Sexual and Child Abuse by 'Christian' Brothers.

[Ulick]

I know Ulick and can catagorically say that the above in bold is completely incorrect. He has told you before his opinion on the mainstream church, why can't you take the man on his word?

Thank you, Gwee. "There are none so blind as those who will not see", as the good Dean used to say.

[Ulick]

Lar - have a look at any of the threads on child abuse and you'll see Donagh/Ulick post this sort of shite and then out of the other side of his mouth he'll say he has no love for the major churches. He is a fraud and an apologist as clearly no one in their right mind would post this crap. For a lad that has no love for the church you should see the places he trawls through to find his articles which he never sticks a link beside for fear readers will see where they came from. If I were a betting man I'd say he has very close ties one way or the other with the Catholic church and it is Donagh/Ulick that can't come to terms the truth.

My opinion (or lack or it) on the Church, should be irrelevant to any discussion, only it seems that you and the others can't have a mature discussion on what is placed in front of you without casting around looking for hidden agendas from the person that brought it to you. Your argument should be strong enough to stand on it's merits regardless e.g. I haven't once, in all of the threads on this subject on the Board questioned the motives of you or the others, though I'm pretty sure if we went back far enough we'd see you'd never any love for the Church. It's an irrelevant path to take.

I do find it amusing though that none of you see (or accept) the point that the author is making, despite it staring you in the face.

[deiseach]

I do find it amusing though that none of you see (or accept) the point that the author is making, despite it staring you in the face.

It's a nice story, Ulick. But it could apply to any teacher, not just a Christian Brother.

[Ulick]

It's a nice story, Ulick. But it could apply to any teacher, not just a Christian Brother.

Indeed it could and I'm sure if we had a similar witch-hunt against lay teachers, he would be the first to oppose it. The author is, among other things, a lecturer at a teacher training college.

[mylestheslasher]

Lar - have a look at any of the threads on child abuse and you'll see Donagh/Ulick post this sort of shite and then out of the other side of his mouth he'll say he has no love for the major churches. He is a fraud and an apologist as clearly no one in their right mind would post this crap. For a lad that has no love for the church you should see the places he trawls through to find his articles which he never sticks a link beside for fear readers will see where they came from. If I were a betting man I'd say he has very close ties one way or the other with the Catholic church and it is Donagh/Ulick that can't come to terms the truth.

My opinion (or lack or it) on the Church, should be irrelevant to any discussion, only it seems that you and the others can't have a mature discussion on what is placed in front of you without casting around looking for hidden agendas from the person that brought it to you. Your argument should be strong enough to stand on it's merits regardless e.g. I haven't once, in all of the threads on this subject on the Board questioned the motives of you or the others, though I'm pretty sure if we went back far enough we'd see you'd never any love for the Church. It's an irrelevant path to take.

I do find it amusing though that none of you see (or accept) the point that the author is making, despite it staring you in the face.

Here is my opinion on the church Ulick, I'll give it to anyone that asks and I'm not too cowardly to say it straight. I am fundamentally a republican (you probably don't know much about that but I'll continue anyway.) I believe in complete seperation of church and state. I believe no church should have a central role in education, care etc. I believe no citizen should get preferential treatment due to their religion. I believe religion is a personal matter and should be practiced by people in their own time at their own cost. These are my problems with the relationship with the church today.

I do dislike the catholic church because I do not like what they do. I do not like the fact that go to aids infected countries and refuse to hand out condoms. I do not like the fact that they were historically more interested in keeping power to themselves than they were about the plight of your average Irishman at the hands of british Tyranny for centuries. I don't like the way they cherry pick from the bible to suit their own agendas. These are some of the reasons I won't personally practice this religion. If others are happy with these items well bully for them, I doesn't concern me.

What does concern me is when the church spreads its tentacles into the Irish republic to such an extent that they believe their makey uppy rules are more important than the law of the land - a land that many a man died for. It concerns me when the same people rape Irish children and even worse, cover it up, while proclaiming to be our moral guardians. Legal implements of the state have clearly shown this and people like Archbishop Martin and others within the church have also said this. As an irish citizen I have every right to speak on this no matter what my opinion of the catholic church is, I have said the exact same against Gerry Adams and Swim Ireland and will do so against any others that. I will do this and I will continue to chop down the apologost bullshit you post on here. My agenda is the protection of the people of this state and the future people of this state by the little I can do with a mouse and keyboard on this forum (although I do pursue elsewhere also).

[supersarsfields]

Lar - have a look at any of the threads on child abuse and you'll see Donagh/Ulick post this sort of shite and then out of the other side of his mouth he'll say he has no love for the major churches. He is a fraud and an apologist as clearly no one in their right mind would post this crap. For a lad that has no love for the church you should see the places he trawls through to find his articles which he never sticks a link beside for fear readers will see where they came from. If I were a betting man I'd say he has very close ties one way or the other with the Catholic church and it is Donagh/Ulick that can't come to terms the truth.

My opinion (or lack or it) on the Church, should be irrelevant to any discussion, only it seems that you and the others can't have a mature discussion on what is placed in front of you without casting around looking for hidden agendas from the person that brought it to you. Your argument should be strong enough to stand on it's merits regardless e.g. I haven't once, in all of the threads on this subject on the Board questioned the motives of you or the others, though I'm pretty sure if we went back far enough we'd see you'd never any love for the Church. It's an irrelevant path to take.

I do find it amusing though that none of you see (or accept) the point that the author is making, despite it staring you in the face.

Here is my opinion on the church Ulick, I'll give it to anyone that asks and I'm not too cowardly to say it straight. I am fundamentally a republican (you probably don't know much about that but I'll continue anyway.) I believe in complete seperation of church and state. I believe no church should have a central role in education, care etc. I believe no citizen should get preferential treatment due to their religion. I believe religion is a personal matter and should be practiced by people in their own time at their own cost. These are my problems with the relationship with the church today.

I do dislike the catholic church because I do not like what they do. I do not like the fact that go to aids infected countries and refuse to hand out condoms. I do not like the fact that they were historically more interested in keeping power to themselves than they were about the plight of your average Irishman at the hands of british Tyranny for centuries. I don't like the way they cherry pick from the bible to suit their own agendas. These are some of the reasons I won't personally practice this religion. If others are happy with these items well bully for them, I doesn't concern me.

What does concern me is when the church spreads its tentacles into the Irish republic to such an extent that they believe their makey uppy rules are more important than the law of the land - a land that many a man died for. It concerns me when the same people rape Irish children and even worse, cover it up, while proclaiming to be our moral guardians. Legal implements of the state have clearly shown this and people like Archbishop Martin and others within the church have also said this. As an irish citizen I have every right to speak on this no matter what my opinion of the catholic church is, I have said the exact same against Gerry Adams and Swim Ireland and will do so against any others that. I will do this and I will continue to chop down the apologost bullshit you post on here. My agenda is the protection of the people of this state and the future people of this state by the little I can do with a mouse and keyboard on this forum (although I do pursue elsewhere also).

Surely Ulick has the same right then without his views of the church been thrown up at him and calling him an apologist?

[mylestheslasher]

He can post what he likes and say what he likes but I'll be calling it as I see it.

[Main Street]

We know that a minority of clerics were abusers.
It is an irrelevant point because the pertinent issue is the cover up, the institutional cover up.
The cover up was a crime equal if not greater than the sex abuse crime. The stubborn blind refusal to recognise that, is the elephant which keeps passing wind. If you want to look at the behaviour of a religious community re sex abuse, then it is in the context of that entire religious community covering up and facilitating further the crimes of sex abuse.

Re the Brother's contribution to education in Ireland is another discussion.
I would regard the education system I grew up in, as an effective extension of the 'Murder Machine'.

[Lar Naparka]

Nonsense, we can all remember incidents from childhood with the same clarity.

You have lost me here, Ulick I'm afraid.
I would have thought that I laboured the very same point myself. Correct me if I am wrong but I thought I had stated the most obvious aspect of this unreferenced article, which you posted out of context, is the hurt and humiliation the child suffered at the hands of his teacher around 50 years ago.
The author remembers that scene from his childhood days with clarity alright. As a matter of fact he puts it top of the list when he details his recollections of Skehan the teacher.
Whether it was Brother Skehan, Mr Skehan or Mrs. Skehan, the sense of rejection would have been the same. For me at any rate, that is too obvious to labour the point.
Apart from his clarity of recollection when he details Skehan's behaviour towards him on that May morning, his conclusion leads me to think he is working to a hidden agenda.
Take this for instance:
It's at this point that the usual commentators would jump in and denounce the brutal, unfeeling, child-abusing Christian Brothers .....
Where does his membership of the Brothers come into the picture and how can anyone either denounce or defend the actions of his order as an institution, based on his behaviour in his classroom?
I can't see any logical connection there.

[Lar Naparka]

I know Ulick and can catagorically say that the above in bold is completely incorrect. He has told you before his opinion on the mainstream church, why can't you take the man on his word?

I can only speak for myself when I say that Ulick's personal opinions on any subject don't bother me in any way. He's as much entitled as any of us to air his opinions on this discussion board.
However, it is worthy of note that he has now resurrected a long dormant topic by posting an unreferenced article, which, by the way, is very much off-topic.
The thread title reads: Sexual and Child Abuse by 'Christian' Brothers.
I don't see the title in any way implying that all Christian Brothers were/are guilty of sexual, mental or physical abuse. Yet, Ulick continues to labour this point, which is not at issue.

The topic under discussion was fairly well put by myles here:

A small amount may have carried out the acts of abuse but what about the leadership of the organisation that covered it up and refused to cooperate with investigations, even lodging legal action to halt the investigation and then succeeding in preventing priests being named.

It has been established beyond legal doubt that child abuse was endemic in institutions run by the Christian Brothers for a long period. Furthermore, it has never been seriously suggested here or anywhere else I know of that all Brothers were equally guilty, so why defend what is not under attack?
I can't follow the logic of the article Ulick has posted or indeed his own logic in doing so.

[Ulick]

I know Ulick and can catagorically say that the above in bold is completely incorrect. He has told you before his opinion on the mainstream church, why can't you take the man on his word?

I can only speak for myself when I say that Ulick's personal opinions on any subject don't bother me in any way. He's as much entitled as any of us to air his opinions on this discussion board.
However, it is worthy of note that he has now resurrected a long dormant topic by posting an unreferenced article, which, by the way, is very much off-topic.
The thread title reads: Sexual and Child Abuse by 'Christian' Brothers.
I don't see the title in any way implying that all Christian Brothers were/are guilty of sexual, mental or physical abuse. Yet, Ulick continues to labour this point, which is not at issue.

The topic under discussion was fairly well put by myles here:

A small amount may have carried out the acts of abuse but what about the leadership of the organisation that covered it up and refused to cooperate with investigations, even lodging legal action to halt the investigation and then succeeding in preventing priests being named.

It has been established beyond legal doubt that child abuse was endemic in institutions run by the Christian Brothers for a long period. Furthermore, it has never been seriously suggested here or anywhere else I know of that all Brothers were equally guilty, so why defend what is not under attack?
I can't follow the logic of the article Ulick has posted or indeed his own logic in doing so.

I thought it was a nice piece and wanted to share it. Where would you suggest I post it other than the only thread with Christian Brothers in the title?

[mylestheslasher]

I know Ulick and can catagorically say that the above in bold is completely incorrect. He has told you before his opinion on the mainstream church, why can't you take the man on his word?

I can only speak for myself when I say that Ulick's personal opinions on any subject don't bother me in any way. He's as much entitled as any of us to air his opinions on this discussion board.
However, it is worthy of note that he has now resurrected a long dormant topic by posting an unreferenced article, which, by the way, is very much off-topic.
The thread title reads: Sexual and Child Abuse by 'Christian' Brothers.
I don't see the title in any way implying that all Christian Brothers were/are guilty of sexual, mental or physical abuse. Yet, Ulick continues to labour this point, which is not at issue.

The topic under discussion was fairly well put by myles here:

A small amount may have carried out the acts of abuse but what about the leadership of the organisation that covered it up and refused to cooperate with investigations, even lodging legal action to halt the investigation and then succeeding in preventing priests being named.

It has been established beyond legal doubt that child abuse was endemic in institutions run by the Christian Brothers for a long period. Furthermore, it has never been seriously suggested here or anywhere else I know of that all Brothers were equally guilty, so why defend what is not under attack?
I can't follow the logic of the article Ulick has posted or indeed his own logic in doing so.

I thought it was a nice piece and wanted to share it. Where would you suggest I post it other than the only thread with Christian Brothers in the title?

Of course you did. You read a "nice" story about a christian brother and decided to post in a thread about sex abuse by christian brothers. You're warped Ulick - give it up.

[Lar Naparka]

I thought it was a nice piece and wanted to share it. Where would you suggest I post it other than the only thread with Christian Brothers in the title?

I'd really prefer  not to say!
That's grand, Ulick; I also thought it was a nice piece and I have no problem with you posting it on this discussion board—in this or any other thread. I hope you in turn will accept that once it was posted, I and other board members should feel equally free to post comments about it.
Since you posted it verbatim, without any referring links or comments of any sort, I take it that you are in agreement with the author's sentiments. That's a reasonable assumption, isn't it? Now maybe you would tell me why the author's benign recollections of Brother Skehan as a teacher could serve as a rebuttal of charges from "the usual commentators" that denounce the "brutal, unfeeling, child-abusing Christian Brothers."
The fact that his teacher was also a Christian Brother is incidental to the main story so what allude to the said "usual commentators and their anticipated charges against the Brothers as a religious order?
Now I can readily accept this: "Because it's easy to forget the good which Christian Brothers like Brother Skehan did and easy to remember the hurts."
I would imagine that the author and I are roughly the same age and I certainly remember many childhood incidents more vividly than many others of a more recent past. For more than 30 years, I was also a teacher and worked with nine years olds for a good number of those years so I can look at the events brought up by the author from the perspectives of the author as a child and as an adult.
Without an iota of doubt, the rejection of his flowers hurt the child deeply and still does. Anything else he expresses is incidental to his main narrative. It's nice to see he has other, kinder memories of his teacher but to go on to adduce that his school memories serve to rebut charges laid against the Irish Christian Brothers is illogical. The good and bad recollections he mentions refer to Skehan the teacher and not Skehan the Irish Christian Brother.
During my teaching days I came across many Christian Brothers, most of whom I held, and still hold, in very high regard. But my recollections of the Brothers I met is about as relevant to the topic under discussion at present as are those of an unknown author who seeks to defend the Irish Christian Brothers against all charges of child abuse laid against them.
To do this he is drawing on his memories of a single teacher who happened incidentally to be an Irish Christian Brother.

[Hardy]

I took the author's point to be that many people denounce individuals who happen to be Christian Brothers because they are Christian Brothers.