Did you really expect anything different?Quote:
the fact that the State hides behind technicality to avoid redress, bodes very badly for the future of our country.
Printable View
Did you really expect anything different?Quote:
the fact that the State hides behind technicality to avoid redress, bodes very badly for the future of our country.
Very good article Banquo, thank you for the link. Perhaps the most disturbing thing is the anecdote at the end about the hmmanity of English prisons at the same time, not something I have heard before.
Not to beat at this again, but it seems to me that a part of the problem is the corporate and monastic nature of the administration. None of these men or women had to go home to a spouse and answer the question, "So, how was your day".
Its an interesting article but I disagree that the blame should go mostly to the state and not the Church. Firstly the Church had direct responsibility for the institutions where the abuse was happening. Secondly, the church itself proclaims standards of behaviour particularly towards children and the poor which were disregarded and subverted in these cases. The church can't claim that the State should have stopped these people behaving in the way they did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
One interesting aspect of the article is that it paints a picture of endemic abuse where emotional and physical abuse were the norm which all "carers" were expected to support. This contrasts with the American, British and Australian scandals which are more about individuals who were allowed to continue and were protected when they should have been stopped and punished.
It's an attractive idea, but not, I think, one that can be supported by evidence. Most child abuse happens within the family with the spouse at best turning a blind eye. Whilst these terrible things were happening in Ireland, married men in children's homes in England would have been doing similar things and going home to the wife and behaving quite normally, seeming to the neighbours to have been pillars of the community. It seems that it was much more widespread in Ireland because, if the article is correct, new members of the religious community were expected to fit in with the culture of violence and abuse that had grown up. The fact that these people had taken a vow of obedience to their superiors made it much harder for them to challenge what was going - that would have required real courage and self-confidence. Not that this excuses them. The obedience they swore to would not have included imoral acts which these clearly were. It is yet another sobering reminder of what human beings are capable of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Child mistreatment was only recognised as a social phenomenon a couple of decades ago. Before that doctors did notice kids coming in frequently with bruises or broken bones but were actually scratching their heads what could cause this. When an American psychiatrist suggested that it may be because a fairly large amount of parents habitually mistreat their kids he was met with disbelief and outrage (not just from doctors, but society as a whole)Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC article
Link (not very informative, but it was the best I could find- the guy doesn't even have his own wiki)
I found it extremely hard to imagine that society as a whole could be so blind to child abuse, but it's the truth - and hindsight is 20/20. In this case it's disgusting that the perpetrators are getting away with less than a slap on the wrist, but that they could do it mostly unnoticed in the past isn't surprising.
*Thread resurrection!! *
(We are Catholics. We have resurrections)
"Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood".
Misery breeds great literature. Which is, not surprisingly then, Ireland great export product. Second only in importance to the export of poor, huddled masses.
The quote above is from Frank McCourt's 'Angela's Ashes'. It tells the story that should be familiar to many posters here: to hell or to America. Though peculiarly in Frank's case, his family chose hell and returned from Brooklyn to Ireland in 1935. Where Frank's family did as the Irish were wont to do for centuries: live a life of misery.
Has anybody read it by any chance? Is it a good book? Will it further my understanding of Ireland, of Catholicism?
Are you saying that the church doesn't care if children are born out of wedlock? Because I have met very few people who treat either my parents or myself badly simply because they weren't married at the time. And the very few who did were just hardcore religious nutjobs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
It is horrible that this is happening in the church but it doesn't surprise me. Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big *daisy* and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.
Wait, are you trolling or is this your considered belief? I can't tell ...Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
While the Church may not approve of the fact children are being born out of wedlock, it is not the fault of the child, and as such we cannot and the Church does not look down on the child for it. It is the mother's sin and not the child's in the eyes of the Church.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
You really believe that? Seriously?Quote:
Christianity is basically just a big cop-out. People can steal, kill, rape and just generaly be a big :daisy: and so long as they believe in jesus they will live in eternal happiness.
You'd think that on the surface. However, if you REALLY believe in Jesus, you won't steal, kill, etc. And if your belief in Jesus is just lip service, the Man will know and you'll be on the elevator ride down to sub-level 666 - and don't forget to dress for warm weather. Well, that's my understanding of the belief deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
But if a criminal got to end of a long life of being a *daisy* and truly felt sorry about it all then god would still grant him eternal happiness, no? Remember the criminal that Jesus forgave in his last moments on the cross? He would have believed in god for a matter of (hours, days? how long did a crucifiction last) yet he was still granted eternal happiness despite his crimes. Would you let a murderer evade a gaol sentence simply because they were sorry?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
There is obviously more to it then "just being sorry". You make it sound like it was the playground when the big kid after hitting the little kid get forced by the teacher to go to the little kid and say a forced sorry out, then be let off.
Of course simply saying sorry and not meaning it isn't enough, they have to mean it. But do you deny that belief in god and being truly sorry for your sins is enough to get into heaven?
And my question still stands. If a murderer was really, truely, 100% sorry and they truthfully said that they would never do it again in their life would you let them out of gaol?
Wow, another meaningless religion-bashing thread... how surprising.
No, because we, as humans, have no way of telling if it is true. God can see the murderer and whether the murderer tells the truth, and as such He can make that judgement. We, as humans, must err on the side of caution and keep him [the murderer] in prison for his sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas