nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Catholic Ireland dead? Mod Warning in Post #563

lbc2019

With that resounding 87% Yes in the exit poll for the divorce referendum surely that signifies the final nail in Catholic Ireland's coffin?

I for one am delighted.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

One eyed Jack

Grey Wind wrote: »

It's stupid because you can't help being Irish or a man, and those categories are insanely broad. People choose to support an organisation guilty of the abhorrent things the Catholic Church has done - that's where the problem is.

You’re missing the point as to why the association is fallacious. I wouldn’t associate anyone who is innocent with someone else who has done wrong on the basis that they have characteristics in common. That’s what guilt by association is. You’re implying by the criteria you are using that someone supports the wrongdoings of others, solely by virtue of the fact that they have one thing in common.

Have you considered at all that being Catholic has nothing to do with any wrongdoing? In the same way as being a man has nothing to do with any wrongdoing committed by other men, or being Irish has nothing to do with wrongdoing committed by other people who are Irish?

The exercise is pointless anyway because people aren’t actually taking it seriously. It’s as easy as the current movement of morally superior types demonising anyone who disagrees with their ideology - accuse anyone who disagrees with them of immoral behaviour, or associate them with someone who has committed immoral behaviour on the basis that they are meat-eaters. It’s a fallacy of association.

In the same way, recent examples include attacks by Tusla on the Scouts, it’s an attempt to discredit the work of the Scouts - there were people who did use their authority within the Scouts to commit child abuse, but the Scouts who didn’t shouldn’t suffer for the crimes of the few who did. Same with the GAA - there are a minority of people within the organisation who used their authority to commit child abuse. It shouldn’t mean that the whole organisation or those who are members of the organisation should be accused of supporting child abuse.

The vast majority of people within the organisation whether it be the Church, the Scouts or the GAA are equally as horrified as anyone else that there are people within their own organisation who would abuse children, because that’s not why they associate themselves with the organisation, contrary to yours and other people’s beliefs.

The high horse brigade

Mrsmum wrote: »

But say you were involved or had children involved in the GAA or any other sporting organisation. As we know there has been plenty child sexual abuse in many of these organisations. If a person doesn't completely opt out then, does that mean by supporting the GAA, they support child abuse. Not in my book.

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?
There's a bit of a difference there

One eyed Jack

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?

They might have done. They could be members of the Catholic Church and members of the GAA, so the same fallacious association would apply to both organisations.

There’s no difference there. It’s still a ridiculous association to make.

The high horse brigade

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They might have done. They could be members of the Catholic Church and members of the GAA, so the same fallacious association would apply to both organisations.

Whataboutery

The CC did those things so lets judge them on that

One eyed Jack

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Whataboutery

The CC did those things so lets judge them on that

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse.

I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the fact the vast majority of child abusers aren’t Catholic.

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse. I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the vast majority of child abusers who aren’t Catholic.

By covering up abuse and moving abusers to other parishes to carry on thier abuse the RCC kinda did endorse it (unofficially of course).

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It is, isn’t it?

It’s exactly the same level of stupidity you engaged to try and make your point about the association you make between ordinary members of the Roman Catholic Church and people who have raped, murdered and abused children. I could also have said if you’re Irish you support the abuse, rape and murder of children. If you’re a man? Yup - guilty. Any other characteristics I can draw associations between you and people who abuse, rape and murder children makes you as guilty as them. Should be ashamed of yourself, yada yada :rolleyes:

Or, you could just acknowledge you were talking complete bollocks because your point just doesn’t make any sense.

False equivalence. You don't choose to be a man or be Irish or have brown hair.

You do actively choose to be a member of an organisation that has been proven to actively defend and protect rapists and paedophiles..

beejee

The replacement of a unifying identity by chaotic individualism (a la "I identify as a coconut") leaves us extremely susceptible to outside takeover/influence like never before.

Those praising the collapse are short sighted in the extreme. It's all very well if the entire world, simultaneously, undergoes something so transformative. But it isn't happening anywhere else outside the west (generally). That makes us weak, no matter how much you'd prefer an easy target over complex societal formation.

A random bunch of people with no common lynchpin believing anything they want, versus a unified, predatory vision from the likes of, say, China is nothing to celebrate.

The high horse brigade

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, the Catholic Church didn’t do those things.

People who committed those acts did those things. It suits your purposes to point out that they were members of the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church has never endorsed child abuse nor is it in any way part of Catholic doctrine.

Now you’re perfectly free to judge people as you see fit, but when you say “let’s judge them on that”, you’re associating me with your wish to judge people on the basis that they are Catholic, not whether or not they committed child abuse. I’m not the person who assumes all Catholics are child abusers in the first place, as that would be ignoring the vast majority of child abusers who aren’t Catholic.

Hold on, I'll judge the church on the deeds of its leaders. It was the leaders of the CC who were complicit in the covering up and lying to protect abusers, moved the offender's to new parishes, sold babies and ordered the burying of dead babies without records.

paleoperson

lawred2 wrote: »

False equivalence. You don't choose to be a man or be Irish or have brown hair.

You do actively choose to be a member of an organisation that has been proven to actively defend and protect rapists and paedophiles..

But shur you could say that about almost any organization - GAA, teachers, swimming clubs, boy scouts and so on, almost any organization.

I think there's an irrational hatred of the Catholic Church that doesn't fit with the good things and the bad things they've done over the years. Some of the most awe-inspiring and valuable work done in Ireland has been done by the Catholic Church.

Mrsmum

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Did the GAA cover up and lie about it and move the perpetrators to another club to carry out the same deeds again on a fresh bunch of children? Did the GAA neglect and bury dead children in a septic tank?
There's a bit of a difference there

And I would say to you the people that covered up etc were as bad as those that did the deeds but really that doesn't mean everyone within the organisation is bad. Many people had nothing whatsoever to do with it.
At the time of the Gilette ad, I never saw as many men going nuts at being tarred with the same brush as nasty men of which there are enormous numbers . But they seem to have no problem themselves tarring everyone within the CC with the same brush. Seems double standards to me.

And again as for guilt by association, God forbid but if I had a child that ending up selling drugs. My heart would be broken but I can't imagine not still loving my child. That's wouldn't mean I condoned drug pushing and criminality. Life is way too complicated for black and white.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

By covering up abuse and moving abusers to other parishes to carry on thier abuse the RCC kinda did endorse it (unofficially of course).

No, they didn’t, not even kinda, not even unofficially.

The people who covered for the abusers are entirely responsible for their actions, and the people who committed abuse are entirely responsible for their actions. Nobody else is responsible for their actions.

The people who committed the abuse and the people who covered for them represent approximately 4% of the members of the Catholic Church, which is no greater than the number of child abusers among the general population. We know for example that children are more likely to experience abuse within their own families than they are at the hands of strangers to them.

You’d also have to ignore the number of people who are still members of the RCC who have uncovered the abuse, came forward about their own abuse to expose abusers, etc. What you’re suggesting is that the victims of abuse were complicit in their own abuse.

(EDIT: I know that’s not your intent, but that’s the logical conclusion of your argument if you go down the “anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” line of argument)

The high horse brigade

The Sunday church attendances would say otherwise. Once upon a time you needed to avoid passing churches on a Sunday, now there are no hold ups.

The census is a loaded question, it assumes you must have a religion. It needs to be changed to "do you have a religion, yes/no?" and No Religion should be in the list.

Shefwedfan

The high horse brigade wrote: »

The Sunday church attendances would say otherwise. Once upon a time you needed to avoid passing churches on a Sunday, now there are no hold ups.

The census is a loaded question, it assumes you must have a religion. It needs to be changed to "do you have a religion, yes/no?" and No Religion should be in the list.

How is it a loaded question?

If you dont want a religion then off you go. Who cares?

I dont understand why you think you can question other people because they want to believe in something? what exactly has it got to do with you?

The atheist and the vegan. Shoving it down everyone neck because everyone has to be on some crusade to rescue everyone else. They are the brighest because they don't believe in God, blah blah blah. Just get on with your own life....go to mass, dont go to mass....it will make f**k all difference to everyone else.....

The high horse brigade

Shefwedfan wrote: »

How is it a loaded question?

It's a loaded question because it is listed right after the ethnicity questions and assumes you must have a religion. Most who answer the question by ticking a religion only do so because their family brought them up in that faith, not because they still believe in it or actively practice it. The data on religious belief in the Census should therefore be viewed as indicative of culture rather than of religion.

eagle eye

The high horse brigade wrote:

What let a 5 year old decide of he/she wasn't to study religion?

No, let them read the Bible and when they are old enough they can make a decision.
I have great memories of wondrous stories from the Bible when I was a child. They didn't do me any harm. I decided at 14 years of age that it was not for me.

One eyed Jack

The high horse brigade wrote: »

It's a loaded question because it is listed right after the ethnicity questions and assumes you must have a religion. Most who answer the question by ticking a religion only do so because their family brought them up in that faith, not because they still believe in it or actively practice it. The data on religious belief in the Census should therefore be viewed as indicative of culture rather than of religion.

It doesn’t assume you have a religion. I’m not sure what being listed right after the ethnicity questions has to do with anything? Most people in Ireland understand English and are quite capable of understanding and answering the question in the same way as they’re capable of understanding and answering all the questions.

You just don’t like the answers to this one particular question so you have to come up with all manner of excuses as to why people aren’t giving the answers you want them to give. You’re implying that people who don’t answer the question the way you want them to, must be stupid, or at least - not as intelligent as you are.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn’t assume you have a religion. I’m not sure what being listed right after the ethnicity questions has to do with anything? Most people in Ireland understand English and are quite capable of understanding and answering the question in the same way as they’re capable of understanding and answering all the questions.

You just don’t like the answers to this one particular question so you have to come up with all manner of excuses as to why people aren’t giving the answers you want them to give.

The question is fine. It's the answers being used as proof that the public are happy to maintain the status quo that annoys a lot of people including those who are Catholic. Most religious people are in favour of social change as we've seen with recent referenda.

Timberrrrrrrr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, they didn’t, not even kinda, not even unofficially.

The people who covered for the abusers are entirely responsible for their actions, and the people who committed abuse are entirely responsible for their actions. Nobody else is responsible for their actions.

The people who committed the abuse and the people who covered for them represent approximately 4% of the members of the Catholic Church, which is no greater than the number of child abusers among the general population. We know for example that children are more likely to experience abuse within their own families than they are at the hands of strangers to them.

You’d also have to ignore the number of people who are still members of the RCC who have uncovered the abuse, came forward about their own abuse to expose abusers, etc. What you’re suggesting is that the victims of abuse were complicit in their own abuse.

(EDIT: I know that’s not your intent, but that’s the logical conclusion of your argument if you go down the “anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” line of argument)

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

The question is fine. It's the answers being used as proof that the public are happy to maintain the status quo that annoys a lot of people including those who are Catholic. Most religious people are in favour of social change as we've seen with recent referenda.

I get that it’s annoying that the two different sets of data appear to be entirely contradictory, but if you’re going to use the outcomes of referenda to make your point that most religious people are in favour of social change, then I don’t see how you can say it’s unfair that the Government uses data from the census to argue that most people in Ireland are Catholic, and this is reflected in our education and healthcare systems and policies.

You may be correct, but your opponents are also correct, because you’re using two different sets of data that represent very different things.

Shefwedfan

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter at what level the person is working.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I get that it’s annoying that the two different sets of data appear to be entirely contradictory, but if you’re going to use the outcomes of referenda to make your point that most religious people are in favour of social change, then I don’t see how you can say it’s unfair that the Government uses data from the census to argue that most people in Ireland are Catholic, and this is reflected in our education and healthcare systems and policies.

You may be correct, but your opponents are also correct, because you’re using two different sets of data that represent very different things.

The ticking of a box on a census gives only one piece of information, what religion the respondent identifies as. It's not an indication of what kind of social landscape they want, what kind of school they want for their child, their views on moral issues etc.

Timberrrrrrrr

Shefwedfan wrote: »

A crime is a crime. It doesn't matter at what level the person is working.

I agree.

One eyed Jack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

The issue there is that the people who covered up the abuse were in the higher echelons of the RCC, 4% sounds like a small number but if you use that % in the hierarchy then its a pretty significant number imo.

Saying that I'm not of the anyone who supports the Catholic Church, supports child abuse” school for this or any other issue (republicans/IRA, Muslims/radical islamism etc)

The thing is there’s no way of knowing with any degree of certainty what the figures are for the numbers of people who have been abused, and there’s no way to know for certain the number of abusers and people who covered for them. That’s why I used the example of abuse within the family. I was reminded of it this week when this came up in the news again -

Tusla admits failures after children repeatedly raped in State care

Tusla, the child and family agency, has admitted it failed to protect three children who were repeatedly raped by a teenager while in the care of the State between 2003 and 2007.

The abuse occurred at a foster home in Dunmore, Go Galway, where the foster parents, Kathleen and Gerry Burke, kept both long-term and respite children.

Keith Burke (29) of Addergoolemore, Dunmore, Co Galway, was last year jailed for 7½ years at the Central Criminal Court for the rape of the three girls between 2003 and 2007. He was aged between 14 and 18 at the time, while the girls were all under 10.

In 2007 one of the victims told her biological mother she had been sexually abused by Keith Burke and that a second girl, who had been living with the same family, had also been raped by the same son. Her allegation was assessed by the HSE as being credible. A file was sent to the DPP but no prosecution followed.

A decision was made to allow the other foster child remain with the family.

There were undoubtedly people who knew about the abuse in those circumstances but covered it up. The point I’m making is that covering up abuse isn’t anything to do with Catholicism or the Catholic Church. It has everything to do with some people who want to protect the abuser instead of protecting the victims or anyone else from becoming a victim of abuse.

Most Catholics want to protect children, so accusing Catholics of supporting child abuse because of a minority of people who supported child abusers? It would be the same as accusing parents of being child abusers because some parents abuse their children. It ignores the reality that most parents do not abuse their children, and accusing people of morally abhorrent acts to support their ideological and political beliefs is no different than the minority of fundamentalists who accuse people of morally abhorrent acts on the basis that they do not share that persons religious beliefs.

janfebmar

Even though the state and Roman Catholic Church force their religion on so many, most people in Ireland do not follow the teachings of the RCC in this day and age. Telling people to avoid using contraception is criminal.

Mrsmum

janfebmar wrote: »

Even though the state and Roman Catholic Church force their religion on so many, most people in Ireland do not follow the teachings of the RCC in this day and age. Telling people to avoid using contraception is criminal.

They don't force their religion on anyone. They state what church teachings are on the matter. And then you can take it or leave it. And most catholics leave it.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

The ticking of a box on a census gives only one piece of information, what religion the respondent identifies as. It's not an indication of what kind of social landscape they want, what kind of school they want for their child, their views on moral issues etc.

Yes, and all the rest of the questions on the census when collated provide a picture at national level as opposed to what individuals want for themselves and their children. The statistics provided by the census are used by all sorts of lobby groups to further their own agendas. The referendums don’t really do the same thing as they are only representative of the people who bothered to vote on a particular issue. The turnout was abysmal for yesterday’s referendum, whereas the census takes account of every household in Ireland.

The excuse that mammies are filling out the census is gone a bit stale at this stage, although according to the census 98% of parents working in the home are women. Let’s see how that translates if we’re offered yet another referendum to remove the special recognition of women in the Irish Constitution that some people argue is an archaic throwback, and some people argue is the only recognition by the State that women working in the home have.

The Census doesn’t provide answers to questions and that was never its purpose. It provides data to Government and lobby groups to argue over their own interpretations of the data according to how it suits their interests.

Mrsmum

I often wonder what people think happens at mass which is where most catholics interact with the clergy. I mean the only time the priest speaks to the people off script is during the sermon and that rarely goes anywhere even remotely controversial. If you were looking for controversial guidance or any guidance on moral issues on a weekly basis, you'd die of boredom.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The excuse that mammies are filling out the census is gone a bit stale at this stage, although according to the census 98% of parents working in the home are women. Let’s see how that translates if we’re offered yet another referendum to remove the special recognition of women in the Irish Constitution that some people argue is an archaic throwback, and some people argue is the only recognition by the State that women working in the home have.

Again I wouldn't assume that that statistic makes that proposed referendum a waste of time. It's an interesting statistic but in isolation it tells us nothing of interest about how many of those people are there by choice vs circumstance, how many want to work, what impact not having an income has on their lifestyle etc.

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

In my experience the majority of christians in Ireland have beliefs that are more closely aligned to protestantism than catholicism.

Divorce, gay marriage, abortion, all completely incompatible with catholicism, all enjoying overwhelming support from the people of Ireland, and I am sure there are many practicising "catholics" who voted for all three.

It's a myth that protestantism is more liberal than catholicism.

I know a few pioneers. They don't drink but don't mind if other people do. On the other hand, I've met plenty teetotal Presbyterians who are firmly opposed to any alcohol being served at social events they're attending. We're taking about weddings with a dry bar, birthday parties with nothing stronger than Schloer.

Then you have the left-footers that are so anti-gambling they won't allow a pack of cards in the house, won't allow their kids play the Lotto, have extremely conservative views on abortion, homosexuality, same sex marriage etc.

The Catholic Church has plenty of faults and is deeply flawed but holding up the Prods as some sort of beacon of tolerance is seriously misguided.