Bill Donahue=insane, trivializes abuse of kids

[Tonington]

Bill Donahue, the President of the Catholic League, trivializing the abuse of young Irish children who were sexually, physically, and emotionally abused by Irish Catholic priests and nuns.

Part 1
YouTube - Bill Donohue defends child abuse (1/2)

Part 2
YouTube - Bill Donohue defends child abuse (2/2)

The report found that tens of thousands of Irish Children were abused over a 60 year period by The Congregation of Christian Brothers.

Absolutely unreal. The report is here.

 

[CDNBear]

Tonnington, you know how I feel about the Catholic Church, but from what I heard here, the man was making sense. He was saying that there was far to much broad sweeping categorization of what constitutes abuse.

I myself was hit and strapped while in Catholic School. I have in an irrational way. while taking shots at the Church, have claimed abuse, but it wasn't really outside the norm of the time as he stated.

I know you are much younger then me, and you never experienced the strap in school. That's not to diminish your perception or your base of knowledge, but it was the norm at the time.

He states clearly that he does not condone nor negate the vile act of rape. He states clearly that no one should put their hands on a child. What he is looking for is clarity and appropriate discourse.

I think he said it best when he said, these are gold diggers, looking for a quick buck.

 

[johnnyhangover]

I agree that Donahue seems callous, but I would like to point out that having a victim conduct the interview is highly unprofessional from a journalistic standpoint, and makes the interview less credible, and therefore does a huge disservice to all the victims.

 

[Tonington]

His main objections were to a Reuters article. The title was something like Irish report says priests beat and raped children, which is correct. He accuses the other fellow of not reading the report, but when confronted with the facts found by the courts, he pops up red herrings and strawmen.

He's an apologist for abusers. That's what it boils down to...

 

[CDNBear]

His main objections were to a Reuters article. The title was something like Irish report says priests beat and raped children, which is correct. He accuses the other fellow of not reading the report, but when confronted with the facts found by the courts, he pops up red herrings and strawmen.

He's an apologist for abusers. That's what it boils down to...

I can't agree with that Ton, I listened to your links carefully, twice actually. And though he seems callous, he does make some valid points. Having Mod'd and witnessed some of my tirades against Catholic Tonnington, you have to admit, if he was truly excusing sexual abuse, I of all people would be all over him like flies on poop. Non?

 

[Tonington]

How can I say otherwise. The report documents boys being made to march naked, and their penises are wacked with canes. When he talks about sexual abuse, or fondling, he calls it an inappropriate kiss, or pat on the bum.

What is that but trivializing? What is that but an apologist?

 

[CDNBear]

How can I say otherwise. The report documents boys being made to march naked, and their penises are wacked with canes. When he talks about sexual abuse, or fondling, he calls it an inappropriate kiss, or pat on the bum.

What is that but trivializing? What is that but an apologist?

Ok, I concede there, though that is a fraction of what his concerns were, and that lended more to his argument with Rueters then with the report. And lets not misrepresent rape and sexual assault. They are two seperate things.

Though I concede to that point, I still say on the whole, he had a valid point. Just like was recently seen with the Residential Schools, far to many people seem to crawl out of the wood work with horror stories as soon as there's a buck to be made.

 

[catman]

He certainly does try and trvialize the sexual abuse which is shameful. Protecting the image of the Church is his main concern.

 

[L Gilbert]

Wife says he's creepy. I usually go along with her judgement of character.

 

[Cannuck]

We should abandon the term abuse and call what things what they are. There is a difference between getting spanked and being raped. To call them both "abuse" confuses the issue.

 

[L Gilbert]

I think they are both abuse; just not to the same degree. But, Donahue is out-to-lunch. He just flatly said there was no abuse.

 

[L Gilbert]

And what's more, the Catholic church admitted it.

Irish News - 'No Names' In Catholic Abuse Report

Timeline of Ireland's Catholic abuse scandals - Europe, World - The Independent

 

[karrie]

What bothers me in reading up on this stuff is that the government and the church were hand in hand on it, much like the residential school programs here in Canada. The big difference though is that the government inspectors KNEW what was going on. Saw it. Wrote reports about it. And then chose to do nothing. So, now that it's time to look into it, they're granting secrecy, and choosing to sweep it under the rug, because they're complicit. Between the government and the church, you have an entire generation of men who ran that country, who were complicit in the beatings, starvation, and sexual abuse, of the generation below them.

Humanity at its finest.

 

[CDNBear]

We should abandon the term abuse and call what things what they are. There is a difference between getting spanked and being raped. To call them both "abuse" confuses the issue.

Bingo!!!

 

[karrie]

Bingo!!!

I agree and disagree.

To just say someone was abused, and expect outrage, without explaining what abuse it was, is misleading. On a one on one basis, media tends to clarify the type of abuse... sexual abuse, verbal abuse, etc. But on a large scale like we're looking at with these kids, simply saying abuse is fair imo. They were beaten, they were raped, they were denied food... the list of abuses is too large to break it down into individual abuses every time you address it in the article.

 

[Tonington]

We should abandon the term abuse and call what things what they are. There is a difference between getting spanked and being raped. To call them both "abuse" confuses the issue.

Disagree. Abuse is emotional or physical violence that is used to maintain power or control in a relationship. It's recognized that it comes in different forms. So that definition is fine. The report didn't just blankly say "x reported cases of abuse." They broke it down by category, by description, and by the number of institutions it was reported in to name a few.

If you call it spanking, you still have to qualify it anyways. Is it sexual spanking that is consensual? Spanking used by a parent after a child has done something they know is wrong? Or, spanking for the sake of abuse?

Donohue knows this. He's just casting aspersions.

 

[CDNBear]

I agree and disagree.

To just say someone was abused, and expect outrage, without explaining what abuse it was, is misleading. On a one on one basis, media tends to clarify the type of abuse... sexual abuse, verbal abuse, etc. But on a large scale like we're looking at with these kids, simply saying abuse is fair imo. They were beaten, they were raped, they were denied food... the list of abuses is too large to break it down into individual abuses every time you address it in the article.

I.m in the same boat as you Karrie, hence my only conceding to certain points.

Disagree. Abuse is emotional or physical violence that is used to maintain power or control in a relationship. It's recognized that it comes in different forms. So that definition is fine. The report didn't just blankly say "x reported cases of abuse." They broke it down by category, by description, and by the number of institutions it was reported in to name a few.

But that's not how it was reported, not to mention, there were instances where corporal punishment was classified as abuse.

If you call it spanking, you still have to qualify it anyways. Is it sexual spanking that is consensual?

Absolutely not, as he agreed.

Spanking used by a parent after a child has done something they know is wrong?

Not only by parents Tonnington. At one point the schools administered corporal punishment as well. Especially liberal with it were the RC schools.

Or, spanking for the sake of abuse?

You have to prove it was abuse, some 40 years later, when the perpetrator is dead and there is no record as to why you were spanked, one could claim it was just for sh!ts and giggles, thus a buse. But he/she could be just out to get a couple bucks too...;-)

Donohue knows this. He's just casting aspersions.

I can't say what his motives or intent is, but from what I heard, he seemed to be trying to reason with the interviewer, not excuse real abuses.

 

[Tonington]

But that's not how it was reported, not to mention, there were instances where corporal punishment was classified as abuse.

Yes it is. It's Chapter 7 of volume 3. The chapter is divided into 5 parts that deal with separate types of abuse. In fact, the word spanking does not even appear in the executive summary for this section of the report. They even defined physical abuse as it appears in the report:

"The wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child."

Not only by parents Tonnington. At one point the schools administered corporal punishment as well. Especially liberal with it were the RC schools.

Did they randomly beat children, burn children, dunk them in water, stab them, hose them down in cold water before beatings, beat children whilst they hung from hooks on the wall, restrain the children while someone else beats on them?

Corporal punishment ceases to be corporal punishment, when it is done for no other reason than as part of a steady diet of abuse and mistreatment. If the kid steals something and gets caught, that's a whole other matter.

I think this quote sums it up well:

"It is notable that witnesses at times described daily, casual and random physical abuse as normal and wished to report only the times when the frequency and severity of the abuse was such that they were injured or in fear for their lives."

You have to prove it was abuse, some 40 years later, when the perpetrator is dead and there is no record as to why you were spanked, one could claim it was just for sh!ts and giggles, thus a buse. But he/she could be just out to get a couple bucks too...;-)

And this is nothing but blaming a victim, also without proof

Some people deal with it better than others. It's not like this is an unknown attribute of the human psyche. Even years after trauma, it's difficult for some people to talk about it. We know this very well with veterans. It's a bit different with kids who have to grow up in these places, without choosing.

 

[CDNBear]

Yes it is. It's Chapter 7 of volume 3. The chapter is divided into 5 parts that deal with separate types of abuse. In fact, the word spanking does not even appear in the executive summary for this section of the report. They even defined physical abuse as it appears in the report:

"The wilful, reckless or negligent infliction of physical injury on, or failure to prevent such injury to, the child."

Did they randomly beat children, burn children, dunk them in water, stab them, hose them down in cold water before beatings, beat children whilst they hung from hooks on the wall, restrain the children while someone else beats on them?

Corporal punishment ceases to be corporal punishment, when it is done for no other reason than as part of a steady diet of abuse and mistreatment. If the kid steals something and gets caught, that's a whole other matter.

I think this quote sums it up well:

"It is notable that witnesses at times described daily, casual and random physical abuse as normal and wished to report only the times when the frequency and severity of the abuse was such that they were injured or in fear for their lives."

And this is nothing but blaming a victim, also without proof

Some people deal with it better than others. It's not like this is an unknown attribute of the human psyche. Even years after trauma, it's difficult for some people to talk about it. We know this very well with veterans. It's a bit different with kids who have to grow up in these places, without choosing.

Not having read the report, I'll have to concede Ton, but I still don't think he was as bad as he's been made out to sound.

I've met some of the people who have claimed to be victim of the Residential Schools, they most certainly are gold diggers, looking for a quick buck. I think some people just make **** up to get attention and money.

I'm jaded Ton, nothing more, nothing less. You know I'm no fan of the RC Church, so you have to know that my feelings here are sincere.

 

[Tonington]

I've met some of the people who have claimed to be victim of the Residential Schools, they most certainly are gold diggers, looking for a quick buck. I think some people just make **** up to get attention and money.

I'm not saying that doesn't happen, but that is largely irrelevant to any of Donohue's criticisms of the report. He's not even saying it was fabricated on the part of the victims, he's making excuses for the inexcusable.