…and this is a 
Only this is the good kind, addressing a problem with power and honesty, and providing a personal connection. This is the testimony of a victim of the Irish Catholic workhouse system, and the brutal pedophilia of corrupt priests.
I found this on the blog of one of the creators of the Father Ted series, Graham Linehan, who wrote of this:
If all copies and records of 'Father Ted' were somehow wiped, I would find it impossible to summon up the affection with which Arthur and I initially wrote the show. Somehow, these days, The Irish Catholic Church seems a lot less cuddly.
Comments
Posted by: Prof. Henry Armitage
|
May 28, 2009 11:51 AM
Father Jack was "cuddly"??
Posted by: Gruesome Rob | May 28, 2009 11:51 AM
From Palin's hometown paper. Seriously eyeroll worthy, along with "How can you believe that crap?"
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 28, 2009 11:56 AM
That's not framing as I understand it.
It's "Pulling no punches, no holds barred!"
Posted by: SC, OM | May 28, 2009 11:59 AM
Awesome.
This sort of testimony is what needs to get out.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
May 28, 2009 12:05 PM
It's the flavor of framing that I like, though.
Posted by: Amanduh | May 28, 2009 12:09 PM
Oh my dog, that is horrific. I had no idea they did such things. (I mean, obviously I knew about the rape by clergy, but had no idea it was so organized.)
The poor man, still traumatized after so many years, and they won't even give him closure.
Sick bastards.
Posted by: Chgo_Liz
|
May 28, 2009 12:27 PM
That was tragically beautiful. If only all the victims of religion were given equal time to be seen and heard every time their religion is referred to positively in a public setting.
Posted by: NC Paul | May 28, 2009 12:29 PM
Some context for American viewers:
1: Consider the age of the man. This kind of admission on national television is almost unheard from a person of his generation (and this is a political town hall Q&A type programme, not Irish Jerry Springer).
2: He's a member of the ruling political party in Ireland, and a former mayor of an Irish town. So when he's excoriating the minister - he's excoriating the party he's given his votes and loyalty for years.
It's one of the most heartbreaking and courageous pieces of television I've ever seen.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
May 28, 2009 12:31 PM
Maybe it's time to rename Catholic, Chthonic?
Posted by: Jadehawk, OM
|
May 28, 2009 12:37 PM
wow. that man has guts...
and was I the only one who had the urge to smack that minister in the face for the stone-cold expression whenever he was shown?
Posted by: Lauren Ipsum | May 28, 2009 12:44 PM
I'm sitting here in tears at my desk. That is the bravest thing I have seen in a long, long time, possibly ever.
Posted by: John Benton | May 28, 2009 12:44 PM
And to think how desperately hard all those kids were praying for all those years to make the rape, beating, and misery to stop.
Posted by: 24fps | May 28, 2009 12:46 PM
What grace under unimaginable pressure. To be that open and articulate about an experience so horrific, about scars so deep, is awe-inspiring.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 12:47 PM
It's also worth noting the context of Mr. O'Brien's remarks — the minister, Noel Dempsey, had earlier attempted to justify the 2002 deal with the Church on the basis that the deal was done in order that the Laffoy Commission would be set up as a non-adversarial “truth commission” to spare the victims the trauma of being subject to an adversarial legal process. The Church had made it very clear to the victims who were, at the time, suing the Church that they would be fought tooth and nail in the courts, and the Laffoy Commission was supposed to be different. Of course, it wasn't — the victims were subject to traumatic cross-examination, as Mr. O'Brien says.
There's a RealVideo stream of the whole show here: http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/230-2550049.smil
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2009 12:47 PM
That made me cry, right here at my desk.
Posted by: Tiina Järvi | May 28, 2009 12:50 PM
So... when you have an elderly male talking about the humiliation he received from the authorities questioning him about the rape allegations, the rulers (all male) show a serious face. But that same kind of humiliation is what all women who are raped by anyone face. The only difference is that the rulers (all male) smirk, tell dirty jokes about how wearing a miniskirt/skirt/pants/anything means the girl/woman wants a good fuck and all the shouting and fighting is just for a show of modesty. Eventually, the male rulers decide that the act can't have been that bad if she survived to tell the tale because, as we know, if a woman is rather raped than kill those who try to do it, she must have wanted it. But when someone of their own is raped, another man, the situation is suddenly more serious. Double-standard, anyone?
Posted by: Penguin_Factory | May 28, 2009 12:53 PM
Yikes 0_o
Good on him for speaking up, though.
(Also, I just thought it was hilarious that they had to use subtitles)
Posted by: willbxtn
|
May 28, 2009 12:56 PM
That made me feel horrified, awe-struck and angry all at once - his ordeals were horrible, his courage to speak out in such a public area, and in such detail, was almost inspiring, and I can feel nothing but anger and disgust against those who downplay or trivialise the Catholic Church's actions - Bill Donohue especially...
Posted by: ddr | May 28, 2009 12:56 PM
The thing that makes me the most angry about all the priest sex scandals is that the church stood by and did nothing.
When a priest commits a crime against the church, like when they steal money, they are not transferred to another assignment, they are turned in and charged.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/community/news/delraybeach/sfl-flpskehan0325pnmar25,0,5324881.story
The church does not enter into agreements to hide their identity, they get no second chances. Its straight to the police and off to prison and oh yeah, pay us restitution.
But when the victim is “only” a child, then it is treated as if it is no big deal. They are free to rape kids, but if they pocket the weekly tithe, then they are in big trouble.
Posted by: Hank
|
May 28, 2009 12:57 PM
Mr. Donohue, of the Catholic League, and Defender of the Church, your response, please, sir!
Posted by: Noadi | May 28, 2009 12:58 PM
This man was raped as a CHILD. Has nothing to do with his being male or female but a child being raped by those in authority. Please don't cheapen what he went through.
Posted by: Hank
|
May 28, 2009 12:59 PM
Mr. Donohue, of the Catholic League, and Defender of the Church, your response, please, sir!
Posted by: Want to send the former Mayor a letter | May 28, 2009 1:00 PM
Does anyone know his name or -- more importantly -- his address (email or snail mail). I know one might hesitates for not wanting to also send cranks his way, but I for one want to thank him for his courage and articulate excoriation of those who'd minimize a cultural horror.
Posted by: rox | May 28, 2009 1:06 PM
That has to be one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen.
What an amazing and courageous man. May he find some solace in speaking out against the atrocities committed against him.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
May 28, 2009 1:21 PM
Oh, he has one, and it's exactly what you'd expect from the smear of dog shite on the bottom of a sandal that he is.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 1:36 PM
No, I don't think so. Remember that we're not talking about a single incidence of rape of an adult, we're talking about children, perhaps as many as 15,000 of them, being serially raped, savagely beaten, and humiliated, many on a weekly basis, while in residential “care” for 10 years. The religious orders in Ireland industrialised the rape and torture of children and infants — that's not a male/female issue.
No, they created safe havens for child-rapists, kept them supplied with victims, and actively protected them in a criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If they only “stood by and did nothing”, it would've been an improvement.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 28, 2009 1:37 PM
The speaker in the clip is Michael O'Brien, the former mayor of Clonmel. You can probably get a letter to him by addressing it to him at his former council offices.
Clonmel Borough Council, Town Hall, Parnell St, Clonmel
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 28, 2009 1:39 PM
#26 was me.
Posted by: gillt | May 28, 2009 1:40 PM
That was heartwrenching. I hope he finds peace someday.
Posted by: Dahan | May 28, 2009 1:41 PM
I wish I could shake that man's hand, thank him and buy him a pint.
I'd also like to beat the ever-loving shit out of the people who did that to him, those who covered it up and those that turned a blind eye to it, but that's a different topic.
Posted by: rox | May 28, 2009 1:44 PM
That has to be one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen.
What an amazing and courageous man. May he find some solace in speaking out against the atrocities committed against him.
Posted by: rox | May 28, 2009 1:50 PM
That has to be one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen.
What an amazing and courageous man. May he find some solace in speaking out against the atrocities committed against him.
Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2009 1:56 PM
More from Mr. O'brein here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoARiGumm4E
Posted by: Watchman | May 28, 2009 2:08 PM
Oh, but this was thirty years ago! It hardly matters now.
Or so people like the contemptible Mr. Donohue would have us believe.
The speaker's anger is righteous. I have several friends who went through similar ordeals at the hands of their own families: years of chronic abuse, both physical and sexual, by multiple perpetrators. Healing is possible, but trauma and its effects don't just go away, no matter how many years go by. Those miserable shitheads who minimize the impact of these crimes or sweep them under the rug because it suits their protectionist agendas ought to be... well, maybe ot that, but they ought to be removed from their positions of authority at the very least, and I include the likes of Donohue in that judgement.
Posted by: rox | May 28, 2009 2:11 PM
That has to be one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever seen.
What an amazing and courageous man. May he find some solace in speaking out against the atrocities committed against him.
Posted by: Holbach
|
May 28, 2009 2:34 PM
Listening to that man relate his experiences is indeed heartbreaking, but I am sorry that his belief in a god still remains unshaken. Tragic, to undergo such an ordeal and continue thinking that a god could not stop it.
Posted by: Sili
|
May 28, 2009 2:37 PM
I'm ashamed.
I have not a shred of the strength that man has.
I've never had any adversity, and I have little doubt that I'd break if I met any.
And I just started all those sentences with "I".
Posted by: psychodiva | May 28, 2009 2:38 PM
there is more here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoARiGumm4E&feature=related
Posted by: CW | May 28, 2009 2:42 PM
Holy crap, that is one brave old guy. I'm massively impressed. Let's hope Joe the Pope sees this.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Disgraced former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern attempts to justify the deal with the Church in the same terms as Noel Dempsey, the same terms that Mr. O'Brien took grave exception to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuVDM6kphsI
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
May 28, 2009 2:56 PM
I had to come back and watch this again. It really hit me a lot harder the second time
So, BTW I have to wonder where all the legions of outraged catliks of crackergate fame have gone to? I guess this story is not quite on par with the horror of desecrating a stale wafer.
Come on you little cockroaches, how about showing yourselves in the light of day so we can grind your little asses into the dirt. You filthy, criminally insane, slime buckets!
In the name of the holy fucking virgin Mary, won't you show up to defend your cock sucking, child buggering, pedophile priests and that lamentable excuse for morality by religious proclamation, which is your great faith?
If ever again, should one of you self righteous religious A hole, even so much as suggest to me that you are more moral than an atheist, I'm afraid that I may not be able to control my impulse to beat your face into a bloody pulp!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | May 28, 2009 3:27 PM
I was crying after his testimony, a lot. I'm still sniffling and my desk is a mess... How could that guy sit there listening with his marble face? He must have got no heart.
(As an aside, Tiina Järvi, you're an ass. a) That is not the reaction you generally get from men in such situations. b) He and thousands more went through a lot worse, and the institutionalisation must have made it worse still. c) The reaction he got was a lot worse than a lousy joke. d) As was yours. Have you no sense of compassion?)
Posted by: Svetogorsk | May 28, 2009 3:34 PM
I posted this in another thread, but Tony Francis's comments in this discussion have to be read to be disbelieved.
Apparently we should ignore this story because:
1. Britain has a lot of teenage pregnancies;
2. All under-age sex is "child rape" by definition;
3. Teenage mothers in Britain, and the fathers of their babies, are rarely, if ever, prosecuted, despite being under the age of consent;
4. Therefore the British government condones "child rape" on a far bigger scale than the Catholic Church.
5. Anyway, it was all a long time ago so hardly worth worrying about.
There are a few other gems (his comments about NAMBLA are particularly bizarre), but I think that's the gist of his argument.
Posted by: BrianC | May 28, 2009 3:38 PM
Wow. I actually live in Clonmel and I had no idea there were places like that so close by. Most courageous thing I've seen in a long time.
Posted by: Dahan | May 28, 2009 3:42 PM
Tiina Järvi,
You are a complete idiot. If you spent any time here, you'd know that we're the good guys. We hate rape, torture, and abuse of all kinds. We don't have a "holy" book to justify such things, like many people do. We're you're allies, and you're pissing in our beer for no obvious reason.
I can't help the fact that I'm male, but I can and do decide how I respond to outrages against other humans.
My wife can't help that she's a female either, but there's one thing that both she and I agree on, you need to go fuck yourself and shut the hell up before you do the cause of women's rights even more damage by being such a loony.
Posted by: Carlie | May 28, 2009 3:52 PM
Tiina, this isn't the place. Not this thread, not right now. And you can look me up in the search box - I'm usually one of the first to call out sexism on this blog. But using this thread to make the comparison of how female rape victims are treated by the judicial system is inappropriate and marginalizes the very real trauma this particular man (and hundreds of other little boys and girls) faced.
Posted by: Walton | May 28, 2009 4:08 PM
Whenever people start harping on about "traditional values" and "the good old days", just think of this.
Posted by: Hairhead | May 28, 2009 4:13 PM
You know what we need? We need a voter, a falsely-imprisoned criminal, a non-violent drug offender who was raped in prison, a US soldier forced to commit atrocities, an Iraqi unjustly imprisoned and tortured, we need any one and ALL of these people to be able to stand in front of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and, yes, Obama, who continues the atrocities, and to call them out, live, in this manner.
But no, everything is hushed, "respectful", "moderated", etc.
People (and I speak in general here) have become so used to euphemism and evasion that blunt and eloquent honesty seems now a rare and exceptional thing.
I certainly have a few people I want to say things to.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
May 28, 2009 4:23 PM
This is a link to the report. Go to a page that details the abuse and you'll see names like Br. Maurice.
Then, if you check the footnote for this name, you'll see "This is a pseudonym."
If you think the video is horrific, start reading the report and the scope of this terror is equally horrific. These children were nothing less than abused slave labor.
http://www.childabusecommission.com
Posted by: No. 44 | May 28, 2009 4:30 PM
But no, everything is hushed, "respectful", "moderated", etc.
Yes! It's the Obama way.
Confronted with evidence of torture, he decided to look forward and do nothing because he's fearful of pissing off his political rivals, whose votes he wants in future.
We need truth and justice, not more political compromise.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | May 28, 2009 4:36 PM
This is the same country where the government is trying to introduce a blasphemy law, to protect religions against people speaking out against them. The Catholic Church in Ireland is on the ropes. Numbers of ordinations are down to derisorily low figures. Is it too much to hope that, in the wake of the Ryan Report, this disgusting institution will finally lose all influence and power in the beautiful country of Ireland?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 28, 2009 4:45 PM
The sky is blue here and a pleasant breeze blows petals and perfume from the blooms on the trees.
And yet I cry. It is hard to see the words through the blurring tears. Their intensity comes as a surprise to me.
I am very glad the priests didn't break his spirit, try though they did. To see such bravery and honesty in the face of great evil gives me hope for humanity.
Thank you Mr. O'Brian. I wish you peace.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck
|
May 28, 2009 4:50 PM
Anonymous at 4:45pm was me, thanks to Typekey.
Posted by: strangebrew | May 28, 2009 4:55 PM
Never ever again can they claim with a straight face to be a morally upstanding religious order!
The truth is the truth...these cockroaches are forever condemned...it will not be forgotten forgiven or excused....
The Roman Catholic Church is destroyed....and about time...because they are lying little shites the lot of 'em and they always have been!
Posted by: Tiina Järvi | May 28, 2009 5:04 PM
I apologize. My response was not based on reason but emotion and I see your point that the comparison was way off. It is children this involved not teens or adults. I did not mean to demeanor the experiences of this man and his peers. So again, I apologize my previous message.
Posted by: Connor | May 28, 2009 5:09 PM
The political leaders in Ireland should be ashamed at having done such a disgraceful deal with the Catholic church. I think they should resign but, realistically, that's just not going to happen. They've effectively hidden the largest pedophile ring in the world, ever, from the law.
I am right there aren't I? I'm just finding it a bit hard to believe. The Catholic church has been running the largest pedophile group in the world for decades and the Irish government has let them off the hook. Worse, it's actually protecting the identities of the people involved and so is surely an accessory to child abuse?
How do these people even look at themselves in the mirror? Let alone try to defend what they've done.
I hope the record of which pseudonyms relate to which individuals wasn't destroyed.
I feel sick.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 28, 2009 5:18 PM
#51 Richard Dawkins said:
"Is it too much to hope that, in the wake of the Ryan Report, this disgusting institution will finally lose all influence and power in the beautiful country of Ireland?"
I think we are still a long way from that point. I grew up there but now live in godless Scandinavia and I'm still shocked every time I return home to see the reverence in which the church is still held in Ireland. It is changing, but very slowly. Its not long since even condoms were illegal in that country.
The church are keeping a low profile for the time being in Ireland but it won't be long before they are back to their usual tricks.
There is a standard Catholic response to difficult questions that I would bet my left leg we are just about to get foisted on us - namely the claim that catholics who do bad things are not really catholics at all.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | May 28, 2009 5:23 PM
Mr. O'Brien is one of the most courageous people I've ever seen.
Posted by: Denis Alexander | May 28, 2009 5:28 PM
Amazing courage. Good for him. I hope this was, at least, party therapeutic.
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 28, 2009 5:35 PM
Thus spake Richard Dawkins:
I'm sure the people campaigning against Dermot Ahern's proposed legislation would welcome a supportive message from you, Richard — see http://blasphemy.ie/
One every two years, or thereabouts. Ironically, many curates in Ireland now are African — it's payback time for all those years of Irish priests in Africa.
Sadly, I think it is, although they have much less influence than in the past, and this will further damage the Church in Ireland, there are still a shocking number of people who attend and defend the Church in spite of the evidence showing them to be operating an international pædophile ring.
I take heart from what I heard from a friend back home in Ireland recently: many large churches have boarded up most of the church because they have neither the money to heat them in winter, nor the attendance to justify keeping them open. These are one or two thousand seater churches that would have been packed to standing-room only for all 5 masses on Sunday morning as recently as 20 years ago and now get a few dozen showing up.
Posted by: Random Mutant
|
May 28, 2009 5:37 PM
I am angry, and sad, I am sickened and I am disgusted. I am sitting with tears in my eyes. The outrage perpertrated by these monsters is as good a reason as any for closing the church, but of course that will never happen.
Cross-reference this with the blasphemy laws proposed in Ireland and be saddened further. No-one is learning.
I'm going on holiday there in a month, I will be interested in chatting to my in-laws and other friends about all of this.
[PS, I've just read RD's comment which mine echo]
Posted by: twincats
|
May 28, 2009 5:58 PM
It certainly was a brave and moving speech. I agree with all that's been said.
What also impressed me was that he wasn't interrupted once! Would that even happen here in the U.S.?
Posted by: Random Mutant
|
May 28, 2009 6:00 PM
To add to my comment, having been packed off to a kafkaesque boarding school (faith-based) in my youth, I feel that I have some small understanding of what Mr. O'Brien had to endure. I was not raped, nor suffered extended beatings, yet living from minute to minute not knowing when one's fortune will again turn for the worse was a nightmare.
Why is it that religious institutions manage to be so effective at humiliation, terror and pain?
Posted by: ad | May 28, 2009 6:08 PM
I an not a Catholic. I went to public (ie. state) primary school in Australia in the 1960's. The same thing (beatings, rape) happened there. If anyone complained, the most that would happen is that a teacher got transferred. In case anyone doubts me it was Willoughby State Primary in Sydney. The teachers names were... (withheld, for now).
Posted by: Emmet, OM
|
May 28, 2009 6:21 PM
The presenter, John Bowman, readily and ruthlessly cuts off audience and panel members if he thinks they're going on too long — he even did it to me (in 2006, IIRC)! My guess is that Michael O'Brien was an invited audience member, invited specifically to ask the question he did and tell his story. There's no way that a statement that powerful could be interrupted with John's customary “We have your point” as he moves on to someone else. Watch the whole show and you'll see (RealVideo stream link in one of my posts above) — it's worth watching to see the panel's comments that Michael O'Brien is responding to.
Posted by: NFPendleton | May 28, 2009 6:30 PM
@Tiina Järvi -
You obviously don't know how protective many of us "rulers" are of our female beloveds, be they our children, sisters, mothers, lovers, or friends.
If you've suffered anything similar, my deepest sympathies. But your characterization of men in general is unfair.
Posted by: Louise Van Court | May 28, 2009 7:01 PM
What a brave man! I hope that the victims of these atrocities will receive the heartfelt apologies, respect and compensation (although it could never make up for the horrors they endured) that they deserve even though it will be decades late in coming.
Any time adults are given complete authority and absolute power over the lives of vulnerable children exploitation will occur. Nothing short of complete transparency to public watchdogs and multiple levels of checks and balances will prevent the exploitation of children in any institutional setting whether it be an orphanage, a foster home, a public school, a detention center, a summer camp, etc. etc. The fact that it happens at religious institutions purporting to help children in the name of Christ is absolutely sickening. Monsters can be found lurking anywhere children are found.
Those that allowed these crimes to continue deserve the fullest possible punishment.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | May 28, 2009 7:12 PM
Rough stuff. Now that's what speaking truth to power really looks like.
Well done Tiina, this is indeed not the right thread. On a related note, though - this speaker said that his sister was also raped. And when the Pope came to Australia, a father of two raped girls wanted to confront him and demand an apology. Yet it does seem that the media in general gets very much more excited by little boys being raped than little girls. And then that turns into the popular perception with all the jokes about choirboys and the girls are ignored and forgotten, and that pisses me off no end. (Yes, I know that in this specific case of the Irish institutions more boys were sexually abused.)
Posted by: rox | May 28, 2009 7:17 PM
I sincerely apologize for my repetitious posts. I was getting error messages and assumed they didn't post.
Posted by: Katkinkate | May 28, 2009 7:35 PM
I didn't look at the clip, 'cause I'm depressed enough already. All the comments told me enough. The 'church' owes big compensation payouts to their victims and probably an official apology ... preferably now, not in a few centuries time. Also we need to look into the Catholic institutions dealing with kids now, to make sure this kind of thing isn't still going on.
Posted by: j.t.delaney | May 28, 2009 8:38 PM
Compensation for the living victims is certainly important, but prevention of future abuses should be paramount; for an organization that is so innately opaque, corrupt, and unrepentant, the only real solution to this problem is to starve it -- starve it of authority, membership, and ultimately money. The safest, most positive long-term outcome of this will be the atrophy of the Church from society to a managable, ignorable size.
The decade-long Ryan Comission investigation has done much to expose the Church's absence of moral authority in Ireland, but Ireland is still quite a small country. The task of holding the Church accountable for analgous abuse in Brazil, Mexico, and the Philippines must be done, and will have a much farther reaching historical impact in the future.
Of course, systemic abuse of vulnerable people by religious organizations is an ecumenical problem, and while the Catholic Church is somewhat unique in it's size and hierarchical structure, the same accountability should be sought from systemic child abusers in other cults.
Posted by: MelM | May 28, 2009 9:27 PM
You may have seen the "Sex in a cold climate" video. It's another angle on these monsters.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1732953937770017672
Posted by: Alan | May 29, 2009 12:44 AM
I'm a 24 year old construction worker, and this man had me in tears. How horrible.
How horrible.
Posted by: Philip1978 | May 29, 2009 4:04 AM
Words fail me when I hear accounts like this, from incredibly brave and courageous people who stand up to their abusers.
I hope Richard is right and that this is another thing to add to the multitude of horrific acts that will finally drive the Catholic church and all the other horrible religious abusers into the ground.
What really bothered me the most about this video is looking at the faces of the people on the panel.
They don't show a SHRED of emotion, they just have what I call the "politician stare" - that look when they know they are in the shit, know that something is going horribly wrong but are so thick skinned that even things like this don't even manage to bat an eyelid. No matter what the crime is, no matter how much graphic detail is applied, these people really look like they don't care enough and that really bothers me.
My deepest and most heartfelt sympathies to every human being who has had to suffer in this manner and not been able to bring their abuser to justice.
Posted by: Walton | May 29, 2009 5:18 AM
Far more. If you read the report (childabusecommission.ie), it shows that sexual abuse of girls was pretty rare; when it did happen, it was usually by laymen employed to work at the schools (caretakers etc). By contrast, in some of the Christian Brothers' boys' schools, sexual abuse was endemic. Which is not really surprising; remember, the Christian Brothers were young men who had taken vows of chastity and were forbidden any contact with women, or any normal sexual activity of any kind. They were not properly trained or vetted, and were put in authority over young boys who were in their power - and the institutional structure provided no checks on them, nor did the state provide any support other than (minimal) funding. The whole system was fundamentally flawed and corrupt, and sexual abuse - as well as other forms of abuse - were bound to occur.
While it's tempting to scream that those of the abusers still living should be publicly shamed and punished, I think the real culprit is the system that put them in that position. And when idiots call for a return to "traditional values", we should remind them of this; "traditional values" created horrific abuse of children, and allowed it to go on with impunity, for a very long time. Not just in Ireland, and not just in the Catholic Church; don't forget the abuse of Native American children in the "Indian residential schools" in the US and Canada, to name just one other example. Abuse still goes on today; but at least we are aware of the problem today, and people around the world are making efforts to stamp it out, and to help and counsel the victims of abuse.
Posted by: Morgan | May 29, 2009 6:02 AM
Richard Dawkins said...
"This is the same country where the government is trying to introduce a blasphemy law, to protect religions against people speaking out against them."
Oh come on Richard - I would expect you to look beyond the headlines and base your opinion on fact. What is being proposed is to remove from legislation the possibility of being jailed for Blasphemous Libel (not Blasphemy) and raising the bar of what is defined as Blasphemous Libel.
I agree it's not ideal but the removal of Blasphemous Libel would require a referendum and frankly any vote proposed by the Government would be likely to fail - as well as allowing the religious right a platform to campaign. So the Government is effectively watering the clause down a lot.
Posted by: Greg | May 29, 2009 6:08 AM
There is a second report that has not been released yet but is expected to be even more damning.
As others have mentioned it is to be hoped that a small silver lining to be taken from this would be the marginalisation of the Church in society.
Posted by: Widgetas
|
May 29, 2009 7:11 AM
If I'd have let it that would have moved me to tears.
I've not seen a testimony from one of the victims before. He so obviously doesn't have a political or religious axe to grind.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 29, 2009 7:56 AM
Morgan #76,
The blasphemy proposal is certainly not a case of 'watering down' the current law. It defines the crime as one in which a person states or publishes something that a substantial number of any particular religion takes offense to - and puts a figure of 100,000 euro as a fine for this offense.
I would state three things about this law.
First, defining blasphemy as something that offends the religious is waving a red flag in front of the fundamentalist bull. The more outraged they can be then the more serious the crime.
Second, why put the figure at 100,000 euro? Thats a lot of money for a law that the minister claims is only being applied for procedural reasons rather than seriously thinking it might be used in practice. Why not put the figure at 10 euro or even one euro (or one cent)?
Third, who exactly is calling for a blasphemy law in Ireland?
The current law has been used just one or two times in the history of the State so why the big need for such a law now.
This stinks to high heaven (pardon the pun) of Catholic doctrine being imposed upon the population at large in the form of the laws of the land. Look at the response of the Catholic church to the Danish cartoons and the Salman Rushdie affair and you will notice straight away that their line is that offending the major religions should be actively discouraged - something this law is entirely designed to accomplish.
I'm not sure there was a direct connection with the abuse scandal (in fact the church members hoping for the blasphemy law to be passed must be cursing their luck that its being debated at just the time respect for the church is taking a kicking - which is pretty much exactly what myself and my generation took from the christian brothers in the Ireland of the 1970s).
Posted by: Morgan | May 29, 2009 8:51 AM
Hi Sigmund #79
First up I agree with a lot of what you say. To address your points...
(1)There is already a Blasphemy law in existence (1961 Defamation Act). This proposal doesn't introduce it. The Consitituion specifically satates that Blasphemy should be treated as an offence (Article 40.6.1.i) - so the law must treat it as such OR remove the article of the Constitution (which I would rather do but am realistic enough to know would open a whole religious battle)
(2)The proposal actually removes the possibility of private prosecutions for blasphemous liable which currently exists. So under the proposal no Church could sue anyone for Blasphemy - the only authority would rest with the Public Prosecutor.
(3) The proposal removes the possibility of a jail sentence for Blasphemous liable which currently exists
(4) The proposal requires three elements to be present before the DPP could bring a case in theory - (a) material must be grossly abusive or insulting in matters held sacred, (b) it must cause actual outrage amongst the majority members of a religion (try proving that one) and (c) there must be predetermined intent to cause that outrage. Crucially the previous legislation had no requirement to prove intent.
(5) I agree with your point - why not a fine of €1.
(6) Any prosecution would have to balance these factors against the already expressly defined freedom of expression in the Constitution - so for a prosecution to succeed, not only would the three criteria mentioned above have to be met, but the judge would also have to take account for the freedom of expression issue and decide where one right overrides another.
I would rather an amendment to the Constitution - but failing that the Government, in my view, seem to be trying to make Blasphemous Libel an unprosecutable offence.
At the very least - if you read the points I have made - making a comment along the lines of "Ireland introduces Blasphemy laws to protect the Church" is a facile analysis of the situation.
I hope I haven't waffled on too long - apologies
Posted by: John Morales | May 29, 2009 8:59 AM
NC Paul (and others),
Hear, hear!Powerful stuff, indeed.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 29, 2009 10:25 AM
Morgan, I know a little of the background to the law and the fact that its updating current legislation mandated by the constitution rather than a completely new law. I can also agree with the possibility that the Irish government don't intend to use the law but they are behaving incredibly stupidly with this legislation with the clause about offending the majority of members of a particular religion.
That clause has some rather obvious consequences. First it make it virtually impossible for a large established religion to use the law (very good!) however it provides a huge incentive for a smaller religion - with a known history of getting offended at things like novels and cartoons - to organise its members into acts of outraged protest.
Now even if these protests fail it will send a signal around the world that their views are getting dismissed and thus exposing Irish people abroad to danger in the same manner as Danish nationals were threatened after the cartoon protests.
This is currently not a problem since this means of enacting the law is not in the current law.
Perhaps we can agree that its probably more a sign of gross incompetence by the current Irish government rather than direct puppetry from the Vatican.
Posted by: Morgan | May 29, 2009 10:52 AM
Sigmund,
Certainly wouldn't defend this or many other Governments from charges of incompetence - yes I would rather tackle the "quirk" in our Constitution by correcting the Constitution rather than creating a second quirk.
However, the reality is - right now without the amendment, any individual of any lunatic fringe of any cult can bring a private prosecution aginst you or I for reasons of Blasphemous libel against their religion and it would have to bre treated seriously and we could not defend ourselves by claiming lack of intent... or to use your example, a smaller religion with a history of being offended could go around prosecuting people all by themselves if they wanted to.
Under the proposal, the action could not be taken by an individual or Church and intent is considered. So it would have to be investigated by the police and file prepared and sent to the DPP who would then consider whether their is adequate evidence to prosecute .... blah blah blah
Dunno - I see this as weakening the Blasphemy law but I do agree with you - it shouldn't be there at all and we should fix the Constitution
Posted by: kmann | May 29, 2009 10:58 AM
Re the comments by Richard and others on the proposed changes to the blasphemy law in Ireland, the greater point is that absolutely no one here in Ireland has asked for these changes, and if the minister for justice is so excercised about it, why on earth can't we have a referendum? We have referenda all the time! There will be a referendum in the autumn concerning the Lisbon Treaty(for the second time!). If the legislation for this goes ahead after following the Wexford report, the Ryan report and the forthcoming Dublin report, it will be absolutely outrageous.
Posted by: ZK
|
May 30, 2009 2:39 PM
Hereabouts there was a kiddy-fiddling catholic priest until a few years ago when he was caught and convicted.
You can judge for yourselves, but it did seem to me that the church went out of its way to hush up the scandal, and it was certainly the case (IME/O) that plenty of people hereabouts took the attitude that "we don't talk about that".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/victims-insist-the-churchs-instinct-is-still-to-look-after-its-own-681757.html