The Devil that Brought Down a Saint
For those of you that don’t know this man, he is Father Chris Riley. He, in my opinion, is the closest thing to a living saint. For over thirty years this man has devoted his life to improving what society would call “Youth Rejects”. His successes in this field have been too numerous to mention. He runs last chance missions to get youth to be productive members of society. Those who the traditional institutions have given up on as “lost causes”. So imagine my surprise to hear this man in utter anguish over a situation that he felt was out of his hands.
In the eves there seems to be a demon that is undercutting his efforts to provide under privileged children a quality existence. For anyone who has met Father Riley, you would know that he is not one to become upset easily. Though he is a Catholic priest, he is not standing on religious rhetoric to advance his cause but his, before mentioned, thirty years of experience in dealing with said children.
Who is this demon you may ask? The commercial, advertising giants, for alcoholic products and how, even though they deny it, their deliberate targeting of youths. Father Riley, recounted in anger, how he personally knows of girls as young as eleven that would sell themselves for “a couple of cans of bear”. He recounted how one father that, that he knew of. “sold his eight year old daughter” for the same amount. Father Riley said that he could not call this prostitution but a deliberate act of child abuse, that there are paces where this was known and an accepted activity.
Father Riley is a reasonable man and is not calling for the abolishment of alcohol, he is protesting about the blaintent targeting of youth by the marketing of such products as “Fairy Dust” and the timing to when these products are advertised such as with sporting activates and the like. But his call for moderation and responsibility seem to be falling on a deaf demon too interested in profit than the impact they are having on youth. You would think that a man and his team that have worked with “hopeless causes” would be in the prime position to be heard. Especially given the amount of time he has spent and his devotion to Australian youth, not to mention his successes in this field.
If none of this stirs you in the same way it has me, then you have my pity and disgust. There is no call, what so ever, to make youth a demographic to the alcohol industry. If a man with thirty years experience in the field of youth welfare can’t sway the demon they spare a thought for the youths and what they will subject themselves to for another alcoholic fix.
In the eves there seems to be a demon that is undercutting his efforts to provide under privileged children a quality existence. For anyone who has met Father Riley, you would know that he is not one to become upset easily. Though he is a Catholic priest, he is not standing on religious rhetoric to advance his cause but his, before mentioned, thirty years of experience in dealing with said children.
Who is this demon you may ask? The commercial, advertising giants, for alcoholic products and how, even though they deny it, their deliberate targeting of youths. Father Riley, recounted in anger, how he personally knows of girls as young as eleven that would sell themselves for “a couple of cans of bear”. He recounted how one father that, that he knew of. “sold his eight year old daughter” for the same amount. Father Riley said that he could not call this prostitution but a deliberate act of child abuse, that there are paces where this was known and an accepted activity.
Father Riley is a reasonable man and is not calling for the abolishment of alcohol, he is protesting about the blaintent targeting of youth by the marketing of such products as “Fairy Dust” and the timing to when these products are advertised such as with sporting activates and the like. But his call for moderation and responsibility seem to be falling on a deaf demon too interested in profit than the impact they are having on youth. You would think that a man and his team that have worked with “hopeless causes” would be in the prime position to be heard. Especially given the amount of time he has spent and his devotion to Australian youth, not to mention his successes in this field.
If none of this stirs you in the same way it has me, then you have my pity and disgust. There is no call, what so ever, to make youth a demographic to the alcohol industry. If a man with thirty years experience in the field of youth welfare can’t sway the demon they spare a thought for the youths and what they will subject themselves to for another alcoholic fix.
5 comments:
Raised eyebrows here.
Youths drink, its a fact of life.
Abuse happens its a fact of life.
Its illegal in this country to sell or procure alcohol for a minor, but it happens.
None of which I condone. Nor do I condone the term "Youth rejects" or "Hopeless causes".
I can see his point and his moral outrage. I've never heard of fairy dust so I own't comment. Alcohol targetting the youth market? Well since its legal to drink alcohol at 18 in this country I suppose there is an argument that part of the legal drinking crowd would respond to marketing targetted at younger people, the new initiates to the scene so to speak.
The problem that needs to be addressed is not why the alcohol industry is roping in young people but why young people are turning to drink. Why as a society have we bred a form of the species that think it ok to sell their children into prostitution for a couple of cans. And it is prostitution.
Selling your child for finicnial or in this case alcoholic gain is also nothing new and has been going on for centuries.
If anything the human species is de evolving.
Youth rejects and hopeless causes won't ever become productive members of society when we tag them in that way. Yes their are those who will join the underclass demographic however we as a whole society make that possible.
Religious leaders calling for a ban on anything is something that must be handled with care if we are not to end up as twisted as the muslim states.
Kate,
I agree with your first paragraph, yes these things do happen, yes they have been happening for centuries, but can we condone making the practice appealing and can we sit back and accept them. This is the crux of Chris’ argument. Even if you accept that these things are going to happen, can we condone the deliberate recruitment of more numbers to these ranks?
At no time did he say to stop advertising or call for the abolishment of alcoholic beverages. He is simply saying to the “been counters”, “wake up and look at the effect of your work!” I accept that you may never stop the practices mentioned happening but at least you can do something, anything to reduce the number.
I am shocked that this is an accepted practice, that people are taking advantage of the situation for sexual gain, where is the legal enforcement agencies? If it is known, where are the police? This is not one crime but three: supplying a minor with alcohol, having cardinal relations with a minor and soliciting (prostitution). Not to mention that this is “child abuse”. Taking advantage of an affliction and pandering to it for personal gain. These people should be treated like the animals they are. These are sexual predators and they gather at known locations. How easy would it be to catch them in an undeniable position and deal with them and maybe protect others form their methods.
The situation at hand is, the advertising methods employed “are” targeting younger people. If it was not already enough of a problem, as you have pointed out, why make matters worse. You of all people know that the welfare system has flaws. "Youth rejects" and "Hopeless causes" are not Riley’s terms for the youths he works with but the media’s attempt to classify. It may be an error on my behalf for using these terms but they were said by the announcer and not Riley. His objection, to the situation at hand, is that that the marketing is making an alcoholic beverage seem no more harmful than a soft drink in its naming and the advertising for these products have no restrictions and can be shown anywhere and at anytime. In my eyes, this is no different to an adult product being advertised during a children’s cartoon. I am not being a “do gooder” here, I like Riley, am saying, be accountable for actions.
Your final comment contradicts what I said in my post, “Father Riley is a reasonable man and is not calling for the abolishment of alcohol, he is protesting about the blaintent targeting of youth”. I agree with your comment “Religious leaders calling for a ban on anything is something that must be handled with care”, there is no ban being called for, just a call for “moderation and responsibility”. To my error, maybe I should have stated that more clearly. I hope you can agree that my interoperation of this radio interview has shown my impression that, “Though he is a Catholic priest, he is not standing on religious rhetoric to advance his cause but his, before mentioned, thirty years of experience in dealing with said children.” While I am weary of “religious leaders”, I know that to the Catholic Church, this man is seen as a somewhat renegade. I chose to compare him to a saint, which is my choice. I did so because if Mother Teresa, can be called one for her mission in Calcutta, I believe this is even a greater achievement because Father Riley has chosen to clean his own “back yard” and not some other countries. I mean no disrespect to Mother Teresa, or her work, but find that someone who deals with their own home issues more deserving. I have met this man and know how he goes about his work. He doesn’t impose religious ideals onto any of the youth he deals with. Yes it is there for those who seek it but it is their choice.
Kate, as I have heard you say, “Evil prevails when good men do nothing”. This is a man that has devoted his life to doing something. To hear him in anguish, knowing how hard he is to come to that was enough to break my heart. If only one child gets to enjoy their innocents for as long as they possibly can, then isn’t it something worth doing?
Mr. Cellophane,
You have put together a confronting a passionate post. However, with your justification of this “Father Chris Riley” am left wondering if you are in fact, Catholic yourself and are following this man’s progression on that basis?, though I do agree with you that if, in fact, this man has spent 30 years working in his chosen field that he would be in a position to comment.
I do not believe that any person should be elevated to the rank of “saint” but, given the title of your post, like have you have equated it to a demonic struggle and a call for reason and not abolishment. Though, your subsequent comment to Kate, gives a good reason to why you would hold him in this regard. To tackle one’s “back yard” as opposed to someone else’s mess worthy of more merit.
However, I do have a problem with “that there are paces where this was known and an accepted activity”. If what you reported as being said as true, then it is a sad indictment of your local law enforcement agencies. If it is something known and mentioned in the media, (as you hinted in your reply, this was a radio interview) then why has it not been acted upon. If it is, as you say “known and accepted activity” then it has been happening for some time and not a new event. The inference of that statement suggests a cultural acceptance, which is a sad indictment of the people.
I will play “Devil’s Advocate” (funny that) and suggest that such reports may have a hint of sensationalism on the part of this priest to enhance his point. However that comes into conjecture with Kate’s reply “Youths drink, its a fact of life. Abuse happens its a fact of life. Its illegal in this country to sell or procure alcohol for a minor, but it happens.” As it seems you both agree that this is a happening and therefore some merit can be place on Riley’s comments (as reported by you) even if you can accept that “some” sensationalism may have been placed on it to enhance his point, either by him or the media.
I can see how you have tried to separate the mans actions and his affiliation with a religious sect. If your admiration of this man stems form your ability to look at his actions rather than his affiliations, then you need to be commended on your objectivity. But there lays the problem with your post, what is it that you are objecting to? Is it the “The commercial, advertising giants”, “prostitution”, “child abuse”, alcoholism or the opposition to Riley’s quest? To your credit I do believe you did put a relatively balanced argument in support of Riley even if a little confrontational with your own views in the end. You are passionate on what you wrote, that is clear but to deserve “pity and disgust”, for an opposing view is a little narrow minded on your behalf. If it was said out of passion it is understandable but conflicts with the before mentioned open mindedness I commended you for. Though I can see how dealing with such a subject matter can filter such feelings.
It seems that you are not as “unloved” as when I first commented in your blog. It is a rare find and I hope to see more of what you have to share.
Devil’s Advocate,
You are right in saying that I hold Father Chris Riley in high regard. Not because he is a priest but because of the work he does. Whether or not I am Catholic or not is of no consequence as it is his work that I have the admiration for.
You are also right in saying that I am passionate about this topic. However I am slightly disturbed that you can suggest that there could be a positive argument for any of the points you brought up, especially with the point on child abuse. If you have one then please feel free to share it as I think you can see my stand point. I will listen/read it but be aware that it will take a lot of doing for it to change my opinion on the matter. So if you feel in the mood to enlighten I am open to give you the floor. I will reserve anymore comments for now till I have heard your side.
Mr. Cellophane
I was not suggesting there was a “positive argument for any of the points you brought up, especially with the point on child abuse.” I was simply commenting about openness in the beginning of your post as compared to the narrow view you held toward the end. Granted, it is a fair call to pull me up on this point and I tip my hat to you for doing so. I am in earnest, in agreement with you on your views on said topics. To that end I meant no disrespect in expressing what I did. It just may be that I am overly critical as it is part and may be a reflection of what I do daily for a living. I truly respect that you have displayed your view and applaud you for the courage in publicly expressing your stance.
Post a Comment