Clerical abuse!

[ONeill]

Hardstation, you believe because you are told to believe?

Erm, yes.

Had I grown up never hearing about God, I would have worked it out on my own?

What planet do you live on?

Correct. If you lived in the jungle on your own, then you wouldnt have heard of religion. Thats why the Church employs messengers.

Wouldn't have heard of anything apart from jungle noises. Wouldn't have heard of Banshees, Limbo, the cosmos, Armagh results, Michael Bolton.

[ONeill]

Well you were making comparisons with believing in Santa and that's what confused me

That was a simplified version of the debate.

A child will believe in Santa because their ma tells him/her that he exists.
A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists.

It then comes down to trust.

A child will trust his/her ma.
A Catholic will trust his/her Church.

This brings us to what we first disagreed with -

If the Catholic no longer trusts his/her Church, all they were taught by his/her Church is up in the air.

No - that's not my take. Santa and the RC faith are both heavily parentally lead. Your school/church only feed off that.

You are mixing things up. The Catholic I refer to is an adult (like winghalfun), not a child.

How can an adult with reasonable intelligence accept this - A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists. ?

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

Well you were making comparisons with believing in Santa and that's what confused me

That was a simplified version of the debate.

A child will believe in Santa because their ma tells him/her that he exists.
A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists.

It then comes down to trust.

A child will trust his/her ma.
A Catholic will trust his/her Church.

This brings us to what we first disagreed with -

If the Catholic no longer trusts his/her Church, all they were taught by his/her Church is up in the air.

No - that's not my take. Santa and the RC faith are both heavily parentally lead. Your school/church only feed off that.

You are mixing things up. The Catholic I refer to is an adult (like winghalfun), not a child.

How can an adult with reasonable intelligence  accept this - A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists. ?

I think thats whats called an Oxymoron.

[ONeill]

Well you were making comparisons with believing in Santa and that's what confused me

That was a simplified version of the debate.

A child will believe in Santa because their ma tells him/her that he exists.
A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists.

It then comes down to trust.

A child will trust his/her ma.
A Catholic will trust his/her Church.

This brings us to what we first disagreed with -

If the Catholic no longer trusts his/her Church, all they were taught by his/her Church is up in the air.

No - that's not my take. Santa and the RC faith are both heavily parentally lead. Your school/church only feed off that.

You are mixing things up. The Catholic I refer to is an adult (like winghalfun), not a child.

How can an adult with reasonable intelligence accept this - A Catholic will believe in God because the Catholic Church tells him/her that he exists. ?

Any other reason why someone might believe in God other than somebody telling him/her that? Sure, if nobody toul ye, you'd never have heard of God.

So those with brain damage from birth are doomed?

[ONeill]

Tyrone'12.

[Pangurban]

You would hear more intelligent discussion in a kindergarten, than we have had in the previous three pages here

[Pangurban]

I am too in awe of your intellect and grasp of language to respond

[ONeill]

I am too in awe of your intellect and grasp of language to respond

A Christian acknowledgement of ineptitude. He will be pleased.

[Pangurban]

Yes, its clear that you donated your Brain to science before you were done using it. If i were to give a Penny for your thoughts, i would expect change. If there were two people talking and one looked bored, you would be the other one. You set low personal standards of debate and consistently fail to achieve them. Your persistently stupid and inane comments across all topics on this forum obviously arise from a delusion of adequacy. When your IQ reaches 50 you should sell

[theskull1]

Clearly struggling to deal with the abuse directed toward the institution. You should make better use of that intellect pangur and start being a voice for change from within your own parish. Like almost all of the devout though, very quick to snap at those who hate the catholic institution but nothing toward a bunch of corrupt minded self interested lackies have left it in the state its in today. The silence from within its ranks highlight how good a job they've done taking away the voices of the sheep. How long are you prepared to remain subservient?

[Applesisapples]

Guys a little perspective please. It is quite clear from the posts on here that a large number of you have lost faith in God and the Church, an understandable enough position in todays world. You need to ask yourself though have you lost faith because of the actions of of some senior clergy or are you retrospectively using this as an excuse...and I'm not making a judgement just asking the question. There are and have been many ordinary decent clerics who have demonstrated the true meaning of their vocation, many more than the number of abusers and cover ups. Fr Aidan troy, Fr Brian D'Arcy, Fr Pat McCafferty, Fr (Bishop) Edward Daly to name a few better known. At a guess I would say that a great number of those expressing these opinions are in their 20/30's even early 40's. It is impossible to judge the events of 30 years ago if you haven't lived through them. The bottom line is judged from here and now the actions of bishops and the Church in covering up abuse is totally unacceptable. But that's judged my the mores of today. At the time of these incidents a large number of factors came into play, but the one over riding factor was the institutional Church's requirement to keep up appearances. Leaders in the Church made decisions which were understandably human in trying to protect the institution whilst being totally unjustifiable on the level of any Christian Faith. The upshot of all this scandal is that many Bishops in Ireland and even more priests have come to realize the need for the Church to be open and protective of it's congregation, the penny hasn't dropped with Benedict yet and it probably will take his successor to move things on. i believe in God, not because of what I have been told, because I have faith. I believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church. I despise much of what Benedict stands for and consider him a poor choice as Pope not least because of his Nazi connections. I am a liberal Catholic like the vast majority, more Anglican in outlook than orthodox Catholic. I see the difference between that and a human fallible hierarchy. You can see parallels in all organizations whether religious or secular. The point I'm making is this, it is ok not to believe in God as this is a personal matter, it is ok to despise and criticize the Churches action on abuse. But don't use one to justify the other. If you truly believed in God you would understand that often he lets bad things happen. I am not in any way condoning coverups or the conservative nature of the Hierarchy. I believe that Christ would have no problem with married or women priests, he would have had no problem with Gay or Lesbian christians and sooner or later the Church will catch up. A bit like Gerry and Martin with the IRA you need to start change from with in. Anyone can stand outside and throw stones (or snowballs!). This doesn't really do justice to my position and no doubt many will attack aspects of the content, but I try to avoid longish posts.

[Main Street]

Some of you may be aware of this story.

At the secondary school I went to, there were rumours that the principal (a priest) was doing things that he shouldnt. By that I mean asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends, and wandering through the dormitories at night.

I first heard these stories in third year when he became principal. If I heard about them, then I'm sure the teaching staff heard the stories as well.

Should the 60 or so teaching staff resign now for not reporting this?

Say one of the teachers was a leading participant (one of three) in an in-house inquiry into the allegations of abuse, conducted him/herself the way Brady did,  swear kids to secrecy, forbid parents to be present, record testimony, all with the absolute priority to preserve the good name of the school, ignore evidence about other children who were abused, not inform their parents and then went on to be the leading person  in his/her profession. Even in the context of 1975, such an active participation in such a conspiracy, was a morally dispicable act. Furthermore, having attempted to minimise the role he/she played in that conspiracy,  then yes that person has proved themselves to be immoral and untrustworthy to be a person entrusted with such a responsibility and remaining in that position is a gross insult to the abused.

Do not confuse a certain level of public ignorance about the issue of abuse in 1975, with the actions of those who conspired with cunning deliberation and deceit to keep people ignorant.

[Hardy]

[Lar Naparka]

Some of you may be aware of this story.

At the secondary school I went to, there were rumours that the principal (a priest) was doing things that he shouldnt. By that I mean asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends, and wandering through the dormitories at night.

I first heard these stories in third year when he became principal. If I heard about them, then I'm sure the teaching staff heard the stories as well.

Should the 60 or so teaching staff resign now for not reporting this?

Orior, I can readily accept your comparison of Fr Brady's actions with those of the teaching staff you refer to.
I'll say once more with feeling that commentators of a younger generation than mine cannot hope to understand the mindset of "ordinary" people of those times. (70s and before)
I would say that most of the teaching staff of your school would not have taken action of any sort.
Have grown up in this culture of deference to authority, especially authority with a Roman collar, I really hadn't a clue as to what was going on until the lurid details of Brendan Smyth's activities began to be made public.
I'd imagine that many on that staff would refuse to believe what the priest was up to... They would simply refuse to accept reality for they had been conditioned to back away from challenging Authority.
There certainly would have been an element of fear of retribution in their decisions not to act.  Not too many people were prepared to take on the might of the Catholic Church.
In the event of some brave soul deciding to speak out, he or she would not know where to go to lodge a complaint. I don't think anyone would consider going to the police authorities or to directly approach the parents involved.
The seriousness of the allegations allied to the difficulty of providing proof would have deterred them- I have no doubt of this.
So I can accept, admittedly with a bit of difficulty, that Fr Brady's failure to take action at that time was by no means unusual.
But he is no longer Fr Brady. He is now Cardinal Brady, the Primate of All Ireland and he says he is genuinely sorry for the wrongs that paedophile priests carried out on innocent children in the past. (Or words to that effect.)
Still, he has been part of a widespread culture of obfuscation and deceit that exists in all sections of the Hierarchy right up to the very top.
He sat on his hands while the Smyth controversy raged and there is no evidence to suggest that he would have freely disclosed anything he knew about Smyth's depredations and of his own failure to do anything other than pass the buck.

Now, going back to the teachers in your school at the time in question...
Let us say that many years have since passed.
People, teachers included, no longer need fear the belt of the crozier; the public and the police authorities are fully aware of what has been going on and are outraged; there is overwhelming evidence that the school principal was but one of hundreds who abused their positions of authority in schools throughout the land and indeed throughout the world; many of the teachers have attained positions of authority in the educational system and need no longer fear retribution.
Taking all of the above into account, would you now condone the actions of those who refused to cooperate with investigations going on at the present time?

I certainly would not.

[Main Street]

Some of you may be aware of this story.

At the secondary school I went to, there were rumours that the principal (a priest) was doing things that he shouldnt. By that I mean asking boys about what they do with their girlfriends, and wandering through the dormitories at night.

I first heard these stories in third year when he became principal. If I heard about them, then I'm sure the teaching staff heard the stories as well.

Should the 60 or so teaching staff resign now for not reporting this?

Orior, I can readily accept your comparison of Fr Brady's actions with those of the teaching staff you refer to.
I'll say once more with feeling that commentators of a younger generation than mine cannot hope to understand the mindset of "ordinary" people of those times. (70s and before)

Orior's story has no comparison to Brady's actions. No resemblance at all. Facile in the extreme.