BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:43 PM

Don, it IS anecdotal, but "anecdotal" does not mean that information is untrue. My dictionary says that "anecdotal" means "based on or consisting of reports or observations of usually unscientific observers." I have no doubt whatsoever about "the authenticity of several posters' accounts" - I have no doubt about the authenticity of any of the accounts posted above. But still, they are anecdotal, describing individual incidents or locations. As I said, it's not the incidents cited above that I question. My doubt is about the validity of the wide-reaching conclusions and condemnations that many have made, based on their personal reading and observations. To arrive at the truth, you need a far more comprehensive study. The Ryan Report, on the other hand, follows the discipline of a scientific study, and is therefore far more credible in its conclusions.

My anecdotal evidence is quite different, and it is also valid and true - but again, not sufficient evidence for a broad-reaching conclusion. Although I have seen misconduct in the Catholic Church on many occasions and I have often spoken out against it, most of my experiences in the Catholic Church have been very positive. I work at least one day a week in an women's center run by Catholic nuns, which operates under the slogan "hospitality with dignity and love" - and the nuns take that slogan very seriously. The center has served the poor of Sacramento generously for 23 years, with never a hint of scandal or abuse. Same with our local food closet and homeless dining room, which serve thousands and thousands of meals a year, never with disrespect or financial manipulation or any shade of doubt about their integrity.

Last night, I spent an hour in church preparing for Christmas, listening to how important it is for us to care for the homeless, and especially for children in need.

The "preferential option for the poor" is official Catholic teaching. So are the Seven Principles of Catholic Social Teaching:

• Sacredness of Life and the Dignity of the Human Person
  
• Call to Family, Community, and Participation
  
• Human Rights and Responsibilities
  
• Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
  
• The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
  
• Solidarity of the Human Family/Race
  
• Care for God's Creation

These are the rules. The abuse and molestation of children are violations of the rules, horrible abuses of both moral and criminal law. I am appalled that people have committed these crimes in the name of my religious faith, and I have worked to combat these evil people, ever since I first learned of these offenses when I was in college. I do not defend them in any way, and I am outraged that they have seen fit to make use of MY church for their evil actions. I do not respect any Catholic or Catholic leader who condones or conceals this sort of conduct - and I acknowledge that there are many who have.

But their conduct is not the essence of the Catholic Church, and you will find nothing in Catholic teaching that supports their conduct. The essence of the Catholic faith is living a life in service to a loving God and to all of God's creation. Child abuse and molestation are a sacrilege, a horrible abuse of God's wonderful creation.

I fully acknowledge that these abuses have taken place, and the evidence indicates that these abuses are particularly widespread in Ireland. Should I be ashamed of these abuses, should I apologize for them? Well, I wonder how meaningful it is to apologize for something that I've never supported, enabled, or condoned in any way.

What about the question of compensation for the victims? Yes, I believe that the victims should be generously compensated, and should be given psychiatric treatment and whatever else will be helpful to their healing. However, I do wonder how much compensation is enough. The million-dollar settlements in the US are making the victims wealthy, but they're not healing the victims or preventing future abuse. The settlements are leading to cutbacks and closures in education and social service programs, most of which were not involved in the scandals in any way (one major exception is Covenant House, whose founder Fr. Bruce Ritter was a child molester).

And about those art works and church buildings - they also belong to ordinary Catholics, not only to the child molesters. Must the rest of us lose all of this to pay for their misdeeds? Must we close soup kitchens and homeless shelters, and Catholic Relief Services warehouses for food supplies for Third World countries? Must we auction off the Pieta and the Sistine Chapel to pay for the deeds of these miscreants?

If child molesters were found to be active in an organization that's important to you or to which you belong, how much liability should you have for the molester's actions? If you father molested your brother and not you, should your brother become the sole heir of family property?

So, no, I don't deny the problem of child abuse and molestation in the Catholic Church. It's a huge, serious scandal. And almost universally, the victims were Catholic, so this scandal is something that hurt our own members. But there aren't easy solutions and easy answers. Nobody knows why people do such horrible things, and nobody knows how to prevent it.

It's clear that the offenders should pay for their crimes - but how much should be paid by other Catholics, including by those who were among the victims? I don't know any Catholics who defend or deny the actions of the molesters and abusers, or who defend the bishops who tried to cover up these crimes (although I admit that there ARE some idiots who still defend the bastards). However, while this scandal has implications outside the Catholic Church, the primary effect was within the church. We feel we were betrayed and violated by these bishops and molesters and abusers. We are absolutely outraged by their actions. What we have trouble dealing with, is how people outside the Catholic Church criticize us and demand we make repayment for the outrageous actions committed by others against us and against our children.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:16 PM

It's not an Irish thing, nor yet a minority thing. It happened in English Catholic schools too.

I spent my teens at one of the best boys' Grammar schools in London, which was run by Jesuits (God's Storm troopers we called 'em), and they had a strange notion of education and discipline.

1. They established an understanding of the school rules with a big stick as the default option.

2. It wasn't a punishment unless it left marks.

3. It was insufficient if the master inflicting said punishment did not need a rest break on completion.

4. Once they had inculcated a healthy respect for the consequences of disobedience, they went on to demonstrate that the same system was in operation in pursuit of the goal of teaching. Mistakes, omissions, or sub standard work, whatever the reason or excuse, invited beatings.

One master in particular, who was in charge of discipline for the whole school and also taught Latin, had his own special method for driving home the lesson for pupils who had difficulty assimilating the data.

He would pick one of us up by the shirt front with his right hand, step toward the nearest wall, and then repeat the lesson in a sing-song chant, emphasising the tempo with alternate slaps with the left hand to the face, and banging the back of the head against the wall. When he felt the knowledge had penetrated, he would, without warning, release his grip, whereupon you would hit the floor on your heels from three feet in the air. The shock would send a shaft of pain up your back to the base of your skull.

I have been giddy for as much as four hours after an interview with him.

This was not a peculiarity of this particular school, as new Jesuit teachers arriving during my five years as a pupil were on message from day one.

I believe that physical abuse, in the guise of education and discipline, were endemic in the catholic church as a whole, and in the Jesuit brotherhood particularly. I don't find it too much of a stretch to believe that sexual abuse, which is generally about power and control, was similarly endemic.

I have stayed out of this discussion because I would prefer not to remember those days, but you, Joe, have been casting doubt on the authenticity of several posters' accounts as anecdotal.

Believe me, there is nothing anecdotal about the foregoing account.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:46 PM

Both sadism and masochism have always featured prominently in (at least) European Catholicism. They say the last pope was partial to self-flagellation. Very holy, I'm sure.. Then there's the Opus Dei lot, with their barbed wire leggings (the cilice) and distinctly dodgy politics, especially the treatment of women. I don't have a problem with sexual perversion among consenting parties, but when it's supposedly done for religious reasons and the obvious sexual side (conscious or unconscious) is so righteously denied, it rather points to being something seriously wrong afoot, and the moral corruption it implies is, to me, quite disturbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 03:49 PM

For some reason fate keeps putting these books etc. in my path relating somewhat to Spanish Inquisition, Templars etc..I am not seeking them out.

I think we need to look at allover evil that has existed in the church and shine a light on it.

one thing I heard of exactly once was that in some parish in east cost US the priests used to essentially draft the exhausted working men of the parish to work after hours on building the church. They had no say in the matter. I say far better to worship in a tent if you have to and leave abuse of working men out of the picture..and from how it was described it was definitely abuse.

I read some bad Irish stuff too..post=famine..looking up information on Dunquin and Blasket Islands...people..perhaps soupers..were denied passage too and from the Islands..and the congragation of Catholics was forbidden to give them rides in boats..or to buy and sell from them etc. It was quite cruel.

I don't know how much the potato famine has to do with all this, but I would say a lot..and I don't know how much the Inquisition has on any of this..probably not toomuch in the Irish church but certainly it must on South American and Italian and Spanish etc. There is a sadistic streak that is there and should be routed out. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 02:11 PM

I notice that 999 got information from sources other than reputable news organizations.

One reason that Catholic dioceses appear to be so wealthy, is the centralized financial structure. Most Catholic parishes and schools are operated locally, but the bishop holds the title to the property. Our diocese has a hundred parishes, and maybe fifty schools. That's a lot of assets, but they are being used by a lot of people. If the schools were to close, that would be a heavy burden on taxpayers, because all those children would then be educated in public schools.

And that's the crux about my statement about the wealth of the Catholic Church. Yes, it has a lot of assets - but it also has somewhere around a billion members to use those assets.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MartinRyan
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:31 PM

First bishop (Murray) has just resigned. Does so because of the impact of continuing on the survivors i.e. no admission that what he did was wrong. Pity.

The four other ex-auxiliary bishops from the Dublin diosesce concerned will come under increasing pressure to follow him.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,999
Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:16 AM

"That the Church has the money to make itself felt is shown by the table given below:


                   Church Valuations in 1926

          Baptist ................ $469,835,000
          Congregational ......... 164,212,000
          Jewish ................. 100,890,000
          Methodist .............. 654,736,000
          Presbyterian ........... 443,572,000
          Protestant Episcopal ... 314,596,000

But the Roman Catholic Church property alone in America is valued at $837,271,000! "

from
this article.

Theodore Dreiser wrote it.

---

' "In a statement published in connection with a bond prospectus, the Boston archdiocese listed its assets at Six Hundred and Thirty-five Million ($635,891,004), which is 9.9 times its liabilities. This leaves a net worth of Five Hundred and Seventy-one million dollars ($571,704,953). It is not difficult to discover the truly astonishing wealth of the church, once we add the riches of the twenty-eight archdioceses and 122 dioceses of the U.S.A., some of which are even wealthier than that of Boston. '

from

this site.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:57 PM

So who actually owns most of the land and buildings then? I'm afraid I can't remember where it came from, but I thought the property in any one diocese was registered in the name of the bishop of that diocese. It may well be tripe, though.

I think the wealth that is tied up in art treasures is incalculable - I wasn't even including it in my estimation of their disposable capital assets, likewise the Vatican library and the buildings of historical interest. It doesn't really matter who owns it so long as it's accessible and looked after.

Interesting view of bishops - I can imagine that's true, but it's a lot of bad bishops.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Dec 09 - 03:22 AM

Oh, there's wealth, all right - but most of it doesn't belong to the Vatican, or to dioceses - and the property that does belong to the Vatican or dioceses, is often historic buildings that are expensive to maintain and unlikely to be razed, or local parish buildings that are in use by the people who paid for them.

I don't know how it is in Ireland; but most Catholic dioceses in the US, lost the excess property they had in paying off the sexual abuse reparations.

But the "vast" wealth of the Church is mostly in priceless art and architecture. The Pieta would bring a pretty price, but does anyone really believe it should be sold to a private collector?

More than that, this problem isn't something money can fix - and bankrupting the Catholic Church isn't going to fix the problem, either. Child abuse and molestation are far deeper problems than that. Putting a lid on the Catholic Church isn't going to end the problem, or even reduce it significantly.

And, as been stated above, the worst of the problems occurred prior to 1970 (although the coverups have continued to the present time). One good aspect of all this, is that Catholics may have learned not to trust their bishops so completely. Those of us who worked for the church, already knew that many bishops were often far more concerned with power and money, than they were with the spiritual welfare of their "flocks." In the United States, I'd say 25 percent of bishops are really good, and 25 percent really bad. The rest are timid, plodding, unimaginative bureaucrats.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 09:29 PM

I think the whole idea of razing churches is probably a little old fashioned, even over here in Old Blighty.. Why do you think the wealth is a myth, Joe? Just one ugly building in Ireland, where prices aren't high, fetched twenty million. I'd guess that they are by far the biggest owners of 'bricks and mortar' on this planet. Buildings and land virtually everywhere. It's no myth.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 08:18 PM

I'll quote Mary, too:

These nuns and brothers and priests who did the abusing were in more or less poverty themseleves, the nuns at least taking a vow of poverty.

In many nations, young men and women were forced into the convent or the priesthood by a number of factors - economic, social, and familial. When I was in the seminary in Milwaukee, we had a number of students from the Philippines. Some didn't want to be there, but it would bring shame upon their families if they left. One went berserk, and got a pistol and threatened to commit suicide.

Vatican II largely brought an end to that, and I think most modern priests and nuns chose their vocation by free choice.

I'm sure this will get all sorts of people mad at me all over gain, but I think the wealth of the Catholic Church is largely a myth. Somebody above suggested that the Vatican could sell off some art works and raise cash, but I wonder about that. Those artifacts are available for public viewing at the Vatican now- would it be better for them to be in private collections? And yes, the Catholic Church owns many gorgeous church buildings that are open to the public and are very expensive to maintain - would it be better for those building to be razed and the real estate sold? The Vatican does have a very large stock portfolio (compensation from Italy for loss of the Papal States) that serves as an endowment for the operation of the Vatican, but it still needs contributions from Catholics to supplement the endowment income.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 07:58 PM

I am not convinced it was for the acquisition of wealth and power. These nuns and brothers and priests who did the abusing were in more or less poverty themselves, the nuns at least taking a vow of poverty. (mg)

Absolutely, but I meant wealth and power for the Catholic church, not individuals. They seem to have achieved that with ruthless efficiency since Constantine's time, and they certainly didn't do it by accident. I'm not trying to say that caused the abuse, just that it is a circumstantial contributory factor. The Bishops (and those heirarchically above) don't like their boat to be rocked because, if I'm not mistaken, they are the keystones to the overall financial structure.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:27 PM

"I think the bottom line is that they were sick individuals raised in a poverty-stricken sick environment in a sick religion. I think the abuse oozed out of that, coupled with lack of oversight by others, coupled with a feeling that this (not the abuse but the rigidness and aesticism etc.) were what God wanted."

Thanks for that post MG - I understand more fully what you were previously saying now. And yes, I think (without actually being there) it's a good way of reading the possible reality of the situation.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:07 PM

Well, I would still slap them in jail, especially the bishops and as mentioned before, have a song about them that says the same thing.

I am not convinced it was for the acquisition of wealth and power. These nuns and brothers and priests who did the abusing were in more or less poverty themseleves, the nuns at least taking a vow of poverty. Their lives were miserable. I really doubt whoever said it was the middle class who became priests and nuns..I would sure like some support of that statement.

I think the bottom line is that they were sick individuals raised in a poverty-stricken sick environment in a sick religion. I think the abuse oozed out of that, coupled with lack of oversight by others, coupled with a feeling that this (not the abuse but the rigidness and aesticism etc.) were what God wanted. God plays a big part in this. A lot was done in His name. They at some level thought they were doing God's will and were helping to impose it on others so that the others could avoid purgatory and hell. Beating orphans and schoolchildren was part of what had to be done to keep them from sinning. The sexual abuse is more complicated and mult-factorial. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 03:18 PM

It turned out all kinds of people, mg, indiscriminately. It didn't care so long as they were Catholics. Its function is the acquisition of wealth and power; everything else is secondary.

Earlier I said that I couldn't see how anyone with a conscience could continue to support such an organisation in the light of what has been revealed, although it was comically misunderstood in an attempt to discredit my point. Now I can see how, and they have my pity. I never fully realised the depth of control that a Catholic upbringing can facilitate over otherwise good and decent people.

I urge any doubters to visit the above YouTube link and hear for themselves what the Sisters of Mercy did to babies. The Catholic church had control, and the Irish people didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 01:29 PM

It wasn't several bishops..it was very very many. I read, and doubt it is true, that 80% of bishops..can't remember where..US or Ireland or some combination...

I am sympathetic to the abusers who are victims of a punishing society. Well, so were the bishops, who might have had similar problems themselves. I don't know.

I will say that despite all this, that the system turned out some wonderful people. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:21 AM

That's right, Jim. Child molestation and child abuse reside in every facet of society. They seek positions of power and respectability - and churches are a ready haven for these criminals.

And yes, Western society, not only Irish society, has not solved these dual problems. To put the blame on churches, is delusion - the problem pervades ALL of society, although churches certainly provide a safe haven for molestation and abuse to reside.

And there is no question in my mind that several Catholic bishops of the US and Ireland committed serious crimes of obstruction of justice by their cowardly coverups of the molestation and abuse of children.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:14 AM

Joe, you're talking about the catholic church being made a scapegoat as if it isn't to blame for covering up abuse, keeping perpetrators free from the justice system by moving them on to new parishes as soon as complaints became too public. It was reported in the Irish Times after the publication of the Murphy report there were thousands of files kept in the private safe of the arch bishop that were there for the sole reason to keep them out of the hands of investigators. And tha twas well after the McQuaid's reign.

When the scandal of the industrial school broke the church sent out two tough as nails nuns (the words of the government negotiators) who hammered out a deal that entailed limited responsibility for compensation, essentially putting the lion's share of compensation on the shoulders of the tax payer. When public outrage about this became too strong last year the church did a damage limitation exercise in which they offered to take on a larger portion of the compensation. But only a small portion of the total number of orders involved in the running of the schools actually pledged contributions to the compensation fund. Funds and assets were moved out of reach before any promises were made.

Yes, the church has different faces, good and bad. But the institution goes to great lengths to cover it's bad side and in doing so it's only looks worse for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 04:09 AM

Now you're blaming Irish society!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 15 Dec 09 - 03:56 AM

Well, Bonnie, the same thing happened in the United States, although the problem was more molestation and not widespread physical abuse. The Catholic Church was identified as an appropriate scapegoat, and every parish in the country paid a million dollars in damages and made the victims wealthy and quiet, and the problem was largely forgotten - but it was not resolved.

The dual problems of child abuse and child molestation are not understood, and they have not been resolved. Most of the preventative measures that have been taken are just expensive shots in the dark, and aren't really effective measures - things like fingerprinting all employees and volunteers, and giving them and children sex-abuse training. And yes, there are tighter and more expensive psychological screening programs for seminarians, but how does a psychological screening detect a potential child molester? So, a lot of money has been thrown at the problem, but I really don't think there's true understanding of the problem.

Yes, the people who molested and abused found the structure of the Catholic Church to be an easy shelter. There is no doubt in my mind that the problem has resided in the Catholic Church, and I and a lot of Catholics are deeply embarrassed and ashamed that has happened. And yes, I have seen repressive parishes in the United States and Ireland which fit Fergie's description, and I hate places like that. The neoconservative movement seems to be gaining strength very quickly, and they want that sort of repressive environment - and they want it imposed on all Catholics. I met a number of Catholic lay people in Ireland who seem to yearn for repression, and that kind of rigidity seemed to pervade every Irish Catholic parish I visited. That kind of thinking just drives me crazy. Now, I've had friends who have been on Jesuit retreats in Ireland, and they've loved them.

But the problem of abuse is much broader than just churches - it's everywhere. Abusers and molesters are very self-righteous about their conduct, and they will grab onto anything they can to justify their actions. If they're connected to a religion, they will twist their religion's teachings to rationalize their conduct.

I don't know statistics, but I found a much higher incidence of child abuse and molestation among applicants for law enforcement positions, than among any other profession for which I conducted security investigations. I still get a creepy feeling about the police sergeant who tried to rationalize his right to molest his stepdaughter - and I remember the creepy power things he did to try to slow me down when I dug deeper into my investigation.

I think there's a tie between law enforcement and priesthood and molestation and abuse - I think it's the moral authority of those two positions. Many of the molesters I interviewed seemed to be obsessed with authority and respectability. They seemed to bend over backwards to win community awards for their service.

As for the bishops, I think theirs is a completely different story. Archbishop John Charles McQuaid of Dublin has often been described as the chief villain in the child abuse scandal, and I think that's an apt assessment. I've heard all sorts of stories about McQuaid and his iron rule. I wonder, though. I think that many American bishops covered up sex molestation scandals out of fear and desperation, not as acts of power. The mystique of bishops was destroyed by the Second Vatican Council (and rightly so), and bishops began to be regarded as managers instead of spiritual leaders. I think a lot of bishops felt a loss of power and credibility, and got to the point of desperation when faced with the child molestation scandal. Relatively few responded in a rational way to the problem, and some bishops were outright stupid in their responses. So, part of me thinks that McQuaid was the bastard he was, because he was desperately hanging onto power - to the point where the preservation of his power and authority were far more important to him, than was the fate of the children who were molested and abused. McQuaid and several other bishops also committed crimes - but they were crimes of grossly dishonest coverup to protect their power, and didn't really have anything to do with protecting abusers.

Many bishops have chancery (headquarters) offices that are well-oiled power machines, and I'm sure that the chancery office staff was complicit in the coverups in many dioceses. But ordinary priests and nuns would know little about anything that went on in the chancery, and most parish priests I know don't want to have anything to do with the chancery. Many priests and nuns consider their bishop to be a nuisance - at best. Good bishops are hard to find in the Catholic Church, and I blame John Paul II for that.

Still, the balance that I'm seeking is this: Most priests and nuns I know were born in Ireland, and they're good people. They don't try to cover up the child abuse scandal at all - they're appalled. Still, they generally had good experiences growing up in Ireland. How does all this fit together? Where's the balance here?


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 11:15 PM

Still just sounds like blame-deflecting, Joe; a dogged determination to re-frame the facts to fit your theories and shift some of the heat.

And trying to make the good elements of Irish life offset or somehow dilute the abuse is a non sequitur. When a bad element is as perverted and locked away from normal society as child-rape is, one does not modify the other.



PS: I think you may have misconstrued what Jim was saying in his 3rd para - though I haven't been in independent contact with him so have no confirmation of this. But it looks as though you could have picked it up the wrong way -

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 09:20 PM

Jim, you're being a bit theatrical. I think your "mesmerized" description give far less credit to the Irish people than they deserve. I'm sorry, but it sounds incredible that an entire nation could could be "mesmerized" to the point where they could stand by and watch the abuse of children and say that nothing could be done. No, of course the children who were abused weren't to blame; and neither were the blacks and Jews and Irish and others who suffered discrimination and worse in the United States.

It's not religion that abuses. It's not Islam, it's not Judaism, it's not Christianity, and it's not Catholic Christianity. None of those religions teaches or condones the abuse of children. It's people who abuse children. And it's people who observe abuse and do nothing, allowing the abuse to continue. And it's people who pervert religion and use it as an excuse for abuse and molestation - no religion teaches those things.

And in Ireland, the people who committed the abuses were born in Ireland, came from Irish families, and lived in and were respected in Irish society. This article says that in 1970, 90 percent of the people of Ireland called themselves Catholic. So, it seems to me that the problem is seated in all of Irish society, not just in the 25 percent who currently call themselves Catholic. Yes, the Catholic Church was responsible for the abuses in Ireland - the Irish Catholic Church, not some foreign entity imposed upon the Irish people.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:56 PM

"I find it worthwhile to examine both the good and bad aspects of anything to achieve a balanced, realistic view."
So if a school teaches good math, but many of its teachers abuse the children that is acceptible as a balanced, realistic view, is it Joe?
"As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that,"
If this monstrous insult is true - perhaps you can say why the people stood by and allowed abuse they knew was happening to continue? Were they indifferent to the suffering of their and other people's children; did they believe that the abuse was doing no harm; was it some sort of payment to the church for all its goodness - a human sacrifice; are Irish people apathetic, cowardly, unaware, insensitive.... why?
If it is because the church mesmerised both the victims and the families to the extent that they did nothing, is that not a impelling reason to abolish the church as a threat to Irish society, as has been proposed for so many of the cults?
It's hard not to notice that there have yet to be any acceptences of guilt by the church as a body or by the Vatican, and the Bishop of Limerick is heading back to Rome without either an offer of resignation from him or a demand for same from his employers, which puts all the mealy-mouthed regrets expressed so far into context.
But that's o.k. - the responsibility really rests with the people of Ireland.
The only comforting thing about this indecent display of inhumanity is that the church, if it survives, will never again have the credibility it once had - if I were a Christian I'd offer up a prayer of thanks to that!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:16 PM

if you will recall, half of the nation went to war against the other half and at least for some it was to rid the country of slavery. Those on the slave-holding side -- some guilty, some had no slaves, lived in dire poverty, did not benefit, no matter how it is spinned, from slave labor. They were caught up in something, as have most combatants from time immemorial. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MartinRyan
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 07:14 PM

As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that, just as there's truth in the guilt of the entire nation of the United States accepting slavery and later racism as "just the way it is."

A poor analogy, I'm afraid, Joe. Your "entire nation" phrase suggests that both white and black elements "accepted" slavery in that sense. Do you really believe that? The oppressed "accept" oppression only in the sense that many of them become innured to it.

Blurring the distinction between the oppressed and the oppressor is unhelpful, at best.

Regards.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 06:54 PM

Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie...
Calm down. I said I don't see any institution as all good or all bad, and I find it worthwhile to examine both the good and bad aspects of anything to achieve a balanced, realistic view. And no, I haven't heard any comments about what was good about life in Ireland from 1936 to 1970, which leaves me with the impression that everything was dark and bad. That doesn't make sense to me, so I'm trying to get some realistic vision of what everyday life was like for a kid in Ireland during the period.

As for the entire population of Ireland being guilty of accepting oppression from the Catholic Church, I think there's truth in that, just as there's truth in the guilt of the entire nation of the United States accepting slavery and later racism as "just the way it is." Even if you're a victim or an innocent bystander, you don't have to accept abuse silently. We all share responsibility for the ills and injustices of our society. Americans must share guilt for the homelessness that is endemic in the United States, and for the mistreatment of aliens, and for the lack of health care for a few. Germany has some responsibility for the Nazi years - Hitler did not happen in a vacuum.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:34 PM

I was very abused by religion as a child. Not by priests and nuns, who by and large were wonderful..the Irish ones especially..but by my mother, who relished the hellfire and damnation. She was Baptist to start with and converted. She was able to get people within minutes of meeting her to say to us how lucky we were to have such a wonderful, saintly mother. As soon as they were gone, back to the abuse. Her religion did not condone marrying Catholics. My father's did not condone marrying Protestants. But she was able to find not just a shelter for abuse, but a place where she was glorified almost. I don't know who knew what but it was ugly. Abusive people will seek out abusive religions ..and I don't think Catholicism itself is necessarily, although it certainly tolerates great suffering and condemns people to it...or if they are born into a religion and are abusive, they will find a way to express it via the religion. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,MG
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 04:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtrEzjXwTNw

tHERE IS A Lot on you tube. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 03:57 AM

> I don't see anybody or any institution as all good or all bad

Will you please cut and paste the quote above that makes this charge? Stop paraphrasing everything we write, and oversimplifying it all down into these reductive single-sentence statements. This is insultingly simplistic, and distorts the contents of our posts to the point of meaninglessness.

But turning everything into a one-line cliché does make it a lot easier to dismiss. STOP RE-WORDING THINGS AND THEN CRITICISING US FOR WHAT WE DID NOT SAY.

> I just can't buy the blanket demonization that has come from so many posts here

This from someone who has accused the entire population of Ireland of being guilty?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Joe Offer
Date: 14 Dec 09 - 12:49 AM

Martin says:

I'm not sure why you seem surprised that individual generosity and caring behaviour could coexist with abuse in the context of religious organisations. Of course it did - I could tell you tales of both! Nonethless, the prevailing culture in 20C. working class Dublin was of clerical domination of the lives of those people - overwhelmingly so until the mid '70's. I'm making no commment on the middle class or rural situations simply to emphasise that I speak from direct experience.

Martin-
That's exactly my point - but I see no recognition of that coexistence in most of the posts in this thread. I just can't buy the blanket demonization that has come from so many posts here. I don't see anybody or any institution as all good or all bad - they are what they are. All my life, I've been so highly critical of the Catholic Church as to be told by some that I'm not really Catholic. And here, I'm seen as a participant in the coverup because I'm seeking balance and fairness in the assessment of the situation. I'm sure that if I lived in Ireland, I would be one of the more vocal critics within the Catholic Church - but I would be within the Catholic Church, because I don't like the idea of abandoning my church to the likes of Archbishop McQuaid.

You mentioned the rural situation, and there may be a key there. I have a feeling my friend Fr. Martin had a far different experience growing up a farmer's son in County Clare, than Frank McCourt had growing up in Limerick. My pastor, Fr. Mike, grew up in Cork with an alcoholic father who was a building contractor. Still, Mike had a pretty good existence growing up, though they didn't have much money. Most of the other Irish-born priests and nuns I know in Sacramento, came from rural areas and from towns I've never heard of, not from the bigger cities.


-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:38 PM

The Anglicans--a breakaway group--sure give 'em a run for it, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:28 PM

I know you're right, 999, but you have to admit no-one organises it quite so well as the Catholic church.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:14 PM

While the Catholic church (priests within it) are getting the remarks they deserve, please remember that the same shit is going on in the Anglican, Baptist, Methodist and Lutheran churches, too. (I stopped there because I'm running outta Protestant religions.) Doesn't excuse it, but it sure makes the notion of "Christianity" seem a bit strange when the chief proponents of the belief system seem to be involved in that kinda thing.

Anyone not believing that simply Google

anglican church, abuse
etc
and there you'll have it.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Smokey.
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 06:41 PM

This is from the horse's mouth, nothing third-hand about it. The Sisters of Mercy's idea of childcare.

I've nothing to add to what Jim and Bonnie have said except my agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Alice
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM

Here is another voice of experience.
Link to the full article


snip
"...One of those who was physically beaten on a regular basis by members of the Christian Brothers order that ran Artane was Patrick Walsh, now a businessman who lives in north London....'
snip

..."It is unlikely that officials from any government department will ever be held accountable having presided over an illegal, cruel and wicked system that led to untold suffering for tens of thousands of innocent Irish children and their families since the foundation of the state.".... snip

Link to the full article

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 01:48 PM

That's never happened to me, Jim. I sometimes put CofE [I am after all a baptised & confirmed member of the Anglican Communion even if I have long since returned to my entirely atheist default setting; so fully entitled to the designation if I want to reaffirm my membership of that particular club]; but when I have put 'none' no-one has ever argued, to my knowledge. Tho probably best to put 'atheist', which nobody, surely, could mistake for an eccentric spelling of CofE.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 01:26 PM

In fairness Mike - it's a slight improvement on the UK where, when you say 'none' you quite often get 'Church of England'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MartinRyan
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:56 AM

Jim

No problem! Happy Christmas to yourself and Pat - and many thanks for all the help through the year.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:12 AM

This transformation of a 'none' in the religion tickbox to 'non-disclosed', which would appear from two above posts to be standard practice over there, is offensive, is it not? — with its implication that we all must have some religion, but some of us are too pusillanimous or cagy for some reason to declare what it is. The concept that some people can manage perfectly well without one seems beyond some Irish bureaucrats' tiny minds, doesn't it? I can well see why you found it so irritating that it still slightly niggles, Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:12 AM

Your almost certainlt right Martin - I withdraw my statement
Not in the best frame of mind at present - Happy Christmas all!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MartinRyan
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 11:02 AM

Jim

My remark referred to your comment on the "squabble over who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children". There is no such squabble. There is a dispute over whether the government should continue to provide what is regarded by some as preferential treatment of Protestant schools. That's a very different "squabble". As I said, I thought your description was tendentious - not to say sensationalist! Such overkill is unhelpful IMHO.

Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 10:34 AM

When filling in my details I entered "none" in the 'religion' box. It was registered as "not disclosed" in the final version.

Yes, that happened to me as well in Galway Academic hospital two months ago while I clearly told the admissions clerk there was no religion to declare.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 09:52 AM

"That's a misleading and somewhat tendentious oversimplification of a complex situation"
Sorry Martin - overlooked your posting until it was too late.
I beg to differ; I think that the role played by the church in education, or any any non-religious area is fundamental to everything that has happened here. The question of denominational, multi-denominational and even non-denominational education has to be part of this debate if it is to mean anything. The polarisation of Ireland into different and opposing religious groupings is extremely germaine to all that has happened in modern Ireland.
Something quite trivial maybe, but earlier this year I spent some time in hospital. When filling in my details I entered "none" in the 'religion' box. It was registered as "not disclosed" in the final version.
It both amused me and at the same time, pissed me off slightly. I have no objection whatever to my views on religion being opposed and argued against (I quite relish it really), but I object strongly to their being ignored or misrepresented.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:59 AM

For me, the main question isn't 'good' and 'evil' - there are all shades of this in all walks of life.
It boils down to the power and influence of the church and whether it is acceptible in the light of these and many other issues.
All this has stirred up the 'mental mud' and has jogged my memory as to how that power and influence has been used and abused throughout the Catholic world.
I vaguely remembered an incident which once outraged me to the point of tears, of both anger and of compassion, but which had passed into the 'yet another...' filing cabinet compartment of my mind, so I chanced my arm on the internet, and it all came flooding back.
In 2003, a family of Nicaraguan itinerant agricultural labourers were working in Costa Rica. The 9 year old daughter was sent to a local farm for water, where she was raped by the farmer, resulting in her contacting two sexually transmitted diseases and a pregnancy.
The nuns running the hospital where she was treated hid the fact of her pregnancy from her parents until it was past the legal limit for her to be aborted (the law there allows abortion in rape cases only - and only then when the life of the mother is threatened).
On being told that the girl would not survive giving birth at her age and in her condition, the family appealed to the Archbishop and were told that the girl should "Accept her martyrdom with pride". The parents eventually 'went illegal' and were threatened with prosecution by the church, who finally withdrew their threat in the light of adverse publicity.
Can any human being argue that any body should have such a malign influence on peoples' lives?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 08:11 AM

"I can understand why you accept them on Martin's word. But why couldn't you accept them on Fergie's word in the first place? Why the distancing tactic?"

Ditto Bonnie - I was going to raise this exact point myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 07:40 AM

I know what's been bothering me about this, and I didn't quite manage to express it a minute ago:

> I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word.

> What does "a little too strong to believe" mean? Either you do or you don't. Saying you accept them on someone else's word is not quite the same thing. Do you think those events happened as Fergie says they did, or do you not?

I can understand why you accept them on Martin's word. But why couldn't you accept them on Fergie's word in the first place? Why the distancing tactic?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Bonnie Shaljean
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 07:26 AM

Joe, thank you for having the honesty to copy Fergie's post, though it must have caused you pain to do so. But I am having a hard time getting my head around your continued response of partial-denial.

> I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word.

What does "a little too strong to believe" mean? Either you do or you don't. Saying you accept them on someone else's word is not quite the same thing. Do you think those events happened as Fergie says they did, or do you not?

Do you not accept the veracity of all my suicide-helpline callers? Those are first-hand accounts too, given directly to me. But because I am not native-born, or because they are probably dead and can't speak for themselves, do their experiences somehow not count? What does your continued "I-don't-believe..." actually mean? Do you not think these things took place unless they have passed some pre-set standard of narrative? Since you will accept at least some things on someone else's "word", why won't you accept these on mine?

I know a man whose own story is much the same as Fergie's, except that he wasn't one of "the lucky ones". But you've found a way of dismissing him, because you've ruled out anything I say as being "distorted". That's an outrageous insult, not so much to me (though I am offended by it) as to the people whose stories these are.

Do you think they're lying? And if you don't, why do you try so hard to bury them beneath a landslide of extraneous data and irrelevant side-issues? In any case, restricting the allowed sources to only those who meet certain criteria and eliminating all others is a very effective way of manipulating the evidence and influencing statistics, whether you intend it this way or not.

> I never knew of a case where a priest or nun abused or molested a child, or did anything else seriously wrong.

"I never knew of" are the operative words. I'm not suggesting that any of your priest/nun associates ever did do anything wrong, but if they had, and it was in the interest of the leaders to hide it, do you think you would know? The root of whole problem is that very secrecy.

> it's hard for me to believe that most people are as bad as some people think they are.

Excuse me? How did "most people" get into it? This is disingenuous. The whole topic at hand is focusing on specifics - victims and perpetrators. That is not "most people", no one said it was, and to introduce a statement like this which utterly distorts what has been written above, is totally unfair.

> I still find it hard to believe that any human institution could be as profoundly and universally corrupt and evil as some have described it here.

Those are your words, which reduce the specific down to an abstract and then summarise - in other words, blur all the human detail out until only safe generalities remain. It's the verbal equivalent of airbrushing. We've been trying to give you the facts, from which you persistently eliminate as many as you possibly can and then cliché-ify the rest. Or else just pooh-pooh it.

> I have a hard time believing in the helplessness of the poor lay people

> I don't believe that level of mind control was possible


And: I also continue to be trouble by your blanket condemnation of the Irish:
[1] They're all guilty
[2] Their lived experiences aren't as bad/extensive as they say (subtext, they're liars? deluded?)

I still haven't seen an explanation as to why you think this - only an overgeneralised summary which is so large as to be nearly irrelevant, plus analogies to other societies that have as many demographic differences as similarities. It therefore provides no real information of use. It's like trying to distinguish human figures in a photograph take from forty feet away, with the lens de-focused.


> I think it is very important to establish the truth

> But still, I want the truth

Which truth is that, Joe? The one that people are trying to tell you - or a safer, more comfortable one?

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:32 AM

Joe
Sorry - I missed a bit!
You asked earlier where the money money was going to come from to recompense the victims of the Church. I was tempted to reply "Not our problem" but there have been enough cheap shots on this thread already without my adding to them.
A few years ago we visited The Vatican and though we had some idea of what we would see there, I don't think that either of us were quite prepared for what greeted us. I reckon a few yards of paintings in just one corridor alone would more than adequately deal with any financial settlement, no matter how generous.
I would guess that the Church's possessions could eliminate world poverty for a few centuries to come at one flick of the cheque-book signing wrist... but perhaps we shouldn't go there!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: MartinRyan
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 05:20 AM

Jim

One of the sideshows to all this that has gone relatively unnoticed is the somewhat unseemly quabble that is going on between the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland as to who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children - bizarre or what!!!
Jim Carroll


That's a misleading and somewhat tendentious oversimplification of a complex situation which has marginal relevance in this context.

Joe

I'm not sure why you seem surprised that individual generosity and caring behaviour could coexist with abuse in the context of religious organisations. Of course it did - I could tell you tales of both! Nonethless, the prevailing culture in 20C. working class Dublin was of clerical domination of the lives of those people - overwhelmingly so until the mid '70's. I'm making no commment on the middle class or rural situations simply to emphasise that I speak from direct experience.


Regards

Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Dec 09 - 04:31 AM

Joe,
I have little to add to what Fergie has offered except to reiterate that I find your apparent attempt to shift the blame from where it squarely belongs, in the lap of the Church, on to the shoulders of the ordinary people of Ireland, particularly the parents of the victims, a form of abuse in itself. I would have thought that they have suffered enough, don't you?
Much of my own evidence is, as you say, anecdotal, but it is 'from the horses mouth'. From my father's family who, as I have outlined, got out from under the influence of the Church (partially - all of them carried the great gift of 'guilt' that all Catholics were bequeathed). And from my mother's side of the family who remained totally in fear of the church till the day they died.
We also have the evidence of singers and musicians we recorded (all of them without exception devout catholics), who described dances being broken up by stick-weilding priests, of musicians being beaten, of having their instruments smashed, of being humiliated from the pulpit, of living their lives under he threat of eternal damnation... I've told you of the singer who was beaten so severely by a priest that he burst her ear drum. If you ever make it to Clare I'll introduce you to her - but you'll have to speak up - she's somewhat hard of hearing!
Then there was my having been born and brought up in Liverpool, surrounded by the influence of the Catholic church which, though somewhat diluted, was still very much a fact of life for me and mine.
The only unbelievable thing to me in all this is that they lived and died devoted to the organisation that abused them.
You speak of searching for the truth, but your arguments appear to suggest that you are seeking a truth that somehow lets your church off the hook.
This truths of this affair have been evident for a considerable period of time yet, yet so far the victims have received no official admittance of their suffering at the hands of the church, no apology or acceptence of blame, there have been no resignations by those guilty of facilitating the abuse (as I write the Bishop of Limerick is still doing his Hamlet "to be or not to be...." act) - in this way, the abuse continues.
The Vatican has accepted no responsibility and has attempted to hinder the search for your 'truth'; giving its national rather than its spiritual status as an excuse for its non-co-operation with the investigations.
For me, it is stating the obvious to suggest that the abusers and ALL their accomplices should be prosecuted as the common criminals they are for their crimes. But on top of this, the church, ANY CHURCH, must never again be allowed to mess with the minds of the nation and should never again be given access to either the minds or the bodies of children. - surely they have proved themselves untrustworthy?
One of the sideshows to all this that has gone relatively unnoticed is the somewhat unseemly quabble that is going on between the Catholic Church and the Church of Ireland as to who should receive the largest slice of government (public) funding in order to continue educating Irish children - bizarre or what!!!
Jim Carroll