The Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse has published a report regarding the systematic abuse and torture by Catholic institutions in Ireland from 1936 onwards of children who were placed in their care.It is unlikely that any of the abusers identified by the Commission will face prosecution.
The Catholic church has a long history of trying to cover the atrocities it has committed.
16 comments:
How can you say so? Obviously you are a protestant. I do agree with you that the perpetrators must face prosecution. But that can't deny the fact that the Catholic Church is the only true Christian Church which God intented. The Protestant Movement was started to achieve people's personal goals.
In Annie Laurie Gaylor's book "Betrayal of Trust" (1988), the author sites many abuses by clergy of many sects. People always accuse us of picking on the Catholics. The only reason we pick on them is that the Catholic church's abuses have been widely publicized, and that church has a nasty habit of slapping the perpetrators on the wrists and sending them on to other parishes. Several Jewish communities in NY City have had similar problems. In the Freedom From Religion Foundation's monthly newspaper "Freethought Today" each month there is a two-page spread of "black collar crime" which includes everything from theft to murder, but mostly sexual abuse by clergy from many denominations. I'm sure most clergy of any sect would not behave in such unethical ways, but it just goes to show that being religious is not a guarantee of moral behavior.
Apparently VInita didn't read any other posts on your blog, or she would not have accused you of being a Protestant.
When this sort of thing does happen, it gives Christians a bad name. "One bad apple spoils the bunch." (Or so they say.)
I hope that people will not judge Christians and the Bible based upon a few "bad apples."
are you non-catholic?
Oscar Gecko: Not a few bad apples.
This, from the Irish Times, gets to the dark heart of the matter:
The key to understanding these attitudes is surely to realise that abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system. Terror was both the point of these institutions and their standard operating procedure. Their function in Irish society was to impose social control, particularly on the poor, by acting as a threat. Without the horror of an institution like Letterfrack, it could not fulfil that function. Within the institutions, terror was systematic and deliberate. It was a methodology handed down through successive generations of Brothers, priests and nuns.
There is a nightmarish quality to this systemic malice, reminiscent of authoritarian regimes. We read of children flogged, kicked . . . scalded, burned and held under water. We read of deliberate psychological torment inflicted through humiliation, expressions of contempt and the practice of incorrectly telling children that their parents were dead. We read of returned absconders having their heads shaved and of ritualised floggings in one institution.
We have to call this kind of abuse by its proper name – torture. We must also call the organised exploitation of unpaid child labour – young girls placed in charge of babies on a 24-hour basis or working under conditions of great suffering in the rosary bead industry; young boys doing work that gave them no training but made money for the religious orders – by its proper name: slavery. It demands a very painful adjustment of our notions of the nature of the State to accept that it helped to inflict torture and slavery on tens of thousands of children. In the light of the commissions report, however, we can no longer take comfort in evasions.
Sexual abuse, terror, torture, slavery - these are the crimes of which the Catholic Church is guilty in Ireland.
The horror! The horror!
Comment by Babasulayman.
@schizoshrink
Not that it matters, but I am a Protestant. And the reason it does not matter is BOTH are just as guilty.
@GeneralX
I still stick to the "Bad Apple" analogy. You may be right about Ireland, but what about the rest of the world? Are all Catholics bad? No. For that matter, are all Protestants bad? No.
I do not mean to diminish the evil about the Irish (in your story) using religion as control. But, it magnifies the few "bad apples" analogy, but on a grand scale. And if you have ever meet a devote Christian, you will know what I mean.
If I were to judge the Irish (in your story) I would say that they are not Christians. But rather, they are what the Bible calls a wolf in sheep's clothing.
In fact, Christianity is about leaving this type life of evil. (Hence my calling them a wolf.)
"In fact, Christianity is about leaving this type life of evil."
Are you sure about that? I think Christianity is about discouraging people from too much inquiry and independent thought. Too much thought will show any person how crazy and illogical the Christian religions' collections of beliefs actually are (and I use "Christian religions" here, because Christianity is full different sects that believe different and contradictory things). However, independent thought can also lead one to think deeply about the origins and purposes of social norms and social controls. I think Christianity encourages social control of those who might upset any established order. That's also what it's all about.
Christianity, "Christian religions"
and sects... It appears as if we have differing definitions.
The Christianity that I refer to is what the Bible talks about. The "Christian religions" and sects that you refer to are "rules and regulations" that are defined by man. (At least the way I see it.)
Do you really think that Christianity "encourages social control of those who might upset any established order?" What abut Moses who stood up against the Pharaoh? What about Daniel who disobeyed the King and was thrown into the lion's den? What about Jesus who defied the ruling Scribes and Pharisees and questioned their power?
These people openly went against the "established order." These people were also rewarded for doing so. They are among the best known leaders that could "upset any established order" by example.
These are stories, legends, and myths taken out of their cultural contexts to support some present-day weirdo vision of a supernatural god. What sort of reactions do you expect in the comments section of an atheist blog? We're not buying it, so sell crazy somewhere else.
Stories? Legends? Myths? I am not trying to sell anything. Either you believe it or not. I made a statement and backed it up. It is your choice to believe it or not. I only gave the examples so that anyone can think freely for themselves.
But, the statement was made, "I think Christianity encourages social control of those who might upset any established order."
Plain and simple, The Scribes and Pharisees were the "established order" of their time. Jesus stood against them on many occasions.
I merely pointed out a few examples that point to the contrary. These examples pissed off the established order until they tried to run Him off.
Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided will not stand..."
But the history of the institutions of the different Christianities are the religions themselves even more than the stories, myths, and legends of some outcast cult that they were all allegedly based upon. You think Christianity is the foundational myth rather than the reality of centuries of social control. That's what I think is crazy. And you're selling it.
[You think Christianity is the foundational myth rather than the reality of centuries of social control.]
Wrong. I do not believe either.
I believe that the Bible is often times wrongly used. It is often times used for personal gain. When it is used for personal gain, it is wrong.
Just like the TV evangelist telling you to empty your wallet and you will get a blessing. That is pure BS.
Just like the Catholic institutions in Ireland, whom covered up years of systematic abuse and torture. They used it for personal gain. (Sexual sin and control/manipulation.) And that is also pure BS.
I originally said, "In fact, Christianity is about leaving this type life of evil." It is about leaving this type of manipulation. It is about letting God be in control, not some supposedly appointed by God person. It is about what God wants, not some Catholic leader.
And you (Karen) equated it to Social Control. I merely gave some examples to the contrary. Every example was about rising up against Social Control.....The social control of the Scribes and Pharisees.....The social control of the Catholic institutions in Ireland.....The social control of anyone who uses Christianity for their own personal gain.
You're right in that I'm not arguing well. I gotta concede, I'm being intellectually lazy here, and so reflecting poorly on thoughtful atheists everywhere, especially Zee whose blog this is. Sorry, Zee. I've gotta stick to "I" statements rather than "you" statements.
Zee has an incredible blog. Although Zee and I (and others like yourself) may disagree on the existence of a god - or lack of - she has a terrific blog in putting her thoughts and feelings in witting.
We should never be afraid to voice our ideas and opinions. After all, that is part of what makes our country great.
Never have I seen as many idiotic responses on this blog as here. Christians of all denominations--and freelancers too--have warped minds. If only the world could be rid of the sickness they spread.
Finally I have found something which helped me. Thank you!
http://najibblog2010.blogspot.com
Post a Comment