MrPudding wrote: » Well, now that there is a chance the higher ups will be held liable for the wrong doings of their agents perhaps that little extra motivation might help spur them on a bit.
yutta wrote: » Do you think former Taoisigh, senior civil servants, judges, medical doctors and social workers should be held to similar standards? Or is it just the Church you have a gripe with?
MrPudding wrote: » What similar standards? The standards of vicarious liability? Those standards apply to any employer. Who do patient sue for medical malpractice? The doctor or the hospital?
yutta wrote: » Wrong. If a doctor sexually abuses a patient, they go to jail and are sued. http://www.fox19.com/story/15715766/tri-state-doctor-sued-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-a-patient If a priest doesn't turn up for a wedding (equivalent malpractice), the parish can get sued, yes. People like you who are out to get the Church will never be satisfied until the last member of the Faithful has gone to their final resting place and the Church no longer exists.
CiaranMT wrote: » Take off the tin hat there. There's nothing wrong whatsoever with accountability. Nobody's saying the Church should be shut down. What they are saying is that they should be held to the same standards as other organisations.
yutta wrote: » Nothing wrong with holding individuals to account. That's up to the DPP - not to you. And the Church have no problem with obeying the just laws of the land.
A fugitive priest wanted in connection with child sex abuse allegations has been urged to turn himself in by one of the country's top lawyers, who said his absence caused difficulties to a damning review of decades of paedophile activity at a top Catholic school.Laurence Soper, the former abbot of Ealing abbey – which has been the subject of an inquiry from Lord Carlile QC and an internal Vatican investigation following disclosures of alleged and proven abuse at neighbouring St Benedict's – skipped bail last month and is thought to be living in an Italian monastery. Carlile, who published his findings on Wednesday, said: "I would encourage Laurence Soper to surrender himself to the police. He may feel he owes a personal and ethical duty to answer whatever questions are put to him. I regret the difficulties Laurence Soper has caused to the [inquiry] process. "What I hope is that everybody who has, and has had, contact with Laurence Soper should inveigh upon him very strongly to surrender himself to the British authorities." He added that an international arrest warrant was being issued. Soper appeared in Carlile's report as one of five clergy tried or wanted for questioning in relation to paedophile activity involving pupils.
PDN wrote: » To be honest, there seems to be some doubt about that.http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/nov/09/monks-schoool-abuse-st-benedict-ealing?newsfeed=true A member of the clergy, subject to an arrest warrant in connection with child abuse, crosses borders to hide out in a monastery. It's as if nobody has learned anything from the Brendan Smyth case.
yutta wrote: » Accountable to who exactly? What worldly institution should regulate the workings of a religion? Would you be in favour of Chinese-style religious licensing? Who'd regulate the regulators? Nothing wrong with holding individuals to account. That's up to the DPP - not to you. And the Church have no problem with obeying the just laws of the land.
yutta wrote: » Wrong. If a doctor sexually abuses a patient, they go to jail and are sued. http://www.fox19.com/story/15715766/tri-state-doctor-sued-for-alleged-sexual-abuse-of-a-patient
yutta wrote: » If a priest doesn't turn up for a wedding (equivalent malpractice), the parish can get sued, yes. People like you who are out to get the Church will never be satisfied until the last member of the Faithful has gone to their final resting place and the Church no longer exists.
marienbad wrote: » ''obeying the just laws of the land'' you say ? who decides which is which ?
PatricaMcKay2 wrote: » They have no problem obeying the laws of the land when its in their own, when its not cannon law trumps secular law, and of course cannon law can be chucked out for the concept of the "Good of the Church".
marienbad wrote: » so it means we obey what we like, when we like, how we like ! I suppose I could add and with whom we like .
yutta wrote: » Abortion and the death penalty, while legal in some countries, are immoral. Laws that force clergy to divulge the secrets of the confessional are unjust. Just because something is legal (the opinion of the legislators of the day) doesn't mean it's right.
yutta wrote: » Abortion and the death penalty, while legal in some countries, are immoral. .
yutta wrote: » Laws that force clergy to divulge the secrets of the confessional are unjust.
CiaranMT wrote: » Let's test this. Person walks into confessional, confesses to child abuse. The priest clearly has to report this (though he shouldn't need a law to come to this conclusion). Who is the law being unjust to in this case? The priest? The child abuser? The child? Or the Church?
ISAW wrote: » And my words referred to the special postition being removed. I never claimed that before it was removed it was not there in the constituion and I resent you call me an idiot when I clearly pointed out it was there and it was removed.
ISAW wrote: » I also pointed out that whle ther were problems with "Holy Catholic Authoritarian Ireland" and the religious institutions with respect to child Care the State currently is in charge of child vcare abnd over 200children have died under their authority in the last then years!
ISAW wrote: » Gainsaying is not argument. How is "you have switched from the point of "child abuse" being related to golf clubs as a comparison between the Church and other organisations such as golf clubs to a clear attack on the church as having a "special place" in the constitution and which should not be allowed in education or to have control over schools. If people want the local golf club management to run a school they have the right to campaign for that." idiotic?
ISAW wrote: » More gainsaying. What evidence shows the Church was worse than the non-Church management? I have shown over 200 dead kids over the last ten years in State care when only last year they claimed it was 30 over ten years!
ISAW wrote: » You claim it you prove it! Can you provide any evidence?
ISAW wrote: » No the comment was made that the church set up Magdalen Asylums to enrich itself through slave labour. I already showed you how things ran cheaper under the church but the comment above was about the fact that the roman catholics didnt set up the asylums. Non Catholics did! see: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-magdalene-inquiry-must-lift-veil-and-uncloak-anticatholic-myths-2677561.html And the later addendum does not stand upo as slave labout because from the above source "according to the Government's own report to the UN committee, the overwhelming majority of women in the Magdalene Laundries were there voluntarily."
ISAW wrote: » I'm not The suggestion that the church was running a "baby market" to make money is nonsense.
ISAW wrote: » You are making up things you can't support! You conspiracy theory of "cover up" just doesn't wash! Where is you evidence? Saying "dont be idiotic" wont prove anything. If you claim it, it is for you to prove it! Look up "burden of proof"
From the archives of the Oireachtas: I would ask the House to consider that, while these two isolated cases alone would have justified the fullest examination of the facts, in reply to a further question of mine to-day, I was given the information that in the last three years 523 such children have left this country with a view to adoption in the U.S.A. Five hundred and twenty-three is an appalling figure in view of the circumstances.
yutta wrote: » How much compensation do you think someone should get who was anally raped and suffers from moderate anxiety as a result? (for example). Are you one of these people who believes that say, €500,000 is adequate? Or are you one of these people who believes that no amount of money is adequate and the entire Church (from Raphoe to Rome) should be sold off to enrich the victim? Nearly all victims have received a payout. The purpose of these reports (Raphoe etc.) is to ensure that the Church undergoes reform and that this kind of abuse can never happen again. They do not serve to instigate another legal gravy train and enrich lawyers/abuse victims as the anti-Catholic media likes to think. After all, no amount of money can compensate for the trauma experienced by a rape victim.
yutta wrote: » How much compensation do you think someone should get who was anally raped and suffers from moderate anxiety as a result? (for example).
Andrew49 wrote: » You must have missed those bits in the Ryan Report about starvation, child slave labour, and physical torture. Surprising that, as abuses other than sexual violence account for two-thirds of the abuses suffered by children in the Institutions. Did you speed read the Ryan Report or what?
philologos wrote: » I think they deserve anything they can get for that type of abuse.
The Quadratic Equation wrote: » In fairness, you go on later to say that no compensation is enough. Let the courts decide guilt, liability and compensation. Quite a few incompetant and vainglorious Irish Bishops made a mess of handling the abuse cases, so the Church (us) has to get rid of them, pay up, and make amends, and re-build. Thats the way it is and should be.
yutta wrote: » I agree. But giving abuse victims Bentleys and gaffs in Dublin 4 isn't going to undo the damage either.
marienbad wrote: » This is a truly despicable line of thinking and phrasing. Shame on you .
MrPudding wrote: » I have a suggestion. On the "why is there catholic hatred" simply put "because yutta" and close it. That should suffice. MrP
yutta wrote: » A cursory look at Andrew49's posts over on politics.ie and you'll see he's the most bigoted, embittered anti-Catholic poster in Ireland. Recompense is supposed to finalise matters. He just won't let it go and will suffer even more as a result.
