Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

1…3536384041…79

Comments

  • #1112
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,537 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    looksee wrote: »
    What other organisation has that ability? If one person walks away, then true,it will not make a difference, but if enough people vote with their presence, or lack of, the people who can make a difference will take note. There is something very sad about supporting an organisation that only improves after nearly 2000 years because it is forced to though. What purpose or quality does that organisation have in that case?


    Plenty of organisations have policies that require reporting of child abuse to direct superiors before reporting it to the Gardaí. That gives them the opportunity to cover it up. The people in power will take more notice of people within an organisation calling for change, than any number of people outside the organisation calling for change. The Church isn’t just improving after 2000 years, the fact is that it has always been evolving, in some ways it has evolved in a positive direction, and in some ways it has evolved in a negative direction, but the direction in which it evolves has always been driven by its members, not by those outside the organisation.

    Can you offer any practical way in which those members can root out the miscreants? All the power is at the top, the only way the members can vote is with their feet. And even then the church has it organised that a member cannot leave, anyone baptised is still a number. Why are people still voluntarily opting into a foreign, totalitarian regime?


    Well one practical way I can give you in which ordinary members have made a difference is that when I walk in the door of my local church every Sunday I can’t fail to miss the child protection policies stuck up on the door on the way in, and there are two adults at a minimum supervising children whose parents allow them to participate in Sunday Bible stories.

    Why are people still opting into a foreign totalitarian regime? I can’t answer for anyone else’s motivations, but I don’t see it the same way you do is the simplest answer I can give you to that one.

    means what? A cosy feeling of belonging to something they were reared to accept?


    And so what if that’s what it means to them? If that’s what it means to them and they’re not harming anyone else and they derive some form of security or comfort from that, then why should they forego that in favour of something which you propose would be more beneficial to them? Perhaps you need to come up with a more convincing argument than associating members of the the organisation with paedophilia. I mean if one of the main objections to the organisation is that it shames and humiliates people into submission, then using the same tactics to try and encourage them to leave the organisation seems IMO at least, counter-productive.

    Can you not see how ridiculous that is? Who do they have to protect children from? Why should they have to protect them? That is mind-bogglingly obtuse.


    They have to protect children from paedophiles and child molesters. It’s obvious why they should have to protect children from them, hardly mind-bogglingly obtuse so I don’t know what way you read that. Although one of the reasons why I chose to respond to your initial post was because I was of the opinion that you took a more measured stance on the issues involved, rather than the usual rabble rousing claptrap which demonstrates that for those people their motivation is political rather than actually giving a damn about addressing child abuse within the organisation. When you refer to the RCC as a foreign, totalitarian regime though, I recognise that I may have been wrong in my initial assumption.

    And yes, challenging is making so much difference to the tight little cabal who have all the power!


    We’ll have to agree to disagree at this point. I’m not spending another day going back and forth over old ground with people whom it appears to me at least are more interested in political point scoring than actually addressing the issues which they claim to be concerned about.


  • #1113
    RustyNut
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    The minority of people I’m referring to are actual paedophiles, child molesters, and the people who cover for them. I don’t believe that all members of the Hierarchy can be included in that number, and I don’t believe that ordinary members of the congregation are excluded from that number, but the fact of the matter is that they still make up a minority of the members of the organisation as a whole. That wouldn’t change if people decided to walk away from the organisation and I don’t see why they should. Rather it would be better IMO to root out the members of the organisation who commit abuse and facilitate abuse and punish them, rather than accusing innocent people of any wrongdoing.

    One of the minority of people that are complicit in the coverup of child sexual abuse will have pride of place on the stage in the park.

    A man who could, at the stroke of a pen instruct his underlings to do everything within their power to expose priests whom they have reason to believe are criminal sex offenders and hand over details to the relevant authorities in the various countries so that the suspected offenders can be investigated and if found guilty punished according to the law. The law that applies to all of us and is designed to protect society and its members, not canon law which is made up by the catholic church and is designed to protect the catholic church and its hierarchy.

    His refusal to do this is leaving these criminals free to assault and rape children today, this is not some historical issue that has been remedied and can have a line drawn under it and all move on.

    The church hierarchy seem to resist even the most basic assistance and compensation to the victims of their members despite their vast resources, preferring to pay lip service from the altar and then undermine and attempt to shift the blame to the victims in some cases.

    One man has the power to change this but for some reason refuses to.

    So from my point of view it takes a special type of self delusion to separate the pope from the crimes of the catholic church.

    Going to mass on sunday is showing support for your church and religion, you don't have to walk away from the organisation but going to the park and waiving a papal flag is and will be seen around the world as showing support for the man who refuses to deal with the criminal sex offenders in his organisation or to protect potential future victims from being raped and assaulted.


  • #1114
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    looksee wrote: »
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I actually agree with pretty much everything you’ve said, but that last paragraph. I take a different point of view because I don’t believe that walking away from an organisation which I do support and have always supported, will do anything to reduce opportunities for paedophiles and child molesters to have unfettered, unquestioned access to children or to vulnerable people to abuse them and then cover up that abuse.

    What other organisation has that ability? If one person walks away, then true,it will not make a difference, but if enough people vote with their presence, or lack of, the people who can make a difference will take note. There is something very sad about supporting an organisation that only improves after nearly 2000 years because it is forced to though. What purpose or quality does that organisation have in that case?
    There’s a nuance there that I think you’re missing, and in any other context it would be considered unacceptable to accuse people of supporting paedophilia and child abuse on the basis that they are members of an organisation which paedophiles and child abusers gained access to and used the structures of that organisation to carry out their abuse.

    Instead I believe it is better for people who don’t tolerate that kind of behaviour within their organisation to root out the minority of people within the organisation who would use the structure of the organisation to their advantage, and to put measures in place to protect children and vulnerable members of the organisation from paedophiles and child molesters.
    Can you offer any practical way in which those members can root out the miscreants? All the power is at the top, the only way the members can vote is with their feet. And even then the church has it organised that a member cannot leave, anyone baptised is still a number. Why are people still voluntarily opting into a foreign, totalitarian regime?
    That way, nobody has to walk away from an organisation that means something to them,

    means what? A cosy feeling of belonging to something they were reared to accept?
    they are in a better position to support and protect children and vulnerable people within the organisation, and they are in a better position to ensure that the organisation and it’s structures are a safer place for members of that organisation while at the same time making sure that paedophiles and child molesters know that they won’t have any opportunities to take advantage of children and vulnerable members of the organisation.
    Can you not see how ridiculous that is? Who do they have to protect children from? Why should they have to protect them? That is mind-bogglingly obtuse.
    Walking away, to me at least, would be like turning a blind eye to the abuse and allowing paedophiles and child abusers and the people who cover for them, to go unchallenged, and allow them to continue to rot the organisation from the inside out.

    And yes, challenging is making so much difference to the tight little cabal who have all the power!
    Debate is healthy and welcome but I do feel the need to call out errors. Catholicism is not foreign. That is an absurd, it has been in Ireland far longer than a lot of DNA that is considered Irish at this stage and even if it was foreign, it is ignorant to use that as a insult.
    If someone is a known abuser people have a lot of power but they shouldn't try to duplicate the court system. Report abuse to authorities and if you want their superior. If some one is not guilt of crimes or cannot be found be found guilty there is not a lot to proest about.


  • #1115
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Sycamore Tree wrote: »
    erica74 wrote: »
    What the actual fuck.

    Oh yes...and I believe the punishment for breaking the oath was excommunication.

    These were children.

    Brady knew no action was taken against Smyth and he was allowed to resume duties as a priest. He knew what Smyth was and turned a blind eye.
    Actually there is no evidence that he knew that Symth. He was navie not to follow it up but it is false to state he knew. The scandal was not that he was still a priest but that no effort was made to isolate him from children. Being made a non priest is pretty minor in the scheme of things.


  • #1116
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Debate is healthy and welcome but I do feel the need to call out errors. Catholicism is not foreign. That is an absurd, it has been in Ireland far longer than a lot of DNA that is considered Irish at this stage and even if it was foreign, it is ignorant to use that as a insult.
    If someone is a known abuser people have a lot of power but they shouldn't try to duplicate the court system. Report abuse to authorities and if you want their superior. If some one is not guilt of crimes or cannot be found be found guilty there is not a lot to proest about.
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Actually there is no evidence that he knew that Symth. He was navie not to follow it up but it is false to state he knew. The scandal was not that he was still a priest but that no effort was made to isolate him from children. Being made a non priest is pretty minor in the scheme of things.


    Do you spend ALL your time preaching that the catholic church is really not as bad as we all know they are? Do you think you will change even one mind with your blindness to reality?


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    RustyNut wrote: »

    A man who could, at the stroke of a pen instruct his underlings to do everything within their power to expose priests whom they have reason to believe are criminal sex offenders and hand over details to the relevant authorities in the various countries so that the suspected offenders can be investigated and if found guilty punished according to the law. The law that applies to all of us and is designed to protect society and its members, not canon law which is made up by the catholic church and is designed to protect the catholic church and its hierarchy.

    His refusal to do this is leaving these criminals free to assault and rape children today, this is not some historical issue that has been remedied and can have a line drawn under it and all move on.

    .
    If solving problems was that simple I would agree with you. We all would, but it is not. I like your empathy but not the utopianism.


  • #1118
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    If solving problems was that simple I would agree with you. We all would, but it is not. I like your empathy but not the utopianism.

    Why?

    It is a supremely hierarchical organisation of which he is the supreme leader.

    He absolutely has the power to do this, he chooses not to.

    Because it would be expensive.

    Because it would lower the status of The Church.


  • #1119
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    If solving problems was that simple I would agree with you. We all would, but it is not. I like your empathy but not the utopianism.


    it is that simple. He is the pope. he appoints bishops and cardinals. he can remove them from their position as well if they dont do what they are told. The issue though is that they are doing precisely what they are told by church leadership.


  • #1120
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Debate is healthy and welcome but I do feel the need to call out errors. Catholicism is not foreign. That is an absurd, it has been in Ireland far longer than a lot of DNA that is considered Irish at this stage and even if it was foreign, it is ignorant to use that as a insult.
    If someone is a known abuser people have a lot of power but they shouldn't try to duplicate the court system. Report abuse to authorities and if you want their superior. If some one is not guilt of crimes or cannot be found be found guilty there is not a lot to proest about.
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Actually there is no evidence that he knew that Symth. He was navie not to follow it up but it is false to state he knew. The scandal was not that he was still a priest but that no effort was made to isolate him from children. Being made a non priest is pretty minor in the scheme of things.


    Do you spend ALL your time preaching that the catholic church is really not as bad as we all know they are?  Do you think you will change even one mind with your blindness to reality?
    Pls lets discuss facts, not how I spend my free time...


  • #1121
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    Who can forget this'

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-one-in-50-catholic-priests-bishops-and-cardinals-are-paedophiles-9602919.html

    'Pope Francis has revealed that “reliable data” collected by the Vatican suggests that one in every 50 members of the Catholic clergy is a paedophile.

    Speaking in an interview with La Repubblica, the Pope said his advisers had tried to “reassure” him that paedophilia within the Church was “at the level of two per cent”'


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    ho ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    If solving problems was that simple I would agree with you. We all would, but it is not. I like your empathy but not the utopianism.


    it is that simple.  He is the pope.  he appoints bishops and cardinals.  he can remove them from their position as well if they dont do what they are told.  The issue though is that they are doing precisely what they are told by church leadership.
    Who though and ? Removing people at the stroke of a pen doesnt really leave time for fair unbiased process. Church officals to act against abusers and  many have been laicized, even years before it was a big media issue. The question of how to deal with cover ups and inaction is far more morally murky.


  • #1123
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Pls lets discuss facts, not how I spend my free time...


    No point discussing facts with you. You just ignore the ones that are inconvenient.


  • #1124
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Who though and ? Removing people at the stroke of a pen doesnt really leave time for fair unbiased process. Church officals to act against abusers and many have been laicized, even years before it was a big media issue. The question of how to deal with cover ups and inaction is far more morally murky.


    bull****.


  • #1125
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Who can forget this'

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-one-in-50-catholic-priests-bishops-and-cardinals-are-paedophiles-9602919.html

    'Pope Francis has revealed that “reliable data” collected by the Vatican suggests that one in every 50 members of the Catholic clergy is a paedophile.

    Speaking in an interview with La Repubblica, the Pope said his advisers had tried to “reassure” him that paedophilia within the Church was “at the level of two per cent”'
    He didn't refer to active priests or abusers  though and it is not remotely scientifically collected.


  • #1126
    work
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭work


    ittakestwo wrote: »
    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    So the mass raping of children and subsequent organisational cover ups all the while preaching at the public on morals is the same as some in FIFA taking bribes?
    You've a poor moral compass there!

    I never said the crime was the same. Nobody would claim that and you know that. But I am making the piont that people who go to the mass next week are not supporting the Vatican corruption in the same way a football fan going to the Qatar world cup in 2022 is not supporting FIFA's corruption.

    Actually they are completely supporting FIFA's corruption and how the world cup was purchased by a rich ( also religiously ****@d up) country. It is off topic here though and on a much lower scale but should be called out also.


  • #1127
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Who though and ? Removing people at the stroke of a pen doesnt really leave time for fair unbiased process. Church officals to act against abusers and  many have been laicized, even years before it was a big media issue. The question of how to deal with cover ups and inaction is far more morally murky.


    bull****.
    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Pls lets discuss facts, not how I spend my free time...


    No point discussing facts with you.  You just ignore the ones that are inconvenient.
    That isnt a rebuttal. I am being open and interested in discussion. I may be wrong but lets find out.


  • #1128
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    That isnt a rebuttal. I am being open and interested in discussion. I may be wrong but lets find out.


    You have no interest in finding out if you are wrong (you are btw on a lot of things).


  • #1129
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    He didn't refer to active priests or abusers  though and it is not remotely scientifically collected.

    He literally did and those figures are coming from his advisers.

    Do you need a bigger shovel?


  • #1130
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    No point discussing facts with you. You just ignore the ones that are inconvenient.

    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    He didn't refer to active priests or abusers though and it is not remotely scientifically collected.
    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    He literally did and those figures are coming from his advisers.

    Do you need a bigger shovel?





    as I was saying.


  • #1131
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Speaking in an interview with La Repubblica, the Pope said his advisers had tried to “reassure” him that paedophilia within the Church was “at the level of two per cent”'

    Maybe the 2% is the actual known figure if they're somewhat certain about it, with 5-10% not an not impossible or more realistic figure in many jurisdictions.

    One positve aspect with those other sci-fi Scientology folks, is that they hook new members up to some sort of lie-dectector machine and ask them probing questions and record their biological responses (perhaps for use against them at a future date if they decide to leave - as suggested by a recent documentary).

    So maybe it's time for lie-detectors, clinical psych's and other biological-repsonse measurement tools to root out the 'Leprosy', as Francis himself suggests.

    This type of leprosy isn't skin deep however, hence the need for deep investigation beyond the surface.


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,732 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Debate is healthy and welcome but I do feel the need to call out errors. Catholicism is not foreign. That is an absurd, it has been in Ireland far longer than a lot of DNA that is considered Irish at this stage and even if it was foreign, it is ignorant to use that as a insult.
    If someone is a known abuser people have a lot of power but they shouldn't try to duplicate the court system. Report abuse to authorities and if you want their superior. If some one is not guilt of crimes or cannot be found be found guilty there is not a lot to proest about.

    The Holy See is not Irish, it is in no way subject to the laws of this land. Ireland cannot insist that the Vatican sort out its rulers any more than it can sort out Donald Trump. And yet the Pope as leader is allowed to dictate social mores in Ireland. If the Pope (as representing the Catholic Church) says, for example, children should have access to Irish schools based on membership of his club, that is what happens, and some people here defend his right to have any say in the matter.

    Your second paragraph is evasive nonsense and not worthy of response.


  • #1133
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    He didn't refer to active priests or abusers  though and it is not remotely scientifically collected.

    He literally did and those figures are coming from his advisers.

    Do you need a bigger shovel?
    I think you don't know what your point is. He didnt refer to priests in positions of power actually. It is a pretty meaningless and misleading statement by Francis and I would have advised him not to.  We don't know the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population but experts say anything from 0.5-5% which contextualises it a lot.


  • #1134
    work
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 661 ✭✭✭work


    Cabaal wrote: »
    work wrote: »

    complete junk answer. So the priests are good and the bishops bad? If one of your children was abused and you reported it to the police and nothing happened would you truly believe you did the right thing and are a good person. You would want to be a moron to think that. Change optics to the church and you do not apply any logic. WHY did they, the good clergy, not follow up and WHY did they not tell the police......so many questions and very weak defence.
    Stop trying to defend or justify the indefensible.

    You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm defending the church and its criminal actions,
    :rolleyes:

    However, you have to consider it was a different time, by going to a bishop any good priest did see themselves as doing the right thing. If the Bishop covered up the priest had no way of handling differntly. (suppose they could go higher then Bishop but that was a waste of time)

    In many cases, especially in rural area's if a priest went to the Gardai the Gardai would likely go to the higher up who would likely in turn contact the Bishop again.

    It was a messed up time where church and state where so intermixed that Gardai used to bring back unmarried women to laundry's. The women weren't even breaking the law if they escaped!

    The church was seen as all powerful for many of the decades in question, the likes of John Charles McQuaid could bring down a TD...and he did!

    AS I've said, there are no doubt good men that our priests and they have done good. But they've been betrayed by the church leadership all in the name of protecting the church and Vatican from scandal.

    They've proven the church can no longer be trusted without major overhaul internally and independent reviews, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

    ALOT has changed in Ireland and its easy forget just how much power the church had in Ireland, but remember what backlash Sinead O'Conner got for ripping up a simple photo in the 1980's....now increase that by a factor of 100x for anyone who said anything against the church in the decades before! If you spoke out about the church back in the 1950's then you could expect the town you lived in to be turned against you, if you had a business it would be ruined.
    I take your point but we are way way beyond those days now and still NO whistleblowers in the church of any significance. Corrupt to the core and they should be wiped off the face of the earth with all other hate driven religeons


  • #1135
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Omar Orange Ignoramus wrote: »
    WinnyThePoo wrote: »
    Speaking in an interview with La Repubblica, the Pope said his advisers had tried to “reassure” him that paedophilia within the Church was “at the level of two per cent”'

    Maybe the 2% is the actual known figure if they're somewhat certain about it, with 5-10% not an not impossible or more realistic figure in many jurisdictions.

    One positve aspect with those other sci-fi Scientology folks, is that they hook new members up to some sort of lie-dectector machine and ask them probing questions and record their biological responses (perhaps for use against them at a future date if they decide to leave - as suggested by a recent documentary).

    So maybe it's time for lie-detectors, clinical psych's and other biological-repsonse measurement tools to root out the 'Leprosy', as Francis himself suggests.

    This type of leprosy isn't skin deep however, hence the need for deep investigation beyond the surface.
    Screening people for suitabiliy is very wise. For quite a while now to enter the priesthood in Ireland requires a psychological assessment.


  • #1136
    WinnyThePoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭WinnyThePoo


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    I think you don't know what your point is. He didnt refer to priests in positions of power actually. It is a pretty meaningless and misleading statement by Francis and I would have advised him not to.  We don't know the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population but experts say anything from 0.5-5% which contextualises it a lot.

    He actually did, but keep making it up as you go.


  • #1137
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,926 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    I think you don't know what your point is. He didnt refer to priests in positions of power actually. It is a pretty meaningless and misleading statement by Francis and I would have advised him not to. We don't know the prevalence of paedophilia in the general population but experts say anything from 0.5-5% which contextualises it a lot.




    LOL


  • #1138
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    ooksee wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Debate is healthy and welcome but I do feel the need to call out errors. Catholicism is not foreign. That is an absurd, it has been in Ireland far longer than a lot of DNA that is considered Irish at this stage and even if it was foreign, it is ignorant to use that as a insult.
    If someone is a known abuser people have a lot of power but they shouldn't try to duplicate the court system. Report abuse to authorities and if you want their superior. If some one is not guilt of crimes or cannot be found be found guilty there is not a lot to proest about.

    The Holy See is not Irish, it is in no way subject to the laws of this land. Ireland cannot insist that the Vatican sort out its rulers any more than it can sort out Donald Trump. And yet the Pope as leader is allowed to dictate social mores in Ireland. If the Pope (as representing the Catholic Church) says, for example, children should have access to Irish schools based on membership of his club, that is what happens, and some people here defend his right to have any say in the matter.

    Your second paragraph is evasive nonsense and not worthy of response.
    The Holy See is a tiny office of the organisation. Anyone can dictate anything to anyone. McAleese dictates to the Pope and he dicates back. Free country! Ireland has no business regulating church leadership irrespective of where the boss lives certainly no more than telling who should be the next irish CEO of Apple Ireland.


  • #1139
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    work wrote: »
    Cabaal wrote: »
    work wrote: »

    complete junk answer. So the priests are good and the bishops bad? If one of your children was abused and you reported it to the police and nothing happened would you truly believe you did the right thing and are a good person. You would want to be a moron to think that. Change optics to the church and you do not apply any logic. WHY did they, the good clergy, not follow up and WHY did they not tell the police......so many questions and very weak defence.
    Stop trying to defend or justify the indefensible.

    You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I'm defending the church and its criminal actions,
    :rolleyes:

    However, you have to consider it was a different time, by going to a bishop any good priest did see themselves as doing the right thing.  If the Bishop covered up the priest had no way of handling differntly. (suppose they could go higher then Bishop but that was a waste of time)

    In many cases, especially in rural area's if a priest went to the Gardai the Gardai would likely go to the higher up who would likely in turn contact the Bishop again.

    It was a messed up time where church and state where so intermixed that Gardai used to bring back unmarried women to laundry's. The women weren't even breaking the law if they escaped!

    The church was seen as all powerful for many of the decades in question, the likes of John Charles McQuaid could bring down a TD...and he did!

    AS I've said, there are no doubt good men that our priests and they have done good. But they've been betrayed by the church leadership all in the name of protecting the church and Vatican from scandal.

    They've proven the church can no longer be trusted without major overhaul internally and independent reviews, neither of which is likely to happen anytime soon.

    ALOT has changed in Ireland and its easy forget just how much power the church had in Ireland, but remember what backlash Sinead O'Conner got for ripping up a simple photo in the 1980's....now increase that by a factor of 100x for anyone who said anything against the church in the decades before!   If you spoke out about the church back in the 1950's then you could expect the town you lived in to be turned against you, if you had a business it would be ruined.
    I take your point but we are way way beyond those days now and still NO whistleblowers in the church of any significance. Corrupt to the core and they should be wiped off the face of the earth with all other hate driven religeons
    I can't see how you can say there has been no whistle blowers. There always has been. Fr Bruno Mulvihill was probably Ireland's most famous one.


  • #1140
    4068ac1elhodqr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,586 ✭✭✭4068ac1elhodqr


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Screening people for suitabiliy is very wise. For quite a while now to enter the priesthood in Ireland requires a psychological assessment.

    But to a very much, much lesser degree and quality than what would take place for others such as Scientology.

    What about an 'independent outside assesor' (seeing as the RCC can't be trusted), say every 5yrs?

    Don't forget true intent biological-response tests, not just a few checkboxes on paper ok?


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Omar Orange Ignoramus wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Screening people for suitabiliy is very wise. For quite a while now to enter the priesthood in Ireland requires a psychological assessment.

    But to a very much, much lesser degree and quality than what would take place for others such as Scientology.

    What about an 'independent outside assesor' (seeing as the RCC can't be trusted), say every 5yrs?

    Don't forget true intent biological-response tests, not just a few checkboxes on paper ok?
    Not a bad idea, and the same for teachers who have a long association with child abuse.
    It is worth mentioning that allegations post 2002 are extremely so the abusers were people were trained a long time ago. Kids are much more supervised now so the risk of clerical abuse is a lot less, so from a scientific point of view it is really hard to know if current training provides adequent screening.


Advertisement