-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Horrific child abuse in Catholic Irish schools
- Thread starter Morrigan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- child abuse
shandyjan
Master Poster
That is just sick.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Would it be illegal to be part of an organization where one of its aims was to help people abuse children? If so what is the difference between the Catholic church and that sort of organization?
shadron
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2005
- Messages
- 5,918
The purpose of an apology is to admit error, first and foremost. While it won't take the effects of the problem away, it does provide *some* closure for the victims. It flushes out the collusion into the light of day. It corrects the "verdict of history". And it gives atheists something to leverage upon (as well as anti-papists). And a firm purpose of amendment must include willingness to set things right; for this we still await the word. It seems appropriate:
An Act of Contrition, Irish version in use in 1960s
O my God, I am heartily sorry
for having offended Thee
and I detest my sinsabove every other evil
because they displease Thee,
my God, Who, in Thy infinite wisdom,
art so deserving of all my love
and I firmly resolve
with the help of Thy grace
never more to offend Thee
and to amend my life.
Amen.
As the RC replies during the sacrament of penance, "Go now, and sin no more."
P.S.: I await the apology for the collusion with the Axis powers before and during WWII. Possibly by this time next century.
Last edited:
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
The Catholic Church is sick.
Have a read of the report (I'm about 2/3 of the way through it) and you'll find "sickening" is one of the more charitable ways of describing the church's (and to a lesser extent teh state's) actions.
It's one of those things that personally would be of no interest to me but for some people that type of apology can be important, so as long as it is backed up with action then I think it can do no further harm.
In the past I have seen people here excuse and defend the RCC child abuse scandal by putting forward arguments like "the church did react", "the church wasn't aware", "no higher proportion of offenders than the rest of society" and so on and I've given those types of arguments some credence. With the Ryan report, and now this one, we can see there is no such defence, these reports have shown that the RCC is not only institutionally morally corrupt and without compassion for victims of abuse but, in my opinion, criminally so. The church not only knowingly but actively shielded criminals from prosecution for their crimes against children simply to protect the church itself. The church was more concerned about financial losses than protecting a single child from abuse.
I can't see it. If the archbishop had apologised and resigned perhaps I could have given it some credence. If he had apologised before the report was issued, even then it might mean something. But now?
Personally I'm with you but from my experience it would seem that some people do view this type of apology quite differently.
I was also brought up within a community that was very intolerant of RCs and I have tried to ensure my early background did not influence me in my view of the RCC. (I'd try to avoid demonising the church itself and would rather criticise the individuals that made up the church or its stated doctrines and beliefs.) However after these two reports I no longer have any reservations of "demonsiaing" the RCC, because it has shown itself to be, by their own definition, evil. Demonic is a good description of the people who colluded to protect the church at the expense of the victims of the church.
Denver
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2007
- Messages
- 10,015
Do we? Could an equally valid statement be: "Now we know certain jobs are more likely to fail in their long-term coverup of the peadophiles in their midst"?
Which is a much scarier thought.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I'm not sure I want to read this report because it sounds absolutely appalling. I totally take your point.
I suppose one question that remains however is, at what point does "the RCC" end, and "ordinary parishoners" begin. There's too long a history where I come from of demonising ordinary people because they are ordinary parishoners of the RCC, and I wouldn't like to see these current developments lead to a deterioration in community relations that have been painstakingly built up over the years.
Rolfe.
It is an appalling report. I did not read the report into the Boston diocese, but it is referred to in this one and it seems many of the same findings apply.
I am not so sure that the mechanisms which lead to this conclusion are unusual, though. It seems to me that this kind of failing is endemic to large organisations. I do not mean to excuse it in any way but I think we have to recognise that the effects of institutional behaviour tend to be remote. People who are perfectly decent in their ordinary lives are apt to be blind in odd ways. It is a truism that where something goes horribly wrong the best approach is to admit it; compensate those who are hurt by it; and deal with both the systemic and the individual failings which led to it. But despite this obvious truth we very often find this does not happen. There are peculiar dislocations at a very low and probably harmless level: for example it is not expected that an employee will criticise the organisation they work for in public: and indeed in some jobs one can be sacked for doing so. We have introduced "whistleblower's charters" to deal with that but it seems to me the attitude remains ambivalent at best. Perhaps we are not very good at identifying competing principles and prioritising those: certainly I think there are things which many people do at work that they would not dream of doing in private life.
I suppose that I expect a great deal of a church because they have both the time and the professional responsibility to address moral dilemmas. And the RCC in particular has had centuries: there are no new moral problems and there are no institutional failures which they have not met before, IMO. And yet beside the inexcusable failings we also see that the church spent a lot of money on treatment and support for the priests: it does not seem they did not wish to deal with the problem: more that they saw it as a problem for the priests and for the church. They did not see it as a problem for the victims, and the damage to them was nowhere given priority or even recognition
We see the same thing in failures in health and safety at work, which is a scandal of monumental proportions but is not dealt with effectively. There is some oversight in place but it is clearly ineffective. We see it in corporations which are very respectable but which only provide their workers with the protection required by the law of the country they operate in: the do not always apply best practice in all of their sites across the world, and indeed will often defend themselves by pointing out their compliance with local regulations although those are far below what is taken for granted in other plants.
It seems to me that this kind of thing is exactly parallel: in a mob it seems that we abnegate the self and the standards of individual morality. So also in a big organisation, whatever its character; part of our individual conscience is handed over to another, and indeed this is expected. Where it goes too far we despise the "jobsworth", but we accept it as necessary within certain limits. And where there is little or no external regulation it seems that all organisations tend to foster this kind of failure.
I find myself very outraged by this report: but I am also conscious that the issue is emotive and it is immediate. The church has more experience and more responsibility: its position of trust and its power are arguably unique: and yet I am asking myself is the mechanism different from the one which put children up chimneys? Or the one which allows international companies to employ very young children in sweatshops? They also turn a blind eye to what they are doing; they keep it quiet; and when they are found out they apologise and introduce some different standards. Can we then say they are demonic? Evil? Many would resist that notion I think. And in the end so would I. I do not think any big organisation can be trusted to behave as well as individuals normally will. I am inclined to think that strong regulation and an insistence on open dealings is the minimum we can demand if we wish to avoid real horrors. And yet there is resistance to that everywhere I look.
I am not so sure that the mechanisms which lead to this conclusion are unusual, though. It seems to me that this kind of failing is endemic to large organisations. I do not mean to excuse it in any way but I think we have to recognise that the effects of institutional behaviour tend to be remote. People who are perfectly decent in their ordinary lives are apt to be blind in odd ways. It is a truism that where something goes horribly wrong the best approach is to admit it; compensate those who are hurt by it; and deal with both the systemic and the individual failings which led to it. But despite this obvious truth we very often find this does not happen. There are peculiar dislocations at a very low and probably harmless level: for example it is not expected that an employee will criticise the organisation they work for in public: and indeed in some jobs one can be sacked for doing so. We have introduced "whistleblower's charters" to deal with that but it seems to me the attitude remains ambivalent at best. Perhaps we are not very good at identifying competing principles and prioritising those: certainly I think there are things which many people do at work that they would not dream of doing in private life.
I suppose that I expect a great deal of a church because they have both the time and the professional responsibility to address moral dilemmas. And the RCC in particular has had centuries: there are no new moral problems and there are no institutional failures which they have not met before, IMO. And yet beside the inexcusable failings we also see that the church spent a lot of money on treatment and support for the priests: it does not seem they did not wish to deal with the problem: more that they saw it as a problem for the priests and for the church. They did not see it as a problem for the victims, and the damage to them was nowhere given priority or even recognition
We see the same thing in failures in health and safety at work, which is a scandal of monumental proportions but is not dealt with effectively. There is some oversight in place but it is clearly ineffective. We see it in corporations which are very respectable but which only provide their workers with the protection required by the law of the country they operate in: the do not always apply best practice in all of their sites across the world, and indeed will often defend themselves by pointing out their compliance with local regulations although those are far below what is taken for granted in other plants.
It seems to me that this kind of thing is exactly parallel: in a mob it seems that we abnegate the self and the standards of individual morality. So also in a big organisation, whatever its character; part of our individual conscience is handed over to another, and indeed this is expected. Where it goes too far we despise the "jobsworth", but we accept it as necessary within certain limits. And where there is little or no external regulation it seems that all organisations tend to foster this kind of failure.
I find myself very outraged by this report: but I am also conscious that the issue is emotive and it is immediate. The church has more experience and more responsibility: its position of trust and its power are arguably unique: and yet I am asking myself is the mechanism different from the one which put children up chimneys? Or the one which allows international companies to employ very young children in sweatshops? They also turn a blind eye to what they are doing; they keep it quiet; and when they are found out they apologise and introduce some different standards. Can we then say they are demonic? Evil? Many would resist that notion I think. And in the end so would I. I do not think any big organisation can be trusted to behave as well as individuals normally will. I am inclined to think that strong regulation and an insistence on open dealings is the minimum we can demand if we wish to avoid real horrors. And yet there is resistance to that everywhere I look.
Cainkane1
Philosopher
In a sick sort of way they are precious after they grow up just a little.I'm not surprised at all. Child abuse, brought to you by those who think every fetus is precious, of course until the become children
sorry just ranting...
Ausmerican
Illuminator
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 3,490
I'd ask Cardinal Bernard Law about that. I think if anyone in another field was as busy covering up for the pedophiles below them, and shuffling them around to avoid scrutiny, they would be in jail. I mean when you boil it down where is the difference between covering it up and allowing it to continue like he did and actively organizing a pedophile ring?
But instead the Vatican moves him to Rome away from the law here. Seems those collars do a pretty good job of protecting criminals after all.
Is there a country with a significant presence of the Catholic Church that HASN'T had one of these scandals happen? What I don't understand is the reaction in most cases, or rather, the lack of one. If any other multinational organization had pedophilia scandals among its employees in nearly every country they exist in how many of their outlets would still be open and well patronized? Or, on a smaller scale. if Wal-Mart was having this problem in just about every state of the USA do you think they would still be the number one retailer?
I made the mistake of making a mild criticism of the Catholic Church about two years ago in front of my wife's aunt, who is a member. I was told in no uncertain terms that, as I was not Catholic, I had no right at all to criticize. My response was that the members should make it unnecessary for outsiders to criticize by taking action themselves. Coerup was not the action I had in mind however.
Whilst I agree with your general argument, after all human behaviour is pretty common in humans, I think you are not taking into account adequately some of the unique aspects that arise when it is an organised religion that "goes bad".
By their own definitions what the church and all the individuals involved did was wrong, it breached their own laws, the laws of the state and their morals; I merely pass judgement on them based on their own standards and it is by their own definition that I conclude they are evil and that their behaviour was demonic.
Last edited: