Clerical abuse!

Started by D4S, May 20, 2009, 05:09:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

We all know this disgusting scandal is as a result of The Church and The State, but who do you hold mostly accountable, and should therefore pay out the most in compensation to victims?

The State
The Church
Split 50/50

ardmhachaabu

Quote from: hardstation on May 20, 2009, 10:46:44 PM
Jaysus, ardmhachaabu, a strange post.

"You clearly hate the church".

It's like when someone reports abuse of children by Priests to another Priest and he says "You don't love God".
I don't think so hs, I have seen myles's attitude to the church in many posts.  I have no desire to trawl through his posts to give you examples.  The posts I am talking about clearly show what myles thinks, which is fair enough imo.  I am not saying that everyone has to see things in the way I do.  Neither will I let anyone rubbish the entire church because of the actions of a few.
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 10:14:04 PM
I don't understand why some people are saying the entire church knew about it.  I know a priest whose brother (also a priest) has been convicted of child abuse on several counts.  The priest I know certainly didn't know what his brother was up to until it was in the glare of the media.
...  
So it is erroneous at best to say that the church covered it all up.  You can say that some members of the church covered it up but it wasn't systematic and not everyone knew.

Maybe not everyone knew but it was systematic.  The pope issued an order to keep it in-house on pain of excommunication.  The order came from the top down.  It doesn't get anymore systematic than that!  For example Sean Fortune was reported for abusing children in the scouts before he was even ordained.   In the early 80's the Papal Nuncio wrote to parents who had complained about Fortune that he had raised the issue with Pope John Paul II himself.  So either the Papal Nuncio lied (in writing!) or the Pope decided to let him at it for another 15 years.  So the Pope, the Pope's ambassador, the Irish Cardinal and Bishop Comiskey knew they had an evil sadist on their hands (so much so that he had 3 psychiatrict treatments at the church's expense) but they left him in ministry for a further 15 years until the Guards caught up with him?  

Doesn't get any more systematic than that.


Sandino

I have a question for those of you posters who have have argued  that there were those in society who must have stood by when they were bound to know this was happening and did nothing. Where you out in the streets when war and death and destruction was directed at Iraq? A war declared in all our names and in which our countries played an active part. Did you do all you could do to stop it? How will history judge us? This is such a tragic story but i feel its wrong to judge others were subservient to important members of society at that time.
"You can go proudly. You are history. You are legend''

ardmhachaabu

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 20, 2009, 10:58:37 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 10:14:04 PM
I don't understand why some people are saying the entire church knew about it.  I know a priest whose brother (also a priest) has been convicted of child abuse on several counts.  The priest I know certainly didn't know what his brother was up to until it was in the glare of the media.
...  
So it is erroneous at best to say that the church covered it all up.  You can say that some members of the church covered it up but it wasn't systematic and not everyone knew.

Maybe not everyone knew but it was systematic.  The pope issued an order to keep it in-house on pain of excommunication.  The order came from the top down.  It doesn't get anymore systematic than that!  For example Sean Fortune was reported for abusing children in the scouts before he was even ordained.   In the early 80's the Papal Nuncio wrote to parents who had complained about Fortune that he had raised the issue with Pope John Paul II himself.  So either the Papal Nuncio lied (in writing!) or the Pope decided to let him at it for another 15 years.  So the Pope, the Pope's ambassador, the Irish Cardinal and Bishop Comiskey knew they had an evil sadist on their hands (so much so that he had 3 psychiatrict treatments at the church's expense) but they left him in ministry for a further 15 years until the Guards caught up with him?  

Doesn't get any more systematic than that.


Jim, I would say that the higher up you go in the Church (as a member of clergy) that the more responsibility you have to the whole of the Church.  Who are you to know whether the Pope actually knew or not?  Who is to say that his secretary didn't shield him from it?  You don't know the full facts, neither do I.  Even if the Pope did know, how do you think he came to the decision?  Do you think he would have come to it easy?  Do you not think he maybe decided that for the greater good it was better to say nothing, if he knew?

The media are just using the report being published as yet another stick to beat the church with, nothing new there and certainly nothing newsworthy.  We all know what happened.  I daresay some of us know people who were abused.  I am not condoning any of it.  I just think that it's easy for people to cast the entire blame on the church when the state knew exactly what was going on for years and did absolutely nothing about it.  How many government employees decided to say nothing?  I don't see anyone clamouring against the government though.  I have heard for calls for prosecution against clergy involved and rightly so (if they are still living) but I haven't heard anyone calling for government employees to be taken to account for their failings.
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

ardmhachaabu

By the way, the thread title reads to me as if someone in an administrative role has done something wrong...  :D
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

pintsofguinness

Quote from: Sandino on May 20, 2009, 11:00:47 PM
I have a question for those of you posters who have have argued  that there were those in society who must have stood by when they were bound to know this was happening and did nothing. Where you out in the streets when war and death and destruction was directed at Iraq? A war declared in all our names and in which our countries played an active part. Did you do all you could do to stop it? How will history judge us? This is such a tragic story but i feel its wrong to judge others were subservient to important members of society at that time.
I dont see the correlation, we are not in a position to do anything about Iraq but we would be in a postion to do something if our child told us they were being abused or we became aware of a child being abused.
Which one of you bitches wants to dance?

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Jim, I would say that the higher up you go in the Church (as a member of clergy) that the more responsibility you have to the whole of the Church.  Who are you to know whether the Pope actually knew or not?  Who is to say that his secretary didn't shield him from it?  You don't know the full facts, neither do I.

My point is that the papacy issued a decree saying that they were the arbitrators and reports were to go to them, not external.   By taking on that power, the papacy took on the reponsibility.  Whether the Pope personally knew or not is immaterial to me.  A Pope gave the order, so the Pope is responsible.  That was a huge tenet of the findings in the Ferns report.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Even if the Pope did know, how do you think he came to the decision?  Do you think he would have come to it easy?  Do you not think he maybe decided that for the greater good it was better to say nothing, if he knew?

In my opinion (only an opinion), the greater good was the image of the church.  That, to my my mind, cannot outweigh 15 years of a pervert running amok around Wexford.  Even worse it was 15 years of the church serving kids on a platter to him by putting him into contact with kids.  However if you can suggest a "greater good" that was served I'm open to suggestion.


ardmhachaabu

Quote from: hardstation on May 20, 2009, 11:46:24 PM
QuoteDo you not think he maybe decided that for the greater good it was better to say nothing, if he knew?
What in under f**k is this supposed to mean?
It means what it says
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

ardmhachaabu

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 20, 2009, 11:57:39 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Jim, I would say that the higher up you go in the Church (as a member of clergy) that the more responsibility you have to the whole of the Church.  Who are you to know whether the Pope actually knew or not?  Who is to say that his secretary didn't shield him from it?  You don't know the full facts, neither do I.

My point is that the papacy issued a decree saying that they were the arbitrators and reports were to go to them, not external.   By taking on that power, the papacy took on the reponsibility.  Whether the Pope personally knew or not is immaterial to me.  A Pope gave the order, so the Pope is responsible.  That was a huge tenet of the findings in the Ferns report.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Even if the Pope did know, how do you think he came to the decision?  Do you think he would have come to it easy?  Do you not think he maybe decided that for the greater good it was better to say nothing, if he knew?

In my opinion (only an opinion), the greater good was the image of the church.  That, to my my mind, cannot outweigh 15 years of a pervert running amok around Wexford.  Even worse it was 15 years of the church serving kids on a platter to him by putting him into contact with kids.  However if you can suggest a "greater good" that was served I'm open to suggestion.


Jim, the papacy isn't the Pope so you can't say that any Pope was responsible. 

What I would say the greater good wasn't just the image of the church but the good work that the Church does.  Don't forget this was only a very small minority of people who engaged in such behaviour.
Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something

Gnevin

#54
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 21, 2009, 12:03:19 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 20, 2009, 11:57:39 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Jim, I would say that the higher up you go in the Church (as a member of clergy) that the more responsibility you have to the whole of the Church.  Who are you to know whether the Pope actually knew or not?  Who is to say that his secretary didn't shield him from it?  You don't know the full facts, neither do I.

My point is that the papacy issued a decree saying that they were the arbitrators and reports were to go to them, not external.   By taking on that power, the papacy took on the reponsibility.  Whether the Pope personally knew or not is immaterial to me.  A Pope gave the order, so the Pope is responsible.  That was a huge tenet of the findings in the Ferns report.

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:41:55 PM
Even if the Pope did know, how do you think he came to the decision?  Do you think he would have come to it easy?  Do you not think he maybe decided that for the greater good it was better to say nothing, if he knew?


In my opinion (only an opinion), the greater good was the image of the church.  That, to my my mind, cannot outweigh 15 years of a pervert running amok around Wexford.  Even worse it was 15 years of the church serving kids on a platter to him by putting him into contact with kids.  However if you can suggest a "greater good" that was served I'm open to suggestion.


Jim, the papacy isn't the Pope so you can't say that any Pope was responsible. 

What I would say the greater good wasn't just the image of the church but the good work that the Church does.  Don't forget this was only a very small minority of people who engaged in such behaviour.
So was the papacy wrong in the actions it took?
Anyway, long story short... is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.

Pangurban

Part of the reason why such abuses unchecked , is revealed by the confusion of some posters on this thread, as to who is the Church. Our Grand-Parents and Parents were taught and believed, that Pope,Bishops, Religious Orders etc.. were the Church. This was theologically wrong. The Church  includes all baptised members be they clerical or lay. While it is true that the clerical faction seized control, and became drunk with power, the timidity and obsequiousness of the laity in the wider Catholic society and state, make them equally culpable. Donagh is correct when he states , that the responsibility of protecting the welfare of children, under the constitution , lay with the state. Not only did they fail then, they are failing today, and there is very little outcry. So lets not look rightously down our noses at previous generations, lets start answering for our own

Turlough O Carolan

Quote from: Pangurban on May 21, 2009, 12:24:41 AM
Part of the reason why such abuses unchecked , is revealed by the confusion of some posters on this thread, as to who is the Church. Our Grand-Parents and Parents were taught and believed, that Pope,Bishops, Religious Orders etc.. were the Church. This was theologically wrong. The Church  includes all baptised members be they clerical or lay. While it is true that the clerical faction seized control, and became drunk with power, the timidity and obsequiousness of the laity in the wider Catholic society and state, make them equally culpable. Donagh is correct when he states , that the responsibility of protecting the welfare of children, under the constitution , lay with the state. Not only did they fail then, they are failing today, and there is very little outcry. So lets not look rightously down our noses at previous generations, lets start answering for our own

Correct. Many people are still loathe to stand up. During the building boom of the Celtic Tiger, I saw the church sell some land to a developer in a small town in the West of Ireland. Part of that land contained an Industrial School that closed around 1969 - actually it just changed into a convent. Before the builders could build their shiny new houses there was the minor inconvenience of having to remove some coffins that were buried in unmarked graves. Coffins of young people who were thrown into this school - God knows how they died, God knows who they were - and the church didn't have the decency of giving them a dignified burial. They were removed quickly one night so the houses could be built. No one said a word. The houses were built. The shameful values of the Ireland of the past and the Ireland of the present certainly collided that night

Declan

QuoteQuestion why did the priesthood attract such a large percentage of this sort of people? Was it a commonly known fact or  maybe a result of celibacy

Nothing to do with celibacy - Read somewhere that the percentage involved when compared to other "professions" wasn't that great i.e. Just as many doctors, teachers, etc. Pangurban's assessment is quite good.

It's very hard to judge the inaction of the community at large from 2009 but I know from talking to my parents and particularly people who worked in the Dept of Education during the 50's, 60's and 70 's that this was a different country and it was too all intents and purpose a catholic fundamentalist state - the equivalent of what is termed now an islamic republic if you like. 

Our own PP has spoken out a number of occasions on this and apoloogised etc - Actually spoke to him about it once and he confirmed my thining on the "silence" of the vast majority of people.

The state to my mind is equally as culpable in failing in their primary duty towards the children of the countrry and we've seen enough in recent times that that attitude hasn't changed either.

   

Hound

Quote from: Declan on May 21, 2009, 07:37:24 AM
QuoteQuestion why did the priesthood attract such a large percentage of this sort of people? Was it a commonly known fact or  maybe a result of celibacy

Nothing to do with celibacy - Read somewhere that the percentage involved when compared to other "professions" wasn't that great i.e. Just as many doctors, teachers, etc. Pangurban's assessment is quite good.
   
If you are saying there are as many (percentage wise) paedophile accountants and lawyers as priest, that's just plain wrong, and miles wrong.

The percentages are skewed by the celibacy factor. There are many men would make good priests, bar the fact they wanted a marry woman.

Plus if you were homosexual and also a paedophile, preisthood would be high on  your agenda for a job. Especially as up to the last couple of decades gays were held in such low regard in Irish society generally. Whereas if they choose the preisthood, then suddenly they have power and are on a pedestal. Of course priesthood would be a magnet for gay paedophiles.

D4S

Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 20, 2009, 11:43:41 PM
By the way, the thread title reads to me as if someone in an administrative role has done something wrong...  :D

Quite an immature statement, you were getting it tough there trying to stand up for the church mr ardmhaca.  Google 'clerical abuse' and you can read all about it, no mention of administrative errors, just of the abuse and degradation of children by brutes.
The secret of success in life is for a man to be ready for his opportunity when it comes.