 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:27 PM I must admit I'm rather mystified by this, MtGM, but please try to calm down. My opinion counts for nothing, mate - I'm just some geezer on the internet.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:16 PM OK - CROSSPOSTED AS YOU WILL APPRECIATE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR LAST POST. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:14 PM ARE YOU REALLY SO INSENSITIVE THAT YOU DON'T EVEN REALISE HOW ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE A THING THAT WAS TO SAY? I AM LITERALLY WEEPING AS I TYPE - TEARS ARE BLINDING MY EYES. EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL? LIKE I SHOULD GIVE A FLYING FUCK |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 01:13 PM I wasn't belittling or nullifying anything - therein lies the misunderstanding. I apologise for giving you that impression but I assure you it wasn't intentional. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:59 PM What do you mean, 'baited', you poor sensitive little flower! I mean, Smokey [& you listen too, Jim], whatever sympathy & empathy we must all feel for those poor horribly abused children & there's my view on the subject under discussion as I told you before], how do you imagine it helps their cause to belittle and nullify the enormities of AuschwitzBirkenau Matthausen Treblinka Sobibor in such a fashion, for any sort of rhetorical purpose! How DARE you? How COULD you? If you don't apologise you are really an obnoxious insensitive little ... Words do literally fail me ··· & that doesn't happen very often. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:46 PM MtGM - I'd be genuinely interested to hear your views on the subject under discussion, but I refuse to be baited in this manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:42 PM Sorry Michael I'm afraid I see nothing but irony in Smokey's comment. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:31 PM & I suggest in return, Smokey, that you try putting yourself in the position of some of those who found themselves in the milieux where gaschambers were located & see how you would have appreciated oh such a delicate comparison. Could you perhaps please indicate in what way I have 'misunderstood' your observation. If you can convince me it was an appropriate one, I will in my own turn gladly climb down from the position io have taken with regard to it. I put it to all — here's what he wrote again - 'Some of those poor kids would have been grateful for a nice cosy gas-chamber.' Can the concept of 'nice cosy', however ironic, ever be appropriate in relation to 'gas-chamber' in any circumstances? I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:24 PM There isn't one Ake, it's just a silly misunderstanding. I appreciate your support, by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:19 PM Well I dont understand anything about this spat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 12:00 PM Tell you what, MtGM, if enough people misunderstand my observation as wildly as you have, I'll make an apology. Until then, keep your sympathy. Meanwhile I suggest you read some of the accounts of the abuse we are discussing and try to put yourself in the place of some of those children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:49 AM ===. I'm sorry you didn't understand or didn't agree with the comparison I was making=== Sorry Smokey, but the very concept of 'cosiness' in such a context is altogether beyond irony & in the filthiest of taste; & if you can't see that & apologise for it then I am genuinely sorry for you — & my advice still holds... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:33 AM ????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 05 Dec 09 - 11:32 AM MtGM, it was not meant to be funny. I'm sorry you didn't understand or didn't agree with the comparison I was making, but there is no need to be childish. This is a very serious subject, and I would suggest that if all you can contribute to the discussion is irrelevant confrontation for your own personal satisfaction, that you follow your own advice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 05 Dec 09 - 10:22 AM ===I would defend Smokey, although we don't agree over this, he is one of the few here who can discuss issues like this in a reasonable fashion and attempts to see things from a different perspective. He also has a nice ascerbic sense of humour.=== Oh yes, ake: very acerbic FUCK OFF! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 05 Dec 09 - 06:09 AM Facebook group, membership now up to nearly 2000: Justice For Those Abused |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Dec 09 - 03:54 AM "....that 170.000.000 is to be paid" The question of reparation is confused at the present time. Following the initial Ryan Report a settlement was agreed upon between the Government and the Church, the victims having no say in the matter. It has since been claimed that the settlement was a blanket amnesty for the clergy involved in abuse and that the figure settled on would not even cover the legal costs necessary for making a claim. Early last week (I think) a list was published of religious organisations who have offered settlement, what they have offered, alongside their present financial assets (which makes fascinating reading in itself). I am not sure whether the Government's original settlement still stands; many here believe it to have been done in the spirit of 'damage limitation' on behalf of the church. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 09 - 03:46 AM I would defend Smokey, although we don't agree over this, he is one of the few here who can discuss issues like this in a reasonable fashion and attempts to see things from a different perspective. He also has a nice ascerbic sense of humour. and I will expect more support from him in future!! :0).....Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 04 Dec 09 - 11:17 PM Propriety: the condition of being right, appropriate, or fitting. Nope, I'll stick with what I said. It's a matter of opinion, and agreement is not compulsory. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:39 PM I think Smokey might like to reassess the propriety of his 'nice cosy gas-chamber' formulation, tho I agree that the children's situation was indeed pitiable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST Date: 04 Dec 09 - 09:13 PM One to follow up is something I heard in the last day or so, that 170.000.000 is to be paid out by the catholic church to victims of this abuse from I think a nuns fund. If this be the case to me it's an admission of guilt, and the lot of them should be sorted out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 04 Dec 09 - 07:48 PM "....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!" Now that does sound homophobic, though I haven't noticed any sign of 'gayness' here so far. Perhaps because I wasn't looking for it. It's nonsensical to blame homosexuality for what has happened. If it was common practice to put girls in the care of priests the overall level of abuse would be far higher. The problem is that the Catholic church knowingly supports mass child abuse and the Irish government colludes with the church to hide and perpetuate it. Some of those poor kids would have been grateful for a nice cosy gas-chamber. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 06:28 AM "Hang all priests" As far as I can see, nobody has proposed any of the things on your list on this thread, though there is a letter in todays Irish Times, from an American, proposing that the death penalty be brought back in Ireland and applied to those who rape children - which is not far from what Akenaton declared his support for on the 'Death penalty for homosexuality' thread. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 05:00 AM "....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!!" You can add this to the list of examples of your homophobia. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 04 Dec 09 - 04:08 AM Okay, since I was spending more time in the studio, instead of on here, I gather that some of you want to: 1. Beat up the church, 2. Overthrow the government for it 3. Deny homosexuality was a factor 4. Hang all priests 5. Argue stupid non-issues, instead of doing anything... ....Oh, and one of you, wants to hit somebody with his purse!! When you get the truth about it, ignore it, and bitch about, for the sake of bitching, how can an impartial observer come to any conclusion...except jeez there's a lot of bitching in here. Hope they play their guitars better than they make sense...betcha they can't even play with other musicians, because they argue and bitch about everything. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:56 AM Should read 'please stop trying to score points' Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Dec 09 - 03:53 AM "Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:" I passed on the information word for word as I read it - if you know different, please explain, and please trying to score points on this horrendously sordid and tragic affair. "The church should be caned for the cover up" The church has been involved in a cover-up of major crimes and those involved should be treated as criminals. As a correspondent put it in the letters page of the I.T. yesterday, how would it be if a school was found to have paedophile teachers whose behaviour had been covered up by the senior staff; and then it was later discovered that these practices were common to the whole of the education system; would a 'caning' suffice for ALL the perpetrators, abusers and their accomplices? "The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys." Once again; if it is a 'homosexual' affair, it is also a clerical/Catholic/Christian/religious one. Do we treat clerics, Catholics, Christians, and the religiously inclined with the same suspicion and ascertain that they are never entrusted with the care of children again? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 10:38 PM "The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys. Get your fuckin' heads straight!" Why is that relevant, Akenaton? Priests get put in charge of boys and nuns get the girls (generally). Ironically they do that (partly) to lessen the opportunity for heterosexual abuse (or 'temptation'). That strategy worked, to some degree, but ultimately backfired in the form of a disproportionate amount of homosexual abuse. To the best of my knowledge, homosexuals don't abuse children any more than anyone else, and I don't see any moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual child abuse. Either way, most of the victims will end up screwed up and about a third of them will go on to be abusers themselves. Some will commit suicide. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 07:01 PM lox A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission. I never suggested otherwise. I simply stated the current reported position in Ireland, given that some of the comments in this thread display some ignorance of that position. If and when there is confirmation or otherwise of the claim, I will let you know. More generally, can I reiterate that the core of the PRESENT controversy is the response of the bishops to their own knowledge, over the years, of clerical abuse of children, homosexual and otherwise? To divert that focus to the indisputable horrors of the abuse itself only encourages the tendency of the hierarchy to deplore the abuse and apologise for their own "failure to deal with it". It was not a "failure" but a very successful, as far as it went, strategy to protect the church from "scandal". Until individual bishops face up to this, they - and a dwindling number of conservative Catholics - can wring their hands in anguish - and continue to protect a church which has seriously lost its moral way. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:46 PM Sorry Martin, I missed your post concerning the timeframe etc. Though i would still be curious to know if this "common knowledge" were ever substantiated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:42 PM A lack of dispute does not constitute the same thing as an admission. If you make an accusation against somebody they are under no obligation to acknowledge you in any way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:21 PM lox My understanding is that the existence of the letters from Cardinal Ratzinger of the Congregation for the defence of the Faith ( as I think it's called) is not disputed. I suspect their use of Latin is quite routine. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Lox Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:49 PM "A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." What evuidence did the Irish Times provide to support this allegation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: GUEST,beachcomber Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:31 PM The ironic thing is that the ancient Christian Church , in Ireland, to around the time of Norman invasion ,had clergy who had wives and families [Therefore a family name "MacanT'aggart" (spelling ?) as someone pointed out.] The earliest Christians also allowed a normal relationship between priests and women. The later pronouncement of the"celibacy"law probably gave rise to various illicit modes of satisfaction.If this rule became one that , in true Irish tradition, was honoured more in the breach than in the observance , one can see the roots of the Irish church's corruption. I know that this abuse is not exclusive to Irish Clergy but, the missionary zeal of Irish priests (and religious organisations) did help to spread catholicism did it not ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: akenaton Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:11 PM Jim never lets accuracy get in the way of a good line...:0) The church should be caned for the cover up...an attempted damage limitation excercise which went wrong. The abuse was perpetrated by adult males against mainly teenage boys Get your fuckin' heads straight! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MartinRyan Date: 03 Dec 09 - 04:52 PM it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." FWIW Depends what you mean by "recent" - and what you mean by "Pope". It was 2001 and he (the current Pope) wasn't Pope! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 02:34 PM "Jim, is that recent?" Sorry Penny - missed yor queston. It came u in today's paper and was, as far as I know, referring to 2 recent letters. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:24 PM Quite right Jim - it is 'criminal', in every sense of the word, and should be treated as such. I'm glad the Irish people are taking the blinkers off at last. They deserve better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:12 PM "....too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons." In the light of what has happened it would appear that 'the wrong people' are all to be found in the ranks of the church. This is a criminal matter, not a church one. All of this has to be regarded in the light of what is happening here at present. The Vatican has been aware of the situation for a long time and has hampered enquiries by ignoring correspondence. There are calls for a boycott of mass throughout Ireland, the dismissing of every church official who took part in the cover-up, the expulsion of the papal nuncio from Ireland and even a break from Rome altogether. The family of some of the victims of abuse have called for the dismissal of the Bishop there for his part in the affair as well as an enquiry into the diocese of Limerick similar to that just reported on in Dublin. I wonder why the phrase "stop digging" keep coming into my mind! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Penny S. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 01:06 PM Jim, is that recent? That brings out my buried Lewesian anti-potpourriishness. Rooted in the suspicion that the Papacy regarded itself as over-riding the sovereignty of local governments. That members of the church should be instructed to be complicit in covering up a crime, and such a crime, beggars belief. Now if he were instructing church members not to collaborate with local laws of the sort established in Nazi Germany, or possibly about to be enacted in Uganda, that would be one thing. But to propose that crimes which the founder of the church clearly denounced should come under that sort of protection is incredible. Joe, your account of the separate tracks for bishops and priests explains much I have read here. In the Anglicans, the bishops arise from the priests. The admin is separate, as far as I can make out, with characters called Deans, and Archdeans, who have also risen from the parish levels, but are more to do with the fabric and finance, while the bishops do the pastoral stuff. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Smokey. Date: 03 Dec 09 - 12:51 PM "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, etc." That seems to imply that he knows or assumes there is a lot that hasn't come to light yet. This is a case of too much power in the hands of the wrong people for the wrong reasons. Building chapels and praying for the victims is an insult - in fact in effect it's little more than investing money in property (U.S.=real estate?) which should have been given to the victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: MGM·Lion Date: 03 Dec 09 - 06:17 AM That really is a stinker indeed, Jim. It is not universal that there is no shame — I have mentioned before on another thread our surprise in visting LA's beautiful new RC Cathedral 5 or so years ago, on finding a special prayer chapel dedicated to the victims of clerical child abuse. But this papal call for confidentiality is a real chiller. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse) From: Jim Carroll Date: 03 Dec 09 - 05:54 AM Just in case it be thought that the church has in any way been chastened by the events brought to light by the Ryan and Murphy Reports and might have actually learnd any lesson; it is claimed in today's Irish Times that "the Pope has written to his Irish bishops, directing them to report, solely and exclusively all matters pertaining to child abuse by their clergy, to the Vatican alone, and not to the civil authority. A second and following letter commanded total secrecy regarding both. The two letters were in Latin." Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Smokey. Date: 02 Dec 09 - 10:51 PM Let's try to avoid WW3... So far this has been an interesting and peaceful thread, it'd be nice if it remained so.. One factor so far overlooked is that a significant percentage of the abusers will be former victims of abuse, and a significant percentage of their victims will go on to be abusers. That cycle will have been going on for generations and will continue to do so unless it is somehow stopped. The cycle has to be broken; it's downright madness to provide the opportunity for one priest to abuse a hundred children, and knowingly doing that is about as evil as it gets. Pretending to be representing 'God' whilst committing these crimes doesn't even bear thinking about, and believing it is insane. Perhaps now more of it is being brought to light than ever before, we stand a chance of bringing about the demise of this social disease, or at least reducing it to a minimum. I certainly hope so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Dec 09 - 09:52 PM Hats off to Smokey!! He's done his homework, and can, without bias comprehend what he reads!..You got it!!! I really could not figure how in the world Jim Carroll could arrive at the conclusion he came to, unless........... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Smokey. Date: 02 Dec 09 - 07:03 PM "I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality" As is groundlessly imagining others to be homophobic. The 'bad apples' are child abusers first and foremost and that is what they should be punished for, particularly taking into consideration the abuse of their position of trust. They do not deserve a place in society, nor do the people who assisted and helped to cover their crimes. Were they not 'men of the cloth', they'd be rotting behind bars by now, and likely as not be receiving the punishment which they so richly deserve, while the screws turn a blind eye - just like the Bishops did. Rape is more about power than it is about sexuality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 02 Dec 09 - 05:46 AM Huh???? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Jim Carroll Date: 02 Dec 09 - 03:49 AM "you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry'," "As a rule, the Catholic clergy is not about homosexuality, but there ARE some bad apples in the bunch" Homosexual = not like me = bad; sounds like bigotry to me bro; if it waddles and quacks it's probably a duck. "and those who do that, either are, or become homosexuals,..." How does one 'become' a homosexual, do they have to fill in a form? I've always taken the view that homophobia is a sign of deep-seated insecurity in an individual's own sexuality - but there you go! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:54 PM I was in the seminary in Milwaukee for eight years, and I'm part of an e-mail group of classmates. Milwaukee's archbishop, Timothy Dolan, was promoted to New York, so Milwaukee got a new guy - and my priest-classmates aren't thrilled. I get the distinct impression that most priests don't like most bishops. Priests are supposed to be spiritual leaders, and most of them put their hearts into their work and do the best they can. Bishops are a different breed. If you look at the resumes of bishops, you'll find that most of them went to Rome for training after college, while most parish priests went to local seminaries. Many bishops had almost no experience in parish work, and many have spent their entire lives in some sort of administrative position. They view the Catholic Church through organizational and financial and authoritarian perspectives, and the spiritual/pastoral concerns are secondary. The level of cluelessness among bishops is very high - although I must admit that there are some good ones. In confronting a case of child molestation, what would you expect from a bishop whose priorities are business and organizational? What would you expect from the chief executive of a health care organization that employed a doctor who was molesting patients? I'm not defending the four archbishops of Dublin. What they did was wrong, terribly wrong - but I AM trying to understand why they did it. I was employed in a parish under a priest who is a wonderful, compassionate pastor - but he is a horrible administrator and a terrible supervisor. The Catholic Church needs people with pastoral skills, which is a function I have filled in a couple of parishes as an employee and as a volunteer. BUT it also needs administrative people, in a pastoral organization where pastoral and organizational priorities often do not coincide. And though it's supposed to be a pastoral organization, it's the organizational interests that win out much of the time, since the bosses are the ones with the organizational priorities. So, it's a mess. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:46 PM Jim Carroll:"..I fully expected the homophobes to crawl out of the woodwork, and true to form, you obliged, but thankfully you haven't been able to hi-jack the thread for your own particular brand of bigotry." Sounds like 'trolling' to me...nonetheless, if you read my post carefully, you will find NOTHING in there remotely resembling 'bigotry', matter of fact, a rather clear understanding, and explanation of the make-up of why, and how pedophile priests, arrive at that, and who, and how they choose their victims. I did not bash the Catholic Church, the priests, or homosexuals. And if I recall, that's what you asked for. May I suggest, growing up? |