Sinead O'Connor writes a wonderful op-ed on the Irish Catholic Church's sex scandal
I have a rule about bringing politics into the LNMC because it's all about the music so I obeyed my own rules. I wanted to give a shout out to Sinead O'Connor for writing a terrific op-ed in the Washington Post about the Sex scandal that has rocked Ireland involving the Catholic Church and the Pope.
In October 2005, a report sponsored by the Irish government identified more than 100 allegations of sexual abuse by priests in Ferns, a small town 70 miles south of Dublin, between 1962 and 2002. Accused priests weren't investigated by police; they were deemed to be suffering a "moral" problem. In 2009, a similar report implicated Dublin archbishops in hiding sexual abuse scandals between 1975 and 2004.
Why was such criminal behavior tolerated? The "very prominent role which the Church has played in Irish life is the very reason why abuses by a minority of its members were allowed to go unchecked," the 2009 report said.
Despite the church's long entanglement with the Irish government, Pope Benedict's so-called apology takes no responsibility for the transgressions of Irish priests. His letter states that "the Church in Ireland must first acknowledge before the Lord and before others the serious sins committed against defenceless children." What about the Vatican's complicity in those sins?
Benedict's apology gives the impression that he heard about abuse only recently, and it presents him as a fellow victim: "I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them." But Benedict's infamous 2001 letter to bishops around the world ordered them to keep sexual abuse allegations secret under threat of excommunication -- updating a noxious church policy, expressed in a 1962 document, that both priests accused of sex crimes and their victims "observe the strictest secret" and be "restrained by a perpetual silence....read on
Please reads the full op-ed. It's quite powerful. I remember when she tore up the Pope's picture on SNL (Youtube news report embedded here) and the visceral reaction she received over it. It was as if she committed a form of sexual abuse on the church and the Pope. Artists that take a stand like she did risk their entire careers to shed light on injustices. Anyway, she's my hero.
These scandals have really hurt me deeply even though I no longer adhere to all the teachings or rituals of the Catholic Church as I once did. Italians, just like the Irish revered the Catholic church and I grew up as a child and young adult in that world. What she did in 1992 was courageous and necessary, but to see the reality play out now in real time is so disturbing. And I'm positive we'll see a lot more.
Thank you, Sinead.
... the corrupt, venal, patriarchal, hypocritical, acquisitive, predatory, sexist, misogynist, racist, secretive, sanguinary Catholic Church should have been burned off the face of the earth 400 years ago.
It's probably the oldest and biggest criminal organization in existence.
BID
I think I hear Dan Brown sharpening his pencil and stacking up a bunch of blank sheets of paper.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
... I was somewhat underwhelmed by 'The Lost Symbol,' primarily because Brown stooped to hiding portions of clues so the reader could not fairly anticipate or solve a given riddle.
you can find the weapon.
1.Amice
2.Alb
3.Cincture
4.Maniple
5.Stole
6.Chasuble
7.Cope
8.Dalmatic
9.Surplice
10.Biretta
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
So do people in other professions; teachers, for example. Even professors.
"Courtesy is owed. Respect is earned. Love is given." --Unknown author, found in Guide to Texas Etiquette by Kinky Friedman
As vile as the behavior of those priests was, the forces that did not investigate and prosecute them for their crimes failed to do their jobs. This is nothing new (see "war crimes, failure to prosecute for").
Sinead O'Connor (or as we jokingly referred to her in college, Skinhead O'Connor) was musically irrelevant to me and those in my circle.
However, I found a modicum of respect for her tearing the photo of Pope John Pedophile, in much the same way I found a bit of respect for Marilyn Manson after his comments in "Bowling For Columbine".
One more thought on this:
Remember how after Tiger Woods was outed as a philandering pig, how several major media outlets had lengthy items on his infidelity, and how none of the articles were repeats of each other? That couldn't happen unless all the media were complicitly silent, refusing to print what they knew to be true because of Woods' image and the threat of lawsuits. The media were as guilty for covering up as Woods was for cheating.
The same goes for the pedopriest phenomenon. Everyone involved at the highest levels knew, and many of those with power over kids (e.g. judges, police, social organizations that put kids in these schools) turned a blind eye. It's only now that silence is impossible that people are starting to say things they should have accused priests of decades ago.
The victims of pedopriests, of course, were kids, so they couldn't know that their abuse was abnormal or how to get help, so they are blameless. But those who knew are as guilty as those who molested the children.
Sinead will not walk away from that all-everything sky fairy that would allow such atrocities to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf6wZFMWJeU
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
For once, we agree on something. I mean, what if they gave an obsolete, superstitious belief system and no one came? The only reason this story is even relevent is because millions of people insist on believing stuff that is obviously untrue. It's well past time for people to ditch this stuff and move on.
If one man is delusional, they call him insane. If a group of people are delusional, they call it religion.
Robert Pirsig 1974
And this one (paraphrased a bit):
Mankind will be not be truly free unless the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.
BID
you could change "king" to "neo-con."
There's this one Methodist lady at work I drive crazy.
I don't know when Easter is, although I know the calculation that it's the first Sunday after the first full moon of the vernal equinox, and she doesn't know all that.
I do know when the next full moon is and the equinoxes and solstices.
I don't know when Good Friday is, although I get the day off.
I was looking at her a bit ascanced this morning when I thought I heard something about Monday Thursday, which meant nothing to me other than the space of a work week, minus Friday. She was saying Maundy Thursday.
I'm a white guy, and sometimes I seem mystified by what she's saying, as if she was gibbering in another language.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Ysbad, it's not that they gibber - it's that they believe that what they're gibbering is real.
Pharisees; Saducees; Nastyfleas - they go on and on about arcane things with no real relevance to humanity; their 'god' is continually interested, if these people are to be believed, in who is sleeping with whom; their sexual orientation, and such.
If their 'god' was real, he'd be interested in things like war, disease, hunger, hate - stuff like that.
As to the Catholics, I've been saying for years that they'd never survive a full-on business-practices audit - the secrets being kept would destroy them.
explain to her that the word "Easter" is derived from the ancient Germanic fertility goddess, Oestre, and that it has nothing to do with the resurrection.
get her estrogen flowing.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Good one.
Actually that's Saxon: Ostara or Eostre.
The Germanic counterpart (at least Nordic) is Idun, the keeper of the apples of immortality.
Probably where both the name Eden and the myth of the apple came into the English language versions of the Bible. The Bible only referred to the Garden and the Forbidden fruit, most likely the pomegranate, because it has two of the colors of the gunas, and is so seeded it would be seen as a fertility symbol. Along ith figs and almonds it figures in ancient Jewish art.
Of course Idun would also be comparable to Hera and her Isle of Golden Apples, the Oidheadh Chlainne Tuireann who had to bring back among other things the three apples for the Golden Apples of the Hesperides, and King Arthur behind the veils of Inys Avalloch (Isle of Avalon).
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Anyway, the Saxons were Germanic in a way.
Most of us are.
I'm not sure about the Celts though, they've been traced to the Caucasus Mountains and the Ukraine, I believe. But I think the argument is most of the white races originated there, hence the name Caucasian, so maybe they were just a later group to spread out.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Oopsie, I didn't conclude my thought.
Ynys Avalloch/Isle of Avalon translates as the Isle of Apples.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Paris also had to pick the most beautiful Goddess between Hera, and her daughters Aphrodites and Athena, by handing his choice an apple. He's frequently pictured doing so beneath a tree, as the Goddesses strip for him.
Because he picked Aphrodites, he got to select the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen, wife of the Trojan King Menelaus. This triggered the Trojan war, and the slighted Goddesses picked certain sides to sponsor to get back at Paris.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
it was the goddess Eris who presented the Golden Apple to Hera, Aphrodite and Athena. It was inscribed with the word, "Kallisti," meaning "To the fairest." The apple returned the tradition of discord to the momentarily peaceable goddesses, and the Golden Apple has been a symbol of discord ever since. The Roman equivalent of Eris is Discordia.
Eris was the rainbow Goddess, and that's an earlier version of the legend.
But later Greeks wanted to explain the basis for the Trojan war, and felt free to rewrite where necessary.
Both the Romans and the British (probably in imitation of the former) claimed to be decendents of the scattered forces of Troy. The Romans supposedly decended from the Trojans through Ascanius, Aeneas Ascanius and Anchises, a rival myth to Romulus and Remus, the British decended from the Trojans through what appears to be a euhermized version of Bron named Brutus or Brute, and in my case because of leak.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the myths.
Iris was the Goddess of Rainbows, Eris the Goddess of discord. Even in later versions she was the one who suggested the beauty contest, the method of judgement, and Paris as the judge.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
....but I do know that in 1969, it did NOT occur in January.
Sell the Vatican
The Church of Scientificerolgy or whatever it is they call themselves?
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I guess that's because Americans have "so much" clout dealing with Italy!
. . . and link. Nice.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
"Here in the Catholic Church we don't want Nun
Just alter boys..."
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
....they probably have the "most" clout dealing with Italians, LOL. You DO know that the Vatican is in Itay, don't you, YS?
... but (since I can't see the video here at work), I don't recall if she ever went into detail as to her reasons for doing what she did. Did she ever comment on it after the fact, way back when?
One might get the impression from what is written here that it was due to the sex abuse that was going on, but I don't recall any such statements being made.
I just now read her editorial, and she says now that her actions were an attempt to "force a conversation", but she doesn't say what the topic of the conversation was supposed to have been.
O'Connor's career took a political shift — especially in the United States — on 3 October 1992, when she appeared on Saturday Night Live as a musical guest. She was singing an a cappella version of Bob Marley's "War," which she intended as a protest over the sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, by changing the lyric "racism" to "child abuse."[14] She then presented a photo of Pope John Paul II to the camera while singing the word "evil," after which she tore the photo into pieces, said "Fight the real enemy," and threw the pieces towards the camera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_O'Connor#Saturday_Night_Live_performance
However, it seems Sinead has had some doubts about her doubts:
On 22 September 1997, O'Connor was interviewed in Vita, an Italian weekly newspaper. In the interview, she asked the Pope to forgive her. She claimed that the tearing of the photo was "a ridiculous act, the gesture of a girl rebel." She claimed she did it "because I was in rebellion against the faith, but I was still within the faith." She went on to quote Saint Augustine, by saying, "Anger is the first step towards courage."
But then she had doubts about the doubts about her doubts:
In a 2002 interview with Salon.com, when asked if she would change anything about the SNL appearance, she replied, "Hell, no!"[18] In 2010, TV Guide Network listed the incident at #24 on their list of 25 Biggest TV Blunders.[19]
So McCain was just quoting Sinead the other day at the Arizona rally he had with Palin?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
How meaningful was O'Connor's protest? Why didn't she clarify her intentions more forcefully? Why didn't she explicitly leave the Roman Catholic church if she meant her protest to be taken seriously?
And on and on and on...
I suppose I could mount a defense of Sinead O'Connor here, since she is someone I admire very greatly and since I've done a lot of research on the pedophilia inherent to Christianity and Catholicism specifically, but what's the point? It should go without saying, but apparently it doesn't, that continuing attempts to castigate Sinead O'Connor are not only absurd, they perpetuate the problem of disrespecting and blaming victims of Church abuse.
... I remember the SNL O'Connor/Pope "dustup" from way back when, but I don't remember ever hearing the "why" behind it. If she wanted to "force a conversation" on something, either she didn't do a good job of getting one going, or the media felt some need to defend the Catholic Church and conspired to make O'Connor look like a fool.
.
During her appearance on Saturday Night Live (hosted by Tim Robbins), O'Connor substituted the words, "child abuse," for race & racism in an a capella version of Bob Marley's "War." Then she ripped up a picture of Pope John Paul II and shouted, "Fight the real enemy!"
Two weeks later she repeated it at the Bob Dylan concert in response to being booed by the crowd at Madison Square Garden. Let me repeat that, because it's worth pondering:
The crowd at a Bob Dylan tribute concert at Madison Square Garden booed an Irish anti-establishment, protest/topical/folk singer, because she publicly disrespected the Pope. At a Bob Dylan tribute concert.
Think about that. Even if it's agreed that her protest was not fully articulated, it still doesn't explain the fury unleashed against her for what she did. This was in 1992 - the same crowd that was rightfully impressed by Eddie Vedder's rendition of, "Masters of War," booed Sinead O'Connor for disrespecting the Pope. This was lunacy, but not on O'Connor's part.
For me, it makes perfect sense that she retreated after that, both from the public eye and from those on the political left who should have been her allies. If you look at video of her from that time period, it's clear that she was very emotionally fragile.
Perhaps because I was raised within a fundamentalist Christian family & culture, but was not raised to be a Christian, it is clear to me that our society has not merely a pro-Christian bias, but a decidedly Judeo-Christian worldview. Part of that worldview is the belief that you are under constant threat of persecution because of your faith - a mindset that's understandable for Jews, but for Christians living in the West it's pathological.
The fear that an oppressive secular society/government is poised to throw Christians to the lions has obvious roots, but it makes no sense in the context of Western European Catholicism. Recent generations of Catholics in the West still have a visceral memory of the anti-Catholic prejudice that was often displayed by newly-empowered Protestants, so they tend to identify with the religious suppression experienced by Catholics and Orthodox Christians living in the former Soviet Union.
All this adds up to an America where Christianity is always, always paid deference; by the media, by politicians, by corporations, by schools, by all of society. Now, go to Ireland, where O'Connor grew up, and multiply that deference by several orders of magnitude.
P.S. The real irony, to me, is that Sinead O'Connor never got a chance to sing the Dylan song at that concert. It was supposed to be, "I Believe In You."
Every time when in public I hear someone mention the ongoing Catholic Priest sexual abuse scandal I remind everyone within ear shot of the reasons why Sinead O'Connor tore that picture of the Pope on SNL and ask in a very loud voice "How do you feel about her NOW!" I remember when it happened and I do not remember a single person, public or private that gave her anything but grief. About 90% of the people I tell had no idea why she did it and most thought she had some kind of mental break down. That is the way the ALL of the media played the story.
but that is the peril inherent in being almost a whole generation ahead of the curve.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
religious idiot!....Don't care what church.....They are all the same, CRAZY!....If you belong or practice ANY religion you might as well be a westboro baptist!
Cue the Kabuki....
IGNORE.
We are simply not playing with anyone whose views on religion are based on the premise that they are right, and those of faith are wrong.
You're just as crazy and judgmental as the fundies you claim to hate.
you don't have to dig very deep in the so-called mainstream religions to find sentiments exactly analagous to those expressed by the Westboro nuts. "Liberal" christians want to gloss over christianity's dark past simply in order to cling to a mythological being. Just because they behave with civility on a day-to-day basis doesn't mean they are not aiding and abetting.
'we' the children?
Hate to burst your bubble, but just like Santa, god is imaginary!
I've been IGNORING the FAILURE of religion since I was six, what are you waiting for!?
Also, no hate here,.."Ain't got time to hate, barely time to wait"
Cue the Kabuki....
but there is an objective reality. Anything that relies on faith rather than evidence cannot claim to be true. At best you may claim that your belief is possible -- but the dubious claims that are at the center of all major religions are extremely unlikely to have any basis in fact. Christianity is one of the least rational, since it is a hash of competing and contradictory ideas from a wide range of traditions.
You can probably find support for pedophilia in the Bible if you look for it -- lord knows there is enough rape, torture, murder and other mayhem that is reported approvingly. (Most followers of major religions don't know what their Holy Books actually say.)
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment."
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
"Anything that relies on faith rather than evidence cannot claim to be true."
There's all sorts of science out there that begins with certain assumptions and then proceeds forward from there. Even the best science has to assume certain things about the origin of the universe, because the scientists certainly weren't there at the time.
It would be interesting, 100 years from now, to be able to see the accepted knowledge at that point in the future, and to look back and see how many things we believe are true today that will look absolutely ridiculous to people 100 years from now.
There's all sorts of science out there that begins with certain assumptions and then proceeds forward from there.
There are hypothoses based on observable phenomenon that are either disproved or supported by additional research.
Even the best science has to assume certain things about the origin of the universe, because the scientists certainly weren't there at the time.
Yes, but these assumptions are not culled from mythology; they are based on observable evidence. When a scientific assumption is disproved, science admits it, whereas when a religious assumption is disproved, religion uses every weapon in its arsenal to conceal the truth and punish the revealers of the truth. This episode with Sinead O'Connor demonstates that.
It would be interesting, 100 years from now, to be able to see the accepted knowledge at that point in the future, and to look back and see how many things we believe are true today that will look absolutely ridiculous to people 100 years from now.
Yep. Like thwarting stem-cell research, sex education, universal healthcare, gay marriage and so forth. I often wonder how far along we would be without the constant hindrance of religion.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that science starts out with assumptions and works forward (don't you mean backwards?). Unlike philosophy or religion, there is really no room in science for turning out the lights and imagining what could be. For one thing, there are just too many possibilities. Even the most esoteric theories about the beginning of the universe start out with an observation of the way things are now. If you can't show a path from your theory to what we observe then what you are proposing is science fiction, not science. (There is a lot of science fiction printed in "science" magazines, I'll concede.)
It is a huge issue, but one of the basic differences between science and religion is that a scientific theory makes a prediction (which may be about events that happened in the past) and lives or dies by the result. In religion a theory is true regardless of the facts -- I cannot think of any examples of religions that changed their tenants based upon later knowledge.
... to say that somebody is wrong. It is hard to bridge the gap between a believer and a non-believer. I can understand why somebody would be upset if I think think that what they see as the very core of their being is a fantasy, but for my part it doesn't mean that I hate them. I feel slightly sorry for the wasted emotional and intellectual energy but hey, I post on the internet so who am I to criticize?
I do get nervous when large numbers of people follow something that is made up. Religion is the art of teaching people to be irrational, and generally rational humans behave better and more predictably.
It's always pissed me off how people, especially people in NYC reacted to O'Connor's SNL ripping up of the Pope's photo, which I did happen to see in the original broadcast. She was 17 years ahead of the curve. She is owed some big fat apologies if you ask me!
My Italian-American fiance is still very deferential toward the papacy and thinks the destruction of the photo was "not nice" despite her own ugly episode with church officials.
I'm over the Catholic organization since about age 16 or 17, when I finally stopped attending mass. I stand with the agnostic Carl Sagan who, when asked if he believed, said: "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." Which to me is a simple admission that proof of God's non-existence is hard to find.
Now, as for the *idea* of God, that's another issue.
It's important to note that pedophile rape isn't just a matter of Catholic life styles, everty Christanic church has pedophile priests that rape kids, it's pandemic to all of Christianity, and until people accept the undeniable fact, the Christanic problem will never be solved.
one step further and say that it is pandemic to HUMANITY...there are plenty of people of all religions and of no religion who rape kids..
I am Santa!
Every Year I celebrate the joy and love I feel for/with/from my family that has carried on from the year previous. On that day, I am Santa Claus, as are all of us who love each other and our families. I am as real as the next person. But then again, how many of us here typing away are truly real?
Gotta make dinner for my little elves and Mrs Claus, See ya!
Of course we are all real and not blog robots programmed by mittt010101010000011101011101001111000110101
I am so pleased to be an ex-Catholic and to have freed my mind of corrupt dogma.
my catholic pals in the early seventy's were telling me about priests and nuns molesting kids in chicago catholic schools.... in fact one of the kids, older brothers wanted to be a priest but was sickened by the homosexuality in the seminary! time to call a cult a cult...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europ...
I don't have any particular feeling about the church compared to any other religion, but this struck me:
If a memo about a molesting priest was a routine matter, you have to wonder what sort of behavior would prompt an urgent one!
When I was growing up families surrounded the church. They helped the church grow. The church gave families a way to bring God into their everyday lives and helped teach the children morals, ethics and religion while giving them an education. That fabric was stained by corruption and what the pope would agree were unholy acts. I can't fathom how my years, centuries this violence was allowed to occur. The church was above the law. There were no repercussions for years because they were right arm of God. Children dared not speak against their parent's God. They did not act against what was part of the fabric of life. They just stepped back and disappeared into the mist of the forgotten. The church committed crimes. What message did that send generations of families? We the church are God and we can violate you. We can break the law. We can continue to break the law. We can destroy lives.
Why would I believe in a church that will willingly violate its most innocent? Why would I draw my children, another generation, into a sickness? Who do I trust? And what do I lose? The mystery of the mass. The compassion of those truly living the life of the church. The devotion to God.
Jeanne
It explains a lot about why she did what she did, and it is very understandable. I hadn't known that in 1992. I was just a child at the time, so the ripping of the photo was shocking since I had a Catholic grandmother I adored very much and still do.
I was glad to see her point out that the Church is denying its victims the closure and healing they deserve.
Thank you Sinead.
"The greatest tyranny is censoring information in order to be better able to control people." - Cristina Saralegui
thanx for hilighting the 1992 SNL moment. Sinead has hit a chord with many of us over many decades. And before her it was Hildegaard von Bingen who revealed the true spirit and the inner anguish that came from the Churches oppressive stance in personal and political ways.
Just wanna add here. The Church's complicity in priestly abuse affects us all everyday in other ways. I refer to the powerful catholic healthcare system which is a den of mind blowing corruption ruining lives proportionately well beyond innocent kids
Only frigid or elderly women should be allowed to have contact with church choir boys. Its enforcement would eliminate temptations of the priesthood. Never allowing the fox near the chickens has solved the problem for farmers. The same protection should be given the choir boys.
Comments are closed on this entry