Video in Good Shepherd Chapel - Niamh Horan

[johnneycool]

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?

[muppet]

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

(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.

[Hardy]

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.

[T Fearon]

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

[muppet]

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.

[T Fearon]

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.

[Zip Code]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

[muppet]

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?

[Billys Boots]

I wonder which question he'll answer ...

Anyone fancy opening a book on it?

[muppet]

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

[Hardy]

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".

[muppet]

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.

[Zip Code]

In fairness though Jimmy Savile wasn't a cleric and he abused more for longer!

[Zip Code]

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.