An_Toirpin wrote: » In 1950 there was just 469 men in prison. We have over 10,000 these days. Sadly very victims were getting justice. Different world.
batgoat wrote: » In this instance moral guardians were actively poor preventing justice and it was happening until far more recently than the fifties. You're making your very best effort to act as an apologist for the most influential organisation in the country.
RustyNut wrote: » But not brought to justice. No justice for the criminal sex offenders and no justice for the child victims of these vile clerics. Why?
An_Toirpin wrote: » Sometimes....
An_Toirpin wrote: » Fighting Tao wrote: » “Recklessly covered up a users”??? You must be trolling. Btw, have you gone to the guards yet about Microsoft operating like the RCC and abusing children, covering it up and moving staff members around to abuse a fresh batch of kids? We shouldn't generalise. Sometimes, abusers were protected and given a position when they could reoffend. Othertimes they were given a slap on the wrist but not really controlled and put out of danger. Many other times abusers were sent for treatment and removed from positions where they could do harm. It is so wrong to ignore the detail and just threat all of these scenarios as the same morally.
Fighting Tao wrote: » “Recklessly covered up a users”??? You must be trolling. Btw, have you gone to the guards yet about Microsoft operating like the RCC and abusing children, covering it up and moving staff members around to abuse a fresh batch of kids?
Fighting Tao wrote: » http://bfy.tw/JYAR Wouldn’t the definition qualify it?
An_Toirpin wrote: » Thanks for the links about the oath. But I'd appreciate less personal attacks. I have read quite a lot about church tribunals. The question I raised before remains. Although I can think of cases where superiors so recklessly covered up abusers one wonders could it have been their intention for more abuse to occur again but I have yet to see that with the actions of the Vatican. All of the procedures you mention were performed with the intention of stopping abuse. It may shock us that civil authorities were not involved but a wider look at how society dealt with child abuse in the western world would show it pretty much went to the courts. If one condemns the Vatican for failing to routinely (I stress routine as many cases abuse reported and known to the gardai) contact the civil authorities when abuse everywhere in society was rarely reported to the civil authorities and never saw convictions it is showing a double standard. I find it galling that so many people here can sit on their horse preaching about what should be done with courses of action that are purely a modern day development.
igCorcaigh wrote: » Me too. The chance to see the pope could mean so much to some (quite possibly elderly) people. I don't like the idea of depriving them of that.
Sycamore Tree wrote: » Ah you're back. You disappeared twice when I asked you questions on Smyth, Brady and the oath of secrecy. mal intent indeed. I don't expect you to reply. Just adjust the blinkers a bit more.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Qualify uncommon?
batgoat wrote: » You previously said shaming in relation to sex was uncommon in Ireland... All Irish historians would disagree with that. Must get to work on your forte!
Hitman3000 wrote: » I hear Leo is asking Frank for the church's cooperation into any investigation into any abuse that happened. Frank's willingness or lack thereof should be telling. The Vatican has an opportunity to open its files and a chance to obtain some form of redemption. Will they seize that chance? The past suggests not.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Adamocovic wrote: Again it will all depend on what sort of protests people are planning to do, I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste. Very easy form of protest tbh and people are free and entitled to protest any way they want without the permission or the need to justify themselves to others .
Adamocovic wrote: Again it will all depend on what sort of protests people are planning to do, I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.
Adamocovic wrote: » I found the one where people booked free tickets with no intention to going as poor taste.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » Ah, i see you have fallen for his trap. He said "when has a single Catholic" when of course it was not a single catholic but many, many of them. I'm a little bit disappointed in you Cabaal if i'm being honest.
Cabaal wrote: » One classic example of failure you've posted:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107872416&postcount=284 Stop showing yourself up, its tragic
Cabaal wrote: » oh man, you made me laugh at that one. History is certainly not something you excell at on ANY level, you don't even know Irish history for the past 20+ years One classic example of failure you've posted:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107872416&postcount=284 Stop showing yourself up, its tragic
An_Toirpin wrote: » Read a history book. History is my forte. .
LOL when has a single Catholic since 1994 actually tried to restrict gays rights or contraception. Get with the time.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Read a history book. History is my forte. The Vatican was perhaps the first state in western Europe to slam the nazis state with the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, when the UK and others were trying to placate them with concessions.
An_Toirpin wrote: » The evidence suggests that past failing at digging out coverups is more due to disorgansiation and limited central power and knowledge rather than mal intent.
"I will never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause (even) for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless a...dispensation has been expressly given to me by the Supreme Pontiff." THIS is the oath of secrecy the child victims of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth were told to sign during their meetings with Cardinal Sean Brady 35 years ago. Crimen Solicitationis, the Latin for 'Crime of Solicitation', is a secret 1962 Vatican document which only came to light in recent years. It instructed bishops how to handle allegations of sex abuse against priests in their diocese and set out an oath of secrecy. All those involved in the 1975 investigation into Smyth, Cardinal Brady -- then a 36-year-old priest -- the children who had been abused and Smyth himself, were required to sign the oath. To break the vow would lead to excommunication from the Catholic Church. The document was written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously known as the Inquisition. It was only to be circulated among bishops and it demanded that all parties to an investigation keep a "perpetual silence". Scripted in dense legal language, the document sets out the steps to be taken for investigating crimes of solicitation against priests. Once the tribunal has reached its conclusion, it lays out a number of different courses. If there is no foundation to the allegations, all documents relating to the accusation must be destroyed.
An_Toirpin wrote: Read a history book. History is my forte.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Revisionism suggests making up stuff or being obtuse. I suggest like the other lad you learn some of your church's history. There was a 'railroad' which passed through the Vatican that helped senior NAZI's make it out of Europe at the end of WWII. The CC also signed a concordate with the NAZI regime before the war.
