Child sex scandal in Dublin

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

09/03/2006, 2:48 PM
finlma

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hither green

I agree with you there. 100 odd priests in 66 years, that’s 1 and a bit a year - obviously 1 and a bit too many but it’s probably a similar number to what you’d find in teaching or medicine or social services or whatever.

Bullsh1t. If you did a per head calculation of people in these professions compared to priests - I guarantee you that the proportion of kiddy-fiddlers in the priesthood is way higher than any other.
The priesthood is a haven for the sexually repressed or those hiding their genuine sexuality. You can throw out any amount of excuses but there's escaping the fact that the Catholic Church hid and protected known child abusers and that is nothing short of a disgrace and I for one disown myself from any association that do that.
09/03/2006, 3:10 PM
Hither green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

I'm sorry but you're going to have to back up that statement. Wouldn't mind a reference for only 100 priests either.

The reference to 100 priests comes out of yesterday�s story, which is what we�re discussing isn�t it? The press reports said since 1940 there have been 350 cases involving 100 odd priests. In terms of whether other vocations have similar numbers, we�ll never know as the figures aren�t out there. You obviously think not but in terms of stories that come up in the news I wouldn�t be shocked at there being one teacher emerging per year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by finlma

You can throw out any amount of excuses but there's escaping the fact that the Catholic Church hid and protected known child abusers and that is nothing short of a disgrace and I for one disown myself from any association that do that.

I�m not throwing out any excuses, the church�s actions in covering up the abuse have been an absolutely disgraceful. They�ve destroyed many people�s trust in the church and may never recover that. They do, however, remain a powerful institution throughout the world, with a hold in several countries similar to what they had in Ireland - what's important now is that they stop covering up these scandals and start dealing with those priests and start communicating with the various criminal justice systems.
09/03/2006, 3:53 PM
pete

I won't comment on how flawed the 100 priests quote is as need to backup with link as i have no proof.

I am certain we do not need a tribunal for priestly sex abuse. The actsare criminal and as far as i know htere is no stautory limitation. Clearly we have seen some priests jailed for their offences but up to now i do not believe there have been any prosecutions taken for the cover ups? IMO covering up sexual abuse is as much a crime as basically encourages it. It is alsoo excuse to blame the it on "thats the way things done".

I also disagree with the "deal" the government did with the Catholic Church where i think the church gave up some property to the state in exchange for protection from having to give compensation - this was ashocking agreement as leaves the state open to unknown financial costs.
09/03/2006, 4:31 PM
Hither green

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

I won't comment on how flawed the 100 priests quote is as need to backup with link as i have no proof.

That's what the report said, well according to the BBC

"The Catholic Church has been hit by abuse scandals worldwide. More than 100 Catholic priests in the Dublin region of Ireland are suspected of having abused children in the last 66 years, according to a new report."

It was a report by the diocese anyway, so I'd be surprised if the figures weren't flawed.
09/03/2006, 9:36 PM
Dr.Nightdub

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bald Student

I think the problem runs deeper in our society than just in the church though. Up untill recently it was rare for any paedophile to be brought to justice, or even public attention. The silence on the issue from everyone involved, including the church, the schools, the guards and the hospitals was such that a lot of people didn't even know what paedophelia was up untill about 20 years ago.

1. And just who ran the schools and hospitals (and still do in many cases)?

2. Don't go dragging other institutions into it, it sounds like (though I hope it's not the case) trying to dilute the responsibility that lies with the perpetrators. Silence from others wouldn't have been an issue if the priests hadn't been abusing kids in the first place.
09/03/2006, 9:49 PM
Bald Student

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr.Nightdub

it sounds like (though I hope it's not the case) trying to dilute the responsibility that lies with the perpetrators.

Not at all, the point I was making was that the blame for the act lies with the perpetrator but the blame for covering it up spreads very far. There were an awful lot of children abused, some people claim that it was as many as one in four, so an awful lot of people both inside and outside the church must have known what was going on. Yet there was nothing known publically about this untill recently.
09/03/2006, 10:53 PM
pete

100 priests in just Dublin alone even over 66 years is a lot as how many priest would have been that area in the time. Its realistic that only abuse in last 30-40 years is being reported anyway & no very likely an amount is not being dragged back up by the abused.
10/03/2006, 7:39 AM
Macy

And how long did the Church let those 100 priests get away with it? How many convictions, how many ex-communicated. 100 priests in 200 parishes over 66 years!

I see as part of the on going softening up PR campaign, the Priests organisation is now saying they're being hard done by and want people accused to still have access to children. It beggars belief it really does. They were on Newstalk last night, and there's a link here
10/03/2006, 7:58 AM
Dodge

Most newstalk shows can be downloaded too.
12/03/2006, 1:33 AM
new blue

where were all the current 'holier than thou' critics when the religious were doing the jobs no one else wanted
what a twisted mentality to turn on those who did sterling work and mostly unpaid because of the sins(horrible-yes) of a few
12/03/2006, 9:10 AM
dahamsta

So you're saying it was ok for the church to cover up new blue?
12/03/2006, 4:32 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

So you're saying it was ok for the church to cover up new blue?

I think he is suggesting that some crimes can be balanced against all the good from the past...

Incidently no one forced the church to partake in education or health care. I;m sure they had many reasons for doing it anyway plus some secondary church schools are private fee paying. Same could be said of church rule hospitals. Don't forget the public & church members paid for most of those facilities.

Instead of meaningless tribunals & enquires we need some find of legal purges where criminal abusers are pursued & prosecuted so can have clean slate affect.
13/03/2006, 7:55 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by new blue

where were all the current 'holier than thou' critics when the religious were doing the jobs no one else wanted
what a twisted mentality to turn on those who did sterling work and mostly unpaid because of the sins(horrible-yes) of a few

Yeah, hats off to them for brainwashing generations with their doctrine, as well as abusing them. It wasn't for purely altruistic reasons they did this work. It was as much about power and control.

If it was for any other reason, they'd have no problem insisting that the 95% of church controlled national schools are passed over to the state to control.
13/03/2006, 3:47 PM
Hither green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

Yeah, hats off to them for brainwashing generations with their doctrine, as well as abusing them. It wasn't for purely altruistic reasons they did this work. It was as much about power and control.

If it was for any other reason, they'd have no problem insisting that the 95% of church controlled national schools are passed over to the state to control.

You may disagree and dislike the church but that�s laughably absurd but I suspect that it says more about your motives in life than anything else. You�ve clearly never benefited from someone else�s altruism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pete

Incidently no one forced the church to partake in education or health care. I;m sure they had many reasons for doing it anyway plus some secondary church schools are private fee paying. Same could be said of church rule hospitals. Don't forget the public & church members paid for most of those facilities.

�Church to partake in education or health care�, I think they did a tad more than that � establishing education and health care for example, in Ireland and throughout Europe. And obviously they did it for the cash, clearly medieval church leaders were just entrepreneurs out to make a quick buck.
16/03/2006, 9:24 AM
Macy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hither green

You may disagree and dislike the church but that�s laughably absurd but I suspect that it says more about your motives in life than anything else. You�ve clearly never benefited from someone else�s altruism.

All state supported schools should be secular/non demoninational. The state should not be forcing people to have to endure catholic doctrine in state schools. I don't see what that really says about my lifes motives, bar the fact I don't agree with a particular religion (any religion) being forced on people.

If the church truely did it purely for educational purposes, now the country's in a position to provide education for the population itself, and indeed totally funds it, they'd have no problems handing over control to the state of those schools. If people want their children to have catholic education, do it in their own time. Ditto confirmation classes, communion classes etc. The church should have no problem with this, if they truly only care about educating children. What would be your objections to this way forward, in the multicultural society we are now?
16/03/2006, 10:03 AM
Block G Raptor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hither green

clearly medieval church leaders were just entrepreneurs out to make a quick buck.

Yeah sure couldn't members of the medieval Church BUY a place in heaven? Theres a word for it but can't remember it

If anyones interested I've a bucket of steam and a chocolate fireGuard for sale:rolleyes:
16/03/2006, 12:17 PM
Hither green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

If the church truely did it purely for educational purposes, now the country's in a position to provide education for the population itself, and indeed totally funds it, they'd have no problems handing over control to the state of those schools.

I have to admit to being not entirely up to speed on the position in Ireland but I�d be surprised if the Church didn�t make some financial contribution to the running of schools. Over here I believe they contribute �20 odd million to the running of their schools.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

If people want their children to have catholic education, do it in their own time.

Well I guess that�s down to personal choice, many see education as having a much broader role, which includes instilling social responsibility and morals, which is where religion/spirituality comes in. Perhaps the problem is that there�s less choice over schools in Ireland. Over here you�ve got an enormous range of schools, if you don�t want your children to receive a religious education then you should send them elsewhere. People are queuing up to try to get their children into Catholic and CofE schools in preference to non-denominational or secular ones. Personally I know that I�d rather that any child of mine go to a faith school (of whatever faith) than a secular one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Block G Raptor

Yeah sure couldn't members of the medieval Church BUY a place in heaven? Theres a word for it but can't remember it

Indulgences!

And nobody claims the chuch hasn�t suffered from corruption, like every other man made institution - over the last 2000 years it�s had more than its fair share, but that�s not the same as suggesting that their actions were driven by financial gain. Certainly the church in the past wasn�t that well organised.
16/03/2006, 12:59 PM
Macy

The church makes no contribution, and if it does it's purely from money collected from parishioners. That includes land that was donated to the church by benefactors - I'd be surprised if they've ever brought a piece of land themselves. Sold a lot, but not brought much. Many Catholic schools in the UK are fee paying as well.

95% of national schools in the state are Church controlled. Any financial contribution is minimal, if anything. In the UK it is the opposite, with the vast majority of state schools non denominational, with the minority RC or Anglican.

You don't have to partake in organised religion to have social responsibility or morals. I think the topic of this thread illustrates that the Catholic Church is in no position to teach anyone in this regard. And non-denominational schools doesn't mean that religious education isn�t taught - just means that it isn�t the teachings of one specific religion.
16/03/2006, 1:38 PM
Block G Raptor

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hither green

Indulgences!

Thats the one..Junior Cert History was a lonnnnnnng Time ago!
16/03/2006, 3:13 PM
Hither green

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

The church makes no contribution, and if it does it's purely from money collected from parishioners. That includes land that was donated to the church by benefactors - I'd be surprised if they've ever brought a piece of land themselves. Sold a lot, but not brought much. Many Catholic schools in the UK are fee paying as well.

Arguably all church money is from parishoners, originally anyway, it's still their money though to dispence with in whatever direction they will.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

I think the topic of this thread illustrates that the Catholic Church is in no position to teach anyone in this regard.

I think that�s harsh. Whatever the hierarchy may have advocated the Church still does commendable acts and most of the ground level workers have quite a lot to offer. I've very good memories of many of my own teachers. My issue is that you can't tar them all with the same brush.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macy

You don't have to partake in organised religion to have social responsibility or morals... And non-denominational schools doesn't mean that religious education isn�t taught - just means that it isn�t the teachings of one specific religion.

I've less of an issue with non-denominational schools than I have with secular ones � those dodgy ones you hear about over here that try to avoid religion altogether - I have severe doubts about their ability to sufficiently teach morals or indeed to contribute positively to society at all.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page