Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

26-05-2009 03:06PM

Jakkass wrote: »

No it isn't. I consider there to be truth contained within all religions. I don't believe them to be completely true however, and some religions are more true than others. For example I would consider Judaism and Islam to contain a lot of truth in comparison to what I consider the ultimate truth, Christianity. Makes sense no?

Fairytales are clearly written in the intention that they are fiction however. Religious texts are written in the intention that it is revealed truth that has been received to us by prophets. They are profoundly different, hence why bookshops seperate the religion section from the fiction. If you can certifiably show me that the intention of the Biblical text was to be fiction I will accept that you are indeed correct. I have serious doubts that you can though, hence why I think using words like "delusional", "fairytales" and other things are just patronising nonsense.

Hang on a second. Are you suggesting that people who follow Christianity are credulous fools?

I don't know where people get this notion, you or anyone actually. Science is a secular discipline, it doesn't aim to prove or disprove religion. As such I can conclude you are again, talking anti-theist nonsense.

As for excommunications and the like, as someone who has never been a member of Catholicism in my entire life, I don't think that I should really have to be accountable for the actions of any Pope.

Luckily Christianity has moved on from such corruption, and Christianity will continue to progress and to accept the faith that Jesus really taught and keep true to the Gospel that we have been commanded to protect.

It isn't plagiarised I wouldn't say. Christianity clearly said that it was descended from the former Judaism that had existed at the time, as did Islam. Infact three quarters of the Christian Bible shares texts which Jews would also commonly study. Y'shua ben Nazerat (Jesus of Nazareth) according to Christians is the Jewish Messiah, as such to be able to make such a claim one would have to show that Jesus was consistent with Judaism and that He indeed had fulfilled the prophecies which are contained in the prophetic books of the Jewish Tanakh.

As for Judaism being plagiarised from paganism there is no evidence whatsoever for this, and there are passages where the Jewish people were commanded to avoid paganism such as the religions of Ba'al, Molech, Asherah and the other pagan gods that were being professed at the time and not to forget the Lord their God who had delivered them from the land of Egypt. I'd like you to substantiate your claim.

Christian beliefs are pretty much consistent between 100 years ago and now. Again if you could actually discuss some of these it might be a help.

"Lie". Bear in mind that lying actually indicates that the people professing Christianity believe it to be a lie. I certainly don't, I consider it to be the truth.

I AM TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVENT TO THIS THREAD

fixed your post for you.

corribdude · 26-05-2009 03:07PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's called reason. Yes your claim would also be unfalsifiable. You would also have no indication for it. Christians have indicated for their beliefs and there is good reason to hold to them if you actually look up and read some Christian apologetics for yourself you will see this much.

Think Im done posting here for today, takes too much time, just want to address this. So the differences between invisible flying unicorns and religion is that there are indications for religious beliefs. Not facts, indications. There are indications for plenty of things, from the USA blowing up the twin towers to alien abduction to spontaneous combustion to Scientology. All events that have plenty of stuff written about them and and a fair few people believing in them.

To sum up, indications are a long way from proof. That's why religious beliefs are not facts and are based on faith. And that's why they can be accurately described as fantasy. Fecking hell, they are called 'BELIEFS' for god sake, meaning you believe without proof.

mloc · 26-05-2009 03:09PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Hang on a second. Are you suggesting that people who follow Christianity are credulous fools?

I will summise by saying yes, I do indeed. Most of my friends are christians, but in their beliefs, I would hold them to be credulous fools. I do not hold double standards in that respect. I respect them as people, and love them as friends, but again in terms of respecting their relgious beliefs, no, I deem them in that respect fools.

I think that the burden of proof lies on those making the fantastical claims.

In any case, I think the deviation from the underlying issues (Institutional abuse) here has reached a tangential climax, and to avoid maligning that main issue, will not continue to argue more general belief issues on this thread.

Morlar · 26-05-2009 03:13PM

Puddleduck wrote: »

Im curious to know, has this changed anyones opinion on the church and their involvement in it?

I would say there needs to be a top-down review of these particular religious orders, and wherever possible prosecutions should follow.

The same would go for the civil servants who had reports and had an awareness of what was going on and looked the other way - yes I mean drag them out of retirement and prosecute them for their failings wherever humanly possible.

The media in Ireland have also let us down by not reporting on this down through the years. There are editors and journalists who also must have known what was going on and did the sum total of nothing about it.

It is unacceptable to hide behind some fear of consequences - they should have published what they knew and have gotten all of this out in the open decades ago. Unless those who knew and did nothing are punished then nothing of this entire culture of 'buck passing' will ever change.

Min · 26-05-2009 03:37PM

Puddleduck wrote: »

Im curious to know, has this changed anyones opinion on the church and their involvement in it?

For me personally I was never all that pushed on the church and I did see that they were crooked, but I probably still would have gotten married and baptised any children. Not now.

No, the church was not involved in this, in fact it was an investigation by a priest that unearthed the truth that led to the Kennedy commission that led to these institutions being closed down, the state should have seen what the priest unearthed given it was the department of education's role and it was the state that put the children in these institutions.
There is a difference between 'church' and 'religious orders'.

TequilaMockingBird · 26-05-2009 03:53PM

It was my mother who "got a haircut".

Her mother had just died, she had long hair put up in two pony-tales. They cut ONE off simply to humiliate her. She was left like that. With half a head of hair. No, it's not as damaging as rape, but it is damaging all the same and just an indication of how open the abuse was. It wasn't something she could hide. This is just one instance of the cruelties inflicted upon her. For me, as a mother of an eight year old girl, it is the image in my mind of her running crying for her dead mother that kills me.

She suffered these type of cruelties EVERY day for eight years. She was beaten, but not raped.

I think it is fairly apparent that I was not equating a simple "haircut" with rape.

My Mum wants to answer those who ask "why did society at the time not stop it, why did they allow it happen?" She says who would they complain to? The church ran the country, the government bowed to the church. There was, she says, simply no-one to go to.

WindSock · 26-05-2009 04:45PM

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

It
My Mum wants to answer those who ask "why did society at the time not stop it, why did they allow it happen?" She says who would they complain to? The church ran the country, the government bowed to the church. There was, she says, simply no-one to go to.

Not to mention that children in our society at the time were never to speak back to elders, and if they did speak up, who would listen?

philologos · 26-05-2009 04:51PM

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

You mean like the open-mindedness the RCC has shown to people of different faiths over the last 2000 years?

I'm not defending the Catholic Church. I am however defending reasonable dialogue between people of faith and people who lack it, and between people of different faiths.

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

What most of you RCC defenders and apologists seem to forget is that there are 2 issues here. 1. The actual abuse and evil deeds committed by priests. 2. The conduct of the RCC over the years that this enquiry deals with. In Ireland & around the world the RCC has gone out of its way to demonise victims, protect KNOWN paedophiles & block all attempts to reveal the truth.

I'm not an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, nor am I an adherent. I am countering the claim that all religion should be judged based on the abuses in this case.

I'm totally in agreement with what you are saying about Catholicism.

Nelson Muntz wrote: »

Number 2 is the reason why people attack the RCC. If any pope or RCC leader had EVER come out & said yes we have a problem & we need help to deal with it. We will co-operate with any investigation and help punish the guilty...etc, if that had ever happened, then people would be FAR more likely to give the RCC some credit.

I agree with you here, I think you have misinterpreted the merit behind my posts. They weren't aimed at defending Catholicism for these actions, they were aimed at not tarring all religion with the same brush.

Malari · 26-05-2009 04:56PM

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

The church ran the country, the government bowed to the church. There was, she says, simply no-one to go to.

I don't think this has changed a whole lot either. The government is still afraid of the church. Afraid of the votes they might lose if they openly and unreservedly criticise them.

Nelson Muntz · 26-05-2009 05:29PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not defending the Catholic Church. I am however defending reasonable dialogue between people of faith and people who lack it, and between people of different faiths.

I'm not an apologist for the Roman Catholic Church, nor am I an adherent. I am countering the claim that all religion should be judged based on the abuses in this case.

I'm totally in agreement with what you are saying about Catholicism.

I agree with you here, I think you have misinterpreted the merit behind my posts. They weren't aimed at defending Catholicism for these actions, they were aimed at not tarring all religion with the same brush.

Fair enough. As a non religeous person, I think that religion in its pure form(a personal faith in a higher power that guides a persons moral compass and makes them a better member of the community) is great.

I think we both agree that religion and the catholic church can be treated seperately and based on what we know, it is the RCC that deserves all of the anger it is getting.

Morlar · 26-05-2009 05:45PM

Here is the report for anyone who has not seen it:

http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/

Some of it is just un-f*cking-believable.

xxmarymoxx · 26-05-2009 05:56PM

corribdude wrote: »

Explain this to me - the experience of Irish people with religion is the RCC. It has been shown to be seriously corrupt and evil. Now do you expect the Irish people to go looking for another religion? Why the hell would we? What do we need it for anyway? People aren't so thick and evil that they need some religion to tell them how to live their lives.

And are we supposed to treat religion like going to the shops for a loaf of bread or something? You say there are the following organisations - Christian denominations. Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Pentecostalism / Evangelicalism, Methodism, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, non-denominational - how do suggest we chose one? Do you think we should read into them a bit and then say 'oh I like the sound of that one, Ill go with that' as if it's dessert in your local restaurant....what is the basis for selecting a religion?

Learn what for ourselves?? What exactly is the big secret? People know the difference between right and wrong they dont need a religion to tell them it. Its up to ourselves to apply it, which is the case whether a religion tells us to or not.

Whats it based on then? Solid scientific fact? The whole concept of religion is based on 'faith'. Nice get-out clause for something that can't be proved.

So you think overall religion has been positive in Ireland. Tell me what excellent benefits religion has bestowed on Ireland in order to make up for all the years of oppression, abuse, rape and murder? It must be some seriously impressive sh*t if it makes up for all that evil. I can't wait to hear you tell me what these great benefits of religion in Ireland is.

Name one other organization in Ireland that systematically raped and abused children for decades while simultaneously telling everyone how what's right and what's wrong and how they should be living their lives?

What do you mean if atheism never existed? Atheism isn't a concept or a belief, its just a word used for someone who doesn't believe in a God.

well said religion in any form is like being in a cult you have some fool tellin you theres a god and you must pray to him what a load of crap.The only reason most of us irish are catholics is because our parents were afraid to say no to some sadist priest.

maxxie · 26-05-2009 06:03PM

how could you say the taxpayer should pay????? id like to hear that arguement!!

the church should pay every penny, they are completely responsible!

philologos · 26-05-2009 06:14PM

xxmarymoxx wrote: »

well said religion in any form is like being in a cult you have some fool tellin you theres a god and you must pray to him what a load of crap.The only reason most of us irish are catholics is because our parents were afraid to say no to some sadist priest.

A mere point: A fool telling you there is a God - What standards do you have for accepting who is foolish and who is not? Are you perhaps hastily declaring others to be fools because you do not agree with their particular point of view on the God question? Thirdly, what about those who on consultation of the Jewish and Christian Biblical texts, or indeed the Qur'anic text or any other text who upon reading that text adopt the religion themselves after giving thought and consideration to it?

A mere question: Is it really as non sensical to suggest that there is a God who takes an interest in humanity, and if so please give an extensive reason why?

You continue to argue that most Irish who are Catholics are because their parents were "afraid to say no to some priest". I disagree that they are Catholics because they were afraid to say no to some priest, but rather I take the more sensible conclusion that they may have taught it hastily without understanding it themselves because it was the done thing at the time.

A mere question for thought: Are all priests in the Roman Catholic Church sadists?

Another mere question for thought: How would you explain the acceptance of Christianity by other people who are not of the Catholic denomination if there was no "sadist priest" to scare them into doing so?

N.B: I don't agree that most even joined Catholicism out of fear of a sadist priest, infact I see no reason to assume this given my previous question, and I have no reason to see this as anything more than a conspiracy theory. For arguments sakes I am assuming it.

26-05-2009 06:19PM

Find it interesting that taxpayers should be paying - so the victims are really just paying themselves through their own hard work, and a bunch of other taxpayers who had nothing to do with it and couldn't do anything.
Some may say the govt is also responsible for letting it go on - in which case they can just fork it out themselves.
There's no reason for the taxpayer to cover this at all.

xxmarymoxx · 26-05-2009 06:42PM

Jakkass wrote: »

A mere point: A fool telling you there is a God - What standards do you have for accepting who is foolish and who is not? Are you perhaps hastily declaring others to be fools because you do not agree with their particular point of view on the God question? Thirdly, what about those who on consultation of the Jewish and Christian Biblical texts, or indeed the Qur'anic text or any other text who upon reading that text adopt the religion themselves after giving thought and consideration to it?

A mere question: Is it really as non sensical to suggest that there is a God who takes an interest in humanity, and if so please give an extensive reason why?

You continue to argue that most Irish who are Catholics are because their parents were "afraid to say no to some priest". I disagree that they are Catholics because they were afraid to say no to some priest, but rather I take the more sensible conclusion that they may have taught it hastily without understanding it themselves because it was the done thing at the time.

A mere question for thought: Are all priests in the Roman Catholic Church sadists?

Another mere question for thought: How would you explain the acceptance of Christianity by other people who are not of the Catholic denomination if there was no "sadist priest" to scare you into doing so?

N.B: I don't agree that most even joined Catholicism out of fear of a sadist priest, infact I see no reason to assume this given my previous question, and I have no reason to see this as anything more than a conspiracy theory. For arguments sakes I am assuming it.

jackass are you a priest?

philologos · 26-05-2009 06:45PM

xxmarymoxx wrote: »

jackass are you a priest?

No, I'm not even Catholic. I just thought I'd ask you a few questions

xxmarymoxx · 26-05-2009 06:48PM

TouchingVirus · 26-05-2009 07:17PM

Stephen wrote: »
Anyone with a blog or a facebook page or whatever should repost this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4

Here's the embed code:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Don't let the bastards bury this or forget about it.

Horrific to watch

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 26-05-2009 07:31PM

I stopped believing in any god, following the church or respecting any religion when I first heard of this a long long time ago.

If you, as a person, can accept the church for all the pain they have caused, if you can forget about this and continue your practice without a second though or still believe that the church is right etc etc, then you have serious problems.

The older generations will still follow the church as they feared the church, and still do.

The younger generations should have a much better view.

The church is scum, always has been always will be. I am not saying the people following the church or those involved in it are scum. There are a LOT of really good people in the church....

Dudess · 26-05-2009 08:21PM

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

Dudess. Really. Don't start. Play devil's advocate somewhere else, but not on this thread. It is too raw for too many people.

TMB, I am so sorry if I upset you. I think playing devil's advocate would be giving those evil ***** the benefit of the doubt, which I certainly wasn't doing. I was merely saying that those within such institutions who saw this happening and appeared not to do anything about it weren't/aren't necessarily evil and I don't think they should be scapegoated.

El Siglo wrote: »

Fear my arse, fear is what a young boy or young girl had to (and still do) contend with when they were being raped, molested, buggered and beaten to a pulp, that was instilled fear. These bastard priests and nuns were not stricken by fear but by malice and silence, by maintaining the status quo, if they had any fear then it must have been whether they would be sent off to a post where they couldn't rape, molest, bugger and beat children, fear for them was never in the consequences of their actions, fear for them was what they instilled in children.

Basically, what you're saying is that every single member of the catholic church involved in these institutions was an abuser or stayed silent out of malice - utter sh1te. There are too many people on this thread with lynch mob/witch hunt mentalities and I wouldn't be surprised if they attacked random priests or nuns. Everyone's furious and heartbroken over this but that does not give us the right to allow those emotions spill over and cause us to harm people who did not abuse simply because we can't get our hands on the ****ers who actually abused.

Of course you don't understand the outrage of people to this

"This"? Read my post properly. I said specifically that I don't understand people's outrage over the excuse "I was only following orders" - do you really think if you were a dissenting nazi you'd have stood up to the might of the Third Reich and risked being put in a death camp? I damn well know I wouldn't. Fear is that powerful.
Now I'm not saying that those within these institutions who spoke out against it risked being placed in death camps, but they weren't being heard/listened to - look how powerful the church was. I studied this topic at college - letters were sent by priests/nuns to the Department of Education begging for something to be done. These letters were ignored or the claims rubbished.
Also if the ****bags were capable of raping/torturing children and had all these powerful interests on their side, **** knows what they were capable of doing to those who tried to let the world know and had NO powerful interests on their side. They could have been blackmailed - false abuse allegations made against THEM by the actual abusers, the abusers could have made threats using children to carry them out: "tell on me and I'll make sure that x child is raped every day til he leaves here". I realise this is speculation but as I said, if they were capable of being so gothically sadistic to children then I'd put money on them resorting to tactics like the above.
I refuse to believe EVERY SINGLE person who worked in these institutions was in on the evil - I know a sizeable number of them were (when people say "a small minority" it pisses me off) but there were bound to have been good people there too - genuine followers of christianity. And no way were their voices going to be heard should they have dissented - I think everyone is acknowledging that.
Should they have resigned in protest? No reason to believe some of them didn't, but maybe some of them chose to stay in order to try their best to protect the children as best they could - minimal and all as it would have been.

Fear didn't cause these c*nts to keep silent about what their 'brothers of the cloth' were doing, it was a matter of not rocking the boat and subjugation and this is supported by the lack of actions taken by the state at the time reports were first made.

If you're talking about state officials, well yes, that's a different story. I'm referring specifically though to those members of religious orders who were based in these institutions and didn't abuse yet are being held almost as accountable as those who did abuse.

corribdude wrote: »

So you think overall religion has been positive in Ireland. Tell me what excellent benefits religion has bestowed on Ireland in order to make up for all the years of oppression, abuse, rape and murder? It must be some seriously impressive sh*t if it makes up for all that evil. I can't wait to hear you tell me what these great benefits of religion in Ireland is.

Look: faith, the spiritual... this in itself is not evil - it's the abuse of it, the twisting of it that is. It should be down to the individual choice, not an institution... but at individual level - praying, believing in a protector, that in itself is not evil. I don't know much about other religions, but the teachings of Christ are not rooted in evil. So while the institution of the catholic church deserves to be condemned for this horror, I don't think religion (as in, very back-to-basics religion) should be. I say that as an agnostic... or atheist (not sure which).

Morlar wrote: »

I think it is sad that the whole thing will be used (by some unscrupulous people with an agenda) as an opportunity to bash the Christian /Catholic church. On balance there is no question that they have been a positive influence on this country.

How? The damage it's done is utterly widespread and devastating - how on earth is there anything which has cancelled that out?

If we had all grown up in an atheist country it would be unrecognisably more harsh to it's core and cold bloodedly consumeristic & lacking in values.

I really can't see why. And those descriptions you've used remind me very much of Celtic Tiger Ireland.

the_syco wrote: »

I'm genuinly surprised that more of these priests weren't killed by vigilante mobs!

Oh don't worry. Some bright sparks will just decide "Here, you know that Father Murphy? He's about the right age for being a chaplin at one of those industrial schools - damn peediophile! Let's get him!" :rolleyes:

Morlar wrote: »

I am not 'negating the seriousness' of anything. I am respecting the seriousness of one thing (multiple repeated beatings and rapes) by refusing to accept any remotest attempt to establish any parity between that and a haircut.

Her mother was just a little child - nobody is saying the malicious "hair cut" ritual would have been as physically painful and terrifying as a violent attack but it would still have been humiliating and emotionally painful, it was still horrible abuse.

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

it is the image in my mind of her running crying for her dead mother that kills me.

That's heartbreaking.

Morlar wrote: »

Here is the report for anyone who has not seen it:

http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/pdfs/

Some of it is just un-f*cking-believable.

I'm unable to read it - I am aware of some of the stuff that went on from various news reports over the years though. It was quite simply Gestapo-esque.

In fact, Peter Tyrrell, a survivor of Letterfrack (until he took his own life in 1967, aged in his early 50s) who turned his back on this state which had turned its back on him, went to England when he got out of Letterfrack and joined the British army only to end up fighting in World War II. He was captured by the nazis and incarcerated in a POW camp which he described in his memoirs as "heaven on earth" compared to Letterfrack.
If that's not a powerful indictment of the sort of scale of abuse we're talking about, I don't know what is...

TequilaMockingBird · 26-05-2009 08:54PM

Dudess wrote: »

TMB, I am so sorry if I upset you. I think playing devil's advocate would be giving those evil ***** the benefit of the doubt, which I certainly wasn't doing. I was merely saying that those within such institutions who saw this happening and appeared not to do anything about it weren't/aren't necessarily evil and I don't think they should be scapegoated.

It's okay Dudess.

I can only speak for some of my Mum's experiences. She said there was a young novice in the orphanage who was disgusted at the treatment meted out to the children by the nuns. As I was growing up this nun often wrote to my Mum, and sent medals etc to us kids. She was the only person in my Mums childhood that wasn't hurting her. We were always told to be grateful for these, and it was somehow an honour that this woman acknowledged us.

Today, my Mum asked me why on earth this woman hasn't spoken out about what happened there. She was only ten years older than my Mum, she is still alive now. Why hasn't she come forward in the last twenty years to confirm what these children have said happened?

So yes, I do blame her, although she was the only kindness my Mum saw, by not coming forward in the last twenty years, she has allowed the suffering to be dismissed.

The victims needed a voice, and it should have been hers.

Dudess · 26-05-2009 08:59PM

Indeed. It's one thing to have been unable to be heard while the system was in place... but not coming forward in the last 20 years, as you say, when the church's power diminished so dramatically? Pretty unforgivable really...

26-05-2009 09:22PM

Stephen wrote: »
Anyone with a blog or a facebook page or whatever should repost this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4

Here's the embed code:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Don't let the bastards bury this or forget about it.

That makes me so angry.

I really wouldn't of had the will to go on after what happened to this man. I am so ashamed that I am part of that church even though I am not a practising Catholic. Anyone that sticks up for them after this report should be fúcking ashamed of themselves.

Poccington · 26-05-2009 09:40PM

Stephen wrote: »
Anyone with a blog or a facebook page or whatever should repost this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4

Here's the embed code:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Don't let the bastards bury this or forget about it.

I already have it on my Facebook.

I never thought I'd say this but... **** Ireland.

Earthhorse · 26-05-2009 09:45PM

Stephen wrote: »
Anyone with a blog or a facebook page or whatever should repost this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4

Here's the embed code:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9jHqndf9Kx4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Don't let the bastards bury this or forget about it.

It really brings it home to see a personal testimonial as brave as that. I note the minister didn't applaud him for it, which he should have, at the very least.

TequilaMockingBird · 26-05-2009 09:52PM

RTE News are covering it well tonight.

F*cking animals, trying to hide money in case they might have to suffer financial problems.

luckat · 26-05-2009 10:03PM

TequilaMockingBird wrote: »

RTE News are covering it well tonight.

F*cking animals, trying to hide money in case they might have to suffer financial problems.

Shows us what they're really made of, where their values really are. They haven't changed.

TequilaMockingBird · 26-05-2009 10:19PM

luckat wrote: »

They haven't changed.

How simply true.

How completely enraging.

mloc · 26-05-2009 11:33PM

The abuse in these cases was widely reported within the church and any efforts to rectifiy it supressed. This corruption and abuse was inherent in the church, from priest to pope. In this manner, the systematic nature of the abuse was so that the orders, both through their direct abuse and attempts to cover it up, were guilty as an organisation. It hard to call non-abusing, but abuse-aware members innocent; any member aware of it was guilty, remaining attached to such an evil organisation.

Is a guard at Auschwitz innocent just because he didn't personally put the gas in the chamber or torture the prisoners? No. By empowering the church and through complacency or otherwise, any member of the church who was aware of the abuse and yet remained a part of it is guilty.

I am sure there are many priests and nuns, particularly at lower levels, who did not work in these so called schools that were unaware of the abuse and at least of these crimes, innocent. But it is self-delusion to suggest that any worker in these schools is innocent. The church itself, at its higher levels, has been aware of this abuse from the outset and their attempts to lie, cheat and hustle some feigned innocence uttely and irrepairably undermines any remaining credibility it has as a moral organisation. The fact that it continues to do so, right now, in the face of insurmountable evidence, unimaginable cruelty and thousands of destroyed lives counterpoints the fact that the catholic church, as an organisation, is an evil, corrupt and entirely false sect.

Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

Comments