Magdalene survivors call on Catholics to boycott mass this weekend

I only see older people going to mass anyways and maybe some would be stuck in their old ways and the church can do no wrong. I'm not certain on who goes as i never do.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Exactly. Society was/is diverse, so to say it as a whole is just as to blame as the abusers is grossly unfair. Some knew and did nothing (although they were pretty limited in what they could do)... there is no way that applied to everyone.

We'll never agree, but really... holding people who didn't abuse those children to the same level of accountability as the abusers does look like trying to find an easy target.

And tarring the whole of the Catholic Church with the actions of a very small minority is just as unfair, and in fairness it's not something you've done personally, but it IS the prevalent attitude towards the Catholic Church as a whole that their members are wholly to be held responsible for the abuse carried out by a very small minority of abusers who were abusers before they were ever a member of a religious order. It was a number of factors that enabled them to indulge their particular brand of fear, hatred and bitterness, that had less to do with religion, and more to do with oppression and abuse.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Of course individuals within the church were not responsible either - but then again wouldn't you hold them responsible to a degree for letting it happen?

Yeah see that's the thing- they may not have abused these young women and children themselves, but they were complicit in allowing it to happen. To allow them to claim ignorance of what was going on, when even lay people knew what was going on in these institutions, well, they shouldn't be allowed to claim ignorance.

And being even closer to "the action" than laypeople were. I wouldn't btw. Powerlessness and fear can have a very strong hold on people

So can the fear for lay people at the time of what the neighbours might say, or for those in the clergy protecting their own position within the hierarchy. They put themselves before these young women and children who they knew were being abused. It was the ultimate exercise in buck passing and arse covering.

I'm sure there were members of the religious orders who tried to speak out. I know of one priest who did keep trying to alert the Department (either health or education) to the atrocities in the school he was based in, only to be ignored.

Yes and there you go- you've just given an example of one person who at least TRIED to do something, but because the government were also complicit as the catholic hierarchy in covering up the abuse, that's why the priest went ignored, but at LEAST he tried. If there had been more people like him who put the children first ahead of their "standing in the community", these abuses might have been dealt with a hell of a lot sooner!

But the church was primarily to blame. Nobody else equalled it, even if they had some responsibility.

A minority within the hierarchy and within these institutions were primarily to blame, the ones who actually abused these young women and children, but I'll always be of the opinion that nobody who knew should be allowed to claim ignorance and get a free pass.

When you actually really get down to it, ok, just work with me here for a minute, I know I'm coming off a tad conspiracy nut at this point and I know you mentioned the can't blame society, BUT -

What if, this had less to do with religion, and more to do with these institutions meeting a demand within a society where everyone was more fearful of what the neighbours might think of them, and more concerned about their standing within the community and a society that had an already very strict "code of morals" (aka "discipline") that made these institutions an easy sell to them?

I don't think that's beyond the bounds of possibility, or, we could just carry on taking pot shots at the biggest and most obvious target.

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

But there you go - a priest tried to speak out. And I don't doubt for a second many others tried. That's why I don't understand the "Nobody did anything" notion. People did. Look at what they were up against though...

OK I guess when I said "nobody did anything", it was colored by my own personal experience (I'm only talking 30 years ago, parents were "devout" catholics, or rather strict disciplinarians who used religion to justify their behaviour) where people knew what was going on, but rather than say anything, my parents were held up as pillars of the community.

But when I say "nobody did anything" in the context of the abuses that were carried out in these institutions, I just mean that, well, the majority of people did nothing and were even complicit in sending their children to these institutions. I know too people had their children taken away from them by the State and placed in these institutions, but I'm just questioning the idea of allowing society to get a free pass when these institutions only existed and flourished because there was a demand created by society for them if that makes sense?

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK I guess when I said "nobody did anything", it was colored by my own personal experience (I'm only talking 30 years ago, parents were "devout" catholics, or rather strict disciplinarians who used religion to justify their behaviour) where people knew what was going on, but rather than say anything, my parents were held up as pillars of the community.

I understand, and empathise with, your point of view far more in light of the above.

otto_26 wrote: »

So Mr. Nice when did you start boycotting watching BBC was is straight after the child abuse case came out or a bit after? Nice to chat to someone who isn't a hypocrite..

You mean the ones that the police are investigating and bringing them to justice?

Maybe if the church actually tried to punish those responsible people could defend them.