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

Cloynes Report, Christianity, etc etc

Surion

Ok, I'm posting here as something of an 'act of contrition'. I'm in no way a 'believer' but I occasionally dip into the religious threads to view the discussions etc. Gives me my own moral compass.

This evening i read in the christianity forum, very little reference to todays report concerning abuses in the area, and so I posted in their 'prayers' and 'thanks givings' sections, respective requests for all those people who suffered in the above report (and many more, I know). Today, from an atheistic perspective it's hard to disagree with Mao's comments that "religion is poison". Surely this gives credence to the dangers of organised religion, and especially with any forms of authority invested in it. The adage, that it be better that ten guilty be freed to avoid 1 innocent wrongly convicted could be turned on its head here so that not even one should suffer at it's hands?

I don't believe in religion nor deity, but today, being Irish and from a standard Christian upbringing, I'm sickened to hear what others beliefs have led to. Even non Christians and/or atheists should be animated by all this if not for sake of 'humanity' itself??

Surion

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bob Cratchet

smokingman wrote: »

I think what Bobby means here is that he thinks the Pope should be locked up.
I, for one, would agree with him here.

If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, then yes, absolutely, goal them all, but by the same law, everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, like it or not that’s the law and a principal of justice. Try working without abiding by that principle in any organisation and see how you get on.

Morgans

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, then yes, absolutely, goal them all, but by the same law, everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, like it or not that’s the law and a principal of justice. Try working without abiding by that principle in any organisation and see how you get on.

Which law? Canon or State?

Isnt reasonable doubt used in certain circumstances?

Of course, hoping that the accused doesnt want to discuss harrowing details in public will help guilty get off.

Wouldnt it be nice if morality was the driving factor and not law. "beyond all reasonable doubt"

You dont get justice in court, you get law.

thegreengoblin

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own. All he ever seems to think of is how the Catholic church has been so badly wronged by the media. While I would expect little else from the church's unofficial spin doctor, he seems more pissed off than ever now.

Irish Independent,

Friday July 15th

By David Quinn

HOW many people in Ireland know that the clerical abuse scandals peaked in the 1970s and 1980s? How many know that of the several hundred allegations received by the church in the last two years, almost none relate to incidents that happened in the last 10 years?
How many know that a large section of public opinion grossly overestimates the number of child abusers in the priesthood, as a Royal College of Surgeons survey some years ago ascertained?
How many know that Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than comparable groups, which is what 'Newsweek' magazine discovered when it contacted US insurance companies to determine whether they charged a higher risk premium for Catholic priests than for other clergy?
How many know that the Cloyne Report itself acknowledges that the church's child-protection guidelines are better than the State's guidelines? It says that compared with the church's guidelines, the State's are "less precise and more difficult to implement".
It would be safe to bet that only a small proportion of the public could correctly answer the above questions.
The reason for this is that our media have no interest in making the answers known so instead we have a public that believes the phenomenon of child abuse is a particularly and peculiarly Catholic one.
The Irish church has rightly been excoriated over its child-protection failings.
The Vatican is also in the firing line. It is in the firing line because it has never made the Irish church's child-protection policy a part of church, or canon law, thereby making it mandatory, and because it has opposed mandatory reporting of child abuse allegations.
But in these two regards, the State's failures are identical to the Vatican's. The Irish State's child-protection policy, Children First, is only now being given a statutory footing and only now is the State adopting a mandatory reporting policy.
So if the Vatican deserves to be in the firing line, so does the State. But it is not in the firing line to anything like the same extent. Why not?
In fact, the State's failings in the field of child protection are manifold but they have never resulted in anything like the coverage, and therefore in anything like the degree of public outrage, given to the church's failings.
For example, a few years ago the government released a three-volume report dealing with the implementation of Children First.
Of those surveyed for it, only 16pc said the Children First guidelines were working well. Only 27pc said that the guidelines in respect of the handling of abuse allegations received by the State were being properly adhered to.
Most incredibly of all, when asked whether the HSE and the gardai were "acting in accordance with the Children First guidelines", only 13pc said 'Yes'.
This is why child-protection expert Geoffrey Shannon told RTE's 'Morning Ireland' yesterday that the failure to properly implement Children First has been abject, and it is why he accused the HSE of adopting an "a la carte approach" to the guidelines.
Similarly, the new director for child and family services in the country, Gordon Jeyes, said recently that Ireland doesn't have "a proper child-protection system".
But while there has been huge pressure on the church to get its house in order, nothing like the same pressure has been put on the State, even though the State's failure to properly abide by its own guidelines has been abysmal.
Shannon is currently presiding over an investigation into the deaths of 200 children in the last 10 years who were in the care of the State, or who were known to the State's care services.
These deaths, from violence, suicide, drug overdose, from possibly preventable diseases, have received nothing like the publicity the church scandals have received, even though they are still happening.
Shannon's report is due out some time in the autumn. When it comes out, will there be a press conference presided over by government ministers as there was with the Cloyne Report?
Will RTE broadcast the press conference live? Will its programmes feature one inveterate critic of the HSE after another? Will the first 20 minutes of its news at both 6.01 and 9pm deal with the report as was the case on Wednesday when the Cloyne Report was published?
Will there be a 'Prime Time' special? Will RTE commission several emotionally charged, two-part documentaries cataloguing the circumstances in which some of the 200 children died?
Will HSE employees who abjectly failed to protect children have to resign, or at least be named, as has rightly happened in the case of the church? Will the RTE board ask the station why it gives so much coverage to the church's child-protection failings and so little to the State's failings by comparison?
The answer to all these questions is no, because the unpalatable truth is that the only child-protection failures deemed worthy of saturation coverage are the failures of the church.

Morgans

Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.

I missed where he addresses Bishop Magee creating one report for the Vatican and one for the public in this?

When the state is proven to be involved in harbouring paedophiles and putting them in positions with access to other children, I'll admit he has a point.

Nodin

thegreengoblin wrote: »

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own. All he ever seems to think of is how the Catholic church has been so badly wronged by the media. While I would expect little else from the church's unofficial spin doctor, he seems more pissed off than ever now.

..........

...he can feel the pressure. Which is good.

Bottle_of_Smoke

have seen "the state at fault too" argument bandied about already.

Its kind of like the girl who got raped shouldn't have been walking down that alley in the first place line you sometimes hear.

Perhaps she shouldn't, and of course the state shouldn't have trusted the RC hierarcht with children.

Though sorry Davey, just like the rapist's crime is not reduced by the previous actions of another, neither is the churches crime in this instance. I'm sure you would claim you never meant that, but its clear your intentions are to take some heat off the church.

Turtwig

Did I read this right? He's asking a tonne of rhetorical questions? Is he claiming Church is victim of media? Is he actually complaining about current the lack of discussion of report into the failures of state in caring for 200 children? Isn't that report yet to be published? Is he claiming to foresee the future? Is Dave Quinn a psychic?:eek:

patjackman

Good god. Good god. The church is receiving undue attention because a) not as many kids are being abused by priests as there used to be, b) "hardly any" complaints against priests in Cloyne recently related to sexual abuse and c) a priest is as likely to abuse as a banker. Now I am a strong advocate for impartiality and balance and the need for we as a nation to take collective responsibility for the sins of the past. But to use the above arguments as a justification for balance?? Good god...

Dades

thegreengoblin wrote: »

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own.

I'm disinclined to give this man his own thread (albeit a critical one) when others are merged or moved.

(Also, I don't want to see his name on the first page every time I log on.)

tricky D

Malty_T wrote: »

Is he claiming Church is victim of media? Is he actually complaining about current the lack of discussion of report into the failures of state in caring for 200 children?

Heard him on NewsTalk this afternoon claiming pretty much that and trying to sling mud at previous governments. Also did a good job in deflecting the issues with the subject of the seal of confession which is barely relevant (leaving aside the argument as to whether that seal is more important than fucking up peoples' lives from childhood for carnal kicks). The irony is there was a previous interview about reputation mangement and damage limitation wrt News International and there he was popping up soon after using deflection of blame, red herrings, and other media damage limitation techniques and that even Murdoch's cronies haven't stooped to.

Just makes me more angry.

robindch

patjackman wrote: »

c) a priest is as likely to abuse as a banker.

The available evidence suggests that a priest is between 40 and 80 times more likely than a banker, to be a person who is (a) convicted of child-abuse, or (b) somebody against whom credible evidence of child-abuse has been lodged.

I realize that evidence isn't Quinn's strong point, but ignoring an average factor of 60 is stretching it even for him.

robindch

From the Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/papal-visit-in-doubt-as-relations-worsen-2822410.html

The Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

Nodin

...and though wrong, he seems to be right, if you follow me.

Doctor DooM

Pardon my ignorance... is it a crime to withhold potential evidence about abuse in Ireland?

Obstructing the course of justice or something?

Bob Cratchet

robindch wrote: »

From the Indo:

"Originally Posted by The Indo
A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/papal-visit-in-doubt-as-relations-worsen-2822410.html

Therein lies the biggest problem, everyone keeps taking about "the Church" whereas in reality it's a collection of independent Bishops.

axer

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance... is it a crime to withhold potential evidence about abuse in Ireland?

Obstructing the course of justice or something?

I don't think there was a specific law being broken so they are legislating for it now. But ffs having to legally force priests to do the right thing is a joke tbh and even at that a number of priests won't break the confessional seal because they will be automatically excommunicated requiring the pope himself to unexcommunicate them.

So basically they are being selfish b@stards putting their own interests before saving a child from from sexual abuse. Surely a morally good person would take the view "if I get excommunicated for saving a child from a destroyed life due to child abuse then so be it".

Bob Cratchet

axer wrote: »

So basically they are being selfish b@stards putting their own interests before saving a child from from sexual abuse. Surely a morally good person would take the view "if I get excommunicated for saving a child from a destroyed life due to child abuse then so be it".

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

Nodin

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Therein lies the biggest problem, everyone keeps taking about "the Church" whereas in reality it's a collection of independent Bishops.

Should he have breached church doctrine on abortion or gay marriage, I'd think you'd see just how "independent" he was.

Bob Cratchet

Nodin wrote: »

Should he have breached church doctrine on abortion or gay marriage, I'd think you'd see just how "independent" he was.

Not if he covered up abortion and gay marriage.

Delirium

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

not all confessions have to anonymous, my understanding is it's anonymous for joe public but not necessarily between priests and another priest/bishop.

and just thinking on it some more, I'm pretty sure someone can ask for confession and in that case the priest knows who is in the confessional.

Morgans

Isnt the confessional seal issue a huge red herring to deflect attention? Its an interesting what if question that should be made clear for the future BUT the reactions of the bishops/monseignor in the cloyne report were not as a result of confessions.

robindch

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ?

I'm going out on limb here, but I could imagine that one priest might go to another to confess about some abuse he's committed. And the second guy recognizes the other guy's voice.

I'm sure the church will find a way around that law. It always has before.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure the church will find a way around that law. It always has before.

Ignoring it tends to work.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Ignoring it tends to work.

Well, more precisely, pretending the law doesn't apply to you seems to do the trick:

The Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

I'd like to hear Mr Clifford explain exactly why he thinks that Irish Law shouldn't apply to an Irish Citizen for events that took place in Ireland.

axer

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

anonymous? When I was a teen in secondary school we never had annonymous confessions. We would be face to face with the priest and I know that many priests give confessions to other priests in this manner also. So please stop talking $hite.

The point here is that priests still think they should not report a most henous crime because of religious laws that they seem to think override civil law.

MrPudding

axer wrote: »

anonymous? When I was a teen in secondary school we never had annonymous confessions. We would be face to face with the priest and I know that many priests give confessions to other priests in this manner also. So please stop talking $hite.

The point here is that priests still think they should not report a most henous crime because of religious laws that they seem to think override civil law.

Additionally, even when confession was “anonymous” the priests knew most people and anonymity was really a bit of a joke. That said, because of the problems the church is having now, not enough priests for example, I think it is becoming more likely that a confession, in the traditional setting, might actually be anonymous. Priests have to cover multiple parishes now so are less likely to know everyone.

At the end of the day the seal of confession is a makey uppy rule which has no statutory weight. The church may have its own law, but that law is and must be subservient to the law of the land.

As a UK judge said in the case where a relate employee was seeking to have his desire to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation protected by the law, and I am paraphrasing here, “The law protects a person right to hold a religious belief, it should not protect the contents of that belief.” He went on to say that as a religious belief was a personal thing which may appear irrational to others, it could not form the basis of legal protection.

I like this opinion. It makes sense to me. If we apply it to the seal of confession then it is quite apparent that the seal of confession can and should be broken in cases where a reportable crime is confessed.

Will this stop people confessing? Maybe... But then so what? What if they don’t confess? What is the downside? If they confess and nothing happens or they don’t confess and nothing happens what is the difference?

MrP

Dades

Out of curiosity what's the law regarding lay-people?

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?
Is there a legal (rather than the obvious moral) obligation on me to tell the Gardaí?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?

I believe there's a legal requirement that citizens report crimes they're aware of, or of threats to commit crimes (remember during the Lisbon debate when a poster said they'd be voting on behalf of every (missing) person in the house he lived in and a kerfuffle was raised?)

My memory suggests that this was brought in about ten years back, particularly with reference to accountants being required to report suspicious accounts, but don't ask me to quote act + year though!

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

Out of curiosity what's the law regarding lay-people?

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?
Is there a legal (rather than the obvious moral) obligation on me to tell the Gardaí?

I was always under the impression that, at least in the UK, if you knew of a child being abused you had an obligation to report it. Now I am not so sure.

Perhaps it is one of those things that they think is so obviously, I mean really, if you found out about a child being raped would you really only report it if you were legally obligated to...

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

The church may have its own law, but that law is and must be subservient to the law of the land.

Worth bearing in mind McDowell's comment that "With respect to Irish Law, Canon Law has the same weight as a golf club's rules.".