 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Dec 09 - 08:01 PM Oh, and yes, I did hear of "mental reservation." It's not Catholic doctrine. It's a theory in moral theology that says that on may tell less than the entire truth when serious harm would be done by telling the entire truth. The usual example is when telling the truth would result in the death of another person. Absolutists would say that one is not permitted to lie even in such a situation, but that one may withhold the entire truth when revealing the truth would cause serious harm. Applying this principle as justification for lying or withholding the truth about child molestation because it might damage the Church, is just plain wrong - and any honest moral theology professor would agree with me. They'd probably also agree with me that the whole concept of "mental reservation" is silly. But in this case, I think that the entire truth is essential - and I'm not convinced we've achieved it. The Ryan Report says the period where the problem was the greatest, was from 1936 to 1970. I wonder if those who were there, can tell us what was good about life in Ireland during that period; and about how it was in the 1970s and 1980s and later. It's often harder for us to recall the good parts of life - but if we do, it helps put things into perspective. My friend Fr. Mike grew up in Cork, son of a building contractor. Mike's father died when Mike was young, and the parish made sure Mike's Catholic school tuition was paid, and that the family was taken care of in many ways. I've heard many other stories of generosity from Catholic parishes in Ireland at the time. Now, I suppose a cynic could say that families in need were "taken care of" to ensure their loyalty, but was that really the case? I'm sorry, but I've always had a positive view of humanity, and it's hard for me to believe that most people are as bad as some people think they are. So, I still need convincing. On the other hand, I've been a Catholic all my life and I've spend a lifetime questioning the Catholic Church. Many people have told me that I'm "not really Catholic" because I don't accept things without question - but I have a Theology degree from a Catholic seminary that says I'm not required to accept things without question. So, I'm in the unenviable position of questioning both sides of this issue. But still, I want the truth and I'm not convinced we've found it. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Dec 09 - 07:06 PM Martin Ryan says, "I have little doubt that some of the comments in this thread are ideologically driven and reflect, in a sense, a secondhand perspective on Irish life." He says he lived through this time in Ireland's history, and I have found his comments to be harsh but very credible and balanced. Martin says Fergie's message in the other thread is a good description of life in Ireland at the time. I find Fergie's observations a little too strong to believe, but I accept them on Martin's word. My perspective is based on having many Irish-born priests and nuns as friends here in California, and they have expressed a more positive perspective while not denying the facts of the stories of the Ryan Report and the Magdalene Laundries. I visited Ireland for two weeks about five years ago. And I have to say I did not like the harsh, severe atmosphere of the Irish parishes I visited. But hey, I spent twenty-five years as a U.S. Government investigator. I've learned to separate emotive from factual language. I was also trained not to make decisions based on third-hand information. This is a very emotion-packed issue, but it is important to explore it dispassionately. I think the Ryan Report did an excellent job of exploring the problem dispassionately, and I understand that many in Ireland are distressed about it because it merely reported facts without issuing condemnations. In this discussion, it is still my impression that the condemnations are so far-reaching that they are unbelievable. I still find it hard to believe that any human institution could be as profoundly and universally corrupt and evil as some have described it here. I have a great deal of respect and a good amount of affection for most of the major participants in this discussion, even though some are upset with me in my quest for the truth. But I think it is very important to establish the truth, as dispassionately as possible. Fergie's post is below. It's a first-hand account, and I think it's very worthwhile to read it. -Joe-
Thread #125363 Message #2775864 I really don't want to get involved in this debate, but I feel compelled to add some comments. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:48 PM Sorry, that was actually the Jesuits. My apologies to the Christian Brothers for besmirching their good name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:38 PM Their 'teaching methods' caused my mate's little brother to hang himself back in the early 70s, and they got away with it. The school is still open and making plenty of money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,999 Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:14 PM The Christian Brothers: they keep going from strength to strength, don't they? Same crap in both Australia and Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 03:13 PM Pardon my spelling.. This is a link to the above article. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 12 Dec 09 - 02:59 PM This red herring of 'blame' is stifling the discussion. The relevant thing is the question of who is to be held accountable and punished, and how to actually stop it happening. The Ryan report covers abuse up to 2004 and there is no reason to suppose it has been stopped yet. The Catholic church has been feigning shocked apology for years and so far has done nothing effective. That's one way of being "morally neutral" I suppose. Here's an eyewitness account that came to light in 1999, just to put some 'reality' and perspective on the matter: "There are moments these days in Ireland when it seems that the once-omnipotent Catholic Church is slowly imploding. In the living-room of his neat Dublin flat, Michael, 45, has been remembering the day he was first summoned at school to a Christian Brother's private room. He was 10 and had spent a year at Artane "industrial school" - a home for 1,200 boys run by the religious order on behalf of the state, for orphans and children from broken families. What took place was horrific. "This brother beat me and raped me until there was blood everywhere," says Michael. When the crimson flow could not be stemmed, Michael was taken to the order's private infirmary. No questions were asked about his appalling injuries, and when he was healed it was only so that he could be abused again. Over the next five years, he says, he was raped and sexually assaulted by seven Christian brothers. As Michael tells his story, the faces of four elderly men flicker on to the television set. Four Christian brothers, aged 59 to 81, the newscaster announces, have just been charged with 55 sexual abuse crimes between 1952 and 1970 at another industrial school, St Joseph's in Tralee. The current shaming of the Catholic Church is relentless, and seems continuous, with former residents queuing up to describe the brutality of the religiously run schools. Last week, Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic, became the first nun to be convicted of child sex abuse. Wall, 51, was found guilty of raping a 10-year-old girl in her care in 1988. She pinned the girl by the ankles while a homeless schizophrenic raped her at St Michael's, a home run by the Sisters of Mercy in Waterford. Wall was its director. The girl had been sent to St Michael's when she was six, following allegations that her father had sexually abused her. Wall began sexually abusing the child soon after she arrived. The rapist, Paul McCabe, 50, was a former resident who met Wall while looking for his mother, who had left him at St Michael's as a child. Amazingly, what has been exposed so far is probably just the beginning. Hundreds of former residents of children's homes are preparing to sue religious orders and the Catholic Church. A police investigation into abuse at Artane, for example, has received 230 complaints against 75 priests. More than 40,000 children passed through the industrial schools between 1950 and the Seventies and thousands more through the "enlightened" regimes that replaced them. Michael, it is now clear, was far from alone. Christine Buckley was the first to break the silence in the mid-Nineties when she exposed the horror of her years in Goldenbridge orphanage in Dublin, run by the Sisters of Mercy in the Fifties. Miss Buckley says children were subjected to hard labour and beaten every day. The nuns stole their names from them on entry and gave them a number. Miss Buckley remembers babies strapped to potties and girls not knowing their names or the day they were born. Not that it mattered. Birthdays were not celebrated. Bernadette Fahy, 45, also a Goldenbridge pupil, says: "It was just like a concentration camp. That is no insult to people sent to real concentration camps. The only thing they did not do to us was send us to the gas chambers." The avalanche of abuse allegations has forced Church and state into a corner. And there is hard cash at stake, as well as reputations. Which may explain the current vogue for saying sorry. Over the past two years the Sisters of Mercy, the Christian Brothers and the De La Salle Brothers have gone so far as to make public apologies to those who "may" have been abused. Last month, propelled partly by States of Fear - a three-part television expose of the industrial schools - the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, offered a surprise "sincere and long overdue" apology to the victims of abuse, and for "a collective failure to intervene". He was not being magnanimous. States of Fear exposed official files that proved that the state had known about, and ignored, allegations of abuse. Ahern also announced an independent commission into abuse, the primary focus of which would be to provide a forum for victims to tell their stories. Interestingly, both Church and government claim that recognition, not compensation, is the victims' main concern. That looks like being wishful thinking. Josephine Baker, who runs a support group for 200 male supporters of the industrial schools, snorts. "Once the apologies are sorted out, compensation will, in fact, be a primary aim," she says. "It is only fair because the kids' labour and allowances went into the order. The kids subsidised the growth of the Catholic Church." Her next sentence will chill Irish bishops. "And for the number of compensation claims, the sale of Church land and property is not just a possibility but a necessity." Mrs Baker's own husband Don was beaten by Catholic Brothers at a reformatory school. She argues that the brutality pushed victims to the fringes of society, into alcoholism, drug addiction, criminality and psychiatric wards. Compensation may just bring some back. She says the government's proposal to relax the conditions under which victims can sue for sexual abuse - but not for physical abuse - is simply an attempt to restrain costs. But once the ball is rolling, she says, the government may be forced to reconsider. Miss Fahy agrees that compensation must be paid and suggests that the Irish government does not realise the forces it is unleashing with the commission. "Most of these kids left school practically illiterate. There was a class element to it all. They were raised to be labourers, domestics and cleaners, even for the religious orders." The commission must also present a complete picture of the causes, nature and extent of child abuse. Explaining the endemic brutality will not be easy, but those whose childhoods were destroyed have their theories. Jim Cantwell, a Catholic Church spokesman, said this week that industrial schools had been poorly funded and under-staffed and amounted to "childcare on the cheap". But Miss Fahy says that does not explain the abject cruelty. That had everything to do, she argues, with the history and ethos of a "political, bullying and controlling" Church whose influence then reached into every area of Irish life. "The Church was about oppression," she says. "In their schools they tried to kill the spirit of a child and they called that moral formation. At Goldenbridge we were meant to strive to be little nuns, completely submissive and obedient and virginally pure in body, mind and spirit." Miss Fahy, who has just published a book about Goldenbridge, says that the nuns were obsessed with all things sexual, taunting the girls that their mothers were prostitutes, and disgusted by any signs of sexual development or identity. Michael now believes that he suffered at the hands of a paedophile ring. He thinks word spread among the Brothers that he was a perfect victim: shy, withdrawn, terrified and unassertive. And he thinks that there must surely be a connection between what they did to him and their own repression. The Brothers, he points out, entered seminaries in their early teens, lacking any sexual experience. And since sex, and even masturbation, was sinful, it is not surprising that so many of the sexual attacks he suffered were accompanied by violence. The Catholic Church has promised to co-operate fully with the commission and claims to want "all the cards laid on the table". Victims' organisations, meanwhile, fear a partial whitewash and an assumption that the bad old days are over. Many would like to see all childcare responsibility removed from religious orders. Miss Fahy believes that much of the abuse took place simply because it was allowed to. No one dared to question the Church and there were few outside checks on the schools. And most children had no outside adults to turn to. Even if they had spoken out - and a few tried - who would have believed that the pious brothers and the saintly sisters could be so cruel?" (The Independant, Friday, 18 June 1999) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 12:20 PM "Out of here now." Yeah. Right. That's a good one. Maybe when I get a bit more detachment from this whole thing. Having my right to a viewpoint on Ireland invalidated because of a mere 19 years' residence, by someone who has never spent more than a holiday visit here, who then pronounces guilt on the whole country, is still chewing on me. Since I apparently need to defend my right to speak: I should also have added that, in addition to the things I wrote above, I also used to work for Samaritans in Cork. The callers there confided some of the most agonising, despairing, heartbreaking experiences relating to this issue that anyone could ever imagine hearing. I'm certainly not going to repeat anything told to me on the phones, but DON'T YOU DARE sit there and tell me I have "taken anecdotal evidence and broadened it to support a sweeping and unfair condemnation". You're the one who is doing that. I am speaking of LIVES AS THEY ARE LIVED. Please try to get that. > I keep trying to think up theories It shows, Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:50 AM I meant to add that I am appalled that you haveresorted to the squalid legal technique of putting the victim in the dock Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Dec 09 - 06:42 AM Joe - please do not try to score points - you're better than that. Yes - I have only lived in Ireland for 10 years. My family left Ireland for England during the famine and have continued to live in both places ever since. You only lived in America as a Catholic - you didn't live in Catholic America - a not too subtle difference. Remind us again - how long have you spent in Ireland? Every movement WAS monitored and controlled by the Catholic church. I have just been reading of the murder which took place in Sligo forty years ago and was never properly investigated because the chief suspect was a priest. Yesterday I read of the church selling a field (to a building developer) containing many bodies of children denied Christian burial by that same church because they had died too early to be baptised. I think I'm going to take Bonnie's advice and refrain from posting while I am angry. Watch this space Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:58 AM My opening line was actually in reply to Joe, not Martin, with whom I cross-posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:56 AM No, it comes from knowing people here and having lived in their houses and yes, meeting some of the victims and their families first hand. But you will just find some reason why that doesn't count or is wrong. You're taking the view that you want to take, and distorting what I said accordingly. I'm done explaining and writing and arguing. You will never be convinced because you don't want to be. But please don't dismiss my lived experiences here and the people I have interacted with when you know nothing about them. Your post is full of "the impression I get" and "I'm sure that" and "I think". Fine, Joe. Whatever. > who is supposed to pay the cost of all this? Well, for starters there's that 20 million they made from the sale of the Magdalene Laundry in Cork. Out of here now. No point trying to explain further. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:45 AM Joe a tradition of never questioning authority seems like a pretty lame excuse for failing to challenge an injustice "tradition" is a very lame description of the situation in Dublin, in particular, during the reign of John Charles. Any challenge to church authority was dealt with quite ferociously - and was rendered unlikely from the start through the education system. I have little doubt that some of the comments in this thread are ideologically driven and reflect, in a sense, a secondhand perspective on Irish life. Mine are not - and don't. Like Fergie in the original thread on this topic, I know whereof I speak. Regards |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Dec 09 - 05:03 AM Bonnie and Jim, I don't mean to downplay the guilt of the Church, the priests and nuns who committed crimes of molestation or abuse, or the bishops and other administrators who covered up these crimes. I've said that more than once. Caitlin rua said "People in Ireland didn't question the Church." I can accept that as true, because that was more-or-less the case when I was growing up Catholic in the United States in the 1950s - but I never knew of a case where a priest or nun abused or molested a child, or did anything else seriously wrong. And when someone in authority does something wrong, a tradition of never questioning authority seems like a pretty lame excuse for failing to challenge an injustice. Now, Bonnie Shaljean and Jim Carroll describe an Ireland that sounds like a concentration camp, where every movement was monitored and controlled by a watchful Church. I would like to note that Bonnie and Jim have both been in Ireland for somewhat under twenty years - so I wonder if they actually were witness to the controlled society they describe. I also question whether Bonnie and Jim ever participated in Catholic parish life in Ireland, and I wonder if either one has ever actually suffered under the rule of the Church that they consider oppressive. I wonder what it is that they have actually witnessed themselves. It is my perception that their perception of the problem is distorted, although there was undeniably a real and extremely serious problem. I've been very concerned about this matter since the Ryan Report was first discussed here in May, I've taken the time to read the report. The Sacramento area has dozens of diocesan priests and Sisters of Mercy who came to Sacramento from Ireland - the last arrived here about 1975, so these are people who grew up in Ireland during the period from 1950-65. I've seen it contended above that it was mostly middle-class people who became priests and nuns, but most of the Irish priests and nuns I know came from working-class families from all over Ireland. I asked several about the Ryan Report and about the conditions they lived under while growing up. They said that the schools, both Catholic and national schools, were strict and did practice corporal punishment, but that actual abuse was uncommon and not the rule. They found their Catholic parish churches to be a center of social life, and their experiences in their parishes were mostly positive. The impression I get from my friends is that while Ireland was impoverished at the time, they had reasonably enjoyable lives as children. One priest, a farmer's son, grew up in County Clare, not far from Frank McCourt's Limerick. He said that McCourt was thought of as a "whiner" by people from County Clare, and my friend said that life for most kids was nowhere near as bad as what McCourt described. So, my question is mostly one of proportion. I'm sure that there were poor children in Ireland, and that life was tough for many of them. But how many lived lives in fear of constant abuse? Some did - there's no doubt about that. And that is a horrible scandal that can never been forgiven. So, where's the reality in all this? Where's the proportion? And I ask again - who is supposed to pay the cost of all this? In the United States, it is the current generation of Catholics who are paying the bill, and most of them were children at the time the offenses took place. I have to imagine the same will be true in Ireland - that the current generation of Catholics will pay for the offenses committed by people who are dead or near dead. Another question I need to ask: what period of time are we talking about here? It is my impression that the worst cases of abuse took place before 1970, almost forty years ago - although the Ryan Report says some happened as late as the 1980s. It seems to me that a lot of the people who committed these crimes must be dead or at least old and feeble. So, who is there to punish for these crimes? It is indeed a huge and terrible scandal - but it is my impression that the vast majority of Irish children did not suffer abuse or molestation, and that the vast majority of Irish Catholic priests and nuns did not commit crimes of abuse or molestation. Therefore, it seems to me that an overall condemnation of the Church is unwarranted. Rather than a hysterical "buckshot" attack on all things Catholic, there needs to be an honest, soul-searching review of the entire problem. Jim and Bonnie, I think you have both taken anecdotal evidence and broadened it to support a sweeping and unfair condemnation. I think you both need a more proportional and realistic and rational perspective. Take a look at the Ryan Report. It takes a rational, balanced, realistic approach to the problem. It brings out the hard, horrible facts of this era of abuse, but it doesn't cloud the facts with unrealistic, sweeping condemnations. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Dec 09 - 12:02 AM Sorry - Jonestown of course. My watchword ever is 'accuracy matters', so thank you for setting me right, Alice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:42 PM Mudcatters who have been around the forum for years know from past discussions that I worked with people who were leaving abusive cults and also produced a short film on cults and thought reform, the methods used by groups to recruit and control members. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:32 PM Yes, (and it is Jonestown, site of the People's Temple mass murder, not Jonesville). But we've talked about all this on other threads. More in the news today from the Vatican about Ireland. "The pope promised that the Catholic Church would continue to follow the issue and try to develop "effective and secure strategies" to make sure the abuses don't happen again." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:08 PM Well. in a way Alice, what you just wrote is very germane to the main subject of the thread — someone above, re the responsiblity of the Irish community as a whole for not speaking out, suggested a very cogent parallel between the Church in Ireland & 'Jonesville' — surely an extreme but excellent example of what you have just posted about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:30 PM I think most people don't realize the scope of what I was referring to. You have to realize that there are religions in the USA based on new-age beliefs, UFO's, all kinds of mixtures of things you probably have never heard of. I'm not talking about just mainstream Protestant and Catholic churches. You don't realize how many "new" religions are created and also how they can pressure and abuse members. They often have more power to control, as there is not usually a historic oversight established. Back to the main subject of the thread now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:24 PM The Irish people have, in effect, all been victims of this crime. They have practically all been abused in one form or another by the Catholic church for a great many years. To expect them to shoulder any communal blame for the child abuse is just plain wrong, not to mention offensive. It also begs highly contentious comparisons and parallels, as has been already pointed out. I do, however, agree with Joe that the Catholic church is "morally neutral", though I prefer to think of it as half rotten. I'm referring to the staff, not the members. I have no problem with Catholics; it's Catholicism I have trouble with, and from what I've seen most of them do as well, one way or another. I applaud any Irish people disillusioned enough to have left the faith, because they have done something about it - voted with their feet, and in Ireland that takes a great strength of mind. It's a great shame more of the clergy don't have that much courage or integrity, though I can see how it might be undesirable or even virtually impossible for some. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Dec 09 - 09:00 PM Joe - this sounds very much like "They were asking for it" as applied to rape victims - and it really leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. You appear to have no idea of the spiritual grip that the church had over the whole population of Ireland - think Jonesville on a national scale. To blame the relatives of victims is outrageous, and it really does let the real criminals off the hook. Did you know that peadophelia is not a crime in the eyes of the church, but rather a sickness - a legal defence, rather than an indictment (according to a legal expert on Church matters writing in the Irish Times earlier this week)? Rather like saying Hitler, Goebells.. et al were insane and the German people as a whole were the real criminals. Is this what you really are saying? Your defence of the church goes far beyond any attempt to justify or neutralise the affair that I have ever come across. At least the Vatican has only chosen to stay silent on the matter. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:41 PM Jack Campin with his "Baptist democratic cum-mob rule" type statements obviously knows nothing about southern American social, political and religious demographics. No point in further comment to him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:25 PM "we're not going to ever have the full truth. There are too many blanks in the story, too many heartbreaking silences from spirits defeated by shame, despair, mental illness, and suicide. Or plain old age." Yes - I have inherited stories from dead relatives of what went on. But what can be said now? Most people would never speak. I certainly understand that - it takes a *lot* to speak, let alone under the oppression of such a powerfully all-pervasive & long-standing institution. Bonnie, please don't abandon this thread. Your contributions are potent, lucid, informative and extremely valuable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:09 PM > ...responsibility solely to "the Church," meaning all those who are currently Catholic Let's clarify one thing first: I have not been using or thinking of the words "the Church" to indicate all people who happen to be Catholic, but merely as a shorthand name for the specific organised structured religion and those who run it. This is how I've always understood this term, which is used a lot in Ireland, and that's the context I believe it tends to have here. But: that's my own perception and I would be interested to know how many of the Irish interpret the word the same way as you do and how many don't. As you say, the majority of them are Catholic, so it seems as though they would need a phrase to distinguish between themselves and the (for want of a better word) authorities. I'm not trying to quibble about semantics, but to unpick the differences in what each of us means when we say something. If you are stating that ordinary Catholics should not be blamed for the atrocities, we have no disagreement at all. Of course they shouldn't and it's as offensively wrong as hearing all _____s described as _____-_____s. (Fill in the blanks yourself, people. In another thread. I'm not going there.) But it's exactly the same process. But do not tell us, from a distance of 6000 miles, that we "stood by and watched" or "condoned abuse and molestation" or any of those other few-word phrases. It's just not true. Where do you get that from, except as a long-distance observation through a mental telescope-lens? You are making an unfair and blanket judgement when you don't know WHAT went on. (You probably saw, at the bottom of the article in Alice's link, the statement: "Police and social workers charged with stopping child abuse didn't start getting cooperation from the church until 1995. This opened the floodgates to thousands of abuse complaints...") > The worst of the crimes happened in government-owned schools that were staffed by members of religious orders. Really? I never knew the state owned the Magdalene laundries. Or don't those count if they weren't officially Documented? The industrial schools were only part of the story and it's disingenuous to just ignore the parochial ones. But in any case, what on earth difference does it make, given the close collusion between the two authorities? We will never really know where the worst of the crimes took place, or the actual extent of them, because we're not going to ever have the full truth. There are too many blanks in the story, too many heartbreaking silences from spirits defeated by shame, despair, mental illness, and suicide. Or plain old age. > How is that different from a teenage gang beating a teenager, with hundreds of people watching and nobody doing anything, because they were afraid to get involved? Are only part of the crowd responsible for failing to stop the beating? Such a beating is PUBLIC, visible and obvious, and a crowd is pretty much equal in number to a gang (interesting analogy, that). And people have been known to join forces to throw off attackers. But how are you supposed to stop assaults that have already happened, or which were not known about because they occurred behind closed, well-protected doors and the victims were too terrified or ashamed to complain? (Don't underestimate the horribly unreasonable amount of self-blame that sexually abused kids incur, which usually makes them withdraw inside themselves and clam up.) This gang-beating scenario is far too simplistic to be a valid comparison. Your perception just appears selective to me, taking on board some factors of the story in Ireland while deflecting others, to fit a preconceived theory. You're arguing from a standpoint of ideological generalities which vastly oversimplify and reduce the individual human population of a country you have not lived in to an abstract, which you then pronounce blanket judgment upon. It almost sounds like an exercise in dialectical logic. You don't like it (nor do I) when people do that to you. I have lived in Ireland for nearly 19 years and spent another 20 years in London's strong and active Irish community. But I was born and raised only about 60 miles (? or however far away Stockton is) from where you are based; and I can tell you from first-hand experience of both that there are significant differences between the two regions, and those arguments are neither fair nor properly informed regarding life here as it was realistically lived (I'm not referring to matters of the faith itself). You cannot condemn one from the matrix of the other. I want out of this thread now. There's no point. You do not appear willing to entertain anything that runs counter to your established ideas, and it's just become a circular argument. Why waste further emotional energy or Mudcat bandwidth going round and round? We're never going to change each other's minds. Certainly I have a lot of respect for the travails and battles you have faced in your own spiritual journey, and wish that you had not been made to suffer for this black episode. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jack Campin Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:37 PM The "power structure" of American Protestantism is too divided ideologically to have any real power over its believers. It has a LOT of power, but not centralized power. The US is unique among developed nations in being mostly a small-town society, and in a small town it's quite easy for church-based groupings to exercise effective dictatorship (via bizarre abuses like using zoning law to regulate sexual behaviour). And the norm is the Baptist democratic-cum-mob-rule paradigm of autonomous local churches, ideologically quite homogeneous. As Joe has discovered the hard way, this way of running a religion can sometimes mean convergence in disciplinary practice between organizations with quite distinct foundational dogmas. A version of Islam that took root in the same small-town society would end up as a good-ole-boy ulema that ran progressive imams out of town. This is NOT what Ireland is like. It's equally sick but in a different way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Dec 09 - 03:54 PM Bonnie, I am certainly not denying that the primary responsibility for this scandal lies upon the people who molested and abused children, and on those who covered it up. They should be bankrupted, and should spend the rest of their lives in prison. I don't deny the crimes, and I don't deny the coverups, and I don't deny the need for punishment and reparations. What I DO deny is the appropriation of secondary blame and fiscal responsibility solely to "the Church," meaning all those who are currently Catholic. At the time these crimes took place, almost all of Ireland was Catholic, and all of Ireland stood by and watched as these crimes took place because "nothing could be done." They did nothing, because they were afraid. I can't see how they are absolved from blame and liability simply because they left the Church in the time since. The worst of the crimes happened in government-owned schools that were staffed by members of religious orders. There is a huge outcry because tax money is being spent to pay reparations for these crimes, and the Church has been assessed only partial responsibility for payment. How is that different from a teenage gang beating a teenager, with hundreds of people watching and nobody doing anything, because they were afraid to get involved? Are only part of the crowd responsible for failing to stop the beating? Is "I didn't help because I was afraid" a reasonable excuse for failing to show courage when courage is demanded? Didn't the same phenomenon happen in Germany and in the Deep South of the United States? Where was the Martin Luther King to defend these Irish children from oppression? Where was the Willi Brandt, joining the forces of resistance to Catholic oppression? Wasn't there anyone in Ireland who spoke out at the time these crimes were happening? Whenever and wherever there is widespread and endemic injustice, there is an element of community responsibility. When something bad is happening and nobody does anything about it, then everyone who fails to act has a partial share in community responsibility for the injustice. And whenever there has been a community-wide injustice, there is a need for honest shouldering of community responsibility in the aftermath. I don't see this happening in Ireland. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 11 Dec 09 - 03:42 PM The "power structure" of American Protestantism is too divided ideologically to have any real power over its believers. The ideological conservatism seen in the South and interior West extends from Roman Catholics to Baptists to Anglicans to evangelists; religion is not the main factor. Opposition to big central government and its spending, dislike of change, opposition to people "who are different" (gays, Muslims, etc.) extends across religious distinctions. Baptists, often singled out, are not uniform; there are two main groups, one very conservative (Southern Baptist Convention), the other moderate (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship). Georgia, e. g., is 70% Protestant (24% Baptist), 12% Catholic, 13% non-believers; Savannah and Atlanta have strong Jewish elements. (Wiki data on percentages). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 03:08 PM NPR radio reported on the Pope's response today: transcript, Pope Will Write Letter To Irish Catholics On Abuse |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 11 Dec 09 - 01:34 PM Ah well, Ireland during the nineties has had Bishop Casey and Father Michael Cleary. What can you say (well, when these men's families came under scrutiny it the women who bore their children were the ones who took the blame, not the priests). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: mg Date: 11 Dec 09 - 01:23 PM You know what really scandalized the American Catholic Church? When the handsome young Cuban priest (he was some sort of radio or TV personality) fell in love and married a woman. That was the big, really big, scandal. He talked about it on Oprah I think. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: mg Date: 11 Dec 09 - 12:53 PM Let's bring the theologians into this who I think are very very culpable..mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 12:12 PM Especially when someone is born in to a religion, like most Catholics are, it is harder for them to recognize abuse of power, because they've lived with that power over them their whole lives, as did generations before. Now that there is greater communication world wide about this issue, more people feel there is support to speak up. (Bonnie, that's ok, you can leave your posts, "allow" was a poor choice of words on my part. With that kind of influence, people's defenses are down, which is what I meant). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jack Campin Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:16 AM What Alice is describing is the way American Protestantism works - but the kind of American Catholicism Joe is describing has virtually the same power structure, i.e. a (fraction of the) laity running the show with no real accountability to the official hierarchy. They're effectively Baptists who go to mass. That isn't the way it works in Ireland, as I understand it - the hierarchy there does exert real power, and the laity very little. That affects where you might want to fix blame. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:12 AM My apologies to Alice. I've just had an interesting PM from her, and I withdraw the question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 11 Dec 09 - 11:02 AM Allow themselves to become victims? You don't think it's ever because they are at the mercy of a stronger force, who are not acting in their best interests? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 11 Dec 09 - 10:20 AM I see this issue from a "bigger picture" point of view because of what I've seen first hand, not just as a Catholic, but from the abuse I've seen of members of other religions. Unlike Ireland, in the USA, anyone can start their own religion and since colonial times, small new religious groups thrive. It leads to terrible abuses like People's Temple in Jonestown. There are thousands of religious groups, most relatively small, and even when there is fraud or abuse, the victims are afraid to speak up. But I won't steer this thread that way. My comments just come from a point of view about how people believe what they believe and allow themselves to become victims of abuse or fraud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Peter Laban Date: 11 Dec 09 - 08:46 AM [i]It wasn't just the Catholic Church who condoned abuse and molestation - it was the entire Irish people.[/i] There were actually examples in the Murphy report of parent complaining to the Gardai (in 1972 if I rememebr correctly) where the two detectives receiving the complaint didn't even bother to take notes. What action would you suggest the parents should have taken? The authorities refused to take action, the files of complaints made to the church ended up in the private safe of the archbishop out of reach of anyone willing to follow up on complaints. Let's call a spade a spade Joe, this is a well documented situation. What would you suggest those you blame collectively should have undetaken against the power of state and church combined? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Bonnie Shaljean Date: 11 Dec 09 - 07:45 AM I know it's a bad idea to post when you're angry, and I've been trying to wait until I calmed down. But it's been over twelve and a half hours and I still haven't calmed down. > If you live in Ireland, YOU are responsible for the absolute travesty that has occurred... What has not happened, is for the Irish people to acknowledge their share of the blame. > It wasn't just the Catholic Church who condoned abuse and molestation - it was the entire Irish people. Joe, I'm sorry, this is simply NOT TRUE, not acceptable, and not even close to fair. You cannot seriously be equating the guilt of the actual perpetrators of child-rape with the general public, many of whom DID speak out. The reason you don't know that is because you didn't hear about it. And that's because the only thing that got results was when the actions started to get official. And embarrassing. You are doing exactly the same to "the Irish people" as you complain is being done to all the many innocent clergy. Mass, blanket blaming. What's the difference between saying "if you live in Ireland you're also responsible for this" and "if you're a priest/Catholic you're an abuser". Both assertions are monstrously unjust. How can you dispute the latter (which certainly should be disputed) and then turn around and state the former? Anyone who has sexually abused a child is "responsible". Anyone who has knowingly enabled this is also responsible. The ordinary populace - including the huge number of genuine priests - who have not perpetrated such acts are not. (Are the non-molesting priests equally to blame for not speaking out? Or is it just the rest of us?) > I don't believe that level of mind control was possible in Nazi Germany - and I certainly don't believe it was possible in Ireland. It's not mind-control, it's fear of the consequences. When an organisation has power over so many aspects of your life, it doesn't have to be jackboots in the face to intimidate you. That is NOT CONDONING. Facilitating cover-ups is condoning. But you're never going to accept it, are you? Irish society is how you choose to perceive it rather than how people living in it and shaped by it are trying to tell you it WAS. Anything anyone attempts to explain merely gets met with a polite version of "I don't believe it, therefore it isn't so". It's just starting to sound like denial. But I guess seeking to dilute the blame and project it onto the rest of us is one way of throwing some of the heat off the Church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:10 AM "this kind of control over people can happen in other groups, too, not just the Catholic church." This is true to an extent Alice, with one important rider - in most countries the church gives its allegience to the State - in Ireland, in practical terms, up to now, it has been the opposite with the State owing its allegience to the Church. Hence the collusion between Church and State over the abuse scandals. When I was growing up (in Liverpool - therefore not directly under the influence of the church) there used to be a joke about particularly fierce priests "I'll bet Father ***** gave Jesus water-walking lessons"). Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:08 AM Sorry, Jim - you write with passion and I know you believe what you say, but I don't believe that level of mind control was possible in Nazi Germany - and I certainly don't believe it was possible in Ireland. My Irish ancestors were not sheep. If they knew of child abuse and molestation and did not speak out, they MUST bear at least a portion of the responsibility for their silence. I certainly will agree that many injustices were done in the name of the Church, but I also insist that those who do not protest injustice, are partly responsible. It wasn't just the Catholic Church who condoned abuse and molestation - it was the entire Irish people. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 11 Dec 09 - 04:03 AM I find it absurd to say that all Irish are guilty for the cover up of these crimes. Religious organisations try to influence society and in order to do that, they crave the moral right to do so. This sets them up as almost unaccountable. After all, they are not part of any democratic process, so are not answerable to anyone other than their own hierarchy. And that's why for me, the hierarchy should be in the dock. Harbouring criminals, failing to report a crime, perverting the course of justice... How many laws on the Irish statute can we come up with? Quite a few I reckon. And then, just suppose they are right. Just suppose for one minute that there is a bloke with a great white beard judging us. It isn't just the child molester who would be damned to their vision of Hell, it would be those who have statues erected in their cathedrals too. I do accept that in criticising institutions, it can be seen as criticising peoples' individual faith. But if you can separate your faith from the actions of your church, then why aren't you out there shouting "Not in my name!" And withholding support till it blows over? A few less idiots running around the Third World telling people not to use contraceptives would be a great help, and if enough people stopped funding it, then it might stop. After all, don't expect The Vatican to use their enormous corporate wealth to fund their missionary work... Similarities here with the thread about Uganda possibly executing people for being gay, egged on by so called Christian organisations in The States. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 11 Dec 09 - 02:12 AM Great posts! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Alice Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:53 PM Call it coercive persuasion or undue influence, but it is a common tool used by organizations who control members, and the GREATEST control is over the beliefs people have about eternity and God. If you are told that your soul will be damned for eternity unless you obey the authority figure, then you will do almost anything to obey. It may seem unbelievable, but I know of parents who put their children in harm's way because they believed their religion had more power over them than even protecting their child. As I said, this kind of control over people can happen in other groups, too, not just the Catholic church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Dec 09 - 08:43 PM "If you live in Ireland, YOU are responsible for the absolute travesty that has occurred." Joe, Far too late to deal with all the points you have made - but a couple of quickies. It is totally unfair to lay the blame for this obscenity at the door of Irish people. All of these atrocities were allowed to take place directly because of the place the Catholic church occupied in Irish society - the power it possessed reached deep into the lives and minds and souls of the Catholic population, far beyond that of the Nazis or of Stalin's regime. It was complete control of the minds of the people; it even reached beyond the grave. If you defied your priest, you could be humiliated, beaten, ostracised, lose the goodwill and necessesary suport of your neighbours, your home, your occupation, even your country, (not forgetting persecution of other members of your family - including your children). On top of all this you also stood a fair chance of eternal damnation thrown in for good measure - spiritual blackmail, which was used to terrifying effect. Can you name any despotic regime in history which has ever achieved that position over its subjects? What was it the Jesuits boasted - "Give me a child five years old and I will give you a Catholic for life". My own position. I was born and brought up in England up to ten years ago when we chose to move here, mainly because of our interest in music. My father went to fight fascism in Spain in 1937; because the Catholic Church threw its total support behind Franco's Fascist regime he was excommunicated from his church and my three sisters and I never received a Catholic education. Some of our family remained Catholic, but my father's experiences, and that of his younger siblings, who were tormented by the priests and nuns for having a 'Commie' brother who had 'sided with the Devil in Spain', prevented them from being fully sucked in to the Catholic mind-machine. I kept in fairly regular contact with one of my aunts in Dublin right up to her death a few years ago. She was one of the bravest people I ever met. She and her husband defied the anti-Catholic mobs in Derry in the 1950s, and only fled the city with her husband and three young children, the youngest a babe in arms, when their house was burned down about their ears. A hard lady - yet she was scared shitless of the priest to the day she died - what kind of organisation instils that sort of fear in its supporters - perhaps you can explain that to me? G'night all, Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:59 PM I'm stunned, Joe.. Their share of the blame? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Dec 09 - 07:02 PM Jim Carroll says:
Rarely have I seen a description of the problem that was as eloquent and incisive as the post from caitlin rua. Finally, I've seen a post that really helps make sense of the matter. As caitlin rua describes it, the problem was very similar to the racial situation in the Deep South of the United States, where racism was "the way it was," and nobody dared question it. As a result, a small number of truly evil people were able to control all of society, allowing a horrible evil to continue for a full century after slaves were freed from bondage. I've often heard it said that racism and the extermination of American Indians are the "original sins" of the United States - terrible injustices for which all Americans were and are responsible. Now, there were certain individuals who actually committed the horrible crimes, and they bear primary responsibility. However, all those who knew of the problem and did not speak out, also bear responsibility. Yes, it requires a great amount of courage to speak out injustice - but in the face of injustice and tyranny, we are morally required to show courage. Otherwise, we must accept at least part of the blame. If we did not speak out ourselves, how can we blame others for not speaking out? And yes, I think that one could argue that the "original sin" of Ireland was the tyranny of the Catholic Church, and the silent acceptance of that tyranny by the Irish people. Dublin had a chain of notoriously tyrannical archbishops. John Charles McQuaid was the Archbishop of Dublin and the Primate of Ireland from 1940-1972, and he was particularly notorious. I knew that name from long ago, because my grandmother was a McQuaid (not that she ever said anything critical of a priest or bishop). And yes, I understand that there was a network of functionaries all over Ireland to carry out the wishes of the Archbishop. This wasn't a secret - it's part of Irish literature, just as the secrets of American racism weren't really hidden. In the United States, everybody knew - and in Ireland, everybody knew. And as a result, everyone is guilty. Non-Catholics and Former Catholics in Ireland may think they're blameless and that it should only be current Catholics who take the blame and pay the price, but they're living a lie, a big lie. Running away from a problem does not mean that you escape the blame. It's ironic to see these people who ran away, now turn and point the finger of blame at those who stayed to "deal with the damage caused." There are many that contend that priests and nuns should have spoken out against this evil, and indeed they should have. Some did, and they were silenced, or transferred to a missionary country. Priests and nuns are entirely dependent on the Church for their livelihood - a small, organized group of parishioners has far less to lose by speaking out, than does a parish priest. And an organized group of parishioners can have a far better chance of being heard by a bishop, because the bishop depends on parishioners, not priests, for financial support. So, to absolve oneself of blame and to pass the blame on to priests and nuns, is cowardice. There is no question that there were priests and brothers and nuns who committed crimes of molestation and abuse, and there were bishops and archbishops who committed possibly more serious crimes by enabling the molestation and abuse to continue. They are the ones who are primarily to blame - but most of them are dead, or retired and feeble, or penniless. But the remainder of the blame rests on ALL who failed to fight this evil, ALL who failed to speak out, ALL who failed to show courage in the face of this evil. Those who ran away from the Church, have no right to turn around now and place the blame on those who stayed to clean up the mess. Now, I know that there are people here at Mudcat who are offended at any attempt to compare any injustice to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, but I disagree. The Holocaust was an absolute and unspeakable atrocity and tyranny - but all tyrannies and all atrocities follow the same pattern. Tyrannies and atrocities happen all the time, all over the world - and NOBODY is blameless. Tyrannies start with a small group of evil men (and some women). And tyrannies grow and prosper because of two things: people are silent and afraid, and people tend to place the blame on others. The injustices of Ireland and the United States and England and Iran and Cambodia and all over the world, are the responsibility of ALL the people of those countries. Injustices and tyrannies eventually come to an end, but the aftermath can often be nearly as painful and destructive as the tyranny itself. After racial segregation ended in the United States, riots ensued. In Ireland, the tyranny of England was replaced by the tyranny of the Church. Soviet tyranny was replaced by a wide array of petty tyrants. And so on, and so on, all over the world. I think that one major reason why tyrannies are so often replaced by other tyrannies, is blame. Too often, the only things people can do after a tyranny has ended, is point the finger of blame. They fail to have to courage to acknowledge their own blame for the travesty that has occurred. And that's what's happening in Ireland - mass denial of blame. The voices of outrage are directed at the Catholic Church, and at all who remain Catholic. The Catholic Church has apologized time and time again, and has paid huge sums in settlements and will undoubtedly pay even greater sums by the time this is all over, and much has been done in the Catholic Church to set up structures that will prevent such horrible injustices from happening again. Is it enough? No, certainly not. No amount is enough to repay an injustice of this magnitude. The Catholic church should never be absolved of its guilt in this matter, and should forever bear the shame of the horrible things done in its name. The detractors say that the apologies from the Church are insincere and insufficient, and I'm sure that is sometimes the case. The whole of the Catholic Church is appalled and embarrassed to the core by this scandal. However, the sincerity of an apology can be limited, when the crimes were committed by a past generation and reparations must be made by those living in the present. And when those demanding apologies and reparations are equally responsible for the wrongdoing, it can affect the sincerity and generosity of those being forced to pay and apologize. Let me give an example: If the priest in Parish A is molesting little boys, to what extent is this the responsibility of the priest ten miles away in Parish B, or the bishop fifty miles away in his ivory mansion? If the people in Parish A did not speak out and keep speaking out until the injustice is ended, aren't they more responsible than the neighboring priest, or the far away bishop who lives in a world of power and unreality? I have been told here many times, that I should be ashamed to be a Catholic. Here's a quote from above:
I live in a redneck area, one of the most politically conservative counties in the United States. There is constant pressure to force the school districts to teach "creationism," even in the community college. Barack Obama is viewed as the Devil Incarnate by many people here. People with progressive bumper stickers, risk getting their car's paint scratched with keys - and if it happens, the Conventional Wisdom is that the people with the bumper stickers were asking for trouble. My friend the Methodist minister was voted out of his job because he opposed the war in Iraq and supported homosexual marriage. The Catholic parish in town has been ruled by a small group of angry Catholic lay people for many years. This group works hard to bully the priests into submission. In a parish that normally has two or three priests to staff three churches, we went through forty priests in ten years. The priests just couldn't stand the constant battering they got, so they left as soon as they could - some to other parishes, some to lay life, some to alcoholism treatment, and at least one to early retirement and an early grave. Some just left without saying anything to anybody, and weren't heard from again. The diocese finally sent in a temporary Parochial Administrator to fix the problem. This man had spent ten years away from the priesthood, working as a law enforcement officer, including several years with the FBI. When he came into the parish, this man "didn't take no shit from nobody," and he broke the power of the bullying circle of lay people. He hired me to handle adult education and RCIA, the program for instructing people who want to become Catholics. And just after I started work, he was reassigned; and we had no pastor for almost a year. Two young, foreign-born priests were left in charge, but most of the real power was held by a woman who held the position of bookkeeper and office manager. It was hell working a new job without a boss to stand behind me. There was a stream of letters to the bishop, complaining about the heresy I was teaching. I was called to a hearing with representatives of the bishop's office because of a complaint that I was denying the 'creationist' view of the beginnings of life - even though what I was teaching was exactly what was stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was exonerated, but the hearing scared our 40-year-old priest who had recently immigrated from Poland. He demanded that I change my program of instruction, not that the changes really made any difference. The parish was eventually split. Half was run by an ultraconservative pastor who immediately made it clear that he no longer wanted my services. The other new parish got a pastor I had known for twenty years. After a few weeks, he told me he was getting financial pressure from the diocese and had to lay somebody off. I voluntarily resigned, and he agreed to let me keep doing things as a volunteer. But after that, he never let me teach, and he got a "deer in the headlights" look every time I asked if I could teach. And a year ago, he removed me from education programs completely. I just recently found out that he had been under constant pressure from the parish bullies, and he was having enough trouble defending himself and just couldn't defend me. I guess I can't fault him or the Polish priest - you have to choose your battles, and it's tough to defend others when you yourself are under attack. So, I spoke out, and lost my job because of it; and I continue to speak out. Over the years, I have spoken sternly to priests because they were drunk in public (and on the altar), because of inappropriate conduct with women, and for being petty dictators. Most of those priests respected me for what I had to say, and most are still my friends today. But I got shot down by anonymous lay people who made anonymous phone calls and wrote anonymous letters about my teaching "heresies" like evolution. You'd think I should have learned my lesson, that I should have had the good sense to leave a church where the bullies can have so much influence. Well, I'm not going to do that. I missed Mass last Sunday because I had the flu, and my substitute was amazed how many people asked what happened to me. By being who I am and doing what I do, I'm able to bring joy to a lot of people. And I find that there are a lot of people in my parish who really love me, and who take comfort in the fact that I speak out when they feel they can't. I can't fix everything that's wrong with the Catholic Church, but somehow I'm able to function within it and do a lot of good. So, why should I leave? So, before you place the blame, look at a mirror. If you live in Ireland, YOU are responsible for the absolute travesty that has occurred. Yes, the Catholic Church is guilty - but it has already shouldered much of the blame and paid much of the cost. What has not happened, is for the Irish people to acknowledge their share of the blame for the abuse and molestation of children that was endemic in their society for so long. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: mg Date: 10 Dec 09 - 06:39 PM The difference between a hockey coach and a priest or nun is that the p or n can convince you that you are going to hell. And it is an institutional problem, as evidenced by the massive, prolonged, insane coverups. Throw the enablers in jail, at least a couple of them. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 10 Dec 09 - 05:01 PM The problem is widespread throughout society;, a hockey coach was charged here yesterday, the most recent in a long line of abuse of young by people in charge of them. "No significant curative treatment for pedophilia has yet been found." A statement in Wikipedia, probably correct since no collective efforts or funded investigations into the causes and treatment, medical, psychological, environmental, or other, have been undertaken by society. In Canada, those convicted from the general society are sent to prison, but after serving sentence, they are released, but with tags that label their propensity to repeat. They have not, and cannot be cured. What is the answer? The situation in Ireland seems to reflect a more concentrated occurrence of abuse, but the situation is widespread and not confined to Catholic institutions. Native children in Canada were subjected to similar treatment, not all in Catholic institutions. Ireland had (has?) a situation where most children were funneled through a religious educational system, not true in the U. S. and Canada with public secular schools for the majority in the U. S. and public Catholic day schools in Canada for perhaps half the kids. The singular nature of the system in Ireland undoubtedly contributes to the problems there because people are afraid to talk about them. Certainly the Catholic schools in Canada, mostly non-residential, have dedicated teachers and turn out a good 'product'. The small city I was raised in had a majority Catholic population and an archdiocese, but being small, everybody knew everybody else, and kids in Catholic schools were free of abuse (kids at one Catholic school told of one brother who would throw his inkpot at miscreants in class, but that was about as close to abuse as we ever heard about). Joe has tried to put the problem in perspective; individuals, not the institution are to blame, a SOLUTION is needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: Smokey. Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:23 PM "Certain individuals in leadership positions have violated those teachings - does that means that I am bound by conscience to abandon MY religious beliefs and hand over MY church to the transgressors? That's absurd! Send them to prison if they committed crimes, but don't tell me I have to give them my church." I didn't, Joe. I said I found it 'very hard to see how' (etc.). Not being a Catholic, I can only see it from that point of view. You're a Catholic and obviously see it from a different angle. Do what you think is right - beyond that I'm not telling you what you have to do; I have no right to do that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Suffer The Children (Dublin child abuse)-2 From: MartinRyan Date: 10 Dec 09 - 03:18 PM In fairness, the latest statement by the Irish Bishops Conference (just released) goes some way to acknowledging their own wrongdoing. Regards |
