This was debated on Good Morning Ulster, and a Niamh Horan a journalist apparently, who said "she believed in God and went to Mass" but then ridiculed the attitude of the church to simulated sex on the altar, as if they should be welcoming this and even celebrating it taking place in a church!
Ffs now I can understand ( though don't agree with) anti Catholicism, atheism, etc but I doubt even the most cynical atheist would be so insensitive or stupid to think that the Church should tolerate videos of this nature filmed inside churches
Quote from: T Fearon on June 23, 2014, 11:06:29 PM
This was debated on Good Morning Ulster, and a Niamh Horan a journalist apparently, who said "she believed in God and went to Mass" but then ridiculed the attitude of the church to simulated sex on the altar, as if they should be welcoming this and even celebrating it taking place in a church!
Ffs now I can understand ( though don't agree with) anti Catholicism, atheism, etc but I doubt even the most cynical atheist would be so insensitive or stupid to think that the Church should tolerate videos of this nature filmed inside churches
And you'd be right
Whilst on the subject of tolerance, what say you about the level of tolerance the Church has had toward their child abusing "moral compasses" and in the context of this incident, which is worse?
The church didn't "tolerate" child abuse,it without doubt mishandled it in the distant past,but now has the most robust child and vulnerable adult protection policies of any institution in Ireland.
What really got me about this Horan one was her arrogant attitude that "her God approves of sex,even on church altars" manifested in her constant butting in interrupting the other interviewee , who happened to be the farmer from outside Bangor who interrupted Rihanna's video shoot in one of his fields a few years ago.
tolerate
ˈtɒləreɪt/Submit
verb
1.
allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.
"a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent"
synonyms: allow, permit, authorize, sanction, condone, indulge, agree to, accede to, approve of; endure, put up with, bear, take, stand, support, submit to, stomach, undergo; accept, swallow, brook, countenance, admit of, recognize, acknowledge; ignore, turn a blind eye to, wink at; thole; informalstick, hack, abide; informalwear, be doing with; archaicsuffer
"their leader would not tolerate serious dissent"
Fair enough then Tony :-\
Those responsible for the video were disrespectful to the church. It was like going to a neighbour's house and taking a dump on the floor of their living room.
Had they done it in a Mosque there'd be a fatwa out on them. Mind you the Rubberbandits didn't exactly cover themselves in glory making the video for Horse Outside in a church
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 12:14:28 AM
Those responsible for the video were disrespectful to the church. It was like going to a neighbour's house and taking a dump on the floor of their living room.
No Orior, if these people were Catholics then they would deserve it because of something that some other Catholic did sometime somewhere.
The decline in Religion generally has led to a society where there is no longer any moral or even civic values. The so called freedoms espoused by the liberal media, stand exposed as nothing but licence to indulge in any form of licentiousness or corruption. Attacks on young and old are treated as trivial offences in our Courts, even the daily murders are tolerated. A society that has no respect for itself, can hardly be called upon too respect others. The outrage in the Good Shepherd was Blasphemy Which used to be a crime deserving off moral outrage. Today it is no longer a crime and we are too acceptively permissive, think ourselves too intelligent , cool and trendy, to even feign any sense of outrage. God help our children and grand-children we are bequeathing them some legacy
100% agree with you Pangurban.The influence of churches and religion in days gone by in this country (particularly the Southern part thereof) is now bemoaned as being repressive etc but it did foster much stronger morality,honesty and in my opinion greater communal spirit and dare I say it general happiness.
Now,anything goes.The attitude of this journalist Horan was bizarre.She is convinced that her God would celebrate sex on altars! As the well known actress and parishioner of The Good Shepherd Church in Belfast said,"What is the world coming to?"
I didn't hear the Nolan show nor do I think would I want to. there is only one reason he would get someone with that attitude on and that is to cause more outrage.
I fully agree with the sentiments above we are increasingly living in a society that is questioning traditions and beliefs that have been handed down through the generations, stood the test of time and shaped our society in the process. Turning against these tried and tested methods for living will lead to society becoming less cohesive with serious consequences some of which we are actually now seeing.
Some of the questions i have:
Why is adultery not a crime? Legal promise made but if broken...no actual big deal legally??? But serious consequences for the family in the short term and long term.
Why is gambling legal? What actual purpose does it serve?
Why is porn legal? Seriously.... how? when? why?
I'm sure there is a big temptation to paint me as some sort of political radical right winger but I am actually not. Politically I am more left wing as I believe there is more compassion and values on the left instead of the greed and prejudice on the right. However because of its openness the left is hijacked by loose morals proposing to be for freedom of expression, liberty or whatever else.
In your world, it seems everything should be illegal unless we decide otherwise. Sounds like a good place.
Those last 2 3 posts take me to the fair. In total denial about the depraved hypocrisy of moral compasses for god knows how long who took full advantage of peoples innocence and subservience which, when it was exposed, took large swathes of people who question away from a belief system which would put up with such depravity. It shook people into rethinking about the belief in a Church which would protect its own at all cost regardless of the damage done to its flock.
So bemoan all youse want boys. Who knows where moral thresholds will end up but don't think your beloved church hasn't helped bring about the secularisation of educated societies. So if you're going to whinge at anyone, whinge at the leaders of the church.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 07:26:29 AM
100% agree with you Pangurban.The influence of churches and religion in days gone by in this country (particularly the Southern part thereof) is now bemoaned as being repressive etc but it did foster much stronger morality,honesty and in my opinion greater communal spirit and dare I say it general happiness.
Now,anything goes.The attitude of this journalist Horan was bizarre.She is convinced that her God would celebrate sex on altars! As the well known actress and parishioner of The Good Shepherd Church in Belfast said,"What is the world coming to?"
i don't knowwhat this story is about, but i do know that Niamh Horan is one of the biggest fools in Irish journalism today. her articles for the sunday independent sum up every thing that is wrong with that paper and on top of that she can hardly write coherent English.
niamh horan represents no one but herself the only way to deal with her is completely ignore her.
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 24, 2014, 07:41:09 AM
Why is adultery not a crime? Legal promise made but if broken...no actual big deal legally??? But serious consequences for the family in the short term and long term.
Omaghjoe, agree with much of what you say. In regards to the above this is a civil contract and is dealt with through the law by way of rescinding the contract, or divorce. If someone commits adultery then they can be hit financially in the ending of the marriage, either through fixing the costs against them or through the leverage that the other person has in terms of a financial settlement. There is very little else that you can do.
I don't believe that the world has had the complete moral breakdown that people seem to think is happening. There is an increasing population worldwide so obviously there will be more crime. There is also 24 hour media coverage of everything that happens and things are fired at us all the time. It seems that there is so much more happening but there isn't really.
Niamh Horan has been trying for the past 18 months to be the Irish equivalent of the outspoken Katie Hopkins in the UK. Going against the grain to cause a bit of controversy. She is a gutter press journalist( in the loosest term) of the highest order and would be ideally suited for a red top publication.
She courted controversy last year also with her rant on Kenny egan and drug use.
Moral outrage from this particular quarter is hard to take. An idiotic crank perpetrates a display of bad manners in some form of sex mime and this hypocrite is parading his moral outrage. Meanwhile, he continues to condone and defend facilitation of the ACTUAL sexual abuse and REAL rape of REAL children by an organisation that is nevertheless affronted by a display of bad choreography.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
Moral outrage from this particular quarter is hard to take. An idiotic crank perpetrates a display of bad manners in some form of sex mime and this hypocrite is parading his moral outrage. Meanwhile, he continues to condone and defend facilitation of the ACTUAL sexual abuse and REAL rape of REAL children by an organisation that is nevertheless affronted by a display of bad choreography.
Hard to disagree with any of that.
You're wasting your breath Hardy.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 07:26:29 AM
100% agree with you Pangurban.The influence of churches and religion in days gone by in this country (particularly the Southern part thereof) is now bemoaned as being repressive etc but it did foster much stronger morality,honesty and in my opinion greater communal spirit and dare I say it general happiness.
Now,anything goes.The attitude of this journalist Horan was bizarre.She is convinced that her God would celebrate sex on altars! As the well known actress and parishioner of The Good Shepherd Church in Belfast said,"What is the world coming to?"
I thought that too,
All the bleating about decline in moral standards and predictions of the doom of the human race because people are, in large numbers, abandoning faith in favour of reason, is totally wide of the mark. Most statistical trends seem to illustrate the opposite - a correlation between, on the one hand, the decline of religion, the growth in humanist values and the acceptance of rationalist thinking and, on the other hand, a reduced incidence of violent crime in Western society in recent years, as well as a dramatic drop in the numbers killed in wars in this generation.
Between 2002/03 and 2012/13, for instance, the reported rate of violent crime in the UK has reduced dramatically:
Homicide by 47%
Attempted murder by 50%
Causing death by dangerous driving: 55%
Violence against the person by 15%
Kidnapping by 57%
Sexual offences by 5% (though reported rape is up by 33%)
Burglary by 48%
Theft by 44%
Possession of weapons by 45%
Fraud by 64% (!)
Total recorded crime by 38%
It seems that, the more society bases its morality on respect for the human being and for objective truth, the more honest and law-abiding and the less violent it becomes. Which, I think, is what you'd expect.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
Moral outrage from this particular quarter is hard to take. An idiotic crank perpetrates a display of bad manners in some form of sex mime and this hypocrite is parading his moral outrage. Meanwhile, he continues to condone and defend facilitation of the ACTUAL sexual abuse and REAL rape of REAL children by an organisation that is nevertheless affronted by a display of bad choreography.
Two wrongs do not make a right. This episode was not right and it isn't connected in any way to the other issues in this thread. This reminds me of the whataboutery in the Belfast Telegraph forum where some article about Sinn Féin about road safety or smoking is derailed by comments about Enniskillen or La Mon.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 10:21:52 AM
All the bleating about decline in moral standards and predictions of the doom of the human race because people are, in large numbers, abandoning faith in favour of reason, are totally wide of the mark. Most statistical trends seem to illustrate the opposite - a correlation between, on the one hand, the decline of religion, the growth in humanist values and the acceptance of rationalist thinking and, on the other hand, a reduced incidence of violent crime in Western society in recent years, as well as a dramatic drop in the numbers killed in wars in this generation.
Between 2002/03 and 2012/13, for instance, the reported rate of violent crime in the UK has reduced dramatically:
Homicide by 47%
Attempted murder by 50%
Causing death by dangerous driving: 55%
Violence against the person by 15%
Kidnapping by 57%
Sexual offences by 5% (though reported rape is up by 33%)
Burglary by 48%
Theft by 44%
Possession of weapons by 45%
Fraud by 64% (!)
Total recorded crime by 38%
It seems that, the more society bases its morality on respect for the human being and for objective truth, the more honest and law-abiding and the less violent it becomes. Which, I think, is what you'd expect.
Don't let facts get in the way of a good vent!!!
Quote from: armaghniac on June 24, 2014, 10:25:22 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 09:51:24 AM
Moral outrage from this particular quarter is hard to take. An idiotic crank perpetrates a display of bad manners in some form of sex mime and this hypocrite is parading his moral outrage. Meanwhile, he continues to condone and defend facilitation of the ACTUAL sexual abuse and REAL rape of REAL children by an organisation that is nevertheless affronted by a display of bad choreography.
Two wrongs do not make a right. This episode was not right and it isn't connected in any way to the other issues in this thread. This reminds me of the whataboutery in the Belfast Telegraph forum where some article about Sinn Féin about road safety or smoking is derailed by comments about Enniskillen or La Mon.
Ah come on. The two wrongs are on completely different levels. One is bad manners, as I said. The other is rape of a child. Do you not see the complete absence of any moral equivalence?
It would be hypocritical to ignore the greater crime and highlight the lesser. I don't have a gross enough word to describe the mentality that actually defends the one while condemning the other.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 10:21:52 AM
All the bleating about decline in moral standards and predictions of the doom of the human race because people are, in large numbers, abandoning faith in favour of reason, are totally wide of the mark. Most statistical trends seem to illustrate the opposite - a correlation between, on the one hand, the decline of religion, the growth in humanist values and the acceptance of rationalist thinking and, on the other hand, a reduced incidence of violent crime in Western society in recent years, as well as a dramatic drop in the numbers killed in wars in this generation.
Between 2002/03 and 2012/13, for instance, the reported rate of violent crime in the UK has reduced dramatically:
Homicide by 47%
Attempted murder by 50%
Causing death by dangerous driving: 55%
Violence against the person by 15%
Kidnapping by 57%
Sexual offences by 5% (though reported rape is up by 33%)
Burglary by 48%
Theft by 44%
Possession of weapons by 45%
Fraud by 64% (!)
Total recorded crime by 38%
It seems that, the more society bases its morality on respect for the human being and for objective truth, the more honest and law-abiding and the less violent it becomes. Which, I think, is what you'd expect.
What about low level anti-social behaviour, vandalism, assaults etc? It seems to me that there is far more of that going on than say 20 years ago, but maybe that's just optics.
I don't have figures for that, AZ, but, to be honest, I'd be surprised if the trend is not the same.
I haven't researched the subject in any depth, and it's way too early to be making definitive claims about cause and effect, but I'm continuing to see more and more evidence for this correlation from reliable sources.
One of the most interesting aspects of it is that I'm sure 90%+ of people would have suggested the trend in society is in the opposite direction. That says a lot about how the media work, facts versus stories and how the editorial job of selecting of what we get to read, see and hear is one of the most powerful positions in society and is mostly abused, as far as I can see.
The Daily Mail for stories, legends and the manipulation of society's fears. The facts are elsewhere to be found.
Good point. I suppose I'm just going on anecdotes and what I see myself. There appears to be far more, mostly young, people hanging around in groups and acting the ape than I can remember. But then again maybe I was an ape ! :)
And sorry, I meant to say, I'm not surprised by the figures too much, as I do think there's a decline in violent crime. It seems to be mostly limited to internal drugs wars at the moment. I would be surprised if there's less anti social behaviour type incidents though.
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 24, 2014, 10:41:34 AM
Good point. I suppose I'm just going on anecdotes and what I see myself. There appears to be far more, mostly young, people hanging around in groups and acting the ape than I can remember. But then again maybe I was an ape ! :)
And sorry, I meant to say, I'm not surprised by the figures too much, as I do think there's a decline in violent crime. It seems to be mostly limited to internal drugs wars at the moment. I would be surprised if there's less anti social behaviour type incidents though.
You're only noticing it because you've grown up and are a (perhaps) fully functioning member of society, not a young pup.
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 24, 2014, 10:53:01 AM
Quote from: AZOffaly on June 24, 2014, 10:41:34 AM
Good point. I suppose I'm just going on anecdotes and what I see myself. There appears to be far more, mostly young, people hanging around in groups and acting the ape than I can remember. But then again maybe I was an ape ! :)
And sorry, I meant to say, I'm not surprised by the figures too much, as I do think there's a decline in violent crime. It seems to be mostly limited to internal drugs wars at the moment. I would be surprised if there's less anti social behaviour type incidents though.
You're only noticing it because you've grown up and are a (perhaps) fully functioning member of society, not a young pup.
Maybe.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 10:30:46 AM
Ah come on. The two wrongs are on completely different levels. One is bad manners, as I said. The other is rape of a child. Do you not see the complete absence of any moral equivalence?
I see the complete absence of any equivalence and I think the serious issues are trivialised when they are merely used to score points in a thread that wasn't about this issue.
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape.
Yes indeed, Tony Fearon is a "sinner", a "pervert" and "immoral" and such a person should not allowed expound their opinions. Are we any different from the 1950s?
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 24, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape.
Yes indeed, Tony Fearon is a "sinner", a "pervert" and "immoral" and such a person should not allowed expound their opinions. Are we any different from the 1950s?
Stop mis-stating what I said. Why would you do that? People can read it in black and white above. I said he is a hypocrite.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 24, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.
Nice try at another twist. I repeat, I brought up child rape AFTER Fearon defended its facilitation in this thread.
I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape. It's a fascinating and disturbing phenomenon. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on it, if that will make you feel better.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:30:26 AM
I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape. It's a fascinating and disturbing phenomenon. Maybe I'll start a separate thread on it, if that will make you feel better.
The Free Speech For Fearon brigade always come out in force whenever anyone calls him out over yet another of his contributions. The fact that there is only one topic that ever gets him into trouble, a topic about which he has been repeatedly warned, never seems to disturb their belief that he is the victim of an Orwellian level of censorship.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 24, 2014, 04:00:49 AM
The decline in Religion generally has led to a society where there is no longer any moral or even civic values. The so called freedoms espoused by the liberal media, stand exposed as nothing but licence to indulge in any form of licentiousness or corruption. Attacks on young and old are treated as trivial offences in our Courts, even the daily murders are tolerated. A society that has no respect for itself, can hardly be called upon too respect others. The outrage in the Good Shepherd was Blasphemy Which used to be a crime deserving off moral outrage. Today it is no longer a crime and we are too acceptively permissive, think ourselves too intelligent , cool and trendy, to even feign any sense of outrage. God help our children and grand-children we are bequeathing them some legacy
You should read about life in Ireland in the 1700s. And 1800s and 1900s. Depraved goings on, sometimes under the banner of religion. We're not too bad now.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:30:26 AM
I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape.
This would indeed be astounding, if it were true. Who said that they were more outraged by bad manners than by child rape? Where did they say this?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 24, 2014, 11:45:42 AM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:30:26 AM
I do find it astounding that some people are more outraged by bad manners than by child rape.
This would indeed be astounding, if it were true. Who said that they were more outraged by bad manners than by child rape? Where did they say this?
Stop acting the maggot and go work on your sense of perspective.
Quote from: armaghniac on June 24, 2014, 11:19:16 AM
TheSkull responded to a harmless enough first post with whataboutery designed to derail the thread and you rowed in afterwards.
I answered his post black and white. But in the context of Fearon speaking of his moral outrage at this admittedly distasteful incident, when balanced against his mulish defense of the leaders of his church it's pretty obvious that the whataboutery argument was going to be used and should be used to expose the hypocrisy of his position
Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)
But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.
Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.
Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?
By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?
Quote from: PAULD123 on June 24, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)
But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.
Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.
Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?
By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.
Maybe you're not familiar with the way Tony has showboated his loyalty to Brady and holds him blameless for his part in the attempted silencing of abused children and protection of the perpetrators. I replied to him with that in mind.
I have no clue about what the rest of your post is referencing because I've already agreed that it was totally distasteful
Quote from: PAULD123 on June 24, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)
But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.
Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.
Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?
By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you read my posts? Have I even mentioned the Good whatsit? How can you not understand that my point is about Fearon's hypocrisy? Can you seriously not see the grotesque standards of a person who, having started a thread to complain about some poor and insulting behaviour, then uses that thread to trivialise the fate of child rape victims and to condone the actions of those who facilitated it?
How could my point, which, I thought was simple, plain and clearly put, have escaped you in a fog of nonsense and cliches about "two wrongs don't make a right" and the ludicrous innuendo that I implied that some people in that particular church committed sex abuse?
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?
You too? Are you serious? Read his second post on this thread. He denies that the church tolerated child sex abuse. How is it possible for a reasonable person to read that and pass on as if it meant nothing, when it is a matter of record and even admitted by the institution itself at this stage that the church not only tolerated it but covered it up? Worse still, they facilitated it by moving its perpetrators around to keep them ahead of the law and, in the process, providing them with continuous streams of fresh victims.
What sane, sensible, thinking, empathetic human being denies that now? What kind of person defends those who deny it?
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 02:53:04 PM
Quote from: PAULD123 on June 24, 2014, 01:15:45 PM
Have none of you guys ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
Child sex abuse is abhorrent, the fact that it was committed by a fairly large number of the church's custodians is abhorrent, the fact that under the last Pope it was not hardly confessed is abhorrent. (At least the new Pope has openly condemned it us being as evil as satanic mass)
But the church isn't a single person, it isn't a single priest. There are many more decent wonderfully caring and kind individuals who are priests than there are sex abusers. There are millions of good people who follow Christianity and live good civil and decent lives.
Did any of these parishioners of the Good Shepherd commit these horrible acts? Are you seriously suggesting that they should have no rights to their freedom of worship because people who had nothing to do with them committed evil while a member of an organisation which they are members of? Most importantly they are members of an organisation because they believe in the stated principles, all of which would actually have condemned these evil acts.
Seriously Hardy and skull, are you implying that a single member of the good shepherd committed child sex abuse? or covered it up? or indeed has perpetrated any major crime? But at the same time you think they should be fair game, why?
By the way while I still believe in god, I long ago stopped believing in the teaching of the catholic church so I am no rabid catholic defending all in its name. But I can tell the difference between the good message of Christianity, the goodness in people who follow it and the Those people who hold themselves out as following it but actually betray its very principles with horrific acts.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you read my posts? Have I even mentioned the Good whatsit? How can you not understand that my point is about Fearon's hypocrisy? Can you seriously not see the grotesque standards of a person who, having started a thread to complain about some poor and insulting behaviour, then uses that thread to trivialise the fate of child rape victims and to condone the actions of those who facilitated it?
How could my point, which, I though was simple, plain and clearly put, have escaped you in a fog of nonsense and cliches about "two wrongs don't make a right" and the ludicrous innuendo that I implied that some people in that particular church committed sex abuse?
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 01:42:51 PM
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 11:02:42 AM
I probably wouldn't have sat here and let that hypocrite whinge about upset feelings while I know his perverted morality condones the facilitation of child rape. But I should point out, in response to your charge of whataboutery, that my first post on this thread was after Fearon himself mounted yet another defence of the facilitation of child rape.
Is that a fact or are you putting words in his mouth?
You too? Are you serious? Read his second post on this thread. He denies that the church tolerated child sex abuse. How is it possible for a reasonable person to read that and pass on as if it meant nothing, when it is a matter of record and even admitted by the institution itself at this stage that the church not only tolerated it but covered it up? Worse still, they facilitated it by moving its perpetrators around to keep them ahead of the law and, in the process, providing them with continuous streams of fresh victims.
What sane, sensible, thinking, empathetic human being denies that now? What kind of person defends those who deny it?
Lots of people, more is the pity :o
Firstly Horan came across as a ranting gobsh**e. Secondly who was hurt and offended by this video? It wasn't the Paedo priests. It was honest god fearing church going people. It sickens my h**e when anti church posters tar every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up. Just because you have lost faith or have decided to use the scandals as a reason to opt out...as is your right you do not have the right to say that the parishioners of Good Sheppard shouldn't be annoyed because of the actions of some in the church.
The first thing that should have happened here is that we should have had a look at the journalist's form:
(http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/9333/p1170452large.jpg)
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/niamh-horan-alex-fergusons-signing-in-dublinwas-an-insult-to-the-fans-29741065.html (http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/niamh-horan-alex-fergusons-signing-in-dublinwas-an-insult-to-the-fans-29741065.html)
http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/the-partys-over-una-sober-up-and-start-getting-some-sense-26616987.html (http://www.independent.ie/woman/celeb-news/the-partys-over-una-sober-up-and-start-getting-some-sense-26616987.html)
http://sineadoconnor.tumblr.com/page/5 (http://sineadoconnor.tumblr.com/page/5) . Sinead O'Connor on Horan - ..Once again The Irish Sunday Independent whom I used to write for ( and who never offered to pay me a penny for my work) and in particular Niamh Horan, of whom it has been said "her affair with a certain married show biz columnist is the worst kept secret in Dublin", have decided to spread untruths about me and do damage to me at a time when they know I am extremely unwell.
This is the modus operandai of this paper and in particular this woman , who seems quite bizarre in her obsession with me.
Really, a good therapist would not go astray, though whomever found themselves unlucky enough to be employed as Ms Horan's therapist would certainly have their work cut out for them and need eyes in the back of their head.
This is the same woman who tweeted on the day Whitney Houston died that it would be better if Christina Aguillera died...
And this is just the funniest thing I ever read, funny as in the most stupid person telling their 'story': http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/when-a-rapper-invites-you-to-party-he-doesnt-just-mean-bubbly-and-a-boogie-26286724.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/when-a-rapper-invites-you-to-party-he-doesnt-just-mean-bubbly-and-a-boogie-26286724.html)
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 24, 2014, 03:47:24 PM
Firstly Horan came across as a ranting gobsh**e. Secondly who was hurt and offended by this video? It wasn't the Paedo priests. It was honest god fearing church going people. It sickens my h**e when anti church posters tar every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up. Just because you have lost faith or have decided to use the scandals as a reason to opt out...as is your right you do not have the right to say that the parishioners of Good Sheppard shouldn't be annoyed because of the actions of some in the church.
I truly don't believe this shit. Point out where, in this thread, anyone has "tar(red) every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up".
Go on. I'll wait.
OK - nothing to be found. Why are you making stuff up? Never happened.
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 03:57:41 PM
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 23, 2014, 11:06:29 PM
This was debated on Good Morning Ulster, and a Niamh Horan a journalist apparently, who said "she believed in God and went to Mass" but then ridiculed the attitude of the church to simulated sex on the altar, as if they should be welcoming this and even celebrating it taking place in a church!
Ffs now I can understand ( though don't agree with) anti Catholicism, atheism, etc but I doubt even the most cynical atheist would be so insensitive or stupid to think that the Church should tolerate videos of this nature filmed inside churches
Absolutely no justification for this type of video taking place in a chapel.
That journalist obviously looking for a bit of publicity. No class.
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
What's this got to do with the topic?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 03:57:41 PM
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
Stop squirming and lying. Nobody accused you of condoning paedophilia. I accused you of condoning the facilitation of paedophilia.
The Concise OED:
facilitate v.t. Make easy, promote, help forward, (action or result);
The actions of the official church have been shown, proven and implicitly accepted, even by themselves by their apologies, to have conformed with at least the first and main part of the definition, probably the third part and arguably the second part. (Though it need only fit one part to meet the definition.)
Now that you can't claim to misunderstand the definition of "facilitate", you have the opportunity to withdraw your denial that the church facilitated child sex abuse. You can also take the opportunity to retract your denial that the church tolerated child sex abuse.
While you're at it, you might explain the bizarre logic that excuses a crime on the basis that it's "human nature" to lie, cover up and thwart the pursuit of justice.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 24, 2014, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
What's this got to do with the topic?
If you bothered to follow the thread you would see I answered the previous post, which you conveniently deleted from your quoting of my post.
Quote from: imtommygunn on June 24, 2014, 04:14:29 PM
These threads always go down the same road.
Why do some people wish to divert a thread towards a different topic so as better to rant? Can a thread not just be about what it is about, without people piling in to try and resolve what they believe to be unfinished business from some other thread?
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 24, 2014, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
What's this got to do with the topic?
If you bothered to follow the thread you would see I answered the previous post, which you conveniently deleted from your quoting of my post.
All I see is the usual twisting of the story by a few individuals to introduce the hysterical condemnation of the church.
I don't take any pleasure from reading these threads, the anti Catholicism here rivals that to be found in Orange Halls.I do not condone paedophilia nor do I believe the Church facilitated it.Like it or not covering up, passing the buck, moving the problem on has been ingrained in every organisation staffed by humans since time immemorial.Like most serious Catholics I was/am shocked saddened and disgusted by the child abuse revelations.
I never intended this thread to move into child abuse (though I might have known it would). My main source of incredulity was actually the opinion of a journalist that stated that the Church should tolerate sex videos on altars.
You don't believe the church facilitated it? What would you say is a good word to describe the process of knowingly covering up such behaviour, and discretely moving the offender into a brand new area where he could re-offend? What would you call not reporting the offender to the police?
It's always the same and is the same for Cardinal Brady though. It just seems that despite the road these threads continually go down and the fact you are supposed to be an avid supporter of Brady or/and the catholic faith you go ahead and drag them down the road of being chastised again and again??
I don't understand I have to say.
Quote from: Hardy on June 24, 2014, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 24, 2014, 03:47:24 PM
Firstly Horan came across as a ranting gobsh**e. Secondly who was hurt and offended by this video? It wasn't the Paedo priests. It was honest god fearing church going people. It sickens my h**e when anti church posters tar every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up. Just because you have lost faith or have decided to use the scandals as a reason to opt out...as is your right you do not have the right to say that the parishioners of Good Sheppard shouldn't be annoyed because of the actions of some in the church.
I truly don't believe this shit. Point out where, in this thread, anyone has "tar(red) every catholic with the same brush as the paedos and the Bishops who covered it up".
Go on. I'll wait.
OK - nothing to be found. Why are you making stuff up? Never happened.
Go back over the posts, there are many examples of generalisations.
Actually Niamh Horan on the radio introduced the scandals within the church as part of here rant.
Facilitating means actively encouraging.The Church has admitted its faults and failings, the Pope has apologised, it now has structures in place to prevent recurrence.If the great and good of this country can overlook the brutality meted out to generations of Irish people of all ages to wine and dine with the British Queen (who rather than apologise, simply wishes things were done differently or not at all) then maybe it's time to stop persecuting Catholicism
RC leaders the world over facilitated/covered up these atrocities, yet Tony is disgusted at some daft idiots frolicking on an alter yet he fawns over one of those leaders who played a very important part in role in the cover up here locally. His sheepish idolatry to Brady regardless of the evidence and his refusal to accept he is in any way guilty to the point he's too morally corrupted to lead those of faith is typical of the devout it would seem.
THIS IS "THE WHY" I RESPONDED INITIALLY IN THE WAY I DID TO THIS THREAD.
The Concise OED:
facilitate v.t. Make easy, promote, help forward, (action or result);
I think that the approach the church took in those days absolutely made it easy for this abuse to occur. And it was willful. Therefore, by definition, it was facilitating the abuse.
I'm not anti Catholic at all, I still go to mass. I recognise that where humans are involved, bad shit can happen. And when those humans have a serious love of power and will hold it no matter what, then you get the sort of horrible cover ups and abuses we're talking about. I also think that the Catholic Church is trying to straighten out its house, and I do believe that the majority of priests I know are good people. However none of that will prevent me from saying that what happened there was an absolute disgrace, and the people in charge of the church were criminals in my eyes.
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 03:57:41 PM
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
Your accusation is that the Church hierachy fed Smyth's sick addiction, by presumably moving him off to somewhere new where he could start again. Use of the word facilitation infers that the hierarchy took some pleasure from this.
I am a simple person and need some hope to cling to, therefore I suggest the reason he was shunted around was to stop the sick bastard from abusing children. The latter day cover-up and denial is inexcusable probably a criminal offence.
Where would one see this video........
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 03:57:41 PM
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
Your accusation is that the Church hierachy fed Smyth's sick addiction, by presumably moving him off to somewhere new where he could start again. Use of the word facilitation infers that the hierarchy took some pleasure from this.
I am a simple person and need some hope to cling to, therefore I suggest the reason he was shunted around was to stop the sick b**tard from abusing children. The latter day cover-up and denial is inexcusable probably a criminal offence.
But where did they move Smyth (and the others like him)? It's not like they put him in a locked room at the bottom of a lake.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 24, 2014, 04:31:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 24, 2014, 04:10:10 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
What's this got to do with the topic?
If you bothered to follow the thread you would see I answered the previous post, which you conveniently deleted from your quoting of my post.
All I see is the usual twisting of the story by a few individuals to introduce the hysterical condemnation of the church.
Of course it is all you see. You didn't notice my post (nor anyone else's) regarding the journalist?
Quote from: laoislad on June 24, 2014, 04:59:26 PM
Where would one see this video........
Stop trying to being this back on topic, slaphead, lol
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 04:58:04 PM
Your accusation is that the Church hierachy fed Smyth's sick addiction, by presumably moving him off to somewhere new where he could start again. Use of the word facilitation infers that the hierarchy took some pleasure from this.
I am a simple person and need some hope to cling to, therefore I suggest the reason he was shunted around was to stop the sick b**tard from abusing children. The latter day cover-up and denial is inexcusable probably a criminal offence.
That's some inference
Your reasoning on your second point would be the same as dragging an alcoholic out of one pub and into another one to stop him drinking ... how much logical reasoning does one man need to work out what would happen?
Quote from: Orior on June 24, 2014, 04:58:04 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 04:04:11 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 03:57:41 PM
It would sicken you even more if you were accused by those same anti Catholics of condoning paedophilia. The church never facilitated child abuse (facilitation implies actually encouraging something).It certainly badly mishandled it and indeed covered it up (as is human nature) to protect its reputation, but bad an all as these things were they're still far short of facilitation
The Church facilitated Brendan Smyth's pedophilia by covering up allegations against him, silencing his accusers, moving him from parishes where he had abused, to fresh parishes where he could begin new abuse. The Church still will not reveal all of the parishes in the United States that it placed Smyth.
The above are the facts. Hiding behind accusations of anti-Catholic is simply denial.
Your accusation is that the Church hierachy fed Smyth's sick addiction, by presumably moving him off to somewhere new where he could start again. Use of the word facilitation infers that the hierarchy took some pleasure from this.
I am a simple person and need some hope to cling to, therefore I suggest the reason he was shunted around was to stop the sick b**tard from abusing children. The latter day cover-up and denial is inexcusable probably a criminal offence.
Your understanding of the word 'facilitated' is different from mine then. How does the definition of 'facilitated' imply that the facilitator took pleasure in the act?
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 05:03:25 PM
Of course it is all you see. You didn't notice my post (nor anyone else's) regarding the journalist?
I saw it. She's a geebag. Still don't know why it moved into a different conversation about the church.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
Facilitating means actively encouraging.The Church has admitted its faults and failings, the Pope has apologised, it now has structures in place to prevent recurrence.If the great and good of this country can overlook the brutality meted out to generations of Irish people of all ages to wine and dine with the British Queen (who rather than apologise, simply wishes things were done differently or not at all) then maybe it's time to stop persecuting Catholicism
Ah lads - he is taking the piss - no one could believe this shite.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 24, 2014, 05:08:59 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
Facilitating means actively encouraging.The Church has admitted its faults and failings, the Pope has apologised, it now has structures in place to prevent recurrence.If the great and good of this country can overlook the brutality meted out to generations of Irish people of all ages to wine and dine with the British Queen (who rather than apologise, simply wishes things were done differently or not at all) then maybe it's time to stop persecuting Catholicism
Ah lads - he is taking the piss - no one could believe this shite.
Sadly it is believable that he sees the Church as the real victim of the child abuse scandals.
Where is this Good Shepherd chapel? Near the church of the same name?
The church has admitted culpability and has apologised,all very well to sit here retrospectively with hindsight and persecute it for failings for which it had admitted responsibility.But why then do we wine and dine with the British Queen after the centuries of injustice including the indiscriminate murder of Dubliners a mere 40 years ago?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 24, 2014, 05:43:09 PM
The church has admitted culpability and has apologised,all very well to sit here retrospectively with hindsight and persecute it for failings for which it had admitted responsibility.But why then do we wine and dine with the British Queen after the centuries of injustice including the indiscriminate murder of Dubliners a mere 40 years ago?
Please show where the Church, in particular the Vatican, admitted 'culpability'.
By contrast I will demonstrate how the Vatican claims it can only act within it's jurisdiction and is not responsible for events outside the Vatican: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/vatican-figures-disciplined-priests-sex-abuse (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/06/vatican-figures-disciplined-priests-sex-abuse)
"...The Vatican's UN ambassador in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, revealed the figures on Tuesday during a second day of grilling by a committee monitoring implementation of the UN treaty against torture.
Tomasi insisted the convention applied only inside the tiny Vatican City state...."
More:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/us-vatican-abuse-idUSBRE9B304620131204 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/04/us-vatican-abuse-idUSBRE9B304620131204)
"....In response to a series of tough questions posed by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Holy See said it would not release information on its internal investigations into abuse cases unless required to do so by a request from a state or government to cooperate in legal proceedings....."
"...."The Holy See does not exercise effective control over the local activities of Catholic institutions around the world," the response read, indicating the Catholic Church's central administration could only be held accountable for events within the Vatican City State...."
As far as I can see, the Vatican continues to completely deny 'culpability'.
What happened at Good Shepherd was horrible. I was really shocked and saddened that they disrespected a place of worship in that way - regardless if it was a temple or a church or a mosque. It isn't right.
The Nolan show is getting a little out of control. I wonder how far he would go sometimes for the ratings....
Sticking to the subject of the original post, I think it is pretty stupid carry on and I am amazed at the quality of people that are employed to be full time journalists. As a right leaning non theist I find a lot of carry on in the name of liberalism these days I find bizarre and often insulting to the term as understood by classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill.
When these people run out of genuine good causes it seems every pillar of society becomes a target. It seems the objective is often removal of these pillars with little idea of how it should be replaced.
As to what Niamh Horan thought she might be achieving is unclear. A more mature attitude to sexuality in society is of course a good objective if that's what it was, but pretend masturbation on a church altar seems more the action of a disturbed individual. It seems more an attack on public decency and the senses of those in attendance than any aspect of the church.
What DID happen at Good Shepherd? Was it ala Pussy Riot? Cynics might say that involving in child abuse some priests weren't terribly interested in Pussy, right?
Quote from: thejuice on June 24, 2014, 06:26:56 PM
Sticking to the subject of the original post, I think it is pretty stupid carry on and I am amazed at the quality of people that are employed to be full time journalists. As a right leaning non theist I find a lot of carry on in the name of liberalism these days I find bizarre and often insulting to the term as understood by classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill.
When these people run out of genuine good causes it seems every pillar of society becomes a target. It seems the objective is often removal of these pillars with little idea of how it should be replaced.
As to what Niamh Horan thought she might be achieving is unclear. A more mature attitude to sexuality in society is of course a good objective if that's what it was, but pretend masturbation on a church altar seems more the action of a disturbed individual. It seems more an attack on public decency and the senses of those in attendance than any aspect of the church.
Read this article by Niamh Horan and you will get an idea of what she is about:
NIAMH HORAN I'LL let you in on a little secret; when a rapper says 'party', he doesn't exactly mean it in our innocent sense of the word.
Believe me, take my advice, or you'll find out like I did; the hard way.
It all started when a friend and I were invited back to join the godfathers of hip hop, P Diddy and Snoop Dogg, at their after-show party at plush Four Seasons Hotel last Sunday night.
The superstar duo were in town for the final night of the European tour and I've been a serious fan of their music since my early teens.
Naturally I was unhappy when we got stuck at the back of the concert arena.
What to do? I decided to chance my arm to secure a better view of my heroes. I toddled up to security personnel at the pit, flashed a winning smile and asked if there was any way I could get in to the front-of-stage trench filled with screaming fans.
"Not a hope," came the stern reply. But after laying on the charm a little bit more he pointed to a tall black guy wearing very snazzy pyjamas. This was the man, apparently, who could make my request come true.
Seconds later I got the OK and for the next two and a half hours my friend and I were neck deep among the hard-core sweaty fans getting down to lyrics like "Get my drink on, and my smoke on, then go home with, something to poke on (whassup bitch?)".
In hindsight it should have all been so clear. The lyrics told the story.
So, as the concert was finishing, I asked my friend if she wanted to beat the crowd. But just as we were leaving the pit I spotted Snoop Dogg himself on the other side of the steel barrier, making his way from the stage to his dressing room.
I grabbed his attention and next thing I know I was holding his hand and telling him how much I love him and his music. My fleeting rendezvous left me feeling all giddy and flustered and I was laughing at the sheer luck of it all when we spotted a group of girls being led in back stage.
"What's going on?" I asked the security guard. "These girls are going to the after-show party," came the reply.
My eyes lit up and thoughts of a Cristal cork-popping extravaganza start swirling in my head. Again I asked the security guard. Any chance? He shakes his head "no way".
Not being one to be easily deterred I persisted until I saw another guy giving orders who looked to be fairly high up the chain of command.
I put on my biggest puppy dog eyes, "Any chance of getting to that after-show party?" I smile. Bingo. He opened the steel barrier and waved my friend and I through.
So we're shown through a set of red doors and, along with a small group of girls, escorted out to a waiting bus. Standing next to it was my saviour in the pyjamas, who later claimed to be Snoop Dogg's uncle, holding two giant bottles of champagne.
So there we allwere, a group of giddy, giggling girls, unable to believe our luck, when we got a final word of warning in a deep south American drawl from our escort, "If you don't wanna party, don't get on the bus".
My friend and I looked at each other, "Of course we want to party with P Diddy and his crew, what kind of question is that?"
Once on the fully air-conditioned bus with blacked-out windows and tables, the excitement began to build up among the chosen girls. One by one we started applying our make-up in anticipation of the big bash.
Once in the hotel, however, things quickly began to go downhill as hotel management stopped us in our tracks on the way to the room saying that, for legal reasons, non-residents weren't allowed up to the suites.
So there we were, standing in the lobby with Snoop Dogg's uncle and some bottles of Cristal, trying to think of a way for him to get us up, when P Diddy strolled by. Don't get excited, I told myself, you'll be partying with him soon enough.
Ah, but that's when the penny began to drop and the reason we were so 'privileged' to be invited to the exclusive get-together suddenly became clear.
As a couple of the guys who were on stage with P Diddy strutted in, one of them pointed at me and said: "I want that one." I got all excited at what I thought was my ticket to the party and asked if my pal could come along too.
"I got two," he shouted to another member of the entourage, across the lobby.
Then he turned to me and asked straight out. "What are you going to do to me?"
"Sorry?" came my reply. "What do you mean?"
"Whisper in my ear what you gonna do to me, I want you to talk dirty," he demanded.
Dumbfounded, I look over at my friend for help. "Tell him in Irish, Niamh," she offered, hoping I could get away with murmuring 'Conas ata tu' in his ear.
"No, No," says the now increasingly frustrated musician. "Tell me in English."
He looked at the shocked, somewhat embarrassed expression on my face, and continued sharply: "There are a lot of girls who wanna come to this party you know. Now are you going to get naked with me. Yes or no?"
Still nothing but a blank expression on my face.
"Fine," he snapped. And stormed off before coming back when he saw another of the entourage talking to me.
"That sh*t ain't game," he shouted, pointing at me, obviously advising them not to bring me to the party because I wouldn't put out.
The dude claiming to be Snoop Dogg's uncle came over to ask what I had done to make him angry. I told him my story, hoping to get some sympathy but I was quickly put in my place.
"I told you, you don't want to party, don't get on the bus!"
Indeed. Hindsight's a wonderful thing. When these boys say party - they don't mean jelly and ice cream.
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/when-a-rapper-invites-you-to-party-he-doesnt-just-mean-bubbly-and-a-boogie-26286724.html#sthash.GHnlLnPK.dpuf
Tx Muppet
Muppet - Ms Horan, being a journalist, should remember the tragic Nicola Furlong case in Japan from a couple of years ago. Rather than even entertaining such ideas she should be strongly condemning the culture this "music" endorses.
"I've been a serious fan of their music since my early teens"
I wouldn't trust her judgement if this is her taste in music.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 24, 2014, 07:12:38 PM
Muppet - Ms Horan, being a journalist, should remember the tragic Nicola Furlong case in Japan from a couple of years ago. Rather than even entertaining such ideas she should be strongly condemning the culture this "music" endorses.
"I've been a serious fan of their music since my early teens"
I wouldn't trust her judgement if this is her taste in music.
I don't disagree but looking at a few of her articles, I wouldn't be too influenced by anything she condemns. Or promotes.
It's hard read that as anything other than a vain name dropping exercise. I find it odd that someone who claims to be a fan of those artists could be completely unaware of their back stage carry on, not to mention to think she is letting us all in on a secret. It's in their songs and videos as clear as daylight.
Honestly how these people are considered good enough to be journalists in a major newspaper is baffling. I know a few more articulate and interesting writers doing it for nothing online while hacks like Horan and Ian O'Doherty get regular paid work. I guess they don't have that "winning smile".
It baffles me how a rational,intelligent man like Hardy can become so irrational when a subject involves the Church. Is his understanding of Church so poor that he persists with such a narrow definition, or is merely trying to rationalise his own beliefs,doubts and fears. It could be that the real target for his ire is Tony Fearon, and he is attacking the Man rather than the Ball, a practise very common in Meath. If this is the case he should start another thread
Is that really the best you can do?
Having read this again, it occurred to me that Tony never put up a link to the story nor indeed anything regarding the story.
Any chance of something to go on other than Tony's word?
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 11:45:24 PM
Having read this again, it occurred to me that Tony never put up a link to the story nor indeed anything regarding the story.
Any chance of something to go on other than Tony's word?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/fury-at-pop-video-sex-on-the-altar-in-belfast-catholic-church-30375220.html
Pangurban - the word "Narrow" in Meath can mean a lot of things, especially the genetic diversity!!
Muppet where have you been this last 48 hours? Lough Derg?
Pangurban
I am attacking TFs opinions on this subject in context of his tolerance nay whole hearted support for his church leader who was a major player in the child abuse cover up in this part of the world.
Are you telling me you can't understand and sympathise with people like me taking such a position when we see the likes of Sean Brady as someone who should be behind bars as opposed to alter rails?
Its like a Jewish man pissing on German flag and hard line Nazi complaining bitterly about the act.
Yes we can all agree its insulting and wrong....but you know and I know its hard to just finish the sentence there in light of the person doing the complaining.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 24, 2014, 04:49:10 PM
RC leaders the world over facilitated/covered up these atrocities, yet Tony is disgusted at some daft idiots frolicking on an alter yet he fawns over one of those leaders who played a very important part in role in the cover up here locally. His sheepish idolatry to Brady regardless of the evidence and his refusal to accept he is in any way guilty to the point he's too morally corrupted to lead those of faith is typical of the devout it would seem.
THIS IS "THE WHY" I RESPONDED INITIALLY IN THE WAY I DID TO THIS THREAD.
Forget about Tony, but it is untrue to make such a sweeping statement as you have, it implies that all the church hierarchy were complicit. It is the case that many misguided fools covered up abuse. The church is a body made up of human beings who all make mistakes some as in this case with devastating consequences not least for the childern involved. But don't generalise.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 25, 2014, 09:59:17 AM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 24, 2014, 04:49:10 PM
RC leaders the world over facilitated/covered up these atrocities, yet Tony is disgusted at some daft idiots frolicking on an alter yet he fawns over one of those leaders who played a very important part in role in the cover up here locally. His sheepish idolatry to Brady regardless of the evidence and his refusal to accept he is in any way guilty to the point he's too morally corrupted to lead those of faith is typical of the devout it would seem.
THIS IS "THE WHY" I RESPONDED INITIALLY IN THE WAY I DID TO THIS THREAD.
Forget about Tony, but it is untrue to make such a sweeping statement as you have, it implies that all the church hierarchy were complicit. It is the case that many misguided fools covered up abuse. The church is a body made up of human beings who all make mistakes some as in this case with devastating consequences not least for the childern involved. But don't generalise.
Was Brady a misguided fool when he witnessed the 2 lads being silenced ? Not he was not. The church hierarchy were complicit because every last one of them knew what was happening. How could they not ?
A few bad apples, eh? Never heard that one before.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 25, 2014, 08:15:39 AM
Its like a Jewish man pissing on German flag and hard line Nazi complaining bitterly about the act.
Yes we can all agree its insulting and wrong....but you know and I know its hard to just finish the sentence there in light of the person doing the complaining.
It isn't. This is not some victim of child abuse making a statement in some way. This is music video made by someone who has not suffered and who is doing it to make money.
Child abuse took place in a variety of places, is a music artist entitled to shoot a video in the Garden of Remembrance because the government did not act on child abuse?
You know what armaghniac youre right. Thanks for completely missing the point because of this error. I'll make a correction to my analogy
I am attacking TFs opinions on this subject in context of his tolerance nay whole hearted support for his church leader who was a major player in the child abuse cover up in this part of the world.
Are you telling me you can't understand and sympathise with people like me taking such a position when we see the likes of Sean Brady as someone who should be behind bars as opposed to alter rails?
Its like a musician pissing on German flag in a music video (with an interest in making money) and a hard line Nazi complaining bitterly about the act.
Yes we can all agree its insulting and wrong....but you know and I know its hard to just finish the sentence there in light of the person doing the complaining.
Three of my children were baptised in the Good Shepherd and although we don't attend Mass there I'm fairly friendly with Fr Fullerton and Fr McKenna. Contrary to what was reported in the media and what the director of this video have said, neither priest gave permission for any kind of filming to happen inside the chapel. The literally went in and set-up without seeking or gaining permission from anyone connected to the church. It's obvious this whole thing was a carefully planned publicity stunt on behalf of the director and musician - sure why not when Rihanna can do it so successfully it's only natural to expect others to take it further. Meanwhile Fr Fullerton and Fr McKenna who are both very elderly are extremely distressed by it all and are talking about the Chapel and/or the altar having to be reconsecrated.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 25, 2014, 03:51:06 AM
Quote from: muppet on June 24, 2014, 11:45:24 PM
Having read this again, it occurred to me that Tony never put up a link to the story nor indeed anything regarding the story.
Any chance of something to go on other than Tony's word?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/fury-at-pop-video-sex-on-the-altar-in-belfast-catholic-church-30375220.html
Pangurban - the word "Narrow" in Meath can mean a lot of things, especially the genetic diversity!!
Good man thanks.
i think the main point, which has been missed is...the song is complete and utter pants
Quote from: J OGorman on June 25, 2014, 11:50:50 AM
i think the main point, which has been missed is...the song is complete and utter pants
So this is what happened:
* Band films sexy scene in Church apparently without permission as blatantly obvious publicity stunt;
* Church protests and the scenes removed from the final video;
* Someone is outraged anyway;
* Someone else decides to ask Niamh Horan what she thinks;
* She says the most sensational thing that enters her head;
* Tony is appalled and outraged and cannot understand why the world hasn't stopped turning;
Tony, do you work for this band?
(http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/article30375219.ece/d2640/ALTERNATES/w620/NWS_2014-06-23_NEW_006_32085393_I4.JPG)
Meh.. I done far worse in the Protestant graveyard in Durrow after the local disco.
Quote from: laoislad on June 25, 2014, 12:04:01 PM
(http://cdn2.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/article30375219.ece/d2640/ALTERNATES/w620/NWS_2014-06-23_NEW_006_32085393_I4.JPG)
Meh.. I done far worse in the Protestant graveyard in Durrow after the local disco.
with a guy lying on top of you?
HS! That's way worse than I imagined. Who do they think they are?
Apart from anything else, Is this not this a crime? Why are the police not involved
Quote from: omaghjoe on June 25, 2014, 03:10:15 PM
HS! That's way worse than I imagined. Who do they think they are?
Apart from anything else, Is this not this a crime? Why are the police not involved
The way I understand it the priests have been played for fools:
-The director apparently told them that because the building was open to the public she assumed they could film in it.
-She apologizes and says here I tell you what you can view the video we'll take out whatever you want.
-The priests view the video are horrified and insist all shots of their chapel are removed.
-For the official version the director duly removes all footage of the Good Shepard.
-The 'unofficial' version is released on the web with the offending scenes still present.
-Director says very sorry everyone, dunno how that could have happened, look we gave the priests final editorial control an all, we tried our best.
-Media does their part and provide loads of publicity for the story and a shit song with equally crummy video are headline news.
-Two elderly priests left dazed and confused wondering wtf happened.
I don't see there is a criminal offense that can be proven. Even if there was the ignorance plea would most likely get her a slap on the wrist at most as anything more and the director is suddenly the western Pussy Riot and priests are evil incarnate.
The Altar is not a public part of a church. A courthouse might be a public building, but film riding on the bench and that wouldn't be acceptable.
Has Blasphemy been repealed?
Skull I don't think it's a fair analogy to draw between the Nazis and the church. But I see what you're doing.
The reality is for 2000 years the people who make up the RC Church have messed up - like every organisation in the world - but in spite of this - it survives, it continues on. There are good people in the church still. Good priests too. Sean Brady isn't one of them in your book and mine - but he hasn't long left and there is no love lost between him and the man in line.
When it comes to forgiveness, we are all called to forgive. But that doesn't mean things are reconciled. The Church in Ireland especially needs to reconcile with the people of Ireland. Until that happens I don't think the Church has any real hope there. I also don't know what would be enough for some people. I don't know what act or continuing act of reconciliation would be enough.
With this all in mind, I'm glad you agree that what happened in Good Shepherd was distasteful but it isn't fair to brush it off either. I hadn't likened you as a candidate for the Nolan Show but you and the Tony fella would make for a great episode :)
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2014, 04:37:43 PM
Skull I don't think it's a fair analogy to draw between the Nazis and the church. But I see what you're doing.
The reality is for 2000 years the people who make up the RC Church have messed up - like every organisation in the world - but in spite of this - it survives, it continues on. There are good people in the church still. Good priests too. Sean Brady isn't one of them in your book and mine - but he hasn't long left and there is no love lost between him and the man in line.
When it comes to forgiveness, we are all called to forgive. But that doesn't mean things are reconciled. The Church in Ireland especially needs to reconcile with the people of Ireland. Until that happens I don't think the Church has any real hope there. I also don't know what would be enough for some people. I don't know what act or continuing act of reconciliation would be enough.
With this all in mind, I'm glad you agree that what happened in Good Shepherd was distasteful but it isn't fair to brush it off either. I hadn't likened you as a candidate for the Nolan Show but you and the Tony fella would make for a great episode :)
This is all fair and reasonable Iceman.
The one pony (
edit - point! - bloody predictive text) I would make is that the Church calls us all to forgive. But it also calls for us to be remorseful when we have done wrong. This is where the Church is, I believe, falling down. It continues to be evasive and make legal technical arguments to avoid being responsible. In my opinion that is not good enough from the Catholic Church that educated me.
I think we're saying the same thing muppet. Remorse and acts of reconciliation should go hand in hand. I just don't know what would be enough.
Everyone has different ideas and different expectations and if they are not met it still won't be enough. Some people won't be happy until the RC Church is on its knees or buried and maybe rightly so in their eyes.
I'm hopeful things will be mended - I just don't think that will happen soon. Our new Pope will hopefully turn his attention to this and I have a feeling he is the right man for the job.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2014, 05:57:38 PM
I think we're saying the same thing muppet. Remorse and acts of reconciliation should go hand in hand. I just don't know what would be enough.
Everyone has different ideas and different expectations and if they are not met it still won't be enough. Some people won't be happy until the RC Church is on its knees or buried and maybe rightly so in their eyes.
I'm hopeful things will be mended - I just don't think that will happen soon. Our new Pope will hopefully turn his attention to this and I have a feeling he is the right man for the job.
The Vatican is still denying all responsibility and blaming local Churches. Remember -
'We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'It hides behind legal and technical arguments and hasn't, in my opinion, displayed good faith to date in its efforts to deals with the child abuse.
That is not demanding that the church be buried, in fact I would argue it is the opposite - demanding that the Church stops burying itself.
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2014, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2014, 05:57:38 PM
I think we're saying the same thing muppet. Remorse and acts of reconciliation should go hand in hand. I just don't know what would be enough.
Everyone has different ideas and different expectations and if they are not met it still won't be enough. Some people won't be happy until the RC Church is on its knees or buried and maybe rightly so in their eyes.
I'm hopeful things will be mended - I just don't think that will happen soon. Our new Pope will hopefully turn his attention to this and I have a feeling he is the right man for the job.
The Vatican is still denying all responsibility and blaming local Churches. Remember - 'We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'
It hides behind legal and technical arguments and hasn't, in my opinion, displayed good faith to date in its efforts to deals with the child abuse.
That is not demanding that the church be buried, in fact I would argue it is the opposite - demanding that the Church stops burying itself.
The Church does need to accept universal responsibility for what happened - I agree with that. I just don't know what the civil implications would be for that. It's one thing to say it should be done and I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic who agrees with you - i just don't know what happens next.
I will say that in my understanding of the hierarchy of the RC Church that the guys on the ground act as the Vatican acts so although there may be no legal or formal structure to follow (which allows them to hide) there is a 'do as I do' attitude.
I think the U.S RC Church have done a better (not perfect) job of responding to the abuse in the U.S and still have a long way to go.
I appreciate the serious discussion on the matter. What happens next has wider implications for millions of people in Ireland. Personally I would like to see our new Pope remove Sean Brady from office and put some structure and money in place to pay victims. I think a Papal visit would help a lot too.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2014, 06:46:51 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 25, 2014, 06:17:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 25, 2014, 05:57:38 PM
I think we're saying the same thing muppet. Remorse and acts of reconciliation should go hand in hand. I just don't know what would be enough.
Everyone has different ideas and different expectations and if they are not met it still won't be enough. Some people won't be happy until the RC Church is on its knees or buried and maybe rightly so in their eyes.
I'm hopeful things will be mended - I just don't think that will happen soon. Our new Pope will hopefully turn his attention to this and I have a feeling he is the right man for the job.
The Vatican is still denying all responsibility and blaming local Churches. Remember - 'We believe in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church'
It hides behind legal and technical arguments and hasn't, in my opinion, displayed good faith to date in its efforts to deals with the child abuse.
That is not demanding that the church be buried, in fact I would argue it is the opposite - demanding that the Church stops burying itself.
The Church does need to accept universal responsibility for what happened - I agree with that. I just don't know what the civil implications would be for that. It's one thing to say it should be done and I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic who agrees with you - i just don't know what happens next.
I will say that in my understanding of the hierarchy of the RC Church that the guys on the ground act as the Vatican acts so although there may be no legal or formal structure to follow (which allows them to hide) there is a 'do as I do' attitude.
I think the U.S RC Church have done a better (not perfect) job of responding to the abuse in the U.S and still have a long way to go.
I appreciate the serious discussion on the matter. What happens next has wider implications for millions of people in Ireland. Personally I would like to see our new Pope remove Sean Brady from office and put some structure and money in place to pay victims. I think a Papal visit would help a lot too.
I agree and I think this is Pope is the right man to make such a visit.
I disagree on the comment '
there may be no legal or formal structure to follow' though as they all follow Canon Law, literally religiously.
Lads there is a huge measure of agreement between everyone participating in this discussion. Everyone accepts that many priests and virtually all of the Hierarchy dragged the Church into disrepute. The question at issue is what is to be done about it. The response of some people is to walk away and castigate the whole Church. For my part i believe, if you have something of value which has become stained and dirty, you would not just break it or cast it aside, you would try to clean it and restore it to former glory. By former glory i do not mean power or prominence, rather it is the humility of service of a Church broken but maintaining a repository of truth and the accumulated wisdom of centuries. Reform is necessary and i believe worth fighting for. Others take a different view preferring the destruction of the Church. To them i have nothing to say ,other than i dont envy them the society they will be left with,if they prevail. There have been many dark episodes in the Church throughout its history, and doubtless there will be many more. That is the nature of Man, but the Church is also divine, and this will ensure its survival. Our first priority must be to address and redress as far as humanly possibly the victims of our failure. Then and only then can we move forward with renewed joy and optimism
Generally catholic church has and receives far too much criticism.There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction.Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
It is impossible for an institution with a worldwide membership to be controlled by one man from a small part of Rome,therefore the Vatican is quite right to lay the blame on the churches in the different countries.
Time to blame the relatively few perpetrators and not the Church in general
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
Generally catholic church has and receives far too much criticism.There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction.Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
It is impossible for an institution with a worldwide membership to be controlled by one man from a small part of Rome,therefore the Vatican is quite right to lay the blame on the churches in the different countries.
Time to blame the relatively few perpetrators and not the Church in general
An acceptable level of paedophilia is surely acceptable. If there are 200 million priests in the world and, say, 5% of them are paedophiles, that's still only 10 milliion.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
Generally catholic church has and receives far too much criticism.There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction.Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
It is impossible for an institution with a worldwide membership to be controlled by one man from a small part of Rome,therefore the Vatican is quite right to lay the blame on the churches in the different countries.
Time to blame the relatively few perpetrators and not the Church in general
I know there is no point but......
The people in charge of the Church, in The Vatican, refuse to cooperate with investigations all over the world. Until they cooperate fully they will deserve all the criticism thrown their way. Many of us simply want to see natural justice for the victims.
They are effectively pleading the 5th, which to my mind goes against everything they are supposed to stand for.
What information does the Pope have about alleged child abuse in a small parish in say the West of Ireland? Successive British and Irish governments refuse to release information about the 1974 Dublin bombings. Are all politicians corrupt?
If the authorities have sufficient information about child abuse,arrest the suspects and compel their co operation.Plenty of clergy have appeared in court and have been convicted and jailed.I didn't hear any protests from any Bishops or Popes claiming they're innocent and calling for their release.
Iceman
In my analogy I've replaced Tony Fearon with the hard line Nazi, not the Church. I've no issue with local parishioners priests being extremely unhappy about the incident so I'm directing nothing at them
Tony's latest posts aligning Church leaderships behaviours with the political classes show just how unwilling he is to accept that the church has to proactively demonstrate moral leadership and responsibility if they want society's to see they practice what they preach.
Tonys not far off comparing with politicians but if Sean Brady was up for reelection he wouldn't get his deposit back, yet the subservient are happy to have him as their leader. Wouldn't happen in any other walk of life. As Muppet stated, this refusal of the church to do right by the people who suffered is burying the church. People are voting with their hearts and mind.
I'm beginning to wonder if some worship the church rather than god himself!
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
Generally catholic church has and receives far too much criticism.There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction.Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
It is impossible for an institution with a worldwide membership to be controlled by one man from a small part of Rome,therefore the Vatican is quite right to lay the blame on the churches in the different countries.
Time to blame the relatively few perpetrators and not the Church in general
You continually go out of your way to post stuff trivialising the child rape cover-up conspiracies. You serially glorify the shameless antics of Brady, the chief cover-up organiser in your diocese. I can only think of Willie Frazer when I look for someone with a comparable ability to mix the malicious with the idiotic.
Take your latest inane contribution, as quoted above. When did the GAA organise a systematic cover-up of child rape? What officials were moved from club to club, or from county to county so that the law wouldn't catch up with them? What resolution of congress established an official policy giving the GAA's rules in the Official Guide precedence over the law of the land? Which GAA officials refused to co-operate with official enquiries or criminal investigations?
Waste.Of.Time.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 06:57:24 AM
What information does the Pope have about alleged child abuse in a small parish in say the West of Ireland? Successive British and Irish governments refuse to release information about the 1974 Dublin bombings. Are all politicians corrupt?
If the authorities have sufficient information about child abuse,arrest the suspects and compel their co operation.Plenty of clergy have appeared in court and have been convicted and jailed.I didn't hear any protests from any Bishops or Popes claiming they're innocent and calling for their release.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/more-documents-link-ratzinger-abuse-cases (http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/more-documents-link-ratzinger-abuse-cases)
The facts are out there Tony. You hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, unless of course it is from your enemy, in which case you hear all evil, see all evil and start a new thread about it.
No doubt you will jump up and down shouting bigot, but in all honesty it is people like you who deny everything and attack issues such as compensation for the Magdalene victims (how low can you get?) that get people's backs up more than anything.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction. Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
Who was this? Michael Feeney?
Id be very surprised if that can be substantiated. If however there's truth in it, we should be up in arms.
The Vatican's long term policy of washing their hands of pedophilia and claiming it is a local issue is likely to be catastrophic for the Church.
Tony, do you think the Pope knows about this: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vatican-wont-extradite-pedophile-archbishop (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/vatican-wont-extradite-pedophile-archbishop)
NICOLE WINFIELD – JANUARY 11, 2014, 10:00 PM EST
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican has told Polish prosecutors that its former ambassador to the Dominican Republic, under investigation for alleged sex abuse, is covered by diplomatic immunity and that the Vatican doesn't extradite its citizens, Polish officials said in the latest development in an embarrassing case for the Holy See.
Polish Archbishop Josef Wesolowski is the highest-ranking Vatican official to be investigated for alleged sex abuse, and his case has raised questions about whether the Vatican, by removing him from Dominican jurisdiction, was protecting him and placing its own investigations ahead of that of authorities in the Caribbean nation.
The Holy See recalled Wesolowski on Aug. 21 and relieved him of his job after the archbishop of Santo Domingo, Cardinal Nicolas de Jesus Lopez, told Pope Francis in July about rumors that Wesolowski had sexually abused teenage boys in the Dominican Republic. Dominican authorities subsequently opened an investigation, but haven't charged him.
Poland, too, has opened an investigation into Wesolowski and a friend and fellow Polish priest.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi has denied Rome was shielding Wesolowski and that the Vatican was cooperating with the investigations while conducting its own probes.
The spokesman for Warsaw's provincial prosecutor's office, Przemyslaw Nowak, told The Associated Press that Polish prosecutors had recently asked the Vatican for information about Wesolowski's legal status as part of its own investigation. He said the Vatican had confirmed that Wesolowski is a citizen of the Vatican city state, that the Vatican doesn't extradite its citizens and that as a nuncio, or Holy See ambassador, Wesolowski enjoys full diplomatic immunity.
No doubt this idiotic decision will be reversed and but the damage, as so often before, will already be done.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction. Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
Who was this? Michael Feeney?
Id be very surprised if that can be substantiated. If however there's truth in it, we should be up in arms.
Tony is right on this one, Mick Feeney was indeed sitting up in the VIP section of Clones after his stint in prison for Child abuse.
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction. Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
Who was this? Michael Feeney?
Id be very surprised if that can be substantiated. If however there's truth in it, we should be up in arms.
Tony is right on this one, Mick Feeney was indeed sitting up in the VIP section of Clones after his stint in prison for Child abuse.
Could I ask if anyone here who knew of that was aware of any outrage at the time? That's news to me
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 12:50:50 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction. Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
Who was this? Michael Feeney?
Id be very surprised if that can be substantiated. If however there's truth in it, we should be up in arms.
Tony is right on this one, Mick Feeney was indeed sitting up in the VIP section of Clones after his stint in prison for Child abuse.
Could I ask if anyone here who knew of that was aware of any outrage at the time? That's news to me
Dare I say that everyone know what was going on, he was in a public stand. Or perhaps these things are not quite as black and white.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 12:50:50 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2014, 12:41:32 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 11:29:53 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 25, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
There have been more than a few paedos in the GAA, and at least one in a high position who is or was accommodated in the best seats post conviction. Does that mean the GAA and all of us in it are corrupt?
Who was this? Michael Feeney?
Id be very surprised if that can be substantiated. If however there's truth in it, we should be up in arms.
Tony is right on this one, Mick Feeney was indeed sitting up in the VIP section of Clones after his stint in prison for Child abuse.
Could I ask if anyone here who knew of that was aware of any outrage at the time? That's news to me
There was a bit in the media, but it died down soon enough.
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
Do you think many catholic clergymen who were not abusers and were not involved in the immediate cover up of abuse knew these things were going on? I find it very hard to believe that there wasn't talk amongst clergymen about the abuse and I'd imagine the abusers were well known
Whilst there were some high profile priests involved in covering up the abuse, I suspect knowledge of the abuse and cover up would have been widespread amongst the clergy and for that reason I find it strange that people defend the church. There were the "few bad apples", the people who covered it up and the people who sat idly by and did nothing.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
This is a fair enough Orior.
But Gerry Conlon had no choice.
I genuinely feel sorry for the vast numbers of decent men and women of the clergy. We can all name plenty that we have encountered. They, along with the victims, have been very badly let down by those seeking to protect themselves at all costs.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
What if they are gay?
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 01:51:21 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
What if they are gay?
Because the catholic church insisted on celibacy it has attracted a large number of gay men into priesthood in the last century. There is no doubt that that is a major part of the problem. Another problem is that the Church took a very long time to recognise that its congregation will challenge and will speak out, and that it must listen to the congregation.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 02:10:27 PM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 01:51:21 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
What if they are gay?
Because the catholic church insisted on celibacy it has attracted a large number of gay men into priesthood in the last century. There is no doubt that that is a major part of the problem. Another problem is that the Church took a very long time to recognise that its congregation will challenge and will speak out, and that it must listen to the congregation.
Careful here Orior. You seem to be saying that because large numbers of gay men became priests (probably to hide their sexuality in a job where they wouldn't be questioned about not having a wife) that is a major part of the 'problem'. What problem? Abuse of children and subsequent cover ups? Because that's equating gay priests with child abuser priests. Is that what you are trying to say?
I'd be more thinking it was seen as a great avenue for pedophiles because a) They were allowed to be single men without any question, b) They had power and c) They were frequently left alone with the opportunity. Nothing to do with gay or hetero.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
Orior, are you losing your marbles? How can you compare the wrong done to the victim an infamous miscarriage of justice with the freely undertaken career choice of an individual, however noble the motivation may be?
QuoteBecause the catholic church insisted on celibacy it has attracted a large number of gay men into priesthood in the last century. There is no doubt that that is a major part of the problem.
Which problem? [Edit - just saw your post AZ. That's what prompted my question, too.]
By the way, the Michael Feeney story is a complete red herring. That paedophile was convicted and served his sentence. The GAA didn't try to obstruct his prosecution. To try to compare the accommodation of a post-release criminal with a seat at a football match with a conspiracy to facilitate child rape is bizarre enough to illustrate the lengths to which the conspiracy defenders will go to try to normalise the crime.
Quote from: Hardy on June 26, 2014, 02:24:11 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
Orior, are you losing your marbles? How can you compare the wrong done to the victim an infamous miscarriage of justice with the freely undertaken career choice of an individual, however noble the motivation may be?
QuoteBecause the catholic church insisted on celibacy it has attracted a large number of gay men into priesthood in the last century. There is no doubt that that is a major part of the problem.
Which problem? [Edit - just saw your post AZ. That's what prompted my question, too.]
By the way, the Michael Feeney story is a complete red herring. That paedophile was convicted and served his sentence. The GAA didn't try to obstruct his prosecution. To try to compare the accommodation of a post-release criminal with a seat at a football match with a conspiracy to facilitate child rape is bizarre enough to illustrate the lengths to which the conspiracy defenders will go to try to normalise the crime.
I meant to comment on this. I agree with Hardy, distasteful as it is, he served his time and the GAA would be out of order to ban him. Tony however regularly starts threads here positively gushing to tell us that his hero Cardinal Brady has attended a match.
On the contrary, Mr Feeney after serving his sentence for committing a heinous crime, was accorded all the privileges (ie a VIP seat presumably free of charge) that any senior long serving GAA official might expect, as if nothing happened.
Now compare the treatment of this convicted paedophile with that of Cardinal Brady who did not abuse anyone. That's the extent to which the anti catholic adherents will go,with all ambivalence.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
On the contrary, Mr Feeney after serving his sentence for committing a heinous crime, was accorded all the privileges (ie a VIP seat presumably free of charge) that any senior long serving GAA official might expect, as if nothing happened.
Now compare the treatment of this convicted paedophile with that of Cardinal Brady who did not abuse anyone. That's the extent to which the anti catholic adherents will go,with all ambivalence.
He did not sexually abuse them.
But to my mind his getting them to sign vows of silence when they told him Brendan Smyth had abused them, under threat of ex-communication, only added to their abuse.
This is not anti-Catholic, it is a material fact. Your sad denial of it and adherence to the tired mantra of Brady, Ratzinger and co will not go away until they tell the whole truth.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
I think I need that one explained to me a bit more Orion?
The rest of your post is treading a fine line in terms of a gay man also being a paedophile and is a lazy and incorrect assumption.
What would be wrong with having gay priests as a matter of interest?
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2014, 02:51:17 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
I think I need that one explained to me a bit more Orion?
The rest of your post is treading a fine line in terms of a gay man also being a paedophile and is a lazy and incorrect assumption.
What would be wrong with having gay priests as a matter of interest?
We have heard this argument before: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/14/us-pope-abuse-idUSTRE63D24520100414 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/14/us-pope-abuse-idUSTRE63D24520100414)
(Reuters) - Gay groups and politicians condemned Pope Benedict's number two on Wednesday for calling homosexuality a "pathology" and linking it directly to sexual abuse of children.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 02:45:27 PM
On the contrary, Mr Feeney after serving his sentence for committing a heinous crime, was accorded all the privileges (ie a VIP seat presumably free of charge) that any senior long serving GAA official might expect, as if nothing happened.
Now compare the treatment of this convicted paedophile with that of Cardinal Brady who did not abuse anyone. That's the extent to which the anti catholic adherents will go,with all ambivalence.
On the contrary, Wullie. Feeney paid his debt to society. He is, presumably, on the sex offenders register. His sentence complete and his status registered, he is fully entitled, however heinous his crime, to be treated as an ordinary, contributing member of society.
Brady, on the other hand, organised the cover-up of numerous child rapes. He facilitated numerous others by knowingly keeping secret the fact that a known child rapist was at large in his own organisation, with unrestricted access to potential victims, without the knowledge of their parents, and free to rape at will. He hasn't yet paid for his corruption. Yet you glory in his prancing about at GAA matches and rub the noses of his victims in it.
If Cardinal Brady committed any crime, why has he not been arrested and charged by the statutory agencies North or South?
So if Brendan Smyth had survived until his release from prison, you would presumably therefore have welcomed him into the VIP sections of GAA Stadia? Warped and irrational thinking
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 03:15:14 PM
If Cardinal Brady committed any crime, why has he not been arrested and charged by the statutory agencies North or South?
So if Brendan Smyth had survived until his release from prison, you would presumably therefore have welcomed him into the VIP sections of GAA Stadia? Warped and irrational thinking
Nope, but you would. You are the only one defending anything remotely connected to Smyth.
I have never defended paedophiles, either with or without clerical collars. I hope they are all rotting in hell, every single one of them. But I will defend those who have not been guilty of any crime (if they were they would have been arrested) but are still hounded mercilessly by anti catholics as if they were the devil incarnate.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
I have never defended paedophiles, either with or without clerical collars. I hope they are all rotting in hell, every single one of them. But I will defend those who have not been guilty of any crime (if they were they would have been arrested) but are still hounded mercilessly by anti catholics as if they were the devil incarnate.
You don't have to commit the act to be as guilty as those who did, covering up and allowing these sick bastards to continue their abuse is equally as bad.
Tony, genuine question as I don't think you are actually winding on this topic.
Do you think the church, and particularly the leadership of the church, did nothing wrong at all? I am not talking about the paedophiles themselves here, obviously.
If so, what do you think they did wrong?
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, or give you a straw man to defend against. I just want to know what your thinking is here.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
I have never defended paedophiles, either with or without clerical collars. I hope they are all rotting in hell, every single one of them. But I will defend those who have not been guilty of any crime (if they were they would have been arrested) but are still hounded mercilessly by anti catholics as if they were the devil incarnate.
How could Brendan Smyth be arrested in the late 1970s when Brady silenced his accusers and the charges were covered up?
I wonder which question he'll answer ...
Anyone fancy opening a book on it?
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 26, 2014, 03:46:43 PM
I wonder which question he'll answer ...
Anyone fancy opening a book on it?
AZ question 40/1
Muppet's Q 50/1
Straw Man comparison with British Government 2/1
Blame anti-Catholics Evens
Blame IFA 5/1
Blame Queen 6/1
Blame U2 8/1
Blame Mickey Harte 4/1
Blame Southern Government 12/1
Blame Southern Irish Media 14/1
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
I have never defended paedophiles, either with or without clerical collars. I hope they are all rotting in hell, every single one of them. But I will defend those who have not been guilty of any crime (if they were they would have been arrested) but are still hounded mercilessly by anti catholics as if they were the devil incarnate.
You don't have to commit the act to be as guilty as those who did, covering up and allowing these sick b**tards to continue their abuse is equally as bad.
That sounds reasonable, Zip Code, but I believe it's wrong. The cover-up and facilitation are immeasurably more evil than a single episode of abuse. This is what seems to be continuously overlooked.
Paedophiles exist throughout society. I'm working from memory and so open to correction, but my understanding is that the concentration of paedophilia among clerics is actually lower than that in society at large. This makes intuitive sense. In general, people become clerics because they're good people with a motivation to do good. Only a tiny proportion become clerics because they're paedophiles and this career gives easy access to children. So the popular perception of the catholic priesthood as being a hotbed of child abuse is wrong. More children are abused by relations and by random abusers than by clerics.
Society has procedures and methods of dealing with child abuse crime, however adequate we may consider them. We arrest the criminals, try them, lock them up and register them as a danger to children.
A single rapist or abuser can be caught and put out of action after a single episode, if the crime is reported and prosecuted. The cover-up conspiracy by the church means that each rapist/abuser is free to abuse over and over again.
So I would adjust your statement to say "covering up and allowing these sick b**tards to continue their abuse is a hundred times worse".
Quote from: Hardy on June 26, 2014, 04:22:45 PM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 03:33:43 PM
I have never defended paedophiles, either with or without clerical collars. I hope they are all rotting in hell, every single one of them. But I will defend those who have not been guilty of any crime (if they were they would have been arrested) but are still hounded mercilessly by anti catholics as if they were the devil incarnate.
You don't have to commit the act to be as guilty as those who did, covering up and allowing these sick b**tards to continue their abuse is equally as bad.
That sounds reasonable, Zip Code, but I believe it's wrong. The cover-up and facilitation are immeasurably more evil than a single episode of abuse. This is what seems to be continuously overlooked.
Paedophiles exist throughout society. I'm working from memory and so open to correction, but my understanding is that the concentration of paedophilia among clerics is actually lower than that in society at large. This makes intuitive sense. In general, people become clerics because they're good people with a motivation to do good. Only a tiny proportion become clerics because they're paedophiles and this career gives easy access to children. So the popular perception of the catholic priesthood as being a hotbed of child abuse is wrong. More children are abused by relations and by random abusers than by clerics.
Society has procedures and methods of dealing with child abuse crime, however adequate we may consider them. We arrest the criminals, try them, lock them up and register them as a danger to children.
A single rapist or abuser can be caught and put out of action after a single episode, if the crime is reported and prosecuted. The cover-up conspiracy by the church means that each rapist/abuser is free to abuse over and over again.
So I would adjust your statement to say "covering up and allowing these sick b**tards to continue their abuse is a hundred times worse".
That is a very good point. If Brendan Smyth wasn't a cleric, it is unlikely he would have abused as many children as he did.
As is the rest of the post. On the one hand there are clerical less abusers than in the rest of society (I'd love to see a link to a study), however their protection by the Church may have led to significantly greater amounts of abuse.
In fairness though Jimmy Savile wasn't a cleric and he abused more for longer!
Hardy I agree a lot with you say but in my mind perpetrating these acts on any child hearing them cry, scream, doing indescribable inhumane acts on them, seeing the fear in their eyes and then going back and doing it again and again is equally as damming and sick as those who covered it up.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 04:30:55 PM
In fairness though Jimmy Savile wasn't a cleric and he abused more for longer!
Yep - another (multi)institutional cover-up. The same as Smyth, if Savile hadn't been protected and facilitated by powerful institutions and people high up in them, he would have been caught and stopped decades ago.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 26, 2014, 04:34:48 PM
Hardy I agree a lot with you say but in my mind perpetrating these acts on any child hearing them cry, scream, doing indescribable inhumane acts on them, seeing the fear in their eyes and then going back and doing it again and again is equally as damming and sick as those who covered it up.
That's true on a visceral level. But (forgive the invocation of Godwin and I know it's not a moral equivalent, so just for illustration ...) Hitler never gassed a single Jew.
Quote from: johnneycool on June 26, 2014, 02:51:17 PM
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 01:18:38 PM
The last two comments by JC and Scull could also have been said by priests. I have never heard any clergyman say outright that he condoned the action of the abusers or said anything to me that would suggest an abuser should be facilitated.
So at a ground level I have immense respect for catholic clergymen. This is backed up by the sacrafice that they made in their lives. Compare Gerry Conlon to a priest. People feel sorry for Gerry and the years he has lost. But a priest gives up the natural urge to date girls, to marry, to raise children. Why? He does it because of his love for God and his devotion to help people like you and me.
I acknowledge that the whole setup of the Church also attracted men who were not interested in girls. But I hope they have addressed that now.
Perhaps the above goes some way to explain my desire to defend the Church.
I think I need that one explained to me a bit more Orion?
The rest of your post is treading a fine line in terms of a gay man also being a paedophile and is a lazy and incorrect assumption.
What would be wrong with having gay priests as a matter of interest?
In this day and age, nothing is wrong with having gay priests. In fact I know at least one, and I believe he celebate, but wouldnt know for sure! In fact, two if you add thon fella in Larne who appointed himself bishop.
Do you all recall that in the 1950's and 1960's homosexuality was a criminal offence? So I reckon that some young Irishmen may have joined the priesthood out of guilt, or maybe just to hide. Hence it had a higher than normal density of gays. Perhaps the same applied to Nuns. But there are still a lot of good, dedicated, honest, devout and holy priests, who are being tarred with a rather large brush. I assume Hardy doesnt have an uncle in the priesthood.
JC, you said you werent aware of things that were going on. I'm suggesting that many priests were in the same boat.
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
Fox, this is exactly the problem. The Church is not trying to fix it, it is in complete denial. Just like the Bankers were. It will end the same way if The Vatican and Cardinals etc don't wise up.
Quote from: Orior on June 26, 2014, 05:21:11 PMI assume Hardy doesnt have an uncle in the priesthood.
WTF does that have to do with anything? And what have I said about priests that's upset you?
Quote
I reckon that some young Irishmen may have joined the priesthood out of guilt, or maybe just to hide. Hence it had a higher than normal density of gays.
What does this have to do with paedophilia among priests, which I assume is your subject?
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 05:41:15 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
Fox, this is exactly the problem. The Church is not trying to fix it, it is in complete denial. Just like the Bankers were. It will end the same way if The Vatican and Cardinals etc don't wise up.
Do you think the banking institutions have learned their lesson? I don't see any of the auditing firms that missed this completely getting hung out to dry or brought to proper justice.
That will happen again, no doubt. For now we live and will continue to suffer from the shit for generations to come.
As for the church, what is it that you want? Brady's head on a pike? Will that fix all?
Not sure retrospectively you can do about the magdelene sisters or the likes of Brendan Smyth. Perhaps if we have a day of mourning - will that solve it?
OFfaly, happy to answer your reasonable question. I believe the Church has badly mishandled the problem of child abuse, but not with any evil intent.Interesting when Bishop Mc Areavey (uncle of John) took a sabbatical recently he returned and admitted he personally needed a lot of time to appreciate the hurt of child abuse victims.
Human beings will always I feel try to protect the reputation of their institutions, look at the lengths the British Govt has gone to with On the Run letters etc. This is fact.
I cannot understand the victimization of Cardinal Brady for a dire episode he was forced into as a young priest 40 years ago, not of his making.Obviously he hadn't the benefit of hindsight we all have now.
I believe if questions need to be asked of Brady then questions need to be asked of the young boys parents.Should any caring parents, even in the mid 70s not have probed why they were bringing their children to an interview with a priest?
At the end of the day I believe that the only people responsible for paedophilia are paedophiles.If the Police believe anyone else has a case to answer, even if it's the Pope, then they should arrest him.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:51:15 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 05:41:15 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
Fox, this is exactly the problem. The Church is not trying to fix it, it is in complete denial. Just like the Bankers were. It will end the same way if The Vatican and Cardinals etc don't wise up.
Do you think the banking institutions have learned their lesson? I don't see any of the auditing firms that missed this completely getting hung out to dry or brought to proper justice.
That will happen again, no doubt. For now we live and will continue to suffer from the shit for generations to come.
As for the church, what is it that you want?
I want the Vatican to hand over all records of abuse allegations to the various states and instruct all Orders to fully cooperate with local agencies. I want an end to the wall of secrecy, official secrecy, ordered by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. I want them to accept full responsibly and an end to the weasel excuses that local Churches are responsible.
There is hardly a more innately hierarchical organisation on earth. They have the ultimate sanction, punishment before and after death. Yet they claim their operatives act without any control?
Quote
Brady's head on a pike?
Brady should stand down and admit his serious failing of those entrusted to the care of the Church.
QuoteWill that fix all?
It would be a start on the road to redemption. Even Fianna Fáil apologised.
Quote
Not sure retrospectively you can do about the magdelene sisters or the likes of Brendan Smyth. Perhaps if we have a day of mourning - will that solve it?
Trivialising the suffering doesn't add to your argument.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 06:05:01 PM
OFfaly, happy to answer your reasonable question. I believe the Church has badly mishandled the problem of child abuse, but not with any evil intent.Interesting when Bishop Mc Areavey (uncle of John) took a sabbatical recently he returned and admitted he personally needed a lot of time to appreciate the hurt of child abuse victims.
Human beings will always I feel try to protect the reputation of their institutions, look at the lengths the British Govt has gone to with On the Run letters etc. This is fact.
I cannot understand the victimization of Cardinal Brady for a dire episode he was forced into as a young priest 40 years ago, not of his making.Obviously he hadn't the benefit of hindsight we all have now.
I believe if questions need to be asked of Brady then questions need to be asked of the young boys parents.Should any caring parents, even in the mid 70s not have probed why they were bringing their children to an interview with a priest?
At the end of the day I believe that the only people responsible for paedophilia are paedophiles.If the Police believe anyone else has a case to answer, even if it's the Pope, then they should arrest him.
Unbelievable.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 03:54:40 PM
Quote from: Billys Boots on June 26, 2014, 03:46:43 PM
I wonder which question he'll answer ...
Anyone fancy opening a book on it?
AZ question 40/1
Muppet's Q 50/1
Straw Man comparison with British Government 2/1
Blame anti-Catholics Evens
Blame IFA 5/1
Blame Queen 6/1
Blame U2 8/1
Blame Mickey Harte 4/1
Blame Southern Government 12/1
Blame Southern Irish Media 14/1
Paying out on Straw Man comparison with British Government but peeved I missed Tony blaming the parents of victims. Should have seen that coming.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 06:06:59 PM
It would be a start on the road to redemption. Even Fianna Fáil apologised.
You know Fianna Fail didn't mean it....I thought the church already apologised. How many more times can they do the same thats going to make any difference?
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 06:38:19 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 06:06:59 PM
It would be a start on the road to redemption. Even Fianna Fáil apologised.
You know Fianna Fail didn't mean it....I thought the church already apologised. How many more times can they do the same thats going to make any difference?
They have not even started to comprehend cooperation yet. I am hoping this Pope is the man to undo all of the damage of his predecessors and in particular his immediate predecessor.
Are there nor several priests locked up? Comparisons with the British Govt are very valid. To mention just one incident, they will nor co operate with any Investligation into the Dublin bombings? Where were the mass protests on the streets of Dublin during the Queen's visit in 2011?
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
Are there nor several priests locked up? Comparisons with the British Govt are very valid. To mention just one incident, they will nor co operate with any Investligation into the Dublin bombings? Where were the mass protests on the streets of Dublin during the Queen's visit in 2011?
But Tony you no doubt blame the parents of the victims?
As a number of priests have been faced with allegations which were later proved to be totally false and malicious, it is important that the Church exercise its duty of care towards its employees. As things stand, when an allegation is made against a Priest, he is immediately suspended from office, and faces a long wait to have his name cleared. Whether the case reaches court or not, the damage has already been done, by the no smoke without fire brigade. How many of us would choose to work in such a vulnerable situation. The enormous efforts of the Church to rectify and adress its problems or continually being undermined by false sensationalist reporting by lazy journalists who will not let facts get in the way of their story. Where there is a reasonable degree of evidence, the Church must co-operate to the fullest extent with any investigation, but it should not throw its employees to the baying mob.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
Are there nor several priests locked up? Comparisons with the British Govt are very valid. To mention just one incident, they will nor co operate with any Investligation into the Dublin bombings? Where were the mass protests on the streets of Dublin during the Queen's visit in 2011?
Where were the protests when Sean Brady attended Armagh matches?
You continue to insist that Brady and the Church have done no wrong. You compare it to the British position on Dublin/Monaghan so presumably you are arguing that they have also done no wrong.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 26, 2014, 08:35:09 PM
As a number of priests have been faced with allegations which were later proved to be totally false and malicious, it is important that the Church exercise its duty of care towards its employees. As things stand, when an allegation is made against a Priest, he is immediately suspended from office, and faces a long wait to have his name cleared. Whether the case reaches court or not, the damage has already been done, by the no smoke without fire brigade. How many of us would choose to work in such a vulnerable situation. The enormous efforts of the Church to rectify and adress its problems or continually being undermined by false sensationalist reporting by lazy journalists who will not let facts get in the way of their story. Where there is a reasonable degree of evidence, the Church must co-operate to the fullest extent with any investigation, but it should not throw its employees to the baying mob.
It must go much further than that. As we have seen with the Sean Brady silencing of victims example, there will be no reasonable degree of evidence available outside the Church. This is why I say The Vatican must hand over all records of allegations against clergy. By all means if they feel some are in bad faith then they can highlight them, but blaming lazy journalism and baying mobs is another straw man at this stage.
For example: http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131120-alleged-priest-abuse-victims-call-for-investigation-of-providence-diocese.ece (http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20131120-alleged-priest-abuse-victims-call-for-investigation-of-providence-diocese.ece)
Alleged priest-abuse victims call for investigation of Providence diocese
November 20, 2013 03:46 PM
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Victims of alleged sexual abuse gathered for a news conference on Wednesday to condemn the Diocese of Providence for failing to properly investigate more than 800 allegations of sexual abuse over the past 20 years.
Among those presenting harrowing tales of abuse by local parish priests were Ann Hagan-Webb, a representative from Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, SNAP; and Jeffrey Thomas, of Massachusetts, and Helen McGonigle, a lawyer from Connecticut.
Thomas and McGonigle said they were raped as children by the Rev. Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest who was at Our Lady of Mercy Church in East Greenwich from 1965 to 1968.Incredibly they still haven't released all their data on the monster Brendan Smyth.
It is a criminal offence to interfere with or with-hold evidence in a criminal investigation, and Police have powers to seize such evidence.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 26, 2014, 09:01:27 PM
It is a criminal offence to interfere with or with-hold evidence in a criminal investigation, and Police have powers to seize such evidence.
Yes but there is no criminal investigation while there is no evidence, or while the victims are sworn to secrecy. See the problem?
Surely the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence if a credible complaint has been made. As for being sworn to secrecy, do you have any evidence that this happened in the cases you are quoting, it would certainly be against current church policy, and it is unlikely they would anyone bound by such an oath
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
Where were the mass protests on the streets of Dublin during the Queen's visit in 2011?
To be fair the west brits were loving every second of it. A few words in irish by her maj and they forgave it all.
Sickening.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 26, 2014, 09:14:09 PM
Surely the purpose of an investigation is to gather evidence if a credible complaint has been made. As for being sworn to secrecy, do you have any evidence that this happened in the cases you are quoting, it would certainly be against current church policy, and it is unlikely they would anyone bound by such an oath
I found this story a few years ago while debating this topic, or a version of it.
Here is the story as it was in 2010: http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/003430.html (http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/003430.html)
.....The Catholic church has refused to release the late priest's "assignment record" in the US, which would detail the various parishes Smyth was assigned to..... That was in 2010, regarding the already dead, convicted pedophile, Brendan Smyth.
McGonigle submitted the following to the UN Committee on the Rights of The Child last January.
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Documents/VAT/INT_CRC_NGO_VAT_16029_E.pdf (http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CRC/Shared%20Documents/VAT/INT_CRC_NGO_VAT_16029_E.pdf)
Muppet you or I could check what parishes a priest has been assigned to for the past 50 years anywhere if we really wanted to. The authorities can investigate without hiding behind "the church wont tell us". I' not discounting that the church should release this information but its a bit of a cop out if authorities wash their hands and say thats it too?
again, I agree with you on many things but I don't know if either of us grasp the magnitude of what we are asking for?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 26, 2014, 09:39:38 PM
Muppet you or I could check what parishes a priest has been assigned to for the past 50 years anywhere if we really wanted to. The authorities can investigate without hiding behind "the church wont tell us". I' not discounting that the church should release this information but its a bit of a cop out if authorities wash their hands and say thats it too?
again, I agree with you on many things but I don't know if either of us grasp the magnitude of what we are asking for?
Let's say, hypothetically, I claim Smyth worked in California. I tell the authorities that I am pretty sure a convicted pedophile worked in California in the 1960s. Will the authorities investigate? What exactly will they investigate and will the get a warrant to examine records of a dead man based on no real evidence?
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
Will the authorities investigate? What exactly will they investigate and will the get a warrant to examine records of a dead man based on no real evidence?
Dig him up and put him in jail I say.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
Will the authorities investigate? What exactly will they investigate and will the get a warrant to examine records of a dead man based on no real evidence?
Dig him up and put him in jail I say.
And what of the victims?
Horrific behaviour which has been acknowledged by the Church and atonement sought. We cannot change the past, but seek to ensure that it never happens again
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
Will the authorities investigate? What exactly will they investigate and will the get a warrant to examine records of a dead man based on no real evidence?
Dig him up and put him in jail I say.
And what of the victims?
I've said it before - I don't know what will ever make up for what happened.
Same goes for the bankers and how they've fuc'd the country over. It's not like there is a reset button to make it go away.
Ditto the victims in the 6 counties, although there is a lot of people in the 26 counties that pretended that never happened. Wasn't too much of an outcry then.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 26, 2014, 09:47:40 PM
Horrific behaviour which has been acknowledged by the Church and atonement sought. We cannot change the past, but seek to ensure that it never happens again
Not genuinely if they don't release Smyth's assignment record and indeed all the records (I have no problem protecting people form malicious claims).
We know Smyth was a serial sex offender and abuser of children.
Again from McGonigle's submission to the UN:
QuoteIt has only been recently (2012) that Fr. Bruno Mulvihill's 1995 statement with its attachments has been made available as much of the paper trial on Fr. Brendan Smyth still remains concealed by the Holy See, religious orders and dioceses to which he was assigned.
This is 15 years after Smyth's death and the cover up goes on.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 09:52:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:47:16 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:43:52 PM
Will the authorities investigate? What exactly will they investigate and will the get a warrant to examine records of a dead man based on no real evidence?
Dig him up and put him in jail I say.
And what of the victims?
I've said it before - I don't know what will ever make up for what happened.
A good start would be for the Church to come clean.
I am surprised you are arguing for the Church by comparing them with greedy incompetent bankers and terrorists, I am no holy Joe but I would have thought that is probably sacrilegious.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:56:32 PM
I am surprised you are arguing for the Church by comparing them with greedy incompetent bankers and terrorists, I am no holy Joe but I would have thought that is probably sacrilegious.
I didn't - I was just comparing peoples attitudes and the tenacity with which they were tackling subjects. It seems to be a trendy thing amongst freestaters to have a go at the church but suddenly mute when it comes to tackling the bankers or the british treatment of irish citizens in the 6 counties.
I dont have a solution, but, i do admire the problem
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:56:32 PM
I am surprised you are arguing for the Church by comparing them with greedy incompetent bankers and terrorists, I am no holy Joe but I would have thought that is probably sacrilegious.
I didn't - I was just comparing peoples attitudes and the tenacity with which they were tackling subjects. It seems to be a trendy thing amongst freestaters to have a go at the church but suddenly mute when it comes to tackling the bankers or the british treatment of irish citizens in the 6 counties.
Really?
So this is a freestater thing and nothing to do with the Church?
The first person to pull fearon on this was not a "free stater"...
not by a long chalk
Quote from: theskull1 on June 26, 2014, 11:22:56 PM
not by a long chalk
We'd have you in Mayo if you need a new home.
(P.S. Please bring some hurlers).
The obsessive hatred of the catholic church is all too evident by the tone of some posters on this thread.It is such that perhaps one or two of those involved have been directly affected by clerical abuse and if that is the case then their position on this matter in entirely understandable.
Certainly the whole issue has been badly mishandled,and far too often the reputation of the church was prioritised over the needs and feeling of victims,but it is bizarre to utter statements or allegations that the church facilitated abuse or to maintain the view that this is an evil institution.
Quite simply to paraphrase a current loyalist mantra "End hatred of Roman Catholicism"
It is amazing reading this thread how logical people become so irrational when religion is mentioned. If these people happened to be born within a protestant family would they be defending the catholic church so readily. The catholic church sticks to high heaven (pardon the pun) it is guilty of covering up child abuse. It is guilty of facilitating child abuse it by moving priests around and letting them have a fresh batch to ply their sickening sexual tendencies. The only people who seem to be sticking by the Catholic Church are the old generation and those who appear to be blinded by faith, I hope the decline in mass attendance etc continues and the coppers stop rolling in and that this corrupt organisation dies a death in the future.
After all the straight up arguments that have been presented .....your simple conclusion.....hate driven .....therefore not totally rational....but understandable ONLY if you're a victim.
Has Willie Fraser received funding to take 'Argumentation' evening classes down there?
It blows me away everytime just how blinkered people will get just to cling onto beliefs regardless of the evidence presented.
Just for clarity could you outline what would have had to have happened BEFORE you'd accept that the institution did facilitate?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 08:22:04 AM
After all the straight up arguments that have been presented .....your simple conclusion.....hate driven .....therefore not totally rational....but understandable ONLY if you're a victim.
Has Willie Fraser received funding to take 'Argumentation' evening classes down there?
It blows me away everytime just how blinkered people will get just to cling onto beliefs regardless of the evidence presented.
Just for clarity could you outline what would have had to have happened BEFORE you'd accept that the institution did facilitate?
+1.
For the record, I haven't been abused, nor has anyone I know. I never met Jimmy Savile either and, strangely, I've managed to reach a reasoned conclusion on his behaviour too.
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 10:05:09 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: muppet on June 26, 2014, 09:56:32 PM
I am surprised you are arguing for the Church by comparing them with greedy incompetent bankers and terrorists, I am no holy Joe but I would have thought that is probably sacrilegious.
I didn't - I was just comparing peoples attitudes and the tenacity with which they were tackling subjects. It seems to be a trendy thing amongst freestaters to have a go at the church but suddenly mute when it comes to tackling the bankers or the british treatment of irish citizens in the 6 counties.
Really?
So this is a freestater thing and nothing to do with the Church?
How did you ever think this 'discussion' would reach a different 'conclusion'?
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
Where did I say it was right, I am talking about how we view the past and the reactions of organisations, I am not condoning it.
But you are trying to justify it, which is a disgrace.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
And who was responsible for all this? who decided that divorce was a no no? How many beaten mothers were talked into staying with their alcoholic and abusive partners by the local PP? Who told the local headmaster to just teach the 'stupid' ones to count to 10 and sure they can work for the local farmers?
Who set the agenda in society that single mothers and their offspring were the spawn of the devil?
Irish life was seriously warped by the men in black, they'd a free reign and their authority was unquestioned by the flock and this includes the political elite.
Quote from: Pangurban on June 26, 2014, 08:35:09 PM
As a number of priests have been faced with allegations which were later proved to be totally false and malicious, it is important that the Church exercise its duty of care towards its employees. As things stand, when an allegation is made against a Priest, he is immediately suspended from office, and faces a long wait to have his name cleared. Whether the case reaches court or not, the damage has already been done, by the no smoke without fire brigade. How many of us would choose to work in such a vulnerable situation. The enormous efforts of the Church to rectify and adress its problems or continually being undermined by false sensationalist reporting by lazy journalists who will not let facts get in the way of their story. Where there is a reasonable degree of evidence, the Church must co-operate to the fullest extent with any investigation, but it should not throw its employees to the baying mob.
who employs these priests again?
I'd have thought that duty of care you are rightly defending should have been shown to the flock who pay the wages, big houses, house keepers and what not for these lads. It was not as the institution of the most holy Roman Catholic Church was considered far more important than the actual message it is supposed to deliver. God, Jesus and the holy spirit were far from the minds of the hierarchy who facilitated this cover up, but they'll have to answer to their God on judgement day.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
I'm afraid it has everything to do with today's standards.
I grew up during the period you speak of and I never once heard of a case of child rape coming before the courts. I wasn't old enough to understand what was going on around me in the 50s and early 60s (I began teaching in 1969) but I can safely say the subject of child sexual abuse seldom if ever cropped up until the early 80s or thereabouts.
Even as an adult teacher back then I found only a few (very few) of generation before mine were willing to admit that anything untoward went on, let alone talk about specific cases.
To understand those times, you must possess an open, unprejudiced mind or have lived through them or preferably both.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 11:39:30 AM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
I'm afraid it has everything to do with today's standards.
I grew up during the period you speak of and I never once heard of a case of child rape coming before the courts. I wasn't old enough to understand what was going on around me in the 50s and early 60s (I began teaching in 1969) but I can safely say the subject of child sexual abuse seldom if ever cropped up until the early 80s or thereabouts.
Even as an adult teacher back then I found only a few (very few) of generation before mine were willing to admit that anything untoward went on, let alone talk about specific cases.
To understand those times, you must possess an open, unprejudiced mind or have lived through them or preferably both.
Don't talk horseshite are you saying people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's are somehow justified because there were no standards like today. This is the most ridiculous argument ever so has the human mind evolved so much in a generation that only now it knows sexually abusing children is wrong - if you are a teacher I fell sorry for your pupils.
I'd read that again, more carefully this time Zip Code, if I was you.
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 11:39:30 AM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
I'm afraid it has everything to do with today's standards.
I grew up during the period you speak of and I never once heard of a case of child rape coming before the courts. I wasn't old enough to understand what was going on around me in the 50s and early 60s (I began teaching in 1969) but I can safely say the subject of child sexual abuse seldom if ever cropped up until the early 80s or thereabouts.
Even as an adult teacher back then I found only a few (very few) of generation before mine were willing to admit that anything untoward went on, let alone talk about specific cases.
To understand those times, you must possess an open, unprejudiced mind or have lived through them or preferably both.
Don't talk horseshite are you saying people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's are somehow justified because there were no standards like today. This is the most ridiculous argument ever so has the human mind evolved so much in a generation that only now it knows sexually abusing children is wrong - if you are a teacher I fell sorry for your pupils.
I most certainly did not say any such thing. Looks like you could do with a course in basic English grammar and logic.
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Don't talk horseshite are you saying people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's are somehow justified because there were no standards like today. This is the most ridiculous argument ever so has the human mind evolved so much in a generation that only now it knows sexually abusing children is wrong - if you are a teacher I fell sorry for your pupils.
Of course there was no more justification for people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's. However, if the existence of something is not widely known, as of course every effort was made by child abusers to conceal their activities, then people aren't looking out for it.
The recent Jimmy Saville revelations are instructive. Is the British NHS an intrinsically evil institution, as it clearly facilitated Saville? And if it is not, why is this different?
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 11:39:30 AM
To understand those times, you must possess an open, unprejudiced mind or have lived through them or preferably both.
Don't talk horseshite are you saying people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's are somehow justified because there were no standards like today. This is the most ridiculous argument ever so has the human mind evolved so much in a generation that only now it knows sexually abusing children is wrong - if you are a teacher I fell sorry for your pupils.
Here is a personal snapshot of life in the 50's and 60's.
I remember a girl was 'attacked' in a neighbouring parish. It was only many years later that I realised that this meant rape. (In fact I didnt even know that men could have sex together until the 1980's). The response to the 'attack' was muted and there wasnt a mob and nobody got a kicking. People kept their head down.
If you apply today's social attitudes it would be a very different story.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 12:35:11 PM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 12:08:01 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 11:39:30 AM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 09:00:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on June 27, 2014, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
While it's great looking back in hindsight to the things that went on and now how we view them as disgraceful I think a lot of you have forgotten about the culture at the time.
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
There was still a hint of shame for some regarding their behaviour or situations which sometimes lent itself to things being swept under the carpet.
The situation with the church fell into this category. Would you let an institution fall due to the actions of a few? Of course you would try to fix it or patch over it...wasn't that the exact same thing as the banking crisis not so long ago?
This is the most sensible post I have read o this topic. In 2014 we look back to the 50's and 60's and judge things by the more and standards of today. It can't be done. At this stage it is 50/60 years ago, it is not possible to make a rational balanced judgement. That is why, although I wouldn't totally agree with TF on the church, I do have some sympathy with a young Sean Brady and how he dealt with issues at the time. Where I would part company with Tony is that he and the church really need a bit of mea culpa, Brady should have stood down.
In the 50s and 60s rape of children was wrong and abhorrent, nothing to do with today's standards - what a completely stupid post.
I'm afraid it has everything to do with today's standards.
I grew up during the period you speak of and I never once heard of a case of child rape coming before the courts. I wasn't old enough to understand what was going on around me in the 50s and early 60s (I began teaching in 1969) but I can safely say the subject of child sexual abuse seldom if ever cropped up until the early 80s or thereabouts.
Even as an adult teacher back then I found only a few (very few) of generation before mine were willing to admit that anything untoward went on, let alone talk about specific cases.
To understand those times, you must possess an open, unprejudiced mind or have lived through them or preferably both.
Don't talk horseshite are you saying people abusing children or allowing children to be abused in the 50's or 60's are somehow justified because there were no standards like today. This is the most ridiculous argument ever so has the human mind evolved so much in a generation that only now it knows sexually abusing children is wrong - if you are a teacher I fell sorry for your pupils.
I most certainly did not say any such thing. Looks like you could do with a course in basic English grammar and logic.
You are saying the mindset was different, I am saying people know when something is wrong and that was the same in the 50s and 60s so don't try to patronise me or justify any of these crimes by saying it was a different time and place.
Agree this shouldn't have happened at any time and is inexcusable, just like the famine shouldn't have happened, or British spooks collaborating with paramilitaries to murder so many Irish citizens in more recent times, yet our leaders fawn over the British Queen etc, or the adulterous Charles Haughey taking backhanders etc and is regarded as something of a legend/loveable rogue.
My allegiance is to Catholic theology not the clerics by the way,though I am prepared to defend the vast majority of good priests and Bishops from the dire allegations that the whole church is corrupt.
Thankfully we are generaly in a much better place today, with strutures in place to minimise all forms of human abuse in civilised countries
Quote from: T Fearon on June 27, 2014, 02:49:31 PM
Agree this shouldn't have happened at any time and is inexcusable, just like the famine shouldn't have happened, or British spooks collaborating with paramilitaries to murder so many Irish citizens in more recent times, yet our leaders fawn over the British Queen etc, or the adulterous Charles Haughey taking backhanders etc and is regarded as something of a legend/loveable rogue.
My allegiance is to Catholic theology not the clerics by the way,though I am prepared to defend the vast majority of good priests and Bishops from the dire allegations that the whole church is corrupt.
Thankfully we are generaly in a much better place today, with strutures in place to minimise all forms of human abuse in civilised countries
As per Skulls question, can the Catholic church take credit for this improvement?
Were they proactive or reactive?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
No replies to this
Did I ask the question in a far too civil a manner?
Quote from: johnneycool on June 27, 2014, 09:09:46 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 26, 2014, 05:37:36 PM
Scandals were hidden, broken homes held together due to no divorces, affairs were hushed, alcoholism wasnt mentioned, kids with learning difficulties were just branded stupid and left in the back of the classrooms to rot etc....
And who was responsible for all this? who decided that divorce was a no no?
Have to say that modern day society isn't really doing that great a job at protecting it's kids either. The amount of domestic issues we see in the papers of abuse has soared and these are only the ones reported. Do you think the people who do this are holy people? Very unlikely.
The family unit has gone - while keeping a family together under the old days wasn't ideal if there were underlying issues it also prevented breakups over the most trivial of matters like you see today. Now we have a generation of one-parent families and very very damaged kids.
The courts don't do much to protect these kids either, they'll put them back into the hands of monsters or those who threaten legal action.
The church gives (or tries to give) morals to people on how to live their lives better. Not all that preached them were good folk. The secular society doesn't offer much, just look after yourself and f%^k everyone else.
I see what you did there. More reporting of a crime because society has become more and more aware that the law is on their side means the actual level of the said crime are higher in real terms. Good brains.
.....
Quote from: foxcommander on June 27, 2014, 03:26:28 PM
The church gives (or tries to give) morals to people on how to live their lives better. Not all that preached them were good folk. The secular society doesn't offer much, just look after yourself and f%^k everyone else.
Class....don't believe in a faith tradition=don't give a fiddlers about anyone else . Do you really think that or as Tony was suggesting to those opposing his view, are you just angry?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 03:45:47 PM
I see what you did there. More reporting of a crime because society has become more and more aware that the law is on their side means the actual level of the said crime are higher in real terms. Good brains.
.....
Quote from: foxcommander on June 27, 2014, 03:26:28 PM
The church gives (or tries to give) morals to people on how to live their lives better. Not all that preached them were good folk. The secular society doesn't offer much, just look after yourself and f%^k everyone else.
Class....don't believe in a faith tradition=don't give a fiddlers about anyone else . Do you really think that or as Tony was suggesting to those opposing his view, are you just angry?
I'm not angry, I'm just telling it the way it is. Open your eyes and look how wonderful society is these days.
I've caught 12 year olds robbing a house, I see them drinking openly and engaging in adult behaviour outside junior discos. I've seen them assault adults on the streets. Teachers being assaulted in classrooms.
Is this a church problem or is it a problem with parents who aren't guiding their kids properly because they themselves have no moral compass.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
I don't think everyone in the church is equally to blame but those who were aware of what was going on lacked influence and power.
I know the present archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, very well. IMO, he's a solid, honest individual and I couldn't imagine him trying too shield a child abuser. His predecessor, Desmond Connell refused to co-operate with the gardai when an investigation into child abuse in the diocese was launched. (As far as I can remember that was in the early noughties)
He maintained that Canon Law took precedence over civil law and refused to hand over relevant files. Then you had the extraordinary situation where the incoming bishop threatened to sue the outgoing one if he didn't comply with Garda requests.
In the end, Connell acquiesced with very much reluctance and only because he knew it was only a matter of time until Diarmuid took over the diocese and would then have access to the documents in question.
Knowing Diarmuid, I'm certain he wasn't bluffing.
I mention al this because there were wide divergences of view amongst Church authorities and indeed priests and lay people.
BTW, very few if any seemed to be fully aware of the widespread abuse of children and women that was going on all around them.
If as girl was raped, often by a close relative or someone of influence in the locality, she was regarded as a "fallen woman" and either packed off to England or shoved into a Magdalene Home.
There were few like Diarmuid Martin back in the 50s and 60s and definitely sweet FA of them in times before that.
Sex was most definitely a taboo subject and even when a married woman had a baby she was regarded as being somehow "unclean" and had to undergo a cleansing ceremony before she could attend mass or take the sacraments again.
To try and answer you question, I'd say the Catholic Church back them lacked Christianity.
Have you heard of Jansenism?
The teachings of Jansen, a theologian from the 1600s, heavily influenced church thinking in Ireland to a larger degree than in any other European country.
The reason for this was that a large number of Irish students for the priesthood went to the seminary in Louvain where many of the staff held pro-Jansen beliefs. This was a Catholic version of Calvinism, pure and simple.
One had to come from a "posh" family to go to Louvain- Paddy Joe from over the mountain was lucky to get into All Hallows or Brendan's, Killarney.
The same PJ was likely to go no further up the promotion ladder than landing a curacy in some small parish or teaching ion some boarding school or other. If any of them became a PP in was in some isolated god-forsaken place that nobody else wanted.
Whereas the ones who were ordained in Louvain or Salamanca or the likes, were the ones who went on to become canons and monsignors and the likes.
So you can see how the Jansenist priests carried a lot more clout than their numbers warranted.
The societal shift you speak of started in the mid to late 60s. The advent of TV was very much responsible for this. If you are familiar with the works of Diarmuid Ferriter, the UCD historian who is pretty popular at the moment, you'll find that Church and State combined in an unholy alliance to keep power from the masses.
As a result, Ireland was a most conservative, introverted society from the time of the Famine or earlier for all I know.
I think the likes of Diarmuid Martin can take some credit for liberalising the church but then there were far more Connells than Martins back in the times we are referring to and it's been a long hard slog nce to get rid of them.
There are plenty of them still who yearn for the "good ol' days."
Johnnycool/Skull I think it is reasonable to say the Church has learned from its past mistakes and now has the most robust child protection policies of any institution in Ireland.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 03:19:36 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
No replies to this
Did I ask the question in a far too civil a manner?
The shift to recognize the vulnerable in our society and protect them at all costs is a great one. One I'm proud to have lived through. I think we're all part of it? Regardless of colour, creed or religion? Your post implies the Church should get no credit Skull so to whom would you award the credit? Because society is made up of all of us - including the religious, including the Church.
The reality is that we're not going to solve anything here on the good old Gaaboard. I wish we could. The Church is broken but God remains. I believe it can only be fixed from within and no amount of screaming from the outside will make a difference.
At the parish level the protection of Children and the vulnerable in our communities is central to who we are as a Church - I've seen it . The good priests of these parishes are doing their best to make sure this never happens again while at the same time keeping their parish alive, engaging the people and trying to appease those who rightly so have axes to grind.
At the Diocesan and Arch-diocesan level the bishops and the cardinals who we all have no love for are slowly being pushed into the background and will disappear.
As all this continues to happen - lives are saved. Hopefully no more kids are destroyed, no more homes torn apart. Which is what we ultimately want right? I believe the victims will be compensated for eternity, the abusers and those who failed to protect the innocent will have their just rewards for eternity also.
We all want justice. We all want the sins of the past to be acknowledged and paid for- not just of the Church, but the British Government, the Irish state, those Cork bastards for killing Michael Collins and anyone else who has wronged us or society. But to embrace the present and reach ahead to the future, at some point we have to let go of the past......
Encouraging story about Diarmuid Martin there Lar Naparka, so at a macro level there's a good example of a senior individual within the church structures manning up and understanding the importance to be "doing the right thing". Fair play to the man. I'm more interested in the global societal level though. I'll answer my own questions at that level
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? None in my opinion .....at best they reacted to public opinion and are still playing catch up as they protect the culpable/their coffers).
Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon? No, nothing intentional carried out by the church has moved society on in this regard, but the exposure of the church's shameful past making for good public discourse which has helped expose a shameful past in the hope it insulates future generations
The Church is being coerced to go with societies secular ethical & moral demands. The have lost the leadership role that they clung on to. That's evolution for you.
Quote from: T Fearon on June 26, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
Are there nor several priests locked up? Comparisons with the British Govt are very valid. To mention just one incident, they will nor co operate with any Investligation into the Dublin bombings? Where were the mass protests on the streets of Dublin during the Queen's visit in 2011?
Tony, I will disagree with you 100% on your stance with Brady, but I will agree with you here on this point. Where indeed were the protests at the head of the state who murdered raped and pillaged at will here for centuries? How many British soldiers are in jail compared to priests?
Watching Corgi McGuinness and Michael D Higgings fawn all over her was and is sickening in the extreme. As Fox said earlier, a few words in Irish and all was forgiven.
As bad and horrendous as the crimes committed by those attached to the Catholic Church was here in Ireland, it pales in comparison to the crimes committed and still committing by the British state here in Ireland.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 05:42:56 PM
Encouraging story about Diarmuid Martin there Lar Naparka, so at a macro level there's a good example of a senior individual within the church structures manning up and understanding the importance to be "doing the right thing". Fair play to the man. I'm more interested in the global societal level though. I'll answer my own questions at that level
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? None in my opinion .....at best they reacted to public opinion and are still playing catch up as they protect the culpable/their coffers).
Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon? No, nothing intentional carried out by the church has moved society on in this regard, but the exposure of the church's shameful past making for good public discourse which has helped expose a shameful past in the hope it insulates future generations
The Church is being coerced to go with societies secular ethical & moral demands. The have lost the leadership role that they clung on to. That's evolution for you.
The Church is not being coerced into anything skull I'm afraid that's a sweeping statement which is just wrong. Societies secular demands will not influence the church or its teaching. The church's teaching (whether those inside have abided by it or not) has remained the same.
The church's shame is not in it's teaching, but in it's need to protect itself as an institution and putting that in front of the living out of it's teachings. That was and is the failure of the Church.
Please don't forget the Church has made a huge contribution to society and is heavily responsible for our advancement on many levels. The education system, the advancement of languages, hospitals, care for the sick and elderly, the advancement of science....the list goes on and on.....
You would have everyone believe otherwise - as if the "human species" evolved and has now surpassed any "God" which our ancestors believed in and the "unintelligent" of today still cling to right?
TF/GHD
We, I'm sure all agree that the political classes are corrupt and self serving and isn't the church as an institution taking its lead from them? Delaying, obfuscating, denying, letting the sands of time blow until such times that a scripted apology gets read out way down the line. Those responsible for any atrocities and any subsequent cover up get away scot free. We're then told to move on. That's the way it goes and the church is playing it the same way. Maybe that's the way of the world, but I thought you spiritual guys were more interested in the moral and ethical positions being played out making sure your beloved institution does the right thing as they should be representing the views of the congregation? Right? It would seem that I'm wrong in that regard.
IM
I'm not going to deny the positive influences of the church (although I'm not an historian who would have full knowledge about the church over the centuries and how they controlled the masses) over the last couple of centuries. No one said they haven't done good things so I'm unclear why you suggest that I've implied otherwise.
Public exposure the the church scandal has moved society up a notch on the evolutionary scale.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 06:26:13 PM
TF/GHD
We, I'm sure all agree that the political classes are corrupt and self serving and isn't the church as an institution taking its lead from them? Delaying, obfuscating, denying, letting the sands of time blow until such times that a scripted apology gets read out way down the line. Those responsible for any atrocities and any subsequent cover up get away scot free. We're then told to move on. That's the way it goes and the church is playing it the same way. Maybe that's the way of the world, but I thought you spiritual guys were more interested in the moral and ethical positions being played out making sure your beloved institution does the right thing as they should be representing the views of the congregation? Right? It would seem that I'm wrong in that regard.
IM
I'm not going to deny the positive influences of the church (although I'm not an historian who would have full knowledge about the church over the centuries and how they controlled the masses) over the last couple of centuries. No one said they haven't done good things so I'm unclear why you suggest that I've implied otherwise.
Public exposure the the church scandal has moved society up a notch on the evolutionary scale.
You hit the nail on the head with that statement. Those that tell us to move on are those who have the most to hide.
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 06:26:13 PM
TF/GHD
We, I'm sure all agree that the political classes are corrupt and self serving and isn't the church as an institution taking its lead from them? Delaying, obfuscating, denying, letting the sands of time blow until such times that a scripted apology gets read out way down the line. Those responsible for any atrocities and any subsequent cover up get away scot free. We're then told to move on. That's the way it goes and the church is playing it the same way. Maybe that's the way of the world, but I thought you spiritual guys were more interested in the moral and ethical positions being played out making sure your beloved institution does the right thing as they should be representing the views of the congregation? Right? It would seem that I'm wrong in that regard.
IM
I'm not going to deny the positive influences of the church (although I'm not an historian who would have full knowledge about the church over the centuries and how they controlled the masses) over the last couple of centuries. No one said they haven't done good things so I'm unclear why you suggest that I've implied otherwise.
Public exposure the the church scandal has moved society up a notch on the evolutionary scale.
I think if you read the context of the thread that the "spiritual" guys are in agreement with the "condemned to hell" guys (joke) that The Church hierarchy needs to own up, speak up and make it all right. But if you read further the spiritual guys are also in agreement that we don't know how that works out or what that looks like. Or even what would be enough. Or how this will impact the institution of the church... all things none of us can grasp and i'm sure you don't care about but decisions that impact billions of people....
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
I don't think everyone in the church is equally to blame but those who were aware of what was going on lacked influence and power.
I know the present archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, very well. IMO, he's a solid, honest individual and I couldn't imagine him trying too shield a child abuser. His predecessor, Desmond Connell refused to co-operate with the gardai when an investigation into child abuse in the diocese was launched. (As far as I can remember that was in the early noughties)
He maintained that Canon Law took precedence over civil law and refused to hand over relevant files. Then you had the extraordinary situation where the incoming bishop threatened to sue the outgoing one if he didn't comply with Garda requests.
In the end, Connell acquiesced with very much reluctance and only because he knew it was only a matter of time until Diarmuid took over the diocese and would then have access to the documents in question.
Knowing Diarmuid, I'm certain he wasn't bluffing.
I mention al this because there were wide divergences of view amongst Church authorities and indeed priests and lay people.
BTW, very few if any seemed to be fully aware of the widespread abuse of children and women that was going on all around them.
If as girl was raped, often by a close relative or someone of influence in the locality, she was regarded as a "fallen woman" and either packed off to England or shoved into a Magdalene Home.
There were few like Diarmuid Martin back in the 50s and 60s and definitely sweet FA of them in times before that.
Sex was most definitely a taboo subject and even when a married woman had a baby she was regarded as being somehow "unclean" and had to undergo a cleansing ceremony before she could attend mass or take the sacraments again.
To try and answer you question, I'd say the Catholic Church back them lacked Christianity.
Have you heard of Jansenism?
The teachings of Jansen, a theologian from the 1600s, heavily influenced church thinking in Ireland to a larger degree than in any other European country.
The reason for this was that a large number of Irish students for the priesthood went to the seminary in Louvain where many of the staff held pro-Jansen beliefs. This was a Catholic version of Calvinism, pure and simple.
One had to come from a "posh" family to go to Louvain- Paddy Joe from over the mountain was lucky to get into All Hallows or Brendan's, Killarney.
The same PJ was likely to go no further up the promotion ladder than landing a curacy in some small parish or teaching ion some boarding school or other. If any of them became a PP in was in some isolated god-forsaken place that nobody else wanted.
Whereas the ones who were ordained in Louvain or Salamanca or the likes, were the ones who went on to become canons and monsignors and the likes.
So you can see how the Jansenist priests carried a lot more clout than their numbers warranted.
The societal shift you speak of started in the mid to late 60s. The advent of TV was very much responsible for this. If you are familiar with the works of Diarmuid Ferriter, the UCD historian who is pretty popular at the moment, you'll find that Church and State combined in an unholy alliance to keep power from the masses.
As a result, Ireland was a most conservative, introverted society from the time of the Famine or earlier for all I know.
I think the likes of Diarmuid Martin can take some credit for liberalising the church but then there were far more Connells than Martins back in the times we are referring to and it's been a long hard slog nce to get rid of them.
There are plenty of them still who yearn for the "good ol' days."
What a great post. It is weird thinking that I lived through some of that. Your post put some explanation to the context in which I was reared. Thank you
I want to see all those guilty of paedophilia put in jail, but I refuse to accept the Church is hindering that process. What sort of information does it have that would be material and could not be sourced elsewhere? Like it hardly has a log of activity relating to every paedophile priest?
Good posts Ice-Man
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
You are saying the mindset was different, I am saying people know when something is wrong and that was the same in the 50s and 60s so don't try to patronise me or justify any of these crimes by saying it was a different time and place.
Build a time machine and go fix it then.
Quote from: foxcommander on June 27, 2014, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
You are saying the mindset was different, I am saying people know when something is wrong and that was the same in the 50s and 60s so don't try to patronise me or justify any of these crimes by saying it was a different time and place.
Build a time machine and go fix it then.
An equally stupid post!
Quote from: foxcommander on June 27, 2014, 03:53:04 PM
I'm not angry, I'm just telling it the way it is. Open your eyes and look how wonderful society is these days.
I've caught 12 year olds robbing a house, I see them drinking openly and engaging in adult behaviour outside junior discos. I've seen them assault adults on the streets. Teachers being assaulted in classrooms.
Is this a church problem or is it a problem with parents who aren't guiding their kids properly because they themselves have no moral compass.
Fox commander have you ever considered that the volume of media now is many many times greater than it was. Bad new stories are global. 30 years ago the media worked totally different. So how much of your belief is perception rather than reality.
And let's get rid of this notion that secularist don't really care about the society they live in. Many considered atheists seek to live purpose driven fulfilling lives.
Quote from: Orior on June 27, 2014, 09:14:12 PM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on June 27, 2014, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 27, 2014, 12:32:08 PM
LN
What part to you think the churches teachings/scripture had on this massive societal shift you talk about? Can the church take credit for any of it do you reckon?
I don't think everyone in the church is equally to blame but those who were aware of what was going on lacked influence and power.
I know the present archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, very well. IMO, he's a solid, honest individual and I couldn't imagine him trying too shield a child abuser. His predecessor, Desmond Connell refused to co-operate with the gardai when an investigation into child abuse in the diocese was launched. (As far as I can remember that was in the early noughties)
He maintained that Canon Law took precedence over civil law and refused to hand over relevant files. Then you had the extraordinary situation where the incoming bishop threatened to sue the outgoing one if he didn't comply with Garda requests.
In the end, Connell acquiesced with very much reluctance and only because he knew it was only a matter of time until Diarmuid took over the diocese and would then have access to the documents in question.
Knowing Diarmuid, I'm certain he wasn't bluffing.
I mention al this because there were wide divergences of view amongst Church authorities and indeed priests and lay people.
BTW, very few if any seemed to be fully aware of the widespread abuse of children and women that was going on all around them.
If as girl was raped, often by a close relative or someone of influence in the locality, she was regarded as a "fallen woman" and either packed off to England or shoved into a Magdalene Home.
There were few like Diarmuid Martin back in the 50s and 60s and definitely sweet FA of them in times before that.
Sex was most definitely a taboo subject and even when a married woman had a baby she was regarded as being somehow "unclean" and had to undergo a cleansing ceremony before she could attend mass or take the sacraments again.
To try and answer you question, I'd say the Catholic Church back them lacked Christianity.
Have you heard of Jansenism?
The teachings of Jansen, a theologian from the 1600s, heavily influenced church thinking in Ireland to a larger degree than in any other European country.
The reason for this was that a large number of Irish students for the priesthood went to the seminary in Louvain where many of the staff held pro-Jansen beliefs. This was a Catholic version of Calvinism, pure and simple.
One had to come from a "posh" family to go to Louvain- Paddy Joe from over the mountain was lucky to get into All Hallows or Brendan's, Killarney.
The same PJ was likely to go no further up the promotion ladder than landing a curacy in some small parish or teaching ion some boarding school or other. If any of them became a PP in was in some isolated god-forsaken place that nobody else wanted.
Whereas the ones who were ordained in Louvain or Salamanca or the likes, were the ones who went on to become canons and monsignors and the likes.
So you can see how the Jansenist priests carried a lot more clout than their numbers warranted.
The societal shift you speak of started in the mid to late 60s. The advent of TV was very much responsible for this. If you are familiar with the works of Diarmuid Ferriter, the UCD historian who is pretty popular at the moment, you'll find that Church and State combined in an unholy alliance to keep power from the masses.
As a result, Ireland was a most conservative, introverted society from the time of the Famine or earlier for all I know.
I think the likes of Diarmuid Martin can take some credit for liberalising the church but then there were far more Connells than Martins back in the times we are referring to and it's been a long hard slog nce to get rid of them.
There are plenty of them still who yearn for the "good ol' days."
What a great post. It is weird thinking that I lived through some of that. Your post put some explanation to the context in which I was reared. Thank you
Well, thank you also.
It's comforting to know that someone else knows what I'm talking about. (Sometimes I'm not sure I do myself.)
It was the late 70s before I even heard of a Magdalene Laundry and even then I just couldn't comprehend the reality of what went on in those institutions. I worked and fraternised with priests and other religious who were later faced charges of sexual abuse. Neither I nor any colleague suspected anything at the time.
But it would be wide of the mark to think that all, or even the majority, of sexual offences were committed by nuns, priests and brothers. They are easily identified because they belong to clearly defined groups but I believe there were even more incidences of domestic rape , incest in other words.
My father-in-law told me that domestic sexual abuse was widespread, endemic in fact, in his younger days and in times before then as well.
To begin with, many people had large families and lived in small houses and so in many cases boys and girls had to share a bedroom with only a blanket or a curtain to segregate them.
Add in the fact that sex was definitely subject so the vast majority of teenagers knew nothing about the facts of life and it's easy to see that cases of incest were plentiful.
Sure there were laws about incest and rape and the likes on the ststute books and that's where they remained.
In my reply to skull I mentioned that the advent of TV in the late 60s was a major catalyst for change but I forgot to mention that the introduction of free second level education (in the south anyway) was an equally important one. This was introduced in 1966 and in time led to a better educated people who began to assert their independence and no longer let others do their thinking for them.
I know it's hard for many who are younger than the pair of us to comprehend that the majority of the common people could live in such a state of wilful delusion but one need not go back to the 50s/60s to find cases of this.
How many here can recall what happened in Ballinspittle in 1985.
For those who can't, a group of young schoolgirls claimed to have seen a roadside statue of the BV moving spontaneously.
So the kids ran home and told their mammies. Mammies raced to the scene and "saw" the statue move as well. Mammies told neighbours and neighbours spread the news of this miraculous apparition far and wide.
Soon busloads of credulous people began to descend on the little village and just about everyone swore they saw the statue move.
A few local farmers made a killing by renting out fields for car parking and cafés and b&Bs in the general locality were soon raking it in.
Soon claims of moving statues and apparitions of other divine entities like saints and lambs and all that sort of stuff were coming in from all over the place. It's said that over 100,000 pilgrims visited Ballinspittle alone.
In all, there was soon over 30 places around the country were claims of statues moving and/ or images appearing on church walls or even on gates in fields and telegraph poles etc.
The Church refused to confirm or deny the credibility of those claims. A few bishops and other ecclesiastical authorities told the general public to cop on and to stop making eejits of themselves but there was no official repudiation of those phenomena.
Then the mass hysteria began to cool down and people who had been believers in those "miracles" felt reticent about even talking about them.
Remember we are talking about an incidence of mass hysteria that swept the county, north and south, within the last 30 years!
That's by no means ancient history.
People en masse can and often will suspend belief when the reality is too traumatic to accept.
The mid-80s was a time of deep depression, economic mental, and throughout the land.
Who knows when large sections of the populace will once again be spooked by something or other?
Quote from: Zip Code on June 28, 2014, 08:52:48 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on June 27, 2014, 10:38:14 PM
Quote from: Zip Code on June 27, 2014, 02:10:00 PM
You are saying the mindset was different, I am saying people know when something is wrong and that was the same in the 50s and 60s so don't try to patronise me or justify any of these crimes by saying it was a different time and place.
Build a time machine and go fix it then.
An equally stupid post!
Consider yourself patronized then....
There are quite a few straw men on this thread, and others, that need to be tackled.
Firstly, I think every poster acknowledges the great work done at all levels by the vast majority of members of the rank & file clergy. Most of us will know some of these men and women personally and will have had their lives enhanced in some way by them.
Highlighting the Church hiararchy's poor handling of the crisis is not an attack on Catholic ideology or teachings. God and the various parts of His Church are not all the same thing. Confusing this was Brendan's Smyth's modus operandi.
There is no comparison with bankers and politicians for any number of reasons. We don't have the same level of expectation of bankers and politicians. They are expected to be doing the respective jobs, to some degree, for personal reasons. We are not supposed to see priests in that way, and few did until the scandals began. We don't entrust our children into the personal care of bankers and politicians and they don't demand that we trust them by, for example, having them in our houses or confessing everything to them. The Catholic Church, as is the same in most churches, demands that we put a very high level of trust and faith in the clergy. The corollary of this is that we must expect a much higher level of behaviour from them. These scandals have shattered that expectation for a lot of people and this is really compounded by decades of the Vatican behaving just like greedy bankers and cute-hoor politicians, by hiding behind technical legal arguments and washing their hands of everything.
The 'different times' argument has validity, but only in that it is hard to judge people on what they did on the 70s & 80s by today's context. People were more respectful of the Church but also more afraid of it's clergy. These are two sides of the same coin and depend on which case you are trying to argue. There is little doubt though that those that suffered were the vulnerable, children in homes etc, and children of extremely devout families. The latter is a theme in, for example, Brendan's Smyth grooming of victims. Befriend the devout adults, who invariably are not the type to question a priest and when in situ, manipulate the children.
Thus the argument blaming the parents has a certain horrible irony. It is surely only made by someone who would never question the Church, thus exhibiting more than a passing resemblance to the unfortunate adults in the abused families.
The argument that the most rigorous protection procedures are now in place is the ultimate straw man. We rightly wouldn't have accepted Fianna Fáil saying in 2011 that the Regulator is now up to speed. Even the politicians have had pretend investigations and reports in the financial crisis, with another on the way, and as I pointed out we should have higher expectations of God's representatives on earth. We still haven't had a 32 county, or even 26 county, investigation into the Church abuse scandals. But to date only Cloyne, Ferns & Dublin have been properly investigated.
The North/South divide is an interesting twist in the argument but notably it is only used in the exception as most posters from both sides of the border seems to see things much the same way. In saying that, there is obviously a difference between what happened in the 6 counties and the in the 26. The distraught Dad in the docudrama 'Betrayal of trust' sticks in my mind when he is arguing with his wife. She suggests going to the police in the 70s after finding out Smyth raped their young daughter, in their house, and he says something like, 'you want us to report a Catholic priest to the RUC, in West Belfast!' But then I am not sure that the Gárdaí would have been a whole lot better at the time, such was the power of the Church at the time in the South. And we know telling the Church was a waste of time, ably demonstrated by Sean Brady, no matter which side of the border you were on.
Finally, and there is only one person doing this, but to call people who point out the above 'anti-Catholic bigots' is absurd and completely ridiculous. This viewpoint sees little everything as an attack and if the hierarchy of the Church thinks the same way, then I would argue that it is completely doomed. That surely would be the ultimate anti-Catholic strategy.
However, thankfully the new man in The Vatican seems to be cut from a different cloth. Originally the Vatican had shut up shop and protected this man, saying he was a Vatican citizen and that they had no extradition agreement with anyone (thus opening themselves to accusations of hiding a suspected pedophile behind legal arguments as I mentioned above). But now, albeit after pressure from the UN, they seem to be doing the right thing. (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21841 (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21841))
I assume the second last paragraph is a reference to me.Well it is not ridiculous to state that there are a number of anti Catholics on this board and involved in this thread who attack the catholic church at every opportunity and blame it for every Ill under the sun.The child abuse scandal is like manna from heaven (pardon the pun) for these people.Just check the absolute hatred in some of the posts.
The attitude of these people is every bit as bad as that of those who blindly follow the church regardless.
I am glad whoever that you acknowledge that the church badly mishandled child abuse.It took a while but at long last you've come round to my way of thinking
Thank fcuk you lads don't believe in Santa Claus too. That's all we'd need.
Quote from: ONeill on June 30, 2014, 12:40:02 AM
Thank fcuk you lads don't believe in Santa Claus too. That's all we'd need.
Stop that.
Excellent post Muppet, hits a lot of Nails
Like most of Muppet's posts it also leaves a lot if sore thumbs from misplaced hammer blows
Whats is there to hate about debate I wonder?