Thousands were raped & beaten in Ireland's Catholic run reform schools

[Alien 10]

Grahame, you haven't answered my questions in my original posts?

 

I am genuinely wanting a serious, well thought out reply to some of the questions i posed.

 

Would you not agree that in this particular instance, religion has been hijacked and used to abuse children? What sort of god would allow his creations to abuse thousands of children, who had already been orphaned, over a period of 30 years? He can't be so powerful as you believe if he saw this and made no intervention. Instead he provided a platform for this to happen.

 

 

Man has always used Religion as a get out clause....God will forgive!

 

He forgives the sinners and the victims are welcomed unto his bussom.

 

Simples!

[metaphoria 10]

Man has always used Religion as a get out clause....God will forgive!

 

He forgives the sinners and the victims are welcomed unto his bussom.

 

Simples!

 

No, not quite that simple. Sincerity of wrong-doing, as in repentance is a thing here. It's not about a casual 'sorry'.

[plekhanov 10]

Perhaps some of you may be interested in a catholic person's point of view of the discussed issue. Well, i don't speak for all, but just for myself: sad; horrified; disappointed; let down; put in a situation of questioning personal faith; wondering if this is the fault of the catholic church or if it is the fault of individuals who have used the catholic church as a vehicle to disguise and facilitate their behaviour. Either way, the way I think the catholic church has to answer for this with responsbility.

As numerous people have pointed out in this thread the anger at the church is not because it happened to have some paedophiles in it who used their positions to gain access to children to abuse.

 

The anger is due to the fact that when the church hierarchy became aware of the activities of paedophiles within the church the overwhelming concern was the damage this would do to the church's image, protecting children entrusted to the church from abuse was of no concern. Consequently the church hierarchy did everything it could to hush up abuse and protect paedophiles from the authorities whilst supplying then with fresh children to rape.

 

It is not the Catholic Church's fault that some of it's staff like to rape children. It is however entirely the church's fault that it covered up the raping of children when it became aware of it and enabled the raping a more children for decades. It is also the fault of the Catholic Church that it is still doing all it can to protect paedophile priests from being prosecuted for their crimes.

 

Just look at this summary of the report and you can see why people are so enraged:

 

Sexual abuse

 

18. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.

 

19. It is impossible to determine the full extent of sexual abuse committed in boys’ schools. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions.

 

20. Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.

The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offence.

 

21. The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.

The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.

 

22. When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a lay teacher.

Men who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order. There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.

 

23. Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.

 

Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were no protocols or guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory behaviour. The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.

 

24. In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased significantly.

 

For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was discontinued. In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.

 

25. The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.

 

Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.

 

26. In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.

 

Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.

 

27. Older boys sexually abused younger boys and the system did not offer protection from bullying of this kind.

 

There was evidence that boys who were victims of sexual abuse were physically punished as severely as the perpetrator when the abuse was reported or discovered. Inevitably, boys learned to suffer in silence rather than report the abuse and face punishment.

 

28. Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, nuns’ attitudes and mores made it difficult for them to deal with such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and fear of reporting sexual abuse.

Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.

 

29. Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.

When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department. Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.

 

30. The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.

 

All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation.

 

The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.

 

The Catholic Church knew about the abuse for decades and simply sort to cover it up, the church knew that paedophiles tend to re-offend but continued to hush up their crimes and move them to new jobs where they were free to abuse again.

 

And the Catholic hierarchy is still protecting these paedophiles, the Christian Brotherhood sued to ensure that this report couldn't be used to bring any paedophile priests to justice and in the week when this report was released the new head of the Catholic Church in England praised the 'courage' of paedophile priests for giving testimony that his Church had guaranteed couldn't actually be used to convict them of anything and whined that decades of systematic brutality & enabling the raping children would "overshadow all of the good that they also did."

[plekhanov 10]

No, not quite that simple. Sincerity of wrong-doing, as in repentance is a thing here. It's not about a casual 'sorry'.

The fact that the catholic hierarchy for decades let paedophiles go back to working with defenceless children after little more than a ritualised 'sorry' makes that rather difficult to believe.

 

The catholic church from top to bottom including the current pope is implicated in the attempts to hush up abuse and protect paedophile priests from the authorities thus enabling their subsequent abuse. How can you believe that an organisation which deliberately engaging in such evil practices for decades can be the one true church of an all knowing and loving god?

[metaphoria 10]

As numerous people have pointed out in this thread the anger at the church is not because it happened to have some paedophiles in it who used their positions to gain access to children to abuse.

 

 

The anger is due to the fact that when the church hierarchy became aware of the activities of paedophiles within the church the overwhelming concern was the damage this would do to the church's image, protecting children entrusted to the church from abuse was of no concern. Consequently the church hierarchy did everything it could to hush up abuse and protect paedophiles from the authorities whilst supplying then with fresh children to rape.

 

Obviously, and in fairness yes.

 

It is not the Catholic Church's fault that some of it's staff like to rape children. It is however entirely the church's fault that it covered up the raping of children when it became aware of it and enabled the raping a more children for decades. It is also the fault of the Catholic Church that it is still doing all it can to protect paedophile priests from being prosecuted for their crimes.

 

Yes it is the fault of the catholic church if it has in the past tried to cover things up, I would agree entirely. Yet considering I had to provide a full CRB check in order to do Sunday school teaching, I don't think it is fair to say that the catholic church isn't doing what it can.

 

Just look at this summary of the report and you can see why people are so enraged:

 

No Plekanhov, you quote and question pick by piece people's posts, sentence by sentence, yet you seem to expect people to read lengthy quotes which you don't comment on. I came on a forum to discuss opinion, not to access information which I can by my own means.

 

Sexual abuse

 

18. Sexual abuse was endemic in boys’ institutions. The situation in girls’ institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual abuse was not systemic in girls’ schools.

 

19. It is impossible to determine the full extent of sexual abuse committed in boys’ schools. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions.

 

20. Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator. When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.

The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offence.

 

21. The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.

The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.

 

22. When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a lay teacher.

Men who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order. There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.

 

23. Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.

 

Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were no protocols or guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory behaviour. The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.

 

24. In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased significantly.

 

For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was discontinued. In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in boys’ institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.

 

25. The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal convictions and witness accounts.

 

Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.

 

26. In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.

 

Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including safety and protection of children.

 

27. Older boys sexually abused younger boys and the system did not offer protection from bullying of this kind.

 

There was evidence that boys who were victims of sexual abuse were physically punished as severely as the perpetrator when the abuse was reported or discovered. Inevitably, boys learned to suffer in silence rather than report the abuse and face punishment.

 

28. Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered. However, nuns’ attitudes and mores made it difficult for them to deal with such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and fear of reporting sexual abuse.

Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.

 

29. Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of a culture of silence about the issue.

When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Gardaí were not informed. On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the Department. Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State schools.

 

30. The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all cases.

 

All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for investigation.

 

The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the limitations of their role in respect of these complaints.

 

The Catholic Church knew about the abuse for decades and simply sort to cover it up, the church knew that paedophiles tend to re-offend but continued to hush up their crimes and move them to new jobs where they were free to abuse again.

 

And the Catholic hierarchy is still protecting these paedophiles, the Christian Brotherhood sued to ensure that this report couldn't be used to bring any paedophile priests to justice and in the week when this report was released the new head of the Catholic Church in England praised the 'courage' of paedophile priests for giving testimony that his Church had guaranteed couldn't actually be used to convict them of anything and whined that decades of systematic brutality & enabling the raping children would "overshadow all of the good that they also did.

 

Why don't you comment on the individual sentences and points of your quotes? Maybe I, or someone else could help to answer your points?

 

I may be catholic, but I have no will, intentention or desire to stand by a protection racket of paedophiles, despite what 'good they did'. Quite the opposite. But let's not jump to the conclusion that every catholic supports the protection of paedophiles, and well...from my point of view, it's not Jesus's fault.

Edited May 24, 2009 by metaphoria

[skinz 10]

No, not quite that simple. Sincerity of wrong-doing, as in repentance is a thing here. It's not about a casual 'sorry'.

 

 

 

I wouldn't agree with that metaphoria.

 

You can act out any fantasy or fulfil any wrong doing knowing full well that repentance will exonerate you. You have been exonerated in the eyes of the church through repentance, and in doing so it can be hidden behind closed doors and kept quiet. Your 10.000 hail Mary's will suffice...until the next time.

[metaphoria 10]

I wouldn't agree with that metaphoria.

 

You can act out any fantasy or fulfil any wrong doing knowing full well that repentance will exonerate you. You have been exonerated in the eyes of the church through repentance, and in doing so it can be hidden behind closed doors and kept quiet. Your 10.000 hail Mary's will suffice...until the next time.

 

Yes, but a person who completely believes in God, believes that it is not the church that forgives you, but only God, and someone who truly believes in God also believes that God sees everything, whereas man cannot. Therefore what the church sees is of no significance, or relevence when considering the conscience of someone who truly believes and feels ultimately answerable to God.

[happyhippy 11]

The fact that the catholic hierarchy for decades let paedophiles go back to working with defenceless children after little more than a ritualised 'sorry' makes that rather difficult to believe.

 

The catholic church from top to bottom including the current pope is implicated in the attempts to hush up abuse and protect paedophile priests from the authorities thus enabling their subsequent abuse. How can you believe that an organisation which deliberately engaging in such evil practices for decades can be the one true church of an all knowing and loving god?

 

I don't say you're wrong in that at all, but the real problem in this case lies with the Irish Government, who when finally given (part) independence continued to ignore the atrocities.

 

Had Baile Atha Cliath made a stand, then Rome would have had a different stance; we do have a certain 'relationship'. Every nation has an era of disgrace - I'm just ashamed that my country's disgrace involved the systematic abuse of children, and women who had the misfortune to enjoy sex.

 

There were no Magdelene Laundries for the boys, were there?

[metaphoria 10]

I wouldn't agree with that metaphoria.

 

You can act out any fantasy or fulfil any wrong doing knowing full well that repentance will exonerate you. You have been exonerated in the eyes of the church through repentance, and in doing so it can be hidden behind closed doors and kept quiet. Your 10.000 hail Mary's will suffice...until the next time.

 

No. I feel answerable only to the eyes of God. I think the church only provides teaching and worship, but in itself is not an authority, but a servant to authority.

 

And no I don't use 10 hail Mary's to excuse my next time. The intension of repentance is about sorry for what I have done, not to excuse me for what I am going to do.

 

Note: my sins/bad doings or however you wish to define them are of my own failings. In person, and daily life, I can take responsibility, but in prayer I know I have to take responsibility.

[skinz 10]

I don't say you're wrong in that at all, but the real problem in this case lies with the Irish Government, who when finally given (part) independence continued to ignore the atrocities.

 

Had Baile Atha Cliath made a stand, then Rome would have had a different stance; we do have a certain 'relationship'. Every nation has an era of disgrace - I'm just ashamed that my country's disgrace involved the systematic abuse of children, and women who had the misfortune to enjoy sex.

 

There were no Magdelene Laundries for the boys, were there?

 

I'm wondering how many in the Irish government had that little bit more interest:suspect: in the activities of the church? Why would a government systematically keep the lid on it? Would it have detracted from the conflict/struggles? Personally I think it's being hushed because the church wasn't the only benefactors of the atrocities, it probably filters out to all walks of life. That in no way detracts from the churches involvement though.

[skinz 10]

No. I feel answerable only to the eyes of God. I think the church only provides teaching and worship, but in itself is not an authority, but a servant to authority.

 

And no I don't use 10 hail Mary's to excuse my next time. The intension of repentance is about sorry for what I have done, not to excuse me for what I am going to do.

 

Note: my sins/bad doings or however you wish to define them are of my own failings. In person, and daily life, I can take responsibility, but in prayer I know I have to take responsibility.

 

Religion and or God is a concept my brain wont allow...it's the way it is.

 

What I do know is, is repentance comes after the act...why the hell doesn't God send a bolt of lightning before the act?

 

From a religious aspect...what benifit does the victim get out of this, and how?

[metaphoria 10]

Religion and or God is a concept my brain wont allow...it's the way it is.

 

What I do know is, is repentance comes after the act...why the hell doesn't God send a bolt of lightning before the act?

 

From a religious aspect...what benifit does the victim get out of this, and how?

 

Well, think about someone you have loved. Would you want them to love you becuase they have to, or because they want to?

 

As I see it free will is a human luxury, sometimes oppressed by culture, and sometimes not appreciated in free societies.

 

But, consider it this way... if the creator of humans wanted only to be loved by humans exclusively over genuinely... He would't have created free will, would He?

Edited May 24, 2009 by metaphoria