Tom Humphries: Can an Employer Fire a Person who Gives a Character Reference for a Convicted Sex Offender?

David Walsh - Chief Sports Writer Sunday Times

Donal Og Cusack - former coach Clare Hurling Team

David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack were subjected to savage criticism in the media because they provided the court with character references for Tom Humphries after he had been convicted of having sex with a 16 year old girl. Cusack stepped down from his position as coach to the Clare senior hurling team while journalists demanded that the Sunday Times provide a statement regarding their chief sports journalist David Walsh. (The obvious idea was that the ST should fire him.)

The following is an extract from a discussion on the Politics.ie website

Originally posted by Prof Honeydew 24 October 2017

I gave a character reference once for a fella I knew both personally and from work. He asked me himself to put in a word for him. The prosecution made out he was a callous scheming criminal swindling grannies out of their savings but, from what I knew of him, it appeared he'd got out of his depth and started making stupid reckless decisions in the belief that everything would work itself out. I would have considered him a friend and I still do but he was one of these guys who'd jump into something without ever figuring out what he was getting into.

I asked his solicitor afterwards did my statement make any difference and he said it didn't. My mate got a stretch that was in the middle of the range his barrister had expected.

On another matter, I knew Tom Humphries a bit because I work in the same line of business. In my opinion, he was the best Irish sports writer I ever came across - original, observant, knowledgeable, colourful, good insight and easily the best stylist in a branch of literature which has developed cliche into an art form. And unlike many of the prima donnas who occasionally venture down to the sticks when there isn't a match that Sunday in Croke Park, he'd engage with the local grunts if asked. It wasn't all one-way with him in contrast to some others who'd milk you for local information and give nothing in return.

The level of vitriol being thrown at David Walsh is disturbing. He was always quite open about Humphries being a friend of his and hasn't jumped on him just to suit the storm whipped up by others in what is a very bitchy sector of the media. I can't say the same of Donal Og Cusack who, not for the first time, appears to have changed his tune so as not to derail his media image.

Reply by borntorum to Prof Honeydew

I agree with you that Humphries was a superb writer. However he had an increasing tendency towards self-indulgence, and the anti-rugby bigotry became really tiresome as the years went on.

I also agree that the vituperation heaped on Walsh is over the top. I suspect there’s a bit of schadenfraude involved from those journalists who might be jealous of the Walsh’s esteemed reputation (which he himself has not been slow to burnish)

Posted by Prof Honeydew 25 October 2017

I didn't contribute to this thread until yesterday. It came across as one of those where the facts didn't matter and, if they did, they were interpreted in such a way as to support whatever hangup monopolising the poster's view of the world. There isn't much point in adding to a discussion where everybody's mind is already made up.

Condemnation orgies are a fact of life on P.ie but this one took another turn when the theme moved on to denouncing those who provided  character references for Tom Humphries. That's going into guilt-by-association territory, the McCarthyism turned on anyone who doesn't fit in with the narrative decided by those dominating public comment. Much of it was based on a lack of understanding of the role character references play in the legal system.

As someone who actually supplied a character reference in a criminal case (and, no, I'm not someone famous or well-known), I posted what my experience of it was. As probably the only poster on this thread who knew him, I added my own impression of what dealings I had with Humphries in order to show why David Walsh may have held an opinion not quite in tune with the wolf-pack intent on demonising him.

Reply by Myself (AKA Kilbarry1) to Prof Honeydew

A general question. What would happen if a man lost his job because he provided such a character reference - a procedure that is provided for in Irish law? I would say he could be entitled to exemplary and punitive damages from the employer. But let's go a bit further.

Suppose a witness gives evidence in a highly controversial criminal case where the mob want the accused to be convicted - but this guy's evidence tends to exonerate the accused. (Let's take it for granted that his evidence is honest.) Suppose his employer then fires him.  In addition to punitive and exemplary damages in a CIVIL Court, the employer could find himself facing criminal charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice. And saying that "My customers hate this guy and insisted that I fire him" won't serve as a defence!

Could an employer face criminal charges for firing an employee who provides an honest character reference in court?  I'm not at all sure because a character reference is a lot less important than giving evidence under oath, but it's worth discussing the issue.

Reply by Gurdiev77 26 October 2017

The Icelandic government has recently been brought down by a similar circumstance. As I understand it, the PMs father wrote a character refence for a covicted paedophile. This apparently is part of the process of rehabilitaion after conviction in Iceland.

I dont know whether that relates only to sex crime or to all crime. But evidently the nation feels very strongly about it.

Reply by Me to Gurdiev77

One must always take public opinion into account and said opinion might go against the letter of the law. In this day and age, it wouldn't surprise me if a jury refused to convict an employer who fired a man who had given honest evidence in court. Because some jurors might be more concerned with virtue-signalling than applying the law!

There's a very interesting article on this subject in the Irish Times on 25 October quoting a leading barrister Michael O'Higgins SC. He said that giving a character reference in a criminal case is NOT an error of judgment, is  part of the court process and does NOT condone the actions of the accused.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/barrister-defends-use-of-court-references-after-humphries-case-1.3268178

Barrister defends use of court references after Humphries case

“You’re not in any way condoning the activity, you’re not in any way making any disparaging comment about the abused person, you’re not showing a lack of sympathy,” he told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland. “You’re simply highlighting one particular, one discrete aspect of the case, namely that the person has done other good things and a court is entitled to take that into consideration.

“There’s no error of judgment. You’re giving a view of a person in a very narrow and very well defined circumstances, you’re not in any way saying what they did was right, or correct, on the contrary.  “The idea that anyone would think that giving a reference is an error of judgment in circumstances where they are expressly indicating they’re not condoning the criminal behaviour, but simply pointing out other aspects of the person’s character, because character is a rounded thing, I think that’s grossly misconceived.” ........

“People who criticise references don’t understand the sentencing process which is that the prosecution outlines their case against the accused and its the function of the defence to highlight such points as may go to mitigating the sentence. “Of course, if you have an otherwise unblemished character, if you can point to good things that you might have otherwise done in your life, I pose the question rhetorically:What could be wrong about highlighting that?”

Mr O’Higgins expressed concern that people would not give references if they thought they were going to be “excoriated” for doing so. “There’s no question that a person would not want to give a reference in these circumstances if they’re going to be excoriated for it and if their action is going to be misinterpreted as in some way or other showing a lack of support for an abused child or showing some support for the actions of the abuser, but a reference doesn’t do either of those things.”

MY COMMENT: Perhaps it's time to launch a witch-hunt against Michael O'Higgins SC -  for telling inconvenient truths that the mob doesn't want to hear?

Perverting the course of Justice?

Originally Posted by GJG on 7 November 2017
Perhaps you don't realise that criminal charges can only flow from an offence against the criminal law. What statute are you referring to that you think is being breached?

Reply by Myself to GJG
I think I answered that above. Perverting the course of justice is a serious crime. I see from a UK website that this includes "intimidating or threatening a witness or juror in a case "

So an employer who fires an employee for giving honest evidence in a court case could be jailed e.g. the accused is unpopular with the public but the employee has witnessed the events and gives evidence that the accused is likely innocent. So the employer fires him in order to appease the mob who want the accused found guilty. I am almost certain that this would constitute the crime of attempting to pervert the course of justice and an employer could face prison time for doing that.

My main question relates to an employer who fires an employee because he gave an honest character reference for a person who had been convicted of a crime.  It's not the same thing as "intimidating or threatening a WITNESS". Would it come under the heading of "perverting the course of justice"? I don't know. The question is worth discussing in the light of the thuggish attacks on David Walsh and Donal Og Cusack - including obvious attempts to get the Sunday Times to fire David Walsh.

Further Reply by Myself to GJG
Perverting the course of justice seems to be an offence under common law rather than statute law. This is from an Irish Times report of an extradition  from Ireland to the UK involving someone accused of this offence.
Extradition granted to face charge of perverting course of justice
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/extradition-granted-to-face-charge-of-perverting-course-of-justice-1.769980

Counsel for the Minister [for Justice] said that if the same activity was carried out here, it would amount to the same offence as that contained in the warrant, that is, perverting the course of justice contrary to common law.

The IT report also indicates that the offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Presumably THAT would only come into play if an attempt was made to intimidate  a witness, juror or the judge himself. Maybe  a lesser penalty should apply to a criminal [employer] who ONLY tries to intimidate someone who supplied a character reference??

Reply to Me by fellow

It’s worth posing the question. However, neither Walsh nor Cusack gave evidence. They wrote letters and I wonder what the status of those is. The judge did take them into account.

Perverting the Course of Justice? [2]

Objections by GJG

....The statute in Ireland was incorporated in an act (not looking it up at this hour); it does remain a common law offence in the UK. In both, the offence is clearly limited to acts likely to influence the outcome of actual or potential legal action. An action that takes place after the legal action clearly cannot meet that test.

  So someone who threatens to fire an employee if they don't give the right evidence is clearly guilty. Someone who fires them without warning in pique afterwards is not. ....

 ........The key here is whether the employer did something with a view to influence the outcome of the trial. Actions post-trial might be evidence of the nature of pre-trial behaviour (firing someone might prove that an earlier threat was serious), but nothing after the trial can be an offence in this case.

 My Reply to GJG
This is from a UK website "Human Rights in Criminal Justice" and of course it refers to your normal witness in a trial - as distinct from a character witness like David Walsh or Donal Og Cusack. However it includes threats NOT intended to influence the course of the trial, made AFTER the trial, and threats made by persons other than the defendant. It may come under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the maximum sentence is 5 years so it's NOT the law relating to perverting the course of justice (for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment). It seems to envisage physical threats but I suspect that firing an employee because the employer didn't like his evidence could also come under this heading.

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-help/human-rights-in-criminal-justice

Freedom from witness intimidation
"Witness intimidation can have a significant effect on the course of a trial – however, any harm or intimidation visited upon a witness before, during or after trial is illegal. If you have been called as a witness and you do fear intimidation, the prosecution can apply to have your written statement serve as your testimony, preventing your need to appear in court before anyone who could intimidate you.

 "If it is found that intimidation was used by the defendant, or a party on behalf of the defendant, and the court accepts that this intimidation may have genuinely affected the outcome of the case, the court has the power to order a re-trial.

 "Intimidation isn’t always designed to affect the course of the trial – a defendant could attempt to intimidate a witness after a trial has ended, contacting them or following them once they leave prison, and sometimes even contacting them from inside.

 "The maximum penalty for witness intimidation is 5 years in jail, depending on the severity of the intimidation and the effect that it had on the outcome of a legal case."

 There are probably similar provisions in Irish law to protect the "normal" witness in a trial. In view of the hysteria promoted by the media, it might be a good idea to extend this protection to character witnesses also. Otherwise many people will be afraid to give this kind of testimony.

Tom Humphries and Paedophilia ??

Tom Humphries - Paedophile ??

It is very dangerous nowadays to point out certain very simple facts - including the fact that an adult who has sex with a 16 year old girl is NOT a paedophile. As per the Wikipedia definition:
"Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger."

On the other hand, "Ephebophilia" is the recognised term for "the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15 to 19".

I have been writing about false allegations of child abuse for many years now but every time I need to use the latter phrase, I have to look it up in Wikipedia or elsewhere. None of my friends has ever complimented me on my good memory but the main reason I can never recall the word is that the media are intent on demonising men who have sex with adolescents who are below the legal age of consent. But this age varies from country to country even within Europe - and in several European countries, Tom Humphries actions would not even be illegal!

I am no friend of Tom Humphries and I criticised him long before it became compulsory to do so. See my previous article "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria"

However what is now happening to him is wrong. Moreover the level of aggression and hysteria directed at Tom Humphries has ugly implications for anyone who works with children and increases the danger that such workers will be subjected to false allegations.

The following is from a discussion on the website politics.ie regarding Tom Humphries

The Meaning of Paedophilia [1]

Originally posted by Dame Enda on 27 October 2017
The correct term for what he did might be ephebophilia. Paedophilia is when the victim is prepubescent.

My Reply [as Kilbarry1] to Dame Enda
Good point. I have posted similar comments a few times over the years but every time I have to go to the dictionary to check the word. Sex with a 16 year old is not paedophilia. I think some European countries still have 14 as the age of consent or had so until fairly recently. This is from the Wikipedia article on Ephebophilia

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction.
In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children. However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development [My emphasis]

Wiki makes it sound as though "the general public" may simply be misinformed. In fact their "ignorance" has been stoked by thuggish journalists intent on whipping up hysteria. (I bet the journalists themselves are well aware of the difference.)

Reply to Me by Lumpy Talbot
You can call it what you like but a fifty year old man grooming 14 year old girls for sex is not really something that should spark a discussion of terminology.

The judge in this case had better hope that when this man is released- in what seems likely to be a very short time considering the crime- that such a man with not even a reputation to protect from here on doesn't re-offend in short order.

Reply to Me by darkhorse
The generic term describing sex between a 50+ year old man and a 14 year old girl is paedophilia. Of course there are variants within that but that is the general term describing the events.

The meaning of Paedophilia [2]

My reply to Dark Horse
From the Wikipedia article on Pedophilia [American spelling]
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,  criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse are sometimes pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children.

The age of consent in Sweden is 15. In Denmark it is the same.  In the Slovak Republic it is also 15. In Spain it is 16 but was 13 prior to 2015. In Norway it is 16. In Portugal it is 14 subject to certain limitations. In Italy it is also 14.

Regarding Ireland the Wiki article on Age of Consent comments:
The age of consent in Ireland is 17, in relation to vaginal, oral, or anal sex, and vaginal or anal penetration. This gives it one of the highest ages of consent in the European Union.

Not quite the highest however, because in Malta the age of consent is 18.

Tom Humphries pleaded guilty to having sex with a 16 year old didn't he? This would never be categorised as paedophilia in ANY circumstances. In several European countries it would not even be illegal.

Reply to me by Wagmore
Listen mate- you should have a good chat with yourself. Humphries was a middle aged obese slob who groomed a young teen. It's been reported that one of his many txts requested her to "be my whore." Nothing to see here? Is that the type of country you want to live in? Count me out

The Meaning of Paedophilia [3]

My post of 27 October 2017
Since SWEDEN is often seen as some kind of liberal paradise, I will quote a few interesting snippets from the Wiki article on Ages of Consent in Europe

...Pornography laws were softened in the 1960s. In 1965 there was a review of previous laws governing pornography depicting children as part of the "child's rights to sexuality". From 1971 to 1980 it was legal to buy, sell, and possess child pornography that featured children as young as 10 or 11.....

AND AGAIN:

....The Swedish age of consent [i.e. 15] also applies if the act takes place outside Sweden but the elder person later goes to Sweden. The elder person doesn't have to be a Swedish citizen or resident, but could be a tourist on a temporary visit. This is regardless of the age of consent in the country where the act took place...

And no, having sex with a 15 year old is NOT paedophilia either but if people  want to get hysterical about this kind of thing, they should really be targeting the Swedes!

Reply to me by Ellie08
Kilbarry what is your point here? This is about Ireland, and something that happened here. Stop deflecting it with what the Swedes do or do not. It looks like you're trying to make the point that is is ok by pointing to some other countries laws on this. This is Ireland, and aren't you a brother or ex brother? Surely you should be more interested in Canon law than Swedish law.

Reply to me by darkhorse

Never mind Sweden this is Ireland
We DONT legalise child sex

My reply to ellie08

Sorry it's late at night and I find it difficult to answer in a short space. There is gross and obscene hysteria about child sex abuse in Ireland and everywhere else. It is partly a reaction from the Sex Revolution of the 1960s and 70s - child pornography was legalised in Denmark as well as Sweden, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) achieved semi-official status in the UK and in Ireland anyone who spoke out in favour of traditional values was routinely sneered at. John Cooney was religious affairs correspondent in the Irish Times at that time and later produced a biography of John Charles McQuaid containing allegations of paedophilia so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed.

The same people who launched the anything-goes Sex Revolution are now getting hysterical about child abuse - and they can see no contradiction. It was Mary Whitehouse who opposed the PIE and British civil rights and gay liberation groups that supported them! "Liberals" seem to lack any kind of self-knowledge and rocket from one lunatic extreme to the other. I could write more but that will have to do for the time being.

And incidentally I personally was criticising Tom Humphries long before it became compulsory to do so!
TOM HUMPHRIES, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND CHILD ABUSE HYSTERIA
My article concluded as follows:
"Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted."

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [1]

Originally Posted by petaljam 

More to the point though, if you think a support from a poster who consistently supports child abusers is welcome in making a case defending other alleged sex abusers, that really is your own problem, but I can confidently predict that it won't strengthen that case in any normal person's mind.

When he regularly defends child rapists, how could anyone imagine he wouldn't support the alleged rapists of adult women?

Reply by talkingshop 
That's a fairly appalling thing to say about a poster - Kilbarry, I assume?

Reply by myself to petaljam and talkingshop
I saw this exchange some time ago while I was preparing to post on the thread about Mary McAleese. Then I had to go out. I suppose I should have reacted more quickly but I have experienced this kind of thing so often over the years that it doesn't mean much. I remember George Orwell commenting about 1940 that the word "Fascist" no longer signifies anything except that the speaker disagrees with someone else. [I think Orwell wrote  that in an essay called "Politics and the English Language"]. Much the same applies nowadays with calling a person a supporter of rape or child abuse!

The people who do MOST to protect rapists and child abusers are those who make false accusations and I have posted some examples on my blog
"Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ?[1]

In the end the public will become cynical and disbelieve ALL accusers - including those who are telling the truth!

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Reply by petaljam
Well, actually IMO those are the people who do third or fourth most to protect them.
The ones who do the most are those who actively cover up for real abusers. Then there are those who know of abuse and possibly of a cover up, but still choose not to get involved by corroborating allegations that they know to be plausible.

Only after those groups is it reasonable to put people making false accusations - and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones.

Response by myself

"and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones."

You didn't even bother to read the article did you? I refer to SEVEN false allegations. In five cases the accuser was convicted and jailed, in the other two, the accusers admitted that they had lied. (One of the latter was a conscience case - her lie would never have been exposed otherwise; the second was a thug who had already been discredited).

I have a follow-up article to the above. It concerns someone like yourself who made a reckless statement without bothering to consider the evidence (and "reckless" is putting it charitably where this gentleman is concerned.)
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ? [2]

Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria

Tom Humphries

Several years ago I criticised Tom Humphries myself - at a time before it became compulsory to do so - and curiously enough the issue was the hysteria surrounding the topic of child abuse. Having contributed to the hysteria, he has now fallen victim himself. And no I am not saying he is innocent but the savage attacks on him are disproportionate - and they have also extended to the two men who supplied character references to the court. This procedure is recognised in Irish law but the media mob are now demanding that they be fired from their jobs for this supposed "offence".

The  article on my website entitled "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse" is dated 19 April 2011 but refers back to events a decade earlier. On 9th May 2000 Humphries wrote an article in the Irish Times reflecting on his time spent as a schoolboy  in St Joseph's Christian Brothers School in Dublin. He wrote:
 "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

Replying on 12th May, a deputy head of the Christian Brothers,  Brother Michael Murray wrote:

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years. This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

My comment of April 2011 is still valid i.e.
Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted.

The following are the texts of two letters published in the Irish Times in May 2000. I have also added the text of a previous letter from the Christian Brothers dated 9 October 1999 with an accompanying   apology from the editor of the Irish Times. I'm sure it was as sincere as his apology of 15 May 2000!

The Christian Brothers

Irish Times, May 15, 2000

Sir, - Reflecting on his time spent in St Jospeh's CBS, Fairview, Dublin, Tom Humphries states (EL, May 9th): "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years.

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

One mush ask how such misinformation can be published by a reputable newspaper. - Yours, etc.,

Br Michael Murray, Deputy Leader, St Helen's Province, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

Br Murray is correct and the error is regretted. The cases of a number of other Christian Brothers are pending in the courts and their appearances have been for charge or remand. All defendants have denied the charges. - Ed., IT.


Irish Times, May 18, 2000

A chara, - May I take issue with the article (EL, May 9th) by Tom Humphries on the Christian Brothers, and in particular the Brothers in St Joseph's, Fairview?

I also was at school at St Joseph's (1924-1930). During those six years I never ever saw any of the violent treatment that Tom Humphries talks about, nor ever was there the slightest whiff or whisper of anything unseemly on the part of the Brothers.

If I were not to write the above I would fail badly in the debt I, and so many others, owe the Brothers for their dedication and self-sacrifice. - Is mise,

Fr Tom Ingoldsby SDB, Salesian House, Ballinakill, Portlaoise.

The response of the editor of the Irish Times on 15 May 2000 is reminiscent of his response when the Christian Brothers pointed out another "mistake" in an IT report several months previously. On THAT occasion the "mistake" related to a report of two boys who allegedly died after having being punched in the stomach by a Christian Brother! 

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AT ARTANE

Letter to Irish Times, 9 October 1999

SIR, - The Christian Brothers note with deep regret and disbelief the seriously misleading article by Patsy McGarry, "Artane Boys faced the music - and straps" (The Irish Times, September 25th). The main source for the story seems to be Mr. Patrick Walsh, a former resident of Artane Industrial School.

 Mr. McGarry made no attempt to check his story with the Christian Brothers. The article refers to boys arriving at the infirmary "clutching their stomachs after being punched by Christian Brothers". In this context Patrick Walsh is quoted as saying that he “recalled two funerals of boys who had been rushed to the Mater Hospital with ‘acute appendicitis’"”.

 It is outrageous that an award winning journalist should include such extremely serious assertions in an article in The Irish Times without even bothering to check the facts. The implication is that the boys who were beaten and seriously injured by the Brothers were then dispatched to hospital where they died. The use of quotation marks around the words "acute appendicitis" seems to imply that the boys died from some other cause. The fact of the matter is that no boy resident in Artane died while Patrick Walsh was there.

 The article also refers to records showing that Patrick Walsh was detained in the infirmary five times between October 1963 and October 1964, “each following severe beatings”. No doubt the reference to records and the inclusion of definite dates are meant to show the authenticity of the story. One would have to ask however if Patsy McGarry has checked these records. In fact the records for Artane Industrial School show that Patrick Walsh was never admitted to the infirmary during that period.

 Your correspondent, and you as Editor, must surely be aware of the Government commission (May 1999) into childhood abuse in reformatory and industrial schools and other places. It is astonishing, therefore, that such an irresponsible and misleading article has been published by The Irish Times. We would ask you please to set the record straight.

 Yours, etc.

Brother J.K. Mullan
 Province Leader
 Christian Brothers Provincialate,
 Cluain Mhuire,
 North Circular Road,
 Dublin 7.

RESPONSE BY IRISH TIMES EDITOR
9 October 1999
A procedural oversight occurred as a result of which Mr. Walsh's allegations were not put to the Christian Brothers in advance of publication.

 A further error took place in citing Mr. Walsh's dates of admission to the infirmary. Artane records show that he was admitted four times between October 1964 and October 1965.

 The Irish Times is happy to put this clarifying information from the Christian Brothers on the public record. The errors are very much regretted.  Ed, IT.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan Vs George Hook and Nora Wall

Minister for Justice and Equality Charlie Flanagan

Former Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan (now EU Commissioner for Agriculture)

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [1]

Is this thread [on Politics.ie] coming to an end? Rather than let it go quietly into the night let's try for a final summary. My own summary relates to

(1) Minister for Justice and Equality  Charlie Flanagan
(2) Feminist activist Fiona Doyle AND
(3) Fintan O'Toole

all of whom have condemned George Hook and ALL of whom have made far more outrageous statements in the past and got away scot-free. I have recently referred to Fiona Doyle and Fintan O'Toole but my several comments on our beloved Minister for Justice are about 3,000 posts ago. However I have summarised them in three articles on my blog and here is the first article

For convenience I am including a passage from the above-mentioned article. I am quoting our current Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan speaking in the Dail on 8 July 2009 during the debate on the Institutional Abuse Bill. At the time Charlie Flanagan was an ordinary Fine Gael TD but subsequently became Minister for Children(!) and then Foreign Affairs before receiving the Justice and Equality portfolio.

........."While I do not have time to speak in detail about the Louise O’Keeffe case, I wish to speak about another woman, namely, Nora Wall. Nora Wall has hardly been mentioned in the debate on the Ryan report. She became something of a heroine for those who mistrust the Irish courts when her conviction for rape was overturned in 1999. Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper:

 'The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies.'

 "Mr. Myers would do well to read the description of “poor Nora Wall” in the Ryan report. Nora Wall does not deserve the plaudits that have been directed her way since her conviction for rape was overturned. While her case may have collapsed, the Ryan report reveals graphically that Nora Wall was no saint. She exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care centre which was in her charge. She entertained past pupils and student priests in the home and allowed them to stay overnight. A witness stated that much drinking took place at these gatherings.

"There is more to this than meets the eye in respect of these social events. It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. One must bear in mind that Mount Melleray was selected by the notorious paedophile, Fr. Brendan Smith, as a holiday destination or as a haven to which to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue must be revisited" [My emphasis]

. 

FINAL (?) SUMMARY: Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Nora Wall and George Hook [2]

So Charlie Flanagan - as a TD in 2009 - repeated the kind of lie about Nora Wall, for which she had received a libel settlement from the Sunday World several years before. It is possible that Charlie Flanagan TD did not know about the libel case as it was ignored by almost all of the Irish media (Phoenix Magazine was the only exception I think). But he certainly did know that a TD cannot be sued for what he says in the Dail!

Subsequent to this atrocious allegation Charlie Flanagan became Minister for Children, Minister for Foreign Affairs and is now Minister for Justice and Equality. Was George Hook's offence worse than Charlie Flanagan's??

Reply To Me by'Owedtojoy'

Of course it was not worse.  But that does not put George Hook in the right. Setting up dozens of fake "What abouts" is a bizarre defence. Multiple wrongs do not make something right, though it might help with the context. Flanagan wrong does not equal Hook right.

I support investigation of all past paedophilia accusations, but I also think Hook's remarks were unacceptable for a professional broadcaster.

I am glad he has not been fired, and hope that when he returns to the airwaves, he is chastened and more balanced in his discourse on sensitive subjects.

My Reply to 'Owedtojoy' (regarding Phil Hogan)

I could indeed have set up dozens of "what-abouts" and they would not have been fake. The "context" that you mention is vital and not just a side issue as you seem to suggest. It is clear that people who are regarded as Politically Correct will be allowed to get away with any kind of lunatic lie whereas persons regarded as right-wing will be savagely criticised and hounded from their jobs.

In my Blog article and above I mentioned that Charlie Flanagan was the SECOND politician to slander Nora Wall. I didn't go into detail about the first because I am not aware that he denounced George Hook. However you can read all about him here - Irish Times article on 25 April 2002

"TD Cites Retired Official in Child Sex Abuse Allegations"

It was then Chairman of Fine Gael Phil Hogan TD and his allegations involved a paedophile ring, convicted murderer Malcolm McArthur, an unnamed senior official in Dept of Education as well as Nora Wall. Also children being tortured and forced to have sex with animals. Extremely lurid stuff - even more so than Charlie Flanagan in 2009 BUT Phil Hogan is not Minister for Justice and Equality today and I don't think he denounced George Hook. (Perhaps as European Commissioner for Agriculture he doesn't see any political advantage in so doing?)

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, Phil Hogan and Nora Wall

The allegations made by Charlie Flanagan and Phil Hogan are also discussed on the Nora Wall thread
on  Politics.ie

Incidentally Nora Wall successfully sued the Sunday World for similar atrocious allegations. She succeeded in her claim for an apology and damages in October 2002. This was 6 months AFTER Phil Hogan's Dail allegations.

However even if she had succeeded 6 months before, I don't suppose it would have made any difference. Phil Hogan knew he could not be sued for anything he said in the Dail!

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan and Former FG Chair Phil Hogan
Well this thread seems to have reached a conclusion now and I have done a final (?) summary on my Blog. [I am referring to this article!]

Let us suppose that during the 1950s, these kind of obscene allegations had been directed by senior members of Fianna Fail against a Protestant or Jewish woman. We would be hearing about it still with journalists claiming that they revealed the truly fascistic character of "The Age of de Valera" (and of his friend John Charles McQuaid). The claims  were in fact made by members of Fine Gael in 2002 and 2009 - respectively
(a) the then Chairman of the Fine Gael party (and current EU Commissioner for Agriculture) AND
(b) the man who is currently Minister for Justice and Equality (!!)

The allegations have been ignored by the media - no calls for an investigation of the criminal accusations OR of the people who made them.

So does this tell us anything about the nature of Fine Gael today or of modern Ireland?

Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops

Fintan O'Toole

Archbishop Eamon Martin (Catholic) and Richard Clarke (Anglican)

Fintan O'Toole "columnist, literary editor and drama critic for the Irish Times" is described by Wikipedia as having "generally left-wing views" which is a curious way of putting it and might suggest that he occasionally expresses viewpoints that stray from the strictly orthodox. This is not correct!

The following is from a discussion on the politics.ie website regarding George Hook Note that the two Archbishops I refer to in the title, are John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973 and the current Church of Ireland Primate Richard Clarke. (For obvious reasons, there is no photo of those two  standing side by side but I'm sure that, given the opportunity, Fintan O'Toole would write a kindly review of a book that slandered Archbishop Eamon Martin!)

In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy")
Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:
What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes

O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!


Fintan O'Toole and Believing Lies

Original Post by Surkov
There is a piece on this by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times where he lambasts Newstalk. In his mind, he seems to imagine that the entire organisation is corrupt, hateful, etc. As though some cancer of hate had metasticised to an horrific extent.

Admittedly I don't listen to it all that much, but Newstalk seems pretty standard fare to me. Why does FOT hate it so much? Did they do something to him in the past that made it personal for him

Reply by Kilbarry1
I don't know the specifics of why Fintan O'Toole hates Newstalk. I have his article in front of me now and it is indeed grossly over the top.  One clue as to his attitude. In 1999 John Cooney former Religious Affairs correspondent for the IT (and future one for the Indo) published a biography of John Charles McQuaid that depicted him as a homosexual paedophile. The allegations were panned by every historian who reviewed the book and by ALMOST every journalist. (Guess who was the exception.) Reviewers who praised the remainder of the book said that Cooney should have omitted the Paedo claims. Most anti-clerics were annoyed and embarrassed; I recall one guy who REGRETTED that the accusation might create sympathy for the late Archbishop!

The exception was of course Fintan O'Toole. Not that he exactly believed the claims but he WANTED to believe them. The article entitled "Cooney Has At Least Posed Right Question" was published in the Irish Times on 26 November 1999.
"...   In the midst of the recent controversy over the allegations in John Cooney's new book that John Charles McQuaid had an unhealthy sexual interest in young boys, I began to interrogate that old memory. Was it just an innocent encounter with a nice old man who was privately more at ease with children than his stern public demeanour would suggest? Or must all such memories now be lit with the sinister glow of corruption?

The answer, tentative and paradoxical though it must be, is probably "yes" in both cases. Certainly, John Cooney's suggestions are not backed by anything approaching an acceptable level of historical evidence. But at the same time anyone reading another book published this week has to acknowledge that everything we know about the history of the State has to be re-examined from the bleak perspective of its most vulnerable children." [The book was "Suffer the Little Children" by Mary Raftery]   .........

"Speculating about the nature of John Charles McQuaid's sexuality, as John Cooney does, may not be the right answer. But John Cooney at least managed, as no historian has done, to pose the right question. ....."

O'Toole's thuggish desire to believe lies because those lies would depict his enemies in a bad light, may throw some light on his  rant in today's IT!

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop Richard Clarke

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness.

The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. ......

It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook??

Also his article is on the same page as Fintan O'Toole's preposterous one "Why I Won't be Appearing on Newstalk any more." It functions as a kind of response to O'Toole's rant!
NOTE: See Post #1835 concerning Fintan O'Toole vs a different Archbishop!

Newstalk Managing Editor Patricia Monahan Replies to Fintan O’Toole

However I see that Newstalk managing editor Patricia Monahan replied to Fintan O’Toole on 16 September in an article entitled All who work in Newstalk subject of outrageously unfair attack

Among the points she makes are:

....... O’Toole chose to ignore several salient facts, most importantly the number of women employed by the station and their impact on the daily output. Would it not have been worth mentioning that I as a woman, am Newstalk’s managing editor, that the chairperson of our group is a woman, or that our head of news is a woman? At Newstalk, the majority of our production staff are women. As editor, I am the final decision-maker on all editorial matters and have responsibility for content produced by the station across all platforms. But my work apparently deserves no recognition because I am not a presenter. Do I not qualify as female representation because my voice is not heard on-air? ....

Does [Fintan O'Toole] conclude that we are all party to a concerted effort by the station to “keep women presenters off the airwaves” and that I as the principal editorial decision-maker proactively restructured the schedule to do just that in a “highly conscious” manner? .....

As a commercial station in Newstalk we fight for audience share in every quarter hour of every day, as if our lives depend on it. And the truth is, our livelihoods do. That is the commercial reality of our business. Almost €40 million has been invested in Newstalk in a media landscape where the State-owned broadcaster is given the lion’s share of the €330 million collected in television licence fees. We don’t have the luxury of hiring men or women because it is the politically correct thing to do. We make decisions that make sense for the business....

And Finally:
One is only left to wonder why he never bothered to tell anyone at Newstalk how “flagrantly . . . and systematically sexist” the station was on any of his visits to our studios. [My emphasis]

The last point is the key one. Fintan O'Toole joined a lynch mob BECAUSE it was a lynch mob.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall [1]

Minister for Justice and Equality (!) Charlie Flanagan

I posted a number of times on this issue on the Politics.ie website. These are my first  two posts.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan has condemned George Hook, called his comments "dangerous and disrespectful and said they should be withdrawn.  This is what Charlie Flanagan had to say in 2009 about a former nun Nora Wall who was falsely accused of raping a child. In 2016 when I quoted his words, Flanagan was Minister for Foreign Affairs and had previously been Minister for Children! I am quoting from a thread on Nora Wall

QUOTE
The SECOND politician who slandered Nora Wall is Charles Flanagan, also Fine Gael, also a man who has held ministerial posts (currently Minister for Foreign Affairs and previously Minister for Children)! This is part of what he said on 8 July 2009 during the debate on the Institutional Abuse Bill

While I do not have time to speak in detail about the Louise O’Keeffe case, I wish to speak about another woman, namely, Nora Wall. Nora Wall has hardly been mentioned in the debate on the Ryan report. She became something of a heroine for those who mistrust the Irish courts when her conviction for rape was overturned in 1999. Since her conviction was overturned, she has been portrayed as an heroic martyr in many quarters with references to witch hunts and witch trials abounding. Six weeks ago, the columnist Kevin Myers wrote in a national newspaper:

"The liberal-left lynch mob that went after poor Nora Wall a decade ago was prepared to destroy her life on the basis of lies."

Mr. Myers would do well to read the description of “poor Nora Wall” in the Ryan report. Nora Wall does not deserve the plaudits that have been directed her way since her conviction for rape was overturned. While her case may have collapsed, the Ryan report reveals graphically that Nora Wall was no saint. She exposed the children in her care to unacceptable risks by allowing male outsiders to stay overnight at the Cappoquin care centre which was in her charge. She entertained past pupils and student priests in the home and allowed them to stay overnight. A witness stated that much drinking took place at these gatherings.

There is more to this than meets the eye in respect of these social events. It has been suggested that there were frequent visits to the Cappoquin home by some clergy from Mount Melleray Abbey. Access to children may have been a key motivation for these visits. One must bear in mind that Mount Melleray was selected by the notorious paedophile, Fr. Brendan Smith, as a holiday destination or as a haven to which to escape when he was on the run from the authorities in Northern Ireland. This issue must be revisited.
ENDOFQUOTE

NOTE today 10/09/17
Do you think that Justice Minister Flanagan should be asked to withdraw his comments or else resign? Do you think a man like that has any right to condemn George Hook?

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan, George Hook and Nora Wall (b)

The media don't seem to have done much to follow up on the then Deputy Flanagan's sensational allegations in 2009. They just reported them (I don't think you can be sued for libel for just reporting what was said in the Dail.) The reason our journalists did not ELABORATE on Flanagan's obscene claims is that Nora Wall had already successfully sued the Sunday World for publishing similar claims. This is another extract from the thread on Nora Wall  

Updated Link to Politics.ie thread: Nora Wall Claims Damages against State for False Rape Conviction [page 4] 

QUOTE
In other words Flanagan repeated the libel published by the Sunday World in 1999 for what they had to apologise and pay damages to Nora Wall in 2002. Details of the libel and the Sunday Wurst apology (reported in Phoenix Magazine) are here  

and to give an example of the nature of the article

Rape Nun's Abuse Pact with Smyth

Exclusive by PAUL WILLIAMS

EVIL NUN Nora Wall, convicted for helping to rape a ten-year-old child, also secretly provided children for sick paedophile priest Father Brendan Smyth.

The Sunday World has learned that depraved cleric regularly visited St. Michael's Childcare Centre in County Waterford where Wall, then known as Sister Dominic, was working.  Last month Wall was the first woman to be convicted of rape in Ireland .......

The conviction of Nora Wall (and Pablo McCabe) in 1999 quickly collapsed when their two accusers gave an interview to the Daily Star who published their names for the first time and it quickly became apparent that the two accusers were serial rape liars. (One of their previous victims read the Star article and contacted Nora Wall's family.) HOWEVER the allegation made by the Sunday World - about her supplying children to Fr Brendan Smyth did NOT figure in her trial i.e. the Sunday World just invented it on the basis that a person convicted of rape could not sue for libel. (They were then caught out when the conviction collapsed.)

So where did our current Minister for Foreign Affairs (and past Minister for Children) get his information? "It has been suggested" he said in the Dail. WHO suggested it apart from the Sunday World? Did Charlie Flanagan repeat this claim outside of the Dail? Did he go to the Gardai and demand an investigation? If not why not?
ENDOFQUOTE

CURRENT COMMENT: As Flanagan is now Minister for Justice  the above question is even more relevant than when he was a mere TD or even Minister for Foreign Affairs!

Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church

Pope Pius XII and Adolf Hitler 

The following are extracts from a discussion on the Politics.ie website on the topic of Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church. The name of the topic may appear to be strange but in fact Nazi Germany in the 1930s made allegations of child abuse a major theme of their propaganda against the Catholic Church in Germany.

Quotations are from Richard Evans, "The Third Reich in Power", Michael Burleigh, "Sacred Causes 
: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda" AND from the man himself "Hitler's Table Talk" as noted mainly by Martin Bormann.

John Gray

Saturday 28 October 2006 23.45 BST

• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares

2

 Save for later

Among other things, I was debating with a contributor,  "LongLiberal" who described the Catholic Church as "this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation". I pointed out that apart from the word "Nazi", his description could have come straight out of Julius Streicher's  anti-Semitic rants in Der Sturmer. Streicher also accused the Jews of murdering children - allegations that were identical to those made by Irish journalists (and at least one politician) against Catholic priests, nuns and brothers. Anyway my discussion with this particular "liberal" concluded as follows:

Regarding your quotations from "Mein Kamph" and Hitler's public speeches, do you understand that the book "Hitler's Table Talk" consists of officially recorded notes of his private conversations with his confidantes at the dinner table during the years 1941 - 44. (Martin Bormann was one of the note-takers.) These represent proof of Hitler's REAL views. Regarding his PUBLIC statements - he made an awful lot about his desire for peace; do you believe those?

Rory Connor

2 August 2016

Politics.ie History Forum: "Nazis, The Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

5th January 2012, 11:22 AM

Seanie Lemass 

Nazis, the Catholic Church and sexual abuse.

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.

First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

6th January 2012, 07:19 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Abuse, the Nazis and the Catholic Church

The following is from a previous post of mine on the History Forum
Nazis vs Catholic paedophiles

CHILD ABUSE, THE NAZIS AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

The following is an extract from Michael Burleigh's book 'Sacred Causes: Religion and Politics from the European Dictators to Al Qaeda'. Burleigh is a leading historian who has taught at Oxford, the London School of Economics etc. His book explores the attitude of the churches to totalitarian dictatorships and the attitude of such dictators as Hitler and Stalin to the Catholic Church in particular.

"[In Nazi Germany in the 1930s] the state used various forms of chicanery to close Catholic homes and institutions. These ranged from adversely changing their charitable tax status to using the Gestapo to suborn children to make accusations of sexual abuse against those in charge of them.

"Between September 1933 and March 1937 [the Vatican] secretary of State Pacelli signed over 70 notes and memoranda protesting against Nazi violations of the Concordat [1]. The Nazis almost immediately began chipping away at the autonomy of Catholic lay organisations which had apparently been secured by the Concordat..........

"In the mid-1930s these various measures were given a more vicious accent by Government sponsored campaigns involving those old standbys of money and sex. ......Well publicised investigations into these currency violations in turn triggered denunciation of the Catholic clergy for mostly homosexual but also paedophile offences. Between May 1936 and July 1937 there were 270 prosecutions of such men, of whom 170 monks and 64 priests were convicted. A major trial was held in Koblenz in May 1936 which resulted in the conviction of past and present members of a lay nursing order, most of the evidence coming from a former member of the order who had joined the SD [SS Security Service]. The intervening Olympic Games led Hitler to drop further trials, which were resumed with a vengeance after Pius XI's encyclical 'Mit Brennender Sorge' was released in early 1937. 

Hitler immediately the Ministry of Justice to give priority to these 'morality trials'. The Ministry of Propaganda urged the press to treat these trials as evidence of pervasive perversity within the Catholic Church. The press, and caricaturists in particular, had a field day with illicit intimacies in the confessionals or tubby monks whose capacious cassocks concealed several pairs of dainty feet. That summer Nazi publications also attacked secretary of state Pacelli, accusing him of using a visit to Liseux in France to organise the 'moral encirclement' of Germany with the aid of 'friends' in the French Communist Party who were shown holding his cloak. [2] ......

"Tendentious reporting [3] of a small number of sex crimes (involving mainly lay staff) in Catholic boarding schools or religious houses enabled members of the Government to claim that the Catholic Church was awash with sex fiends. There were few holds barred in gathering the evidence, which involved the SD and Gestapo interviewing disgruntled religious drop-outs, ex-pupils and orphans, with offers of sweets alternating with a head bashed into a wall or the threat of concentration camp to secure the appropriate testimony. On this basis minister for the Churches Kerrl could claim that 7,000 clergy had been convicted of sex crimes between 1933 and 1937, whereas the true figure seems to have been 170, of whom many had left the religious life prior to their convictions. The deliberate inflation of statistics was a favoured Nazi device for ramping up hysteria [3], as they would do in 1939 when they turned 5,000 ethnic German victims of the Poles whose country the Nazis had invaded into '50,000'. There was no reporting of similar sexual transgressions involving members of Nazi formations."

The above extract is from Chapter 3, sub-section 111 of Burleigh's book, the part entitled 'The Catholic Church and German National Socialism'.

Notes:
[1] This is Eugenio Pacelli, who became Pope Pius XII in 1939. According to John Cornwell (and other 'liberal' commentators) he was 'Hitler's Pope'. (Cornwell's book of that name was published in 2000).

[2] So the Nazis accused the future Pope Pius XII of being a friend of Communists whereas 'liberals' accuse him of being soft on Nazis! I recall that George Orwell once said that Nazis and Communists have more in common with each other than either has with a democrat!

[3] Regarding "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria" the following quotation from Hermann Kelly's book 'Kathy's Real Story' is relevant. The author is talking about the use of the term 'paedophile priest' by the media in Ireland.

"According to Michael J. Breen (Studies Autumn 2000) this phrase was used 332 times in The Irish Times between August 1993 and August 2000. The 'paedophile priest' term comes up 265 times in The Irish Times archive between January 1996 - August 2007, yet the terms 'paedophile farmer', 'paedophile lawyer', 'paedophile teacher' or 'paedophile journalist' never occurs." (page 148/149).

As per George Orwell, The Irish Times has more in common with Nazi propagandists than it has with the Catholic Church ......

  

6th January 2012, 07:52 PM

Kilbarry1 

Goebbels and the Pedophile Priests Operation

I'm heading out now but my comment above on the old thread was a response to the following comment by "Brenny"

QUOTE:
I thought this might be of interest to anyone curious about the history of child abuse in Catholic Europe. Many have wondered if and when did anyone ever try to tackle the problem in the past. Was any government ever virtuous enough to face down the power of the Catholic Church over this issue?

Well it seems there was, the good old National Socialists of 1930s Germany. [My emphasis]The author of the following article attacks the old master of propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, but the whole article itself is tinged with propaganda and spin and seeks to subtly equate opponents of the church with nazism. At the same time many members of the German clergy were strong opponents of the nazis and that is pointed out here and should be acknowledged, but many will feel that Pope Pius was not as opposed to Nazism as he could and should have been.
Goebbels and the pedophile priests operation, by Massimo Introvigne

In 1937 the Nazi propaganda minister organized a campaign to discredit the Catholic Church in response to the encyclical ‘Mit brennender Sorge.’ The head of the German military’s counter-espionage unit, Wilhelm Canaris, passed the documents to Pius XII.

“There are cases of sexual abuse that come to light every day against a large number of members of the Catholic clergy. Unfortunately it’s not a matter of individual cases, but a collective moral crisis that perhaps the cultural history of humanity has never before known with such a frightening and disconcerting dimension. Numerous priests and religious have confessed. There’s no doubt that the thousands of cases which have come to the attention of the justice system represent only a small fraction of the true total, given that many molesters have been covered and hidden by the hierarchy.”

An editorial from a great secular newspaper in 2010? No: It’s a speech of May 28, 1937, by Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945), Minister of Propaganda for the Third Reich. This speech, which had a large international echo, was the apex of a campaign launched by the Nazi regime to discredit the Catholic Church by involving it in a scandal of pedophile priests.

Two hundred and seventy-six religious and forty-nine diocesan priests were arrested in 1937. The arrests took place in all the German dioceses, in order to keep the scandals on the front pages of the newspapers.
ENDOFQUOTE

6th January 2012, 08:39 PMbetween the bridges 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.
First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

Godwin’s in the first post? Well to continue the theme been a member of the hilter youth didn’t effect a certain Roman Catholics cleric’s career…

o                                              

Nec Aspera Terrent..Is Tuaisceart-Éireannach mé. Má tá meas agat ar mo chultúr, beidh meas agam ar do chultúr.

6th January 2012, 09:10 PM

harshreality 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

You are missing the point. It is in the history forum as there is a valid comparison in my opinion to be made between the manner in which the Nazis exagerrated the extent of Catholic clercial abuse and the manner in which a similar exagerration of recent abuse has been used as a stick with which to beat it. Both ideologically motivated.

That is not to excuse the abuse of children by Catholic clerics which like all such abuse by whoever is inexcusable. 

Liberator_Rev, I take it that is your own anti-Papist website you refer to! Himmler as a Catholic??? Eh. I don't think so. Perhaps you ought to read the biography someone references above. I also note that your section on the Inquisition relieson 19th century anti catholic historians rather than primary research based studies which undermine the myths about that episode in history.

Yes they treated the Catholic church so badly that the same Catholic church saw fit to assist wanted SS members to escape via a well established and and well used escape route.

o                                              

Liberator_Rev likes this.

6th January 2012, 09:20 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

Was reading Richard Evans The Third Reich in Power which has interesting material on how the Nazis treated the Catholic Church.
First of all it is clear that the Catholics (and the Catholic Centre Party) were regarded after the Communists and Socialists as the main opposition and the main targets of bringing the whole of German society under totalitarian control. One third of Catholic priests were imprisoned by the regime. 

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression.

Are there parallels in this country? Are the instances of child sexual abuse by Catholic clerics which appear to be no higher than among any other cohort of the population being used as the basis for removing its influence from education and other spheres of life? 

For comparative purposes, the Nazis themselves already had highly abusive institutions within their own apparatus. There were several rapes and murders of members of the Hitler Youth on camps during their campaign against the CC.

It was also shown that half of girls fostered in Sweden in the 1950s and 60s were abused and there are over half a million cases of children believed to be at risk reported in Britain every year. 

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

Are there parallels in this country?

Simply, no. 

There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 

Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity.

 
Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer".

What is also interesting is that the main propaganda instrument used against the Catholic Church was allegations of child abuse. As we know such things did take place in other jurisdictions and no doubt in Germany as well, but the allegations were grossly exaggerated in order to justify the repression

It is this kind of sickening comment that do the Catholic Church no favors at all. In modern day Ireland for example all the religous hacks in the media do the Church more damage than good when they spout this nonsensical drivel. David Quinn, John Waters, Breda O'Brien and clearly yourself, just dont seem to get it.

You come with comments that the scale of abuse in the Church was no more widespread in than other aspect of Society, as if that some how minimizes the despair inflicted on its victims.

The reason why abuse in the Church is so controversial is because of its standing in Irish Society for so long and the trust that people placed in that organisation to protect their children and contribute to their upbringing.

The real controversy is not in the abuse itself but more of the covering up of that abuse all the way up to the Pope himself. Their total disregard for innocent children, the interest on the protection of their own majesty and outright refusal to this day to issue a straight apology from the top down.

Bishop Driarmuid Martin, gets it. He gets that what the Church is guilty of is simply inexcusable and has also completely rejected the claim made by yourself that there is anti-catholic, so-called propaganda in the media. You should take a leaf out of his book and accept the abuse in the Church for what it is, abhorrent. But if course you want to still play the victim and blame everybody else. Blame society, blame the media, blame satan, hell blame the victims but just dont blame yourself.

So is the concentration on the Catholic Church ideologically driven? And if so for what purpose?

That is a pathetic question to put to any rational thinking person. For reasons, see above.

Last edited by LongLiberal; 6th January 2012 at 09:28 PM.

6th January 2012, 09:39 PMLongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Cato 

It wasn't David Quinn who claimed that. It came from a survey that the Iona Institute had carried out by Amarach Research. It found that the average estimate of the number of priests involved in child abuse was 28%, while the real figure, going from an American study, is around 4%. 

Is the figure of 4% greater or lesser than the rate for the general population?

David Quinn and the Iona Institute's assertion are more or less the same thing. 

I remember listening to Quinn and Patsy Mc Garry on the Pat Kenny show and, Quinn conceded that the survey was very deliberate in its timing i.e straight after the Cloyne Report and also that the survey itself asked "completely open ended questions".

I hope Quinn needs plenty of toilet paper, because thats about all that survey is good for his wiping ass.

o                                              

Liberator_Rev likes this.

2.                           Advertise Here

6th January 2012, 11:50 PM

Liberator_Rev 

5

Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that!

Seanie Lemass says:

"Liberator_Rev, I take it that is your own anti-Papist website you refer to! Himmler as a Catholic??? Eh. I don't think so. Perhaps you ought to read the biography someone references above."

I know that for unquestioning Catholics like yourself, Seanie, calling my site "anti-Papist" is enough to dismiss all the historical evidence I have assembled there to support my conclusions. The same goes for your "I don't think so" response. That IN YOUR MIND proves that anything said that you don't agree with is ipso facto WRONG. 

The way I found out that most of the leaders of the Nazi regime were Roman Catholics was by researching their individual histories on the web. I understand why their church can run far enough from these Roman Catholics NOW. But the time their church should have told the world that the Church repudiated everything these "Catholics" stood for was WHEN THEY WERE IN POWER, not AFTER THEY WERE LONG GONE!

As for Himmler, my site doesn't claim that he and the many other Nazi leaders were MODEL Catholics. All I claim is that they lived and died for the most part as Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that! - The Catholic Church has had a tool for telling its members and the world about unfit members who should be shunned. It had reasons for not using excommunication on the Nazis, not EXCUSES, but shameful "reasons".

This blog won't allow me to post links, but here's an example of what you WON'T FIND on Catholic web sites about H H : 
"The Himmler family had always been devout and faithful Catholics, especially the young Heinrich whose participation in the mass was very much it seems a spiritual experience for him.

When he was nineteen years old he would confide in his diary: "Come what may. I shall always love God, shall pray to him and shall remain faithful to the Catholic Church and shall defend it even if I should be expelled from it." (He was never excommunicated.)

Later as a practicing national socialist he would order the murder of priests, nuns, monks and others and later advocate the public execution of the pope. He also instructed a senior SS officer to furnish plans to kidnap the pope (neither happened of course.)

Himmler certainly may have eventually displaced his religious devotion from Catholicism to National Socialism but he would certainly be influenced by the ritualism of that church."

o                                              

  

7th January 2012, 08:01 PM#68

Chiara 

Hallo everybody!

I've read all the posts in this thread and would like to express my opinion.
In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.

The first was the bishop Magonza following those of Munich, Colon and others.

No catholic was allowed to subscribe nazist party and no nazist was allowed to take part to Catholic funerals or get the communion.

Then Goering was sent to Rome to protest but the secretary of the Vatican, the future Pope Pacelli refused to meet him, so Goering was received by Pizzardo, but his requests were rejected.
When in 1932 Hitler got the power, German bishops protested, but in vain.

o                                              

Reply   Reply With Quote     Report  

7th January 2012, 08:21 PM

parentheses 

 Originally Posted by Liberator_Rev 

As for Himmler, my site doesn't claim that he and the many other Nazi leaders were MODEL Catholics. All I claim is that they lived and died for the most part as Catholic politiicians who had disagreements with the hierarchy - imagine that! - The Catholic Church has had a tool for telling its members and the world about unfit members who should be shunned. It had reasons for not using excommunication on the Nazis, not EXCUSES, but shameful "reasons".
This blog won't allow me to post links, but here's an example of what you WON'T FIND on Catholic web sites about H H : 
"The Himmler family had always been devout and faithful Catholics, especially the young Heinrich whose participation in the mass was very much it seems a spiritual experience for him.

When he was nineteen years old he would confide in his diary: "Come what may. I shall always love God, shall pray to him and shall remain faithful to the Catholic Church and shall defend it even if I should be expelled from it." (He was never excommunicated.)

Later as a practicing national socialist he would order the murder of priests, nuns, monks and others and later advocate the public execution of the pope. He also instructed a senior SS officer to furnish plans to kidnap the pope (neither happened of course.)

Himmler certainly may have eventually displaced his religious devotion from Catholicism to National Socialism but he would certainly be influenced by the ritualism of that church."

You seem to be contradicting yourself wholesale.

You say Himmler advocated the public exection of the Pope and ordered the deaths of priests monks and nuns and yet you try to claim he was some kind of faithful Catholic.

Of course he may have been influenced by Catholicism as a young man but it seems clear he was an apostate in later life

7th January 2012, 10:26 PM#

Liberator_Rev 

Parentheses, you are a riot!
You accuse ME of 

 Originally Posted by parentheses 

You seem to be contradicting yourself wholesale. (i.e.) 
You say Himmler advocated the public exection of the Pope and ordered the deaths of priests monks and nuns (in his later life) and yet you try to claim he was some kind of faithful Catholic (in his early life).

First of all, I didn't say that the link was to MY OWN SITE, and those were not my own words. But even if they were, why do you charge the author of "contradicting yourself wholesale" and you then proceed to make the very same point made by that author? i.e. 

 Originally Posted by parentheses 

Of course he may have been influenced by Catholicism as a young man but it seems clear he was an apostate in later life.

Why is it a contradiction if OTHERS make that point, but not if YOU do it?

Last edited by Liberator_Rev; 7th January 2012 at 10:56 PM.

7th January 2012, 10:38 PM#71

Cruimh 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Hallo everybody!

I've read all the posts in this thread and would like to express my opinion.

In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.
The first was the bishop Magonza following those of Munich, Colon and others.

No catholic was allowed to subscribe nazist party and no nazist was allowed to take part to Catholic funerals or get the communion.
Then Goering was sent to Rome to protest but the secretary of the Vatican, the future Pope Pacelli refused to meet him, so Goering was received by Pizzardo, but his requests were rejected.

When in 1932 Hitler got the power, German bishops protested, but in vain.

Most odd then that the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat in 1933

7th January 2012, 10:57 PM#72

Chiara 

Yes, maybe odd, it depends on the point of views. After the concordat, Pope Pacelli said to a British embassador that he had to chose between an agreement or the complete elimination of the German Catholic Church. The following are his own words: "I had to chose between being just hanged (concordat) or being hanged, disembowelled, quartered (no concordat).

7th January 2012, 11:03 PM#73

Cruimh 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Yes, maybe odd, it depends on the point of views. After the concordat, Pope Pacelli said to a British embassador that he had to chose between an agreement or the complete elimination of the German Catholic Church. The following are his own words: "I had to chose between being just hanged (concordat) or being hanged, disembowelled, quartered (no concordat).

On the other hand :

Link

It was a marriage of convenience between Hitler and the Vatican, one which disenfranchised the Catholic laymen. As Hitler cynically put it:

"We should trap the priests by their notorious greed and self indulgence. We shall thus be able to settle everything with them in perfect peace and harmony. I shall give them a few years' reprieve. Why should we quarrel? They will swallow anything in order to keep their material advantages. Matters will never come to a head. They will recognize a firm will, and we need only show them once or twice who is master. They will know which way the wind blows." [Quoted in Guenter Lewy,The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany (2000), pp. 25-26]

7th January 2012, 11:12 PM#74

Liberator_Rev 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

In 2009 the "Pave the Way Foundation" found out that German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party since 1930.

This "foundation" is nothing but one Jewish businessman and his wife posing as experts in the history of the Roman Cathoilic Church's role in the Jewish Holocaust, and the quote above is a great illustration of how incompetent they are.

Every scholar in this area knows that "the German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party" but they also know that it wasn't "since 1930". It was from 1930 only to 1933, when the Nazi ceased being a potentialthreat and became an actual threat. 

When the Nazis actually came to power in early 1933, the R.C. church's leaders made peace "with the Devil". They stopped forbiding the faithful from joining the Nazi Party, they gave in to Hitler's demands that they disband their "Centre Party" - one of the last obstacles in Hitler's path to absolute dictatorial power -, and they signed the Condordat of 1933, whose crown jewel for Hitler (in my estimation) was Article 16, which read:

Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of fealty either to the Reich Representative of the State concerned, or to the President of the Reich, according to the following formula: "Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State of . . . I swear and promise to honor the legally constituted Government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honor it. In the performance of my spiritual office and in my solicitude for the welfare and the interests of the German Reich, I will endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts which might endanger it."

From that point on, how could any R.C. bishop or priest in Nazi Germany resist the Nazi government, when they had vowed to God not to do so? 

P.S. Both Catholic clergy and the Nazi government also invoked "the Word of God" to require obedience to the government, in the form of "St. Paul" who directed "people of faith" as follows in his Epistle to the Romans 13:1-7:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you wish to have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive its approval; for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only because of wrath but also because of conscience.

For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them--taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. "

7th January 2012, 11:15 PM#75

Chiara 

Yes, in my opinion, Hitler wasn't completely wrong. Unfortuantely a lot of priests cared and still care more to keep self advantages. The question is if the greedy ones were (and are) more than the good ones, I hope not.
Regarding the Pope, nowadays, at last, public opinion recognizes that he was a much better person than he was thought to be.

P.S. Hope I made myself understood in the last sentence. Got some problems wuth my English. 

7th January 2012, 11:23 PM#76

Chiara 

 Originally Posted by Liberator_Rev 

This "foudnation" is nothing but one Jewish businessman and his wife posing as experts in the history of the Roman Cathoilic Church's role in the Jewish Holocaust, and the quote above is a great illustration of how incompetent they are. 
Every scholar in this area knows that "the German Catholic bishops had excommunicated the nazist party" but they also know that it wasn't "since 1930". It was from 1930 only to 1933 when the Nazi ceased being a potential threat and became an actual threat. When the Nazis actually came to power, the R.C. church's leaders made peace "with the Devil". They stopped forbiding the faithful from joining the Nazi Party, they gave in to Hitler's demands that they disband their "Centre Party" - one of the last obstacles in Hitler's path to absolute dictatorial power -, and they signed the Condordat of 1933, whose crown jewel for Hitler (in my estimation) was Article 16, which read:

From that point on, how could any R.C. bishop or priest in Nazi Germany resist the Nazi government, when they had vowed to God not to do so? 

P.S. Both Catholic clergy and the Nazi government also invoked "the Word of God" to require obedience to the government, in the form of "St. Paul" who directed "people of faith" as follows in Ch. 13 of his Epistle to the Romans 13:1-7:

Yes, you're right. But I meant that this organization found the written documents about excommunication..at least it's my information.

Regarding the other points, I've already expressed my opinion in the above post.
Catholic church was involved with nazism of course, but for the majority of them it was the lesser evil.

8th January 2012, 03:18 PM#77

Kilbarry1 

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

Simply, no. 

There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 
Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity. 

Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer". ......

Do you even read previous posts. I quote from no 61

"Tendentious reporting [3] of a small number of sex crimes (involving mainly lay staff) in Catholic boarding schools or religious houses enabled members of the Government to claim that the Catholic Church was awash with sex fiends. There were few holds barred in gathering the evidence, which involved the SD and Gestapo interviewing disgruntled religious drop-outs, ex-pupils and orphans, with offers of sweets alternating with a head bashed into a wall or the threat of concentration camp to secure the appropriate testimony. On this basis minister for the Churches Kerrl could claim that 7,000 clergy had been convicted of sex crimes between 1933 and 1937, whereas the true figure seems to have been 170, of whom many had left the religious life prior to their convictions. The deliberate inflation of statistics was a favoured Nazi device for ramping up hysteria [3], as they would do in 1939 when they turned 5,000 ethnic German victims of the Poles whose country the Nazis had invaded into '50,000'. There was no reporting of similar sexual transgressions involving members of Nazi formations."

The above extract is from Chapter 3, sub-section 111 of Burleigh's book, the part entitled 'The Catholic Church and German National Socialism'.

Notes:
.......

[2] So the Nazis accused the future Pope Pius XII of being a friend of Communists whereas 'liberals' accuse him of being soft on Nazis! I recall that George Orwell once said that Nazis and Communists have more in common with each other than either has with a democrat!

[3] Regarding "tendentious reporting" and "ramping up hysteria" the following quotation from Hermann Kelly's book 'Kathy's Real Story' is relevant. The author is talking about the use of the term 'paedophile priest' by the media in Ireland.

"According to Michael J. Breen (Studies Autumn 2000) this phrase was used 332 times in The Irish Times between August 1993 and August 2000. The 'paedophile priest' term comes up 265 times in The Irish Times archive between January 1996 - August 2007, yet the terms 'paedophile farmer', 'paedophile lawyer', 'paedophile teacher' or 'paedophile journalist' never occurs." (page 148/149).

As per George Orwell, The Irish Times has more in common with Nazi propagandists than it has with the Catholic Church ......

You do understand that in Nazi Germany and in modern Ireland, people who hated the Catholic Church invented and/or grossly exaggerated allegations of child abuse in order to discredit the Church? If you care to investigate a bit further you will also find that these false allegations included allegations of child murder. For example try Googling the phrases "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" for allegations that the Christian Brothers murdered boys in their care. (The Nazi pornographer Julius Streicher made comparable claims about the Jews murdering Christian children.)

8th January 2012, 03:47 PM#78

Kilbarry1 

Vatican Concordats

While I'm at it, the following quotation from Burleigh's book concerns the attempts of two future popes - Pius XI (Achille Ratti) and Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli) to negotiate a Concordat with the Soviet Union in the 1920s. It throws an interesting light on the frequent denunciations of the Vatican concordat with Nazi Germany in 1933.

Vatican concordats with governments do not imply approval of the governments. Of course there is a danger that a vicious dictatorship will use the agreement in order to boost its international standing - and that is precisely what the Soviet government was trying to do in the early 1920s. Indeed negotiations with the Vatican broke down because several governments - including both Britain and fascist Italy(!) - recognised the Soviet Union in 1924 and the Soviets no longer needed an agreement with the Vatican. However the future Pope Pius XII continued to negotiate even "when the execution in Leningrad of a Polish Catholic priest complicated matters" !!

.... Both nuncios, Ratti in Warsaw and the younger Pacelli in Munich (until 1925, when he moved to Berlin as nuncio to the German Reich), were closely involved in Rome's diplomatic initiatives with the Soviets. The Vatican initially welcomed the fall of the Romanovs, believing that this would herald a new era of freedom and opportunity for the Roman Catholic Church in the debris of the Tsarist Empire. Benedict XV employed Ratti to contact Lenin on behalf of persecuted Catholic and Orthodox clergy.

In late 1921, the Vatican offered the Soviet Union humanitarian assistance hurriedly incorporating a broader secret agreement which, capitalising on the disarray of the Orthodox Church would - they imagined - have enhanced Roman Catholic activities in Russia. The aid was provided but the wider agreement remained a dead letter. Assisted by the German Government which saw relations with Russia as a means of terminating Germany's pariah status, the archbishop of Genoa held talks with the Soviet foreign affairs commisar Chicherin on board an Italian cruiser with a view to negotiating a concordat. A further series of meetings took place at Rapallo, based on Vatican calls for freedom of conscience and Soviet demands for diplomatic recognition. Effortlessly overcoming the extreme distaste for German (Jewish) Bolsheviks that he is alleged to have expressed in 1919, Pacelli met Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet Union's (Jewish) foreign minister, at the Berlin villa of the brother of the German ambassador to Moscow. 

When Mussolini recognised the Soviet Union on 8 February 1924, and was quickly followed by, among others, Britain, Norway, Austria, Greece and Sweden, the Soviets ceased to regard negotiations with the Vatican as important except for the question of aid. Pacelli continued to negotiate with the Soviets in Berlin until mid-August 1925 when the execution in Leningrad of a Polish Catholic priest complicated matters. However he met Chicherin twice in 1925 and 1927, discovering that his Soviet interlocutors were prepared to concede less and less, and such talks abruptly stalled under Stalin, to whom the Vatican was an irrelevance.

From Sacred Causes by Michael Burleigh - Chapter 3 "The Churches in the Age of Dictators", section II - "The Vatican, Communism and Fascism" page 164

8th January 2012, 04:03 PM#79

Seanie Lemass 

 Originally Posted by between the bridges 

Godwin’s in the first post? Well to continue the theme been a member of the hilter youth didn’t effect a certain Roman Catholics cleric’s career…

There were 18.9 million people of the eligable age to join the HJ when the Pope did. 18.7 million of them did. Now, think about that. You reckon they were all enthusiasts? Do you understand anything about totalitarianism?

8th January 2012, 04:06 PM#80

Seanie Lemass 

 Originally Posted by Chiara 

Yes, in my opinion, Hitler wasn't completely wrong. Unfortuantely a lot of priests cared and still care more to keep self advantages. The question is if the greedy ones were (and are) more than the good ones, I hope not.
Regarding the Pope, nowadays, at last, public opinion recognizes that he was a much better person than he was thought to be.

P.S. Hope I made myself understood in the last sentence. Got some problems wuth my English. 

And they built the autobanhen!

·                            Thread Tools

8th January 2012, 04:31 PM

between the bridges 

 Originally Posted by Seanie Lemass 

There were 18.9 million people of the eligable age to join the HJ when the Pope did. 18.7 million of them did. Now, think about that. You reckon they were all enthusiasts? Do you understand anything about totalitarianism?

so i shouldn't judge a whole orginasition on the basis of some/one bad apple/s? 

as for 'totalitarianism' i am unionist don't you know we wrote the book..

8th January 2012, 05:28 PM

LongLiberal 

Sign in or Register Now to reply

8th January 2012, 06:24 PM

Kilbarry1 

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

Simply, no. 
There are no parallels in this country. One aspect is talking about 1930's Germany and the other is 21st century Ireland. You seem to be trying to push some sort of idea that the Catholic Church were in opposition to Hitlers Nazi regime, which is simply laughable. 
Firstly, the Vatican kept very very quiet during the Holocaust, why is that? 

Hitler himself was a Roman Catholic and often throughout Mein Kampf spoke about "doing god's work". He was baptised and never renounced his baptism. All soldiers in the SS would place three fingers in their belt to signify the Holy Trinity. 
Also, and most significantly the Cardinal Arch-Bishop of Munich, Adolf Bertram, held a special mass in 1939, when Hitler escaped assassination, to celebrate "the fortunate release of the Fuhrer". ........

.

I'm not sure why it is necessary to keep on refuting this nonsense. It has been done before - by myself and others - on the Politics.ie website and the book "Hitler's Table Talk" was first published in 1953. However here it is again.

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)

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".)

8th January 2012, 06:49 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Killing Allegations by Anti-Clerics: Nazis and "Lliberals"

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

It is a fact that the Nazis launched a campaign against the Catholic Church that involved invented or grossly exaggerated allegations of child sexual abuse. it is also a fact that the Nazis did the same in relation to the Jews - and in their case included allegations that Christian children were murdered by Jews.

In his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer has this to say about Hitler's favourite anti-Semite Julius Streicher:
"A famous fornicator he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical anti-Semite. His notorious weekly Der Stuermer thrived on lurid tales of Jewish sexual crimes and Jewish "ritual murders"; its obscenity was nauseating even to many Nazis".

You will note that not all Nazis were enthusiastic about Herr Streicher and his allegations.

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.)

The above is more relevant to the subject of this thread than general claims that "Hitler was a Catholic" etc Also the people who made these false claims seem to have got away with it, whereas even some Nazis were nauseated by Julius Streicher.

8th January 2012, 07:29 PM

Kilbarry1 

Child Killing Allegations by Anti-Clerics: Nazis and "Lliberals"

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

.........

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.) ........

I'm heading off now BUT
Louis Lentin is Jewish. A better example of "biting off your nose to spite your face" would be almost impossible to find!
Louis Lentin, Christine Buckley, Gerry Kelly, False Allegations against Sisters of Mercy and Christian Brothers

8th January 2012, 08:16 PM

TommyO'Brien 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

I'm heading off now

Don't rush back.

8th January 2012, 08:33 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

I'm not sure why it is necessary to keep on refuting this nonsense. It has been done before - by myself and others - on the Politics.ie website and the book "Hitler's Table Talk" was first published in 1953. However here it is again.

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)

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".)

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1



Once again the songs of the fatherland roared to the heavens along the endless marching columns, and for the last time the Lord's grace smiled on His ungrateful children. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1


Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down on my knees and thanked Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune of being permitted to live at this time. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 5


What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8



Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 1



In short, the results of miscegenation are always the following: (a) The level of the superior race becomes lowered; (b) physical and mental degeneration sets in, thus leading slowly but steadily towards a progressive drying up of the vital sap. The act which brings about such a development is a sin against the will of the Eternal Creator. And as a sin this act will be avenged. 

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11




In a public address in Munich - 

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."



Stuttgart address February 15th 1933 - 

"Today they say that Christianity is in danger, that the Catholic faith is threatened. My reply to them is: for the time being, Christians and not international atheists are now standing at Germany’s fore. I am not merely talking about Christianity; I confess that I will never ally myself with the parties which aim to destroy Christianity"

8th January 2012, 08:41 PM

LongLiberal 

 Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

It is a fact that the Nazis launched a campaign against the Catholic Church that involved invented or grossly exaggerated allegations of child sexual abuse. it is also a fact that the Nazis did the same in relation to the Jews - and in their case included allegations that Christian children were murdered by Jews.

In his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", William Shirer has this to say about Hitler's favourite anti-Semite Julius Streicher:
"A famous fornicator he made his fame and fortune as a blindly fanatical anti-Semite. His notorious weekly Der Stuermer thrived on lurid tales of Jewish sexual crimes and Jewish "ritual murders"; its obscenity was nauseating even to many Nazis".

You will note that not all Nazis were enthusiastic about Herr Streicher and his allegations.

The following is an extract from my own website:

This website is about false allegations of child abuse - mainly those directed at the Catholic Church in Ireland. I do not dispute that there are real cases of abuse of children by clerics but my contention is that these have been used as an excuse to launch a witch-hunt. This witch-hunt has now spread to every part of our society so that every teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker etc has to take specific precautions to guard against becoming the target of a false accusation. ........

"Letter to Sunday Tribune re Child-Killing Allegations"
Christian Brothers, Child Killing Allegations, Letter to Sunday Tribune
is a summary of several allegations that the Christian Brothers were responsible for killing children in their care. (We are not talking about negligence here.) The allegations were made in a 4 to 5 year period beginning in 1999 (i.e. just after the broadcast of Mary Raftery's "States of Fear" series by the national broadcast company RTE in April/May of that year). Prior to the broadcast of "States of Fear", there was just one allegation of that type and it was directed at the Sisters of Mercy. I have discussed this in the essay "Sister Xavieria and "Child Killing" in Goldenbridge". 
Sister Xavieria, Sisters of Mercy, 'Child Killing' in Goldenbridge
(This allegation followed RTE's broadcast of Louis Lentin's documentary "Dear Daughter" in February 1996 which made serious allegations against the Sisters of Mercy in Goldenbridge residential school.)

The above is more relevant to the subject of this thread than general claims that "Hitler was a Catholic" etc Also the people who made these false claims seem to have got away with it, whereas even some Nazis were nauseated by Julius Streicher.

HOWEVER the subject of this thread is "Nazis, the Catholic Church and Sexual Abuse"

waffle waffle waffle

You claimed "it is a fact that ..." - the opinion of an American Journalist is far from from fact. Quite the opposite.


Also I see your website there and its great that lunatics like are go to the lengths you do as it only contributes the impending annihilation of this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation.

8th January 2012, 10:19 PM#89

Kilbarry1 

Anti-Clericalism and Anti-Semitism

 Originally Posted by LongLiberal 

You claimed "it is a fact that ..." - the opinion of an American Journalist is far from from fact. Quite the opposite.


Also I see your website there and its great that lunatics like are go to the lengths you do as it only contributes the impending annihilation of this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation.

By "the opinion of an American journalist" I presume you mean William Shirer's depiction of Julius Streicher as a vicious pornographer who made false sexual allegations against Jews - up to and including the ritual murder of children? There is nothing at all controversial about Shirer's "opinion". The following is from the Wikipedia article on Julius Streicher and his newspaper Der Sturmer.
Julius Streicher - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...... Streicher’s opponents complained to authorities that Der Stürmer violated a statute against religious offense with his constant promulgation of the “blood libel” — the medieval accusation that Jews killed Christian children to use their blood to make matzoh. Streicher argued that his accusations were based on race, not religion, and that his communications were political speech, and therefore protected by the German constitution.[5]

Streicher orchestrated his early campaigns against Jews to make the most extreme possible claims, short of violating a law that might get the paper shut down. ........ He claimed that Jews were white-slavers and were responsible for over 90 percent of the prostitutes in the country. Real unsolved killings in Germany, especially of children or women, were often confidently explained in the pages of Der Stürmer as cases of “Jewish ritual murder.”

One of Streicher’s constant themes was the sexual violation of ethnically German women by Jews, a subject which served as an excuse to publish semi-pornographic tracts and images detailing degrading sexual acts. These “essays” proved an especially appealing feature of the paper for young men. With the help of his notorious cartoonist, Phillip "Fips" Rupprecht, Streicher published image after image of gruesome Jewish stereotypes and sexually-charged encounters. His portrayal of Jews as subhuman and evil is widely considered to have played a critical role in the dehumanization and marginalization of the Jewish minority in the eyes of common Germans .....

Streicher also combed the pages of the Talmud and the Old Testament in search of passages which could paint their ancient Jewish authors as harsh or cruel, a practice which continues to this day among anti-Semites. In 1929, this close study of Jewish scripture helped convict Streicher in a case known as “The Great Nuremberg Ritual Murder Trial.” His familiarity with Jewish text was proof to the court that his attacks were religious in nature; Streicher was found guilty and imprisoned for two months. .........

The allegations of child murder against the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy have now been discredited, and even those who made them, no longer try to repeat them. But perhaps LongLiberal believes them still?? It might explain his description of the Catholic Church as "this Nazi, pedophile infested, backward, evil and ridiculous organisation". Apart from the word "Nazi", this string of obscenities could be taken from the pages of Der Sturmer, as Streicher's depiction of the Jews!

8th January 2012, 10:39 PM

Kilbarry1 

LongLiberal

Regarding your quotations from "Mein Kamph" and Hitler's public speeches, do you understand that the book "Hitler's Table Talk" consists of officially recorded notes of his private conversations with his confidantes at the dinner table during the years 1941 - 44. (Martin Bormann was one of the note-takers.) These represent proof of Hitler's REAL views. Regarding his PUBLIC statements - he made an awful lot about his desire for peace; do you believe those?