 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:56 AM No, it comes from knowing people here and having lived in their houses and yes, meeting some of the victims and their families first hand. But you will just find some reason why that doesn't count or is wrong. You're taking the view that you want to take, and distorting what I said accordingly. I'm done explaining and writing and arguing. You will never be convinced because you don't want to be. But please don't dismiss my lived experiences here and the people I have interacted with when you know nothing about them. Your post is full of "the impression I get" and "I'm sure that" and "I think". Fine, Joe. Whatever. > who is supposed to pay the cost of all this? Well, for starters there's that 20 million they made from the sale of the Magdalene Laundry in Cork. Out of here now. No point trying to explain further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:58 AM My opening line was actually in reply to Joe, not Martin, with whom I cross-posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:42 AM Joe - please do not try to score points - you're better than that. Yes - I have only lived in Ireland for 10 years. My family left Ireland for England during the famine and have continued to live in both places ever since. You only lived in America as a Catholic - you didn't live in Catholic America - a not too subtle difference. Remind us again - how long have you spent in Ireland? Every movement WAS monitored and controlled by the Catholic church. I have just been reading of the murder which took place in Sligo forty years ago and was never properly investigated because the chief suspect was a priest. Yesterday I read of the church selling a field (to a building developer) containing many bodies of children denied Christian burial by that same church because they had died too early to be baptised. I think I'm going to take Bonnie's advice and refrain from posting while I am angry. Watch this space Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM I meant to add that I am appalled that you haveresorted to the squalid legal technique of putting the victim in the dock Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM "Out of here now." Yeah. Right. That's a good one. Maybe when I get a bit more detachment from this whole thing. Having my right to a viewpoint on Ireland invalidated because of a mere 19 years' residence, by someone who has never spent more than a holiday visit here, who then pronounces guilt on the whole country, is still chewing on me. Since I apparently need to defend my right to speak: I should also have added that, in addition to the things I wrote above, I also used to work for Samaritans in Cork. The callers there confided some of the most agonising, despairing, heartbreaking experiences relating to this issue that anyone could ever imagine hearing. I'm certainly not going to repeat anything told to me on the phones, but DON'T YOU DARE sit there and tell me I have "taken anecdotal evidence and broadened it to support a sweeping and unfair condemnation". You're the one who is doing that. I am speaking of LIVES AS THEY ARE LIVED. Please try to get that. > I keep trying to think up theories It shows, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 02:59 PM This red herring of 'blame' is stifling the discussion. The relevant thing is the question of who is to be held accountable and punished, and how to actually stop it happening. The Ryan report covers abuse up to 2004 and there is no reason to suppose it has been stopped yet. The Catholic church has been feigning shocked apology for years and so far has done nothing effective. That's one way of being "morally neutral" I suppose. Here's an eyewitness account that came to light in 1999, just to put some 'reality' and perspective on the matter: "There are moments these days in Ireland when it seems that the once-omnipotent Catholic Church is slowly imploding. In the living-room of his neat Dublin flat, Michael, 45, has been remembering the day he was first summoned at school to a Christian Brother's private room. He was 10 and had spent a year at Artane "industrial school" - a home for 1,200 boys run by the religious order on behalf of the state, for orphans and children from broken families. What took place was horrific. "This brother beat me and raped me until there was blood everywhere," says Michael. When the crimson flow could not be stemmed, Michael was taken to the order's private infirmary. No questions were asked about his appalling injuries, and when he was healed it was only so that he could be abused again. Over the next five years, he says, he was raped and sexually assaulted by seven Christian brothers. As Michael tells his story, the faces of four elderly men flicker on to the television set. Four Christian brothers, aged 59 to 81, the newscaster announces, have just been charged with 55 sexual abuse crimes between 1952 and 1970 at another industrial school, St Joseph's in Tralee. The current shaming of the Catholic Church is relentless, and seems continuous, with former residents queuing up to describe the brutality of the religiously run schools. Last week, Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic, became the first nun to be convicted of child sex abuse. Wall, 51, was found guilty of raping a 10-year-old girl in her care in 1988. She pinned the girl by the ankles while a homeless schizophrenic raped her at St Michael's, a home run by the Sisters of Mercy in Waterford. Wall was its director. The girl had been sent to St Michael's when she was six, following allegations that her father had sexually abused her. Wall began sexually abusing the child soon after she arrived. The rapist, Paul McCabe, 50, was a former resident who met Wall while looking for his mother, who had left him at St Michael's as a child. Amazingly, what has been exposed so far is probably just the beginning. Hundreds of former residents of children's homes are preparing to sue religious orders and the Catholic Church. A police investigation into abuse at Artane, for example, has received 230 complaints against 75 priests. More than 40,000 children passed through the industrial schools between 1950 and the Seventies and thousands more through the "enlightened" regimes that replaced them. Michael, it is now clear, was far from alone. Christine Buckley was the first to break the silence in the mid-Nineties when she exposed the horror of her years in Goldenbridge orphanage in Dublin, run by the Sisters of Mercy in the Fifties. Miss Buckley says children were subjected to hard labour and beaten every day. The nuns stole their names from them on entry and gave them a number. Miss Buckley remembers babies strapped to potties and girls not knowing their names or the day they were born. Not that it mattered. Birthdays were not celebrated. Bernadette Fahy, 45, also a Goldenbridge pupil, says: "It was just like a concentration camp. That is no insult to people sent to real concentration camps. The only thing they did not do to us was send us to the gas chambers." The avalanche of abuse allegations has forced Church and state into a corner. And there is hard cash at stake, as well as reputations. Which may explain the current vogue for saying sorry. Over the past two years the Sisters of Mercy, the Christian Brothers and the De La Salle Brothers have gone so far as to make public apologies to those who "may" have been abused. Last month, propelled partly by States of Fear - a three-part television expose of the industrial schools - the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, offered a surprise "sincere and long overdue" apology to the victims of abuse, and for "a collective failure to intervene". He was not being magnanimous. States of Fear exposed official files that proved that the state had known about, and ignored, allegations of abuse. Ahern also announced an independent commission into abuse, the primary focus of which would be to provide a forum for victims to tell their stories. Interestingly, both Church and government claim that recognition, not compensation, is the victims' main concern. That looks like being wishful thinking. Josephine Baker, who runs a support group for 200 male supporters of the industrial schools, snorts. "Once the apologies are sorted out, compensation will, in fact, be a primary aim," she says. "It is only fair because the kids' labour and allowances went into the order. The kids subsidised the growth of the Catholic Church." Her next sentence will chill Irish bishops. "And for the number of compensation claims, the sale of Church land and property is not just a possibility but a necessity." Mrs Baker's own husband Don was beaten by Catholic Brothers at a reformatory school. She argues that the brutality pushed victims to the fringes of society, into alcoholism, drug addiction, criminality and psychiatric wards. Compensation may just bring some back. She says the government's proposal to relax the conditions under which victims can sue for sexual abuse - but not for physical abuse - is simply an attempt to restrain costs. But once the ball is rolling, she says, the government may be forced to reconsider. Miss Fahy agrees that compensation must be paid and suggests that the Irish government does not realise the forces it is unleashing with the commission. "Most of these kids left school practically illiterate. There was a class element to it all. They were raised to be labourers, domestics and cleaners, even for the religious orders." The commission must also present a complete picture of the causes, nature and extent of child abuse. Explaining the endemic brutality will not be easy, but those whose childhoods were destroyed have their theories. Jim Cantwell, a Catholic Church spokesman, said this week that industrial schools had been poorly funded and under-staffed and amounted to "childcare on the cheap". But Miss Fahy says that does not explain the abject cruelty. That had everything to do, she argues, with the history and ethos of a "political, bullying and controlling" Church whose influence then reached into every area of Irish life. "The Church was about oppression," she says. "In their schools they tried to kill the spirit of a child and they called that moral formation. At Goldenbridge we were meant to strive to be little nuns, completely submissive and obedient and virginally pure in body, mind and spirit." Miss Fahy, who has just published a book about Goldenbridge, says that the nuns were obsessed with all things sexual, taunting the girls that their mothers were prostitutes, and disgusted by any signs of sexual development or identity. Michael now believes that he suffered at the hands of a paedophile ring. He thinks word spread among the Brothers that he was a perfect victim: shy, withdrawn, terrified and unassertive. And he thinks that there must surely be a connection between what they did to him and their own repression. The Brothers, he points out, entered seminaries in their early teens, lacking any sexual experience. And since sex, and even masturbation, was sinful, it is not surprising that so many of the sexual attacks he suffered were accompanied by violence. The Catholic Church has promised to co-operate fully with the commission and claims to want "all the cards laid on the table". Victims' organisations, meanwhile, fear a partial whitewash and an assumption that the bad old days are over. Many would like to see all childcare responsibility removed from religious orders. Miss Fahy believes that much of the abuse took place simply because it was allowed to. No one dared to question the Church and there were few outside checks on the schools. And most children had no outside adults to turn to. Even if they had spoken out - and a few tried - who would have believed that the pious brothers and the saintly sisters could be so cruel?" (The Independant, Friday, 18 June 1999) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:13 PM Pardon my spelling.. This is a link to the above article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:14 PM The Christian Brothers: they keep going from strength to strength, don't they? Same crap in both Australia and Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM Their 'teaching methods' caused my mate's little brother to hang himself back in the early 70s, and they got away with it. The school is still open and making plenty of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:48 PM Sorry, that was actually the Jesuits. My apologies to the Christian Brothers for besmirching their good name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Dec 09 - 07:06 PM Martin Ryan says, "I have little doubt that some of the comments in this thread are ideologically driven and reflect, in a sense, a secondhand perspective on Irish life." He says he lived through this time in Ireland's history, and I have found his comments to be harsh but very credible and balanced. Martin says Fergie's message in the other thread is a good description of life in Ireland at the time. I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word. My perspective is based on having many Irish-born priests and nuns as friends here in California, and they have expressed a more positive perspective while not denying the facts of the stories of the Ryan Report and the Magdalene Laundries. I visited Ireland for two weeks about five years ago. And I have to say I did not like the harsh, severe atmosphere of the Irish parishes I visited. But hey, I spent twenty-five years as a U.S. Government investigator. I've learned to separate emotive from factual language. I was also trained not to make decisions based on third-hand information. This is a very emotion-packed issue, but it is important to explore it dispassionately. I think the Ryan Report did an excellent job of exploring the problem dispassionately, and I understand that many in Ireland are distressed about it because it merely reported facts without issuing condemnations. In this discussion, it is still my impression that the condemnations are so far-reaching that they are unbelievable. I still find it hard to believe that any human institution could be as profoundly and universally corrupt and evil as some have described it here. I have a great deal of respect and a good amount of affection for most of the major participants in this discussion, even though some are upset with me in my quest for the truth. But I think it is very important to establish the truth, as dispassionately as possible. Fergie's post is below. It's a first-hand account, and I think it's very worthwhile to read it. -Joe-
Thread #125363 Message #2775864 I really don't want to get involved in this debate, but I feel compelled to add some comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Dec 09 - 08:01 PM Oh, and yes, I did hear of "mental reservation." It's not Catholic doctrine. It's a theory in moral theology that says that on may tell less than the entire truth when serious harm would be done by telling the entire truth. The usual example is when telling the truth would result in the death of another person. Absolutists would say that one is not permitted to lie even in such a situation, but that one may withhold the entire truth when revealing the truth would cause serious harm. Applying this principle as justification for lying or withholding the truth about child molestation because it might damage the Church, is just plain wrong - and any honest moral theology professor would agree with me. They'd probably also agree with me that the whole concept of "mental reservation" is silly. But in this case, I think that the entire truth is essential - and I'm not convinced we've achieved it. The Ryan Report says the period where the problem was the greatest, was from 1936 to 1970. I wonder if those who were there, can tell us what was good about life in Ireland during that period; and about how it was in the 1970s and 1980s and later. It's often harder for us to recall the good parts of life - but if we do, it helps put things into perspective. My friend Fr. Mike grew up in Cork, son of a building contractor. Mike's father died when Mike was young, and the parish made sure Mike's Catholic school tuition was paid, and that the family was taken care of in many ways. I've heard many other stories of generosity from Catholic parishes in Ireland at the time. Now, I suppose a cynic could say that families in need were "taken care of" to ensure their loyalty, but was that really the case? I'm sorry, but I've always had a positive view of humanity, and it's hard for me to believe that most people are as bad as some people think they are. So, I still need convincing. On the other hand, I've been a Catholic all my life and I've spend a lifetime questioning the Catholic Church. Many people have told me that I'm "not really Catholic" because I don't accept things without question - but I have a Theology degree from a Catholic seminary that says I'm not required to accept things without question. So, I'm in the unenviable position of questioning both sides of this issue. But still, I want the truth and I'm not convinced we've found it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:31 AM Joe, I have little to add to what Fergie has offered except to reiterate that I find your apparent attempt to shift the blame from where it squarely belongs, in the lap of the Church, on to the shoulders of the ordinary people of Ireland, particularly the parents of the victims, a form of abuse in itself. I would have thought that they have suffered enough, don't you? Much of my own evidence is, as you say, anecdotal, but it is 'from the horses mouth'. From my father's family who, as I have outlined, got out from under the influence of the Church (partially - all of them carried the great gift of 'guilt' that all Catholics were bequeathed). And from my mother's side of the family who remained totally in fear of the church till the day they died. We also have the evidence of singers and musicians we recorded (all of them without exception devout catholics), who described dances being broken up by stick-weilding priests, of musicians being beaten, of having their instruments smashed, of being humiliated from the pulpit, of living their lives under he threat of eternal damnation... I've told you of the singer who was beaten so severely by a priest that he burst her ear drum. If you ever make it to Clare I'll introduce you to her - but you'll have to speak up - she's somewhat hard of hearing! Then there was my having been born and brought up in Liverpool, surrounded by the influence of the Catholic church which, though somewhat diluted, was still very much a fact of life for me and mine. The only unbelievable thing to me in all this is that they lived and died devoted to the organisation that abused them. You speak of searching for the truth, but your arguments appear to suggest that you are seeking a truth that somehow lets your church off the hook. This truths of this affair have been evident for a considerable period of time yet, yet so far the victims have received no official admittance of their suffering at the hands of the church, no apology or acceptence of blame, there have been no resignations by those guilty of facilitating the abuse (as I write the Bishop of Limerick is still doing his Hamlet "to be or not to be...." act) - in this way, the abuse continues. The Vatican has accepted no responsibility and has attempted to hinder the search for your 'truth'; giving its national rather than its spiritual status as an excuse for its non-co-operation with the investigations. For me, it is stating the obvious to suggest that the abusers and ALL their accomplices should be prosecuted as the common criminals they are for their crimes. But on top of this, the church, ANY CHURCH, must never again be allowed to mess with the minds of the nation and should never again be given access to either the minds or the bodies of children. - surely they have proved themselves untrustworthy? One of the sideshows to all this that has gone relatively unnoticed is the somewhat unseemly quabble that is going on between the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland as to who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children - bizarre or what!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:20 AM Jim One of the sideshows to all this that has gone relatively unnoticed is the somewhat unseemly quabble that is going on between the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland as to who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children - bizarre or what!!! Jim Carroll That's a misleading and somewhat tendentious oversimplification of a complex situation which has marginal relevance in this context. Joe I'm not sure why you seem surprised that individual generosity and caring behaviour could coexist with abuse in the context of religious organisations. Of course it did - I could tell you tales of both! Nonethless, the prevailing culture in 20C. working class Dublin was of clerical domination of the lives of those people - overwhelmingly so until the mid '70's. I'm making no commment on the middle class or rural situations simply to emphasise that I speak from direct experience. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:32 AM Joe Sorry - I missed a bit! You asked earlier where the money money was going to come from to recompense the victims of the Church. I was tempted to reply "Not our problem" but there have been enough cheap shots on this thread already without my adding to them. A few years ago we visited The Vatican and though we had some idea of what we would see there, I don't think that either of us were quite prepared for what greeted us. I reckon a few yards of paintings in just one corridor alone would more than adequately deal with any financial settlement, no matter how generous. I would guess that the Church's possessions could eliminate world poverty for a few centuries to come at one flick of the cheque-book signing wrist... but perhaps we shouldn't go there!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 13 Dec 09 - 07:26 AM Joe, thank you for having the honesty to copy Fergie's post, though it must have caused you pain to do so. But I am having a hard time getting my head around your continued response of partial-denial. > I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word. What does "a little too strong to believe" mean? Either you do or you don't. Saying you accept them on someone else's word is not quite the same thing. Do you think those events happened as Fergie says they did, or do you not? Do you not accept the veracity of all my suicide-helpline callers? Those are first-hand accounts too, given directly to me. But because I am not native-born, or because they are probably dead and can't speak for themselves, do their experiences somehow not count? What does your continued "I-don't-believe..." actually mean? Do you not think these things took place unless they have passed some pre-set standard of narrative? Since you will accept at least some things on someone else's "word", why won't you accept these on mine? I know a man whose own story is much the same as Fergie's, except that he wasn't one of "the lucky ones". But you've found a way of dismissing him, because you've ruled out anything I say as being "distorted". That's an outrageous insult, not so much to me (though I am offended by it) as to the people whose stories these are. Do you think they're lying? And if you don't, why do you try so hard to bury them beneath a landslide of extraneous data and irrelevant side-issues? In any case, restricting the allowed sources to only those who meet certain criteria and eliminating all others is a very effective way of manipulating the evidence and influencing statistics, whether you intend it this way or not. > I never knew of a case where a priest or nun abused or molested a child, or did anything else seriously wrong. "I never knew of" are the operative words. I'm not suggesting that any of your priest/nun associates ever did do anything wrong, but if they had, and it was in the interest of the leaders to hide it, do you think you would know? The root of whole problem is that very secrecy. > it's hard for me to believe that most people are as bad as some people think they are. Excuse me? How did "most people" get into it? This is disingenuous. The whole topic at hand is focusing on specifics - victims and perpetrators. That is not "most people", no one said it was, and to introduce a statement like this which utterly distorts what has been written above, is totally unfair. > I still find it hard to believe that any human institution could be as profoundly and universally corrupt and evil as some have described it here. Those are your words, which reduce the specific down to an abstract and then summarise - in other words, blur all the human detail out until only safe generalities remain. It's the verbal equivalent of airbrushing. We've been trying to give you the facts, from which you persistently eliminate as many as you possibly can and then cliché-ify the rest. Or else just pooh-pooh it. > I have a hard time believing in the helplessness of the poor lay people > I don't believe that level of mind control was possible And: I also continue to be trouble by your blanket condemnation of the Irish: [1] They're all guilty [2] Their lived experiences aren't as bad/extensive as they say (subtext, they're liars? deluded?) I still haven't seen an explanation as to why you think this - only an overgeneralised summary which is so large as to be nearly irrelevant, plus analogies to other societies that have as many demographic differences as similarities. It therefore provides no real information of use. It's like trying to distinguish human figures in a photograph take from forty feet away, with the lens de-focused. > I think it is very important to establish the truth > But still, I want the truth Which truth is that, Joe? The one that people are trying to tell you - or a safer, more comfortable one? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 13 Dec 09 - 07:40 AM I know what's been bothering me about this, and I didn't quite manage to express it a minute ago: > I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word. > What does "a little too strong to believe" mean? Either you do or you don't. Saying you accept them on someone else's word is not quite the same thing. Do you think those events happened as Fergie says they did, or do you not? I can understand why you accept them on Martin's word. But why couldn't you accept them on Fergie's word in the first place? Why the distancing tactic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:11 AM "I can understand why you accept them on Martin's word. But why couldn't you accept them on Fergie's word in the first place? Why the distancing tactic?" Ditto Bonnie - I was going to raise this exact point myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM For me, the main question isn't 'good' and 'evil' - there are all shades of this in all walks of life. It boils down to the power and influence of the church and whether it is acceptible in the light of these and many other issues. All this has stirred up the 'mental mud' and has jogged my memory as to how that power and influence has been used and abused throughout the Catholic world. I vaguely remembered an incident which once outraged me to the point of tears, of both anger and of compassion, but which had passed into the 'yet another...' filing cabinet compartment of my mind, so I chanced my arm on the internet, and it all came flooding back. In 2003, a family of Nicaraguan itinerant agricultural labourers were working in Costa Rica. The 9 year old daughter was sent to a local farm for water, where she was raped by the farmer, resulting in her contacting two sexually transmitted diseases and a pregnancy. The nuns running the hospital where she was treated hid the fact of her pregnancy from her parents until it was past the legal limit for her to be aborted (the law there allows abortion in rape cases only - and only then when the life of the mother is threatened). On being told that the girl would not survive giving birth at her age and in her condition, the family appealed to the Archbishop and were told that the girl should "Accept her martyrdom with pride". The parents eventually 'went illegal' and were threatened with prosecution by the church, who finally withdrew their threat in the light of adverse publicity. Can any human being argue that any body should have such a malign influence on peoples' lives? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:52 AM "That's a misleading and somewhat tendentious oversimplification of a complex situation" Sorry Martin - overlooked your posting until it was too late. I beg to differ; I think that the role played by the church in education, or any any non-religious area is fundamental to everything that has happened here. The question of denominational, multi-denominational and even non-denominational education has to be part of this debate if it is to mean anything. The polarisation of Ireland into different and opposing religious groupings is extremely germaine to all that has happened in modern Ireland. Something quite trivial maybe, but earlier this year I spent some time in hospital. When filling in my details I entered "none" in the 'religion' box. It was registered as "not disclosed" in the final version. It both amused me and at the same time, pissed me off slightly. I have no objection whatever to my views on religion being opposed and argued against (I quite relish it really), but I object strongly to their being ignored or misrepresented. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 13 Dec 09 - 10:34 AM When filling in my details I entered "none" in the 'religion' box. It was registered as "not disclosed" in the final version. Yes, that happened to me as well in Galway Academic hospital two months ago while I clearly told the admissions clerk there was no religion to declare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:02 AM Jim My remark referred to your comment on the "squabble over who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children". There is no such squabble. There is a dispute over whether the government should continue to provide what is regarded by some as preferential treatment of Protestant schools. That's a very different "squabble". As I said, I thought your description was tendentious - not to say sensationalist! Such overkill is unhelpful IMHO. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:12 AM Your almost certainlt right Martin - I withdraw my statement Not in the best frame of mind at present - Happy Christmas all!!!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:12 AM This transformation of a 'none' in the religion tickbox to 'non-disclosed', which would appear from two above posts to be standard practice over there, is offensive, is it not? — with its implication that we all must have some religion, but some of us are too pusillanimous or cagy for some reason to declare what it is. The concept that some people can manage perfectly well without one seems beyond some Irish bureaucrats' tiny minds, doesn't it? I can well see why you found it so irritating that it still slightly niggles, Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM Jim No problem! Happy Christmas to yourself and Pat - and many thanks for all the help through the year. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Dec 09 - 01:26 PM In fairness Mike - it's a slight improvement on the UK where, when you say 'none' you quite often get 'Church of England' Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM That's never happened to me, Jim. I sometimes put CofE [I am after all a baptised & confirmed member of the Anglican Communion even if I have long since returned to my entirely atheist default setting; so fully entitled to the designation if I want to reaffirm my membership of that particular club]; but when I have put 'none' no-one has ever argued, to my knowledge. Tho probably best to put 'atheist', which nobody, surely, could mistake for an eccentric spelling of CofE. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM Here is another voice of experience. Link to the full article snip "...One of those who was physically beaten on a regular basis by members of the Christian Brothers order that ran Artane was Patrick Walsh, now a businessman who lives in north London....' snip ..."It is unlikely that officials from any government department will ever be held accountable having presided over an illegal, cruel and wicked system that led to untold suffering for tens of thousands of innocent Irish children and their families since the foundation of the state.".... snip Link to the full article |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM This is from the horse's mouth, nothing third-hand about it. The Sisters of Mercy's idea of childcare. I've nothing to add to what Jim and Bonnie have said except my agreement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,999 Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:14 PM While the Catholic church (priests within it) are getting the remarks they deserve, please remember that the same shit is going on in the Anglican, Baptist, Methodist and Lutheran churches, too. (I stopped there because I'm running outta Protestant religions.) Doesn't excuse it, but it sure makes the notion of "Christianity" seem a bit strange when the chief proponents of the belief system seem to be involved in that kinda thing. Anyone not believing that simply Google anglican church, abuse etc and there you'll have it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:28 PM I know you're right, 999, but you have to admit no-one organises it quite so well as the Catholic church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,999 Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:38 PM The Anglicans--a breakaway group--sure give 'em a run for it, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:49 AM Martin says:
That's exactly my point - but I see no recognition of that coexistence in most of the posts in this thread. I just can't buy the blanket demonization that has come from so many posts here. I don't see anybody or any institution as all good or all bad - they are what they are. All my life, I've been so highly critical of the Catholic Church as to be told by some that I'm not really Catholic. And here, I'm seen as a participant in the coverup because I'm seeking balance and fairness in the assessment of the situation. I'm sure that if I lived in Ireland, I would be one of the more vocal critics within the Catholic Church - but I would be within the Catholic Church, because I don't like the idea of abandoning my church to the likes of Archbishop McQuaid. You mentioned the rural situation, and there may be a key there. I have a feeling my friend Fr. Martin had a far different experience growing up a farmer's son in County Clare, than Frank McCourt had growing up in Limerick. My pastor, Fr. Mike, grew up in Cork with an alcoholic father who was a building contractor. Still, Mike had a pretty good existence growing up, though they didn't have much money. Most of the other Irish-born priests and nuns I know in Sacramento, came from rural areas and from towns I've never heard of, not from the bigger cities. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:57 AM > I don't see anybody or any institution as all good or all bad Will you please cut and paste the quote above that makes this charge? Stop paraphrasing everything we write, and oversimplifying it all down into these reductive single-sentence statements. This is insultingly simplistic, and distorts the contents of our posts to the point of meaninglessness. But turning everything into a one-line cliché does make it a lot easier to dismiss. STOP RE-WORDING THINGS AND THEN CRITICISING US FOR WHAT WE DID NOT SAY. > I just can't buy the blanket demonization that has come from so many posts here This from someone who has accused the entire population of Ireland of being guilty? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,MG Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:21 PM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrEzjXwTNw tHERE IS A Lot on you tube. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:34 PM I was very abused by religion as a child. Not by priests and nuns, who by and large were wonderful..the Irish ones especially..but by my mother, who relished the hellfire and damnation. She was Baptist to start with and converted. She was able to get people within minutes of meeting her to say to us how lucky we were to have such a wonderful, saintly mother. As soon as they were gone, back to the abuse. Her religion did not condone marrying Catholics. My father's did not condone marrying Protestants. But she was able to find not just a shelter for abuse, but a place where she was glorified almost. I don't know who knew what but it was ugly. Abusive people will seek out abusive religions ..and I don't think Catholicism itself is necessarily, although it certainly tolerates great suffering and condemns people to it...or if they are born into a religion and are abusive, they will find a way to express it via the religion. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:54 PM Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie... Calm down. I said I don't see any institution as all good or all bad, and I find it worthwhile to examine both the good and bad aspects of anything to achieve a balanced, realistic view. And no, I haven't heard any comments about what was good about life in Ireland from 1936 to 1970, which leaves me with the impression that everything was dark and bad. That doesn't make sense to me, so I'm trying to get some realistic vision of what everyday life was like for a kid in Ireland during the period. As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that, just as there's truth in the guilt of the entire nation of the United States accepting slavery and later racism as "just the way it is." Even if you're a victim or an innocent bystander, you don't have to accept abuse silently. We all share responsibility for the ills and injustices of our society. Americans must share guilt for the homelessness that is endemic in the United States, and for the mistreatment of aliens, and for the lack of health care for a few. Germany has some responsibility for the Nazi years - Hitler did not happen in a vacuum. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:14 PM As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that, just as there's truth in the guilt of the entire nation of the United States accepting slavery and later racism as "just the way it is." A poor analogy, I'm afraid, Joe. Your "entire nation" phrase suggests that both white and black elements "accepted" slavery in that sense. Do you really believe that? The oppressed "accept" oppression only in the sense that many of them become innured to it. Blurring the distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor is unhelpful, at best. Regards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:16 PM if you will recall, half of the nation went to war against the other half and at least for some it was to rid the country of slavery. Those on the slave-holding side -- some guilty, some had no slaves, lived in dire poverty, did not benefit, no matter how it is spinned, from slave labor. They were caught up in something, as have most combatants from time immemorial. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:56 PM "I find it worthwhile to examine both the good and bad aspects of anything to achieve a balanced, realistic view." So if a school teaches good math, but many of its teachers abuse the children that is acceptible as a balanced, realistic view, is it Joe? "As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that," If this monstrous insult is true - perhaps you can say why the people stood by and allowed abuse they knew was happening to continue? Were they indifferent to the suffering of their and other people's children; did they believe that the abuse was doing no harm; was it some sort of payment to the church for all its goodness - a human sacrifice; are Irish people apathetic, cowardly, unaware, insensitive.... why? If it is because the church mesmerised both the victims and the families to the extent that they did nothing, is that not a impelling reason to abolish the church as a threat to Irish society, as has been proposed for so many of the cults? It's hard not to notice that there have yet to be any acceptences of guilt by the church as a body or by the Vatican, and the Bishop of Limerick is heading back to Rome without either an offer of resignation from him or a demand for same from his employers, which puts all the mealy-mouthed regrets expressed so far into context. But that's o.k. - the responsibility really rests with the people of Ireland. The only comforting thing about this indecent display of inhumanity is that the church, if it survives, will never again have the credibility it once had - if I were a Christian I'd offer up a prayer of thanks to that! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Dec 09 - 09:20 PM Jim, you're being a bit theatrical. I think your "mesmerized" description give far less credit to the Irish people than they deserve. I'm sorry, but it sounds incredible that an entire nation could could be "mesmerized" to the point where they could stand by and watch the abuse of children and say that nothing could be done. No, of course the children who were abused weren't to blame; and neither were the blacks and Jews and Irish and others who suffered discrimination and worse in the United States. It's not religion that abuses. It's not Islam, it's not Judaism, it's not Christianity, and it's not Catholic Christianity. None of those religions teaches or condones the abuse of children. It's people who abuse children. And it's people who observe abuse and do nothing, allowing the abuse to continue. And it's people who pervert religion and use it as an excuse for abuse and molestation - no religion teaches those things. And in Ireland, the people who committed the abuses were born in Ireland, came from Irish families, and lived in and were respected in Irish society. This article says that in 1970, 90 percent of the people of Ireland called themselves Catholic. So, it seems to me that the problem is seated in all of Irish society, not just in the 25 percent who currently call themselves Catholic. Yes, the Catholic Church was responsible for the abuses in Ireland - the Irish Catholic Church, not some foreign entity imposed upon the Irish people. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:15 PM Still just sounds like blame-deflecting, Joe; a dogged determination to re-frame the facts to fit your theories and shift some of the heat. And trying to make the good elements of Irish life offset or somehow dilute the abuse is a non sequitur. When a bad element is as perverted and locked away from normal society as child-rape is, one does not modify the other. PS: I think you may have misconstrued what Jim was saying in his 3rd para - though I haven't been in independent contact with him so have no confirmation of this. But it looks as though you could have picked it up the wrong way - |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 09 - 03:56 AM Well, Bonnie, the same thing happened in the United States, although the problem was more molestation and not widespread physical abuse. The Catholic Church was identified as an appropriate scapegoat, and every parish in the country paid a million dollars in damages and made the victims wealthy and quiet, and the problem was largely forgotten - but it was not resolved. The dual problems of child abuse and child molestation are not understood, and they have not been resolved. Most of the preventative measures that have been taken are just expensive shots in the dark, and aren't really effective measures - things like fingerprinting all employees and volunteers, and giving them and children sex-abuse training. And yes, there are tighter and more expensive psychological screening programs for seminarians, but how does a psychological screening detect a potential child molester? So, a lot of money has been thrown at the problem, but I really don't think there's true understanding of the problem. Yes, the people who molested and abused found the structure of the Catholic Church to be an easy shelter. There is no doubt in my mind that the problem has resided in the Catholic Church, and I and a lot of Catholics are deeply embarrassed and ashamed that has happened. And yes, I have seen repressive parishes in the United States and Ireland which fit Fergie's description, and I hate places like that. The neoconservative movement seems to be gaining strength very quickly, and they want that sort of repressive environment - and they want it imposed on all Catholics. I met a number of Catholic lay people in Ireland who seem to yearn for repression, and that kind of rigidity seemed to pervade every Irish Catholic parish I visited. That kind of thinking just drives me crazy. Now, I've had friends who have been on Jesuit retreats in Ireland, and they've loved them. But the problem of abuse is much broader than just churches - it's everywhere. Abusers and molesters are very self-righteous about their conduct, and they will grab onto anything they can to justify their actions. If they're connected to a religion, they will twist their religion's teachings to rationalize their conduct. I don't know statistics, but I found a much higher incidence of child abuse and molestation among applicants for law enforcement positions, than among any other profession for which I conducted security investigations. I still get a creepy feeling about the police sergeant who tried to rationalize his right to molest his stepdaughter - and I remember the creepy power things he did to try to slow me down when I dug deeper into my investigation. I think there's a tie between law enforcement and priesthood and molestation and abuse - I think it's the moral authority of those two positions. Many of the molesters I interviewed seemed to be obsessed with authority and respectability. They seemed to bend over backwards to win community awards for their service. As for the bishops, I think theirs is a completely different story. Archbishop John Charles McQuaid of Dublin has often been described as the chief villain in the child abuse scandal, and I think that's an apt assessment. I've heard all sorts of stories about McQuaid and his iron rule. I wonder, though. I think that many American bishops covered up sex molestation scandals out of fear and desperation, not as acts of power. The mystique of bishops was destroyed by the Second Vatican Council (and rightly so), and bishops began to be regarded as managers instead of spiritual leaders. I think a lot of bishops felt a loss of power and credibility, and got to the point of desperation when faced with the child molestation scandal. Relatively few responded in a rational way to the problem, and some bishops were outright stupid in their responses. So, part of me thinks that McQuaid was the bastard he was, because he was desperately hanging onto power - to the point where the preservation of his power and authority were far more important to him, than was the fate of the children who were molested and abused. McQuaid and several other bishops also committed crimes - but they were crimes of grossly dishonest coverup to protect their power, and didn't really have anything to do with protecting abusers. Many bishops have chancery (headquarters) offices that are well-oiled power machines, and I'm sure that the chancery office staff was complicit in the coverups in many dioceses. But ordinary priests and nuns would know little about anything that went on in the chancery, and most parish priests I know don't want to have anything to do with the chancery. Many priests and nuns consider their bishop to be a nuisance - at best. Good bishops are hard to find in the Catholic Church, and I blame John Paul II for that. Still, the balance that I'm seeking is this: Most priests and nuns I know were born in Ireland, and they're good people. They don't try to cover up the child abuse scandal at all - they're appalled. Still, they generally had good experiences growing up in Ireland. How does all this fit together? Where's the balance here? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:09 AM Now you're blaming Irish society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:14 AM Joe, you're talking about the catholic church being made a scapegoat as if it isn't to blame for covering up abuse, keeping perpetrators free from the justice system by moving them on to new parishes as soon as complaints became too public. It was reported in the Irish Times after the publication of the Murphy report there were thousands of files kept in the private safe of the arch bishop that were there for the sole reason to keep them out of the hands of investigators. And tha twas well after the McQuaid's reign. When the scandal of the industrial school broke the church sent out two tough as nails nuns (the words of the government negotiators) who hammered out a deal that entailed limited responsibility for compensation, essentially putting the lion's share of compensation on the shoulders of the tax payer. When public outrage about this became too strong last year the church did a damage limitation exercise in which they offered to take on a larger portion of the compensation. But only a small portion of the total number of orders involved in the running of the schools actually pledged contributions to the compensation fund. Funds and assets were moved out of reach before any promises were made. Yes, the church has different faces, good and bad. But the institution goes to great lengths to cover it's bad side and in doing so it's only looks worse for it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:21 AM That's right, Jim. Child molestation and child abuse reside in every facet of society. They seek positions of power and respectability - and churches are a ready haven for these criminals. And yes, Western society, not only Irish society, has not solved these dual problems. To put the blame on churches, is delusion - the problem pervades ALL of society, although churches certainly provide a safe haven for molestation and abuse to reside. And there is no question in my mind that several Catholic bishops of the US and Ireland committed serious crimes of obstruction of justice by their cowardly coverups of the molestation and abuse of children. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,mg Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM It wasn't several bishops..it was very very many. I read, and doubt it is true, that 80% of bishops..can't remember where..US or Ireland or some combination... I am sympathetic to the abusers who are victims of a punishing society. Well, so were the bishops, who might have had similar problems themselves. I don't know. I will say that despite all this, that the system turned out some wonderful people. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 15 Dec 09 - 03:18 PM It turned out all kinds of people, mg, indiscriminately. It didn't care so long as they were Catholics. Its function is the acquisition of wealth and power; everything else is secondary. Earlier I said that I couldn't see how anyone with a conscience could continue to support such an organisation in the light of what has been revealed, although it was comically misunderstood in an attempt to discredit my point. Now I can see how, and they have my pity. I never fully realised the depth of control that a Catholic upbringing can facilitate over otherwise good and decent people. I urge any doubters to visit the above YouTube link and hear for themselves what the Sisters of Mercy did to babies. The Catholic church had control, and the Irish people didn't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,mg Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM Well, I would still slap them in jail, especially the bishops and as mentioned before, have a song about them that says the same thing. I am not convinced it was for the acquisition of wealth and power. These nuns and brothers and priests who did the abusing were in more or less poverty themseleves, the nuns at least taking a vow of poverty. Their lives were miserable. I really doubt whoever said it was the middle class who became priests and nuns..I would sure like some support of that statement. I think the bottom line is that they were sick individuals raised in a poverty-stricken sick environment in a sick religion. I think the abuse oozed out of that, coupled with lack of oversight by others, coupled with a feeling that this (not the abuse but the rigidness and aesticism etc.) were what God wanted. God plays a big part in this. A lot was done in His name. They at some level thought they were doing God's will and were helping to impose it on others so that the others could avoid purgatory and hell. Beating orphans and schoolchildren was part of what had to be done to keep them from sinning. The sexual abuse is more complicated and mult-factorial. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM "I think the bottom line is that they were sick individuals raised in a poverty-stricken sick environment in a sick religion. I think the abuse oozed out of that, coupled with lack of oversight by others, coupled with a feeling that this (not the abuse but the rigidness and aesticism etc.) were what God wanted." Thanks for that post MG - I understand more fully what you were previously saying now. And yes, I think (without actually being there) it's a good way of reading the possible reality of the situation. |
