Ongoing religious scandals

Sonics2k wrote: »

Surely it's better for the Vatican to pay than the Irish non-Catholic Taxpayers who had absolutely no involvement in it what-so-ever.

Why should my taxes be spent paying for the crimes of the Church?

You are also paying for the abused in protestant institutions... It wasn't just the catholic church.

It was the state who sent them to the churchs.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This generation covered it up.
The current Pope denies Rome had any role to play in the cover up.

As a matter of interest -Why should you pay taxes to support older generations?
When you are a pensioner will you refuse to take a pension and the generations to come will be funding it?

Then we should pay the thousands of religous who did not abuse and who gave their time unpaid to teach irish children for generations... I know a right does not make the wrong right, but you have to balance the argument. The current Pope did not abuse or coverup, he actually exposed abuse, atleast the case we brought to him of Fr. Maciel...

The church did a lot of good in ireland,

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?

It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

Surely it's better for the Vatican to pay than the Irish non-Catholic Taxpayers who had absolutely no involvement in it what-so-ever.

Why should my taxes be spent paying for the crimes of the Church?

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?

It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

This generation covered it up.
The current Pope denies Rome had any role to play in the cover up.

As a matter of interest -Why should you pay taxes to support older generations?
When you are a pensioner will you refuse to take a pension as the generations to come will be funding it?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Are you for real??????

An organisation which covered up and enabled the abuse of children should not pay compensation to the victims of their clergy????

An organisation which has billions of euro worth of art works in its possession can't afford to pay?????

Let Rome flog off a Michaelangelo or two to pay compensation to it's victims :mad:

Its not theirs to flog... It belongs to all catholics.... And was inherited... Its like lenister house should be sold to pay the bailout

koth wrote: »

and feck the victims? Officials at various levels within the church were complicit in perverting the course of justice. It's only right that they should bear some of the responsibility.

Yes..if you were part of the abuse/coverup. But why should the rest of us who were not part of this scandal have to pay?? Less than 2% of catholic church clergy were involved, most of them dead now. Catholic organisations like svdp are not for profit.. Where is the money coming from?

It goes back to,, why should I pay for the faults of a previous generation ?

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Don't see why the orders should have to pay in the first place..... Its like saying I should have to pay for my Fathers mistakes or my Grandfathers mistakes.

Unless you were part of the abuse either in the order or as part of the government, Why should you pay for it.

That said, most orders are paying, its just that the wealth they had 5 years ago was mostly property, property is now worth less than 50% of what it was worth. No point beating a dead horse over it.

and feck the victims? Officials at various levels within the church were complicit in perverting the course of justice. It's only right that they should bear some of the responsibility.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Don't see why the orders should have to pay in the first place..... Its like saying I should have to pay for my Fathers mistakes or my Grandfathers mistakes.

Unless you were part of the abuse either in the order or as part of the government, Why should you pay for it.

That said, most orders are paying, its just that the wealth they had 5 years ago was mostly property, property is now worth less than 50% of what it was worth. No point beating a dead horse over it.

Are you for real??????

An organisation which covered up and enabled the abuse of children should not pay compensation to the victims of their clergy????

An organisation which has billions of euro worth of art works in its possession can't afford to pay?????

Let Rome flog off a Michaelangelo or two to pay compensation to it's victims :mad:

Religious orders can't pay their share of the 15 billion abuse bill

koth wrote: »

Religious orders can't pay their share of the 15 billion abuse bill

Don't see why the orders should have to pay in the first place..... Its like saying I should have to pay for my Fathers mistakes or my Grandfathers mistakes.

Unless you were part of the abuse either in the order or as part of the government, Why should you pay for it.

That said, most orders are paying, its just that the wealth they had 5 years ago was mostly property, property is now worth less than 50% of what it was worth. No point beating a dead horse over it.

Delirium

EDUCATION Minister Ruairi Quinn yesterday admitted publicly for the first time that religious orders don't have the cash or assets to pay their share of the compensation bill for abuse.

And he said he had no intention of bankrupting the orders -- which leaves him facing a massive battle to recover their half of a €1.5bn bill.

The taxpayer is already picking up €750m of the expected final cost but now faces having to pay far more.

Hotblack Desiato

It seems that when Ratzinger talks of 'renewal' of the church, he means going back to the unquestioning obedient past, even though it was unquestioned church authority which led to and perpetuated the abuse scandals.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0406/1224314438131.html

Vatican moves to quell internal dissenting voices

The Vatican has moved to suppress dissent in the Irish Catholic Church by clamping down on two well-known liberal Redemptorist priests as well as the congregation’s monthly magazine, Reality.

Restrictions have been placed on Fr Tony Flannery, a founder of the Association of Catholic Priests, whose monthly column in the magazine has been discontinued. A clampdown has also been imposed on the magazine itself and its editor, Fr Gerard Moloney, who, it is believed, is no longer allowed to write on certain issues. Neither priest would comment when contacted by The Irish Times yesterday.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0406/1224314438131.html

Pope chides Catholics who query key beliefs

In a homily during the traditional Maundy Thursday “Chrism” Mass in St Peter’s, the Pope issued a highly unusual rebuttal to those who question Church teaching on questions such as the ordination of women. “Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience . . . even to the point of disregarding definite decisions of the church’s magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination . . . But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here . . . a desperate push to do something to change the church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?”

While the pope here seems to be making a clear reference to the “Pfarrer Initiative”, promoted by over 300 Austrian priests, his hardline rejection of the call for changes also fits in perfectly with reports yesterday that dissident Irish priest Tony Flannery is under investigation by the Holy See.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Assuming that this means 150 clerics -- not an unreasonable assumption, I hope -- that gives a abuser rate of rate of a little over 2.5%.

And assuming a rate of 2.6 closet paedophiles to every active child abuser, -- not an unreasonable assumption, I hope -- that gives a paedophile rate of 6.5% >>>>> quickly exiting stage left :pac:

robindch wrote: »

that gives a abuser rate of rate of a little over 2.5%.

Sits back. Puts 3D glasses on. Opens popcorn.

robindch

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, but there were 61.53846154 priests working there. If 4 priests were involved, that's 6.5% of them!

Research indicates there are "over one hundred" clerics in the MSH, most of whom are elderly. Assuming that this means 150 clerics -- not an unreasonable assumption, I hope -- that gives a abuser rate of rate of a little over 2.5%.

After further research I have established that all the events which allegedly occurred at Col¨¢iste an Chro¨ª Naofa (????) were due to a simple misunderstanding of their Mission Statement, to wit:

Col¨¢iste an Chro¨ª Naofa, Carraig na bhFear, is a Catholic School of the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart, inspired by the charism of "bringing God's love to all people". It is dedicated to Christian Education.

http://www.ccn.ie/historyandethos.htm

:P

Penn

Yeah, but there were 61.53846154 priests working there. If 4 priests were involved, that's 6.5% of them!

*runs away*

MrPudding

But none of them happened in the last 10 years AND during the time when those children were being abused some other people that we don't know about were also abusing children. So there.

MrP

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No doubt some will spin it that way.

You should have more faith.

In humans.

dmw07 wrote: »

So that makes one case then.

:pac:

No doubt some will spin it that way.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

That's just 17 isolated incidents in the same place over the course of 3 decades by the same 4 individuals.

So that makes one case then.

:pac:

Sarky wrote: »

That's just 17 isolated incidents in the same place!

That's just 17 isolated incidents in the same place over the course of 3 decades by the same 4 individuals.

Sarky

That's just 17 isolated incidents in the same place!

Gardaí have interviewed 17 men who claim they were sexually abused while attending a college on the outskirts of Cork.
The complaints date back to the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s when the college was run by the order of Missionaries of the Sacred Heart.

They have been made against four former members of staff at the Carrignavar college. It is understood that one of them died recently.

"It has been alleged that some of the victims were subjected to repeated abuse over some length of time," a Garda source said.

There is no evidence, however, that any of the pupils was "passed around" to other perpetrators.

"The alleged victims we have spoken to are now living all over the country. Some are still living in Cork and Kerry and Limerick. But others are living further away, some of them in border counties," the source added.

In some cases the complainants went to be interviewed at Cobh Garda Station.

However, gardaí also travelled to other people’s homes, or met them at a mutually agreed venue to conduct interviews.

They have also interviewed several other people who were said by the alleged victims to be able to substantiate their stories.

A team of six gardaí has been working on the case since the first complaint was made by a former boarder at Sacred Heart College, Carrignavar, last August.

The investigation, which is still continuing, has been mounted by gardaí from the Cobh district who are being aided by detectives from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (NBCI) based at Harcourt Square, Dublin.

When the investigation was launched, senior gardaí promised it would be "methodical and painstaking".

It is likely to take several weeks to complete. They will wait until they have completed their investigation before interviewing the alleged perpetrators.

The Catholic Church’s National Board for Safeguarding Children is also investigating the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart’s handling of abuse as is the office for the minister of children.

Last November, the support organisation One-In-Four held a special meeting in Cork at which its counsellors spoke with six people who claimed they were sexually abused while attending the school.

One-In-Four executive director, Maeve Lewis, said her organisation was liaising closely with the gardaí and HSE on the case.

She said any victims of sexual abuse were welcome to ring her organisation at 01 6624070.

Dades

ISAW

Clearly Robin has said all he has the heart for on the *6.5%* matter. You both disagree. Now give it rest.

You are like a dog with a bone, and wittering on about it doesn't contribute anything. I warned you earlier in this thread not to turn it into a trainwreck, and you're sailing dangerously close to the wind.

Again, this is not open for discussion.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

So you dont care about false claims?
how about the false claims made against Priests?
dont care about them either i suppose?

Fair enough. i cant make yu care but I can point out when stats are being mis reported.
In this case they are. But the claim ois still being uphemld by robin when he has been unable to support it.
By any objective standard that is unfair.
Attacking me personally or how I post isnt changing an unsupported innuendo into a valid claim.
If the evidence is there post it!
If not admit the truth that you dont have it! It is an empty unsupported claim which you just happen to believe. Your unsupported opinion and not a FACT as people her have tried to claim. It is a very important point. People have had to resign form their jobs today because of such things. But leaving that aside there are academic standards of integrity and objectivity to consider.

Again you go off on a tangent and infer things that are not there.

If you spent a little bit more time giving consideration to the myriads of true claims and less on the false claims you might have some credibility. But you don't - you spend endless hours defending an institution that is well able to defend itself and seem to give no care to all those victims who had no one to press their claims.

The Church finds itself in the position it is in because across generations it ignored/tolerated/condoned/covered up/ was unaware/ did nothing about/ was naive/mis-managed - what ever phrase suits you, a massive problem at its very core in this country.

In doing so it caused enornmous damage to the populace of this country and lost the trust of its people.

Part of the price for this, as it is with any institution, is to keep its head down and shut the f&*K up and listen as it failed to do in the past and by doing so might begin to rebuild that trust. If along the way it suffers false accusations so what ? it definitely earned them by its inaction in the first place.

But I suspect you just don't get it and at this stage you probably never will.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW give it up will you , it is just boring at this stage. Who made you the keeper of the stats ?

If you want to get a true picture of abuse try taking lessons from those poor women fighting on the rape front if you want to get a perspective on the ratio of occurance / reporting/ conviction . You might learn something - if not about stats at least about charity and compassion.

So you dont care about false claims?
how about the false claims made against Priests?
dont care about them either i suppose?

Fair enough. i cant make yu care but I can point out when stats are being mis reported.
In this case they are. But the claim ois still being uphemld by robin when he has been unable to support it.
By any objective standard that is unfair.
Attacking me personally or how I post isnt changing an unsupported innuendo into a valid claim.
If the evidence is there post it!
If not admit the truth that you dont have it! It is an empty unsupported claim which you just happen to believe. Your unsupported opinion and not a FACT as people her have tried to claim. It is a very important point. People have had to resign form their jobs today because of such things. But leaving that aside there are academic standards of integrity and objectivity to consider.

marienbad

ISAW give it up will you , it is just boring at this stage. Who made you the keeper of the stats ?

I grew up through the height of all this carry on and if all the beatings with belts, leathers, rulers, canes, chair legs, were included ( as they would be today) with all the sexual abuse the stat , I venture to say would be in the 90's.

But they wer'nt included or reported or tried and convicted so they live on only in the victims memories .

And that is what you hide behind all the time is'nt it- the conviction rate. Or your other favourite ploy - the state was worse, and in doing so you do your church or society no service.

If you want to get a true picture of abuse try taking lessons from those poor women fighting on the rape front if you want to get a perspective on the ratio of occurance / reporting/ conviction . You might learn something - if not about stats at least about charity and compassion.

ISAW

dmw07 wrote: »

He has a valid point.

Until you Robin, can substantiate your crazy claims about the 6.5% pedophile priests, I will also refuse to believe it is due to ISAW's posting style and "other".

:pac:

Not alone that but the 6.5% for Dublin was not withdrawn but repolaced by a weaker 4% (for cloyne?) which robin thought he could support

i point out here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77699611&postcount=842
wher the 4% is actually closer to 1.2%using the report robin provided.

I also point out here http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=77699747&postcount=843
that robins hearsay about the "Irish Catholic " source does NOT claim as he says
i woudl say 3to 4% of victims in Irland were victims of clergy and i have given what I believe are reasons for that figure in the clerical child abuse thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055855692

It does not say "4% of abusers are clergy"! It certainly does not say 6.5% are.
you are aware of the difference.

coming on the back of todays resignations by senior media people over misreporting a priest in a sex abuse case I suggest you clarify your sources. they are not supporting what you claimed.