91Èȱ¬

"Vincent Twomey is a serious and substantial figure within the establishment of the Irish church"

I'd like to take a moment to say I Told You So, but I think that Will deserves that moment.

GV

That this is not a case of Liberal v Conservative Catholic, or Secular v Religious Society. I've been trying to point some folk to conservative catholic commentators in the US, who expressed disgust and bewilderment with their Bishops. Hopefully Fr. Twomey's voice will give conservative Catholics in Ireland a position to rally behind.
And in fairness to your good self, I think that there have been some posts that implied some sort of liberal or secular bias in your reporting. I think they've missed the point completely.

GV

I don't agree with this article's reasoning and conclusions. But it does show how important the Catholic priest scandals have become in US culture. This is a conservative journal. And essential to the argument is that the scandals made the Churches critics and defenders acknowledge certain points in common. And this had an impact on the reporting of the arrest of Roman Polanski.



The evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive. But it does show how prominently the scandals register in the minds of conservative religious journalists.
And America is not a Catholic culture. The impact that the Murphy Report will have on Irish Culture is inestimable. I think that the SS and W&T team are entirely correct in their handling of the scandal.

GV

I think the point is that in Ireland most bishops haven't been conservative or liberal but dull, cautious, and apathetic.

I find it amazing, but completely predictable, watching Conservative Catholics attempt to squirm out of this one.

Was it the post-Vatican II Church which created the Industrial Schools? Was it the 'liberals' who took young boys from their homes and placed them in Junior Seminaries?

Wasnt it those same liberals who have spoken out for years for an end to mandatory celibacy, for the ordination of women and who have been attacked and ridiculed by those Conservatives?

Are any of them going to acknowledge their part in all of this?

The most interesting aspect of this to me is how the Irish public at large isn't outraged to the point of demanding blood. They aren't up in arms carrying torches at night to burn the witches right in their dens. I suppose it comes down to what sort of society the Irish have and want. It seems so far it's one where the bottom line is that the church rules the land, the secular government plays second fiddle. Otherwise there would be much more talk about what the police and prosecutors are or aren't doing and far less about what the church itself is doing.

RJB

Your personal testimony is powerful and relevant. I think it's important not to extrapolate from one person's testimony to an international community. It's not the case that abusers in the US Priest scandal tended to be conservative. That may, or may not be, the case in Ireland. But I just don't see the case that Conservative (or Liberal) Catholic theology causes abuse. I don't see that it prevents abuse. I think other factors need to be taken into consideration. (The opportunities an environment provides a criminal, the risk/reward ratio, etc).
If the abuse was taking place in an environment of low opportunity and high risk, then I might look for other explanations. (What does seem relevant is the brutal dehumanising education system. But a similar education system is described by CS Lewis, Rohald Dahl and other English writers. It doesn't seem essentially Catholic).

GV

GV

Here are the reasons why the Conservative Catholic Church bred abuse.

1. The priests were all powerful. What they said - especially in Ireland - was law. They were completely unaccountable, their behaviour unquestioned. They were completely free to 'groom.' The Conservative Church, especially from the Pius Epoch, reinforced this state of affairs.

2. Eldest sons were 'sent' to become priests. Were all of them called by God? i.e. Men were in the priesthood who shouldnt have been and who ultimately didnt want to be. That was a disaster.

3. The Conservative Church created Junior Seminaries. Everyone of them - every one!! - had instances of abuse.

4. Junior Seminaries were usually places where 'problem' priests were dumped, given a subject they were vaguely familiar with, to TEACH. In my case, complaints were made against a priest for abuse of children in Nigeria. They sent him to our jumior seminary to SOLVE the problem. It was a Conservative Church which did this.

5. The climate and ethos of fear created by the Conservative Church, fire and brimstone, Hell and Damnation etc.. was not a liberal theology. This allowed them to remove pregnant teenage girls from their families to be institutionalised. It allowed them to ignore the screams of these same mothers as they stole their newborn from them. It allowed their parents to convince themselves that this was what God wanted.

6. I also looked at the psychology of clericalism. Often these Conservative priests who made such a public show of their piety were indulging in "over-compensation." They needed to indulge in this 'piety' to, they thought, make up for and block out, the shame of what they were doing behind closed doors.

I could write a book on it, Graham!

Also, Graham, thanks for your sensitivity to my story, but please feel free to write what you feel. I've read your posts for a while now, I know you are a good man. I am not going to take offence if you are brutally honest.

#8

I expressed a similar sentiment on another thread - why were the apparently 'outraged' priests either not being given, or taking, air-time & other media opportunities to express their 'outrage'?

Irish society is characterised by no-one taking responsibility. Rarely does anyone resign in the political sphere. Donal Murray's initial attempt to squirm out of resigning is classic - an 'x-factor' type appeal to the Limerick faithful - no personal responsibility.

The fruits of 'mental reservation' are being borne across the political, religious and economic sectors. Sad to say, and as one who lives in the Irish Republic, it is the society we Irish have and want.

@Will_Crawley - Greetings from Canada,

I listen to your podcasts and in general find them informative except for the heavy handed pandering to religion. The past 2 shows leave me reeling in anger as I cannot fathom how it is that if over 200,000 children had been abused by any group other than a religious one, that surely legal proceedings would ensue. The Irish Catholic executives named in the report really deserve to be indicted at the Hague for crimes against humanity yet in Ireland there is silence. Your calls for resignations of the men named that aided and abetted criminal activity seems to fall on death ears.

The outrageous remarks by the man from Oxford regarding essentially diplomatic immunity for the Vatican made me cringe. The Vatican should not exist as a state and it is thanks to Italy for allowing that travesty to continue. It must end.

When you challenged on the issue of lying someone nearly said that they clerics are politicians first. OK sure then why is the institution masquerading as a pompous, sanctimonious conduit for the supernatural? That is medieval, anachronistic and obviously unhealthy. How can any reasonably intelligent and emotionally balanced person believe anything from pulpits? (Richard Dawkins 101.)

Today in Canada yet another report on systemic child abuse will be published. I'll post a link later on for that.

Your show is titled 'Everyday Ethics' yet it seems only predicated on religion. Is it that getting the message to the people of Ireland that morality and ethics are mutually exclusive of irrational religious belief is too difficult to accomplish?

Best to you all from Canada, L.

RJB

I'm not sure that we mean the same thing by "Conservative Catholic". I mean someone who tries to remain within the confines set Churches magisterial teaching. (As I read the situation such a person might argue that married men should be Priests, but that women could not. They might be Universalists, but not Unitarians). Only point 5 would

I think you mean "culturally conservative". A deference to Priestly authority, the importance of traditional practices - that sort of thing. There's some overlap, of course. But that seems to be what you're describing in your other points.

GV

How can any reasonably intelligent and emotionally balanced person believe anything that Richard Dawkins says about pulpits from his pulpit?

@ graham veale

I have only attended one event in a church in which Richard Dawkins spoke to a sold out audience from a podium. That was in Berkeley, nr San Francisco.

Richard Dawkins points out in the God Delusion that the origins of all religions are rooted in primitive Iron Age tribal cults. There is no foundation in fact of virgin births, talking snakes or dead corpses resurrecting. Clerics that continue to force such beliefs on defenseless children are IMO immoral and dishonest. Let's do remember that children are initiated into the various religions without giving consent. Is this fair? Religion is not the source of morality.

Christopher Hitchens points out that religion is dangerous. Sam Harris talks about the brain characteristics that lead to some being gullible with irrational beliefs as he studies neuroscience. Dan Dennett's new work is focused on clerics that for a variety of reasons, do not believe but continue to lying to pay the bills.

You can check out all of the contemporary ideas and discussion at Richard Dawkins' website. It is the source for Reason and Science.

Science helps us understand why we do the things we do.

Dawkins?
I thought this post was about Twomey. I hear he's lost some important friends for putting his head above the parapet - in a tie.
Meanwhile, reliable rumours from Rome suggest that the purpose of Donal Murray's visit was not to offer his resignation but to argue that there is no need for him to do so.

"Christopher Hitchens points out that religion is dangerous."

I'd like to point out that Christopher Hitchens is dangerous...but only if you take him seriously. I don't believe in people who have epiphanies. They immediately establish a track record for having gotten it wrong once by their own admission. It is remarkable to see them arguing vehemently against the very same ideas that they once supported with equal ardor. I don't believe Hitchens is anything more than an opportunist....an English socialist on the inside, a capitalist on the outside laughing all the way to the bank with his new found American identity. A man to be ignored at all cost IMO.

Lucy

I'm painfully aware of Dawkins site, and Sam Harris' and Jerry Coyne's and Pharyngula. All I seem to find are weak arguments and bare assertions.
Which is fine.It might be to your tastes. But they don't establish very much more than some people really don't like religion.
And 'FleaBytes' is always good for a laugh.

G Veale