Video in Good Shepherd Chapel - Niamh Horan

[Zip Code]

But you are trying to justify it, which is a disgrace.

[johnneycool]

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.

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.

[Lar Naparka]

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.

[Zip Code]

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.

[Billys Boots]

I'd read that again, more carefully this time Zip Code, if I was you.

[theskull1]

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?

[Lar Naparka]

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.

[armaghniac]

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?

[Orior]

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.

[Zip Code]

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.

[T Fearon]

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

[johnneycool]

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?

[theskull1]

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?

[foxcommander]

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.

[theskull1]

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.

.....

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?