BS: Clerical Abuse of Children

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 24 Sep 17 - 02:56 AM

Steve Shaw says: And what if the Church doesn't tell the police? Just let the abuse carry on until it does? Then not blame the Church? I'm sure the kids won't mind.

What if "The Church" doesn't tell the police? Churches can't talk. There are individuals in churches who are responsible for reporting crimes against children. They should be held to answer on criminal charges. Kansas City Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City failed to report sex crimes by priests in his diocese. He was convicted of the offense, and resigned his position as bishop. That's how such offenses should be handled.

Since its first article on the subject in 1983, the National Catholic Reporter, a very Catholic publication also in Kansas City but not an organ of the Catholic Church, has published thousands of articles condemning specific Catholic bishops (particularly in the U.S. and Europe) for their well-described offenses in the Catholic sex abuse scandal. Many other Catholics have fought hard and constantly against this sexual misconduct since it was first discovered in the 1960s and discovered on a widespread scale in the 1980s. These good people do not deserve to be blamed for the sex abuse scandal.

You take a top-down view of the Catholic Church that sees all actions and power as existing only in the echelons of upper management. I think that view is invalid and insulting. The Catholic Church is my church, every bit as much as it belongs to the most pretentious cardinal. I don't deserve to be blamed for that cardinal and his watered-silk robes and his outrageous insensitivity to the concerns of people in need. I have fought against him all my life, to keep my share of control over MY church.

Don't blame every Jew for the misdeeds of a few. If you do, you are an anti-Semite.

Don't blame every Catholic for the misdeeds of a few. If you do, you are an anti-Catholic bigot akin to the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan.

Place the blame where the blame belongs - on individuals who are responsible for specific acts of wrongdoing. You cannot resolve this scandal by using a wide brush that includes Catholics who are also opposing this scandal.

The same is true when you blame all Americans for the misdeeds of the Trump Administration.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 02:31 PM

And what if the Church doesn't tell the police? Just let the abuse carry on until it does? Then not blame the Church? I'm sure the kids won't mind.

Institutions wouldn't exist without people belonging to them, without people drawing up the rules and protocols, without people constructing a hierarchy of responsibility. Last time I checked, there was nothing inanimate about people. Oh, and institutions evolve. The people change, the rules are changed and the hierarchy may move with the times (perhaps by being made more democratic, more accountable and by some of its functions being delegated, perhaps regionally as has been mentioned with regard to the Church). The apparent aim of the argument that it's not the institution, it's rotten apples, is to divert the blame away from an institution that is in severe danger of losing its reputation. I'm sure the kids won't mind that either.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jack Campin
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 01:36 PM

Here's a place where the shit is only just starting to hit the fan:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/101east/2017/02/philippines-sins-father-170216113536779.html

Poland is going to be the big one, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 11:34 AM

In case there is any lingering doubt, this is how things stood six years ago - if anything, they have worsened
CRISIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Raggytash
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:57 AM

Best laugh of the day so far !! Thank you Teri-towelling!!

On the one hand you're not looking for any endorsements which you would regard as worthless and with the other castigating other posters for not listening to other people.

Brilliant, love it, keep it up !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: bobad
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 10:38 AM

Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward....

Uk Labour Party.....cough! cough!

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 08:33 AM

"the Church as an entity is not"
The Church hierarchy is guilty of at least complicity to conceal what happened and in some cases to facilitate the continuation of the abuses by passing abusive priests on to parishes where their activities were not known - this latter became an international issue when some abusers ran out of parishes to where they could be passed on to in Ireland and were shipped off abroad
Why do you people continue to deny facts that have long been established in the country where they took place and have done enormous damage to the reputation of the church?
You can deny these facts until they pour out of your ears, but these are what is gradually destroying what remains of the reputation of the church - not ant-Catholic bigots
Even leading members of the hierarchy, such as the Bishop of Dublin, Diarmud Martin have admitted that that the continuing mishandling of these crimes have damaged the church and need addressing urgently
It would be interesting to know exactly where you7 disagree with this general consensus, instead of throwing up irrelevant objections that bear no relation to reality
(Articulate enough, I hope!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:43 AM

"You appear to be arguing that an institution is some kind of inanimate entity, Joe. It isn't. It's made of people. The institution of the Church is hierarchical. Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward - unless urgent, public and direct action is taken to punish the perpetrators." - Shaw

Any institution IS an inanimate entity. How ethically, how efficiently it functions depends upon the people involved and that can change depending upon situations and circumstances and over the course of time - that is not the fault of the institution which remains the same inanimate entity (One that once demanded that heretics be burnt at the Stake - that would not be the case today).

"The institution of the Church is hierarchical." - Superficially that may well APPEAR to be the case. Joe Offer has already taken great pains to point out throughout this thread that each Diocese within the Church operates autonomously under the direction of the Bishop of the Diocese who may or may not take heed, by varying degrees, of guidelines from the Vatican (Joe Offer please NOTE that in writing this as one of the highest ranking problem posters on this forum I am merely stating what you yourself have previously written and that I am not looking in any way, shape, or form, for any "endorsement" from YOU, or anybody else, which I would regard as worthless - Just hope that that is perfectly clear) None of the "usual suspects" appear to have listened to what Joe has had to say, but then that is not uncommon for them, the only people they listen to are themselves as individuals.

"Culpability" with regard to any actual abuse perpetrated remains fixed with the party "Guilty" of the offence - actions that can be taken are constrained by law which requires formal investigation with its required burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt - in the cases being discussed those would and should have been criminal investigations undertaken by the police not by the Catholic Church. Such investigations and examination of evidence offered may well reveal degrees of "Guilt" of persons as accessories AFTER the fact. The institution of the Church itself has no culpability as it has no formally declared hard and fast rules that state it must "protect" and "shield" it's officials from due process of law. Members of the clergy and lay members of church MAY be responsible under law as private individuals guilty of committing offences under criminal law - the Church as an entity is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 07:33 AM

By the way - the victims of a wartime bombing in no way constitutes "common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits" (unless you mean Wimbledon Common of course!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 06:18 AM

"It happened in Coventry after the bombing in WW2."
And it didn't take half a century for people to find out it was there and no doubt all deaths were carefully registered ad their relatives informed of their decease
One of the most moving reports of this present discovery was that an elderly man in tears holding up a photo of him and his bedridden mate taken at the home
He explained how his mate "just disappeared" and nobody was told what happened to him
That is i=the 'human' side of all these events and it is common
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Sep 17 - 05:39 AM

So it is common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits in the event o a catastrophe
The last time that happened in Britain was during the Great Plague - there is such a pit in Hampstead Heath

It happened in Coventry after the bombing in WW2.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 04:55 AM

You appear to be arguing that an institution is some kind of inanimate entity, Joe. It isn't. It's made of people. The institution of the Church is hierarchical. Once these offences become public the culpability passes upward - unless urgent, public and direct action is taken to punish the perpetrators. Anything else is an institutional cover-up, and that cover-up is perpetrated by people who fully represent that institution. No-one blames the institution for offences committed by individuals, unless of course the institution has deliberately contrived to place them where they are more likely to offend. I would put quietly moving errant priests to distant parishes in that category. No-one is saying that everyone who belongs to the institution is to blame for offences committed by individuals. But what happens after those offences are exposed is crucial to this argument. To hold the Church as an institution to account is not bigotry, and to accuse the challengers of bigotry is just an attempt at evasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Sep 17 - 03:51 AM

". What it means is that people within the institutions are the ones who make the decisions. "
No Joe - it's people who run and control these institutions who make the decisions, just like it is the captains of industry or the boards of education, or the occupiers of the White House or The Prime Ministers office who make the rules
The rest just follow orders
If the thinking behind the rules are bad, the whole organisation is rotten and in need of reform
Inevitably, if things go wrong, them upstairs will pick one of their minions to take the blame - as is happening here
I don' believe that abusive priests are necessarily evil, even f what they did was
They were weak, often sick individuals as much in need of help as their victims.
It is the situation they were operating in that needs examining and reforming and until that happens your organisation will never be trusted again
I have always believed that religion should be totally voluntary and that those who run it should have no power other than that of spiritual advisors offering advice that has to be accepted or rejected freely by people who haven't been pre-conditioned to automatically accept it without question - rejecting totally the arrogant Jesuit boast that they could take a child and mould it like plasticine
These events took place in an atmosphere of fear of and domination by a clergy that had power beyond life itself - the power to threaten eternal damnation to those who stepped out of line.
Your churches, throughout the world, bacame part of the toxic mix of religion and politics and allowed themselves to become the weapons of monsters like Henry VIII, and Empires oppressing the poor of the world for gain and self aggrandisement - in doing so, the Church became as rich and powerful as those they served - richer even.
Right into the twentieth century, the Vatican stayed silent while church leaders supported dictators like Hitler, Pinochet, Salazar, and all those vicious torturers who terrorised entire third-world countries - all had Archbishops backing up their atrocities to make them respectable.
In all this, your religion got lost and its ordinary followers forgotten
Sure - there were exceptions - Archbishop Romero, Martin Luthur King and Desmond Tutu are among my heroes - or nearer home, Canon Collins, Hewlett Johnson - as far back as John Ball
I have a massive respect for the last Bishop of Kilaloe, Willie Walsh, who dedicated a great deal of his time to defending Travellers rights - but all these were embarrassing misfits whose work was largely rejected or ignored by the church - the hierarchy were probably part of the murder of Romero
Your Augean Stable is very much in need of a clean-out, before those who have been betrayed by it burn it down altogether
Stop blaming the few and start accepting that the problem goes far deeper than their individual actions
Respectfully
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 11:53 PM

Jim says (and Steve says more-or-less the same): Institutions are neutral - doesn't that depend on whose in charge?

No, Jim. What it means is that people within the institutions are the ones who make the decisions. Institutions do not make decisions, and institutions do not do right or wrong. It's the people who make the decisions, not the institutions. People within the institution who oppose faulty decisions, should not be considered culpable for those decisions.

I'm not denying any of the wrongdoing that took place within the Catholic Church - but it's not the church that did the wrong, it's individuals. Those individuals who did wrong should be tried and punished for their wrongdoing, and restricted so they cannot commit the same wrong again. But to blame an entire group for the wrongdoing of a few, is a classic example of bigotry.

Blaming an institution for wrongdoing, is faulty logic in two different ways: it tends to absolve or hide the culpability of those who actually committed the offenses, and it tends to spread blame on those who were not involved or who opposed the offenses.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 08:27 PM

"Jim I fail to see why you insist on condemnation an entire church because of some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY."
Iains
I fail to see why you tke a minute part of muy argument and totally ignore that the behaviour of the hierarchy of the church brought the whole position of the church to the verge of ruin
The rape of children were down to individuals - the ignoring, covering up and even facilitating those reps over decades (at least) was down to the hierarchy
The MMAGDALENE LAUNDRIES , where "fallen women" were incarcerated, humiliated, beaten and, if their condition led tem to giving birth, had their babie taken from them and sold to wealthy buyers, ran from the 18th century to the end of the 20th, the last one closed on 1096
The INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS beat, humilated and sexually abused boys from the first half of the nineteenth to the late twentieth century
How can you possibly put this dwn to some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY.
COME ON - you are not even trying.
Unless you are passing this off as "false news" how can you - how can anybody possibly defend it or minimise it?
Do you think these accounts are fake?
"but I have also seen many church leaders who have done remarkably good things."
Immaterial Joe - I believe Goebbels loved cats
Goodness does not absolve badness
" I wonder how the Catholic Church was supposed to be able to regulate this guy's stupidity."
You are not responding to the point I have already made - "it wasn't this guy's stupidity" that was the problem - it was the power he weilded to enable him to inflict that cruelty - it was also the state of minds of the victims that allowed that cruelty to be inflicted without striking back in some way
These guys were as powerful as AL Capone - that was still obvious right up
to the point when we moved here in !998 among older people
That is going gradually - appeasing those ways stands to slow down that departure.
Your church really is crumbling - I don't want that to happen - not this way.
I would be delighted to see all religions taught as philosophies alongside political and cultural philosophies and measured against one another rather than taught as individual dogmas which set people against one another.
Institutions are neutral - doesn't that depend on whose in charge?
That's like saying all western governments are democratic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 07:06 PM

I'm not clear about what you are saying. You appear to be claiming that people who wish to see the INSTITUTION of the Church account for itself are bigots. Therein lies an assumption that anyone who challenges the Church on this is a triumphalist anti-Catholic. Well, just maybe those people are prioritising, just for once, the interests of the victims of the abuse, and are complaining about the reluctance of the Church to do the same. That's where I stand, so call me a bigot if you like. In return, I might just call you a defensive denier of the Church's role in all this. Of course, I may have got you wrong. I hope so.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:47 PM

I get that, Steve. Bigotry is widespread. Bigotry is the easy way out. It involves very little thinking, and absolves the bigot of personal responsibility.

But as I said, the Church is morally neutral. It can do no right, and it can do no wrong. It cannot defend itself, so it's an easy target. Only people can do all these things.

The coward targets the group, and then extends blame to the members of the group. It takes courage and hard work to identify and resolve wrongdoing.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:31 PM

Yes it's the individual who bears the primary blame, but surely this discussion is also about the INSTITUTIONAL cover-up of the wrongdoing, the Church playing down/denying/ lying about the misdeeds, quietly moving miscreant priests to areas where they are not known, failing to point the finger...all done for the interests of the church and nothing at all to do with the interests of the abused children, who the Church appears to see as something of an embarrassment. I'm up for hearing your defence of the Church on those specific grounds. But the argument that it isn't the fault of the Church, it's just a few rotten apples...you may think that that argument washes, Joe, but the world isn't with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:24 PM

Jim, time and time again you have accused me of denying or defending wrongdoing done in the Catholic Church, and that is untrue and unfair. I acknowledge that wrongdoing has been a widespread scandal in the Catholic Church, but I have also seen many church leaders who have done remarkably good things.

I see the "thanks be to God" story that you told, and I conclude that the priest is a bastard. You see the same story, and you conclude that all priests are bastards - and you have the gall to accuse me of denying the wrongdoing because I do not agree with your broad conclusion.

You say that the Catholic Church created the situation that allowed that insensitive priest to speak so stupidly, and I wonder how the Catholic Church was supposed to be able to regulate this guy's stupidity. When I attended a U.S. Catholic seminary in the 1960s, all seminarians were required to take at least six months of fulltime Clinical-Pastoral Education, an intense program in hospitals that did all it could to teach future priests and other ministers to respond to such situations with compassion. I know dozens of Irish-born Catholic priests who were educated in seminaries in Ireland at the same time, and they were all trained to respond to tragedies with absolute compassion, just like I was. Some of them respond very well, some are mediocre, and some are assholes. Who's to blame for them being assholes?

Institutions are morally neutral. They can do neither right nor wrong. It's the people within the institutions that do the deeds, and it's people who deserve the credit or blame. Your approach is cockeyed. You see people in the church doing wrong, and you blame the church - and then you distribute that blame to all that belong to the church (former members, to your mind, are absolved). Your approach, Jim, is illogical and unfair - and it borders on bigotry. The underlying principle of bigotry is blaming the entire group for the misdeeds of a few members of that group. How does your approach differ from that?

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:19 PM

Jim I fail to see why you insist on condemnation an entire church because of some horrible personal experiences and the publicised failings of a MINORITY. As in all walks of life, not all priests are saints and you seem to insist on judging events of the past in terms of modern mores.
It was a different time, a different milieu, a different paradigm.
The world has progressed and hopefully become more civilised since those times. You seem unable or unwilling to accept this.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:01 PM

"Jim, your "thanks be to God" story was the action of one insensitive priest."
Yes it was Joe, but he was operating in a scenario that enabled his insensitivity to ruin lives
Todays priests may be appalled at what happened but there are plenty of other examples of similar things taking place
It's far too easy to blame the individuals when in fact the problem lies wit the fact that their power and influence allowed them to do such things
WE were an extremely poor family when I was growing up - my father was away from home, sending money when he could, yet the priest would come around every Friday night and demand a donation for the church, which my mother invariably gave, good Catholic girl that she was.
I don't blame the priest - that was his job
Your barrel is getting very full of rotten apples
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:49 PM

Jim, your "thanks be to God" story was the action of one insensitive priest. I would guess that most priests would be appalled at that man's insensitivity, just as you and I were.
There are lots of insensitive people in the world. In fact, all of us do and say insensitive things at times. But there's no church rule that dictates that priests must be insensitive.

And again you repeat: Tha fact o unmarked graves and unresgistered deaths is a long standing and fully accepted fact, particularly in Ireland, where so many of them took place
There's nothing inherently wrong with unmarked graves and unregistered deaths (although it appears that the deaths at Tuam and Lanarkshire were registered, although possibly not to your specifications). But the unmarked graves were just what people did, not something horrific. You appear to advocate cremation and scattering of ashes - what's the difference?

You have failed to provide evidence of anything more than occasional brutality at Tuam and Lanarkshire, and yet you build another of your sweeping condemnations on very limited evidence.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:21 PM

I am sure the priest will make a fine stoker.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM

"but cremation is not "opposed per se to the Christian religion."
My question was rhetorical Nigel - I wished to underline that up to 1963 cremations were totally banned by the church - today's ruling is in fact a compromise
You responded to none of my other examples of church makkie-ups
One of the cruellest examples of these was told to us by a devout Irish Travelling woman – blind from birth and mother of sixteen children (forbidden by the church to use any form of contraception – but that aside)
Her father was an alcoholic, which we rather disapproved of as Mary was separated from her husband and relied heavily on family support
She explained the circumstances of his heavy drinking
She and her sister were born blind and once, while they were living briefly in Dublin, a local doctor suggested that Mary's sister's blindness might be curable
She was operated on and, when they removed the bandages in the presence of her father, she found she could see, for about five minutes, and then her blindness returned
Her father was distraught and went to the hospital chapel to pray
He told the hospital chaplain what had happened and was asked, "did you say "thanks be to God" when you thought she'd got her sight back?"
Her father told him, "No, I was too excited".
"Well" said the priest, "that's why the operation wasn't a success; make sure you do if they operate again".
Mary's sister never had another operation and her father never had another sober day
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 10:55 AM

I am not up on the scriptures so perhaps you can point me at a religious edict saying what should happen to the deceased when they shuffle off.....?

I've already linked the response to that. But just in case you chose not to read:
In 1963, the Vatican said burial of deceased bodies should be the norm, but cremation is not "opposed per se to the Christian religion." Catholic funeral rites should not be denied to those who had asked to be cremated, the church said.

But in recent years, "new ideas" contrary to the Catholic faith have become widespread, the Vatican said. The new statement names pantheism (the worship of nature), naturalism (the idea that all truths are derived from nature, not religion) and nihilism (a deep skepticism about all received truths) as particularly problematic. If cremation is chosen for any of those reasons, the deceased should not receive a Catholic burial, the new guidelines say.

So the objection is to a 'mix 'n' match' cremation where decisions on the reason for cremation are against the teachings of Catholicism.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 10:11 AM

"if the person, or their relatives, wish to have a Roman Catholic funeral"
And there's the rub Nigel
If the Church makes unreasonable demands on the use of its facilities then it alienates itself from its followers
I am not up on the scriptures so perhaps you can point me at a religious edict saying what should happen to the deceased when they shuffle off.....?
This seems to me to be a church demand and not one of religion
The Church has caused no end of grief and division by demanding that - for instance - all non Catholics marrying in Church have to guarantee that their children will be brought uop as Catholics - interesting film on one real life situation ' A Love Divided' (1999) is well worth looking out for.
I never understood the 'no meat on Friday' rule, but the fact that it no longer applies indicates that it was dreamed up by the church rather than drawn from the scriptures.
The making of sex a distasteful necessity seems down to the church - King David and Solomon seemed to enjoy their bit on the side.
The church seems to be adopting the attitude "you obey my rules or I'm taking my ball home"
Religion should belong to the believers, not the Church.
I remember when our singer friend, the late Tom Lenihan lost his eldest son to a rat bite
We turned up at his home expecting a description of the massive funeral (which there was)
Tom and his wife Margaret, both extremely devout ald life-long old-style Christians in their 70s, did not attend.
When we asked why they told us "why should we go into Miltown when we can speak to God and pray for our son in this kitchen?"
I'm a non-believer, but that makes sense to me.
"then that is for the people concerned to decide"
My point exactly - up to now, this has not been possible because o a whole minefield of church-invented rules which gave them the ownership of God rather than the worshipers.
These are largely meaningless, bureaucratic rituals invented by a church to give it an importance it often does not deserve, in my opinion.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 09:09 AM

Jim:
It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. "
The church is no longer in a position to seek anything, certainly not how the bereaved choose to dispose of their dead
Temporal laws may well dictate such matters but the times they are a-changing, as far as the old order is concerned
If the Church plays its cards right and stays away from peoples' personal tragedies and out of their bedrooms they may still have a role in society

The church is certainly in a position to clarify its position on how the remains should be dealt with, if the person, or their relatives, wish to have a Roman Catholic funeral. If they are seeking any other form of funeral then the wishes of the church don't come into it.
If you wish to use the services of a business, you accept their terms, or don't deal with them. You can't insist that they go against their own principles in order to be able to deal with you. They are equally able to walk away from the transaction.

As for keeping the Church away from peoples personal tragedies, then that is for the people concerned to decide. Many people take great comfort in the presence of a priest at such times.
You are of course welcome to your own views, and to avoid the use of priests.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 07:45 AM

"otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare."
So it is common to shovel the dead unmarked burial pits in the event o a catastrophe
The last time that happened in Britain was during the Great Plague - there is such a pit in Hampstead Heath
The main reported causes of death were reported to be diphtheria dysentery and starvation
"otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare."
The deliberate nature of the famine was the refusal to feed and shelter the victims - the workhouses that Peel had established were closed and the plentiful supply of food was either locked away and guarded by armed soldiers or shipped abroad for profit
"!I have no wish or desire to revisit any of your old hobby-horse threads Jom,"
Who on earth invited you even to contribute to anything on this forum - you offer only permanent insulting belligerence
I raies the Famine in passing in relation to unmarked burials - you were the one who knee-jerked into defending this atrocity
If my facts are wrong produce contrary evidence to show they are - belligerent denials and insults don't hack it.
Otherwise - shut the door behind you as you leave please.
"It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. "
The church is no longer in a position to seek anything, certainly not how the bereaved choose to dispose of their dead
Temporal laws may well dictate such matters but the times they are a-changing, as far as the old order is concerned
If the Church plays its cards right and stays away from peoples' personal tragedies and out of their bedrooms they may still have a role in society
We've not long buried my sister and I have to say that I was very impressed and moved with the way the undertakers (The Co-op) handled a non-religious funeral
They actually visited her in her final illness and established what she wanted to happen
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:37 AM

"the English were too concerned with driving the survivors off their lands and, if possible, out of the country to allow them to bury their dead."

I think that if you have thousands dying of extremely contagious diseases for which there is no known cure, the impetus for getting them under the ground is driven by thoughts for the living more than anything else - otherwise Carroll would accuse the "English" of deliberate germ warfare.

I have no wish or desire to revisit any of your old hobby-horse threads Jom, they are tiresome beyond words, only you dredge them up whenever you are losing ground as a deflection tactic. As usual in this case your "hysterical" facts are just simply - WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 06:35 AM

The Roman catholic church position on scattering of ashes was in the link I gave:
According to new guidelines from the Vatican's doctrinal office, cremated remains should be kept in a "sacred place" such as a church cemetery. Ashes should not be divided up between family members, "nor may they be preserved in mementos, pieces of jewelry or other objects."

The church has allowed cremation for decades, but the guidelines make clear that the Vatican is concerned that the practice often involves "erroneous ideas about death." Those ideas run the gauntlet from deeply nihilistic to New Age-y, the Vatican says, from the belief that death is the definitive end of life to the notion that our bodies fuse with nature or enter another cycle of rebirth.

It's not about preventing the scattering of ashes (for everyone) but of seeking consistency. If you have a Roman Catholic funeral service you should then follow Roman Catholic funeral procedures, not have your ashes scattered in what appears to be a 'Humanist' practice.

Similarly I can't imagine the Roman Catholic church allowing burial in its own consecrated church grounds for someone who had chosen a funeral service under a different faith.

You do get people who choose to follow one practice for the service "It's what mum would have expected" and it reassures her friends and relations, but then scatter the ashes because that's in accordance with their own beliefs.

I can understand the Roman Catholic church's view on this point. (without necessarily agreeing with it)

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 05:53 AM

"Do you think the Irish are the only people to be victims? "
Have I ever suggested they are?
The Clearances were as much an atrocity as was the handling of the famine but the comparison of natural disasters in other parts of the world is frankly ridiculous
At the time of both British events the British Empire was the wealthiest in the world with the ability to feed the starving Scots and Irish without even going to the bank
Not only did it not do so but it continued to ship food out of Ireland for profit and refuse to open the locked warehouses that contained enough food to feed the population for the duration of the Famine
Tenant families who were unable to pay rents because of the crop failure were evicted, turned out on the road and left homeless in their many thousands - some survived by scraping out shelters in the fields, others died by the roadsides
The alternatives offered to the Irish were emigrate or die - ethnic cleansing at best, but in fact genocide
In the last twenty years documented evidence has now been published which indicates that this was a deliberate policy on the part of the British to solve 'The Irish Question'
The man appointed to handle famine relief. Sir Charles Trevelyan, hated the Irish and described the Famine as "God's punishment" for their evil nature
He closed relief workhouses and forced those who could afford to, to buy food at market prices, (Laissez-faire)leaving those who couldn't under the care of woefully ill-equipped charities like the Quakers to bear the brunt of the burden
Protestant charities operated a "souper" system - "we'll feed you if you change your religion."
You spoiled your perfectly sensible question with your usually insulting innuendo and accusation - you really will never learn, will you?
I do not seek to "denigrate" the English - I condemn outright the murderous policies of its administrations, including those wielded against English working people
IThe only hatred I have seen expressed against the English i that by the contributors to this forum who describe its workers as layabouts not fit to be educated, its hospital patients as malingerers as bed-blockers, and its peple as a whole as potential itinerant labour if there is no work in their own place of residence
The hatred of the English people as proposed on this forum regularly as now reached racist proportions
Nigel
You are right of course - the Church reluctantly removed the ban on cremation in the early sixties - the position remained as I have described in Ireland until the Church began to lose its power following the cherical rape scandals
There are still only five crematoriums as Jowe pointed out three have emerged since the Clerical abuse scandal
THe church here is now attempting to prevent to scatter the ashes of the deceased over the sea or mountains, or any other place the deceased might have requested
They even do battle with the dead in their efforts to stay in control
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:31 AM

From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:13 PM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here.

Until recently.
It seems the Roman Catholic church has accepted cremation since 1963. Maybe Ireland has yet to catch up. Here

I believe that past restrictions against cremation were more about keeping the body in one piece and in one place, ready for the resurrection. Organ donation, and the rise in the popularity of cremation, have affected this view. Wales is well advanced in this as we have Deemed consent. Unless you have registered your objection, it can be assumed that you wish your organs to be available for transplant after death.

Some might not think this a 'forward' move, but it removes the need to place oneself on a donors register.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 04:10 AM

At the same time period of the great famine the highland clearances occurred.Prior to the clearances the highlands suffered from the last repeated famines on mainland Britain. Native peoples were being exterminated in numerous countries.People were dying as paupers in workhouses in the UK. Do you think the Irish are the only people to be victims? Am I a victim because I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth?
Jim, the only posts you make are totally negative. You miss no opportunity to denigrate the English while portraying the Irish as the forsaken people. Rights, wrongs, abuses have occurred throughout history. Get over it. For God's sake try and lighten up and shock us all by posting something happy. You cast doom and despondency over every thread you touch.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:45 AM

"The right of burial does not automatically carry the right to erect a headstone"
Nothing to do with headstones Iains - just the right of access to the "proper" procedure of burial embraced by ny culture
Both the burials under discussion and the Killeens did not meet up to those rights
Not "misleading simplification" but telling it as it is and is now widely recognised as wrong and sometimes, possibly criminal
I eally suggest you people need to read through what has happened in Ireland over the last decade or so and if you have any regard at all for your various religions, come to terms with it and learn.
The main victims nowadays are the traditional long-term believers who are having their lives torn apart by these revelations
I find that distressing if you do not
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:35 AM

"How can you say there has been only "one serious published work in a century and a half"
Joe
The Famine ended in 1850 - between then and 1995, the150th anniversary of its beginning, there was only one comprehensive study of the Famine - 'The Great hunger' by Englishwoman, Mrs Cecil Woodham Smith, and that was written in 1962
For political and possibly social reasons, the subject was avioded - "like the plague" so to speak!
Ireland needed and continues to need somewhere to send its constantly emigrating population and Britain is the first port of call, so why upset them by rubbing their noses in one of their great atrocities.
Even the centenary produced nothing
A combination of The Celtic Tiger and the century and a half anniversary opened the floodgates and produced the works you found on Amazon.
"As for cremation, this link (click) indicates that there are at least five crematoriums in Ireland, instead of the two you speak of."
I stand corrected Joe - all are relatively new,
Only Glasnevin existed when we moved here 18 years ago, the Cork one was till being fought over (I'm amused to see the address - the original application was for one in the ork town of "Ovens"
The rest all post-date that and are very recent - probably since the Clerical sex scandals hit the fan
"died without baptism, not without the "last rites."
Again, I stand corrected - still a heathen at heart
You appear to be defending these atrocities - they have always been regarded as offensive to the ordinary people - there have been recorded examples of children being secretly dug up from Killeens and reburied with their families
Interestingly, since the church's decline there has been a move to recognise the stigma of these monstrosities and acknowledge them as the injustice that they were
You will find no deliberate misinformation in my post, a piece of ignorance on religious jargon and a failure on my part to keep up with rapidly moving events in Ireland, that is all
Your explanation is yet another feeble excuse used by the church to justify injustice
"Hungry Grass"!!!! Whatever fairy-tale will we get next?"
I have explained what the term refers to - it is a superstition here regarding the famine which has a foundation in the fact that the whole Ireland is covered with unmarked graves holding the corpses of those who were not buried because the English were too concerned with driving the survivors off their lands and, if possible, out of the country to allow them to bury their dead.
Every culture on the planet has similar superstitions, so please don't make this another missile for your hatred of the Irish
"So Carroll has worked the thread round now to the Famine "
I worked this around to nothing - Joe raised the question of the importance of burial, I gave examples
If you cannot understand the relevance of beliefs such as this to explaining the importance that Catholics (not just the Irish ones) attach to the ritual of burial, then you are out of your depth in subjects such as this.
You want to revisit settled subjects like Sabra Shatila or the Famine to try and win back the territory you have long lost, feel free to re-open th relevant threads - don't clutter up this subject with it.
More "lies" and still no examples
"So Carroll has"
"Carroll claims "
You seem to have blown this one yet again and are left with only personal insults nad attempts at talking down to - good
Now perhaps you'll leave the stage and let those who are happy to discuss this subject do so with the degree of respect you are obviously unable to aspire to
Perhaps we can persuade Ake to take his antediluvian, homophobic hatred back to the sewer in which it should never have been dredged at the same time   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 03:06 AM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here."
The above is a bit of a misleading simplification. The right of burial does not automatically carry the right to erect a headstone or it's equivalent,and that is apart from suicides, bastards,paupers and unbaptized babies.

burial laws

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 02:21 AM

Joe, regarding the sexual abuse scandals( the Scottish asylum story is simply media hype), you say work with a smaller brush.
Concentrate on the perpetrators not the organisation as a whole you say, I agree, but when that has been attempted you are one of the first to step in and deny what seems to be patently obvious in terms of homosexuality in the priesthood.

Sometimes in real life you just have to bite the bullet, real life is not some fiction, where a happy ending is always assured.

If one is serious about getting to the root of a serous problem you need to leave your liberal sensibilities at the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 01:27 AM

"Hungry Grass"!!!! Whatever fairy-tale will we get next?

So Carroll has worked the thread round now to the Famine - It will the BDS campaign against Israel next by way of the Sabra/Shatila massacre (Mass graves involved there too only Carroll claims they aren't unmarked there is a bloody great sports stadium built over them which in it's clearance, construction, and two further extensive redevelopments did not even turn up so much as one single human bone fragment - Bit odd that for a supposed mass grave containing thousands of bodies)

Now why walking over a patch of grass should give people hunger pains I do not know. But it does follow along with the myth. Reality is the majority of people who died during what is referred to as "The Great Hunger" DID NOT DIE OF STARVATION - they died from diseases that at the time knew no cure, and they died in epidemic proportions so of course they were buried in mass graves as quickly as possible exactly as those who centuries before them had died from the Plague. Anybody wishing to check this can consult a few of the many books written on the subject over the past 160 years (Joe Offer can advise you on what to Google to find them).

No point at all in discussing with anyone whose main points in a discussion are downright lies. No point at all in discussing with anyone who when his lies are demonstrated to be lies refuses to acknowledge the fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 21 Sep 17 - 12:52 AM

Nothing flippant about my "Hogwarts" reference at all, Jim. I think that the Harry Potter series is a very good study of the process of making and evaluating moral decisions. Its approach is far more rational and far less judgmental than yours.

How can you say there has been only "one serious published work in a century and a half" on the Irish Famine? A quick look at Amazon shows over 20 pages of book listings on the subject, and many of those appear to be serious works.

As for cremation, this link (click) indicates that there are at least five crematoriums in Ireland, instead of the two you speak of.

As for killeens (cillín), they are for babies who have died without baptism, not without the "last rites." Unbaptized babies are not members of the Church, so they do not receive a church burial. There is, however, no reason why they cannot be buried with prayer and respect. Seems to me that burial in a separate graveyard can serve to honor the special grief that comes with the death of a child who died in infancy. Pope Benedict declared over a decade ago that the mostly-forgotten concept of "limbo" was flawed theology, so the assumption then is that unbaptized infants go straight to heaven when they die.

So, with all the misinformation you give us, what are we supposed to be able to believe of what you have to say? Maybe you'd be better off spending less time condemning and more time researching.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 08:13 PM

"Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind."
Not in the 'civilised West' Joe, and certainly not in Catholic Ireland, where ritual burial has been a psychological and spiritual necessity and had been part of Catholic life for as long as Catholicism has held sway here.
It is so important that there are only two crematoriums in the whole of Ireland - so important is it to undergo the correct process before they can be considered correctly dispatched 'to meet their maker'
We have finally managed to arrange that our remains will be donated to medical research, with a great deal of difficulty, so uncommon is a practice that is still largely frowned on and misunderstood
One of "the great silences" of Irish history has been The Irish Famine - one serious published work in a century and a half, and that was written by an Englishwoman.
Yet throughout Ireland, a major part of Irish folk memory has been the unmarked mass famine graves - the Irish were prepared to forget the horror of the Famine for all that time but not not the fact that the victims were deprived of a proper burial
Ireland is dotted with patches of 'hungry grass' where, if you cross them you are smitten with 'hunger pains' because they are unmarked Famine Graves.
Another major cause for concern are the 'Killeens'; the graveyards of newly born children who were refused a Christian burial because the priest wasn't on hand to bless administer last rites before their short lives were over.
Unless things are very different in your part of the world, I believe that your 'Hogwarts' reference is somewhat flippant - yet another excuse for the behaviour of your church..
The occurrence of unregistered deaths is a matter of legality, not religion
Couple these with the extreme brutality associated with these homes and you have what is described in the detective shows as 'a suspicious death'
"Keith A of Hertford"
Keith is an obsessive who has brought all his problems on this forum on himself - this thread being an example
His 'last man standing' approach and his obsession to 'win something' is the cause of all his problems, not the fault of those who argue his points, which are usually extremist to the most basic level.
If you are referring to Keith's health - it is hiw own choice to participate in these arguments - it would be patonising on our part to refuse to do so on these grounds
If you, he or anybody wants to hold a "I'll show you how ill I man if you'll do the same" bring it on!
I'm sick and tired of having my hole poked and pieces nipped out of by prostate over the last ten years, and don't get me started about the removals of suspected skin-cancer tissues from my face, or my sleep apnea tests, or my hearing problems....
I'm off to Galway in a couple for weeks a major operation - wish me luck girls.....!
You ought to be ashamed of yourself for bringing Keith up considering the self-harm he constantly inflicts on this forum - that is little more than emotional blackmail.
I hope Joe does not delete this before people have a chance to read it - then feel free Joe
I find it insulting that anybody should be expected to respond to such a despicable tactic
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 07:14 PM

As for the shock about indigent children being buried in a mass grave, that seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Burial in unmarked graves seems to have been common practice for most people throughout the history of humankind. Only rich people got gravestones or monuments.
As for me, I don't particularly care what happens to my body after I die. I'll leave that choice to my family. I think I'd like to be cremated and scattered in the woods near my home, but I want to make it clear that burial in a cemetery or a veteran's cemetery is ok with me, too. I don't even really care whether I have a religious funeral or not, as long as people have a good time and do some singing.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 05:52 PM

OK, so back to the topic of discussion.
My disagreement with many posters on both sides of many discussions at Mudcat is this: My belief is that on most issues, few if any people or groups are all right or all wrong. By the way, I think that this is brilliantly demonstrated in the Harry Potter series of books, which I think is an excellent treatise on morality and moral decisions. Heck, even Hogwarts has Slytherin. There is a wide spectrum of belief and conduct within every institution and every group of people - so if you issue a blanket condemnation of an individual or group or institution, you're most likely wrong.

In this discussion, there have been far too many blanket statements and condemnations, and far too much inaccurate information. I gather that in Europe, the general tendency is to consider physical and sexual abuse together as "abuse." In the U.S., the word "abuse" usually refers to physical and emotional abuse; and sexual abuse or molestation is considered separately. We use the same words, but there are different shades of meaning that can cause confusion.

In our parents' generation and before, there was far more tolerance of both physical and emotional abuse in the raising of children, both in families and in institutions. That tolerance of abuse also existed in the treatment of employees in the workplace, and in the treatment of offenders by law enforcement. There was less tolerance for sexual abuse, but even that was condoned in many situations. But harsh and abusive treatment was often almost viewed as a virtue, so that parents and teachers would not "spoil" children.

Since physical and emotional abuse were the rule of society for our ancestors, I think we need to consider that abuse in context, recognizing that was allowable and even praised in the past is not acceptable now and must be prevented in the future. Therefore, I think it is better in this case to concentrate on the present and future, and place less emphasis on the past - without ignoring or excusing it.

Sexual abuse is a different matter - it has always been unacceptable, and it should be punished with more severity. Still, I think it is very important that in our investigation of the misdeeds of the past, we do not forget the present or the future.

And on top of that, I think that it is important that we do not condemn or punish all members of a group for the misdeeds of the few. Many of the condemnations in this thread are so broad that they seek to condemn and restrict and punish many admirable and innocent people.

So, make the brush a little narrower, willya?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 04:03 PM

The first line of your refutation (Exactly the same can be said of Shaw and Carroll - Any reason that you have never pulled them up on it? ) would have been an example of being simple and honest and I could have happily responded. The rest of your post was the bile and rancour I mentioned. I know I am no saint but I do try to treat people with respect. It is usually when they do something to lose that respect that I respond in kind. Doesn't always work but I do try. Maybe if you did the same you would get more respect yourself.

But we should not be discussing argument and discussion per se on a thread about something so important. I have had my say on that subject. If you feel you need to continue down that road feel free but it may be better to bring it up on a separate thread.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:49 PM

No need to get yourself a persecution complex, Teribus. No-one here bar the mods has a clue who has been privately taken to task for their behaviour here by the moderator team. The thing is, you invited that public rebuke. Most of us are dealt with in private, and, believe you me, it's at least several of the people you refer to. You've hurt a lot of people here with your insults, and your acting all hurt today is unbecoming to say the least. Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:39 PM

I say the following as someone who is high up on the list of problem posters according to Joe Offer - In that case Gnome stick to addressing the content of the message not the messenger.

You and your pals treatment of posts by Keith A of Hertford on this forum over the last four years has been an absolute bloody disgrace that the Moderators seem to have turned a blind eye to.

" You may state your view but it is often lost in the bile you spew and the contempt you show for those who do oppose your view"

Exactly the same can be said of Shaw and Carroll - Any reason that you have never pulled them up on it? They have been paid like for like - but as you are all typical bullies you have shown that you can only dish it out - squeal like stuck pigs when the traffic is reversed. And in stating all of the above I have directly addressed points made in your post that was directed to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 03:11 PM

If someone posts something or a view I hold a counter view to I feel as though I have a right to state my view

Absolutely spot on tezzer but that is not what you do is it? You may state your view but it is often lost in the bile you spew and the contempt you show for those who do oppose your view. You are the leader when it comes to abrasiveness and while others may try to emulate you they do not come close. If that is what you want to achieve, well done. But if you really want 'simple honest discussion' then you need to state your case simply and honestly without the rancour that usually surrounds it.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 02:39 PM

"oupçon=a very small quantity of something. Get it?"
???????????????????????
"I'm going to delete several squabbling posts that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion."
Wonderful idea Joe - is there an chance you can continue to do so?
THat will clean up the atmosphere no end and no one else need suffer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Iains
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 02:04 PM

For Jimmie:
soupçon=a very small quantity of something. Get it?

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 01:58 PM

Not looking for any endorsement Joe - just simple honest discussion. If someone posts something or a view I hold a counter view to I feel as though I have a right to state my view - that surely is what free speech is about. If someone posts something that simply is not true then I will tell them so, explaining and providing substantiation for my view. If I post something that is untrue or incorrect my posting history shows that I acknowledge the error and apologise for making it. Great pity that a lot more people on this forum do not do the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Abuse of Children
From: Joe Offer
Date: 20 Sep 17 - 01:46 PM

Teribus, I certainly have no reason to give an endorsement of your conduct. You're high up on the list of problem posters. I won't shut the thread down yet, although other moderators may.
I'm going to delete several squabbling posts that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
-Joe Offer-