BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 05:37 AM

"As I have said before, the primary responsibility for all of these things lies in the hands of the local bishop"
The responsibility belongs to everybody in the church who knew about it and did nothing - from the ground floor of the church.
The church was, and to some extent continues to be shrouded in a cloak of secrecy
You would do better to respond to my statements rather than alluding to my errors.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 04:16 AM

Well, if I were to say that an orange is a citrus fruit, Jim Carroll would find a way to disagree with me. And then if I agreed with what he said to the contrary, he'd disagree with me again.

As I have said before, the primary responsibility for all of these things lies in the hands of the local bishop. Many others share the blame, including law enforcement authorities who looked the other way and parents who were afraid to contact the authorities. Despite appearances to the contrary, the Catholic Church is not an absolute monarchy ruled from Rome. There is an enormous amount of local autonomy in all matters but doctrine. Nonetheless, John Paul II was in a position to do something because of the great power he had amassed during his lengthy reign, and he didn't even acknowledge that there was a crisis. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, made a significant response to the child molestation scandal (even before he was elected Pope) - and Francis has continued that effort.

All of the is quite factual - I've studied the politics of the Catholic Church since my seminary days in the 1960s. But Mr. Carroll is duty-bound to disagree with my every word.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 02:55 AM

"I have a theory about why John Paul II neglected the child molestation crisis."
The church neglected the molestation (child rape) crisis, not just the pope.
Those on the 'prayer face' were aware it was going on; rather than prevent it, the acts were covered up and parents who reported incidents were bullied into silence.
His acts were sometimes noted; they were often referred to as 'eccentricities' and ' "weaknesses", and, if recurring, "kept an eye on".
If protests reached an embarrassing level, he was moved on to a parish where his 'little weaknesses' were not known, and eventually, if his behaviour continued to draw attention to himself, he was sent to far-flung places like Africa, where it didn't matter too much what he did to whom.
Nothing to do with a 'near-martyred Pope', rather with a Church that was prepared to allow the use of children in their care by clerics who wielded enormous spiritual influence.
It is interesting that the greatest support you are getting here is coming from Mudcat's resident homophobe and that his homophobia is now entering this discussion - damned by rotten praise, I would suggest.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:43 PM

Oh, and I've often said that the Catholic Church doesn't say much about sex, and doesn't fit the stereotype of constant harangues against sex. That's generally true. However, if you Google Theology of the Body [also here (click)], you'll find that John Paul II certainly had a lot to say about sex. The "theology of the body" stuff is still very popular, and I make myself invisible whenever I'm invited to teach anything remotely related to it. Catholic married women with children seem to buy into this crap, including some women I (otherwise) respect very much - and they should know better.

It makes me cringe.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:02 PM

I have a theory about why John Paul II neglected the child molestation crisis.

After he was shot and almost killed in 1981 (3 years after his election as Pope), JPII often said that his life was saved by a miracle, and he made a big deal about that miracle. He even built a gorgeous chapel in Zakopane, Poland, to commemorate that supposed miracle. I think that he began to regard himself as a "living saint," and thus may have lost the ability to perceive his own fallibility and the fallibility of his church. If you read things he wrote as Pope, that attitude came through. I think he also felt he was chosen by God to save the persecuted Polish church - and saviors tend to take a very defensive attitude about whatever it is that they're saving, even if they're saving something that is deeply flawed.

Ronald Reagan was almost killed about the same time, and he and JPII had similar attitudes. I think both believed that their unsuccessful assassination attempts proved they were Chosen By God to bring an end to godless Communism.

I've never had much good to say about JPII, and I sometimes wonder if that's why I lost my job at my Catholic parish. Many Catholics, especially the conservative ones, speak of JPII in hushed, reverential tones; and they cannot accept any criticism of the man. One time when I was teaching a religion class to adults, I dared to criticize JPII's writing style. I said that JPII's style was flowery, and that he had an annoying habit of quoting himself. He also used the "royal we" when speaking or writing, and he often didn't make a whole lot of sense. In contrast, I said that Benedict XVI had a writing style that was direct, clear, rational, and compassionate. A very conservative, very prominent member of the parish came up to me after class and castigated me for referring to JPII so irreverently. I mean, this guy reamed me up one side and down the other. He was MAD! Shortly afterwards, I was removed from my volunteer teaching position - and the pastor refused to tell me why. The pastor had removed me from a paid position a couple of years earlier, and he has tried (mostly unsuccessfully) over the years to remove me from other positions of influence. It's hard to fire a volunteer, but he keeps trying. So, when I was removed from the teaching position, I decided my financial contributions were better spent elsewhere. I went from donating $3,000 a year to nothing. Mudcat is one of the beneficiaries of that. I hope some of you purists don't mind that you're posting messages on a server that was paid for (at least partly) by money intended for the collection basket in a Catholic Church. I won't give a penny to my parish and my diocese until we get a new pastor and a new bishop.

Mind you, I am saying that Rome was aware only of the child molestation crisis and should have done something and didn't. I still believe that the Irish mother and baby homes, the industrial schools, and the Magdalene Laundries were completely beyond the awareness of Rome. Communication was far less effective, and there was no Pope until 1978 who had the power that John Paul II wielded. It may well be that his rockstar personality and the effectiveness of modern communications and his long reign, made John Paul II the most powerful Pope in history. And he wasted his power.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:27 PM

No, it's just a smalluity, not a big one?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:26 PM

The whole topic of priests and sexuality is a complex one. Wikipedia has an interesting article on Homosexuality and Roman Catholic Priests, and it rings pretty true to me. Yes, there were times in my eight years of seminary where there seemed to be a sexually-charged atmosphere dominated by homosexuals, and it didn't seem healthy. If people are planning on living a celibate life, then I don't think they should be sexually active, either homosexual or heterosexual - but I don't really see a need for priests to be celibate.

Like mg, I regularly look through the information on priest child molesters at http://bishopaccountability.org/, although I suspect we do it for different reasons. I go to look for people I've known, and I've known quite a few. Only two are people I thought might be homosexual. There's no information on the Website that one molested anyone - just that he was removed from ministry. He told me he's been HIV-positive for 25 years, but I don't know of any trouble he may have been in. The other one was accused recently of conduct in incidents that happened in the 1970s. But the priests I know that have been accused of sexual offenses, are almost all people I thought of as heterosexual, and usually people who seemed very normal and often extraordinarily popular and capable people. I don't know how anyone could have predicted that they would commit sexual offenses.

I think that most of us are far more uncertain about our sexuality that we'd like to think we are. It's a very awkward area, and very few of us get it completely right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:12 PM

Maybe not seliousry but possibly celeriacally.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:51 PM

Routine?
Do the Chinese have difficulty taking Wayne Rooney seliousry?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:23 PM

Come, now, Ed T. Many words & phrases possess multiple meanings which context makes clear, and it is a disingenuously silly trick to try to ridicule a statement by exploiting a non-misunderstanding not brought about by such an ambiguity.

You will have to do better than that.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 05:20 PM

Rooting? 

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 05:14 PM

Depends on who's doing the rooting, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:24 PM

"Double standards eh?"

Doublespeak;)

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Rog Peek
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:39 PM

I'm not trying to start another thread to this thread, but I would love to hear the Vatican's definition of a 'deeply rooted' homosexual and how non-deeply rooted one would need to be to qualify for ordination.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:34 PM

But saying child molesting priests are a symptom of the percentage who are gay is ok?

It's a bit like when Seaham Cemetry said that as Akenaton is a Scottish greyhound trainer, he must have given puppies to a builder in Seaham to kill them if they don't make good runners. After all, the internet said Scottish greyhound trainers had puppies killed.

Akenaton bristled at the accusation, but thinks it OK to link gay people to paedophiles.

Double standards eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 01:58 PM

homos are all right...its the deeply rooted ones you gotta watch out for....

if the Pope says it, you can take his word for it.....

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 01:18 PM

Credible research on wiki, Ake, and from annon sources, Ake....not likely. Sketchy is a better term, a better onefmay bec flakey.

I suspevt if they were so credible, you would have been eager to provide the " kinda research" sources some time ago, when openly asked (as you seem eager to done with your hiv- gay stats stuff)..

When you post a statement, you own it, and it is your role to defend it, nor abandon it... it does not become property of some annon-source site to refend.

Good try at weaseling out from something "you" posted"...possibly when you were in a anti-homosexual, doublespeak-orwell, dream mode. But, I remain hopeul....it does not rule out that you may have a lot of gay worker-friends, and could " love gay-folks to death" in your non-mudcat life:)

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:51 PM

More digression-

Percentage in the general public- All sorts of percentages are thrown around here, but I don't want to delve further into this argument, but the Williams Institute report of 2011 reports 3.5% approx. of the adult population in the U. S. (or about 9 million) are homosexual.

More have had one or more encounters, but are normally heterosexual in their responses. See Wikipedia, a long but rather good article on the subject "Homosexuality".

A LA Times survey reported 9% of responding priests reported homosexuality, but most reports seem biased and that may also be true here. See Wikipedia, Homosexuality and Roman Catholic Priests. A Vatican directive (2005) said deeply rooted homosexuals should not be ordained.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:46 PM

Regarding the statistics, I make no allegations or links, I only produce the figures and the circumstances.

"You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink"

Put that in your book of quotes.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:38 PM

Joe has enough to do fending off the Mudcat anti faith "vultures", without involving him in your fantasies.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:34 PM

Don't be silly Ed, WIKI has linked to several of the studies.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:34 PM

If Akenaton makes a link between being gay and abusing children, I question whether unsuspecting respectable people, gay or straight should be able to view his hateful and vile comments without a warning that people could be distressed by the lies and fantasy on the webpage?

He was asked about abuse of children and he justified it by quoting studies into how many priests are gay.

Is he linking the two?

How fucking sick and debased does he have to get before the oxygen of publicity is withheld?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:28 PM

I believe Joe Offer has more reliable I information (based on actual research), than what you posted ake, (I recall he linked some in the past), if he feels there is any point in doing so.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:04 PM

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." 
― George Orwell, 1984

Wiki and the annomyous sources are hardly the calibre of "reliable sources" one would expect a "grown up" to use on such a serious matter, ake. That would hardly get you a pass on research beyond grade school.

Could the person you often quote from, anti-RC Orwell also influenced your logic (I use that term lightly on your contribution) on this topic?

One cannot really be a Catholic and grown up."
- George Orwell

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:03 AM

The actual percentage is debatable, but certainly homosexuals are massively over represented in the priesthood, compared to percentages in the general public (1.5%)

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 10:57 AM

From WIKI....there are numerous studies Ed, but thank you for bringing it up.

Studies find it difficult to quantify specific percentages of Roman Catholic priests who identify as gay priests,[12][not in citation given] although the John Jay Report reported that "homosexual men entered the seminaries in noticeable numbers from the late 1970s through the 1980s",[13] and available figures for homosexual priests in the United States range from 15–58%.[12][14] A 2002 Los Angeles Times nationwide poll of 1,854 priests (responding) reported that 9 percent of priests identified themselves as homosexual, and 6 percent as "somewhere in between but more on the homosexual side." Asked if a "homosexual subculture" (defined as a "definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary") existed in their diocese or religious order, 17 percent of the priests said "definitely," and 27 percent said "probably." 53 percent of priests who were ordained in the last 20 years (1982-2002) affirmed such a subculture existed in the seminary when they attended.[14]

Anonymous studies have also suggested a prevalence of homosexual leanings in the Roman Catholic priesthood. Studies by Wolf and Sipe from the early 1990s suggest that the percentage of priests in the Catholic Church who admitted to being gay or were in homosexual relationships was well above the national average for the United States of America.[15] Elizabeth Stuart, a former convener of the Catholic Caucus of the Lesbian and Gay Christian movement claimed, "It has been estimated that at least 33 percent of all priests in the RC Church in the United States are homosexual."[16]

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 10:38 AM

out of interest, I wonder if any mudcatters could name an institution wielding enormous power, and with global influence, that has no evil acts that can be laid at their door.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 10:01 AM

Mthe GM says: Re the post under consideration: it went back some way in history, to a point where I think the Vatican held more sway than it does now. Even if wrong about this, I do not think the Vatican should remain silent about evident abuses within your Church. IMO the institution, and the Church itself, are deprived of cred if the Pope does not even express an opinion on abuses which bring the Body of the faith into widespread public disrepute. I appreciate that there is not the least reason why the Vatican should care for the opinion as to its image of an atheistic outsider like me: but my point seems to me a valid one nonetheless.

Mike, I think you have your timeline about the the increasing power of the Pope backwards. No Pope in the 20th century reigned long enough to amass the power needed to buck the Roman Curia and the local bishops - until John Paul II. And John Paul II was absolutely silent about the child molestation crisis, which is a shame and a scandal. It was Cardinal Ratzinger who finally instituted Vatican controls over priestly sexual abuse - and by that time, John Paul II was too ill to do much of anything.

So, although your timeline is backwards, your conclusion is absolutely correct. John Paul II had the power to do something, and he did nothing. And nobody can figure out why he failed to take action.

Sexual abuse by priests was widely reported in the American Catholic press as early as the 1970s, and there were strict screening processes in place when I was in the seminary in the 1960s. American bishops spent millions in the 1970s on treatment centers for abusive priests, but those treatments didn't work.

And then John Paul became Pope in 1978. By 2000, almost all the active bishops had been appointed by John Paul. And John Paul did nothing and said nothing to respond to the sex molestation - so the problem just kept getting worse and worse.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 09:03 AM

Quiz: guess who posted this one (on this thread) below- and, when challenged to do so, never seemed to be able to come up with a credible source for the of the "30 percent sexual accusation figure" irresponsibly put forward as a fact- on the RC church and the homosexual community.

""On the abuse of boys, the Catholic Church and its celibacy rule has historically been a safe haven for male homosexuals, it is estimated that at least 30% of the priesthood are homosexual. The abuse was almost exclusively perpetrated by adult men on teenage boys, which would point to a sexual orientation factor coming into play.""

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Musket
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:49 AM

Nobody needs to vilify Joe for defending wicked people in a corrupt organisation.

Akenaton can be the poster boy far more easily. Perhaps he can explain why "liberals" in the church can't address abuse of children for reasons of ideology?

What are you trying to say Akenaton?

You really are sick. Truly sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 08:19 AM

About par for the course, isn't it, Joe, calling someone victimised by your Church a fruitcake? The need to fight dirty reveals the body you seek to defend has no defence. As it happens, I just completed a thorough medical workup in all aspects of my life, physical and psychological, and I can most certainly declare on independent medical evidence not only that the shrinks are entirely happy with me, but also that I have an IQ up with the absolute tops: I am not only firing on all four cylinders, but on all eight, horizontally opposed with a fully-functional turbo boost to boot. I work at post-doctoral level with London University's Advanced Studies School, including esoteric studies, and my peers do work on both sides of the boundary between dark and light. I do not, because I am clearly tasked to work in the light, but to do so have to have a certain knowledge of the other side: you will observe my rider that Satanism is a human invention. I was recently dragged along by my peers to the launch of Marco Pasi's study of Crowley's relationships with the political system of his day at Treadwells bookshop, a launch which was not short of satanists, and not all of them are New Age loonies: some respected academics are in their number. Rome gives them more than a little justification, in hard fact, and they raise exactly the same accusations against it as you do against them. More to the point, I have hard evidence they were close to Pope Leo XIII, and I suspect set roots in the Vatican they have never let go.
Now, as it happens, in checking yet again that what I have to say in the next section about The Log in the Pope's Eye remains true, I have discovered that a lobby has appeared making identical charges, which I have nothing to do with. They go further, adding a new accusation of ritual murder in Belgium involving some rather familiar names and linking in Canada, the Netherlands, UK and Ireland. They appear to be a tad psyched, true, in setting up their own common court, but having seen the way the public courts won't touch such matters with a bargepole and get forced out by the Church when they show an interest (Wim de Troy being a case in point) some such action must be necessary to offer the victims some kind of justice. So it is not just me, there is smoke and where there's smoke, there's fire.
So, for refusing to apologise for something I have nothing to apologise for, I am put under attack for being a victim. That's a pretty low form of bullying, Joe, and should be beneath you if you are all you claim to be. OK, it's a BS robust environment, but when you're claiming probity, you can't go there.

To return to the meme, what I still have no reply on is how a Pope can excommunicate the entire Mafia for the murder of one child and make no comment on the murder of eight hundred, when it is the body he is directly responsible for which has done it. Eight hundred as a simple instance in class action, in any case, there are alomst certainly far more: the real point is one of the Mote in the Pope's Eye, one would have thought that he would at least have cleaned his own house before throwing stones at another criminal organisation's.

Turning now to the question of identification, either you do or you don't. Max knows me, we talk on another forum, so there should be no issue there. You've had cases, quite recently too, of pseudo-use of Guest avatars, and in this case, as being from a family of victims it's quite important not to make myself identifiable. At the moment, the perpetrators are walking away whistling happily whereas someone speaking for a family twice victimised is under accusation. Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:49 AM

The problem of the abuse of minors by adult priests, is almost impossible for the liberal wing of the church to address, as it brings faith and ideology into conflict.
Good men like Joe are caught in the crossfire.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:13 AM

I agree with you, Joe, as I have frequently remarked on various threads, that the use of the designation 'Guest' with no further identification required, is evasive & potentially confusing; it used until recently not to be permitted and posts so headed were liable to be deleted, and I don't know why the rule was dropped, and I wish it could be restored.

But I still don't see that the practice deprives the contents of a post of credibility, which was what you appeared to be saying.

Re the post under consideration: it went back some way in history, to a point where I think the Vatican held more sway than it does now. Even if wrong about this, I do not think the Vatican should remain silent about evident abuses within your Church. IMO the institution, and the Church itself, are deprived of cred if the Pope does not even express an opinion on abuses which bring the Body of the faith into widespread public disrepute. I appreciate that there is not the least reason why the Vatican should care for the opinion as to its image of an atheistic outsider like me: but my point seems to me a valid one nonetheless.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:02 AM

Sorry - that should read "unjustified accusations and innuendos" - too early in the morning!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:00 AM

"Unless you have a name, Guest, you have no credibility."
Then the rules of this forum need to be altered.
Every point made on this forum is equally valid, whether it is made by the vast majority of those who decline to be identified or not, unless they are obvious trolls.
As far as apologising to Joe, there have been a number of unjustified flung around on this extremely emotive subject - perhaps apolgies all round might be in order.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:58 AM

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of the authority structure of the Catholic Church, Mike. It is far more decentralized than you understand. Your belief is that it is a simple, top-down, absolute monarchy. The reality is far more complex than that.

In almost all matters but doctrine, the orders come from the local bishop's office - and the operation of mother-and-baby homes is not a matter of doctrine. Even the national council of bishops or the national primate, cannot overrule a bishop in his own diocese. In the U.S. in 2002, all Catholic dioceses but one adopted a national system of safeguards against child molestation - neither they nor Rome could make the guy change his ways until he retired [this was archconservative Fabian Bruskiewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska].

Of course, the Irish institutions were run mostly by orders of nuns, and religious orders have their own autonomy. The local bishop has only limited say-so about the activity of religious orders in his diocese. In the U.S., reparations for child molestation were paid by local bishops if the offender was a diocesan priest, and by the religious order if the offender was member of an order.

Most of the time, I'm happy about this decentralized power structure, because it means we American Catholics have not been heavily affected by the whims of the Italian power elite in Rome. They may rule Rome, but they have to rely on political give-and-take outside Rome.

During the reign of Benedict XVI, the Vatican finally bowed to international pressure and began to set up a churchwide system to control child abuse, but this is counter to the ordinary system of operation of the church.

It's ironic - so many people condemn the Catholic Church for being the absolute monarchy that it isn't, and then they demand that it act like an absolute monarchy in situations like this.

-Joe Offer-

P.S. Our unnamed Guest can remain anonymous, but common courtesy here is to use a consistent name or consistent pseudonym on every post. No-name posts are rude and deceptive and downright cowardly, even if Mudcat has no rule prohibiting them. Oh, and I must say that our Guest's mention(s) of Satanism makes me wonder whether he/she is running on all four cylinders.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:28 AM

Not sure about your first or your last points there, Joe, I have to say. In fact, looking back again, I am sure you have them both wrong -

i. It is the facts that the Guest adduced, not what his identity may be, which matter here. I am sure he will have good reason for acting anonymously. But even were he acting merely perversely in remaining anon., that would in no way affect the significance of his allegations, whose probable truth you appear to acknowledge.

ii. No; he is looking in the right place for final resolution of the matter: it is ultimately "Rome", the Vatican, which must acknowledge the fault or it remains a stain on the reputation of the Church whose ultimate authority & fountainhead it is, whatever redress might have been provided by civil law and the competent national legal authorities. The Belgian government or police or courts could not have produced the necessary absolution for the responsibility of the Church for the sins and crimes that the perpetrators within that Church had committed. Until that has been achieved, the matter remains unresolved, and the 'remedy' unadministered.

Hope my meaning clear here.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:38 PM

Unless you have a name, Guest, you have no credibility.
And in this thread, we're talking about institutions in Ireland - although I'm sure there also are bad people in Belgium who are Catholics, even some priests. And every time a priest commits a crime, it is a scandal and a shame.

Yes, it's true that there are all sorts of people in this world who do all sorts of horrible things. Not all of them are Catholic, and not all Catholics do horrible things. Whoever they are, they should be reported to and prosecuted through criminal justice authorities. If nobody had the courage to report the crime to authorities until ninety years later, then the offense is going to be very difficult to prosecute. Nonetheless, I am sorry for what happened to your grandmother - and I do believe it may have happened as you describe.

Yes, I'm sure the apology was inadequate and unbelievable. Very often, apologies (and reparations) are demanded from people who had nothing to do with the crime that was committed - and there's not much they can do about a crime committed ninety years ago. And yet, the outrage rightly continues. When a horrible crime is committed, nothing can be done to fix it. And if you insist on going to Rome to seek a remedy for a crime committed in Belgium, you're looking in the wrong place.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:21 PM

However good Joe is, and I don't dispute it, the other side of the story is that the Roman heirarchy has a long heritage of abuse, which my family bears testimony to. I'm taking this approach now to avoid any shilly-shallying around, an RC speciality.

My grandmother, brought up in Belgian high society, was required by that Church to undergo advanced catechistic training prior to marrying a "heathen" Englishman, who would also have to convert, in order to set up a good Catholic family in pagan England. Towards the end of the training, the catechist, a priest of some reputation in Belgium, attempted to rape her, a perverted form of the feudal "droits de cuissage" originally intended to show the family where the power lay. He forgot that she was the daughter of a war hero, and she fought better than he did, escaping. Returning home distraught, she told her parents the Catholic wedding in Ostend Cathedral was off, she was packing immediately and would have a registry office wedding in London. To prevent the scandal, Malines Archdiocese accepted that she could have the wedding, and that they would have no more claim over her and her descendants. That was in the 1920s.
In the first years of this century, working in Belgium, I uncovered a project hatched by a Roman Catholic Order which would have exposed my daughter to the not so tender mercies of a large number of the incurably mentally ill, "assisting them in their reinsertion into society", to use the exact words of a Mother superior General in Court. It is part of a wider pattern involving the same group of people at the heart of some of the Belgian child abuse allegations. They have no less than five times put up an appearance of contrition, and five times have relapsed. Their contrition is for children, for the credulous, it is not meant.

The above is not something possibly mis-reported, but the first-hand testimony of my grandmother to me and my own direct experience, checked by some serious Belgian authorities. The report behind the Irish situation is coherent in terms of the attitude, it is based on facts in the public record, and so cannot be denied. The weak reaction of the Roman Church is also coherent with its past policy of coverups.

I'd compare it to the problem the military face with prisoner abuse: it happens, it's not common, but unlike in Rome, it is sorted out with serious legal repercussions to those responsible. It stems from a sense of over-empowerment, self-righteous virtue and contempt for "the others". In the military, it comes from the barrel of a rifle, in the Church, from the sense of being God's Select. But in both instances, it is abusive, and that is the truth. It does not apply to the entire organisation, but it dishonours the whole.

So if Joe feels got at, it's because he is more than somewhat in denial. It may not be him or his immediate circle, but it is part of the body whose virtue he would defend, and it is more widespread than he thinks. I and mine are owed some serious apologies by Rome, rather, for not taking proper measures to control the problem. They said they'd not bother us again and did. Their word to me is worthless, and my willingness to tolerate their flim-flam zero. So no, I'm not going to deny the evidence of my own eyes, nor will I apologise for what I have had to say, because it aligns with my own testimony, not something reported or third-hand. Some elements of the Roman heirarchy over more than 100 years have had an entirely too close relationship with Satanism, a manmade fabulation, and some elements of Rome's foundation are not what they claim. It does not invalidate the reality of justified faith, as that goes far beyond their remit, for all that they claim otherwise, but it does bring into question their rights to claim virtue.

Sorry, but that's how the world is in reality. I didn't make it that way, I'd like to have it otherwise, but if we're to improve it we must start from where we really are now.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:19 PM

I tend to agree that the situation in the Tuam home was deplorable, as it was in most of the other institutions. If we can stick to the facts and explore what actually happened in these institutions, then I would probably agree with most of what is said - and we would all learn something.

When you take advantage of these tragedies to promote an anti-Catholic agenda, then you go beyond the limits of fair play.

The two basic teachings of every Christian church are these: love God, and love your neighbor. If Christians do anything that violates these two precepts, then they have perverted the fundamental principles of the faith they profess - and they deserve to be condemned for that. But I know lots of Catholics and lots of Christians who live their lives by those two principles, and they do not deserve to be condemned along with the wrongdoers.

So, if you believe in fair play and tolerance, I ask you to discuss specific conduct and specific incidents and to back it up with documented, factual information. And please, refrain from blanket generalizations. Blame the people who are to blame, not the people who are fighting to fix what's wrong.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:01 PM

Yes I agree with you Al ....Joe is kind and helpful always seeing the best in everyone.....and you're not a bad fellow yourself....A

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:37 PM

Ditto to MtheGMs message from me.
No stress or disrespect intended from my end. IMO, Joe O is a "Stand up guy" and should be admired for his comittment and honest comments.

Debate, sometimes candid and always spirited, never takes away from that, though we may have different perspectives, and ways of stating them in debates on sensitive issues.Wouldn't be boring, and fruitless, if we all saw things the same way, and could not learn from each other?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 06:15 PM

appreciated Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 03:47 PM

Joe is definitely a very good, sincere, honourable man, one to be much respected. I try to respect likewise his views on faith, tho I do not always find it possible. But I should not like to think that anything I have said in disputing them was in any way intended other than in a spirit of honest debate; and certainly never intended as any sort of ad hominem attack, and should be very grieved to learn he had ever taken anything I have posted in such a way.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 02:39 PM

okay - you all know me. you all know I have tried to be your friend. I daresay I have upset one or two of you over the years - but I have never been intentionally malicious - or tried at any time to hold myself as something special.

so I am going to ask you ALL a favour, and hope you will try to treat with respect what I am saying. What I have to say is this:-

I know for a fact the Joe Offer has been very deeply hurt by some of the comments on this thread. Out of respect for the man, can I ask you to apologise for any hurt your comments have caused? I am sure you are all aware that Joe is man who would never countenance or condone any evil or cruel act.

I know that some of you come from places and cultures where the Roman Catholic Church has lost any respect due to it. I know that feelings run high on this subject. But this is a good man we are talking about - a man who has done good things for all of us on mudcat; a man we owe.

Can I ask you to be nice to him, if its not too soppy - to show love and respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:29 AM

Yes, it's not a new story but it seems to be taking off, Philomena and Mother and Baby Homes combining to increase focus on the baby sales.

Another area where church and Irish state colluded.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Musket
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:19 AM

Philmena.

It became a money spinner for Steve Coogan too. The fact that the film was based on a true story and the journalist who helped Philomena being a household name, adding to the provenance, made it a rather harrowing tale to watch (or read, although I dont have the book.)

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:09 AM

A spin-off story is developing further: The Baby Black Market

The story of the babies sold off for adoption in, mainly, the US. Mostly illegally. Around 15% of all 'illegitimate' children in the mother and baby homes went that way. According to a tv programme that was on earlier this week it was quite the money spinner for the nuns too.

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 04:57 AM

Unlucky Jim.

He doesn't love me any more...

Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 03:45 AM

"Jim Carroll, World Champion Point-Misser -- as usual!"
Me must see can't establish a childish name-calling event in the next Olympics Mike.
I have my as much information as I thought helpful here, and I have argued to the best of my ability.
In teturn:
"Nemmine, Jim: it's that ole ❤-in-right-place that matters -- what we all luvya-4!"
Sorry - I'm past the point in life where I can handle that level of childishness from an 'adult' leave it to the kids - it can be charming in them.
If you have a 'point' to make - please make it and stop alluding to it
Jim Carroll