the gossips are worse than the abusers as they revel in what they are at. stir, stir, stir with never a thought for truth
JupiterKid wrote: » I really don’t care at this stage. If I heard that the Catholic Church machine gunned down hundreds of children with Uzis in a warehouse I wouldn’t be surprised. Their wickedness and depravity has no bounds. They are essentially finished as a force with any sort of power in this country. I live right beside the Park and I’m more pissed off that my road and those in my neighborhood will be closed for the duration of this charade. Being hemmed in is pretty inconvenient.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Nothing to see here....move along. That is exactly the attitude of the RCC when it comes to rapists and pedophiles in their ranks.
Graces7 wrote: » No it is not and predictably you proved my point by this and the other responsess here
ELM327 wrote: » This is the type of crap that needs to die out fast. What next, it's not the priest's fault, damn sexy children??
B0jangles wrote: » [ You are a footsoldier in a war waged against children; I don't know how you can sleep at night.
Cabaal wrote: » if you read the reports last week you'll find they did actually blame the children, in one instance they tried to claim that the child sought out the priest for a sexual relaionshio :rolleyes:
ELM327 wrote: » Probably over a sewer..... That is absolutely ridiculous. I don't understand how this organisation is not outlawed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » eviltwin wrote: » Are you going? :eek::D I’ll turn up so long as it’s a jolly occasion For the benefit of those who don’t get the reference -In an interview on Ireland's The Late Late Show with Gay Byrne and Sinéad O'Connor in February 1989, Everett was challenged by O'Connor about his support for the Tory Party in the light of his homosexuality and the Conservative's Section 28 addition to the Local Government Act. Everett clarified that he was not a "full Tory", but that he had been appalled by the actions of Arthur Scargill, whom he saw as "inciting violence" and "rabble rousing" [sic] and who he thought looked like "Hitler reborn". He had consequently supported the actions of Margaret Thatcher in opposing Scargill. He said he would stand up for gay rights if he were asked providing "it was a jolly occasion", but he also felt that being in a minority and in the public eye, he could do more for gay rights by showing that he was funny and human rather than by marching in the streets. To be completely honest with you, I despise the way some people turn child sexual abuse into a sort of political football to humiliate people who don’t share their ideas. To me it just sounds like an insincere attempt to use an issue which they know full bloody well people are repulsed by. I had lads try to claim I was a paedophile and a paedophile supporter when this stuff was coming out back in the 90’s. Because I knew myself I was neither a paedophile nor a paedophile supporter, their opinions made no difference to me, but they weren’t going to convince me either that they actually gave a shìte about children who were sexually abused. For them it was just about point scoring, as it is now for some posters in this thread. I don’t include you in that obviously. But for some posters here it’s as though it really is only point scoring for them, as though it hasn’t occurred to them that many people who have experienced child sexual abuse at the hands of members of the clergy, and have experienced the cover ups, are also still devoutly religious, and are active within the Church, campaigning against the Church Hierarchy which is responsible for covering up the abuse, because that’s not something that they want in their Church. They hold the people responsible for perpetrating child sexual abuse and covering up child sexual abuse responsible for their actions, and they don’t view other members of the Church responsible for the actions of a small minority who used the structure of the organisation to have access to children to sexually abuse them and try and cover it up. They’re working every day to ensure that it doesn’t happen again and that those opportunities aren’t available to paedophiles and child molesters. I won’t be attending any event that Colm O’ Gorman is at, because personally, I can’t stand him tbh.
work wrote: » I How often do good non paedophile priests report paedophiles to the police. Pretty much never.
volchitsa wrote: » Who is campaigning against the hierarchy then?? AFAIK, there is nobody still in the ranks of the laity in the church who has publicly criticised anyone in the hierarchy for their failure to act, or in some cases, like Sean Brady, for their active complicity with the abusers. Anyone who did so ended up leaving, or being made to leave. The only person I can think of, and that is on another issue, homosexuality, is Mary McAleese - and look at the abuse she gets for speaking up about that. I'd really like a few names of prominent lay Catholics who regularly criticise named members of the hierarchy (because some vague hand waves at how terrible it all is is less than nothing, it's distraction and maintaining the status quo.) I can't think of one.
Eric Savory Misogyny wrote: » In fairness Mary McAleese is behaving ridiculously. To call the world meeting of families a "right wing rally" comes across as shrill and hysterical.
Discodog wrote: » AudreyHepburn & Graces 7 have done this thread a service by giving an insight as to how people can ignore, excuse & justify the actions of the Church. Thousands of people do this every week. They get blinded by their need for something, maybe to conform, maybe because they genuine believe that supporting abusers is the only way to show their faith in God.
ELM327 wrote: » I agree, As a politically right wing but socially liberal person I find her comments abhorrent to right wing voters.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I have not and will not ever justify any injury done to a child be it physical, emotional or sexual. I’m ignoring nothing. I have said several times I despise what the church has become and how it has made a near crime to say you believe in God.I cannot change what I believe but I do not in any way shape or form support abusers or think it’s ok.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I have not and will not ever justify any injury done to a child be it physical, emotional or sexual. I’m ignoring nothing. I have said several times I despise what the church has become and how it has made a near crime to say you believe in God. I cannot change what I believe but I do not in any way shape or form support abusers or think it’s ok.
Cabaal wrote: » Its not a crime to believe in god and nobody thinks that. But if you believe in god then fine be a christian, What exactly makes you want to be a catholic? Is it their core beliefs such as transubstantiation? Their views against women priests? The fact they want to believe Mary was a Virgin? What makes you choose the catholic church over all the others? This is a serious question for you. Going to mass, giving money to the catholic church etc, means like it or not that you support the catholic church. You support its beliefs and views including their dim view on women and how they view gay people. You can say you don't but as long as you continue to go to mass and blindly and sit and say nothing you only give a free card to the church. if you don't like these things then be the change in the church, speak out. i honestly think more people need to call out priests when they spout such hate during mass.
