RTÉ's religiously biased coverage of Ferns report?

Yes, "sycophantic" Joe Little was at it again last night.
It was almost as if the church was the suffering victim and these irritating
abuse issues which keep cropping up (year after year) must be gotten out of the way. Also, heavy emphasis on the "good" priests who never molested anyone. Well done! He waxed lyrical about how much the church has done in the last 10 years...waffle...drone...
 
Joe Little has the job to report. Not to investigate. And as Brendan says RTE is not putting their neck out. RTE has more reporters employed than journalists even so they could afford better staff/work they are not willing to do so. And that makes me think. I know of no other public TV station in the EU having a special "reporter on religious affairs".
 
Well, the BBC, for one, has a religious affairs correspondent, coincidentally name Jane Little! Maybe "Little" is the "Doe" of the religious affairs correspondent world? ;
 
Leo Enright used to be a double jobber.

Religious Correspondent. And also Space Correspondent.

Coincidence? As the fella said, "I think not!"

Remember we're talking about child abuse here, people. The victimisation of the defenseless by Priests. The stakes could not be higher (or lower, maybe), for defining what this means for us as a supposedly civilised society.
 
Yeah - the wife was saying to me today how ridiculous it was that some commentators tend (now and in the past) to link the issue of celibacy/married priests with the child abuse scandals. They are two completely different issues and it's ridiculous to infer/imply that celibacy is some sort of driver for priests to abuse kids or that married (lay) people don't abuse kids in some circumstances. As ever, lazy thinking seems to be at the root of a lot of this stuff...
 
What disturbs me most about this whole affair is that there was no due process in this country until quite recently when it came to the Catholic Church. It was left to police itself by the state and since the state is responsible for seeing that the law is applied and that no one is above it, it seems to me that the state is ultimately culpable in this scandal. I think that the government agrees with this view, hence the apology by Bertie Ahern.
Even if a senior member of the Gardai had gone to the Arch Bishop in the 1960’s or even the 1970’s I would suspect that the Bishop would have told him that “We will take care of it from here. Don’t you worry about it, we’ll hear no more on the matter.” And the response would have been something along the lines of “right you are your grace.”
I think that it should also be remembered that the Catholic Church is not like any other organisation in the sense that Canon law has influenced the evolution of our present legal system and casts a huge historical shadow over western European society.
Speaking as an agnostic I do not think that RTE are pro Catholic Church and I think that the media in general is quite anti Church. I am not saying that is a bad think, it’s just my opinion.
 
Hi Purple

...that Canon law has influenced the evolution of our present legal system
Click to expand...

I have heard this said by Joe Little, David Quinn and a UCC(?) law lecturer. Im a bit sceptical about the assetion I would have thought that English Common law would have a far greater influence on our present legal system.

I like McDowel's comment to the effect that cannon law was about as relevant (in this context) as the rules of the local golf club.

aj
 
Purple said:
What disturbs me most about this whole affair is that there was no due process in this country until quite recently when it came to the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
I think you could say the same about many of the former bastions of society, e.g. the banks, the schools, the Gardai themselves - not just the Church.
 
the wife was saying to me today how ridiculous it was that some commentators tend (now and in the past) to link the issue of celibacy/married priests with the child abuse scandals. They are two completely different issues
Click to expand...

That is a matter of opinion but I believe that there is/was a link between the celibacy rule and the clerical child abuse scandals. If the Church authority structures were populated to some extent by married men (and women), who were living normal healthy family lives, this would surely had a positive effect on their collective ability to deal with abuse cases and other problems whenever they arose. As it transpired, the Church seems to have been used as some sort of refuge or safe haven for various sorts of oddball or sociopath who would not have been tolerated elsewhere. The contrast with the Anglican Church where this does not appear to have happened to anything approaching the same extent, is striking.
 
I simply don't accept that sexual frustration/repression or the inability to deal with celibacy is, in itself, a contributory factor in causing priests to abuse children. Such activity is a sign of some other disorder altogether.
 
Neither do I, nor did I say that.

What the celibacy rule did, imho, was to render the Church less capable to deal properly with cases of sexual abuse whenever they arose, to the point that many abusers within their ranks came to believe that they were immune from reproach.
 
Hi all,

The Irish independent today is strongly pushing the viewpoint (see editorial)that a priest merely accused of a crime (rape) should be suspended until the outcome of the legal process. The editorial makes the case, effectively, that the "innocent until proven guilty" should not operate, because the church should operate to a different ("higher") standard than the general public. I presume that everbody who has (rightly) condemned apparent media bias in favour of the Church will be just as quick to condemn this extraordinary bias against it. Or are we now to assume that a priest accused of rape is more likely to be guilty than an ordinary citizen so accused?
 
ubiquitous said:
Neither do I, nor did I say that.
Click to expand...
I just thought that you were suggesting that in some way as many people seem to do. No offence intended. I agree that some individual priests who were institutionalised or not equipped with the relevant general life/emotional skills would have had difficulty dealing properly with the aftermath of abuse cases. But this is no excuse for excusing or covering up abuse in my opinion. Obviously there is no excuse at all for actually perpetrating abuse in the first place.
 
The abuse was bad enough, but what is really unforgiveable is how the church covered it up, further humiliated the victims, and sent abusers off to commit their sins in different communities.
 
IMHO, it's not unreasonable to expect anyone in a people-facing role (priest, nurse, doctor, teacher, etc) to step aside following any such accusation.
 
I agree that this is not necessarily a good idea and could represent bias against those in certain positions. However, where somebody is accused of a crime which might have some bearing on their working or vocational role (e.g. an individual who works with children who is accused of abusing children) then surely it would be prudent to reassign them to other duties for the duration of the investigation and trial (if applicable)? Obviously this should be done without prejudice and without erosion of the presumption of innocence.
 
Two more irritating ones from RTE Radio 1 this Sunday lunchtime:
  • A vox pop of people in Liam Lawor's constituency asking their opinions on last weekend's press coverage of his death. Only when the report ended and we returned to studio did we hear that the vox pop was carried out with people leaving mass in Lucan that morning. Surely, to solicit more varied and representative opinions on the matter, they might have cast their net a bit wider than just the local church gate?
  • In the context of coverage of the Ferns report one of the correspondents asked if, perhaps, the time was now ripe for a "reinvigoration" of the Catholic Church in Ireland? Er, what exactly does that have to do with the substantive matters dealt with by the report?
 
Obviously this should be done without prejudice and without erosion of the presumption of innocence.
Click to expand...

How can you remove a person from their position without this? It is impossible. Innocent until proven guilty means just that. Any relocation or suspension or asking a person to carry out different duties is undermining them and their right to a fair trial.
 
On the point raised by Vanilla about the Indo's assertion that those accused of abuse should step aside; my heart agrees with Rainyday and my head is with Vanilla. The heart should never rule the head on such matters, as it is a precursor to mob rule (sex offenders being burned out of their houses on foot of a list being published by the tabloids in England a few years back etc).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register