Reply to Fr. Flannery
Monday, August 07, 2006
Kicking the church more fun than facing real problems
quote:
Rite and Reason: Is it not strange that we are devoting so much energy to inquiring into the abuse of children half a century ago when there is so much that is unsavoury in the lives of children today, asks Fr Tony Flannery
No it is not strange to devote so much energy into the shattering of innocence, even if it happened half a century ago. It is certainly less strange than devoting energy to an incident that happened 2000 years ago on Golgotha. That incident concerned the death of a man who declared:
Mark 10:14 Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
quote:
If we had enough inquiries we would discover that there was a lot of hunger and physical abuse, suffered by the children of Ireland in those far distant war years. The stories from the orphanages could be replicated in many homes and schools of the time. A great deal of apologising would need to be done.
So you are stating, as a priest, that there was widespread child malnutrition, child starvation, child exploitation, and child slavery in the Ireland of 50 years ago. How is it then that only a select few were singled out, taken from their kith and kin, for more of the same only this time from members of the religious orders?
quote:
What the long-term effect of this [physical/sexual abuse] on our children will be can only be guessed at.
There is no need for guessing as to the effects of this - that's why we have inquiries, maybe a trip to the Curragh Prison where there are many clergy sojourning for their crimes against children is in order. I believe cardinal dessie is a regular "visitor" - doing some "p a s t o r a l" work no doubt !!
quote:
More and more marriages are splitting up, and new relationships being formed. As a consequence some children have to deal with a number of different adults acting in the role of parent during their upbringing. This must be very confusing, and again its long-term effects will only become apparent later.
Marriage breakup is not a new phenomenon. Believe it or not it happened 50 years ago - only in those years the children were then criminalised and carted off to Child Detention centres like Artane, Newtownforbes, Upton, Letterfrack, Ferryhouse, etcetera etcetera where they were abused physically, sexually and emotionally.
quote:
Another difficulty with children nowadays is that they are sexualised at a young age.
Believe it or not children were sexualised 50 years ago .... by clergy abusers in the Institutions. Where these abusers raped and sodomised children with very little hindrance from their clergy Superiors.
quote:
The common assumption today is that the experience of sexual abuse does almost irreparable damage to a child, which will impact on their whole life. It would appear to be classified as the worst form of abuse. But can we be sure of that? How does one measure the damage done to a child by one form of neglect or abuse more than another?
By "common assumption" I presume you mean amongst the people you congregate with (if you'll pardon the pun), which I expect are fellow clergy - celibate and without any responsibilities towards the raising of children. You really shouldn't make generalisations about something of which YOU have no experience - either as an abuser or as a survivor of abuse.
quote:
Does it strike anybody that it is a bit strange that we are devoting so much time, money and energy to inquiring into the abuse of children half a century ago when there is so much that is unsavoury in the lives of children today?
No it is not strange - and why say "we" .... the catholic church is devoting very little energy, very little time and very little money into these inquiries - and the same church has already devoted most of the 20th. century to covering up the abuse of children in Institutions and parishes, indeed the church devoted much of that time moving abusing clergy from parish to parish and from Institution to Institution. In many instances clergy abuse victims were further abused and attempts were made to "disappear" these children into the Child Detention system which was managed solely by the religious orders.
quote:
The other obvious anomaly, beginning to be highlighted by some commentators, is that all the inquiries are into the behaviour of Catholic Church institutions and people, even though their abuse, dreadful as it was, is only a tiny fraction of all the abuse of children that happened in the past. From where I stand it seems that we are taking the easy way out on two counts. It is much simpler to delve into the failures of the past than the present.
Should we forget the abuses then ?
A country without a memory is a country of madmen. George Santayana
To knock a thing down, especially if it is cocked at an arrogant angle, is a deep delight of the blood. George Santayana
The truth is cruel, but it can be loved, and it makes free those who have loved it. George Santayana
4 Comments:
I love the pic Andrew, fucking great one.
commented by 
Anonymous, 1:58 PM
Anonymous, 1:58 PM
I spend sixteen years in the stalaglargers of Ireland.The bastards who ran them are now attempting to use two phases. "If you can keep your head about you, when all (The survivors)of them are loosing theirs and blaming it on you" is one of their escape routes and the other is "I have no records, but we had six good men working for us,their names were,What,Why and When,How Where and When"
Andrew – I’m so thoroughly glad to know that you felt the same way about the damning Rite and Reason article way back then in 2006. I was so livid upon reading it, that I too wrote a letter to the Irish Times, and it refused to publish same. I also wrote to Geraldine Kennedy in the aftermath giving out yards to her for not allowing a right of reply. It went on deaf ears as per usual. The media only wanted to listen to the self-appointed survivor voices that were moulded and shaped by the whole pathetic set-up in place. Individual institutional survivor voices like ours, were and still are, kept on the periphery. The media, the church; the government, the judiciary all seemingly appeared to want to box survivors together and listen only to representatives of survivors groups. There is evidence of this sort in abundance from survivors that I’ve listened to over the years.
It goes on ad infinitum. For example, I just recently posted a comment at the site of the association of priests – who are rightfully getting a raw deal from Rome. It was in connection with the aforesaid letter I sent in 2006 condemning him for the diabolical way he wrote about those of us who were cooped up in institutional care all our young lives. Unsurprisingly, it was deleted. See here: http://t.co/6tnY6nTs where I subsequently placed it, knowing only too well, that it would vanish into the thin blogosphere priestly air. It would perhaps be seen as off-topic? If that’s the case, they need to get their priorities right. I hope they don’t consider what’s happening to THEM is more important that issues of past institutional child abuse?
There appears to be double standards at play. I wish I were wrong in saying this, but nobody has come back to say that they got in wrong with publishing that article. Silence is golden.
The priests are infuriated at the way they are being treated for voicing their honest opinions about the church. Nonetheless, by the same token, Father Tony Flannery and his cohorts treat survivors of institutional abuse with distain, not only in what he wrote, but, also in the way that he refuses – even now, after all these years – to have an honest discussion pertaining to said article. I know that he has since spoken out favourably about child abuse, however, he has not addressed the important issues that you, Andrew, have so very eloquently outlined here, and of which I won’t even attempt to rehash upon, as you have said it all with such real conviction and clarity. Shame on the church. Shame on Father Tony Flannery and his side-kicks.
It goes on ad infinitum. For example, I just recently posted a comment at the site of the association of priests – who are rightfully getting a raw deal from Rome. It was in connection with the aforesaid letter I sent in 2006 condemning him for the diabolical way he wrote about those of us who were cooped up in institutional care all our young lives. Unsurprisingly, it was deleted. See here: http://t.co/6tnY6nTs where I subsequently placed it, knowing only too well, that it would vanish into the thin blogosphere priestly air. It would perhaps be seen as off-topic? If that’s the case, they need to get their priorities right. I hope they don’t consider what’s happening to THEM is more important that issues of past institutional child abuse?
There appears to be double standards at play. I wish I were wrong in saying this, but nobody has come back to say that they got in wrong with publishing that article. Silence is golden.
The priests are infuriated at the way they are being treated for voicing their honest opinions about the church. Nonetheless, by the same token, Father Tony Flannery and his cohorts treat survivors of institutional abuse with distain, not only in what he wrote, but, also in the way that he refuses – even now, after all these years – to have an honest discussion pertaining to said article. I know that he has since spoken out favourably about child abuse, however, he has not addressed the important issues that you, Andrew, have so very eloquently outlined here, and of which I won’t even attempt to rehash upon, as you have said it all with such real conviction and clarity. Shame on the church. Shame on Father Tony Flannery and his side-kicks.
His sentence on how bad the damage is, to a sexually abused child, echoes the Taoiseach's words on the clergy and hierarchy's habit of parsing and analysing with the gimlet eye of a canon lawyer!
Flannery just wants to be on the same pedestal as the guys in the pointy hats!
Flannery just wants to be on the same pedestal as the guys in the pointy hats!
