Catholic Church Abuse.

[iartaoiseach]

Bertie, you (and others in these posts whose position is similar to yours) have used the word 'belief' several times now with regard to the contents of the Ryan report and related issues.

There are (for the purposes of this illustration) two kinds of belief.
Type A is, generally, of the following kind: you walk into a room and see a flat wooden structure supported by four sticks. Someone tells you "That's a table. It's a solid object. The sticks are called legs. The table is used to put things on. Sometimes we sit around it and eat dinner."

You are shocked and surprised, because for years & years you've been told that this object is called a loofah, that is a hologram, and that the hologram represents an item of furniture used for sitting on.

But you have an open mind, and an interest in truth. So you walk over & tap the object, satisfying yourself that it is indeed solid. Hanging around for a while, you observe how people come and go, putting things down on the object and taking them up again. You hear the object referred to as a table, and the sticks supporting it referred to as its "legs". Finally, you see a bunch of people put food-laden plates on it, drag up other items they refer to as "chairs", sit down and eat their dinner off the object.

You turn to the person who first explained the thing to you and you say, quite honestly, "Yes, I believe that's a table. It's solid, the sticks supporting it are called legs, and people eat their dinner at it".

Type B Belief may be illustrated by the following example, which starts off the same way -

You walk into a room and see a flat wooden structure supported by four sticks. Someone tells you "That's a table. It's a solid object. The sticks are called legs. The table is used to put things on. Sometimes we sit around it and eat dinner."

You are shocked and surprised, because for years & years you've been told that this object is called a loofah, that is a hologram, and that the hologram represents
an item of furniture used for sitting on.

So you turn to the other person and you shout "No! That's a hologram of a loofah! How dare you tell such lies! You must be getting paid for it, or else you're sick, because no sane, decent human being would tell such lies."

The other person tries to explain - perhaps mildly, perhaps in an offended way, depending on their personality. But you stick your fingers in your ears and stamp your foot and shout "Loofah! Loofah! Loofah! Sick! Sick! Sick!"

Now both reactions can with, some semantic accuracy, be termed belief. But Type A is based on the confirmed reality of the object observed. Type B is a function of the believer's psychological needs, and bears no relationship whatsoever to objective reality.

You may easily infer which category I think your sort of 'belief' belongs to. I do not mean your belief in religion, which no one can objectively demonstrate as being either true or untrue. I mean your complete unwillingness to accept objectively-established matters of fact which contradict the image you have of the Church in whose good faith you clearly have an overwhelming psychological (not spiritual) need to believe. There is absolutely no rational means of contradicting this profoundly irrational viewpoint, so I shan't try.

brilliant. sadly also true.

[iartaoiseach]

There are no true Christian on this thread and from what I have seen, the Catholic Church in Ireland is possibly one of the largest atheistic organisations in the country - no one who truly, genuinely followed Christ would do what was done nor try to excuse or deny what went on and they certainly wouldnt have tried to aid those who carried out these crimes.

By this logic, I would label such people 'Cultural Christians', this country is full of them, people who lick the altar rails every sunday, parading around like they are paragons of virtue but when their daughter gets pregnant its off to England for the abortion - if its not public knowledge then its didnt really happen. People who act in this way or in the ways outlined above cannot truly call themselves anything other than hypocrites - they can reflect, pray, examine their conscience - any of the trite catchphrases we so regularly hear from people caught out in their lies, but if they truly believed then they would not have done what they did.

Perhaps people think its time for forgiveness, but I doubt it. I would never forgive and never forget - a thousand years from now, if the Church hasnt already faded into obscurity, then it shouldnt be forgotten.

thats an insult to us non-believers. I have never felt the need to make another person suffer for my (non)beliefs. anti-christ might be more appropriate.

[iartaoiseach]

Just a thought. I wonder what our fellow europeans make of us now. We apparently voted no to lisbon because of our fears for abortion, euthanasia and our great concern for human life. How do we reconcile that claim with what was done to children by the caring people in the religious orders. It seems that life was only sacred until birth and only when the child was born into decent circumstances. the hypocrisy is stunning. guarantee that the anti-abortion crew are the loudest on here in defence of the church.

[tmesis2008]

There are no true Christian on this thread and from what I have seen, the Catholic Church in Ireland is possibly one of the largest atheistic organisations in the country - no one who truly, genuinely followed Christ would do what was done nor try to excuse or deny what went on and they certainly wouldnt have tried to aid those who carried out these crimes.

Atheistic? Are you serious? These people all believed in God. They were theists. Whether they were truly "Christian" or not is another matter, but don't call them atheists.

[The OD]

thats an insult to us non-believers. I have never felt the need to make another person suffer for my (non)beliefs. anti-christ might be more appropriate.

Being a non believer myself, could you actually explain what you mean by the above?

Just a little confused - how am I trying to make any suffer for my (non)beliefs?

Atheistic? Are you serious? These people all believed in God. They were theists. Whether they were truly "Christian" or not is another matter, but don't call them atheists.

I cannot believe that anyone who did this could truly believe in any of the beliefs they push.

[tmesis2008]

I cannot believe that anyone who did this could truly believe in any of the beliefs they push.

Do you not believe that some people believed they were on a misson from God to straighten out these "deliquents"? The punishment was possibly seen as the only way to acheive that. The sexual assault is what happens when you dehumanise people to the extent that happened. The people who ran the institutions by dehumanising these children dehumanised themselves. Utterly. But they still saw there work as Christian work, to reclaim the fallen for God.

The whole "God is love" BS is a seventies invention. The Christian God is and always will be a God of fear. That's why he created Hell after all: as a threat. And the institutions in this country were a Hell on Earth, in much the same fashion. No, these people were following the example of Yahweh. Doesn't Yahweh cast the fallen into the fire of hell as well?

Christianity at it's core is accept me or accept fear and punishment. This has nothing to do with atheism and you should retract that. These people believe in God and followed his example.

[myksav]

On a side note.
What about the abuse, physical and mental, that was carried out by lay teachers in the States National Schools?
Spell a word incorrectly and you got beaten, most commonly on your writing hand, and enough to prevent that hand from functioning enough to actually pick up a pen or pencil. For which you got another beating. Happened to me and I have some slight nerve damage in my writing hand still.
Mental abuse was common, where the teacher would set up a student so as to make the student look totally stupid. Do it enough, and they did, and some students were mentally broken into believing they were stupid and made to fear any form of authority. I was lucky in that sense because of my parents who taught me to think for myself from a young age but I know too many who didn't survive that treatment from lay teachers.

Not a thing was done about that until recently. And that was the rescinding of corporal punishment, which doesn't stop the mental abuse that still goes on to a degree.

The cynically funny part of that treatment happened after I was finished schooling and joined the Military. One of the main perpetrators of the abuse I got in primary school came up to me in public and tried to tell me that he was "proud" of how he turned out such a fine young man to be "making something of myself" in uniform, and tried to shake my hand. I just turned my back on him as if he didn't exist.

Now, here's the thing. When I went to secondary school, a Christian Brother school, the Brothers treated the students with respect, only one ever raised a hand to a student and he was hauled over the coals by the Principal, a Christian Brother, for doing so. It never happened again. Again it was the lay teachers were a greater 'threat', just a minority.

I do not disbelieve the facts of the treatment of children by a minority of the clericals, I know too many who suffered at their hands, but I am not impressed by societies attitude that the entire clerical were responsible for all the abuse. They're an easy target and while the entire focus is on them, the other abusers get a free ride.

[iartaoiseach]

Being a non believer myself, could you actually explain what you mean by the above?

Just a little confused - how am I trying to make any suffer for my (non)beliefs?



I cannot believe that anyone who did this could truly believe in any of the beliefs they push.

you made a point that the catholic church was atheistic, the reason being their reprehensible behaviour. I disagree, it was the nature of organised religion and its apparent infallibilty that facilitated the behaviour of the church and its members-this goes for all religions imo.
They made people suffer, not you. don't be defensive I agree with the thrust of your post just not on the use of atheisim as a description of the ethos of the catholic church.

[The OD]

Do you not believe that some people believed they were on a misson from God to straighten out these "deliquents"? The punishment was possibly seen as the only way to acheive that. The sexual assault is what happens when you dehumanise people to the extent that happened. The people who ran the institutions by dehumanising these children dehumanised themselves. Utterly. But they still saw there work as Christian work, to reclaim the fallen for God.

The whole "God is love" BS is a seventies invention. The Christian God is and always will be a God of fear. That's why he created Hell after all: as a threat. And the institutions in this country were a Hell on Earth, in much the same fashion. No, these people were following the example of Yahweh. Doesn't Yahweh cast the fallen into the fire of hell as well?

Christianity at it's core is accept me or accept fear and punishment. This has nothing to do with atheism and you should retract that. These people believe in God and followed his example.

I am more going on what they say as opposed to what they do - they are all about love and peace and forgiveness and say their God is all loving and forgiving etc. If they truly believed in an all loving God they wouldnt have done what they did. I do of course take your point above however and see what you mean.

you made a point that the catholic church was atheistic, the reason being their reprehensible behaviour. I disagree, it was the nature of organised religion and its apparent infallibilty that facilitated the behaviour of the church and its members-this goes for all religions imo.
They made people suffer, not you. don't be defensive I agree with the thrust of your post just not on the use of atheisim as a description of the ethos of the catholic church.

Your right I suppose, it probably was unfair to equate them with atheists such as ourselves who view treating others with decency and respect as being the norm rather than doing it for some perceived 'reward' in the 'afterlife'.

I dont need payment to treat others with kindness, its the right thing to do is all.

[iartaoiseach]

Your right I suppose, it probably was unfair to equate them with atheists such as ourselves who view treating others with decency and respect as being the norm rather than doing it for some perceived 'reward' in the 'afterlife'.

I dont need payment to treat others with kindness, its the right thing to do is all.

My sentiments exactly. pity some of the religious don't agree