Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

1…1415171920…48

Comments

  • #482
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Is it not possible to have threads on the Catholic Church that don't descend into sweeping generalisation and all-out Church/Catholic bashing.

    I think we would all do well to remember some simple facts;

    1.) Being a priest DOES NOT equal being a paedophile, evil etc etc. I wager the vast majority are honest decent men who simply want to serve their God and their people and would never dream of hurting a child.

    2.)The Catholic Church as a whole IS NOT responsible for the child abuse, the blame lies with a minority of sick monsters within it. You simply cannot tar everyone with one brush.

    3.)Remaining part of the faith DOES NOT equal condoning what happened and frankly it is offensive to suggest that believers, by virtue of being believers, are ok with child abuse and the cover up of it.

    So now your telling us you support a criminal organisation..
    The church proved it cannot police itself so its time the government and rightly so imposes the law of this republic on it.
    If I broke the law people would want me punished and the right thinking people of this nation want the church to be punished.
    If someone died on a building site, The construction company gets the blame even though its an accident, Whereas with the church it was no accident, it was deliberate so therefore in a just society the church must get punished.

    BTW I'm religious myself. So im not bashing the church for the sake of been anti religion, Its about justice and truth.


  • #483
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    charlemont wrote: »
    So now your telling us you support a criminal organisation..
    The church proved it cannot police itself so its time the government and rightly so imposes the law of this republic on it.
    If I broke the law people would want me punished and the right thinking people of this nation want the church to be punished.
    If someone died on a building site, The construction company gets the blame even though its an accident, Whereas with the church it was no accident, it was deliberate so therefore in a just society the church must get punished.

    BTW I'm religious myself. So im not bashing the church for the sake of been anti religion, Its about justice and truth.

    Where on earth did you get that from? I am as appalled by what was done to all those children as anyone.

    I support those good men and women who want only to do right and serve their God and people in the right way. I have no time for the monsters who abused children and those that covered it up.


  • #484
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    1.) Being a priest DOES NOT equal being a paedophile, evil etc etc. I wager the vast majority are honest decent men who simply want to serve their God and their people and would never dream of hurting a child.
    Correct.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    2.)The Catholic Church as a whole IS NOT responsible for the child abuse, the blame lies with a minority of sick monsters within it. You simply cannot tar everyone with one brush.

    Yes it is, it sheltered those monsters and facilitated their criminal acts
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    3.)Remaining part of the faith DOES NOT equal condoning what happened and frankly it is offensive to suggest that believers, by virtue of being believers, are ok with child abuse and the cover up of it.

    Yes it does, at this stage it is apparent that the roman catholic church , as a matter of ongoing policy, facilitated paedophiles in commiting their crimes and protected them from the law. If you choose to affiliate yourself with that organisation then you're lending them your support, you're okay with what they're doing. Bulls**t yourself otherwise but don't dare bulls**t anyone else.


  • #485
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    1.) Being a priest DOES NOT equal being a paedophile, evil etc etc. I wager the vast majority are honest decent men who simply want to serve their God and their people and would never dream of hurting a child.

    The issue here is with an institution that has deliberately withheld information on known sexual predators and in some cases actively assisted them in moving the predators to different parishes, thereby allowing the predator to prey on more victims who don't know his reputation.
    2.)The Catholic Church as a whole IS NOT responsible for the child abuse, the blame lies with a minority of sick monsters within it. You simply cannot tar everyone with one brush.

    Yes, it is, as it actively protected them and tried to withhold information. Just because all priests didn't actively engage in the acts doesn't mean that the institution isn't responsible.
    3.)Remaining part of the faith DOES NOT equal condoning what happened and frankly it is offensive to suggest that believers, by virtue of being believers, are ok with child abuse and the cover up of it.

    You may have a point here. However, giving money every Sunday and attending Church could be taken (by the general public and by the Church) as implying support for them. If my local library (desperately trying to think of an equivalent I have to the Church) was protecting paedophiles I would boycott it. Simple as that.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Where on earth did you get that from? I am as appalled by what was done to all those children as anyone.

    I support those good men and women who want only to do right and serve their God and people in the right way. I have no time for the monsters who abused children and those that covered it up.

    Then you would support this law, I presume? As would any right-thinking priest.


  • #486
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The question then arises, does this law impact on relationships such as solicitor-client, or doctor-patient, or TD-constituent?


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Bambi wrote: »
    Correct.


    Yes it is, it sheltered those monsters and facilitated their criminal acts



    Yes it does, at this stage it is apparent that the roman catholic church , as a matter of ongoing policy, facilitated paedophiles in commiting their crimes and protected them from the law. If you choose to affiliate yourself with that organisation then you're lending them your support, you're okay with what they're doing. Bulls**t yourself otherwise but don't dare bulls**t anyone else.

    Please don't pontificate to me, it only makes you appear arrogant and I am sure you are not.

    Less of the sweeping generalisations please. You cannot tar the whole church with brush whether you like it or not.

    I do not, never have and never will condone anyone who does any harm to any child. It sickens and appalls me.

    As I have said before I would not leave my job because my boss was outed as a paedophile, I would expect him to be the one to leave. So it should be with Church.


  • #488
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Toby Take a Bow wrote: »
    The issue here is with an institution that has deliberately withheld information on known sexual predators and in some cases actively assisted them in moving the predators to different parishes, thereby allowing the predator to prey on more victims who don't know his reputation.



    Yes, it is, as it actively protected them and tried to withhold information. Just because all priests didn't actively engage in the acts doesn't mean that the institution isn't responsible.



    You may have a point here. However, giving money every Sunday and attending Church could be taken (by the general public and by the Church) as implying support for them. If my local library (desperately trying to think of an equivalent I have to the Church) was protecting paedophiles I would boycott it. Simple as that.



    Then you would support this law, I presume? As would any right-thinking priest.

    Of course I support the law, did I say otherwise?

    I just people would dispense with sweeping unreasonable generalisations and try not to let their emotions run wild as they are apt to do when this topic comes up.

    Crys of 'hang them all' won't do a thing to help the victims.


  • #489
    Toby Take a Bow
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Toby Take a Bow


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    As I have said before I would not leave my job because my boss was outed as a paedophile, I would expect him to be the one to leave. So it should be with Church.

    Would you leave your job if your boss actively protected paedophiles and tried to move them around so that they could rape children in other departments? And if your boss refused to step down and tried to cover the whole thing up and also refused to pay even a significant percentage of the lawsuit given to the victims? And if this attitude was the official policy of the organisation you worked for? I would.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Of course I support the law, did I say otherwise?

    I just people would dispense with sweeping unreasonable generalisations and try not to let their emotions run wild as they are apt to do when this topic comes up.

    Crys of 'hang them all' won't do a thing to help the victims.

    I don't think it's a case of letting our emotions run wild. As has been stated numerous times before, it is the ethos of the organisation of the Church which allowed - and actively encouraged - this to happen. The Church is supposed to be a community made up of the followers of the Church. Obviously this is complicated by an overly dogmatic and despotic hierarchical structure. However, by continuing to attend mass and give money to this organisation, you are actively condoning their secretive and criminal nature in protecting paedophiles. Obviously not all priests (not even a significant minority of them) are paedophiles. However, in order for this to have been working on such a huge scale, a huge amount of priests must have known about this and kept quiet or even helped the authorities within the Church move around the priests.


  • #490
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I do not, never have and never will condone anyone who does any harm to any child. It sickens and appalls me.

    If you go to church (your gesture of support whether you like it or not) then you do condone it in my eyes.
    The church needs to rid itself of every single person who prevaricates on this issue. Until then...'good people' have no place there.


  • #491
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Please don't pontificate to me, it only makes you appear arrogant and I am sure you are not.

    Less of the sweeping generalisations please. You cannot tar the whole church with brush whether you like it or not.

    I do not, never have and never will condone anyone who does any harm to any child. It sickens and appalls me.

    As I have said before I would not leave my job because my boss was outed as a paedophile, I would expect him to be the one to leave. So it should be with Church.

    The catholic church is a single entity and hierarchy, so yes, we can tar the whole church with one brush.

    Crap analogy btw, It it turns out that your employer (not your boss) is facilitating child abuse and you know about it but choose to remain in their employment... that would be at odds with any claim to be appalled by child abuse.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Is it not possible to have threads on the Catholic Church that don't descend into sweeping generalisation and all-out Church/Catholic bashing.

    At this point it isn't. I think it is natural that people are furious, but at the same time it isn't reasonable to base legislation solely on fury, it must be written with reasonable consideration of any given problem. That's hugely important to remember.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    1.) Being a priest DOES NOT equal being a paedophile, evil etc etc. I wager the vast majority are honest decent men who simply want to serve their God and their people and would never dream of hurting a child.

    I agree.
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    2.)The Catholic Church as a whole IS NOT responsible for the child abuse, the blame lies with a minority of sick monsters within it. You simply cannot tar everyone with one brush.

    I don't agree here. In certain cases the heirarchy of the RCC are responsible. The Pope has himself been accused in some jurisdictions of covering up abuse. He has used his diplomatic immunity in some cases:
    In August Pope Benedict was personally accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas by Juan Carlos Patino-Arango in Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. He sought and obtained immunity from prosecution as head of state of the Holy See. Some have claimed that this immunity was granted after intervention by then US President George W. Bush. The Department of State "recognize[d] and allow[ed] the immunity of Pope Benedict XVI from this suit."
    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    3.)Remaining part of the faith DOES NOT equal condoning what happened and frankly it is offensive to suggest that believers, by virtue of being believers, are ok with child abuse and the cover up of it.

    I agree.


  • #493
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The question then arises, does this law impact on relationships such as solicitor-client, or doctor-patient, or TD-constituent?

    Read the thread.


  • #494
    wild_cat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭wild_cat


    Sharrow wrote: »
    /faceplam

    No pagans or witches were ever burned at the stake in this country.

    I didn't say they did. Two died during the witch hunts here. The catholic church burned witches at the stake though.. all over Europe.


  • #495
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The question then arises, does this law impact on relationships such as solicitor-client, or doctor-patient, or TD-constituent?

    It will. we don't have the text of the legislation yet, but the thrust is to put the Children First guidelines on a statutory footing.

    All of these privileged relationships are subject to some restrictions already, for example, certain diseases are mandatory reportable by doctors. The lawyer client privilege seems to me to be more difficult than the confessional one, but I think in the UK certain offences under the Prevention of Terrorism Act are reportable.


  • #496
    charlemont
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,725 ✭✭✭charlemont


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Please don't pontificate to me, it only makes you appear arrogant and I am sure you are not.

    Less of the sweeping generalisations please. You cannot tar the whole church with brush whether you like it or not.

    I do not, never have and never will condone anyone who does any harm to any child. It sickens and appalls me.

    As I have said before I would not leave my job because my boss was outed as a paedophile, I would expect him to be the one to leave. So it should be with Church.

    Would you leave if your Boss tried to force his beliefs on you such as Contraception was immoral, Homosexuality was evil and against nature, Sex before marriage was wrong.


  • #497
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Less of the sweeping generalisations please. You cannot tar the whole church with brush whether you like it or not.
    Do you think that the abuse scandals are just down to individuals behaving badly and/or do you think that there is some institutional failure in the RCC?


  • #498
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    dvpower wrote: »
    Do you think that the abuse scandals are just down to individuals behaving badly and/or do you think that there is some institutional failure in the RCC?

    A bit of both I'd say.


  • #499
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    charlemont wrote: »
    Would you leave if your Boss tried to force his beliefs on you such as Contraception was immoral, Homosexuality was evil and against nature, Sex before marriage was wrong.

    In response to this and other posts re my work/church analogy;

    If my boss/local priest was outed as a paedophile who repeatedly tried to force his views on me I would not walk out of a job I love just because he is a sick monster. Why should I pay for his sins? I would fully expect him to the one forced to leave.


  • #500
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    wild_cat wrote: »
    Read the thread.

    Oh yay, 30+ pages of ranty rant rant mcrant rant the ranteth

    Pass, I actually have a life.


  • #501
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    A bit of both I'd say.
    Seems reasonable to 'tar the whole church' in that case.

    If there is institutional failure leading to child abuse and/or cover up of child abuse then simply rooting out the bad apples won't work - the failing institution will just grow some more.

    So far the RCC seems not to be able to properly reform itself (e.g. it brings out a child protection framework but it fails to implement it). That's one of the reasons why we need mandatory reporting - we still can't trust the organisation to do the right thing. And its hard to see proper reform coming along when the head of the organisation is himself personally culpable.


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    In response to this and other posts re my work/church analogy;

    If my boss/local priest was outed as a paedophile who repeatedly tried to force his views on me I would not walk out of a job I love just because he is a sick monster. Why should I pay for his sins? I would fully expect him to the one forced to leave.

    It's not much of a response when you refuse to address the counter points. Very catholic though :P


  • #503
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,182 ✭✭✭dvpower


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    In response to this and other posts re my work/church analogy;

    If my boss/local priest was outed as a paedophile who repeatedly tried to force his views on me I would not walk out of a job I love just because he is a sick monster. Why should I pay for his sins? I would fully expect him to the one forced to leave.

    Given the tenure of the pope, a better analogy would be if the owner of your company had covered up abuse, would you leave because you could have no expectation that he will.


  • #504
    Bus77II
    Closed Accounts Posts: 159 ✭✭Bus77II


    I reckon in time these things wont happen as much as they did without being reported. People in general are more outspoken and watchful.


  • #505
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Bambi wrote: »
    It's not much of a response when you refuse to address the counter points. Very catholic though :P

    I have addressed the points being made, I just did it in as few words as possible to better get my point across.

    Less of the smart-ass crap please.


  • #506
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    dvpower wrote: »
    Given the tenure of the pope, a better analogy would be if the owner of your company had covered up abuse, would you leave because you could have no expectation that he will.

    Still no. Again why should I be the one forced out by his crimes?

    No-one has answered me this yet.


  • #507
    mackg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Oh yay, 30+ pages of ranty rant rant mcrant rant the ranteth

    Pass, I actually have a life.

    Considering someone asks this question on practically every page it wouldn't have taken long to have found out. I left this thread ages ago because it is going around in circles.

    Why don't you set boards to forty posts per page? Saves a lot of time.


  • #508
    mackg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,938 ✭✭✭mackg


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    Still no. Again why should I be the one forced out by his crimes?

    No-one has answered me this yet.

    Not getting back into this too much but you seem open to reasonable discussion, if the pope is found without doubt to have aided the covering up of paedophiles would you want him kicked out of the church?


  • #509
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    mackg wrote: »
    Not getting back into this too much but you seem open to reasonable discussion, if the pope is found without doubt to have aided the covering up of paedophiles would you want him kicked out of the church?

    Yes without a doubt.

    There is place in civilised society for anyone who in any way facilitates the abuse of children.


  • #510
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    mackg wrote: »

    Not getting back into this too much but you seem open to reasonable discussion, if the pope is found without doubt to have aided the covering up of paedophiles would you want him kicked out of the church?

    But the pope is God's representative on Earth, and so couldn't possibly be kicked out without putting that whole misguided belief structure at risk.

    If someone doesn't believe the above and thinks he should be kicked out then they're not actually catholic.


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    People have a right to religious freedom, it might make you unhappy and make you feel you are more intelligent by such posts.

    You seemed to have not seen that it is protected in the US by law and is in the UK by custom and practice.
    So the cobblers are with you as it is protected by law in the US

    Yup they do and i never claimed other wise. They just dont get to be above the law or out side of it. Do you want special rights for Goblins?


Advertisement