Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

Chre59 · 28-05-2009 8:03pm

gazzer wrote: »

Has anybody been listening to Joe Duffy today? Some of the stories of abuse are horrific. I feel ill after listening to what those animals did to those poor kids

I totally agree with you, imagine witnessing your sisters murder and not being able to say anything. And years later when it all comes out, you are offered a paltry amount of money and have to watch the pious nuns in their nice comfy houses, driving around in nice cars, pretending that they are god's gift. It's like asking Jewish survivors to live in a country where Nazi's are still held in high esteem.

I was brought up in the 70's and when a nun or a priest came to the house, the best china was brought out and I was thought to respect these people. So imagine what it was like in the 40's and 50's.

I've cried at some of the stories I've heard. That man on Q&A on monday night had me in tears.

Dudess · 28-05-2009 8:08pm

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Did anybody see Song for a raggy boy?? Good jesus I cried the whole way through it and then for a week after seeing it, cause only at the end did it say it was based on a true story. I couldnt belive that another human could be so horrendous to a young boy, it made me truly sad

Yeah, I saw it. Horrible. Really upsetting.

The bit where the two little brothers in separate buildings sneaked out to meet each other on Christmas morning and were caught and thrashed until they bled - that had me in floods.

And Bambi, so what if that particular film was only loosely based on real events, or even just made up? Because unfortunately there really were plenty of cases like it... and even worse.

Just thought of a real-life Christmas morning scenario I read about in an industrial school - the girls hung their stockings out... and found them empty the next morning. Just fukking evil. I wouldn't be one bit surprised if the nuns had actually encouraged them to do so.

the_dark_side · 28-05-2009 8:49pm

The RCC found the perfect formula for "evil" it seems. Part of the formula: take men, remove marriage, remove women from any decision making, create a global hierarchy controlled by a state within a state (thus immune from any law).

Begin by annihilating millions of competing "heathens," aka European women, and practice that age old creed: kill one and the world weeps, kill millions and it barely notices.

And make sure to insist there is only one way to salvation...their way. Add immense guilt, bordering itself on child abuse, to assure compliance.

Convert by force, subject governments to influence of the papacy. Infuse police forces, unions, and any other social mechanisms with your followers.

Quite a successful recipe, it seems.

Don't ever question the Church.

carlybabe1 · 28-05-2009 8:56pm

the_dark_side wrote: »

level all churches and grind them into sand, take down all your bleeding heart of jesus pictures, crucifixes and statues and build a bonfire. We cannot continually surround ourselves with symbols of dark and wicked institute.

The RCC found the perfect formula for "evil" it seems. Part of the formula: take men, remove marriage, remove women from any decision making, create a global hierarchy controlled by a state within a state (thus immune from any law).

Begin by annihilating millions of competing "heathens," aka European women, and practice that age old creed: kill one and the world weeps, kill millions and it barely notices.

And make sure to insist there is only one way to salvation...their way. Add immense guilt, bordering itself on child abuse, to assure compliance.

Convert by force, subject governments to influence of the papacy. Infuse police forces, unions, and any other social mechanisms with your followers.

Quite a successful recipe, it seems.

Don't ever question the Church.

Well when you put it like that

I agree with you, I reckoned it was the largest most successful paedophile ring in the world, but I could not have put it as well as you did. Kudos my dear, Kudos

partyatmygaff · 28-05-2009 8:57pm

the_dark_side wrote: »

level all churches and grind them into sand, take down all your bleeding heart of jesus pictures, crucifixes and statues and build a bonfire. We cannot continually surround ourselves with symbols of dark and wicked institute.

The RCC found the perfect formula for "evil" it seems. Part of the formula: take men, remove marriage, remove women from any decision making, create a global hierarchy controlled by a state within a state (thus immune from any law).

Begin by annihilating millions of competing "heathens," aka European women, and practice that age old creed: kill one and the world weeps, kill millions and it barely notices.

And make sure to insist there is only one way to salvation...their way. Add immense guilt, bordering itself on child abuse, to assure compliance.

Convert by force, subject governments to influence of the papacy. Infuse police forces, unions, and any other social mechanisms with your followers.

Quite a successful recipe, it seems.

Don't ever question the Church.

Yes because the religion itself caused this abuse.......

When will people ever get that it was PEOPLE who were abusing their position of trust and not the religion itself. In case your unaware the basis of this "organisation" as you like to call it does not permit such atrocities.

The correct and most sane thing to do would be to find, prosecute and punish the PEOPLE involved.

Mob-mentality only makes your point look stupid im afraid.

javaboy · 28-05-2009 8:58pm

javaboy wrote: »

El Siglo banned for personal abuse. towel401 if you're trolling stop. If you're not think very carefully about how you frame your comments in such a sensitive thread.

El Siglo unbanned given the circumstances. towel401 banned for a month for trolling. Do it again and it's permanent.

For the record personal abuse is still not allowed. Please report posts rather than taking the bait.

coffee_cake · 28-05-2009 9:05pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When will people ever get that it was PEOPLE who were abusing their position of trust and not the religion itself. In case your unaware the basis of this "organisation" as you like to call it does not permit such atrocities.

The correct and most sane thing to do would be to find, prosecute and punish the PEOPLE involved.

Mob-mentality only makes your point look stupid im afraid.

While normally I'd be all for the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument, the sad problem here is that the organisation, not just the people committing the crimes, were helping facilitate the abuses and covering them up. That's why people are so against the church now. If it had come out and said "look this is shocking, we never knew but are severely punishing/expelling the guilty members", people would be rallying behind it. Instead the report has comments such as "unacceptable levels of abuse" or other members saying oh "the usual black eye effects" , etc etc. This IS on a level of the organisations and not just the abusers anymore.

Dudess · 28-05-2009 9:06pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes because the religion itself caused this abuse.......

When will people ever get that it was PEOPLE who were abusing their position of trust and not the religion itself. In case your unaware the basis of this "organisation" as you like to call it does not permit such atrocities.

The correct and most sane thing to do would be to find, prosecute and punish the PEOPLE involved.

Mob-mentality only makes your point look stupid im afraid.

Have to say, even though I think we shouldn't hold all clergy accountable, I agree with what The Dark Side is saying: he's not focusing on religion, rather organised religion, the institutionalisation of it. And the relics he talks about are part of same.

the_dark_side · 28-05-2009 9:07pm

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes because the religion itself caused this abuse.......

When will people ever get that it was PEOPLE who were abusing their position of trust and not the religion itself. In case your unaware the basis of this "organisation" as you like to call it does not permit such atrocities.

The correct and most sane thing to do would be to find, prosecute and punish the PEOPLE involved.

Mob-mentality only makes your point look stupid im afraid.

A quick look at some of the low points in the Catholic churches history

1. The Vatican Ratline (providing safe passage of WW2 Nazi criminals to Argentina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gLJFRQUy2o

2. The Spanish Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

By the way, I am NOT hitting out at the many good people who are working for the church, helping the many worthy world causes. They cannot influence or change the institute for whom they work for. They joined in good faith and continue to do good work in its name.

Biggins · 28-05-2009 9:08pm

To get an inkling as to how these things can come about, even though its America based, I recommend you watch (if you can stomach it) "Deliver Us From Evil".
Its an eye opener of a documentary film as to just how these things were/are allowed, hidden, perverts smuggled and how they (the church) bends governments to their will!
Shocking stuff - you are warned - if you watch it.

Moving from one parish to another in Northern California during the 1970s, Father Oliver O'Grady quickly won each congregation's trust and respect. Unbeknownst to them, O'Grady was a dangerously active paedophile that Church hierarchy, aware of his predilection, had harboured for over 30 years, allowing him to abuse countless children. Juxtaposing an extended, deeply unsettling interview with O'Grady himself with the tragic stories of his victims, film maker Amy Berg bravely exposes the deep corruption of the Catholic Church and the troubled mind of the man they sheltered.

philologos · 28-05-2009 9:15pm

the_dark_side wrote: »

level all churches and grind them into sand, take down all your bleeding heart of jesus pictures, crucifixes and statues and build a bonfire. We cannot continually surround ourselves with symbols of dark and wicked institute.

This is outright disgusting, and is bordering upon hate speech. This is the kind of tripe that people actually used to justify religious hatred in the 20th century, particularly in the case of the Soviet Union.

Do you expect to defeat hate by propogating more hate?

Edit: The fact that this was thanked twice is also disturbing.

the_dark_side wrote: »

The RCC found the perfect formula for "evil" it seems. Part of the formula: take men, remove marriage, remove women from any decision making, create a global hierarchy controlled by a state within a state (thus immune from any law).

This isn't true. I disagree with the celibacy restriction in Catholicism on religious grounds, but your post isn't really interested in the Church, it's more interested in hatred of adherents and their practices. I prefer the policy of supporting Diarmuid Martin and getting behind the effort to help the Catholic Church deal with this issue and to let us move forward from it instead of backwards.

the_dark_side wrote: »

Begin by annihilating millions of competing "heathens," aka European women, and practice that age old creed: kill one and the world weeps, kill millions and it barely notices.

Many ideologies have been responsible for murder, from state atheism, to manipulating Christianity, to manipulating Islam. Oh yeah, and killing people for their race, for being of Jewish ethnicity, of even being in a different social class to them. Unfortunately these things happen, but preaching hatred against religious adherents is wrong whether they be Catholic or Buddhist.

the_dark_side wrote: »

And make sure to insist there is only one way to salvation...their way. Add immense guilt, bordering itself on child abuse, to assure compliance.

Actually, that's Jesus' claim not the churches:

John 14:6-7 wrote:

Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Matthew 7:13-14 wrote:

‘Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

the_dark_side wrote: »

Convert by force, subject governments to influence of the papacy. Infuse police forces, unions, and any other social mechanisms with your followers.

Blame the adherents I see? Even when in most cases the adherents are not responsible for what happened within the religious orders in Ireland.

the_dark_side wrote: »

Don't ever question the Church.

Oh do so gladly, but do not propogate hatred about anyone involved with it.

the_dark_side · 28-05-2009 9:26pm

Apologies for my opening line in my post above. The Ryan report has infuriated me.
It was not my intention to offend, and yes, maybe my opening line was over the top. I will edit it now.

This short video is a real eye opener, and by the way, the intro in the first minute is a bit hard hitting at the church, but the rest is well documented fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSyFSZjApc&feature=related

This is the end of my contribution

Chre59 · 28-05-2009 10:03pm

the_dark_side wrote: »

Apologies for my opening line in my post above. The Ryan report has infuriated me.
It was not my intention to offend, and yes, maybe my opening line was over the top. I will edit it now.

This short video is a real eye opener, and by the way, the intro in the first minute is a bit hard hitting at the church, but the rest is well documented fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBSyFSZjApc&feature=related

This is the end of my contribution

Personally I don't think you needed to apologise or remove the first line of your post. It showed your disgust and anger at this organisation.

After Saddam Hussein's regime was toppled in Iraq, I clearly remember the people of Iraq tearing down a statue of him. So by tearing down the churches and removing icons this would be done for a similar reason.

I am a catholic but I don't need a church or icons to talk to my God. In the bible Jesus says that a church is the people, not a building. When he found that the religious leaders where using the temples for their own gain he started to break it up throwing around the fixtures and fittings.

Mark 11:17
And he taught, saying to them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but you have made it a den of thieves.

Isn't this what the current crop of religious leaders have done, as the have robbed innocent people of their basic human rights.

El Siglo · 29-05-2009 1:00am

All I'm going to say on this matter further is somewhere along the lines of Eamon Dunphy discussing Michael Carrick, "Was Carrick good for United or was United good for Carrick", now what I'm saying in this analogy is; were these evil, degenerate priests and nuns already child abusers or pertain to being child abusers before they entered the church or did the church condition them to being abusers? Bear in mind, there is a gray area on this and it isn't exactly such an easily defined dicothomy. Now we could talk till the cows come home about the dark iconography and celibacy of the church, but really is there a chance that maybe joining the church was better for these child abusers, than it was if they went it alone? To be fair, the church as an institution doesn't have any saving graces, but to blame it on creating child abusers is a little rash, I'm just opening up the possibility that the church was a 'venue' which provided a secure sanctuary for these people as opposed to creating them, now I do accept it did play apart in conditioning them further, but I think if you're born a paedophile, grow up with a rather unusual take on sexuality etc... then you're going to at some stage act on it, with or without being a priest or a nun. The church, given Ireland's history and the place of the church in society provided a sanctuary in that; the church will take you in as a priest or a nun, if you turn out to be a paedophile then in order for the church to keep its place in society and save face the church can't allow you to be exposed as a child abuser thus will try to cover up the situation, so in a manner of speaking the church harboured as opposed to directly creating child abusers, also the church needed young men and women with some education to run its schools and to be sent on the missions, it could be picky and choosy but it still needed recruits (remember Ireland was a third world country up until the 1990s, so instead of loosing possible priests to emigration, they needed as many recruits as possible, especially men who would become priests as they had a decent level of education which could have been lost to emigration). I think if we had some other institution, which had a hegemony, needed people to join it, the same circumstances would emerge. So, really joining the church as a priest or nun meant that:

On the child abusers side: No convictions, total security, place to fulfill sexual goals,

*On the church side: Plenty of recruits, 'shotgun' on recruitment (i.e. tolerable for the church to put up with a 'few bad apples' given the high numbers of 'normal' clergy);

Really, it was a 'win-win' on both sides, so long as everyone kept quiet, especially the children.

We should now focus on; prosecutions, seizure of assets, compensation, constitutional amendments to include the rights of the child, mandatory sentences, better monitoring of convicted abusers, reports on the extent of abuse from Irish clergy abroad and the general re-education of people in this country on the dangers of child abuse, the damage it causes in not just clerical child abuse but all child abuse, because not all child abusers wear dog collars and can be identified as easily. Unfortunately, child sex abuse in particular appears to be a little taboo and it is something that needs to be discussed more openly as there are still people out there who want to bury their heads in the sand, this must end if we are to ever move on as a society.

*The Christian Brothers, appear to have much more 'conditioning', given they were young joining, probably abused themselves (although the Brothers interviewed in the Report appear to play their cards close to their chest on this matter) etc... more than any other order it appears to be the one which was more conducive to child abuse if you read the chapter of the Commissions Report on the Christian Brothers and this can be supported by the facts that the Christian Brothers abused more children than any other order, this point could be argued by the extent of the Christian Brothers in Ireland and their large numbers but reading the recruitment from the report there is some evidence that there was a greater possibility of developing paedophiles and child abuser.

Wibbs · 29-05-2009 9:27am

Chre59 wrote:

It's like asking Jewish survivors to live in a country where Nazi's are still held in high esteem

Brilliant and accurate analogy.

One bit that both fascinates and disturbs me, is the scary proportion of particularly Irish clergy involved in this worldwide. Is this some function of the old catholic ireland culture and it's effect on men? And we do have a different catholicism here compared to say the latin countries. Ours is a dour grey one, like our weather. With a side order of whiny vale of tears going on. Compare it to Italian catholicism, or spanish or portugese. We have the procession of the host and it was a bunch of oul wans headscarfed against the elements and any colour in their lives intoning the rosary. They have mad processions with statues and dressing up, exuberance and and not a little drink. Life affirming in other words. They have a lot less of the kiddy fiddling going on too.

And people defo knew this stuff was going on, looong before it came out in the open. I recall as a kid in school in the 70's getting into trouble for calling a priest a wánker. Now I was a kid, so lashed out with a "dirty word". As kids will do. Looking back the guy was actually cool and a decent sort. In fact he didn't create much of a fuss over it. But I remember my dad taking me aside and asking me pointed questions re the word and the guy in question. He was digging to see if there was more to it than childish boldness.

The forelock tugging and acceptance of the clergies power was very strong even then. Massively so. I remember my dad again taking a priest to task in a pretty minor way over something and the neighbours and family were shocked and horrified that he would even think of it. I clearly remember him saying "so what? He's just another man, what's the big deal? Gasps all around. And he was the religious type, but lived all over the world so maybe had that detachment from that.

I would say they held pretty serious sway until the early 80's. I found an RTE guide from 1980 and the amount of programmes about religion or the clergy and even programmes fronted by the clergy is truly weird. It was just a part of our lives. It's peak was the pope flying in. I was at that and it was amazing the numbers streaming into the phoenix park. If you tried that in the 90's or today? Much smaller numbers. Though I think many might be surprised how many would show up.

The moving statues mass hysteria in the mid 80's was the last twitch of it and then slowly came the revelations that broke their hold. That and I think our greater confidence in the world and our greater exposure to it. The success of someone like U2 even had an effect. I would say a strong one re our confidence. We suddenly got more TV channels as well for a start. May sound a bit mad to an 18 year old now, but outside dublin and even within, the choice was limited. If you weren't on the "Piped TV", RTE was your lot pretty much(with BBC wales/UTV if you had a big enough aerial). I even knew a couple of schoolmates in Dublin without a phone. Traveling beyond dublin, the place was even more backward. Crazily so in places for a modern european nation. I think we forget how out of touch we were compared to say Britain. In a cultural vacuum like that is it any wonder the clergy held such power.

mloc · 29-05-2009 9:32am

I would argue that the orders both conditioned and bred Brothers for abuse. As was documented, younger brothers were indoctrinated and instructed by older brothers on methods of abuse. Most brothers entering the orders would have done so at a very early age, with limited experience of the outside world as an adult. Thus they were highly malleable, easily influenced and the innate culture of abuse easily impressed upon them.

As for sexual abuse, the pervasiveness of this within the orders could easily pass from older members to younger given the intimacy of living arrangements and group mentality of the orders.

Tha Gopher · 29-05-2009 9:40am

Ive been out of the country but why the hell is this such earth shattering news back home? Via trials (out of curiousity what percentage of the priesthood were ever charged anyone know?), inquiries, media interviews etc etc the extent of this has been common knowledge since the early 90s! It is like a German government enquiry held today concluding the Nazis were a nasty bunch.

philologos · 29-05-2009 9:51am

Thanks for your posts Wibbs, just a few things that took my questioning however:

Wibbs wrote:

What is the truth in all this? I look to a maybe strange source for some. Machiavelli and his take on effectual truth. The truth as put forward by the church is that they are the conduit for the person they claim as their God and their reason to be. The effectual truth is that for the vast majority of it's history it has been a purely political/economic force. End of. Oh sure a great many of it's genuine adherents were and are looking to a higher truth for themselves. All good, but as I say look at the reality.

This is clearly an atheistic understanding. I don't think because someone says that God is not the reality doesn't mean it is actually the case. That goes for you and Machiavelli.

Wibbs wrote:

The forelock tugging and acceptance of the clergies power was very strong even then. Massively so. I remember my dad again taking a priest to task in a pretty minor way over something and the neighbours and family were shocked and horrified that he would even think of it. I clearly remember him saying "so what? He's just another man, what's the big deal? Gasps all around. And he was the religious type, but lived all over the world so maybe had that detachment from that.

Brilliant. Questioning should have been encouraged in the Catholic Church at the time. Those priests were just men. Exactly what they were.

Wibbs wrote:

I would say they held pretty serious sway until the early 80's. I found an RTE guide from 1980 and the amount of programmes about religion or the clergy and even programmes fronted by the clergy is truly weird. It was just a part of our lives. It's peak was the pope flying in. I was at that and it was amazing the numbers streaming into the phoenix park. If you tried that in the 90's or today? Much smaller numbers. Though I think many might be surprised how many would show up.

I don't see what is so shocking about the TV part considering that our British neighbours still show Songs of Praise on a Sunday afternoon. Anyhow, I actually don't see how any of the above is a bad thing. I consider the abuse to be horrid, but I don't see how this is essentially bad.

CiaranC · 29-05-2009 9:57am

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Ive been out of the country but why the hell is this such earth shattering news back home? Via trials (out of curiousity what percentage of the priesthood were ever charged anyone know?), inquiries, media interviews etc etc the extent of this has been common knowledge since the early 90s! It is like a German government enquiry held today concluding the Nazis were a nasty bunch.

Have you read the report?

Dyr · 29-05-2009 9:59am

Thing is it wasnt just the religious institutions who were at the this, the state (ie US) were the same. Back then in Ireland the professional classes and the authorities were above reproach, in some ways they still are.

My old man worked in one of the institutions (state run) named in this report and he did his best to have it shut down when he saw how it was run. The government at the time did its utmost to shut him up, he was fired and told it would seen to that he'd never get a job in this country again. He was threatened with imprisonment under the official secrets act. He had heavies showing up at his door making threats. That wasn't the church, that was our government. That was ministers who are now retired or dead with their reputations as great servants of this country secure.

Yeah the church was probably the greatest embodiment of this abuse but the press have zoomed in on them and ignored the others because it suits their agenda. Having said that, there is absolutely no way the church can absolve itself of the blame of harbouring paedo's in their midst. There is no relative set of values they can claim that existed back then that made such abuse acceptable. It was wrong, it was always wrong, and the bishops knew it which makes them just as culpable as the orders.

homeOwner · 29-05-2009 10:17am

I dont understand how doctors who must have been involved in treating a large number of these kids, didnt do something about it. They must have seen the bruises and the fear in their eyes. How can they have looked the other way? I simply do not understand it.

There is a letter in today's indo from a woman who's father did some maintence work in Artane and tells of how he pulled a CB away from a boy he was severly beating, twice in two days. The letter says the man was so angry he reported it to his local priest.:eek: Why did this man not go to the police? His intentions were good, but it defies logic that people let this behaviour go unreported and walked away thinking that it was sufficient to leave it in the hands of a local priest.

Wibbs · 29-05-2009 10:32am

Jakkass wrote: »

This is clearly an atheistic understanding. I don't think because someone says that God is not the reality doesn't mean it is actually the case. That goes for you and Machiavelli.

Well I would be an agnostic not an atheist. A difference to me anyway. Both atheists and theists are cock sure of their position. I've never trusted the man who is convinced he's right and is convinced others are wrong. Fair play if that's their bag. Not mine though.

Anyhoo.... outside of all that, any objective view of the history of the christian faith up to the reformation, IE roman catholicism, clearly makes it overwhelmingly a political and economic force as an organisation. Oh yes people believed in the higher calling, but the reality was(and is) that higher calling was consistently used as a means of building power, by those within it and those without. Hell it kicked off that way when Constantine had his road to damascus moment and brought a minority religion into the fold of the political. A minority religion that it has to be said wasn't political or indeed economic. Give unto caesar that which is caesars/my kingdom is not of this earth etc. A decided split between faith and state right there and straight from the guy himself. They also handily avoid the whole "give up all and follow me" lark. Must not include banking organisations, land and other stuff.

Nor did I say God was not the reality. Indeed I would take God out of it entirely when looking at the objective reality of the organisation. Look on the catholic church as just another state fighting for economic and political power and there exists little or no difference. Even it's hierarchy is based on the roman political model. The biggest difference would be that as well as direct command of armies(which they had) they had indirect command of armies of their faithful. I would call Islam on the same thing, only they're more honest about it from the get go. Mohammed was as much a political entity as a religious one. God may be behind the curtain of it all, but the curtain and access to it was tightly controlled and restricted by the church for the guts of 1200 years and after.

Actually was not a lot of this the reason a load of chaps got ticked off and started protesting...

Brilliant. Questioning should have been encouraged in the Catholic Church at the time. Those priests were just men. Exactly what they were.

Oh I agree, but questioning in the church, even after vatican two was not exactly encouraged. Before that even less so. Much less so. To question would mean answers to thorny questions would have to be given. They got fierce twitchy about that, especially after a german lad nailed thorny questions to a church door.

I don't see what is so shocking about the TV part considering that our British neighbours still show Songs of Praise on a Sunday afternoon. Anyhow, I actually don't see how any of the above is a bad thing. I consider the abuse to be horrid, but I don't see how this is essentially bad.

What was shocking was the monocultural aspect to it and the sheer amount of it. Seriously every damn day on radio and TV there was some church representative. Even fronting sports shows. Mad. Songs of praise on a sunday doesn't compare. It would only compare if some curate was being asked apropos of nothing his opinion on the FA cup, just because he was a curate. Any force that holds that much sway and is written through a culture like a stick of rock is not healthy for that culture, nor for the force itself. It becomes encircled tighter and tighter and human nature being what it is the bullshít gets stronger not weaker. Any healthy culture has many influences or access to same. That way the culture has the chance to reject or accept with some degree of choice.

Malari · 29-05-2009 10:34am

homeOwner wrote: »

I dont understand how doctors who must have been involved in treating a large number of these kids, didnt do something about it. They must have seen the bruises and the fear in their eyes. How can they have looked the other way? I simply do not understand it.

There is a letter in today's indo from a woman who's father did some maintence work in Artane and tells of how he pulled a CB away from a boy he was severly beating, twice in two days. The letter says the man was so angry he reported it to his local priest.:eek: Why did this man not go to the police? His intentions were good, but it defies logic that people let this behaviour go unreported and walked away thinking that it was sufficient to leave it in the hands of a local priest.

Because now it is unthinkable that you should do this to a child. All this happened in an atmosphere where hitting kids was normal and the church was beyond question.

If you reported a beating to an adult you were more than likely told you must have done something very bad to deserve it!

Carlow52 · 29-05-2009 10:41am

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Ive been out of the country but why the hell is this such earth shattering news back home? Via trials (out of curiousity what percentage of the priesthood were ever charged anyone know?), inquiries, media interviews etc etc the extent of this has been common knowledge since the early 90s! It is like a German government enquiry held today concluding the Nazis were a nasty bunch.

I was going to ask
To what country do you refer as u say u have been out of the country and then refer to back home.

Bu then I read you signature:

<"Politically correct" is a politically correct term meaning retarded. >

And all was revealed.

WindSock · 29-05-2009 10:58am

Wibbs wrote: »

Ours is a dour grey one, like our weather. With a side order of whiny vale of tears going on. Compare it to Italian catholicism, or spanish or portugese.

I asked an Italian woman about Catholicism affects Italian society, she told me it is more family based. Not sure what she meant but probably focusses more on instilling family values rather than clergy worship or something.

philologos · 29-05-2009 11:51am

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I would be an agnostic not an atheist. A difference to me anyway. Both atheists and theists are cock sure of their position. I've never trusted the man who is convinced he's right and is convinced others are wrong. Fair play if that's their bag. Not mine though.

One can be convinced that they are right and still listen to anothers point of view. I have a good few friends who have a similar belief to you on the issue of faith and religion. I've overall found your posts to be quite interesting, and my response wasn't meant to gloom or doom your posts, infact look how little I quoted from them

Wibbs wrote: »

Anyhoo.... outside of all that, any objective view of the history of the christian faith up to the reformation, IE roman catholicism, clearly makes it overwhelmingly a political and economic force as an organisation.

I agree with you here. Although I haven't read the book, apparently Augustine in his City of God was the first writer in Rome to command a separation between Christianity and the operation of the Government, because people had blamed Christianity for the fall of the Roman Empire. This is the way the issue was also handled in early Christianity concerning Paul. There was a degree of separation from the Christian community and the rest of society which I think is something that should be thought about now and again. As to the degree of that separation that is commanded from the world in the Bible people always debate over. The Amish took it to the extreme and decided to keep to themselves and rarely venture out into society.

I think if you step out into the world too often with your values particularly in deciding the affairs of others legislatively you remove the aspect of commitment, it becomes merely "just another thing you do" rather than having any mean of value. This is what I feel has happened to the Catholic Church, and certain other churches. I would argue for a while the Church of England and other Anglican churches fell into this leading for a rise in Methodism (by the Wesley brothers) from the church.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh yes people believed in the higher calling, but the reality was(and is) that higher calling was consistently used as a means of building power, by those within it and those without.

I agree. You will get people saying this, but unfortunately people with an agenda don't like to separate the corruption, from the people believing in the higher being and in the vision of Jesus Christ. This is what I find sad about it really.

Wibbs wrote: »

Hell it kicked off that way when Constantine had his road to damascus moment and brought a minority religion into the fold of the political.

I agree here totally.

Wibbs wrote: »

A minority religion that it has to be said wasn't political or indeed economic. Give unto caesar that which is caesars/my kingdom is not of this earth etc. A decided split between faith and state right there and straight from the guy himself.

I agree, I'm fine with separation of church and state as long as people don't claim it as a reason to separate faith from the people. Things such like the headscarf ban in France and Turkey in schools are sickening because they don't allow for people to practice their faith freely.

Wibbs wrote: »

They also handily avoid the whole "give up all and follow me" lark. Must not include banking organisations, land and other stuff.

I agree. As for give up all and follow me there is a controversy in Christianity concerning the meaning of that. Jesus says you cannot serve God and wealth and I agree. He also says that you cannot live by bread alone but from every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord, however one must also live by bread. People also confuse the passage of the rich man to say that all Christians should give up all of their wealth, however in context, Jesus is saying because the man is rich, he should forsake his wealth and put God first. The problem with that man was not that he had money, but that the money became God. Work can become God, lust can become God, selfishness can become God. People often think of an idol as a physical thing that people worship, but people can make idols for themselves every day!

Wibbs wrote: »

Nor did I say God was not the reality. Indeed I would take God out of it entirely when looking at the objective reality of the organisation.

Yes, if you assess the Catholic Churches actions as separate from Christianity this is fine. If you are going to separate God from it however, you must also separate the Christianity from it too. You sound reasonable, I think you'd be with me here?

Wibbs wrote: »

I would call Islam on the same thing, only they're more honest about it from the get go. Mohammed was as much a political entity as a religious one. God may be behind the curtain of it all, but the curtain and access to it was tightly controlled and restricted by the church for the guts of 1200 years and after.

Indeed, this is a good point, and I was reading a book on the First Crusade by Robert Runciman, he commented that many converted to Islam because they saw the hypocrisy of the faith that used violence but yet preached peace, but preferred the faith that supported the use of violence to conquest lands for Islam. Although a lot of Muslims would disagree with this view it's an interesting bit of food for thought even if this was flawed and mistaken.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually was not a lot of this the reason a load of chaps got ticked off and started protesting...

Probably

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I agree, but questioning in the church, even after vatican two was not exactly encouraged. Before that even less so. Much less so. To question would mean answers to thorny questions would have to be given. They got fierce twitchy about that, especially after a german lad nailed thorny questions to a church door.

That was the biggest problem of it all in my opinion. However maybe this is my bias showing, but I think that we need a means of assessment that isn't based on flawed man for how we should live and conduct our lives.

Wibbs wrote: »

What was shocking was the monocultural aspect to it and the sheer amount of it. Seriously every damn day on radio and TV there was some church representative. Even fronting sports shows. Mad. Songs of praise on a sunday doesn't compare. It would only compare if some curate was being asked apropos of nothing his opinion on the FA cup, just because he was a curate. Any force that holds that much sway and is written through a culture like a stick of rock is not healthy for that culture, nor for the force itself. It becomes encircled tighter and tighter and human nature being what it is the bullshít gets stronger not weaker. Any healthy culture has many influences or access to same. That way the culture has the chance to reject or accept with some degree of choice.

Yeah, I get you now. I think part of what I like about Christianity is that it is a personal pursuit and something that I can share personally with others rather than having it drilled into me by authority figures. I was actually quite surprised when I first decided to read the Bible how much I had never heard of it in my life before. Obviously I liked that and I want for everyone else to see that type of Christianity rather than the authoritarian sort.

Ultravid · 29-05-2009 7:23pm

I belive satan hates the Church and he corrupted many within the Priesthood to turn so many people against the Church, and harm the moswt innocent members of the Church.

To see how all this happened, I suggest anyone interested may read a book entitled 'Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church' by Michael S. Rose. (See it here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243604790&sr=8-1 )

It describes the sexually disordered culture within seminaries in America which laid the foundations for the abuse which took place there. The truth we must confront is one our popular culture and media is keen to deny. Disorder begets disorder.

I am sure similar problems would have afflicted the seminaries in Ireland and would account for these awful things happening.

But I think it would be a big mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If we think how the Church began, we may not loose hope: One of the apostles betrayed Jesus; another denied him; all but one of the others went home. There are great saints and sinners in the Church and this will be the case until the end of time.

God's love, mercy, and capacity to heal broken man is infinite and we should not loose this great hope. We must, as Christians, pray for the healing of the victims, and the repentance, conversion, and healing of the perpetrators, and the restoration of the Holy Catholic Church. It will happen.

xxmarymoxx · 29-05-2009 7:55pm

i believe the christanity forum is that way

mloc · 29-05-2009 7:56pm

Ultravid wrote: »

I belive satan hates the Church and he corrupted many within the Priesthood to turn so many people against the Church, and harm the moswt innocent members of the Church.

Oh dear.

Biggins · 29-05-2009 7:58pm

Ultravid wrote: »

I belive satan hates the Church and he corrupted many within the Priesthood to turn so many people against the Church, and harm the moswt innocent members of the Church.
...etc

Aaa ok. Fair enough. You have your faith and opinions on certain internal religious areas. I can peacefully respect that. I disagree with you on a number of points but I do so with the greatest of respect towards your faith.

I believe satan hates the Church and he corrupted many within the Priesthood to turn so many people against the Church, and harm the moswt innocent members of the Church.

So priests are just vessels of evil or become thus, are you saying? Not an intended insult, your point just needs clarification.

* Liberals Brought Corruption Into the Catholic Church - Aaa, no, they allowed the rest of us more free thinking to decide for ourselves (but that just my opinion). The quoted book is another persons opinion, not a proved fact.

God's love, mercy... It will happen.

Is there a saying that goes along the line "God helps those who help themselves" ? If we all just wait around for "IT" to happen, we better not hold our breaths too long.
So if the church or any organisation wants to help, they should get up off their knees, stop praying and actually call to those who are still suffering to do something more useful and physical and mentally productive!

Again, all stated with the greatest respect to you and your chosen faith.

Institutional abuse was "endemic".. - MERGED

Comments