Teenage sex, the TD and the bishop
national |
gender and sexuality |
news report 
Saturday February 03, 2007 13:41
by Julia Doherty - WSM
Recent legislative proposals to have the age of consent lowered from 17 to 16 have been met by opposition from the Catholic bishops. A committee on child protection in the Dail put forward the suggestion, an effort to resolve the controversy caused by the laws on statutory rape that were introduced in the summer.
Most youth welfare groups welcomed the decision but condemnation could be found in the voice of the Catholic church and that of Enda Kenny, leader of Fine Gael. Although there is opposition in the Dail to the proposal, there is not much being done about it as it has been deemed too hot a topic to handle coming up to a general election.?? Lowering the age of consent by one year would seem like a fairly obvious way for the State to update legislation with reality, but the Church attacks it as the first step towards moral chaos and a downward spiral to eternal damnation. Or something.
Either way, it seems a little strange for an institution responsible for a vast legacy of sexual and physical abuse to hold forth on lessons of morality. Despite the hollowness of their moral authority, the clergy is not shy of lecturing, and it seems that they are desperately trying to fight against their own growing irrelevance. Those with power will fight to hold onto it, and the power of the Church is the hold it has over the minds of the population.
But as new generations grow up aware of the Church’s legacy in Ireland, the parish priest will be the last place to turn for advice on sex. After all, the thought of an institution which enforces celibacy on its clergy and preaches abstention before marriage as having any healthy lessons to offer on sexuality is obviously absurd, without even mentioning their protection of clerical rapists.
Young people becoming aware of their sexuality do not need censure from the pulpit, they benefit from education, and from being confident enough to express their boundaries and be aware of, and in control of their own sexual relations. But this is unlikely to happen as long as the impact of the Church is still felt in Irish society. As teenagers will not be able to vote on the matter it will just be another piece of legislation that is irrelevant to them.
And yet again the decision making process goes right over the heads of those it affects. The youth are left with politicians who are concerned mainly with public image and a church whose own morality is too questionable to decide their maturity and moral path for them.
Comments (27 of 27)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27Pedophilia exists in all secular institutions and religious organizations. There's no evidence that Catholic priests are any more disposed to pedophilia than people of other professions. While the rate of child abuse is much higher than the rate of pedophiles, it still amounts to less than 2% of all priests. See Pedophiles and Priests by protestant author Philip Jenkins for more.
As a Catholic, I fully support the bishops on this issue. We cannot allow Ireland to fall into moral anarchy. Sex among teenagers(and indeed among all unmarried couples) is always wrong.
Leaving aside whether the writer is "anti-clerical" let us consider the preparation of legislation in the West on the questions of paedophilia and sexual "predation" (as Mc Dowell put it). As we all ought know such legislation has in recent years sought to prevent such crime as well punish them. To that end lawmakers from the various select committees of the European parliaments to the US congress identified "hot spots" which merited special attention. Thus anyone convicted of such an offence is entered in many states on a register & barred from employment in proximity to children. The logic is quite clear, those who commit such offences seek proximity to children (obviously if the children they abuse or not their own relatives, charges or wards). In those states such as Ireland where education of children is chiefly the reserve of the RC church, it stands to reason that the many of such offenders sought employment in RC schools. To do so - they must subscribe to the "faith policy" of the institution and not only confess that faith but be a practicant. In the UK and other states who are less reliant on faith based schools, employees of RC schools must present a certificate of "commitment" from their local Parish Priest.
True, there is no outright evidence yet that Catholic priests are more disposed to any type of sexual activity, as to date we have no scientific evidence (meaning genetic) that anyone is disposed to any sexual orientation (which paedophilia is not) or any sexual predation (which paedophilia most certainly is). But a quick look at prosecutions and court cases brought for such offences show a inordinate amount of paid & ordained members of RC orders. Considering the demographic fact that there were only 2,999 diocesan priests in the Irish state in 2001 (& the peak number of such priests was in 1950 with 3450 priests) & considering the population of the state as roughly 3.5 - 4 million (with at most 33% above the age of statutory rape however it is to be defined) - the quick application of soft maths suggests that if RC priests are to be represented in convictions of paedophilia there statistically ought not have appeared more than one RC priest facing such charges. I do believe we have had more than one paedophile priest don't you? Instead at the time of the "constitutional crises" we had 4 priests "on the run" in Northern Ireland facing a combination of over 20 cases. This pattern is repeated througout the RC communion. (c/f http://www.snapnetwork.org/ )
A brief reminder of the articles written by C.Murray & myself during the "constitutional crises" of 2006 which saw the word fellatio used for the 4th time in the history of the Irish Oireachtas, & significantly did not see the word cunnilingus mentioned. ( To date it has only been used once in the Seanad by a dirty fecker. ) This shocking language saw the Irish people come together & enact these 2 laws of which we are all very proud & smug.
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5771
http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=5772
http://indymedia.ie/article/76923 http://indymedia.ie/article/76407 http://indymedia.ie/article/76381 http://indymedia.ie/article/76365 http://indymedia.ie/article/76413 http://indymedia.ie/article/76446 http://www.indymedia.ie/article/76358 http://indymedia.ie/article/76338 http://indymedia.ie/article/76338
Excellent contribution Julia! thank you for getting this back on the agenda.
are you two working for Enda (joke, ok)
why do people immediately start talking about 'paedophilia' the minute the age of consent is mentioned?
IMHO Sex abuse and Paedophilia are actually two different and separate issues - the situation you appear to be referring to in Ireland was that the state put vulnerable children into the care of institutions run by members of religious orders. SOME (a small minority) of these members of religious orders obviously had serious issues with their own sexuality and, it seems to me, as a consequence of this, some (not all) had what might be termed 'a juvenile state of sexual development'. Indeed some of them suffered similar forms of abuse while studying to be members of their particular religious orders, a situation common in many single sex (often male, but not always) institutions
Unfortunately these same people were in positions of power regarding children in their care (if one can use that term in this instance), and frequently abused that power to gratify their sexual needs - needs which all humans have but which in these particular individuals had been warped into something very unhealthy indeed. The reasons for this 'warpage' are varied but they appear (to me at least) to include: fear of their own sexuality, refusal/inability of many to acknowledge their own homosexuality, and general abuse of power (common when a person (mostly male, but sometimes female) is in a position of power over more vulnerable individuals (think Abu Ghraib) .
The suppression of the normal human sex drive will often lead to such situations. Such suppression HAD to be practised as the Church had (and still has) a celibacy rule with regard to members of religious orders. At the time the Catholic Church was seen as a refuge by many for (mostly) men who appeared to be homosexual. Indeed expressing and acting upon such desire was, until very recently, illegal and punishable by incarceration. Ireland was not alone in this and indeed sexual abuse in institutions was (and is) not exclusively an Irish problem.
What was particularly Irish about it was that the whole of Irish society colluded in covering up such abuse when it was discovered to be going on. Anyone familiar with the Ferns Report (www.oneinfour.org/uploads/ferns.pdf) will know that the State, and Irish Society as a whole, has to bear much of the blame for the continuation of such abuse over the course of many years. It was not that people didn't know, but more that they didn't WANT to know and many of people put a lot of time and effort into maintaining their own (and others) ignorance of such abuse - some of them parents by the way.
All of the above has, however, little to do with the current situation we in Ireland find ourselves in. What we now have is a completely unjust (and probably unworkable) legal situation whereby members of one gender (male) are considered to be rapists (and can be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life, I think (not entirely sure about the .for life, bit, would appreciate if someone could clarify that for me) for the apparent 'crime' of engaging in consensual sexual activity with similar aged members of the opposite gender. (female).
What amazes me is that were the situation reversed there would be such an outcry that the law would be immediatly struck from the law-books. I realise that for many years in this country for all intents and purposes, the reverse situation did indeed exist in de facto, it was not however The Law of the Land. Two wrongs do not a right make.
I get the feeling that not only have we in this country got a problem dealing with sex, but we appear to have a very serious problem dealing with Female sexuality in particular, hence the apparent need to criminalise young males. The thinking appears to be related to the Madonna/Whore view of womanhood as practised in many countries where religion has a strong hold on the population.
It's time the Irish people as a whole grew up and faced the reality that
a) Sex is not 'bad' or 'dirty' (though 'dirty-sex' can be a lot of fun :-)
b) young people and young women in particular engage in consensual sexual activity.
This is not going to destroy the fabric of society as we know it.
The Criminal Law (sexual offences) bill 2006, introduced in the
Dail on June 2nd 2006 is a piece of crap, designed to get Mc Dowell
out of a hole.
Section 5 should have been excised- the Green Party asked that it be
and read into the record a letter protesting it by the Ombudsman
for children.
each and every party of the opposition allowed that law pass into
legislation, except Joe Higgins.
I was there , I heard them say that they would not impede its passage
through the Dail.
*It criminalises young boys for sex.
*it criminalises young girls for any sexual act other than 'full penetrative sex' (the type that
makes babies)
*It puts the rape victim on the stand to justify clothes and behaviour.
your opposition has let you down.
This was a response to a constitutional crisis provoked by the 'A' case and the 'cc' case.
We are not voting to protect the money we vote for the next generation and we are making
Ann Lovetts again.
Mc Dowell fucked up- he has to resign.
for this huge fuck up we have a referendum on childrens rights which does
not touch on issues of sexual knowledge, bodily integrity and right to
privacy.
for this we do not again address the Indemnity fund.
we have not addressed the obstruction of the Laffoy Commission.
For allowing a stupid piece of emergency legislation through the Dail, for which
the Taoiseach was not present we have allowed an opt-out again on the
provision of knowledge to people regarding sexuality and consent issues.
But Michael Mc Dowell 'got off'
we got a statutory rape debate.
and a referendum with no framework for addressing real protections for children.
another cop-out.
The DPP and AG are re-prosecuting the cases under the unconstitutional new laws.
DROP SECTION 5.
NO Referendum without a debate on the Church/State Indemnity fund.
... for the clarification
Our priests are the perpetrators of 4 per cent of childhood sexual abuse in Ireland. One in every ten priests is a child abuser. This isn't an issue of a tiny minority of misguided individuals involved in immature acts, this is the wholesale rape and sexual violation of thousands of children by people in positions of power.
Priests are 60 times more likely to sexually assault children than other members of the Irish population.
It is as irresponsible to leave a child in the unsupervised care of a priest as it is to leave a child in the care of a convicted sex offender.
An organisation perpetrating paedophile abuse on such a scale has no moral contribution to this debate, although we need to ensure they will be regulated by any new legislation.
OK, what you say is imaginable (sadly)
But are you going to offer even the faintest amount of evidence for these facts that you present? Or, is the Church just fair game to make up 'facts' as you wish?
blaming the Church is fine by me just so long as you are willing to acknowledge that the Church was not solely to blame - they didn't exist within a vacumn, you know?
where did you get those '1-in-10' figures? do you have link from a reputable source to back that up? I'm not attacking you, merely trying to get at the 'facts'.
As I said in my previous post, people in positions of power will often abuse that power, especially when the people over which they get to exercise their power are a vulnerable as young children. The fact is that Irish society was, at the time, quite content to hand over what they preferred to think of as 'problem children' (orphans, kids born to unmarried mothers, kids sent there by the courts, etc.) to the 'care' of these people, and didn't appear to give a damn what happened to them afterwards. There is ample evidence some members of the Dept. of Education chose to wilfully ignore the many warning signs that such abuse was going on, also members of the Gardai, and the Govt.
Basically, the people appointed to monitor this type of thing failed miserably and we as a society didn't care either way. It was only when the evidence became so impossible to ignore any longer that society decided to remove it's head from the sand and try to make steps to redress the problem -but as can be seen from the sly little deal worked out between the sitting Govt. of the day, by a sleeveen Fianna Fail Govt minister on the last day of the life of that particular Govt., we still have a long way to go.
So, blaming the Church might make you feel better, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem which is, IMHO, the repressed view that Irish society as a whole has regarding sex in general.
It is as irresponsible to leave a child in the unsupervised care of a priest as it is to leave a child in the care of a convicted sex offender.
I'm afraid Stuart that you're just engaging in rather hysterical scaremongering.
An organisation perpetrating paedophile abuse on such a scale has no moral contribution to this debate, although we need to ensure they will be regulated by any new legislation.
1) the organisation itself did not perpetuate it, though some of it's actions did help to do so (inadvertently, I suspect) as did the lack of action by Irish society as a whole. You make it sound as if the sole purpose of the Church was to molest Irish kids.
2)The actions of these particular Priests WAS regulated by legislation at the time - the problem was Irish Society's complete unwillingness to enforce such legislation as existed at the time - as far as I know it has always been illegal to bugger young boys, rape young girls etc. since the foundation of the State. If you know better, Stuart, then please feel free to correct any misunderstanding I may have on the matter.
I'm not at all seeking to defend the actions of these particular religious people, or indeed the INaction of the Church in dealing with same, rather I seek to draw your attention to the fact that much of this type of activity could have been prevented had the will existed in the wider society - but it didn't, the simple fact is society simply didn't care - these children were viewed as bastards, gurriers etc. basically seen as an embarrassment, to be not seen and not heard, so as to not offend our sensibilities.
Point the finger of blame by all means, if it makes you feel better, just don't pick on the easiest scapegoat, while ignoring the wider issues.
There is no excuse for the people who have willingly connived through the
state school system to block education on issues of bodily integrity and
consent.
I think that practicing catholic parents make take an 'opt-out' on the basis
that they wish to educate their children in the moral ethos handed down
through their religion.
The 'Stay safe' and RSE programmes were resisted for years by catholic parents
who dotted the parents councils for years.
= Take the opt-out, educate your kids as you please.
but some kids have the right to equip themselves through education and
philosophy with knowledge regarding body awareness and personal safety.
They also have the right to sex education.
and a safe place to discuss options in the case of abuse/early pregnancy/
rape and the whole gamut of ills which is a result of keeping people in
ignorance and especially girls , who at this moment in time are
constitutionally 'women' if pregnant ( within the pre-consent agegroup
12-17).
They are considered co-equal with the foetus they carry
and forced to continue with a pregnancy that they mosty definitelty not
mature enough for.
Most schools now do educate the kids about sex but we have not addressed
the'x' case. we have not addressed the therapeutic abortion issue.
we have not addressed the rights of the child within the context of the
co-equality issue.
instead we have allowed a sexual offences act which swerves past the
whole thing and does not provide adequate resources to rape centres/
abuse centres- but insists that the primacy of the family is at the heart
of the constitution.
That is a matter of choice and not legislation.
The prevalence of paedophilia in Irish clergy is higher than in any foreign diocese and higher than in any other professional group in contact with children. It is higher even than amongst sex offenders as a whole.
Just under 1 in 10 Irish priests are child sex abusers
The Dublin Diocese accepted allegations regarding 67 clergy, 4.4 per cent of all 1,500 priests since 1940 (http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_170.shtml) but an update in March 2006 brings this to 102 priests, 7 per cent of ordained priests involved in any way with the diocese (http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_207.shtml).
The Ferns Enquiry established that 248 priests had been ordained for Ferns since 1932, the year the oldest man accused became a priest, and almost 10 per cent of Ferns priests have been accused of child abuse. (http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_167.shtml)
Number of priests subject to official complaints of clerical sexual abuse by diocese as of October 2005 (http://www.cps.dublindiocese.ie/article_163.shtml):
Achonry 3
Ardagh & Clonmacnois 5
Armagh 8
Cashel & Emly 2
Clogher NA
Clonfert 2
Cloyne 11
Cork & Ross 12
Derry 26
Down & Connor 3
Dromore 5
Dublin 67
Elphin 16
Ferns 21
Galway, Kilmacduagh & Kilfenora 6
Kerry 11
Kildare & Leighlin 1
Killala 0
Killaloe 10
Kilmore 6
Limerick 10
Meath NA
Ossory NA
Raphoe 10
Tuam NA
Waterford & Lismore 7
TOTAL 242 - 8.3 per cent of current priests
Almost 4 per cent of sexually abused children were abused by priests
Priests perpetrated 3.7 per cent of child sexual abuse revealed by respondents in the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI) Survey (http://www.drcc.ie/about/savi.pdf) - Religious ministers and religious teachers consituted the largest single category of authority figure as abusers of 5.8 per cent of boys and 1.4 per cent of girls (page 89).
These figures underestimate the extent of religious sexual abuse
The Residential Institutions Redress Board has received 14,541 applications and processed 4,625 since it was established (http://www.rirb.ie/documents/2005AnnualReport.doc) of which 151 were withdrawn, refused or resulted in a nil or no award. "Of the 4,625 cases completed, 1 has been referred to the Garda Siochána under this section of the Act. An investigation has been concluded in this matter and the Board has been informed that no criminal prosecution is to be pursued." (page 15).
These cases alone exceed all of the cases noted above and all of the child sex abuse reported in the history of the State, although they do include crimes of neglect and physical abuse without sexual motivation. They include only institutional residents and only those willing to report a crime with a less than 1 in 500 conviction rate.
I am well aware of the difference between "accused" and "found guilty", as I am sure are the 499 in 500 victims of childhood sexual abuse.
The state criminalises kids for normal sexual activity.
and yet the forensic nurses required for trauma centres are only funded
after publicity and agigtation.
and yet we head into an election/referendum scenario wherein we are asked to
protect the rights of the child without putting in necessary funding to rape crisis centres
and qualified counselling staff.
Funny that, morality is in the private sphere but a gender-imbalanced legislature
attempts to make it a state activity.
again- section 5 is superfluous and never really addressed the issue raised by
the Laffoy judgement.
Might I suggest you read the SAVI Report before trying to link sexual abuse of children with Catholicism in general and Catholic clergy in particular. On page 104 of the SAVI Report itself a comparison is made between the SAVI figures for Ireland and the results of a similar survey in the UK. The figures it gives are:
percentage of children forcibly raped:
Ireland 4.15% UK 4.75%
percentage of children subject to any form of contact abuse:
Ireland 18.3% UK 23.7%
I have averaged the SAVI figures for boys and girls in both cases.
Since there are very few Catholic priests per head of population in the UK, we must assume that lay people from secular organisations in a secular state (UK) who are involved in professions that bring them into contact with children are even more involved in this sordid practice than are Catholic clergy in Ireland. However, precisely because they are lay and secular they have not received a fraction of the opprobium that the Cayholic clergy in Ireland have received.
There is something seriously wrong with a law that brands a sizeable proportion of teenagers as "sex offenders" and even paedophiles !
If you put one child on the stand who has been raped by whomever,
[priest/paedophile] you have failed.
every single politician in this state knows that.
That is section five in practice.
Rape is about power.
A rape victim has to sit in the vicinity of the alleged perpetrator
in the courts.
Under-funded trauma units are daily struggling.
Two centres closed weekends in sligo cos the minister for health
had not funded forensic nurses.
The drcc is grossly underfunded.
The laffoy commission's work was obstructed by the dept of education.
The bill- allows the judge to put the rape victim on the stand.
It allows the perpetrator to claim 'honest mistake'
it criminalises teenage sexual activity- not here the issue of rape
as power but consent.
FG/Lab/Green and SF- did not impede the passage of the bill through the
oireachtas, they did have amendments and requests.
It comprises an institutional failure to address issues pertinent to child
protection , it signifies the inability of the state to distinguish between
rape as crime and ordinary sexual activity.
It did not address the 'A' or "CC' case.
It illuminates a state ror regime that really does not want to address
the issues of funding to vulnerable people or the issue of an abuse
legacy which can be compared to the situation in Boston.
and yet- they want in this context to have a referendum on rights
without protections/funding or addressing this legacy. not good
enough.
nine years of power and money and a despicable record in health,
schools and education.
The Progressive Democrat agenda is 1) to remove gendered statements from the constitution because the State will lose a European Court of Justice equality challenge on the present wording; 2) to remove the "inalienable rights of the (heterosexual) (legally) married family" and 3) individualise all Articles with the aim of completing taxation reform. They are too cowardly to propose these changes openly.
The "rights of the child", which are not addressed in their suggested amendments, are an underhand and pernicious exploitation of public sentiment to provide a smokescreen covering their agenda.
No reform should proceed until the church has fully acknowledged and resolved its role in child sexual abuse and no reform should proceed that is not based directly on the well-being of children - which is primarily a resource issue, not a legislative one.
but, tell me, how does blaming it all on the 'Church', coupled with an absolute refusal to acknowledge the role played by Irish society, help one achieve that laudable aim?
Did the UK/Ireland comparison change your mind on any of this?
Interesting comparison since I have long been of the opinion that both country's shared a common view of sexuality until relatively recently.
There is something seriously wrong with a law that brands a sizeable proportion of teenagers as "sex offenders" and even paedophiles !
I think there is something seriously wrong with a country that allows the branding of a sizeable proportion of teenagers as "sex offenders" and even paedophiles
Phil, I agree that blaming it all on the 'Church' and refusing to acknowledge the role of society is not the issue and it is not my aim. My comments are (intentionally) an attack on the institution of the church, its contribution to child abuse and its failure to atone. I do not believe christianity, Catholic or otherwise, or any other religion, is a cause of child sexual abuse.
The real issue is of abuse perpetrated by people in authority who are untrained, unscreened and unmonitored. In Ireland that unfortunate lot fell to religious occupations, and we could learn a great deal about the nature of child abuse and child abusers from studying what has happened here.
Child sexual abuse appears to be particularly high in the UK and in Ireland, higher than countries with the same language, similar culture or comparable economic development. It may be simply that the two countries collect statistics in a similar manner using similar techniques. It may be that there are identifiable risk factors in common, including high levels of institutionalised child care and an unwillingness to question authority, including the authority of parenthood.
Blaming the Church etc. is only name calling and will achieve nothing. What happened and is still happening is the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful. The creation of a society based on justice, equality of access etc will go a long way to protecting and empowering the vulnerable. Stuart needs to refocus and indentify the real enemy such as the neo-con economic policy of the PD's for example.
I suppose it is encouraging to hear some Irish voices that are trying to develop a crtical faculty. Hitherto, some priesteen or other, or some priesteen-appoiinted sociologist, or , worse still, some priesteen-appointed Mary-Riordan-like nun with a Diploma in smarm from some red-bridck University anywhere out of Irlenad, would appear on RTE 1 and talk the entire trough away... Any crticisim, however inchoate, is something at least against the herd of clerics who have so many irons in the fire that in Ireland one cannot even suspect where they are coming from -- and these extend from the Fianna Fail connection (remember Bertie and Michael Woods), to the present government, whether we call it FG or Labour. And with respect to SF, has anyone ever heard them criticse the RCC in any meaningful way or anyway whatsoever???
Of course the Roman Catholic Church are to blame entirely for the generation, maintenance, and cover-up of the endemic rate of pedophelia in Ireland. Anyone with a critical mind will necessarily have travelled somewhere out of Ireland in order to have had some experiences of a secular society by which to compare the hoodwink priestcraft that covers Ireland like a relentless fog. That being the case, they will reaiise from their own experiences that Irish schools are not entirely owned by Roman Clerics but run by them and run by them in the most cruel and unconsiconable mannter.
If people did not look at sexual abuse for a moment, but recall the endemic nature of the beatings, punchings, floggings, strappings and other cruel and constant barbarities inflicted by the Roman hoarde on the very biddable Irish, and at the youngest ages, as well by Christian Brothers as by nuns and priests, they will see how programmatic these wretches were in portraying and advancing the Catholic Empire. If they are still in the fog, then look at any RTE home-made show, like Nationwide, but interviewers from Gay Byrne to Pat Kenny also, to see how skewed the religoius have made that part of secular Irish life in their favour. Indeed, the Irish are quite incapable of secular life; what we get -- as well as what we got in the past -- is a kind of Mary-and-Tom Riordan secular Ireland that the priesteens could fuly control.
What has all thise to do with pedophelia?
If you once see the manner in whcih violence was used by these awful wretches to control the most defenceless children in the name of Jesu (who invariably did a Gig on the See of Gallilee at the drop of a droighneain), you will not be far away from seeing the obeisance in which the entire "nation' held the mythological priesteen: sure, if he can hold you politicians in thrall, why can't he beat your kids at will, censor your writers, lock up your women, make everybody feel inferior, and, as a result, rob the daylights out of you, beat the crap out of you, bugger your children, and still get anonymous Jesuits, Dominicans, Franciscans, Benedictines, and hangers-on and cling-ons from every county in Ireland to do seconds for these religoius brats -- all held in esteem by the other brats on RTE and those ex-nuns in RTE...
But, of course, even if you have twigged to any of this, the question remains as to whether you have twigged to the idea that 'nothing is intended to change'. The job now is to 'save ""our"" church'. The good and the ambitious in all parties are bent on takign the place of old Dev in winning favour iwth mother church. Knowing that Mother Church never dies, wins all elections and will be the only f-- kers standing for the next and the next election, most people are afraid to be honest =-even with themselves. Moreover, it could not have escaped peoples' imaginaiton that mother Chruch has not only had the power to bugger as well as beat the nation, it also has had -- and most assuredly retains -- the wherewithal to scare any would -be politician or honestly ambitious secular person still. If you want a job, the guys with the black books are out ; they know who to promote; who to demote; who to blacken; and while the rest of the secuar world gets on with making a living, producting secular goods for consumption, and generally enjoying this world, the black-eyed stare of the religious hooligan is still on power : 24/7. You sleep and the clergy are plotting and planning one of two things: how to augment their power and how to break the legs of those who try to see through its schemas....
As to the argument, that pedophiles are no more representative in the RCC than in secular society generally, that is another of the Papal/Jesuitical spins -- and not even a good spin; for the Franciscans, Dominicans and Jesuits are capable of much more elaborate lies. Do you still imagine that Papal power was achieved without the forgery of the Donatio Constantini? Or did you never hear of it? If not, why don't you ask yourself why, as an 'educated' Irish person you never heard of it? You can google it at will.
Or perhaps you never heard of the Donatio Laudabiliter? If not, ask yourself why you haven't heard of a document that signed away your country in the middle ages, was the cause of having the entire culture of the pagan Gaels dragooned, and was also the cause of starting and continuing the transplantation of Ireland, the wars between native and English, etc. etc... If you haven't known these things, then google them. Find out for yourself; and find out from your priesteen why he and his wretched church has been telling the Irish people so many lies over the decades and centuries.
The other forgeries from the various Decretals to the abuse of British, French, Spanish and Italian monarchs, are simply legion... But let me not run too far. We were arguing about why one should believe anythign the RCC says, including the nonsense put out by its agents to the effect that Irish clerical pedophiles are not overrepresentative and systematic of a much deeper unhealthy malaise within an all-male dominated celibate organisation. Talk about hoolicans. If you use your own imagination and try to think of yourself as a reluctant wanker throughout your teens, your twenties, your thirties, your forties, your fifties, your sixties, your seventies, and i you go one like Pope Benedict XVI, you eighties, they you might ask yourself what how such abstemeousness might mar your personality. You might even wonder why such unfortunate and -- to my mind -- such pent up people should be let loose howsoever on young children. The same goes for females as for men... When you answer it, you might be in a better position to answer such crap questions as how the clergy over-represent pedophelia, not only at home but abroad as well.
You might even ask why we pay so much money for the RCC to influence secular governments in every poor part of the outside world. Oh, I know, they call it charity. Ever sicne I was a child they called it charity; they even had black-babies bend their head when a penny was placed inthe box for " Noogie". And that was forty years ago; but the Irish -- according to Nationwide -- still love to see litte blackmen on their knees to these Irish missionaries, who seem to do nothing else but build Roman churches and teach an indifferent people how to speak English.
And now that you have been thinking of acquiring a secular critical mind, you might even ask yourself how you imagine the Gaels lost their native language, and you might read that they lost it in exactly the same was as RTE, Nationwide and the IRish Missions get people to learn English to the present day. And while your at it, you might even ask yourself why on earth the Irish today are trying ' allegedly' to 'revive the Gaelic language', while, at the same time they spend millions on missionaries hell-bent on learning the rest of the world English.... Is this too much, do you think... Why did the broken Irish government give GOAL over 12 million euros... Who is GOAL? Why did the government do this? Why was there no party opposition to this hand-out? Who is in GOAL apart from the advers bankers and other well-paid adivsers? Who in GOAL decides where, when and on whom to spend the 12m euros? Why di d Parliament not put some restrictions on this money, say, to prevent it being used to build more and more churches to the RCC hegemony of little villages in South Africa, Afghanistan, East Timore... Why do you and your government interfere politicallly in foreign countries? Why do you teach English to foreign tribes? And why on earth do you not even deserve respect enought to thave a Parliamentatry debate about it?
MOreover, if GOAL gets 12m, what do all the others get? And while your at it, you might wonder if the promotion of pan-begging in Ireland by way of the RCC paying professional persons to beg on the Streets fo our cities should be allowed. Why should the Roman Chruch and its sad entreneurs be allowed to mount statues where they like, and pay professional thetrical people to beg on our streets? Is it not an offence to promote beggary for the sole purpose of benefitting form it financially?
The Jesuits, if you googe them, have paid hundreds of millions in pedophelia claims, to Alaskan and Indian children. Do you imagine that they are the only Jesuits who bugger people in the world, even in more lax communities and more 'god-fearing' countries like the Phillipines, Poland, Venezuela, Chile, etc??? If so, why have they not come to light??? And here again, you can learn from your own experience; the Irish would never have known about the extend of Irish pedophelia until some foreigners began to ask questions -- or at least until some non-Irish journalists followed up the stories... It was then that we saw what the RCC church would -- adn could -- do to deny the entire outrage... How much easier they can do it in Rwamba, the Phillipines.....
Finally, anyone who looks at the history of the 'auricular confessional' will know that the use of the confessional to abuse children and women is simply epidemic. Sometime in Toledo (maybe 16th or 17th century) the women at great risk to themselves and their reputations, complained about 'confessional abuse'. Their clamours grew so large that the Pope was pushed to do something about it. And lo and behold! He called in the 'Dogs of God" (as the Dominicans were known at that time). These inquisitor set about taking statements in Toledo and so great was the number of complaints that they allotted a month for so doing.
As things transpired, a month wasn't enough, a further month was necessary, and another month, and.... it soon became apparent that the abuse was so widespread and the complaints so gross that the Pope called in the Inquisitors, sent them back to the stables from which they eminated and prayed for Toledo. Result? Talk and Prayer and more prayer... Today the people of Spain, after the Inquisition and after WW11, have the memories of Fascist Franco who, on the authority of the Church, took over their country.... Not unlike that of the Irish...
So, who can the Spanish and the Irish blame.... If you''ll excuse the ugly romanism 'Mea Culpa
Seamus Breathnach
http//:www.irish-criminology.com
Mr. Breathanach's long post touches on several matters. Just two I want to respond to. He seems to object to missionaries teaching English to Africans. Well, English has become a world language so that gives independent African (and Asian) countries an advantage in the global village they now live in. English (and French in those francophone countries) also helped to create national consciousness among the tribes of the territories colonised by the British and the French. English- and French-speaking educated Africans went (sometimes sent by Jesuits and other missionaries) to universities in Europe from the 1930s onwards and met other Africans and discussed colonial rule among themselves. Kenyatta of Kenya attended an anticolonial conference in Manchester around 1948 where he met Africans from the Gold Coast (Ghana) and elsewhere. Nyerere of Tanganyika was schooled by Irish missionaries, trained as a schoolteacher at an Irish-run teacher college (now Tanzania) and won a sholarship to study economics at Edinburgh in the early 1950s, where het some British Fabians and became a socialist. He received political encouragement from an Irish missionary, Fr. Richard Walsh, to go to New York and put Tanganyika's case for independence at the UN. Not all missionary-educated Africans turned out well - sadly Mugabe of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) who was taught English by an Irish Jesuit as a teenager, became a really bloody tribal tyrant in recent decades.
Goal is a fundraising organization created by sports journalist John O'Shea. He has got Irish sportspeople to support the charity which carries out relief and development programmes in mainly African countries. Sometimes Irish missionaries, who have contact with grassroots communities and often speak local languages, are given the task of overseeing relief and development activities, although local lay people are also often involved. Incidentally, the secular Unicef organization has also enlisted the participation of missionaries from Ireland and elsewhere in the implementation of some emergency and health education programmes.
Africa is a sad part of the world with enormous problems. Tribalism and corruption and maladministration have been among its shortcomings since independence about fifty years ago.
These things have not been created by missionaries but are indigenous to the varied cultures of the continent.
REPLY TO 'GOAL' AND 'JUNGLE JIM'
WHAT a knock-kneed response!
'Jungle Jim' says that I seem
' to object to missionaries teaching English to Africans.'
He then goes on to comfort us with the following:
' Well, English has become a world language so that gives independent African (and Asian) countries an advantage in the global village they now live in. English (and French in those francophone countries) also helped to create national consciousness among the tribes of the territories colonised by the British and the French. English- and French-speaking educated Africans went (sometimes sent by Jesuits and other missionaries) to universities in Europe from the 1930s onwards and met other Africans and discussed colonial rule among themselves. Kenyatta of Kenya attended an anticolonial conference in Manchester around 1948 where he met Africans from the Gold Coast (Ghana) and elsewhere. .'
Of course, we are not talking about individual natives of foreign countries who come to Europe to learn; that is an entirely different thing than what we are talking about. We are not talking about 'individuals' here or there; we are talking about governments programmatically paying people to go out to colonise and occupy a country -- as they once did in Ireland. How else do you imagine an entire people give up their most ingrained native way of speaking, thinking and defending themselves, their social values and their general culture? To lose such values entirely is the work of enormous force, organisation and persistence; to lose one's language can only be achieved by a relentless aggressor determined at first on undermining authochtanous values and then, by stealth, and later by force and by any means appropriate, introducing, enforcing and maintaining a foreign language and its alien social values.
What you write, Mr 'Jungle Jim', isn't a defence of anthing -- it is merely a bad reiteration of the point I have made. By the way, if your only objective is to teach English, why not just send the tapes and books, and let the 'tribes' study English and French for themselves?
We know, of course, that this is all very facile, a superficial sort of reasoning aimed at the simple minded. The Christian Church first perpetrated the colonisation of the non-English speaking world; it now merely wants to continue that racket. . . One need not mention Mugabe, but rather Nasser, Ghandi, Ho Chi Minh, Hugo Chavez, and all the post-WW 11 countries that the Pope and the Americans (and the Brits under Blair) have colonised and crusaded against down to the present day.
If you mention Irish , why not mention the role of earliest bishops who colonised and enslaved the betaghs in the Dublin Liberties, the lies attaching to Laudabiliter to the present day, or in respect of Vietnam alone, the role of 'English-speakers' like CARDINAL SPELLMAN, BISHOP SHEEN, and their colonial allies JOSEPH MACCARTHY, EDGAR HOOVER and biddable American Presidents like Reagan (with Thatcher and Pope Paul 11) or President Bush (with catholic-convert Tony Blair and Benedict XVI)
But what has this smokescreen got to to with Goal. Again 'Jungle Jim' informs us (as if we didn't know all 12m euros of it) that
'Goal is a fundraising organization created by sports journalist John O'Shea.'
I can't imagine why more journalists with 12m at their disposal wouldn't give up the plod of belting out boring copy for the adventure of saving the world for the English-speaking Irish culture that we have all so sadly become accustomed to. Of course, John O Shea can speak for himself, preferaby from his own house (give us a gander!) and under some questioing aimed at relieving us from the usual rant against secular govenments, and aimed a lttle more at pleasing the English-speking church-builders of the new world order.
According to Jungle Jim, Johh O' Shea (who one presumes is the sole manager of the recent grant of over 12m euro of Irish taxpayers money): and all without even running an election. This is how the bishops do it also: Taxless funds taken from Taxpayers without Representation and without ever contributing by way of Taxes, and in the instant case, such funds to be spent abroad, where even our so-diligent Parliamentary Auditors admit -- or have admitted -- they cannot trace the lolly. So, what defence has 'Jugle Jim'?
'He (John O'Shea, ex-journalist) has got Irish sportspeople to support the charity which carries out relief and development programmes in mainly African countries. Sometimes Irish missionaries, who have contact with grassroots communities and often speak local languages, are given the task of overseeing relief and development activities, although local lay people are also often involved. Incidentally, the secular Unicef organization has also enlisted the participation of missionaries from Ireland and elsewhere in the implementation of some emergency and health education programmes.'
Ah! So, the funds are directly connected with the little Republic's Holy Roman Imperial programme. Why is it that the Irish, since their independence, have become less secular in their political enquiries than before the attained their 'freedom'. What was the 'freedom' for , if not to ask the Pope and his Bishops how much of our Bonds do they really hold between them: to whom on earth or in Heaven are the Irish wage-earners in thrall? Are we all working fo these wretched pedophile bishops? And are we all in thrall to their overseas ambitions, broadcast and disguised daily by RTE and infantile programmes like Nationwide...?
No one doubts, 'Jungle Jim', that
'Africa is a sad part of the world with enormous problems. Tribalism and corruption and maladministration have been among its shortcomings since independence about fifty years ago.
These things have not been created by missionaries but are indigenous to the varied cultures of the continent.'
To justify what the Irish do abroad by reference to what 'missionaries' do on the continent is a tautology of the problem. The Christian enterprise -- and the Cahtolic one especially -- has no business meddling in the politics of these countries, for no other reason than to continue their erstwhile colonisation programme, and to reduce everything in the world to the very unhealthy paradigm which the Irish suffered.
I shall mention it again, so that perhaps it's significance can be better understood. The Irish, who imagine that they are 'reviving' their old indigenous pagan language after two thousand years of Holy Roman (not so much British) oppression, are out in India, Africa, Asia, converting the world to the same sorry state through the medium of English: in other words displacing the entire culture of natives for an old well-spent mediteranean myth : and , of course, the entirely profitable financial culture that goes with such colonisation.... which brings us back to GOAL and the 12m euros... and all the other Goals and the other hundreds of millions of euros, Irish, Spanish, Polish, Italian, Greek, Portuguese....
Is it so obvious? Do all the PIG countries, the bad European bankrupt countries all contribute to the same laxity in letting the people produce the wealth, but allowing the idle chruchmen, and their secular agents and allies to spend it un-audited all over the world, just to make the world pay tribute to the Pope of Rome?
By the way, Mr 'Jungle Jim', seeing as how you wish to respond in such a bona fide manner (if you'll excuse the ugly romanism), why don't you drop the 'Jungle Jim'-mask and adopt the name your parents gave you, adopt -- let me say it -- your 'Christian' name. Is there some reason that you aren't as proud of your christian name as you would have people believe?
Seamus Breathnach
http://www.irish-criminology.com
'Africa is a sad part of the world with enormous problems. Tribalism and corruption and maladministration ...are indigenous to the varied cultures of the continent.'
I find that a 'sad' and ignorant and typically Eurocentrically patronising comment.
I've lived and travelled in Africa, and its a far more cheerful and colourful collection of cultures and peoples than you depict. Tribalisms etc. are no more indigenous to Africa than Europe, and what is nationalism(Europe's 'gift' to Africa) only super-tribalism.
Patronising conscience-money of aid while plundering the wealth of a continent and corrupting(or assassinating)any installed national leaders who dont automatically conform to neo-colonial ideals is akin to a mugger throwing back a coin after he has taken your wages.
I think it was Tutu who remarked that '...when the white man landed we held the land and he held a bible. He told us to kneel and close our eyes while he blessed us. When we opened our eyes the white man held the land and we held the bible.'
But back at the original topic....the Roman Catholic Church(oxymoronic given catholic means 'universal' and Roman is specific to a city, or at most an empire of Eurocentric caucasians) I reckon the old chestnut of fixating on sexual morality is pure power-play. Grab em by the nuts.
The founder, a heretical wandering rabbi, was more concerned about the morality of wealth/ poverty and as far as I recollect said not a lot about sexuality, seeming to be asexual himself, though rumours abound. Rome censored the writing remaining over several centuries and invented a fresh obscurantist layer of canon law to serve its temporal ends...and while paying lip service to the wealth/poverty moral message layered itself in luxury and perversion, politics and warmongering and espionage and assassination and high finance...all financed by the superstitious terrorising of its hypnotised 'flock', which it fleeces and fucks to holy order with an unction as extreme as Gaybo crossed with Tubs n Father Joe and strained through Aunty Marrion from the electric pulpit of Montrose.
That a purportedly 'celebate' collection of gayly dressed 'fathers' should dictate sexuality to anyone is a boggler...that they continue to prate even after the revelations of recent times, and are allowed to by a compliant media, shows just how corrupt and embedded they are in our sad little country.
But the real give-away down the centuries has been their treatment of heretics, who were publicly tortured and executed, just like the man whose message they corrupt, to let the 'faithful'(terrorised and indoctrinated from the cradle)know who was in charge, and what was in store for the advocates of free thinking.
Mr. Breathanach's acerbic response to my short post about missionaries and English or French teaching, and my short explanation of what Goal is (in response to his rhetorical question about Goal) is long and interesting.
I hold no brief for Goal but simply answered a rhetorical question about that organization. Perhaps sports journalist John O'Shea could be alerted to this thread and invited informally to speak for himself and the organization he founded.
The history of foreign missionaries in the third world - Africa, Asia and Latin America - is a complex and fascinating subject, full of warts and handsomeness. Religion throughout history has been used by powers that be as an instrument of oppression, while in other instances (Jesuits in Paraguay, Wilberforce and the anti-slavery movement, liberation theologians and Latin America) religion has provided inspiration for movement against oppression. It's a long, mixed history.
As for sending tapes to Africa for Africans to learn English and French. Well, all I can say is that languages are human interactive means of communication and can be taught better face to face rather than by machines. Like most subjects. Don't want to make teachers around the world redundant, do we?
I'll stick to Jungle Jim while opus diablos stucks to his handle. Mr. Breathanach is somebody who puts his name and his cards on the table, unlike most Indymedia posters.
..like you are well stuck up Jungle Jim and religious obscurantism.
And my pseudonym is a 'card on the table'...a refusal of the fearmongering of Rome and its cult of irrationality, superstition, lies and homicidal history of thought-suppression.
You have it all worked out, opus. I guess you are ready to write a five-page summary of the history of the RCC. Could be a best seller.
..than me did the homework years ago...its well recorded for those who wish to see. Check your local library.
But, as per, there will always remain those who would rather not.
You dont even need a library...you must have been away in the space station if you missed the last ten years of revelations, globally.
Denial is just one facet of blind faith.
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.