marienbad wrote: » The high water mark seemed to me to be the Popes's visit in to Galway in 1979. I am sure if you were a practicing catholic then everything seemed possible. But if you look at the great and the good on the podium that day and ask where are they now and you have a snap shot of all that was to follow- Bishop Casey, Fr Michael Cleary et al. .
StudentDad wrote: » I don't know what you're on about.
you justify the churches actions by claiming that the abuse is tolerable
You are defensive in the extreme. Perhaps you don't like it when someone says it how he sees it.
As regards the church and whether or not I should be humble? Get off the stage. First off I'm not promoting myself as the moral or other guardian of anyone
I have never had my own army or sent people into an area to kill anyone who didn't follow what I was prattling on about - the church did that.
The church expects people to 'believe' well sorry mate, it has to lead by example. Where are the public confessions?
The church is meant to be founded on conscience. Where is the churches conscience?
A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty -- so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.
marienbad wrote: » ...the overwhelming sense of betrayal the people feel . And why should this be so ? Well from the foundation of the state The Church saw itself at the heart of the State and insisted on being consulted on all sorts of stuff, education, health, family life, private life, books films even sport on occassion.
We were a Catholic State for a Catholic people , a shining light to godless England and the world. To see the full scale of it just look at those pictures from the Marian year (1951 I think) or those of the Limerick Confraternity . Brimstone fire and sword - Church militant, Church Triumphant indeed.
This was deliberate policy by the Church.
It is no argument saying the Church filled the gap left by the state in education and health- we both know that is only partly true. The fact is the Church was never going to cede primary influence in those areas. But then as Lord Acton tells us -power corrupts , and so it did.
The high water mark seemed to me to be the Popes's visit in to Galway in 1979. I am sure if you were a practicing catholic then everything seemed possible. But if you look at the great and the good on the podium that day and ask where are they now and you have a snap shot of all that was to follow- Bishop Casey, Fr Michael Cleary et al.
It is not just the sexual abuse ISAW - that was the nuclear bomb just waiting to explode- it was the sheer arrogance and double standards.
And when that bomb did explode the church was seen to lack compassion humility remorse and more interested in damage lmitation than the victims themselves.
But to address your specific point concerning the inordinate amount of attention put on the church. The percentages have nothing to do with it. The Catholic Church held themselves to a higher standard in Ireland and it is against that standard that they must be measured.
In the same way that wide spread corruption in the UK police force received much more attention that say in an equivalent sized corporation.
You cant have it both ways ISAW - demand to be the moral arbiters of a society and then not be held accountable to those standards you set for everybody else.
andyjo wrote: » It seems indeed as if many Priests have ....shady secrets, to use a phrase.
About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue[/U][/U][/COLOR][/B][/B].The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people "
In Ireland I doubt very much if 4 % of the population between 1950 and 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor.
...if that was the case the courts would have been swamped with work ! Whats worse than the 4% of those who were accused is the cover ups in the RCC.
Even as recently as only 3 days ago in the USA a catholic bishop was found guilty of cover up, if you look back a few dozen posts.
Imagine the scandal there would be if e.g. 4% of McDonalds employees, or golf club members were child sex abusers, and the management of McDonalds or the golf clubs covered up the abusers ? [/FONT] Yeah imagine is 4% of anyone was accused of something and overhype and twisting of it in just a few lines results in "accused" becoming reported as "convicted" and "no evidence of any conspiracy by management to cover up" becomes "management covered up" one bishop is 0.01% of management. If you have 10,000 managers and one is a criminal is that proof the whole company is involved in that crime?
marienbad wrote: » Hello ISAW , I never appplied to nor will I to the redress board
andyjo wrote: » In Ireland I doubt very much if 4 % of the population between 1950 and 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor.
ISAW wrote: » It isn't a "catholic source".
ISAW wrote: » Names dates?
andyjo wrote: » Its from the Catholic News Service, on a Catholic Website. I quote : [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Jay Study Reveals Extent of Abuse Problem[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years accused of abuse[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Agostino Bono Catholic News Service[/FONT]
Karen Terry, John Jay principal investigator for the study, said that "it is possible the bishops are not giving us everything."
Data provided to America by John Jay researchers seems to indicate that 65 percent of the allegations were investigated by diocesan officials, and that of this number 65 percent were judged “substantiated” by those officials, although the survey questionnaire had left the word undefined. The confusion over “substantiated” adds to the problems of Fig. 5.3.1, which was meant to report the response of bishops to “substantiated” allegations.
andyjo wrote: » I told you to look back a few dozen posts. If you look at post 2170 you will see . Indeed the bishops do not give the researchers everything!
Even as recently as only 3 days ago [i.e. 14th Cotober]in the USA a catholic bishop was found guilty of cover up,
KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Kansas City's Catholic bishop was charged Friday with not telling police about child pornography found on a priest's computer, making him the highest-ranking U.S. Catholic official indicted on a charge of failing to protect children.
Kansas City-St. Joseph Catholic Diocese Bishop Robert Finn, the first U.S. bishop criminally charged with sheltering an abusive clergyman, pleaded not guilty to one misdemeanor count of failing to report suspected child abuse.
ISAW wrote: » But it is ALL sexual abuse claims not just pedophiles. It included older teenagers.
andyjo wrote: » It does not matter.
TWENTY-TWO YOUNG people died while known to State child protection services over a nine-month period, according to new HSE figures. Four of the young people committed suicide, four died after drug overdoses and there were two cases of homicide. The HSE said these last two young people died as a result of fatal child abuse, not committed by a member of their family. There were also six deaths from natural causes and six from accidents, including road accidents. All of the 22 deaths took place between March and December 2010, and are revealed today in the first annual report of the HSE’s National Review Panel for Serious Incidents & Child Deaths, which was set up in 2010.
Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. You may think the rape of a 14 year old is less serious than the rape of a 5 year old.
Instead of the hierarchy covering up abuse of older children it should be reported as well. Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse?
marienbad wrote: » I am in no way denying the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church to this country . And we can go back and forth all day on the scale of and motives behind that contribution. An education system was on offer in the 19th century , just it was not a catholic education system.
We could have gone that route and we would most likely have a system similar to the rest of the UK.
It is our state I am interested in- we sought independance, we got it, so what did we do with it- that is all I care about- we now had complete responsibility. So how did we as a nation discharge it ?
Well the short answer is terribly badly .The ultimate responsibility for the failure of the state in these areas is the state. No question about that ,successive governments were glad to palm off their responsibilities on the Church .But there can be no denying the Church sought and received control over many areas of Irish life and had no hesitation in ruthlessly using that power in creating society as it saw fit.
It can be argued who is most responsible - the State or the Church- I would contend it was the state - but for now we are discussing the role of the Church.
And I want to measure the Church by the standards it set for everybody else. It is no defence to say the State , or the Gardai, or other religions or organisations did this that or the other, they may well have , but it is not relevant. It may provide context and background and mitigating circumstances, but that is all. We can open a thread of those entities if you like and I agree they wont measure very well, but for now we are discussing the Church .
After all when I commit a sin it is no excuse that everyone else is doing it, is it ?
Of course I am not saying Bishop Casey and Cleary abusers . I knew Father Casey long before he became a bishop and he was just an extraordinary man, a force of nature really, and I will always think of him with great affection. What I am saying is that by the 70's we had a state within the state that acted and believed as if it was above the law and the standards that applied to the rest of us. In that context Bishop Casey and Cleary are at the heart of this double standard and were living a life of deception for decades.
Such a climate of deception and unaccountability was the ideal scenario for what was to unfold.
marienbad wrote: » ISAW I don't want to get into a back and forth argument where every word and line is subject to forensic analysis . I am in no way denying the enormous contribution of the Catholic Church to this country . And we can go back and forth all day on the scale of and motives behind that contribution. For example your point on education is well taken but you are not giving the whole story, an education system was on offer in the 19th century , just it was not a catholic education system. We could have gone that route and we would most likely have a system similar to the rest of the UK. It was all about hearts and minds first and foremost. But this is to get sidetracked . It is our state I am interested in- we sought independance, we got it, so what did we do with it- that is all I care about- we now had complete responsibility. So how did we as a nation discharge it ? Well the short answer is terribly badly .The ultimate responsibility for the failure of the state in these areas is the state. No question about that ,successive governments were glad to palm off their responsibilities on the Church .But there can be no denying the Church sought and received control over many areas of Irish life and had no hesitation in ruthlessly using that power in creating society as it saw fit. It can be argued who is most responsible - the State or the Church- I would contend it was the state - but for now we are discussing the role of the Church. And I want to measure the Church by the standards it set for everybody else. It is no defence to say the State , or the Gardai, or other religions or organisations did this that or the other, they may well have , but it is not relevant. It may provide context and background and mitigating circumstances, but that is all. We can open a thread of those entities if you like and I agree they wont measure very well, but for now we are discussing the Church .After all when I commit a sin it is no excuse that everyone else is doing it, is it ? Of course I am not saying Bishop Casey and Cleary abusers . I knew Father Casey long before he became a bishop and he was just an extraordinary man, a force of nature really, and I will always think of him with great affection. What I am saying is that by the 70's we had a state within the state that acted and believed as if it was above the law and the standards that applied to the rest of us. In that context Bishop Casey and Cleary are at the heart of this double standard and were living a life of deception for decades. Such a climate of deception and unaccountability was the ideal scenario for what was to unfold.
andyjo wrote: » Well said. Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. 4,392 Priests. Thats the official figure admitted to on the Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp Yet we all know the real figure would be higher. How many people were accused of shop lifting in a given time period ? How many people were accused of speeding in a given time period ? The real percentages of those who committed the offences would unfortunately have been higher.
andyjo wrote: » Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse, according the report on child sex abuse. 4,392 Priests.
Thats the official figure admitted to on the Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
Yet we all know the real figure would be higher.
How many people were accused of shop lifting in a given time period ? How many people were accused of speeding in a given time period ? The real percentages of those who committed the offences would unfortunately have been higher.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » The golden thread and first principle of all justice is that everyone is innocent untill proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. Otherwise, I could easily accuse you of being anything and demand you prove to everyone you are otherwise.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
ISAW wrote: » I have pointed this out but it is continually ignored! Meanwhile over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed!
ISAW wrote: » 40% of the victims were between 14 and 17. so a little more than half could be regarded as "pedophile" in nature.
andyjo wrote: » This thread is "the clerical child abuse thread".
14 or 15 year old children being abused by Priests is also wrong, you know.
Thank God at least some of them had the guts to complain / report the Priest in question. Child abuse is wrong, very wrong, and attempts by yourself to diverty attention by pointing out deaths in state institutions do your argument no good. Set up a seperate thread on that if you want.
Actually, just as your "opinions" on clerical child abuse are as far wide off the mark as Chemical Ali's propoganda on the allies on the invasion of Iraq,
you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". The figure is much much lower,
and yes, there is interest expressed, inc by the state broadcaster : "The Health Service Executive has revealed that a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years, 18 of those from 'unnatural causes'.
A further 19 children died from natural causes and health-related conditions.
There had been calls for a full disclosure from the HSE following the death of Dublin teenager Daniel McAnaspie, who was murdered while in the care of the State.
Of the 18 deaths from 'unnatural causes': ■5 died from suicide ■5 deaths were drug related ■2 were unlawful killings ■3 died from road accidents ■3 died from other accidents"
Imagine if 4 percent of McDonalds workers or 4 per cent of golf club members ( as you specifically mentioned golf clubs) were accused of child sex abuse?
Its disgusting people, professional spin-docter or not, child abuser or not, would try to cover up or excuse the abuse of teenage victims aged 14, 15, 16 or 17.
ISAW wrote: » The old "i only want to talk about priests" ruse. WE have been over that several times. Mr Pudding went into it over a year agohttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085 There are moderating decisions on it.http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65076556&postcount=1http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72734433#post72734433 Which is a clarification of the earlier decision that non clerical abuse ius allowed In fact any child abuse is locked in other threads and referred to this one It is explained inhttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72754815&postcount=1085 see lower down wher message 903 etc. is referenced Aha! But if you are going to go away from "pedophiles" into clerics that abused older minors ( and this would be the majority of clerical abuse) then why not go into non clerics who represent 95% or mire of abusers? Mr Pudding tried all that ruse. His admitted interest was in attacking the Church hierarchy as I suspect your is and not discussing child abuse and how to deal with it. Read the above moderating decision! ANY child abuse will be moved here., that is why the "merged" in the title exists! I originally posted several child abuse threads and all child abuse is merged into this one. Who is bringing in off topic issued now. But as regards WMD in Iraq they were also a media myth weren't they? The figure is NOT lower at all. The published figure is over 200 and over 30 not in church care in the last year but not all 30 were HSE. some were other State supported agencies. No interest by YOU! Yes it has been reported but let us see if it gets wall to wall coverage like constant referenced her to Brendayn Smyth. I did not say it was not reported at all .. I just claimed that people like you who are so concerned about chjild abuse or the abuse of minors over 14 which you claimn is also wrong don't seem to be posting much about the ZERO dead in church care and over 200 dead in state care over the last decade. In the last year. Are you trying to make it look like the state can excuse this are "natural causes" or " state looking after terminally ill children"? We are talking about suicide and drug overdoses caused due to to child sexual abuse and other abuse of which the state agency was aware. And that is in the last year. A single year! and it has been going on while the church were bringing in child protection policies! How many children have been murdered in Church care in the last ten years? If anywere you would be here blaming the Church Hierarchy. In the last year! for all we know they are. We don't know how many are members of such organisations. Why ? Because such things are not hyped and over reported by people like you. The point is you are attributing causality i.e. you are suggesting abuse because they are members of a club or members of the clergy. You have been shown again and again and again that clerical sexual abuse particularly pedophile abuse is a lower level than pedophiles outside the clergy. And her you go again! Accusing the church of "covering up". The issue raised was pedophile abuse. If you want to move the goal poasts and discuss non pedophile priests fair enough. If you want to go away from just sexual abuse we can do that too. But I suspect you will find an even greater minority of clerics then the less than one per cent pedophile level. furthermore we have already discussed a priest having sex with another adult. In some cases the other person got pregnant and had a child. It is a wholly different matter to child sexual abuse and is not illegal.
andyjo wrote: » Of course "a priest having sex with another adult " is different to "Clerical Child Abuse", the subject of this thread. Many priests do / did of course ( eg Fr. Cleary, Bishop Casey ) have children ...
its more usual than not among Catholic priests in the third world.
Enforced celibacy there is not seen as natural.
What we are talking about here though is clerical child abuse, and the official report on the staunch Roman Catholic website which admitted that Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years were accused of child abuse. http://www.americancatholic.org/news/clergysexabuse/johnjaycns.asp
I suppose it is damage limitation - many people would have thought it was much higher.
You never accused your abuser for example, and yet he abused you, or so you said earlier. Other posters on this thread were abused but never accused the abuser, who may now be dead.
The figure of shoplifters who were accused is lower than the number of actual shoplifters. People also sometimes break the speed limit without being accused of speeding. .
I showed you the state link which reported that " a total of 37 children died in State care in the last 10 years". You claim the figure is over 200. Where is your link?
gimmebroadband wrote: » An accusation of wrong-doing is not justification for assumption of guilt, but I guess that doesn't extend to the Catholic Church! :rolleyes:
ISAW wrote: » So what. Two people never made an accusation.
andyjo wrote: » you are totally wrong that "over 200 children die in State care over the last ten years and no interest at all is expressed". Interest is expressed in the 37 known children who died in state care over the past ten years, as shown by this RTE report, from our state broadcaster.http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0528/children.html
Minister for Health Mary Harney/b]
If you google it, lots of interest is shown. The figure of 37 known children who died over the past ten years includes road traffic fatalities, suicides, drugs etc.
RTE News reported today that there have been 35 deaths and 15 serious incidents involving children in the care of the HSE, or among adolescents known to the health executive, since March of last year.
The government ( and I am not a special supporter of the government) does in all fairness spend a lot of time and money investigating these deaths, and trying to prevent such deaths occuring again, through road safety programmes, drugs awareness programmes, etc. The figure of 37 is much lower than your figure of "over 200", and now 199, which includes road traffic accidents of young adults etc.
In the link you give: it is "children and young adults known to the child protection system". Road traffic accidents of young adults are included in your figure of 199, if you look up page 9 of your link.
And anyway, this thread is about clerical child abuse. What is your diversionary tactic to do with the price of fish ?
lol....or even the 4% of Priests accused of child abuse , as admitted on front page headlines on the staunch Roman Catholic website. http://www.americancatholic.org/news...johnjaycns.asp
