 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Jul 14 - 02:47 PM The Irish government has announced that Judge Yvonne Murphy will head the investigation into mother and baby homes. Announcement by the Department for Children. www.irishhealth.com, Murphy to chair..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 14 - 04:57 PM Ed, remember that Philadelphia, a huge archdiocese, was one location where a high-ranking diocesan official went to jail for covering up child molestation. He was later released on appeal, but I think that the jailing is a clear indication that the handling of child molestation was near-criminal, if not an actual crime. So, I would not deem Philadelphia as an example of a "good" response. Indeed, I think that Philadelphia and Boston were among the worst offenders. My sister lived in Boston at the time of Cardinal Law, and she had been a very active Catholic. The Boston archdiocese went to such efforts to deny the problem and blame those who reported it, that my sister eventually left the Catholic Church in disgust. I'm still an active Catholic, but that doesn't mean that I'm not often disgusted. My bishop tried to make political hay out of the abortion issue, at the expense of an order of nuns and a nonprofit that serves homeless people. As a result, I demanded (and received) a refund of my last $250 donation to the diocese three years ago, and I haven't given a penny to the diocese since. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 10 Jul 14 - 04:48 PM Resource material Thanks Joe, I will look it over...I was actually aware of the Jay report. I read over the 2003 Philadelphia Grand Jury report and also the Archbishops response, I understand that this location has an internal outreach program with three sociologists employed that are available to for parishners assistance, including spiritual and other services to those sexually assaulted. If that represents the typical level of support "to assist those victims assaulted to become "whole again", it would seem very minimal, to deal with some fairly serious long -term impacts of youths being violated by people in a position of trust. While neither of us seem to be in a position of knowledge to determine if the response was effective nor appropriate for the crimes...it is best that we not shoot down the possibility that it was effective, nor lead people to believe it was a proper response "to assist the victims to become whole". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 14 - 04:25 PM Hi, Ed- Here's what I said above:
In 2002, the bishops of the U.S. commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice (of the City University of New York) to do a study of the sexual abuse of children in the U.S. Catholic Church. I hadn't known it, but John Jay is a public institution, not affiliated with the Catholic Church. The study was extensive, and it is widely respected. The Jay report shows the numbers of offenders to be much smaller than some would have you think, but they are still alarming. The study said that four percent of U.S. priests had had sex at least once with a minor under the age of 18. Four percent doesn't sound like much. In my diocese, new priests have training assignments to three different parishes during their first five years of priesthood. Considering that U.S. parishes have from 500 to 1500 families or more, that's exposing young priests to a large number of children - and many of those parishes have schools, which compounds the number of contacts with children and the number of possible victims. So, although the percentage of priests offending is about the same as the percentage of offenders among U.S. men in general, priests have contact with a huge number of potential victims, and so the damage done by a single offender can be phenomenal. That's why organizations that serve children must have such strict controls - because a single offender can do so much damage, and because it's so hard to predict in advance who is going to be a sex offender and who is not. Ed, note that I said that 74 percent of dioceses paid at least something to provide for treatment for victims. I did not find information on the percentage of victims that were offered counseling, or on the quality of treatment provided. It could be that the 26 percent that did not pay for counseling, had internal staff provide counseling. To my mind, it is appalling that 26 percent of dioceses did not offer any sort of treatment, but that's what the numbers lead me to believe - that's potentially a huge number of victims who were not offered treatment. I suppose you may be surprised that there were so many dioceses that offered treatment, but that number sounds about right to me. Press coverage can easily lead people to believe that molestation of children and the coverup of such crimes has been the rule in the Catholic Church, not the exception. Most people do the right thing, and most priests and nuns and even most bishops are not evil or inhuman - but a few offenders can affect a huge number of victims. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:34 PM Infant mortality in Ireland Deaths/1000 births 1930 1950 1959 70 50 29 The above figures are approximate (from Fig. 1) Jour. Health Economics, Jan. 2011; Irish Life Tables and central Statistics Office. The Tuam Bon Secours Nuns operated he home from 1926-1961. There were 200 infants/children at the home in 1926 when they took charge. There are 796 child death certificates for the entire period, or 22/year. We do not know the condition of children admitted to the home, number of births at the home, number of children at the home/year or any other statistics. All records were given to the government; none has been made public. We know only that approx. 20 bodies were found in a burial shaft in 1975; none recovered since from the area (that was used as a septic field when the institution was a workhouse). We do not know for certain how many bodies are at the site. Catherine Corless, who reported on the home and obtained copies of 796 death certificates, is "certain" that they are buried there. Some interesting anomalies have been found by ground-penetrating radar, but nothing to indicate definitely that burials are there. There are no burial records apparently. The whole story became conflated and fictionized. This thread has become an attack and defense of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy; with attacks on the Nuns for what seems the tenor of the times that they had the Home. It would take a careful reader to sort out the few facts about the Home from the fantasy in most posts. No new information has developed since June 14 in the Irish Press. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: GUEST,mg Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM I think the fear of women increasing their roles is then all the men will leave...and I think it is true that the proportions would swing wildly. But it would sort itself out. And never ever ever allow any children, boys or girls, or even teens, in the sacristy..even if they say other witnesses will be there. They can put on their altar clothes outside in the main part of the church. NEVER EVER HAVE AN ALTAR BOY OR GIRL IN A SACRISTY. Too many awful things have gone on and it is a privilege we have lost, I think forever. I want to scream when I see them come out. And is dressing them up appealing to the creepy part of some priests' psyches? I don't know but read up on what Pope John Paul I said about paraphelia..attachment to the vestments etc. Which I must say explains a lot. And all of this has to be discussed in public, no matter how icky it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 10 Jul 14 - 09:24 AM Just some linked resources from international bodies relalated to clerical child abuse. Resouces |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:53 AM Joe O, While not dealing with tge issue we were discussing, I found this article interesting: Child sexual abuse and the churches: A story of moral failure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:15 AM Joe, the figure 76 percent in tge USA seems suspect to me, what is the source? What precisely does "some treatment" mean? If accurate, how does it compare with other countries? Good points Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:56 AM "Clean up the priesthood, employ married priests with children, problem solved." Can I follow this disgusting piece of bigotry up now I have a little more time in the middle of the week of the Willie Clancy Summer School. I seldom attend church; if I do it is exclusively for funerals of neighbours and friends. One aspect of modernisation I have noticed lately is that the young people who service the masses nowadays have been girls - the last one a month ago was carried out entirely of young altar-girls, and the choir was entirely female. The atmosphere has become such that I got to wondering whether they were as much at risk as boys have been in the past. These incidents have never been about the sexual orientation of the offending clergy, rather the prevailing situation and the power wielded by those with influence. Rape has always been been rife within our prison systems, not because the prisoners are overwhelmingly homosexuals, but a simple case of of what is on hand within the system (pun not intended). Mixed-sex prisons - now there's a thought! Please do not let this discussion be used for another of Ake's attacks on homosexuals - I certainly hope that homosexuals are not used as scapegoats when Ireland finally gets around to sorting out the question of church power, which I believe is the root of many of these problems. I also hope that finance does not become a major issue in these discussions - this affair has never been a matter of compensating the victims, though that is an aspect that has to be dealt with, where possible and applicable. It must be in recognising the immeasurable damage that has been done to countless generations of children and assuring that it can never happen again, however that is achieved. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:42 AM Those 20 bodies are those found by the boys. It looks like they were in a burial vault. No other bodies have been found. Excavation is needed to find the other bodies (if, indeed, they were buried at that site!). The ground-penetrating radar found a 12 x 4 meter site with "denser soil," but just what this is can only be determined by excavation. Also a culvert-like reflection, again its meaning not known. One family has applied for exhumation. There is no indication as to when this or other excavation might take place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Jul 14 - 12:16 AM I think you're not reading me carefully enough, Ed. I said above, "As the employer of these individuals [priests], of course the church must bear financial responsibility." I also stated that in the U.S., 74 percent of dioceses provided at least some treatment for victims of child molestation by priests. That leaves 26 percent who did not provide treatment as of 2004, and I think that's terrible. The 2002 guidelines issued in the U.S. require dioceses to provide treatment, so I hope the compliance rate is now closer to 100 percent. I think that in many places in the U.S. Catholic Church, the bishops listened to their lawyers above everything else. Not only in the child molestation scandal, but also in other matters, all too often bishops listened to their legal and financial advisors instead of doing what was right and compassionate. That has been a great source of frustration and disillusion to many of us in leadership positions in the Catholic Church. I think the bishops are doing better now, but I'm not convinced they've turned around completely. Q, you say, "Only the 20 or so bodies in the burial vault have been found." Are you referring to the 1975 discovery of bones by ten-year-old boys, or has the vault been rediscovered in the last few weeks? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:21 PM So, Joe, is it fair to say that the RC church organization has no responsibility for the actions of priests in its employ (they do get paid)? If so, why would this be different from other large organizations, like GM, for example. Would GM get away with saying its not responsible for the actions of those making its cars, that any defects would be the employees, or shift managers issues to deal with? If GM managers knew about this, and did not take corrective action, should they still be able to deflect any responsibility for resulting injuries? It is clear that the persons (employees) in positions of authority within the RC church knew about the abuse, and did not take appropriate and reasonable action to halt it, or stopping its spread- including reporting the crimes to authorities. This made them enablers. As you have stated in the past, Joe, sexual crimes against minors (male and female) under their care has occured in many organizations. Perversion exists with married folks, as well as with those not married. There is clearly no simple solution, but many measures needed to rectify the situation. However, the big wack in the RC pocketbook, likely got the attention of someone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:02 PM "No. the Catholic Church was not "the offender"" The Catholic church was and remains an accomplice to those crimes. "Clean up the priesthood, employ married priests with children, problem solved." Once again you choose to use this as an attack on homosexuals. Married men are just as likely to be pedophiles and rapists as are homosexual men - Problem certainly not solved by persecuting man whose natural sexual tendencies are not your own. Disgusting bigotry against a sexual tendency which is both legal and natural. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: akenaton Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:19 PM " Would that not be especially important for the RC church organization (the offender) to show (to have shown) leadership in that area, a Christian focused organization?" No. the Catholic Church was not "the offender" A large number of adult males who happen to work for the Catholic Church and abused mainly adolescent boys were the "offenders" The Catholic Church may have been guilty of a cover up, but was not guilty of homosexual assault. Clean up the priesthood, employ married priests with children, problem solved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:51 PM "Go ahead. Prosecute those dead people and convict them" Nor is it about prosecuting dead people - another straw man Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:37 PM The Tuam Bon Secours home is no longer discussed. The Children's Minister, Charlie Flanigan, promised a preliminary report in a month (Now 5 weeks since that statement.) The location of the site where the majority of the 796 bodies are buried is being sought. There are no burial records for the children. Only the 20 or so bodies in the burial vault have been found. Catherine Corless does not want the site to be excavated; she is "certain" that the bodies are there. No "new" news since the first week in June. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: GUEST,mg Date: 09 Jul 14 - 01:06 PM actually some have claimed ritualistic abuse...which is terrifying. The priest who murdered the nun and was just buried was alleged to have been involved in this but hopefully not with children. Other cases are alleged as well. I think more will come out with the investigation now ordered for England. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Jul 14 - 09:20 AM Sorry Joe, but it has never been about the fallibility of human beings - I think Mike has covered that pretty well. It is about the role of the hierarchy of the Church and whether it makes them a suitable body to continue to occupy the position that they have in the past and are fighting to retain. Until you get around to addressing that you will not even have touched on the problem. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 09 Jul 14 - 08:21 AM "Maybe I'm not completely understanding what you're saying about a double standard, Ed. (T)." My observation, Joe is you stated that you feel there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, requiring the offender requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again. Would that not be especially important for the RC church organization (the offender) to show (to have shown) leadership in that area, a Christian focused organization? While you note a few local examples of local initiatives of early financial compensation (not the issue) , there seems to be no evidence that there was any broad based initiative to "work with the victims of RC sex abuse to make them whole again". I believe the testimony of many victims and court and newspaper reports indicate the opposite occured, in many, if not most, cases. However, significant resources were focused on attempts to "hide" the crimes, and make the offenders (aka priests) "whole again". So, if your statement represents your views related to most offenders, why would it differ forvthe RC church organization? You seem to focus on the financial settlements, many court imposed - IMO, designed to punish the church, to compensate those abused and mostly ignored, and to send a message to all organizations...not to make the victims whole again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:39 AM Mike, the fallible people who created the harsh conditions at Tuam (which closed in 1961 and was at its worst in the 1940s)....they're dead, or at least most of them are. The ones still living were too young at the time to have much say-so. If they were alive, then I'd say that they should be prosecuted if it can be proved that they committed crimes. I have never said that "sincerely held faith" is any excuse for criminal behavior, and it would be wrong for you or anybody to imply that I would say such a thing. If anything, that would add to the culpability of the miscreant, because it would make him/her also a hypocrite. But 1961 was a long, long time ago (53 years, to be exact) - and so far, there has been no attempt to collect the evidence needed to get an accurate view of what truly happened at Tuam. Go ahead. Prosecute those dead people and convict them, and then dance on their graves or whatever else it is you want to do. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: MGM·Lion Date: 09 Jul 14 - 05:24 AM But, Joe, you seem to me evading the point that this "fallibility" had consequences which, in any other context, would almost certainly have led these "fallible" people to have to face some consequences: internal disciplinary action other than merely being posted elsewhere to get on with it somewhere else; even perhaps criminal charges for neglect:- which consequences were fudged by those in authority or otherwise evaded by the "fallible"; and this, it appears to those outside the charmed circle, because things done in a context of "sincerely held faith" are for some reason to be regarded as exceptions to the general rules governing normal social intercourse. I am afraid the rest of us just don't buy it. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:52 AM I've answered the facts as best and as honestly I can, Jim - and I have to say that the facts do not make the Catholic Church look good. But in the end, it makes Catholics look like fallible humans, and and you and Musket and your ilk do not seem to be able to understand or tolerate the fallibility of humanity. Take note of what I've posted in the Hitchcock thread. The reality of life isn't pretty. If you expect humans to be perfect, you will be continually disappointed. If you expect humans to be human, you will be continually surprised...and perhaps inspired. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:30 AM " Musket and Jim Carroll, to determine which one can be more huffily Morally Superior than the other...." Please don't leave yourself out of all this Joe - you are doing sterling work in avoiding every single point being made. It really doesn't say a great deal for your honesty and sincerity. Answer the facts being presented rather than taking snideswipes at those presenting them Are they true or are they not important enough for you to bother with? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:18 AM Jack Campin says: He was the main man in charge in charge while his senile fascist boss was gibbering his way into the same mental state as his pal Ronnie Reagan. Well, Jack, you're right about John Paul II and Ronnie Reagan....and Maggie Thatcher seemed to be of the same, dottering ilk. But Ratzinger bucked the curia and was the first in the Vatican to take action against child abuse. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:14 AM This is rather interesting to watch. There almost seems to be a competition between Musket and Jim Carroll, to determine which one can be more huffily Morally Superior than the other.... There are real issues to be explored here, and they need to be explored honestly. Unfortunately, Mr. Musket and Mr. Carroll are too busy being Morally Superior to actually spend honest time exploring the issues realistically. They're striving so hard to claim the same Moral Superiority they accuse church people of claiming. Maybe they should get together with the righteous Church Ladies and have tea. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jack Campin Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:13 AM the babies died at a rate of about twenty per year, and of natural causes. A death rate that high is NOT natural. It implies lethal neglect. Anybody responsible in a secular institution would be facing criminal proceedings - those nuns killed far more children than any 19th century baby farmer. Instead, what's happened is that their accomplices in the Church hierarchy have conspired to keep them beyond the reach of the law. If you're right, their superiors were not always the local Church organization and they were directly accountable to the Pope. Fine, extradite Ratzinger for perverting the course of justice. He was the main man in charge in charge while his senile fascist boss was gibbering his way into the same mental state as his pal Ronnie Reagan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Musket Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:40 AM I suppose pointing out that there was no septic tank is like pointing out a "mind your head" sign at the entrance to gas chambers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:12 AM "Jim Carroll will now rush to the dais and huffily insist that he never accused anyone at Tuam of murder" You would make your case far better if, instead of claiming what I would "huffily" do, you directly answered some of the points made and not surround yourself with an army of straw men to slay. The child molestations wre acts of individuals - nobody has claimed the church held rituals in which children were raped. Those crimes were widely known about by other members of the clergy, who either ignored them and treated as eccentricities, or passed them on to a higher authority, who, by and large did nothing about them until thet got 'out of hand'. The perpetrator would then be moved on to another parish, where he was allowed to continue his abusive behaviour. If that got out of hand, he was sent abroad, often to Africa - out of sight. This makes the church an accomplice to the crimes. Since all this has come to light, the church has continually refused to co-operate with investigations; Mea Maxima Culpa, involving the abuse of deaf children, showed that Bishops refused to co-operate at the time, allowing the abuses to continue, and since then, has dragged its feet in allowing access to information which would bring all the facts into the open - this includes a massive amount of documentation held by the Vatican an refused access to. These are criminal acts, and had they been carried out by education or hospital authorities, all those concerned would have long bee prosecuted and punished under the law - they certainly would never have been allowed to continue to hold positions of responsibility in society. The contempt that officers of the church held ordinary people in has been a running theme in all of this. When the parents of Smythe, the most prolific of the abusers, reported his abuses to the Bishop, they were told to go home and pray for the souls of their children - Smythe was allowed to continue. Others were bullied into silence, or told that their children were liars - grotesque monsters. Right up to the present day the Magdalene Nuns have shown no contrition, describing their victims as the "sweepings of the street" - they have refused point blank to pay a penny towards the pitiful compensation being paid out , leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill. In many cases, the victims have been treated as criminals; a couple of years ago, one victim who turned up to church to protest at the inviting of a Bishop who actively covered up abusers, was booed and driven out of the church by the priest and congregation (we have our share of red-necks). The Catholic church is rapidly earning the contempt of the people of Ireland, not just because of past behaviour, but by continuing contempt for the people of whom they once held sway. They have lost the respect of the nation, and while you continue to prevaricate, you will have done the same here Joe (I refuse to lower myself to your appallingly 'surnames-only' behaviour grow up). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Jul 14 - 02:46 AM Maybe I'm not completely understanding what you're saying about a double standard, Ed. I'm not able to find data on early responses by dioceses to sex molestation by priests. I'm guessing that if insurance companies refused to insure dioceses against such claims as early as 1986, that many dioceses must have had a system of paying damages and offering counseling that was similar to mine. It's been my belief that most dioceses had such a system set up, but I have direct knowledge of such systems only in Sacramento and Milwaukee, the two dioceses where I worked for many years as both volunteer and employee. The 2004 John Jay Report says that 74 percent of U.S. Catholic dioceses had made payment for victim treatment. I'm sure that some of those dioceses didn't pay much; and the fact that 26 percent of dioceses paid nothing, is indeed deplorable. The 200-page PDF of the John Jay Report is available here (click). Information on treatment and compensation of victims begins on page 103. Even in the 1960s, when I was a seminarian in Milwaukee, the archdiocese had a serious concern about sexual abuse by priests. The screening process we went through in college was lengthy and intensive. It's the callous responses that get covered in the press, so one can easily get the impression that the "dark side" is the predominant side. I think that there were many dioceses that showed a genuine concern about sexual abuse by priests, but you don't hear about those dioceses. But it's clear from the John Jay report that 26 percent of dioceses made no attempt to pay for treatment of victims of sex abuse by priests - and that's deplorable. The Wikipedia article on Catholic sex abuse cases has a lot of good information, but not the historical detail I'd like to see. The John Jay Report gives a lot of good information - and the executive summary at the beginning is a reasonable amount of reading that will give a good overview. For most of my life, I have subscribed to the Jesuit America Magazine, and the independent National Catholic Reporter. I have also occasionally subscribed to the independent Commonweal Magazine. To my mind, these are the three magazines that thinking American Catholics read - my parents subscribed to the Jesuit America Magazine when I was a kid, and I began subscribing to National Catholic Reporter when I was in college. All three have been highly critical of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church for many, many years - and I think their coverage of this issue has been brutally honest. Since America is owned by a religious order, Rome was able to force the removal of one editor, Fr. Tom Reese, but America soon bounced back with even more forceful coverage. Of the three, I'd say that America is the most popular. I think most U.S. priests have ready access to it. I would say that the general attitude of these publications toward the sex abuse crisis has been "agonized soul-searching." These three publications never seem to cover up anything, and they never seem afraid to ask any question. They have always acknowledged sex abuse as a serious problem in the Catholic Church. Other Catholic publications have occasionally made some mention of the sex abuse crisis, but it's rare that they discuss the matter seriously. And then there are a few that either deny the abuse completely, or blame it all on heretical liberals. I think I have a fairly balanced perspective on the sexual abuse crisis in the U.S. I've studied it quite closely since the 1960s. But I have a friend, Esther, a tough old nun in her eighties, who isn't so sure I have it straight. One time she said, "Joe, you don't know the half of it. We told them (the diocese) years and years ago, and they just didn't listen." Esther is one of the most honest and insightful people I know. If she has questions, then I have to keep asking questions. -Joe- One other thing - here's a 2004 article for Hearst newspapers by Thomas G. Plante, one of the foremost experts on the U.S. Catholic sex abuse crisis: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Sexual-abuse-by-Catholic-priests-Next-steps-2785669.php. An excerpt:
How do we put these numbers in perspective? Tragically, the best available data from both the federal government and a number of independent researchers suggest that sexual victimization of children is neither rare nor confined to the Catholic Church. In fact, about 20 percent of American women and 15 percent of American men report that they were victims of child sexual abuse, with about 80 percent reporting that the abuse was perpetrated by a family member. Sexual abuse by other groups of men who have regular unsupervised contact with and power over children appears to occur at levels similar to those associated with priests. About 5 percent of school teachers, for instance, have sexually victimized a student; 15 percent of Americans report being the target of sexual misconduct by a teacher while in primary or secondary school. Apparently, other groups also need to conduct their own John Jay study. We naturally expect better behavior from religious leaders such as priests than from other men, however. Furthermore, we expect that church officials would deal with sexual abuse allegations with concern, responsibility and stellar ethics. Tragically, we have come to realize that some priests and bishops behaved very badly. The frequent recent reminders of the clergy sexual abuse problem in the American Catholic Church can't feel very good for anyone. Victims and their families are often retraumatized and thwarted in their attempts to heal and move on with their lives. The 96 percent of priests who have not abused children as well as average Catholics in the pews once again feel saddened, depressed and angry. They must find ways to make sense of such horrific behavior among their clergy as well as defend their faith tradition from frequent attacks, ridicule and jokes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:29 PM Getting back to the statement: "I think there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, requiring the offender explore the possibility of requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again."" What you mention is primarily early financial payments by your local, which I suspect was not the norm, Joe, in the USA or elsewhere. The coverup denials, and movement of priests seem to be widespread, international in scope, if you may. It seems odd that this would have occured so broadly, without some form communication or coordination from the top, or between the bishops. If you listen to what many victims state, it is frustration that their plight was ignored by the church, which they valued and trusted. Rather than genuinely working with compassion to make them whole again, they were marginalized and vilified by the church organization. I suspect if genuine outreach efforts were made to help these people deal with the crimes, and root out the evil (which is part of the victims healing) *, vastly fewer and lower punitive cases and amounts would have evolved from the great bitterness. However, I note that millions was spent on the criminal priests who broke the trust...in efforts to heal, cure and make them whole again. Where did those millions come from, also the pockets of parishoners, I suspect. what puzzles me in your early statement (I highlighted above) , which led me to my questions is what I see as a double standard....one for most victims, and another for victims of those acting within the RC church organization. Can't you see why such actions would be a serious blight on the church, Joe? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:56 PM I don't really know if I could say I have grass in my lawn, Ed. I do have a huge crop of plantain that was growing pretty high, though - and I guess the brown stuff underneath it could be called grass if you were really generous about it.....Good thing my garden tractor has a cupholder so I could have something cold to keep me company. So, the child molestation and the coverup by bishops and the amounts of reparation paid.....it's a very complex and interesting issue. I live in the Diocese of Sacramento, California. From 1979-1993, during the worst of the child molestation crisis, we had an exemplary bishop, Francis Quinn. He instituted what I thought was a very good policy for dealing with child molestation complaints. Victims of major offenses were offered a settlement of $40,000, which was about half the cost of a decent house in this area at the time. Victims of less serious offenses were offered $25,000, like the adult woman who was "groped" by a priest who thought she was in love with her. These settlements were given for all reasonably credible offenses, with no need for a trial. Victims were also offered counseling at diocesan expense. I think it was 1986 when insurance companies refused to cover dioceses for child molestation claims. After whatever date that was, the dioceses had to pay the claims, and our diocese paid every reasonable claim without hesitation. I don't know if there were nondisclosure agreements connected to the settlements, but those are common in out-of-court settlements because they help keep settlements from escalating. I suppose that nondisclosure can also be understood as keeping the story from the press and maybe (or maybe not) from the police, but the primary purpose is to prevent a "run on the bank." If you look under Sacramento at bishop-accountability.org, you will see that the Sacramento Diocese has a relatively short list of offenders, and that all of the cases were handled openly. So.....we thought our diocese did the right thing. And many U.S. dioceses had done the right thing. This problem of child molestation first came to light in the 1960s - it was not a new thing. Bishops spent millions on psychological testing of seminarians, and on treatment facilities that psychiatrists guaranteed would cure priests. But everything changed in 2002. All hell broke loose, and it came to light that bishops in a number of dioceses in the United States had covered up incidents and moved priests instead of firing them and referring them to prosecution. There was a national outrage, and rightly so. California and many other states lifted statutes of limitation on child molestation claims, and the price of settlements went up and up. By the time things settled down, the rate of compensation was $1 million, and all the victims in my diocese who had already been compensated years ago, received an additional million dollars. The same thing happened all over the U.S. There were a number of dioceses that had callously done their best to evade responsibility, and their coverups caused a scandal that hurt those dioceses who had done the right thing from the start. And bishops and management personnel in some of those offending dioceses should be in jail for what they did. It should be noted though, that in 2002 the U.S. bishops set forth a number of guidelines meant to prevent molestation of children; and from my experience in security matters, I and say I think they're very good guidelines. No preventive measures are perfect, but these are quite good. Only one bishop failed to sign onto the agreement to adopt these measures, and he's now retired. But please remember that the crime of child molestation was committed by individuals, not by the church. As the employer of these individuals, of course the church must bear financial responsibility. I'm sure some will say I'm a horrible person for saying so, but a million dollars is far more generous than the rate of liability compensation that you'll find for malpractice in most situations in the U.S. - and a million dollars, or even fifty million dollars, will not do a thing to heal the harm done by a child molester. Catholics were sincerely outraged by the harm and the betrayal done by some of their priests, compounded by some of their bishops. And yes, there were some Catholics who had a hard time believing accusations levelled against priests they had known and loved for years. Looking down the list of California and Wisconsin priests accused of offenses, I can see a number of friends I just can't believe would do such a thing - but the evidence is there, so I have to believe it. We still haven't heard the full story. No bishop has stepped forward to explain how and why these coverups happened, and why accused priests were transferred instead of being suspended and referred to law enforcement authorities. I suppose the trouble is, that the hysteria level is so high that honest discussion is impossible. If a bishop dared to open his mouth, he would be inundated with million-dollar damage claims. And the trouble with those million-dollar claims is that typically, lawyers collect half of the awards in fees, even if the lawyer has done nothing more than file a claim form. Entire law firms in the U.S. deal in nothing but Catholic child molestation claims. It's big business, and it has no interest in healing the people who were harmed by the molesters. Victims of crimes are healed by quiet compassion and counseling and just compensation, and just punishment for offenders - not by huge settlements and big headlines. So, yeah, I'm opening myself to all sorts of outrage by saying that million-dollar settlements are excessive. And it could well be that the outrageous conduct of a few callous bishops is a large part of the reason for those million-dollar settlements. What's happening now is that a number of dioceses are filing for bankruptcy, leaving some victims with huge settlements and some with nothing - and continuing to drain the contributions of parishioners who had nothing to do with this wrongdoing. There are no easy answers, and so much of it has to do with blame and retribution and self-righteous outrage that has nothing to do with healing the victims and preventing future crimes. I'm sure this statement gives the screamers plenty to scream about, but that's what I think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jack Campin Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:59 PM prosecuting a crime after 20 years doesn't do much good For fucksake, these crimes are NOT 20 years old, they are ongoing. The Church's sleazebag hierarchy has been lying to protect the killers all the way up to the present day. They are STILL criminally withholding information to cover their arses. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:49 PM Engineers have found two anomalies at the site, using ground penetrating radar. One is a box or culvert-like structure about 5m by 5m, that is most likely man-made, according to engineers examining the site. Another area. 12 by 4 mters, is anomalous in that the area is more dense than the covering or adjacent soil. The article shows maps and sections. The Children's Home Graveyard Committee and Caherine Corless cooperated in the project. It is suggested that slit trenches are the next step. It has been suggested that the children are not in the ground, but Catherine Corless says "I still believe that they are in that ground." Daily Mail, 8 June 2014, "We need to dig babies graves':....." Alison O'Reilley and Neil Michael www.dailymail.co.uk A lot remains to be learned about the site and the burials. One family has made a formal exhumation request. The anomalies found may belong to the age of the workhouse, or they may be later; only digging will answer that question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:31 PM Not meaning to call you out, Joe, just seems like an oddly different standard, if my RC church isdues recollection is correct. There's grass in California (I suspect you refer to the non-medicinal type)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:22 PM Rog, you question my thinking on statutes of limitations. Please remember that I'm thinking out loud here, not enacting legislation. Yes, I think that for most crimes, a twenty-year statute of limitations would be appropriate. Murder is an obvious exception, as is rape. In the period that the Tuam home existed, 1925-1961, we have records that show that eight babies died of malnutrition - and we don't know the circumstances. In fact, there's a lot that we don't know about Tuam and the other institutions, and it is essential that we know the facts and study them impartially before we come to any conclusions. There are those who want to blame the entire thing on the Church, and want to hold the Vatican responsible for it all. Others blame local churchmen and nuns. Others might be willing to admit that local and national governments of Ireland must bear a good part of the blame. I think that in honesty, Irish society and all of Western society must bear a significant portion of the blame, because these institutions carried out what seems to have been the will of the people. That sort of thinking is diminishing now, but Western society has long condemned unwed mothers as "bad girls," while holding the fathers blameless. The Church was complicit in this and is certainly not blameless, but this has been the thinking of all of society - not something imposed on society by churches. But back to statutes of limitations. As I said above, my personal feeling is that prosecuting a crime after 20 years doesn't do much good; and I think that society is wasting its resources if it puts extraordinary effort into resolving crimes that are more than twenty years old. But yes, there are crimes like murder and rape that cause such outrage and such trauma that twenty years isn't long enough. For such crimes, I think we should stop attempts at prosecution at fifty years, because I can't imagine being able to conduct a fair trial after more than fifty years. People bring up the fact that the Germans kept meticulous records during the Holocaust that could be used as evidence, but then I ask why weren't those meticulous records used in prosecution fifty years ago. So, now that the Holocaust is almost seventy years ago, I think it's time to stop trying to prosecute ninety-year-olds for crimes they committed at the age of twenty. Admittedly, this discussion of statutes of limitations and the Holocaust and such is a sideline, but there are parallels. As I have said before, the conditions in the church-run institutions in Ireland in the first half of the twentieth century were indeed deplorable. I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Carroll's "never again" declaration. I'm also pleased to see that Jim Carroll admits that prosecution is not the appropriate response to the way these institutions were operated half a century ago. And yet, we have here a case where the Tuam story created an international outrage against an order of nuns and the Catholic Church for murdering* 800 babies and dumping their bodies into a septic tank. The nuns and the church were prosecuted in the press, and the call for execution has been loud and clear. Except for the fact that it appears the bodies were buried in soil, not dumped in a septic tank. And the babies died at a rate of about twenty per year, and of natural causes. So much speculation has clouded the issue of these institutions, that it is becoming more and more difficult to sort out the truth. The Philomena movie and other accounts are very helpful, but we must also take note that such movies have modified information to make it work as a movie. We have a lot to learn from this issue, but we can learn only if we make an honest and thorough exploration of all the facts of the matter. We can't learn if we are shrouded in speculation and rash generalizations. Ed T brings up an issue: That (restorative justice) is exactly where I suggested (in earlier discussions) where the RC church failed with the priest sex abuse cases, Joe. Because of that failure, and frustration from the victims, they paid faced a significant financial cost. That's a matter worthy of discussion, Ed, and I agree with you to a great extent. I guess I'd better cut the grass before I post an answer. Let's talk about that later. -Joe- *Jim Carroll will now rush to the dais and huffily insist that he never accused anyone at Tuam of murder, so let me agree that's true. Jim did not make such an accusation. But Musket termed the 800 deaths at Tuam as murder, and so did some others here and many others in the press. And yes, no doubt that someone will attack me for using 800 as a number instead of 796, but so be it. All we really know about Tuam is that Catherine Corless found 796 death certificates for people who died at the Tuam home, and that various natural causes were listed as the cause of death. That's a good starting point, and it's clear that more facts are available - but most of what we've read is sheer speculation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:27 PM That "concrete septic tank" keeps showing up in posts. There was none. A slab the size "of a coffee table" covered the remains of a number of small children. This has been reported in the Irish Times, and was mentioned earlier in this thread. This conjectorily was the location of a shaft burial vault. Maps show the area of the burials as a septic or leach field in the days when the establishment was a workhouse. The operation had ceased when the buildings and grounds passed to the nuns. Catherine Corless, the historian who broke the story (see Irish Times, June 7, 2004), concluded that many of the 796 children had been buried in an unofficial graveyard at the rear of the home. The grassy space has been tended for decades by local people, and a small grotto was put up in one corner. (Bold type is mine). In long decades past, the area was a waste disposal area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Rog Peek Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:19 AM "When things have happened in the past, I think we need to stop and question what good will be done by opening those wounds all over again. I think twenty years is a good number. If it happened more than twenty years ago, there's little you can do to fix it, so maybe it's time to drop it." (5 June.) "I will continue to think that 50-year-old crimes are a matter for sociologists and historians, not for prosecutors. It's too late for any effective or reasonable punishment, but there are still many lessons to be learned from such crimes that have a wide effect. I think a fifty-year statute of limitations is reasonable for any crime, no matter how serious - and even that is too long to allow for a truly fair trial." (8 Jul.) Joe, I take some comfort from the fact you have extended your statute of limitations from 20yrs to 50 yrs. However I do not believe that just because those who commit certain horrendous crimes have avoided the law that there should ever come the day when they can relax and stop looking over their shoulder. In this way, at least they will have served a 'sentence' of sorts. Rog |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:37 AM "Could it be, Mr. Carroll, that in your vast experience, you have never seen a concrete septic tank? " We have a very fine one of our own - it's where we dispose of our shit - not unwanted babies Tell me - is your consecrated - I believe that's an issue with Catholics? " will continue to think that 50-year-old crimes are a matter for sociologists and historians," Who ever mentioned prosecutors other than yourself? What is an issue with me is that those who facilitated those crimes, and those who continue to hide evidence of them are not fit to hold positions they have in the past. Putting these crimes on 'the long finger' and making them 'history' has become an excuse for them. You are lying when you claim I am making 'self-righteous declarations' - I am not, nor do go in for that sort of thing. I have presented as fairly as I can what is happening here at present - which akes the whole of Ireland "self-righteous declarers". You have yet to address one aspect of these long-term criminal activities other than to write them of as an unfortunate part of history. Never again - that is my only declaration. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Ed T Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:07 AM ""I think there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, requiring the offender explore the possibility of requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again."" That is exactly where I suggested (in earlier discussions) where the RC church failed with the priest sex abuse cases, Joe. Because of that failure, nd frustration from the victims, they paid faced a significent financial cost. I seem to recall you "sluffed off" this suggestion (related to the RC failures to show compassion for healing the victims)( when I raised it, Joe. My recollection, is you were focused on bitterness that members of the church had to pay the financial costs for crimes, which took money from other initiatives. While the direct offenders were the priests, the RC organization (and its members) also bore responsibility fir the offences as an enabler. There was no interest shown in the RC church to explore opportunities to make the victims whole again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:47 AM And to let Mr. Carroll finally get to rest, let me say that I agree that it would be totally wrong to bury anyone in a container that had been used as a septic tank. I'm truly sorry if he misunderstood me. But a concrete vault, is a concrete vault. Such vaults can be used for many things - bomb shelters, burial places, vaults for storing and preserving things, and septic tanks. Could it be, Mr. Carroll, that in your vast experience, you have never seen a concrete septic tank? It looks just like a concrete burial vault,, and it usually has no label on it specifying what it is to be used for. It doesn't become a septic tank until the plumbing is added. What's my point, Jim? Let me repeat: I will continue to think that 50-year-old crimes are a matter for sociologists and historians, not for prosecutors. It's too late for any effective or reasonable punishment, but there are still many lessons to be learned from such crimes that have a wide effect. I think a fifty-year statute of limitations is reasonable for any crime, no matter how serious - and even that is too long to allow for a truly fair trial. And while I know that the Ryan Report focused primarily on the industrial schools, it also covered the Magdalene Laundries and the mother-and-baby homes. And the mother-and-baby homes were covered in the Philomena book and movie, and the Magdalene Laundries in Magdalene Sisters. That makes all this stuff about the Tuam home a recycled scandal - one based on a distorted story that kept getting more and more twisted until it became an international outcry about babies being dumped in a septic tank. No doubt that conditions in these institutions were bad, but the outrage about this Tuam thing is simply yet another recycling of a story that has been known for a long, long time. It's time to stop the screaming and the self-righteous and the blanket declarations. It's time to study this whole system of institutions and abuse, and learn the lessons they have to teach us. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:42 AM Sorry - what's your point Joe (sorry -refuse to stoop to your childish sulky level - it certainly doesn't in any way respond to a single point I've made. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:16 AM That's certainly a valid point, Eliza. I think though, that there is no right or wrong answer here - it's strictly a matter of widely differing opinions. It's up to those with responsibility to achieve a balance that does its best to satisfy differing interests. I certainly sympathize with the victims, but I just can't see how it does any good to prosecute a 90-yr-old for crimes he committed when he was twenty. And I think that sometimes, those who scream loudest demanding retribution, are the ones who have the least interest in the victim. Retribution does little to heal an injury. I think there is good reason to explore the principles of restorative justice, which explore the possibility of requiring the offender to work to make the victim whole again. And to my mind, a twenty-year-old does not have the maturity of judgment that one has at thirty, and that should be a mitigating factor. Q asks how these references to the Holocaust are relevant. Although the Tuam home closed in 1961, the worst abuses too place in the 1930s and 1940s, about the same time as the crimes of the Holocaust. I will continue to think that 50-year-old crimes are a matter for sociologists and historians, not for prosecutors. It's too late for any effective or reasonable punishment, but there are still many lessons to be learned from such crimes that have a wide effect. I think a fifty-year statute of limitations is reasonable for any crime, no matter how serious - and even that is too long to allow for a truly fair trial. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:59 AM Regarding the Holocaust, the Germans were assiduous in their record-keeping. The 'Final Solution' was monitored to ensure the 'new methods' of genocide were as effective as possible. In fact, if a death camp was not delivering enough death according to 'the figures', military inspectors arrived, the Kommandant was sent packing, and a new one installed, with fresh ideas of a better killing system. Records are available from these sources. It would seem also that, in spite of the enormous and horrifying death toll, there were survivors of the 300 plus extermination camps, and surely their testimonies count for something? The young man who killed at the age of 20 is still alive. His girlfriend is not. If the Courts deem one is of adult age and guilty, one must pay the price for one's deeds. Anything less would be an insult to the deceased's family. He is fortunate not to have paid the ultimate penalty for killing someone. I assume a death sentence didn't pertain in his State. The 'common denominator' in all this punishment/time business is the retribution on behalf of the victims and their families. There's far too much concern for the perpetrators and not nearly enough for the sufferers. An old man who killed is still a killer. An ageing entertainer who once abused children is still a paedophile. Old crimes are still crimes. And punishment should IMO still be meted out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:50 AM Thank you for making my point, Mr. Carroll (I use formal address to match your condescendingly righteous tone). Allow me to quote you quoting me: "Of course all such atrocities are wrong, no matter who commits them. All of them must be studied and responded to, not just those committed by people of religions or nationalities you don't happen to like." And that's the truth. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:21 AM You have persistently avoided answering the criticism made of the church's behaviour by describing it as an attack on the church and have depicted us making those criticisms as "taking advantage of of these tragedies" to do so. "When you take advantage of these tragedies to promote an anti-Catholic agenda, then you go beyond the limits of fair play." "Of course all such atrocities are wrong, no matter who commits them. All of them must be studied and responded to, not just those committed by people of religions or nationalities you don't happen to like." "And on top of that, you and Mr. Carroll are incapable of seeing religion as anything but ideology, because the two of you are so rigidly ideological that you can see nothing else." That, as far as I am concerned, is using our non-belief to undermine our criticisms. It is as unacceptable as your suggesting it permissible to bury dead babies in your septic tank - which you have yet to respond to. "Your opinions, sir, are not valid because you continually fail to support them with logic and evidence" This is patently untrue - I have persistently provided masses evidence in the form of articles, from contemporary statements by doctors and witnesses from the first half of the twentieth century, to links to discussion from today's newspapers - mainly The Irish Times. I have attempted to be even-handed by putting the 'septic tank' ssue to rest, but I have shown what is beig daily reported here and the effect it is having on the church in Ireland. That is my "failure to support my arguments with logic or evidence". You, on the other hand, have attempted to absolve the church from its sins by suggesting it all happened in the dim and distant past and most of the perpetrators are now dead. The extent of my "attack on the church" is that, by their behaviour, they have proven beyond doubt that they are not fit to be allowed to to interfere in matters political, sexual or medical - mountains of evidence for all of these. This has been openly under discussion in Ireland for some time now - nothing to do with an attack on religion - just an attempt to see that this can never happen again. Your lack of response on all of this is an ongoing dishonesty, and it damaging to you as an individual and to your religion. Yu accuse me of lack of logic - please specify instead of alluding. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Jul 14 - 07:20 PM I agree with Joe, trials 60-70 years after the event cannot be fair. A number of the guards were Ukrainian, pressed into service. Could they refuse and not be court-marshalled or immediately shot? I don't know what this has to do with the Tuam Bon Secours nuns. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Jul 14 - 06:49 PM Eliza, please note that the man I spoke of committed only one crime in his life - he murdered his girlfriend when he was about twenty years old. He has not been out of prison since. His petitions for parole have been denied a number of times. While I can understand why people think that crimes of the Holocaust should be prosecuted no matter how long ago they took place, I think it is well-nigh impossible to conduct a fair trial of a crime that took place over 69 years ago, amidst the chaos and confusion of war. And those accused were barely adults when they committed their crimes. Jim Carroll, I quoted your allegation, and I will quote it again: Some of us have been told by Joe that the opinions we hold are not valid because we are atheists and therefore we have an agenda behind what we say and believe. And once again, I challenge you to find just one quote from me that supports your allegation. Your opinions, sir, are not valid because you continually fail to support them with logic and evidence. Belief or lack of belief does not affect the validity of an opinion. What counts, is logic and evidence. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:53 AM The pope has spoken out today against all those in the church who shielded abusers within the ranks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Dead babies and Tuam Bon Secours nuns From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 07 Jul 14 - 09:45 AM WW2 may have ended 69 years ago, but there are still people alive today who witnessed (and incredibly survived) the most unimaginable horrors in the Holocaust. There are death-camp survivors who can never forget (whether they can forgive, I do not know) the abject cruelty and wickedness they suffered, or the faces of the people who committed these atrocities. No matter how old the criminals are, IMO they are still punishable. Any other course is an insult to the millions whom we can never let slip from our collective memories. |
