Showing posts with label Catholic Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic Church. Show all posts

Thursday, July 8, 2021

Blood Libel in Canada - Church Burning and Graves of Indigenous Children at former Residential Schools

 

Catholic Church Burns in Morinville, Alberta


(A) Introduction - "Hate Crime" in Canada and Ireland

Over the past two months I experienced one of my periodic episodes of Writer's Block but I can't ignore the current hysteria in Canada. It's their equivalent of "Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews" complete with support from politicians and media and some "Survivor" leaders who have already made claims so absurd that said politicians and journalists will quietly ignore them in future! (In Ireland no one in authority now pretends to believe that Christine Buckley was beaten so badly by Sr Xavieria that she needed 100 stitches OR that the same nun used a hot poker to murder a baby!)  

The foregoing essay on Blood Libel concentrates mainly on the Christian Brothers - allegedly beating boys to death in residential schools. Since 2010 however the focus has shifted to nuns who ran Mother and Baby Homes for single mothers and allegedly starved babies to death. I covered this in my article "Deaths of Children in Mother and Baby Care Homes (did they die of starvation?)"

It would not surprise me if the Canadian witch-hunt follows a similar course to ours i.e. with the more lurid child-killing claims being broadcast by media and politicians - and then quietly side-lined -, to be followed by more "moderate" allegations that are difficult to disprove several decades later!

One way in which the Canadian hysteria differs from ours is that about a dozen Catholic churches have already been vandalised or burned to the ground. There has been some vandalism of Church buildings and monuments in Ireland but nothing on that level. However  our last EU Commissioner and our last Minister for Justice used Parliamentary Privilege to libel a woman because she had been a nun while a previous Justice Minister endorsed a claim (in 2009) that the Church was involved in the unsolved murder of a girl in 1970. This kind of libel is the spiritual equivalent of the Nazi Kristallnacht. In Canada they are going in for a more physical imitation!


Interior view of the destroyed Fasanenstrasse Synagogue, Berlin, 1938

Interior view of the destroyed Fasanenstrasse Synagogue, Berlin, 1938

(B) UK Guardian Endorses Blood Libel

On 21 June 2021 The Guardian published an article headlined "Canada Must Reveal ‘Undiscovered Truths’ of Residential Schools to Heal" with subheading "The man who led the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission insists an independent investigation into decades of abuse of Indigenous children is essential."

 It includes the following:
Murray Sinclair, a former senator and one of the country’s first Indigenous judges, warned that the “undiscovered truths” of the schools are probably far more devastating than many Canadians realize – including the deliberate killing of children by school staff and the likelihood that such crimes were covered up.

Sinclair called for a powerful investigative body, free of government interference, and with the power to subpoena witnesses. “We need to know who died, we need to know how they died, we need to know who was responsible for their deaths or for their care at the time that they died,” said Sinclair, a member of the Peguis First Nation. “We need to know why the families weren’t informed. And we need to know where the children are buried.
And also: 
Justin Trudeau described the graves as “a shameful reminder” of the systemic racism that Indigenous peoples still endure, adding: “Together, we must acknowledge this truth, learn from our past, and walk the shared path of reconciliation, so we can build a better future.”

But Sinclair warned that reconciliation requires a sustained effort to change by ordinary Canadians and powerful institutions of state – an effort that has so far remained elusive. "The government, our social institutions, and even our population acknowledge what was done to Indigenous people was wrong. There have been several apologies and a promise of things will change. But there’s been no change,” he said. “So long as any change is only given reluctantly, it means there remains a willingness, ability – and even desire – to go back to the way things were.”

Sinclair led a historic Truth and Reconciliation Commission which in 2015 concluded that the residential school system amounted to cultural genocide[1]
But now he is suggesting MORE than "cultural" genocide:
We’ve heard stories from survivors who witnessed children being put to death, particularly infants born in the schools who had been fathered by a priest. Many survivors told us that they witnessed those children, those infants, being either buried alive or killed – and sometimes being thrown into furnaces,” said Sinclair, who oversaw thousands of hours of testimony. “Those stories need to be checked out.[2]
The last Indigenous Residential School closed over 30 years ago but remarkably many problems persist among First Nations groups - including unnatural deaths:
Dozens of First Nations do not have access to drinking water, the government is fighting a human rights tribunal order to compensate Indigenous children who suffered in foster care and a federal minister has admitted racism against Indigenous peoples is rampant within the healthcare system. Indigenous people are overrepresented in federal prisons and Indigenous women are killed at a rate far higher than other groups.

Such realities are the result of a sustained campaign to create and sustain racial inequity, said Sinclair. "It took constant effort to maintain that relationship of Indigenous inferiority and white superiority,” he said. “To reverse that, it’s going to take generations of concerted effort to do the opposite.
So WHO is killing Indigenous women and what effect is casting the blame on Racism and White Superiority going to have on efforts to resolve the problem?

US Media also do Blood Libel

An article in the New York Post dated 12 July 2021 is headed US Media Shamefully Justified a String of Canadian Church Burnings
Discovery of Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Prompts Grief and Questions” ran a Washington Post headline. “‘Horrible History’: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada” was The New York Times’ headline.

Those headlines were false — according to all three chiefs who made the discoveries. “This is not a mass grave site, this is just unmarked graves,” Cowessess First Nation chief Cadmus Delorme said of the biggest site. Indeed, the remains aren’t even believed to be all of children. A band leader said the site was a community cemetery, including graves of nonindigenous people — unmarked because wooden markers had decomposed.

The Washington Post eventually corrected “mass grave”; the Times’ headline remains.

Church critics used that framing to justify, and even encourage, the rash of arsons. Burn it all down,” tweeted the head of the BC Civil Liberties Association and the chair of the Newfoundland Canadian Bar Association Branch. “It’s very dangerous to conflate the string of church fires with violence against mosques,” activist Nora Loreto said, insisting they weren’t “hate crimes” — in other words, the Catholic Church had it coming.

(C) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Church Burning is "Understandable"

According to Brian Lilley, political correspondent for the Toronto Sun in Trudeau Explains Away Arson Attacks on Churches (Monday, 5 July 2021)
About a dozen churches have been set on fire, some simply damaged, others burned right to the ground. Even more Christian churches — mostly Catholic but not exclusively — have been vandalized over the past several weeks. Yes, it’s true that Justin Trudeau has also said that the burning and destruction of churches is “unacceptable and wrong,” but by saying it is also “understandable,” the PM undermines his mild condemnation of what is going on.

Trudeau only spoke of what has been happening on July 2, almost three weeks after this spate of attacks on churches started. The first arson that I heard of — that was related to the discovery of unmarked graves at residential school sites — was St. John’s Tuscaroras, an Anglican chapel set ablaze on June 12.

Since then, several Catholic churches, a number of Anglican parishes, and Evangelical churches serving African and Vietnamese immigrant communities have been targeted. If there were attacks like this taking place at Mosques or other places of worship, then we know that Trudeau would have tweeted right away, issued statements, and rightly denounced the attacks as hate crimes.

Instead, even when asked, Trudeau can’t use that phrase and his condemnations come with what amounts to a “yeah, but” at the end of it. “It is unacceptable and wrong that acts of vandalism and arson are being seen across the country, including against Catholic churches,” Trudeau said on Friday. It’s a rather weak denunciation, but then he made it worse by saying that what has happened is understandable.

I understand the anger that’s out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real, and it’s fully understandable, given the shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians,” Trudeau said.

On Monday, Trudeau said that vandalism and arson aren’t the way to go, that it doesn’t help with reconciliation. He’s right, but he still can’t use the kind of language he would use for any other faith group. “That is simply not right, it is a shame,” Trudeau said of burning churches when asked if these acts were hate crimes.

By his own definition, these arsons and acts of vandalism would be hate crimes, but he can’t say that. So instead, he calls it “a shame.” He may as well have added a “tut-tut” at the end and a finger wag.

If mosques were vandalised or burned to the ground in the wake of  an Islamic atrocity, would Justin Trudeau wait for weeks before issuing any kind of condemnation - and would he then use the word "understandable"?   


(D) Head of British Columbia Civil Liberties Group Tweets ‘Burn It All Down’ 

In an article in Global News on 4 July Head of B.C. civil liberties group under fire over ‘burn it all down’ tweet Simon Little wrote - in relation to a Canadian equivalent of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties:
The executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is facing criticism over comments she made on social media in response to the burning of multiple churches in the wake of the discovery of human remains in unmarked graves at former residential schools.

Harsha Walia leads the organization, which fights for civil liberties and human rights. She is also a long-time advocate for migrant justice, Indigenous rights, equality and economic justice.

In a June 30 tweet responding to a news article about a pair of Catholic churches burning down, Walia wrote “burn it all down.” The tweet set off a firestorm on social media, both from people who described the message as inflammatory and stoking hate, and others who defended the tweet, saying people have no right to police Indigenous people’s grief and rage...

B.C. Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said he felt the tweet went too far. “I thought it was just disgusting and reprehensible that somebody who heads up an organization like that would make such comments,” he said. “It’s vile beyond belief, it does nothing to bring about reconciliation. All it does is create conflict and division.
When Terry Glavin, columnist for the National Post and Ottawa Citizen, took a swipe at people defending Harsha Walia, Gerald Butts - former right-hand man and confidant of Justin Trudeau-  jumped in to defend Walia. 

"So Gerry, defending the 'burning churches is cool' crowd?” Glavin tweeted to Butts.
No Terry, it is not. Though it may be understandable,” Butts replied. Same word used by Trudeau! [3]

About the only thing that surprises me concerning the whole disgusting affair, is the comment by Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth! Otherwise it's a carbon copy of the behaviour of politicians and "human rights" groups in Ireland.


(E) "Unmarked Graves" at former St Eugene Mission School, Cranbrook, British Columbia (1912-1970)

The "discovery" of these graves was one of the episodes that sparked hysteria and Church-burning across Canada in recent weeks. Unfortunately for the hysterics, this one is a cemetery that has been in continuous use by the local community before and since the Mission School closed half a century ago! 

Note there is nothing suspicious about the "unmarked graves". Even in a cemetery that has been in continuous use, old wooden grave markers decay and the cemetery fence has to be replaced. In cemeteries that are no longer used, both markers and fence would eventually disappear. "Using a wooden marker at a gravesite remains a practice that continues to this day in many Indigenous communities across Canada." The following article also points out that it was Government policy that all indigenous children in the area between the ages of 7 and 15 should attend the school. Some children died of "TB or other diseases" according to former Chief Sophie Pierre, who herself attended the school, but  she lends no support to the lurid claims of Murray Sinclair. [Part (B) above]

An article by Adam MacVicar in Global News on 1st July 2021 is entitled: 
The detection of human remains in unmarked graves at the site of a former residential school in B.C. was not an unexpected discovery, according to the area’s former chief. On Wednesday, it was confirmed that ground-penetrating radar found 182 unmarked graves in a cemetery at the site of the former Kootenay Residential School at St. Eugene Mission just outside Cranbrook, B.C. The remains were found when remedial work was being performed in the area to replace the fence at the cemetery last year.

Sophie Pierre, former chief of the St Mary’s Indian Band and a survivor of the school itself, told Global News that while the news of the unmarked graves had a painful impact on her and surrounding communities, they had always known the graves were there. 

There’s no discovery, we knew it was there, it’s a graveyard,” Pierre said. “The fact there are graves inside a graveyard shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.According to Pierre, wooden crosses that originally marked the gravesites had been burned or deteriorated over the years.  Using a wooden marker at a gravesite remains a practice that continues to this day in many Indigenous communities across Canada.

The cemetery sits about 150 meters from the former residential school, which was in operation between 1912 and 1970. It is now a luxurious golf resort owned by five local area bands. At the time it was mandated by law that all Indigenous children living in the area between the ages of seven and 15 were to attend the school. ...

Pierre said while there is a possibility there are some children who attended the school were buried in the cemetery, more work is required to confirm those details. “There could very well be, and in good likelihood, some children that were in the residential school that died here because of TB or other diseases, and were buried there,” Pierre said. “But it’s a graveyard.”....

The graveyard near Cranbrook originally dates back to Christian missionaries who settled in the area in the early 1800s, prior to the construction of the school.  A church and a hospital were also built in the area. It eventually became a graveyard for the community, which it remains to this day. “We just buried one of our people there last month,” Pierre said. “Anyone who died in my community would be buried there.” 

The article goes on to point out that hundreds of unmarked graves, many believed to be children, have been found near residential school sites across the country recently, including in Kamloops, British Columbia, and the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan.
[Sophie] Pierre acknowledged uncovering those graves is important work, and sheds light on the traumatic history and reality for Indigenous peoples across Canada. However, she said the findings at the cemetery near Cranbrook isn’t the same as the other findings at other residential schools throughout the country. "What happened in these other places is these remains have been found not in graveyards, that’s the big difference,” Pierre said. “It’s horrible.”

 Or alternatively these are graveyards that have not been used for several decades so the wooden crosses and the cemetery fence have rotted away!   

 (F) CONCLUSION: Canada - A Society Spewing on Itself!

It isn't only the Catholic Church that is under attack from the Justin Trudeau equivalent of Mao's Red Guards! It is also the first Prime Minister of Canada John A McDonald and Methodist Minister Egerton Ryerson who was one of the founders of the Canadian public school system and the Indian residential school system. On the other hand, Justin Trudeau - the Prime Minister who feels that the burning of Catholic Churches is "understandable" - faces no questions about the role of his father Pierre Trudeau who wanted to eliminate Indian Status and fully assimilate First Nations into the general population of Canada! [4]

Egerton Ryerson (24 March 1803 – 19 February 1882) was a Canadian educator and Methodist minister who was a prominent contributor to the design of the Canadian public school system and the Canadian Indian residential school system. In 1844, Ryerson was appointed Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada. In that role, he supported reforms such as creating school boards, making textbooks more uniform, and making education free. Because of his contributions to education in Ontario, he is the namesake of Ryerson University (Toronto), Ryerson Press, and Ryerson, Ontario.

On June 1, 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the Egerton Ryerson statue at Ryerson University was vandalized  with red paint. On June 6, the statue was toppled, decapitated and thrown into Toronto Harbour; Ryerson University stated that the statue will not be restored or replaced. The head of the statue was subsequently placed on a pike at the Six Nations of the Grand River near Caledonia, Ontario.

In an article in the National Post on 6 April 2021 Ron Stagg, Professor of History  and Patrice Dutil, Professor of Politics at Ryerson University wrote : Egerton Ryerson has been Falsely Accused of Trying to Erase Indigenous Culture 
Ryerson is being misjudged. He was not a racist and he did not discriminate against Indigenous people. It was the exact opposite! As a young man he was appointed to the Credit mission, home of the Mississaugas. He learned their language, worked in the fields with the people of the settlement and became a life-long friend of future chief Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers), known in English as Peter Jones.

In fact, it was in recognition of his services to the Mississauga, that Ryerson was adopted and given the name of a recently deceased chief, “Cheechock” or “Chechalk.”

After he left the Credit mission, Ryerson kept in touch with Peter Jones. In the 1830s he assisted the Mississaugas, whose land was confiscated by colonial authorities, by approaching Queen Victoria personally through back channels. He also advanced the careers of a number of talented Indigenous individuals. When Peter Jones was gravely ill at the end of his life, he stayed in the comfortable home of his old friend Ryerson in Toronto. Ryerson was a friend of Indigenous people.

It is also wrong to blame Egerton Ryerson for creating residential schools. It was Peter Jones, working with another prominent Methodist, who argued that the government should fund schools to educate Indigenous men in the new techniques in agriculture, so that they might survive in a colony where land to hunt and fish freely was rapidly disappearing. By 1842, the authorities accepted the concept, as a way to put First Nations on farms and to eliminate the expense of annual treaty payments, not as a way to assimilate them.

In 1846, government agents met with thirty chiefs, representing most of the First Nations in what is now southern Ontario. After some discussion, almost all the leaders agreed that such schools were necessary, and many even agreed to use part of their treaty payments to help support the schools. A year later, the government approached Ryerson, an acknowledged expert on education, and asked him to provide a curriculum for schools that would train Indigenous people for a settled life.

Ryerson was fully in agreement with the plan because he worried that Indigenous communities would be destroyed unless they changed their economic life. He delivered general suggestions for a curriculum — nothing else — that were typical of his day. It was patronizing, as it was based on Euro-Canadian models, but it had the support of most of the Indigenous leaders. Ryerson participated precisely because he saw education as the best instrument to protect First Nations from advancing settlement.
The Ryerson statue was originally vandalised on July 18, 2020 - in addition to two others of John A. Macdonald (first Prime Minister of Canada) and King Edward VII at the Ontario Legislature – as part of a demand to tear down the monuments. Black Lives Matter Toronto claimed responsibility for the actions stating that "The action comes after the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario have failed to take action against police violence against Black people." Three people were arrested at the time and were each charged with three counts of mischief and conspiracy to commit a summary offence. The charges were dropped on 4 June 2021 and demonstrators tore down the Ryerson statue on 6 June! Ryerson University has stated that the statue will not be restored or replaced!

Egerton Ryerson and Jesuit Hero Jean de Brebeuf S.J.  

Egerton Ryerson working among the Mississauga First Nation in the 19th century was - in a way - continuing the work of Jesuit hero, martyr and saint Jean de Brebeuf among the Hurons [Wyandot] in the far more violent age of "New France" in the 17th century. (It's true that Fr de Brebeuf would not have appreciated the comparison!)
Brébeuf had been chosen for the New World because he had a knack for languages, and so was well equipped for engagement with an altogether alien culture. The assignment proved a wise one, as Brébeuf immersed himself deeply among the Wyandot, or Huron, a tribal confederacy that had gathered on the north shores of Lake Ontario two centuries before. From 1626, the Jesuit père devoted himself as the apostle to the Hurons, with the singular mission of making these people Catholic.

Jean and his companions reached Quebec on June 19, 1625, and immediately began to prepare for his journey to the Huron nation. Happily, he had a great talent for something that would prove critical in his work. The great explorer Samuel de Champlain wrote about Brébeuf, "He had such a striking gift for languages that…he grasped in two or three years what others would not learn in twenty." 

That facility would assist him in working with a people with whom he shared little in common, save their common humanity. To enter into their world Jean resolved to do everything according to their customs, no matter how strenuous, eating their food, sleeping as they did, working as hard as they did. Here is a powerful echo of the Call of the King, from the Spiritual Exercises, in which one is asked to "labor as Christ labors." 

In addition to learning their customs and beliefs, Jean wrote a Huron grammar and translated a catechism in the local language. Brébeuf would spend three years among these families before being asked to return to Rouen in 1629, after political difficulties made it harder for the French to remain.......

When he returned to New France in 1635, he was cheerfully welcomed by his Huron friends. Immediately he and Antoine Daniel, another Jesuit, began their work in earnest. (They were one of several Jesuits working in the region at the time.) Near a town called Ihonotiria, near current-day Georgian Bay in Canada, Fathers Brébeuf and Daniel began teaching the people about Christianity. They were later joined by two other French Jesuits, Charles Garnier and Isaac Jogues.....

Brébeuf and his fellow Jesuits ministered to the Wyandot another 13 years. Then, under military pressure from the northward-moving Iroquois, the Wyandot and their Jesuit companions found themselves in dire straits. Finally, as the invading Iroquois sacked the mission village of Saint-Louis, Brébeuf and fellow priest Gabriel Lalemant were taken captive and tortured to death.

 Justin Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau and "Assimilation" Policy 

An Editorial in the National Catholic Register on 9 July 2021 entitled Canada’s Trudeau Fans the Flame of Blame reads in part
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau swiftly joined with Native leaders in demanding that Pope Francis apologize for the Church’s role in operating the majority of these residential schools during the 19th and 20th centuries. This misguided rhetoric of blame has now escalated into the burning down and vandalization of a number of Catholic churches across Canada.....

However, it is simply not the case that Canada’s Catholics and other Christians lagged behind the nation’s political leadership in terms of renouncing assimilationist policies. 

As recently as 1969, the Canadian government formally advocated a new policy abolishing separate status for its Indigenous residents for the express purpose of integrating them more fully into Canadian society. This proposal was abandoned only after fierce resistance from the Native peoples themselves. The Canadian prime minister who advanced this proposed new policy was actually Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, a man still widely regarded in Canada for enlightened, progressive thinking. So if Justin Trudeau truly believes in the concept of “inherited” institutional guilt, as he appears to do with respect to Pope Francis, in fairness it ought to be noted that his own inheritance is vastly more tangible than that of the Holy Father. [4]

The first Canadian Prime Minister John A MacDonald also approved the assimilationist approach proposed in the 1879  "Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds". Thus (as per Wikipedia) - On 18 June 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the statue of Macdonald was removed from [Kingston's] City Park after city council voted 12–1 in favour of its removal, and is set to be installed at Cataraqui Cemetery where Macdonald is buried. [5]

In fact the Canadian secular authorities would always have been keener on assimilating the First Nations than Churchmen like Fr Jean de Brebeuf S.J. and Methodist Minister Egerton Ryerton. For the latter, making good citizens would have been a by product of making good Christians and not the main objective!

A Final Irony
It's quite possible that Pierre Trudeau was correct in 1969 and that the policy began by Fr Jean de Brebeuf in the 17th century and continued by Egerton Ryerson in the 19th had come to the end of its useful life. It's possible that assimilation as ordinary Canadian citizens WAS the way for the First Nations to go. There has been a huge increase in symptoms of social breakdown since then - violence, addiction, suicide and child abuse - more so than in the general population. The Canadian State's pursuit of multi-culturalism has led them to subsidise a culture and  away of life that is no longer viable. 

The same can be said about Ireland in relation to our treatment of the Travellers. Up until the 1960s the policy of the Irish State was to integrate them (then called Tinkers) into the settled population. Since then we also have stressed the multi-cultural approach - up to granting Ethnic Minority status in 2017. The results - in terms of crime and other symptoms of social breakdown - are not pretty!


NOTES:

[1] A Guardian article dated 2 June 2015 headed Canada's Indigenous Schools Policy Was 'Cultural Genocide', says Report summarises the Report of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Murray Sinclair who is described as "a Manitoba judge whose parents and grandparents both survived residential schools." After seven years of hearings, and testimony from thousands of witnesses, the commission’s final report declares.
 “These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will. The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources.”
There is no mention of infants being buried alive or killed and thrown into furnaces. Did Murray Sinclair ignore such testimonies back then because he regarded them as incredible? Why does he think they are credible now? 

[2] "We’ve heard stories from survivors who witnessed children being put to death, particularly infants born in the schools who had been fathered by a priest. Many survivors told us that they witnessed those children, those infants, being either buried alive or killed – and sometimes being thrown into furnaces,” said Sinclair. 

This is strongly reminiscent of the Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk (1836) in which the author claimed to expose the systematic sexual abuse of nuns by Catholic priests and the infanticide of the resulting children in a convent in Montreal (although "Maria Monk" claimed the babies were strangled after being baptised, and then buried in a lime pit).


[4] As per the Wikipedia article on Pierre Trudeau

In 1969, Trudeau along with his then Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien, proposed the 1969 White Paper (officially entitled Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy). Under the legislation of the White Paper, Indian Status would be eliminated. First Nations Peoples would be incorporated fully into provincial government responsibilities as equal Canadian citizens, and reserve status would be removed imposing the laws of private property in indigenous communities. Any special programs or considerations that had been allowed to First Nations people under previous legislation would be terminated, as the special considerations were seen by the Government to act as a means to further separate Indian peoples from Canadian citizens. This proposal was seen by many as racist and an attack on Canada's aboriginal population. The Paper proposed the general assimilation of First Nations into the Canadian body politic through the elimination of the Indian Act and Indian status, the parcelling of reserve land to private owners, and the elimination of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The White Paper prompted the first major national mobilization of Indian and Aboriginal activists against the federal government's proposal, leading to Trudeau setting aside the legislation.

"Now our people can heal, all those residential school survivors can heal, all those 60’s Scoop people can finally heal.” Kingston resident Lisa Cadue said.
Or alternatively Canada may experience endless outbreaks of Victim Playing!



Sunday, May 9, 2021

Richard Dawkins ("Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse") - Cancelled by American Humanists and Trinity Students!

 

Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins and Trinity College Students' Union


(A) Introduction

In 1996, the American Humanist Association gave Dawkins their Humanist of the Year Award. In 2021, they voted to withdraw it, stating he "demean[ed] marginalized groups", including transgender people, using "the guise of scientific discourse". In September 2020 The Hist - or the College Historical Society of Trinity College Dublin - rescinded their invitation to Dawkins to address the society in 2021 citing his stance on the religion of Islam and sexual assault as reasoning for their cancellation. Bríd O’Donnell, auditor of The Hist explained She added the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”. 

I will write more about these two organisations. [The Hist was established in Trinity College in 1770, inspired by the club formed by Edmund Burke during his  time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world.] For now, suffice it to say that neither of them saw anything immoral about Dawkins' grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church - even though some of his own followers are embarrassed by them! American Humanists and Trinity students are prepared to tolerate any vicious or lying attack on the Catholic Church because they themselves hate it. Their attitude is similar to that of some Weimar intellectuals in the 1920s and 30s who were so caught up in hatred of the Churches, Capitalists, Army etc that they failed to understand that the Nazis were the real danger! (See Notes [1] and [2] )

[The following is an edited version of the article on Richard Dawkins on my old website (not Blog)  www.IrishSalem.com ]

(B) Richard Dawkins: "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

In October 2002, there was an article in " The Dubliner" magazine entitled, "The God Shaped Hole" reporting on Richard Dawkins conversation with editor Emily Hourican. In the course of the conversation, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place."

As is clear from the full article, the above is not taken out of context but is an accurate representation of Dawkins' attitude to Catholics.

Article in "The Dubliner" and Reply re "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

Dawkins stated that:
"....The Roman Catholic Church is one of the forces for evil in the world, mainly because of the powerful influence it has over the minds of children. The Catholic Church has developed, over the centuries, brilliant techniques in brain washing children; even intelligent people who have had a proper, full cradle-Catholic upbringing find it hard to shake it off when they reach adulthood. Obviously many of them do - and congratulations to them for it - but even some really quite intelligent people fail to shake it off, powerful evidence of the skill in brainwashing that the Catholic Church exercises. It's far more skilled than, for instance, the Anglican Church, mere amateurs in the game.

"The Catholic Church also has an extraordinarily retrogressive stance on everything to do with reproduction. Any sort of new technology which makes life easier for women without causing any suffering is likely to be opposed by the Catholic Church. Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

" I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience.

 "I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. .......

 A critic of Dawkins,  Mike Gene replied:

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from "a woman in America" as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let's think through on Dawkins' logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this "grievous mental harm" in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as "a bit of fondling" and being "mental damage anyway" is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let's follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins' logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It's his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man."

 (C) It Should be Illegal for Parents to Indoctrinate Their Children - Petition Signed by Dawkins

In December 2006, Dawkins signed a Petition that upset some of his most devoted followers - so much so that he quickly withdrew his signature and claimed he had "misunderstood" same. In contrast he has never withdrawn his claim that Catholicism is worse than child abuse. While the latter claim worries some of his followers, it is directly entirely at the Catholic Church and therefore a lot more palatable to anti-clerics).

Martin Wagner of "The Atheist Experience" Blog *** wrote in an article called "Has Dawkins Totally Jumped the Shark":

"The petition, authored by one Jamie Wallis using a service on the No 10 Downing Street website that allows users to write their own petitions and gather signatures right there for the PM's consideration, reads as follows:
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
"Whoa.

"Let's run through this.

"The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice. Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, has gone into outrage overload at this whole thing, declaring that "as far as I'm concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people." He goes on to a laundry list of entirely valid criticisms.
This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell's 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.
"In case the "thrown in jail" part sounds a little hyperbolic to you, recall that the petition itself uses the word "illegal," and the general idea is that if someone does something illegal, then they've earned at the very least a citation and at worst imprisonment. Does Dawkins really want people to go to jail for taking their kids to Sunday School? Has he really gone that far over the top?" [End of Quotation from Martin Wagner]

*** The Blog motto seems to be "We feed on the blood of the ignorant!" - but they may not be referring to Dawkins!

My Comment: Dawkins withdrew his signature, claiming that he had misunderstood the Petition, believing it only referred to religious schools. The Petition does not mention schools at all and moreover is perfectly in line with Dawkins claim that raising your child as a Catholic is a form of child abuse.

(D) Hitler was not an Atheist; He was a Catholic - as per Richard Dawkins


On 22 September 2010 the UK Guardian reported that "Richard Dawkins has contacted the Guardian to strongly deny that he compared Roman Catholics to Nazis, rather he said that Hitler was a Roman Catholic." The Guardian then gave a detailed account of his speech that included the following:
"The unfortunate little fact that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth has been the subject of a widely observed moratorium. I've respected it myself, hitherto. But after the pope's outrageous speech in Edinburgh, blaming atheism for Adolf Hitler, one can't help feeling the gloves are off ..

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Or at least he was as much a Roman Catholic as the 5 million so-called Roman Catholics in this country today. For Hitler never renounced his baptismal Catholicism, which was doubtless the criterion for counting the 5 million alleged British Catholics today. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have 5 million British Catholics, in which case you have to have Hitler, too. Or Hitler was not a Catholic, in which case you have to give us an honest figure for the number of genuine Catholics in Britain today – the number who really believe Jesus turns himself into a wafer, as the former Professor Ratzinger presumably does.

"In any case, Hitler certainly was not an atheist. In 1933 he claimed to have "stamped atheism out", having banned most of Germany's atheist organisations, including the German Freethinkers League whose building was then turned into an information bureau for church affairs. ...

"Even if Hitler had been an atheist – as Joseph Stalin more surely was – how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns. Any more than their sporting of a moustache – along with Francisco Franco and Saddam Hussein. There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness.

"Unless, that is, you are steeped in the vile obscenity at the heart of Catholic theology. I refer (and I am indebted to Paula Kirby for the point) to the doctrine of original sin. These people believe – and they teach this to tiny children, at the same time as they teach them the terrifying falsehood of hell – that every baby is "born in sin". That would be Adam's sin, by the way: Adam who, as they themselves now admit, never existed.

"Original sin means that, from the moment we are born, we are wicked, corrupt, damned. Unless we believe in their God. Or unless we fall for the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell. That, ladies and gentleman, is the disgusting theory that leads them to presume that it was godlessness that made Hitler and Stalin the monsters that they were. We are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus. What a vile, depraved, inhuman theory to base your life on. 
"Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. ..........."

 (E) Extracts from "Hitler's Secret Conversations" (aka "Hitler's Table Talk") regarding Christianity

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

(F) MY CONCLUSION

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as "a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ..... the systematic cultivation of the human failure".) In addition Hitler - like Dawkins - did not believe in Original Sin - which the Catholic Church regards as a radical weakness in human nature by means of which we have a "natural" tendency to do evil rather than good.


NOTES:
[1] As per Wikipedia "The College Historical Society (CHS) – popularly referred to as The Hist – is one of the two debating societies at Trinity College Dublin. It was established within the college in 1770 and was inspired by the club formed by the philosopher Edmund Burke during his own time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world. .... Prominent members have included many Irish men and women of note, from the republican revolutionary Theobald Wolfe Tone and the author Bram Stoker, to founding father of the Northern Irish state Edward Carson and first President of Ireland Douglas Hyde, and – in more recent times – Government Ministers Mary Harney (who was the first female auditor of the society) and Brian Lenihan."

Theobald Wolfe Tone, later leader of the United Irishmen rebellion in 1798, was elected auditor in 1785, and future rebel Thomas Addis Emmet was a member of the committee. The society was briefly expelled from the college in 1794, but readmitted on the condition that "No question of modern politics shall be debated". Eight members of The Hist were expelled in 1798 in the run-up to the Rebellion, and a motion was later carried condemning the rebellion, against their former auditor.

Tension between the society and the college flourished in the early nineteenth century, with the auditor being called before the provost in 1810. After a number of members were removed at the request of the college board, the society left the college in 1815. The society continued from 1815 as the Extern Historical Society until 1843, when it reformed within the college again on the condition that no subject of current politics was debated. As per Wikipedia "This provision remains in the Laws of the Hist as a nod to the past, but the college authorities have long since ceased to restrict the subjects of the society's debates.

The decadence of the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world ("we value our members comfort above all else”) is therefore significant and illustrates the truth of the old saying that "A fish rots from the head down"!

[2] The Guardian has a very informative article dated 20 April 2021 on the issue "Richard Dawkins Loses ‘Humanist of the Year’ Title over Trans Comments" The subtitle is "American Humanist Association criticises academic for comments about identity using ‘the guise of scientific discourse’, and withdraws its 1996 honour" 

Like The Hist, the American Humanist Association had no problem with Dawkins' view that raising one's child  as a Catholic is worse than child sex abuse. So exactly WHAT did the AHA object to? 
 On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.

In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”
The Guardian article goes on to give details of a statement from the AHA board:
The AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”. The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.

Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.

The claim that Dawkins had "accumulated a history of making statements that .. demean marginalised groups" presumably includes his 2015 remark that: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

[3] The Hist and the American Humanist Association are not the ONLY secular organisations to take offence at Dawkins' tweet. The afore-mentioned Guardian article also quotes Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists (founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair) and a trans woman. According to The Guardian "she said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives". She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”




Tuesday, June 30, 2020

Fr James Martin SJ, the Catholic Church and the LGBT Ethos



Fr James Martin SJ


Background to Dispute:

In an article in the National Catholic Register on 5 December 2019 Monsignor Charles Pope explained that in November 2019 Judge Sara Smolenski, Chief Judge of the 63rd District Court in Kent County, Michigan, was advised by her pastor, Father Scott Nolan, that she should not receive Holy Communion because she claimed to enter into a “marriage” with a woman. He did this privately, but she chose to make the matter public. You can read the full story here.

As per Monsignor Pope, the priest’s actions were certainly proper. Judge Smolenski’s civil marriage is a public act, and because she is a public figure her actions were widely known. For the good of her own soul, as well as to avoid the scandal of apparent approval, the pastor was correct in requesting that she refrain from presenting herself to receive Holy Communion. Judge Smolenski is certainly a public dissenter from the Church’s constant teaching that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. There is also the reasonable public perception that she is engaged in and approves of illicit sexual union — in this case, homosexual acts.

As expected, there are charges that this action is targeting the “LGBT” community. Judge Smolenski herself says, “This feels like selective discrimination. Why choose gay people and why now?” However, the standard for worthy reception of Holy Communion applies to all. Neither heterosexuals in invalid marriages nor those cohabitating outside the bonds of marriage may licitly receive Communion. No one may simply go on living in an invalid marriage (adultery) or in cohabitation (fornication) and still be worthy to approach for Holy Communion. Fornicators, adulterers and those who engage in homosexual acts may not licitly receive Holy Communion unless (and until) they repent and receive absolution in the sacrament of Confession.

No one person is singled out, nor is any group singled out — chastity is required of all. There is no place for sexual intimacy outside of traditional marriage. There are no exceptions.

The Diocese of Grand Rapids issued a statement in support of Fr. Nolan’s actions. Included in it were these essential points:
As Pope Francis explains in Amoris Laetitia, ‘The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members.’ (186) Lifelong Catholics would surely be aware of this.

Inclusion and acceptance have been a hallmark of Catholic Churches in the Diocese of Grand Rapids throughout the diocese’s history. They remain so. They presume, however, a respect on the part of individuals for the teachings and practice of the wider Catholic community. No community of faith can sustain the public contradiction of its beliefs by its own members. This is especially so on matters as central to Catholic life as marriage, which the Church has always held, and continues to hold, as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. [My emphasis RC]


Answering Fr James Martin SJ (by Fr. Dwight Longenecker)


Fr James Martin has taken to Twitter again to whine and distort the truth in his usual subtle way. This time he is lamenting the request made by Fr Scott Nolan in Grand Rapids that Judge Smolenski refrain from presenting herself for communion.

Below are Fr Martin’s tweets with my replies.

James Martin: As with all these sad cases, the question is: Why are only married LGBT people being singled out? Is Communion denied to all parishioners who are not following church teachings? That is, married couples using birth control or IVF? Or young people engaging in pre-marital sex?

DL: LGBT people are not being “singled out” for not following church teachings.  Ms Smolenski was not denied communion because she is a lesbian. She is not even being denied communion for being in a lesbian relationship. She is being denied communion because she “married” another woman. This is not simply a matter of “not following church teachings.” By attempting a marriage with a woman Ms Smolenski publicly, formally and irremediably denied the Catholic teaching about marriage.

Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It is one of the means of grace. For it to be a valid sacrament it requires proper form, minister and matter. The proper matter is the conjugal act. The proper ministers are the man and woman marrying one another. Therefore to attempt a same sex marriage is not simply “not following church teachings” it is rejecting church teachings and doing so formally and publicly. When a Catholic attempts a same sex marriage they are rejecting the Catholic teaching about the sacraments.

That Fr Martin does not admit this or teach this indicates either that he is very poorly educated (but he is a Jesuit so that can’t be the case) or he is deliberately misleading God’s people.

Attempting to marry a person of the same sex is not at the same level of commitment as a couple using birth control or IVF or someone committing fornication. All these sins are private sins and can be repented of. In a same sex marriage the person is not just “not following church teaching.” They are rejecting church teaching.  They are saying by their words and actions, “Gay sex is not a sin. It is something to be celebrated. It is something God blesses. The Catholic Church is wrong and I am publicly, formally declaring that I reject the Catholic Church’s teaching.”

In other words it is not breaking the rules it is rejecting the rules and in rejecting the rules rejecting the authority that sets those rules.

This distinction is something any eighth grade confirmation student could understand.

James Martin: The argument is made that same-sex marriage is a “public” sin.” But there are many other examples of public acts well known among parish communities. Is Communion denied to someone who is cruel or abusive to a spouse, who doesn’t forgive coworkers, who holds a grudge for years?

DL: Does Fr Martin hold the common view that a wedding is simply a lovely ceremony in which two people celebrate their love? This is the typical secular, sentimentalized understanding of weddings. It’s a lovely time to have a party and celebrate the love of the happy couple.  Yes, maybe, but not for Catholics. For Catholics a wedding is the start of a marriage and it is far, for more than that. The Catholic understanding of marriage is interwoven with the union between Christ and his church, and it is therefore a sacrament and of vital importance to the faith.

A same sex marriage is not only a public sin denial of the Catholic faith. It is also a formal sin. In other words, it has a legal component and a contractual, formal component. It is deliberate, premeditated and done with full knowledge and consent. A same sex marriage is also, by its nature, irremediable. In other words, the intention of the person contracting a same sex marriage is that this position they are taking is for life. That’s what marriage IS–a commitment for life. The equivalent with holding a grudge, not forgiving co workers or being abusive to a spouse would be for the cruel, abusive person to hire a lawyer and a public meeting room, invite his friends and family, sign a contract and take a public oath that he believes beating his wife is a good thing and holding a grudge against co workers is a noble and worthy action and that he solemnly vows to abuse his wife and hold grudges and seek revenge for all the rest of his days.

James Martin: Moreover, why is it only a “public” act that bars someone from receiving Communion? If pastors chose to, they could easily ask married couples if they are using birth control, or ask young people if they are engaging in pre-marital sex. Of course, they choose not to.

DL: See above. The equivalent would be for the married couple using birth control or the young couple fornicating to hire a public space, sign a contract and declare to all that they believe contraception and fornication to be wonderful, blessings from God and that they are from henceforth always and everywhere committed to contraception and fornication. Come now. Let’s not be absurd.

Once again, Fr Martin is either stupid or badly educated (and we know this is not true because he is an exceedingly clever and well educated person) or he is deliberately obfuscating the truth, distorting the Catholic faith and misleading people.

James Martin: The answer is often: “Of course. Because it would be unethical to investigate and pry.” Yet in many of LGBT cases, the news of the person’s marriage comes from scouring Facebook pages, from someone else reporting them, or from a priest grilling friends and family members.

DL: Why would the gay person wish to be married unless they also wished for their choice to be publicly known and celebrated? Do Catholic priests have the time and inclination to spy on people? Really? I’ve never heard of such a thing. On the contrary most Catholic priests do everything they can to avoid conflicts like the one Fr Nolan found himself in. Do people tattle tale? But surely a Catholic who attempts a same sex marriage knows they are going against church teaching. Why should they be surprised or upset when fellow Catholics are scandalized and Catholic priests and bishops affirm what the same sex couple already knew was true?

The priest is engaged on a witch hunt against the poor LGBTQ victims? I doubt it. On the other hand, perhaps the priest’s hand is forced because the LGBT person and their fellow activists have thrown their behaviors into the face of the Catholic clergy challenging them in an aggressive manner, threatening their positions and pushing to have them removed– as is the case with Judge Smolenski who, it is reported, turned up at St Stephen’s Church with a group of fellow activists wearing rainbow badges and that was what prompted Fr Nolan to ask her to desist. [My emphasis. RC]

James Martin: Overall, the only area that seems to matter in these cases is sexual morality, and the only sexual morality that seems to matter is that of the LGBT person. It is a clear targeting of a specific group of people on a specific question of morality.

 DL: Nonsense. 


My Conclusion

What appears too have happened is that Judge Smolenski stopped attending St. Stephens “last spring [2019] for fear that she would be denied the Eucharist,” as other parishioners apparently had. She attended Mass on November 17, and received the Eucharist, but Father Nolan subsequently “called her to demand that she ‘respect the church’ and not return for the sacrament in the future.” She then went to the media and complained about the priest's action also telling the local news station that she had devoted her life to the Church and recently given a $7,000 gift to the parish. She had previously attempted to not only smear Fr Nolan as a bigot, but tried to get him removed as chaplain of the Catholic Lawyers Association of Western Michigan. And this is the lady whom Fr James Martin believes was unfairly singled out!

Let's try to look at this through the other end of the telescope. From the foundation of the Irish State until the 1970s "the [Protestant] minority was strongly over-represented in the higher echelons of all business activities, including agriculture". [1] In 1932 Dublin hosted the 31st International Eucharistic Congress "in a city decorated with bunting, banners, garlands, floral arrangements, shrines and various other forms of religious decoration. The main pontifical High Mass on 26 June was attended by an estimated one million people".[2] During the Congress Catholic-owned businesses were keen to advertise the fact of their ownership in order to attract customers by distinguishing themselves from their Protestant competitors. But suppose things had gone further than that. Suppose Catholics had deliberately targeted a printing company owned by a Protestant and demanded that he publish Congress material - knowing that this man didn't want to do so. Suppose that the owner played a prominent role in the Irish Print Union and the "offended" Catholics demanded that he be removed for "intolerance". What would Fr Martin make of THAT situation?


Let's go further still. Suppose Irish law had required printing companies to accept any legal material for publication. Would this justify the behaviour of the "offended" ones? But Fr Nolan was under no obligation to give the Eucharist to Judge Smolenski. On the contrary,  he should have denied her Communion on 17th November but choose not to create a public scene - which is what SHE wanted and what she proceeded to do by denouncing him to the media. In the circumstances, I find Fr Martin's attitude to be incredible! 

[ Much of my own life has been bracketed by my experience of two Jesuits - Father Michael Sweetman in 1967 to Fr James Martin today. I never met the latter, but his unwillingness to stand up for fellow priests when targeted by the secular mob, is all too familiar. ]


Tuesday, December 17, 2019

Free Speech Vs Anti-Racism Rallies and My Response to Department of Justice

Protest against new Hate Speech Law and Counter-Demonstration by Anti-Racism groups


On Saturday 14 December I attended a protest rally against a proposed new "hate speech" law that had been planned weeks ago, to take place outside the Dail on that date. In the meantime a counter-demonstration was organised by unions, "anti-racism" groups and NGOs including Trocaire - the Catholic Church's overseas development agency! The "anti-racism" groups included some protesters dressed in black and masked who chanted slogans like "Nazi scum" at us. (Will this qualify as "hate speech" under the new legislation?). They also launched an attack at one stage that was held back by the Gardai and their own rally stewards.  I presume these are the Irish equivalent of AntiFa who have made such a name for themselves in the USA and elsewhere. (According to the Irish Times, three people were arrested by Gardai following minor scuffles; very one-sided scuffles!)

 I am the white haired guy at the back right in the above photo. On 12th and 13th December I had engaged with the the Department of Justice by sending two Emails in reply to their requests for comments from the public on the proposed new legislation.


Rory Connor
17 December 2019

Hate Speech Public Consultation - Follow Up to 5 Question Survey [2]

13 December 2019

Department of Justice and Equality
51 St Stephens Green
Dublin 2

I sent a submission regarding the above yesterday night. It included a copy of my previous online response to the 5 Question Survey.

 I mentioned that about 2003/04 I made two complaints to the Gardai under the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act regarding false allegations of child murder, one published by the Irish Times, the other broadcast by TV3. They are items 1 and 2 in my Blog article
Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews!

I could have made a third complaint to Gardai when Alan Shatter (and the late Gerry Ryan and others) made similar claims against the Church in 2009 but it was obviously futile. I also refer to that case (the murder of Bernadette Connolly) in the above article.

As to my motives - and qualifications - to comment on proposed Hate Speech legislation. I was a De La Salle Brother from 1966 to 1969 and details of my background are in the "About Me" section of my old website IrishSalem.com [see PS at end of letter]

I believe that nearly every one of my former colleagues who worked in an Industrial School or similar institution was accused of child abuse and if I had done so myself, I'm sure I would have been accused also. Hate Speech from the media plus the almost evidence-free payouts from the Redress Board, encouraged people to lie. The media Hate Speech is especially relevant to the allegations of child murder against the Christian Brothers - at times when no boy died of ANY cause! (I refer to these as "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders" and I went to the Gardai about two such cases.) Presumably the so-called victim accusers didn't get "compensation" for claiming that someone else was murdered so this type of claim was caused by media Hate Speech and not greed!

I corresponded for years with the late UK cultural historian Richard Webster and two fruits of that collaboration are his essays 
"States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly"

AND "The Christmas Spirit" in Ireland"

I also have an article on my current Blog IrishSalem.Blogspot.com regarding Richard Webster
"Richard Webster, the Idea of Evil and Operation Midland"

Finally I gave evidence to the Ryan Commission on my own behalf and as a member of the group "Let Our Voices Emerge" that represented victims of false allegations. I had a letter in the Irish Examiner on 7 November 2011
"Ryan Report Did Not Deal with False Allegations"
that summarizes our experience.

Regards


Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Clonsilla
Dublin 15


Hate Speech Public Consultation - Follow Up to 5 Question Survey [1]

12 December 2019

Department of Justice and Equality
51 St Stephens Green
Dublin 2

A few weeks ago I submitted an online reply to the quick "5 Question Survey on Hate Speech". I am including a copy of my original submission below. I added 2 links to the very end which relate directly to Minister Charlie Flanagan - I think I forgot to include them with my original reply.  I will now answer the 5 other questions contained in the Public Consultation Document

Question 1 Are there other groups in society with shared identity characteristics, for example disability, gender identity, or others, who are vulnerable to having hatred stirred up against them and should be included in the list of protected characteristics?

I think the main problem with the existing situation is that bogus allegations of child rape and murder are not counted as Hate Speech when directed against Catholic clergy or religious. The few prosecutions seem to be for wasting Garda time not hate speech. The main priority should be to enforce the existing law against Incitement to Hatred  rather than add more protected groups. 

Question 2. Do you think the term “hatred” is the correct term to use in the Act? If not what should it be replaced with? Would there be implications for freedom of expression?

Indeed. I got the impression that the two cases I referred to the Gardai (regarding Irish Times and TV3 claiming the Christian Brothers murdered boys) were turned down by the DPP because these false murder claims did NOT prove that the Irish Times and TV3 personnel were motivated by hatred. From that point of view, it might be best to substitute "Hostility" or "Prejudice" for "Hatred". HOWEVER I am very conscious of the danger that vicious and dishonest politicians could misuse such a change in order to target their own ideological enemies. For example when the Sunday Times fired Kevin Myers on a bogus charge of anti-Semitism, this decision was loudly applauded by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and then Tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald. I wrote about this in a blog article:
"Kevin Myers and the Age of De Valera and McQuaid"

I think the term "Hatred" is OK as I would not wish to make things easier for dishonest or bigoted politicians!

Question 3. Bearing in mind that the Act is designed only to deal with hate speech which is sufficiently serious to be dealt with as a criminal matter (rather than by other measures), do you think the wording of the Act should be changed to make prosecutions under for incitement to hatred online more effective? What, in your view, should those changes be?

Regarding application of the law to online speech, I think the law already gives enough power to the State and I would be dubious about giving the State more power to silence online speech than it already has. For example would the State have used this power to prevent the obscene online attacks on Kevin Myers OR - more likely - to silence anyone who tried to defend him (e.g. by accusing his defenders of anti-Semitism)??

Questions 4. In your view, does the requirement that an offence must be intended or likely to stir up hatred make the legislation less effective? AND
Question 5.  If so, what changes would you suggest to this element of the 1989 Act (without broadening the scope of the Act beyond incitement)?

I believe it was the issue of proving "intention" to stir up hatred that caused the DPP to refuse to prosecute the Irish Times or TV3 for stirring up hatred against the Christian Brothers when both accused the Brothers of murdering children. From that point of view, I should welcome an extension of the Act to include circumstances where politicians, journalists,  broadcasters etc are reckless as to whether their actions stir up hatred. BUT again I'm dubious of giving too much power to politicians who may use this to silence their own ideological enemies. Maybe it would be sufficient to list certain actions  where the intention to stir up hatred is assumed  e.g false allegations of Rape, Paedophilia or Child Murder directed against a religious (or other) group?

There  is a copy of my previous answers to the "quick" online survey below. I may send additional material tomorrow Friday regarding my background and qualifications to comment on this issue but this is a sufficient response in itself.


Rory Connor
11 Lohunda Grove
Clonsilla
Dublin 15


5 Question Survey - Copy of Answers Previously Submitted

Hate Speech Consultation
Introduction
The Minister for Justice and Equality is reviewing Ireland’s law on criminal hate speech. The existing law, the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, is being revised and updated to ensure it meets the needs of a modern, democratic society......

You can share your views by completing the text boxes below, or by sending a written submission to HateSpeechConsultation@justice.ie before the closing date of 13th December 2019.


1. In your opinion, what groups or communities of people in Ireland are targeted by hate speech?

The Catholic Church especially priests, brothers and nuns. I was a De La Salle Brother myself. I have never disclosed my name in religion, or any place I was (apart from the Castletown novitiate) because I suspect I could attract a false allegation of child abuse.

2. Please describe the kinds of hate speech that you think are (or are not) serious enough to be a criminal offence.

Making false allegations of child rape and child murder. Many of the latter claims relate to periods when no child died of ANY cause, so I coined the phrases "Murder of the Undead" and "Victimless Murders" (try Googling them). 
 I have an online article on this subject "Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews!" 

3. Is it necessary or right to place limits on freedom of expression by making some forms of hate speech a crime? If so, what protections do you think the law on incitement to hatred should offer?

About 2003/04 I made official complaints to Gardai under the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act concerning numbers (1) and (2) in my article "Blood Libel in Ireland". I believe Gardai DID take them seriously but Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute. They don't tell you why, but my understanding is that falsely accusing Catholic Religious of murdering children does not PROVE that the accuser is motivated by religious hatred. I think that new legislation should ASSUME that the motive for Blood Libel is religious hatred unless the accuser can prove otherwise!

4. Do you think those who are actively involved in publishing, spreading or distributing hate speech should be subject to criminal prosecution?

Yes. For tactical reasons I only targeted journalists and broadcasters, when I made my two complaints under the existing Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Act. I believe that fake "victims" should be jailed as well - ESPECIALLY those who lead "Victims" organisations which are or were, funded by the Government. (Note that Carl Beech in UK got 18 years in jail. He was not the only accuser in "Operation Midland" but he was the most prominent. He also accused Tory MPs of murdering non-existent boys which is UK equivalent of Irish "Murder of the Undead" claims!) See Wikipedia article on "Operation Midland"


5. Is there anything else important we should take into account as part of this review?

(A) I have a separate online article 
"Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland"

One of the false accusers is Pat Rabbitte who in 1994 used Dail Privilege to slander Cardinal Daly and Harry Whelehan and now leads child protection agency TUSLA. I think this is wrong.

(B) Finally I have an article on current Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan. I think that Minister Flanagan should request the Gardai to investigate the allegations he made in the Dail in 2009 against former Sister of Mercy Nora Wall (and those previously made by current EU Commissioner Phil Hogan who was Chair of FG Parliamentary Party at the time).
Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan Vs George Hook and Nora Wall

I may have forgotten to include the above link with my online submission. Please note I have another article on Charlie Flanagan alone.
Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [1]

END OF SUBMISSION TO DEPT. OF JUSTICE

CONCLUSION

I also contributed to Hermann Kelly's 2007 book "Kathy's Real Story: A Culture of False Allegations Exposed" which deals mainly with fake abuse "survivor" Kathy O'Beirne but also goes into the culture of hysteria that made her own book "Kathy's Story: A Childhood Hell Inside the Magdalen Laundries" into a best-seller in 2005. I contributed to the second part of Mr. Kelly's book and especially to the section he which he discusses claims that the Christian Brothers had been responsible for the deaths of boys in their care. Because many of these claims refer to periods when no boy died of ANY cause(!), I coined the phrase "Murder of the Undead". Since Hermann Kelly is more moderate than I, he uses the subheading "Funerals of the Undead"   in his discussion of this issue! 

NOTE: There is a 2010 article by Mark Smith (currently Professor of Social Work at University of Dundee) "Two book Reviews:  Kathy’s Real Story by Hermann Kelly and The Secret of Bryn Estyn by Richard Webster
The above-mentioned article "States of Fear, the Redress Board and Ireland's Folly" is an extract from Webster's book "The Secret of Bryn Estyn"

The Reason Why?
As to the overall meaning of all of this, Arnold J. Tonybee was a British historian and philosopher of history who is best known for his 12 volume work A Study of History (published 1934-1961) that "examined the rise and fall of 26 civilizations in the course of human history, and he concluded that they rose by responding successfully to challenges under the leadership of creative minorities composed of elite leaders". Challenges and responses were physical, as when the Sumerians exploited the intractable swamps of southern Iraq by organizing the Neolithic inhabitants into a society capable of carrying out large-scale irrigation projects; or social, as when the Catholic Church resolved the chaos of post-Roman Europe by enrolling the new Germanic kingdoms in a single religious community.

Tonybee saw the growth and decline of civilizations as a spiritual process, writing that "Man achieves civilization, not as a result of superior biological endowment or geographical environment, but as a response to a challenge in a situation of special difficulty which rouses him to make a hitherto unprecedented effort."

According to an Editor's Note in an edition of  A Study of History, Toynbee believed that societies always die from suicide or murder rather than from natural causes, and nearly always from suicide.  And I believe that is the stage our society has now reached!