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…3536384041…48

Comments

  • #1112
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »

    A person's personal opinion can be different to their official / intuition opinion, that applies in all walks of life, and Bertone's personal opinion, if reported correctly, is wrong, and no doubt that's one of the reasons why Ratzinger made sure he co-authored the letter along with him.

    For someone who was looking for "proof" that casual "no doubt" is one HELL of a leap. There IS doubt, which is why we are having this discussion.

    I give everyone the benefit of the doubt until I'm provided with concrete evidence to the contrary, not opinion, not hyperbole, not hysteria, just facts.

    Untrue. Claiming there is "no doubt" is not the same as "giving them the benefit of the doubt. You have already made your mind up and are not open to the existence of the doubt.

    You were doing ok, untill you threw out that dung. I question no such right. I do question throwing around unfounded allegations as fact.

    Then don't claim that there is "no doubt".
    I would like to see Ratzinger appear before an international tribunal, where he has the proper opportunity to clear his name, and then each of the relevant cardinals in turn, until the guilty are separated from those telling the truth, and the facts are separated from the lies.

    Again the assumption that he CAN clear his name, rather than the open and neutral "find out the facts".

    Your wording is exposing your bias.


  • #1113
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    For someone who was looking for "proof" that casual "no doubt" is one HELL of a leap. There IS doubt, which is why we are having this discussion.

    Untrue. Claiming there is "no doubt" is not the same as "giving them the benefit of the doubt. You have already made your mind up and are not open to the existence of the doubt.

    Then don't claim that there is "no doubt".

    Again the assumption that he CAN clear his name, rather than the open and neutral "find out the facts".

    Your wording is exposing your bias.

    Sigh . . . .It's not about me Liam, its about the Pope.

    I've asked for proof of the allegations to be provided, because that is where the burden of proof lies, and so far, as usual, I've been provided with none. I have been provided with lots of hysterical opinion, mudslinging, hyperbole, semantics, tantrums, mis representation and misquotes, and ad hominem, but no proof. Nada.

    Everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, that's how the justice system works Liam, for you, me, the Pope and everyone else, and as soon as I'm provided with Proof, I'll be the first to ask for his head on a plate.

    Now is there anyone calm and clear enough out there to provide any factual proof rather than ad homiem ?


  • #1114
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Everyone is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, that's how the justice system works Liam, for you, me, the Pope and everyone else, and as soon as I'm provided with Proof, I'll be the first to ask for his head on a plate.

    Agreed. However you claimed that there was NO DOUBT. You categorically stated that it wasn't even a case if "reasonable doubt", and your phrasing suggested that there was absolutely no case to answer.

    There IS doubt, and a case needs to be made for and against his guilt.

    You cannot go around demanding proof from others while claiming that there "is no doubt", because that is quite obviously your personal opinion and is only as valid as the newspaper reports that you choose to dismiss offhand.

    There is doubt, and if the church didn't view itself as having a god-given right to be above the law, that doubt would be examined and decided on one way or the other.
    Now is there anyone calm and clear enough out there to provide any factual proof rather than ad homiem ?

    Less of the patronising holier-than-though waffle please.

    You have convinced yourself that the letter means one thing; others disagree.

    Is it proof? No. Is it doubt? Absolutely.


  • #1115
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Agreed. However you claimed that there was NO DOUBT. You categorically stated that it wasn't even a case if "reasonable doubt", and your phrasing suggested that there was absolutely no case to answer.

    There IS doubt, and a case needs to be made for and against his guilt.

    You cannot go around demanding proof from others while claiming that there "is no doubt", because that is quite obviously your personal opinion and is only as valid as the newspaper reports that you choose to dismiss offhand.

    There is doubt, and if the church didn't view itself as having a god-given right to be above the law, that doubt would be examined and decided on one way or the other.



    Less of the patronising holier-than-though waffle please.

    You have convinced yourself that the letter means one thing; others disagree.

    Is it proof? No. Is it doubt? Absolutely.

    Sigh . . .still making it about me and back onto the ad hominem yet again.

    The subject is the Pope's guilt.

    Liam, I could have a whole heap of doubts about you, but what would that mean ? Does it mean I can go round making claims about you ? No.

    It means your innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and like it or not, so is the Pope.

    So, when you've got some Proof, Liam come back to me, the burden of proof lies with the People claiming the Pope is guilty.

    So, I'll ask again, is there anyone calm and clear enough out there to provide any factual proof rather than ad homiem ?


  • #1116
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    The RCC has been clear on this matter.
    Allegations of sexual abuse must be reported to the civil authorities in this country.

    The Popes letter to the Irish RCC in March 2010 states

    "I asked the bishops of Ireland, “to establish the truth of what happened in the past, to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent it from occurring again, to ensure that the principles of justice are fully respected, and above all, to bring healing to the victims and to all those affected by these egregious crimes”

    "You (abusers) betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres. Those of you who are priests violated the sanctity of the sacrament of Holy Orders in which Christ makes himself present in us and in our actions"

    To the Irish Bishops " All this has seriously undermined your credibility and effectiveness. I appreciate the efforts you have made to remedy past mistakes and to guarantee that they do not happen again. Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence."


  • Advertisement
  • #1117
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »

    Sigh . . .still making it about me and back onto the ad hominem yet again.

    Because you're the one being completely blinkered and unreasonable.
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    The subject is the Pope's guilt.

    Liam, I could have a whole heap of doubts about you, but what would that mean ? Does it mean I can go round making claims about you ? No.

    Of course you can't make claims about me, because I didn't write a letter that appears to a neutral unbiased person to incriminate myself.

    If I had, then you could make claims about me, and it would be up to me to - I dunno - clarify or defend myself.

    That is how a real court works; looks at evidence and hears from all sides, and lets unbiased (and unthreatened with excommunication) people decide.

    You've chosen to interpret the letter in a way that suits your argument, to the point of claiming that there is no doubt; that is complete an utter rubbish because there is an obvious doubt as a direct result of the letter.

    If you cannot see that then there seriously is no point in discussion this rationally with you - you're like someone from FF who refuses to accept that Ahern's finances were dodgy and therefore needed to be examined in order to find out the truth, not to blindly accept it


  • #1118
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Because you're the one being completely blinkered and unreasonable.



    Of course you can't make claims about me, because I didn't write a letter that appears to a neutral unbiased person to incriminate myself.

    If I had, then you could make claims about me, and it would be up to me to - I dunno - clarify or defend myself.

    That is how a real court works; looks at evidence and hears from all sides, and lets unbiased (and unthreatened with excommunication) people decide.

    You've chosen to interpret the letter in a way that suits your argument, to the point of claiming that there is no doubt; that is complete an utter rubbish because there is an obvious doubt as a direct result of the letter.

    If you cannot see that then there seriously is no point in discussion this rationally with you - you're like someone from FF who refuses to accept that Ahern's finances were dodgy and therefore needed to be examined in order to find out the truth, not to blindly accept it

    Liam, your still at it, calm down, you'll burst a blood vessel, it's not about me, it's about the issue.
    The burden of proof lies with the people claiming the Pope is guilty.
    Now, back to the issue, have you any proof ?


  • #1119
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hinault wrote:
    Besides fully implementing the norms of canon law in addressing cases of child abuse, continue to cooperate with the civil authorities in their area of competence."

    Co-operate if they call around asking about it?

    What about reporting it to the Gardai themselves when they find out ? Where is that mentioned ?


  • #1120
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Co-operate if they call around asking about it?

    What about reporting it to the Gardai themselves when they find out ? Where is that mentioned ?

    Liam : The Popes letter is clear.

    The issue which needs to be addressed is why, having been told explicitly to report abuse, did Cloyne ignore this clear instruction?


  • #1121
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Suzie Sue wrote: »

    Liam, your still at it, calm down, you'll burst a blood vessel, it's not about me, it's about the issue.
    Now, back to the issue, have you any proof ?

    Yet again with the patronising crap. My blood vessels are fine, but I can see why everyone else gave up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

    Have you enough proof for YOUR claim about there being "no doubt" ?

    No, you haven't. But it didn't stop you saying it.

    Now I'm out - you can have the thread all to yourself now that you have patronisingly shouted down all voices that disagree with you, so go back to your pope that you have no doubts about and enjoy all that he represents.


  • Advertisement
  • #1122
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    hinault wrote: »

    Liam : The Popes letter is clear.

    The issue which needs to be addressed is why, having been told explicitly to report abuse, did Cloyne ignore this clear instruction?

    The pope's letter is far from clear.


  • #1123
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Sigh . . .still making it about me and back onto the ad hominem yet again.

    The subject is the Pope's guilt.

    Liam, I could have a whole heap of doubts about you, but what would that mean ? Does it mean I can go round making claims about you ? No.

    It means your innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and like it or not, so is the Pope.

    So, when you've got some Proof, Liam come back to me, the burden of proof lies with the People claiming the Pope is guilty.

    So, I'll ask again, is there anyone calm and clear enough out there to provide any factual proof rather than ad homiem ?
    Tell me, who do you think a just god will be more merciful towards, atheists condemning child abuse or those "faithful" tapdancing to defend child rapists? I have no doubts who will end up where.


  • #1124
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Yet again with the patronising crap. My blood vessels are fine, but I can see why everyone else gave up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you.

    Have you enough proof for YOUR claim about there being "no doubt" ?

    No, you haven't. But it didn't stop you saying it.

    Now I'm out - you can have the thread all to yourself now that you have patronisingly shouted down all voices that disagree with you, so go back to your pope that you have no doubts about and enjoy all that he represents.

    Liam, your at it again. It's not about me, it's about the issue.
    Liam, there is a thing called the golden thread of justice.
    That means everyone is innocent untill proven guilty beyond all resonable doubt.
    The burden of proof lies with those claiming the Pope is guilty.
    If you have any proof, I'll still be happy to discuss it with you.


  • #1125
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    The pope's letter is far from clear.

    You're entitled to your opinion.

    The RCC have issued guidelines about the reporting of alleged abuse and separately the Popes letter to the Irish RCC states unequivocally that the religious/order/collective church co-operate with the civil authoritities.


  • #1126
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Tell me, who do you think a just god will be more merciful towards, atheists condemning child abuse or those "faithful" tapdancing to defend child rapists? I have no doubts who will end up where.

    Are you seriously trying to say Catholics do not condemn child abuse ?
    What has atheism / theism got to do with it ?
    Who's defending child rapists ?


  • #1127
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    hinault wrote: »
    the Popes letter to the Irish RCC states unequivocally that the religious/order/collective church co-operate with the civil authoritities.
    You mean except for the part where the Pope's letter insisted that priests be protected from the consequences of child rape.


  • #1128
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Who's defending child rapists ?
    We have a long record of not just institutional abuse but institutional cover ups of that abuse. If you see fit to defend that record, I really wouldn't want to be you come judgement day.


  • #1129
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    We have a long record of not just institutional abuse but institutional cover ups of that abuse. If you see fit to defend that record, I really wouldn't want to be you come judgement day.

    Here we go again, more rubbish.

    Where have I defended it ?


  • #1130
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    You mean except for the part where the Pope's letter insisted that priests be protected from the consequences of child rape.

    Can you quote me that "excerpt"?


  • #1131
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    We have a long record of not just institutional abuse but institutional cover ups of that abuse. If you see fit to defend that record, I really wouldn't want to be you come judgement day.

    I would agree that Ireland has a history of child abuse and institutional covering up of same.


  • Advertisement
  • #1132
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    Here we go again, more rubbish.

    Where have I defended it ?
    See that dude in the frock? That's not your god, that's some dude in a frock. He may really want you to believe he's your god, but that just suckers in the weaklings.
    hinault wrote: »
    Can you quote me that "excerpt"?
    Why, are you unable to read the thread?


  • #1133
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    hinault wrote: »
    I would agree that Ireland has a history of child abuse and institutional covering up of same.
    Oho, so you're a racist now father? I don't know if I'll be able to make the rallies and all that though...


  • #1134
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Why, are you unable to read the thread?

    I'd like you to quote me the "excerpt" that you referred to earlier.

    I've already quoted Pope Benedicts letter to the Irish RCC in which he clearly tell the religious to co-operate with the civil authorities in these matters.

    Now can you put up?


  • #1135
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Oho, so you're a racist now father? I don't know if I'll be able to make the rallies and all that though...

    racist?
    Ireland has a long history of child sexual abuse and the covering up of same.

    Incidentally I'm born and bred in Ireland and have lived all my life here.
    so quit the attempt at cheap shots.

    You've got an "excerpt" to dig up remember?


  • #1136
    Suzie Sue
    Closed Accounts Posts: 187 ✭✭Suzie Sue


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    See that dude in the frock? That's not your god, that's some dude in a frock. He may really want you to believe he's your god, but that just suckers in the weaklings.

    1108845-godzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_face_palm_epic_fail_demotivational_poster_1245384435_super.jpg


  • #1137
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    hinault wrote: »
    racist?
    Ireland has a long history of child sexual abuse and the covering up of same.

    Incidentally I'm born and bred in Ireland and have lived all my life here.
    so quit the attempt at cheap shots.

    You've got an "excerpt" to dig up remember?
    Yes, because Ireland is genetically predisposed toward child abuse. Have you some problem with reading the thread? Because a short sighted racist just brings up more Goebbels than Hellen Keller, sorry...
    Suzie Sue wrote: »
    1108845-godzilla_facepalm_godzilla_facepalm_face_palm_epic_fail_demotivational_poster_1245384435_super.jpg
    I see the well considered arguments are out in force in this thread. It's almost as good as that "Min" creature, caught out numerous times perpertrating bald falsehoods in the thread, but still waiting for ten pages to pass before making a glorious comeback!

    Now where have I heard that before...


  • #1138
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Yes, because Ireland is genetically predisposed toward child abuse. Have you some problem with reading the thread? Because a short sighted racist just brings up more Goebbels than Hellen Keller, sorry...

    The frequency of abuse in this country does seem to be proportionally higher than many other countries.
    And as you said this country has a long history of covering up this sort of activity so the rate may well be significantly higher.
    What is racist about saying this?


    Amhran Nua : I don't have all day to wait around.

    Where is that "excerpt" you referred to earlier? (at the third time of asking).

    If you can't put up, I suggest you shut up.


  • #1139
    Amhran Nua
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    hinault wrote: »
    The frequency of abuse in this country does seem to be proportionally higher than many other countries.
    Awesome, that's not even slightly racist, father.
    hinault wrote: »
    I don't have all day to wait around.
    It's 3.45 am, for someone without all day to wait around you seem to be making an exceptional effort.


  • #1140
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    Awesome, that's not even slightly racist, father.

    Agreed it's in no way racist.
    It's a statement of fact made by an Irish person (me) about Ireland.:p

    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    It's 3.45 am, for someone without all day to wait around you seem to be making an exceptional effort.

    Glad you can tell the time.

    So still no "excerpt". Fine. I think we can dismiss your earlier claim as being bogus as usual.
    So ends this exchange.


  • Advertisement
  • #1141
    talkshop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13 ✭talkshop


    g-o-d is the opposite of a backwards d -o -g...


Advertisement