Clerical abuse!

[armaghniac]

Apparently he is convinced all the child abusers were ardent nationalists and that this only happened because Ireland left the British Empire.

On the contrary the British Empire were responsible for much of this. The Irish Catholic church was formed in the second part of the 19th century as a conservative institution with Victorian values. The church obtained excessive influence because it was seen as being Irish in response to the colonial government. Catholic education became predominant because 19th century State education was distrusted because it pedalled colonial values, as it still does in the 6 counties. With the foundation of the State a much more secular approach was possible, but almost all the non Catholics seized the northern part of the country for their own use, reinforcing the "national" aspect of Catholicism and making all the harder for the State to get control over things. Not that this excuses them.

[Roger]

I wondered when the Brits would be implicated 

[orangeman]

I wondered when the Brits would be implicated 

Bastards - it was their fault all along.

[longrunsthefox]

I knew it and people blaming those poor nuns and priests and brothers

[mylestheslasher]

Every bishop in this country is living in a mansion, on their own. Transfer them to the state and sell them off to the highest bidder. Church can find a more modest home for the bishop.

How many Bishop's mansions have you been in Myles? You are all talk - back up your claims with facts lad or keep them to yourself.
The Arch Bishop's house in Armagh beside the Cathedral could be described as a mansion.  It also contains offices for 6 or more administrative staff as well as several other offices for various roles within the Diocese.  This house/office is in a key position next to the Church and needs to remain there.

The Church does own a lot of land - but how many Churches are you going to knock down and how many graves are you going to overturn to get what you want?

I don't have to be in them to see them. Everyone I've seen is a large house, many of which used to belong to our ancestors British landlords. I tell you what - lad - why don't you name a house that a bishop lives in that is say less than 1500 sq ft or maybe with a value less than €200k?? You know, the type of house the great unwashed live in. And who said anything about knocking churches or disrespecting the dead by overturning graves. Thats cheap coming in defence of people that buried little kids in unmarked graves in their industrial schools, not a headstone in sight and not an explanation in site. Why don't you go and develop some integrity.

[mylestheslasher]

Every bishop in this country is living in a mansion, on their own. Transfer them to the state and sell them off to the highest bidder. Church can find a more modest home for the bishop.

In my opinion the schools, treatment centers etc in any country should be run by the government. All these buildings should be transferred to the government. A study would then need to take place on how these can be efficiently managed and which if any can be sold of. If the church, out of christain charity, still wish to help out in these facilities then fine. But the government should Vet every member of staff and appoint the manager of the school.

I don't have all the figures of the value of church assets, but I'd imagine they are worth quite a bit. I think there is also a case for the government to take a case against the vatican in europe if the catholic church in Ireland can't cough up the money.

In any case, it is the church that needs to figure out how to pay not me.

But the abusers were caring for these children on behalf of the State. Why do you want to punish the modern Church despite all of the good they are doing and not the State?

I punish the church because they ran the schools, beat the children, raped the children, tortured the children and covered it all up and buried evidence in the vatican. Some sections obstructed the investigation. I blame the church because an independent enquiry that lasted 10 years found them to shoulder most of the blame. I am punishing the church because they deserve it. The taxpayer does not deserve it. BTW - the MODERN christian brothers sued the the commission to prevent them naming these brutes. The MODERN christian brothers obstructed the investigation. I know some of ye have deep affiliation with the church and may find this all very hard to accept but the facts are out at last out in daylight and there is no spinning it into anything other than what it is.

[orangeman]

The poll is interesting. Only 1 person reckons the state alone should pay !

[mylestheslasher]

And do you acknowledge that they have a financial liability here?  and if so is that adequately covered by their contribution to the redress fund?

Jim I think I've already said previously that I think they have a liability and the E100 million is more than adequate. Considering everything the Church does and continues to do for the good of Irish society, I'd probably suggest that a more appropriate figure would be a nominal E1, with the rest being picked up by those most liable, the State. There are many faults within the Irish Church, particularly with the Bishops, but IMO opinion the vast majority of Priests do an invaluable job and they should not be penalised for the sins of their predecessors. 

Now you're taking the piss and having a laugh.  You're on the wind here.

Throwing money to the victims is not the solution to this.
Which do you think the victims would prefer
1) Money
2) Justice

What should be done is for any individuals who either commited the acts, or covered them up should be taken to court and made to face justice

I do not see what can be gained from the modern church or the state taking responsibity - they should publically apologise for all the abuse caused by their pre-deceasers and fully commit themselves to providing whatever help they can with any legal proceedings.

The money has already been agreed. 65k per victim or something along those lines - coming to a total of €1 billion. The question of who pays this has already been agreed. The church pays 10%, the state pays 90%. This is one of the most disgraceful deals ever signed off by an irish government. It needs to be renegotiated and if that can't be done then the taxpayer should not be expected to pay one cent to the catholic church for anything again. Justice would be nice except the commission is not allowed to name the evil bastards due to a legal challenge by the CB as I said earlier. Does that mean that the church is interested in justice for their victims?

[Evil Genius]

On the contrary the British Empire were responsible for much of this.

Q. "So tell me, Sister, why did you beat this little girl? And you, Father, why did you molest that other boy?"

A. "It was the Brits made us do it..."

Were this not such an appalling, distressing and sad story all round, Armaghniac's post could almost have made me laugh.

Anyhow, having desisted from commenting for a number of reasons, I suppose I might as well add my tuppence-worth.

As I see it, the people primarily responsible for this scandal are those who beat and abused the children given to their care. I cannot see any excuse for them. Consequently, I can conceive of no good reason why all the suspected perpetrators are not facing criminal charges - after all, the identity of the majority MUST be known to the Church authorities and/or the State.

Thereafter, the question of compensation arises. Of course, money can never adequately compensate the victims, or give them back their lost childhoods etc. But quite aside from the comfort it may bring in practical terms (counselling and treatment for their mental and physical ailments, depression, drug dependancy and alcoholism etc), it must also be highly symbolic for the victims as a means of proving that Society takes their plight seriously, and is determined to make the abusers pay (literally).

Which leaves the question of exactly who should pay this compensation, and how much etc. Clearly the individual abusers are unlikely to be especially wealthy (though many who would abuse their position over matters like this, might also have been tempted to abuse it in financial affairs as well, so should be forced to pay, if they have it.)

The main donor (imo) should, therefore, be the Church, since it was the Church which "employed" the abusers, and to an extent protected them. Moreover, the Church benefited directly itself from agreeing to "look after" these children, so it would only be right that as much of this money as possible should be redistributed to their victims as possible. Of course, many of the "assets" of the Church will not be realisable - eg. churches and graveyards etc. But where, for instance, the church owns schools and hospitals which it runs on behalf of the State, these properties should imo be handed over in lieu of the (90%) compensation already being paid by the State.

Which finally brings us to the position of the State itself. As many have pointed out, their hands are hardly clean on all of this either i.e. they were seeking to abdicate their responsibility for these children when they willingly handed them over to the care of Institutions which at best, they declined to regulate, and at worst knew (or should have known) were abusing children.

However, it should not be a case of "either/or" between Church and State when determining responsibilty. As I see it the Church should be held accountable for what it did (sins of commission) AND the State should be held accountable for what it did not do (sins of omission).

How one apportions that responsibility in financial terms is a decision for wiser and more informed people than me, but if I had to guess, it might be something like 50:50?

But whichever way the bill is divided up, one thing strikes me as absolutely crucial, and that is the need to provide Justice to the victims, so that they may finally be persuaded that they are now believed and sympathised with. But I cannot see how that will ever happen so long as the abusers are knowingly being allowed to maintain their anonymity and escape prosecution in the Courts.

For unless that issue is addressed, then that for me will be the greatest scandal of this whole sordid and sorry affair.

[The Iceman]

Every bishop in this country is living in a mansion, on their own. Transfer them to the state and sell them off to the highest bidder. Church can find a more modest home for the bishop.

How many Bishop's mansions have you been in Myles? You are all talk - back up your claims with facts lad or keep them to yourself.
The Arch Bishop's house in Armagh beside the Cathedral could be described as a mansion.  It also contains offices for 6 or more administrative staff as well as several other offices for various roles within the Diocese.  This house/office is in a key position next to the Church and needs to remain there.

The Church does own a lot of land - but how many Churches are you going to knock down and how many graves are you going to overturn to get what you want?

I don't have to be in them to see them. Everyone I've seen is a large house, many of which used to belong to our ancestors British landlords. I tell you what - lad - why don't you name a house that a bishop lives in that is say less than 1500 sq ft or maybe with a value less than €200k?? You know, the type of house the great unwashed live in. And who said anything about knocking churches or disrespecting the dead by overturning graves. Thats cheap coming in defence of people that buried little kids in unmarked graves in their industrial schools, not a headstone in sight and not an explanation in site. Why don't you go and develop some integrity.

Where have I not shown integrity? Please point out some examples if you will.

Of course these houses are worth money.  Most towns and villages in urban areas grew up organically around the Church.  Obviously the Bishops house (beside the Church) and the ground the Church is on itself is going to be worth money.  I don't understand your point.  What would you ahve the Church do?
The same can be said for rural areas.  My own townland/parish grew organically around the Church.  The Priest's house is next door.  Of course it is right in the middle of the parish and on prime land.  This would be true of most churches from most denominations.  What would you have the Church do?

[mylestheslasher]

Every bishop in this country is living in a mansion, on their own. Transfer them to the state and sell them off to the highest bidder. Church can find a more modest home for the bishop.

How many Bishop's mansions have you been in Myles? You are all talk - back up your claims with facts lad or keep them to yourself.
The Arch Bishop's house in Armagh beside the Cathedral could be described as a mansion.  It also contains offices for 6 or more administrative staff as well as several other offices for various roles within the Diocese.  This house/office is in a key position next to the Church and needs to remain there.

The Church does own a lot of land - but how many Churches are you going to knock down and how many graves are you going to overturn to get what you want?

I don't have to be in them to see them. Everyone I've seen is a large house, many of which used to belong to our ancestors British landlords. I tell you what - lad - why don't you name a house that a bishop lives in that is say less than 1500 sq ft or maybe with a value less than €200k?? You know, the type of house the great unwashed live in. And who said anything about knocking churches or disrespecting the dead by overturning graves. Thats cheap coming in defence of people that buried little kids in unmarked graves in their industrial schools, not a headstone in sight and not an explanation in site. Why don't you go and develop some integrity.

Where have I not shown integrity? Please point out some examples if you will.

Of course these houses are worth money.  Most towns and villages in urban areas grew up organically around the Church.  Obviously the Bishops house (beside the Church) and the ground the Church is on itself is going to be worth money.  I don't understand your point.  What would you ahve the Church do?
The same can be said for rural areas.  My own townland/parish grew organically around the Church.  The Priest's house is next door.  Of course it is right in the middle of the parish and on prime land.  This would be true of most churches from most denominations.  What would you have the Church do?

I would have the church pay minimum 50% of damages. If they don't have the cash then they should sell off some of their assets or even better get the cash from the vatican. Of course the church building and graveyards would be the last thing on the list but the bishops big house would be the 1st

[Ping Pong Santa]

I have just read through the whole thread and I have to say it is sad to see the grip the Church still to this day has on some of the posters.

The report has described the abuse as 'endemic' within these Catholic institutions. There is no getting away from this.

I cannot believe the amount of posters who feel the need everytime they condemn the abuse to qualify their statements by either sharing the blame or making sure to reiterate that there are many 'good' priests also.

Yes, this will be used as a stick to beat the Church with. It's quite a big f**king stick, so be it and rightly so.

[The Iceman]

I would have the church pay minimum 50% of damages. If they don't have the cash then they should sell off some of their assets or even better get the cash from the vatican. Of course the church building and graveyards would be the last thing on the list but the bishops big house would be the 1st

My point is people are throwing out these ideas about how the Church should pay without thinking it through.
Yes something needs to be done.  Yes the Church has to be held accountable.  Yes people have and continue to suffer and there needs to be justice.
I don't think selling off land around a parish center is the answer.  I for one do not need a McDonalds on the way out of Mass or a Tesco's next door.

Let's come up with some realistic options and ideas instead of fanciful nonsense that will not solve anything.

[mylestheslasher]

Tell me Iceman, where are the church getting the 128 million that they have already committed to pay? You seem to be implying that raising this type of money is Fanciful nonsense. The only thing that is nonsense is that the tax payer in the 26 counties pays for the crimes of the church to the tune of 1 billion euro. It just shows how far the tentacles of the church reach when people can here what is in this report and then come up with all sorts of reasons why the church should not pay. We don't want McDonalds near the church?!, all the churches good work etc etc. I don't care about the churches "good" work. I care about justice. I care that we the taxpayer do not pay for the churches crimes.

Now lets assume that the protestant church was responsible for this disgrace. Ask yourselves would ye all be so reasonable towards that church. Would ye f**k!

[orangeman]

A local parish here was renovating the church here recently - the renovation cost was £2.5m - they asked the parishioners and got £5m on the basis that they had "other" things to spend the money on.

This is just one parish - albeit a large enough parish. Imagine if the whole diocese or the whole country were to renovate all their chapels !!


I know quite elderly people who after the report came out yesterday have sadly decided that going to chapel is no longer attractive.

They'll probably change their mind but for them not to go to chapel is massive and it demonstrates the enormity of the report having been confirmed and made public.