gaaboard.com

Sean Brady's resignation has been accepted by Pope Francis. (Sound Man, Francis!)
What, if anything, does his departure mean to you?

it means another thread is unnecessary

Holy Shit Tony. *You* are pulling up other people for starting duplicate threads?? :D

It's a "lessons have been learnt and it's time to move on" stroke from an institution that wants to draw a curtain over a haplessly managed  episode.   

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 01:09:38 PM
it means another thread is unnecessary

Not really Tony, it marks the end of the line your hero but also I'm more concerned about the future. The Church, aka Sean Brady, has lost the trust of the Irish people.
mylestheslasher started this thread of with the question;  Is there a bigger bollix in Ireland at the moment than Sean Brady?
I think it's fair to say the verdict of the board is a resounding NO.
Now Brady is history, in a manner of speaking, and it's time to move forward.
Church policies in the future concern me more than Brady's actions in its name in the past.

No doubt you'll muck this one up too! ;D

Far too late but the catholic church has a huge way to go to reclaim the trust of many. I doubt it is willing or able to do what has to be done. The new Pope seems to be a step in the right direction but the church needs to run hard in the right direction.

In all fairness to Diarmuid Martin, he's been ploughing a lone furrow within the confines of the Catholic Church in terms of how they've dealt with the child abuse scandals all over Ireland, whereas Sean Brady has been towing the party line right to the end.

The disaffected will probably feel better now with Martin in the local hot seat and with Francis making the right sounds, needing to be backed up with action though, but a step in the right direction.

Quote from: johnneycool on September 08, 2014, 04:29:15 PM
In all fairness to Diarmuid Martin, he's been ploughing a lone furrow within the confines of the Catholic Church in terms of how they've dealt with the child abuse scandals all over Ireland, whereas Sean Brady has been towing the party line right to the end.

The disaffected will probably feel better now with Martin in the local hot seat and with Francis making the right sounds, needing to be backed up with action though, but a step in the right direction.

One is Diarmuid Martin and the other is Eamon Martin, no?

Yeah. Different lads.

Jez, you're right.

Shows how much I know about the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland. Too long away from the sunday stuff.

IMO Cardinal Brady done a lot of good work in the church and he shouldn't be hounded by people after his retirement.

There were a lot of wrongs in the church but I was always thought Cardinal Brady was a good sort.

Quote from: WT4E on September 08, 2014, 04:45:00 PM
IMO Cardinal Brady done a lot of good work in the church and he shouldn't be hounded by people after his retirement.

There were a lot of wrongs in the church but I was always thought Cardinal Brady was a good sort.

So why did he not do anything about these "wrongs" as you mildly put it? If he was such a good sort?

He got where he was because he is/was an establishment guy. The Church is more important than anything or anyone else and must be protected/defended at all costs. Good sort my hole.

Its just my opinion - Your right it should been handled better! However I'd say he was under serious pressure from a lot of corners we will never know about - not that I'm saying that's an excuse.

WT don't waste your time on threads like this with articulate reasoned arguments, unless you have a thick skin.

Archbishop is Eamonn interviewed on BBC Radio there spoke very honestly.He said Cardinal Sean was an enormous help to him during his induction and praised the Cardinal for his service and contribution to the peace process but admitted in was scarred owing to the Child Abuse scandal as the whole Church has been and said there was a long way to go,Intimating that Brady going doesn't draw a line under it and spoke also of the enormous hurt of the victims

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 05:39:32 PM
WT don't waste your time on threads like this with articulate reasoned arguments, unless you have a thick skin.

Archbishop is Eamonn interviewed on BBC Radio there spoke very honestly.He said Cardinal Sean was an enormous help to him during his induction and praised the Cardinal for his service and contribution to the peace process but admitted in was scarred owing to the Child Abuse scandal as the whole Church has been and said there was a long way to go,Intimating that Brady going doesn't draw a line under it and spoke also of the enormous hurt of the victims

That is a start at least.

And a hell of a long way from anything you have said Tony.

It's exactly what I said.Child abuse is not Brady's fault, he has done enormous good,and the issue of child abuse has been badly mishandled

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 05:50:53 PM
It's exactly what I said.Child abuse is not Brady's fault, he has done enormous good,and the issue of child abuse has been badly mishandled

By Brady among others.

I have said that all along.Now as he stepped down today,Brady asked again for apologised and asked for forgiveness.What more can he do?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 06:46:53 PM
I have said that all along.Now as he stepped down today,Brady asked again for apologised and asked for forgiveness.What more can he do?

You have said all along that Brady badly mishandled the issue of child abuse?

Yes,he said that himself but I objected to him being pilloried, called a "miserable bastard" etc and argued that he was fundamentally a decent man and an excellent leader

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 06:50:40 PM
Yes,he said that himself but I objected to him being pilloried, called a "miserable b**tard" etc and argued that he was fundamentally a decent man and an excellent leader

I thought your mantra was that he was merely a note-taker and reported accurately to his superiors.

But this is a good step as he clearly badly mishandled (at the very least) child abuse issues. I am glad you are finally seeing sense.

Good start is half the journey Tony - well done. Now all you need to do is exonerate children and parents from blame in their own abuse by trusted, respected clerics and you'll be welcomed back to planet Earth with open arms. Throw off the shackles brother! All you have to lose is your ignorance (and your blatant disregard for the feelings of other people!)

Quote from: easytiger95 on September 08, 2014, 07:11:14 PM
Good start is half the journey Tony - well done. Now all you need to do is exonerate children and parents from blame in their own abuse by trusted, respected clerics and you'll be welcomed back to planet Earth with open arms. Throw off the shackles brother! All you have to lose is your ignorance (and your blatant disregard for the feelings of other people!)

Not true, the feelings of parents of abusers upset poor Tony immensely.

My position remains unchanged,the victims of clerical child abuse were failed by a multitude including the church and their parents for the reasons I've already outlined on numerous occasions.Brady as a notary who reported accurately the allegations he heard to his superiors was but a small cog in that circle of abject failure

Truth is its really of no importance at all. Who really cares who is head of the church?

On Brady himself - a defence of him that he was doing what his role required him to do irrespective of the morality/decency/ethics of the thing really just exposes the irrelevance of the church and its supposed position a moral guide with some superior insight

QuoteMy position remains unchanged,the victims of clerical child abuse were failed by a multitude including the church and their parents for the reasons I've already outlined on numerous occasions.Brady as a notary who reported accurately the allegations he heard to his superiors was but a small cog in that circle of abject failure

But Tony, they also let themselves let down according to you - remember how wrong they were not to tell their parents and the police? It must be very difficult to remember a constantly changing, unchanging position. But keep going, you are an inspiration to us all.

The Church is a moral guide and the vast majority of clerics uphold and promote the moral code.Where the Church failed was not knowing what to do and followed the human instead of spiritual course of burying its head in the sand and hoping the problem would go away.Also I don't think back in the day there was an awareness of the extent of the problem and how could it be.

The church has acknowledged this failing and apologised

C'mon Tone - answer the point - your unchanging position has changed from a few days ago when the victims were wrong for not reporting the abuse. You'll feel better, I promise you.

Easy tiger you're right , the children should have been brought up to report to their parents any strange behaviour which they knew to be wrong.Just like the two young boys abusec by a sc**bag I worked with as a student back in the late 70s.That's proper parenting

No, no, Tone - you don't get off that easy - you said the victims were wrong and their parents were wrong. Don't hide behind the parents, you said the victims were to blame for their abusers not being caught - and by implication, any other abuse suffered by other victims after their own experiences.

And by all means, bring up a subjective tale re abuse, where the abuser is not a member of the clergy (or did I misremember that?) to dismiss the experiences and testimony of thousands of abuse victims who never felt able to report it, no matter how upstanding their families. Outstanding Tone, you continue to outdo yourself. You should have become a priest with your command of parenting theory.

Quote
« Reply #742 on: August 24, 2014, 11:53:08 AM »
Quote
The children were wrong not to tell their parents, the parents were wrong to not bring their children up in an ethos of not sharing their concerns or peculiar experiences, the whole ethos of the catholic church in terms of dealing with child abuse was wrong.Sean Brady was a victim of circumstances which inevitably led him to make mistakes for whivh he has apologised.

QuoteMy position remains unchanged,the victims of clerical child abuse were failed by a multitude including the church and their parents for the reasons I've already outlined on numerous occasions.Brady as a notary who reported accurately the allegations he heard to his superiors was but a small cog in that circle of abject failure

Cognitive dissonance, Fearon-style. C'mon Tony, there is a big difference between being failed by others or being wrong yourself. Which is it? How many archbishops can you get on the head of a pin?

It's simple.You cannot blame the children but you most certainly can blame the parents for failing to bring them up to tell them about all abnormal activity they were being subjected to.Surely too there must have been a palpable reaction in the children's behaviour, and the most astounding failure of all was parents driving young children to a meeting with clergy and failing to find out what the purpose was,consenting to being absent from the meeting and failing to find out afterwards what happened.Quite frankly this is incredible

It is very simple Tone.

QuoteYou cannot blame the children

QuoteThe children were wrong not to tell their parents

You're an absolute joker Tony. Well done for moderating your position on blaming children for their own abuse. There is hope for you yet. It only took a week of you besmirching their experience and trauma.

Now, let's move on to the parents -

Quotebut you most certainly can blame the parents for failing to bring them up to tell them about all abnormal activity they were being subjected to.

Now, anyone who isn't talking out of their fundament on this subject, knows that the abuser depends on making his behaviour seem normal - this is our secret/everyone does it/ it's not a sin. So now, you're not only blaming vulnerable children for not being able to cope with the manipulation of an abuser, but their parents for not hearing what the abuser makes it almost impossible for the victims to tell. And before you bang on about your own apocryphal brush with abuse, we are all taught in school at a very young age that there is always an exception that proves the rule.

C'mon, you were able to absolve victims of blame (very good of you, by the way). Let's try the parents now. 

No exoneration for the parents,their failure was catastrophic

Brilliant. It's great to see you can't resist shedding your pious attitudes.

So let's get this straight

You have sympathy and understanding for a man who, by his own admission, should have done more to stop child abuse (although I would say he facilitated knowingly a monster evade justice and destroy even more innocent lives, but let's not split hairs)

You have sympathy and understanding for the parents of a convicted child abuser

You have some kind of sympathy (well some kind of something other than condemnation) for the actual victims of abuse, finally, after a week spent blaming them for their own abuse.

Yet their parents, whose own lives no doubt have been wrecked by the actions of the above monster you say

QuoteNo exoneration for the parents,their failure was catastrophic

despite reams of evidence in the other thread that they sought and received assurances that such things would never happen again. From the clergy they trusted. Which was their only mistake. Trusting the church their own parents had brought them up to respect and serve.

When is the Nobel Peace Prize announced again? I think we have a winner.

Quote« Reply #1103 on: Today at 08:48:39 AM »
Quote
Success in any argument or debate is when your opponents disappear having run out of points and abusive tirades, or of course if and when they succeed in changing your point of view to theirs.

Ah, the Hamlet moment.....

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 08:05:38 PM
The Church is a moral guide and the vast majority of clerics uphold and promote the moral code.Where the Church failed was not knowing what to do and followed the human instead of spiritual course of burying its head in the sand and hoping the problem would go away.Also I don't think back in the day there was an awareness of the extent of the problem and how could it be.

The church has acknowledged this failing and apologised

Maybe for you it is. It is trying to be one for a broader mass (every pun intened) of people then it has proven to be a very poor one. And not just on the child abuse question.

The Church has never wavered in its teachings or abandoned any to court popularity.

Easy Tiger the church gave assurances to parents that their children would suffer no further abuse.That seems to have been correct but the church and parents failed to see the bigger picture and guarantee the protection of other children,that was a massive fail on the part of the church and parents

That's another archbishop dancing on top of your pin Tony - well done. I think Muppet quoted Brendan Boland's book quite extensively and his parents were told that Smyth would not abuse anyone again as the situation was going to be dealt with.

Massive fail on the church's part - massive fail on your part. Not on the parent's part.

Yawn.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:00:56 PM
No exoneration for the parents,their failure was catastrophic

That statement in itself is illustrative of the premise of your whole argument and how flawed it is. If the parents were culpable then so was brady. ( that is playing devils advocate making that comment btw). If one is guilty in your eyes then so is the other.

If not then the premise of your argument is based on double standards (That's the fundamental flaw - there's no point going into the rest of them!)  and shows how blinded you are on the subject.

With thanks to Muppet

QuoteEasy Tiger the church gave assurances to parents that their children would suffer no further abuse.That seems to have been correct but the church and parents failed to see the bigger picture and guarantee the protection of other children,that was a massive fail on the part of the church and parents

QuoteAfter the interview and signing of the oath, Brendan and the 3 priests (Sean Brady, a Msgr Francis Donnelly, who asked most of the questions and a Fr McShane - who Boland had wisely gone to in the first instance and who went straight to his parents, thus ending Boland's abuse) left the room and went out to where Boland's father was kept waiting. The man was a devout Catholic, but also a devoted father. He asked "Would Fr Smyth pose a threat to Brendan again?". From the book "...He was given assurances that this was not a possibility. Fr Smyth would be dealt with. He would not be a threat to children again...." Boland & his Dad were satisfied that the abuse was over for him and for the other children. (3 days later Smyth pulled up outside the shop where Boland had a part time job, opened the car window and pointed at the 14 year old - leaving him terrified and he was too afraid to tell anyone).

C'mon Tone, make a game of it (or is that what you have been doing all along, making a game of people's suffering?)

Yawn.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:27:00 PM
The Church has never wavered in its teachings or abandoned any to court popularity.

Easy Tiger the church gave assurances to parents that their children would suffer no further abuse.That seems to have been correct but the church and parents failed to see the bigger picture and guarantee the protection of other children,that was a massive fail on the part of the church and parents

But that not the same as saying its a moral guide. If the church consistently sticks to the same immoral view then its not a good moral guide. If it sticks to view that does not reflect the mass publics morals then its not an effective guide of its own supposed morals.

I would consider myself an ethical person but take no guide from the church I was raised in & initially educated by. Nor do I take any guide from the historic texts that modern clergy selectively quote from. The fact that the quotations are selective and increasingly so points to church that has shifted to some degree to try to scramble some relevance or credibility. A feat in which it continues to fall short in

It seems to me that Brady and the parents "assumed" Smyth would be dealt with.Now I'm saying if a Brady is guilty (and the vast majority of people on this thread think he was ) then the parents were similarly guilty in not following up.So if Brady is culpable so are the parents, that's my argument

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:43:36 PM
It seems to me that Brady and the parents "assumed" Smyth would be dealt with.Now I'm saying if a Brady is guilty (and the vast majority of people on this thread think he was ) then the parents were similarly guilty in not following up.So if Brady is culpable so are the parents, that's my argument

Are you a parent yourself Tony?

The church's moral guide is scripturally based, no other moral guide can apply,otherwise you have simply a moral guide decided by each individual for him or herself based only on his or her preferences.This approach cannot produce a universally accepted moral guide.

It's not an if in your eyes that the parents are culpable though is it?

I can only relate to my own experience where two young boys were abused,told their parents,parents told the police , abuser was arrested convicted and imprisoned.I cannot understand why all parents would not have followed this simple course of action.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:48:01 PM
The church's moral guide is scripturally based, no other moral guide can apply,otherwise you have simply a moral guide decided by each individual for him or herself based only on his or her preferences.This approach cannot produce a universally accepted moral guide.

And the scriptures are a guide for what? - ritual sacrifice, rape, sexism, racism, sectarianism, child torture, hissy fits and total illogicality? Its all there. If that was your moral guide then you would be one mixed up kid.

As I said the resignation is an irrelvance as no logical person would use a scripture as the basis of their morals. I doubt if very many actually do.

The Ten Commandments provide as good a moral guide as you'll get.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 10:00:38 PM
The Ten Commandments provide as good a moral guide as you'll get.

ah come on there.

Honour no other gods -  anything more than jealousy and has it not resulted in racism, sectarianism with ethnic cleansing in the name of god. Terrible stuff really.
No graven images - so all christian art is all sinful?
Do not take the name of god in vain - what does this mean? Were lethal Croat attacks on Bosnian muslims done in the name of god actually breaking this commandment? For the church stood silently by
keep the holy the sabbath - Important stuff this. Is it Saturday or Sunday? And those stonings to death in the bible and since - is that the moral guide you use?
honour your da and ma - You need a book to tell you this? And did the Jesus fella himself not tell his followers to reject their family? Standard cult stuffreally.
shalt not kill  - were you relying on a book to tell you that? Anyway Moses came straight of the mountain and ordered a slaughter in God's name. Look to Moses other actions and he clearly means do not kill another jew
No adultery - a private matter. Surely not the same as murder and worthy of the stonings you scripture dictates?
No stealing  - you need a book to tell you this?
not false witness against a neighbour - You need a book to tell you this? Note it doesn't command you to do anything positive for your neghbour
None of that coveting - Not only are we into thought crime here but note the equating of the ox, wife and ass of the neighbour. You see the sexism in this?

There is nothing much in the ten commandments and as someone who advocates scripture and therefore must know it you would have known that already

I think you are reading way too much into each and every one of these and making them very complex when they are really quite simple.If we don't have any acceptable universal moral code we simply don't have a moral code,we simply have individuals acting according to their own conscience,where for example one person may deem it right to kill a burglar whereas most people would disagree.

Religion is simple and I think if you concentrate on the Ten Commandments as written and concentrate on the Gospels you will get a simple unambiguous template for living and ultimately salvation.

Good work everyone keeping Tony Melon busy in these Sean Brady threads, he is so busy he has only managed to start one other stupid thread in a week. This is a 400% reduction on a normal week.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 10:52:18 PM
I think you are reading way too much into each and every one of these and making them very complex when they are really quite simple.If we don't have any acceptable universal moral code we simply don't have a moral code,we simply have individuals acting according to their own conscience,where for example one person may deem it right to kill a burglar whereas most people would disagree.

Religion is simple and I think if you concentrate on the Ten Commandments as written and concentrate on the Gospels you will get a simple unambiguous template for living and ultimately salvation.

Classic response of the faithful - follow these guidelines but gloss over the fact that they are bollocks.

Do you really want to stand over the unambiguous claim?

What is ambiguous about thou shall not kill,steal,commit adultery? Very straightforward you can't go wrong.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 11:01:02 PM
What is ambiguous about thou shall not kill,steal,commit adultery? Very straightforward you can't go wrong.

Firstly you said the gospels were unambiguous - so my original questions stands.

Secondly you have not only chosen to respond about the 10 commandments only and at that chose to shorten it to 3. Dropping the other 7 then? And on the 3 do you really think that if they were not in the old testament that they wouldn't exist (if we broaden adultery to cheating on the partner you are not married to) in the human physche? Do you really think that those untouched by the old testament don't have similar/identical ethical values to these 3?

Be honest the 10 commandments don't amount to a roasted snowball and have been foundational to a hell of a lot of horrors done by those influenced by them and a lot done in their very name.

Fact remains Brady's resignation is an irrelevance to most. Few if any will notice anything different in their lives tomorrow other than the blokes in the dresses will all move up one in the bed.

They provide a template for salvation and exist in the human psyche because people (even the most committed atheists) can recite them.They form the basis of all civil and criminal laws in secular society.

Of course the resignation of Cardinal Brady will not impact directly on people's lives,people in all walks of life come and go without having a direct influence on a day to day basis on any great number of people.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:00:56 PM
No exoneration for the parents,their failure was catastrophic

And your friends - McQuillan's parents?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:53:26 PM
I can only relate to my own experience where two young boys were abused,told their parents,parents told the police , abuser was arrested convicted and imprisoned.I cannot understand why all parents would not have followed this simple course of action.

Maybe you should made an infomercial for the RSPCC, all these years and the only thing kids have to do to stop abuse is tell their parents!

Well it is a guaranteed way of producing results, and other methods,as evidenced on these threads,didn't work.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 09, 2014, 09:07:21 AM
Well it is a guaranteed way of producing results, and other methods,as evidenced on these threads,didn't work.

Amen brother!

Relying on priests or bishops' secretaries to consider the victims was a serious misjudgement of the priorities of the Church on our behalves. We should have known they would simply look after number one.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 09, 2014, 09:07:21 AM
Well it is a guaranteed way of producing results, and other methods,as evidenced on these threads,didn't work.

You need help.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:53:26 PM
I can only relate to my own experience where two young boys were abused,told their parents,parents told the police , abuser was arrested convicted and imprisoned.I cannot understand why all parents would not have followed this simple course of action.

I wonder when all the personal experiences are aggregated what percentage of cases will the parents be aware of what was going on.

When we relate back to a narrow number of personal experiences we will get extreme examples. In the experience that I will always most vividly remember the abuser was a cleric, the report of the boy was to the clergy, the boy was rediculed in public by the clergy, the parents told to stay out of it and pressurised to not engage outside authorities, the boy committed suicide and the parents just got out of the country having seen the pressure that the church was willing to bring to bear to protect their own and hush the thing up.

Looking back on this example I can't see the church as a whole or the individual clerics coming out of it with any credit whatsoever. If you "believe" in the old good and evil dichotomy then its hard to escape the fact these clerics were very evil people indeed. A supposed moral organisation that is supposedly acting as a moral guide is much exposed when its own official commit such acts and cover up such events. 

When sharing blame around it would be important to know what the parents actually knew, what pressures they were under, who was applying that pressure and the nature of the power held at the time by those applying the pressure. Without that knowledge we run the risk of coming to what could euphemistically be desribed as "uncaring" conclusions.

Ireland was one of those societies where god fearing people where in very many incidents turned into clergy-fearing people. 

It's depressing to read what Tony posts and realise there are many who believe similar garbage. It's not the parents who are to blame, it's the people who elevated the clergy to a position of being beyond reproach. "Don't question the priest"....

People like you Tony. People who defend the indefensible. Your position only changed yesterday when an archbishop said something. f**king pathetic.

People in all positions of authority and power HAVE to be questioned - not just the ones from organisations you don't like.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 09, 2014, 06:20:13 AM
They provide a template for salvation and exist in the human psyche because people (even the most committed atheists) can recite them.They form the basis of all civil and criminal laws in secular society.

Of course the resignation of Cardinal Brady will not impact directly on people's lives,people in all walks of life come and go without having a direct influence on a day to day basis on any great number of people.

Do you really believe that?

See my post a bit earlier. The 10 commandments are largely jibberish.

What is this "salvation" you mention? And in the name of Jaysus (is that commandment breach?) is all that graven images, other gods et etc a recipe for anything other that confusion and satire?? You really think that secular law is based upon the 10 commandments? How is the graven images one reflected in moder law? Are there no examples of murder been frowned upon before Moses came down the hill? Also you are aware that Moses was fine with murder and only got concerned if the victims of the murder were fellow jews? Are there any modern, secular laws that forbids the murder of citizens of the state/faith but is fine with the muder of foreigners?

Your defence of the commandments is selective and fictional

If any organistaion had the track record of abuse of children and covering up the abuse of children they would be exluded as a group from the organisation and delivery of education. Effectively the organisation would be disbanded and the good elements within it would have the opportunity to re-apply for roles via alternative organisations/structures. Is it not time that the governments north and south woke up to this? 

No where has child abuse been more rampant than in families and governments.Are you saying these entities should be abolished too? Basically depraved humans are responsible for child abuse not organisations

Quote from: T Fearon on September 09, 2014, 10:31:14 AM
No where has child abuse been more rampant than in families and governments.Are you saying these entities should be abolished too? Basically depraved humans are responsible for child abuse not organisations

So telling the parents will end it all then!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 09, 2014, 10:31:14 AM
No where has child abuse been more rampant than in families and governments.Are you saying these entities should be abolished too? Basically depraved humans are responsible for child abuse not organisations

Ok lets be rational here

Where an individual family unit is the source of the abuse then that family unit is effectively abolished - whether that is the removal of the victim for their protection or the perpretrator for their punishment/rehabilitation

Where governments are the cause of this type of abuse then yes it should abolish itself and if it doesn't then the electorate will do it for them.

I totally agree that the perpretrators of abuse are depraved. What is your view on those who do not commit the abuse but are confronted with compelling evidence of abuse and either a) say nothing, b) actively cover it up, c) act to leave the perpretrator in a position with access to children (say vulnerable children in one on one scenarios), d) move the pepretrator to a new position where this situation could arise, e) do nothing when its known that children are at risk from this type of perpetrator in this type of situation or f) presurise a victim or a family to keep quiet.

What about these people - are they depraved or what word would you use to decribe them?

When known offenders were packed off to continue their "holy orders" in Uruaquay or the Phillipines say - was that just plain racism and exposing "lesser" victims?

The church has 2 very real problems here. Firstly there is the abuse (and the shear level of it). But secondly there is (too early to say "was") the truly horrifc and completely immoral reaction to the abuse. Only the first can be blamed on the "depraved" abusers.

It would be impossible to argue that those involved in the latter are the ones to provide moral guidance

Quote from: LCohen on September 09, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
Ok lets be rational here

That was your first mistake.

Jesus lads. Again? Really?

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 09, 2014, 12:07:06 PM
Jesus lads. Again? Really?

Sounds like a call made by the catholic hierarchy to the abusers before moving them to another parish!

Ouch. Cheap shot. What I'm asking is do we really need another long drawn out thread that gets absolutely nowhere?

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 09, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
Ouch. Cheap shot. What I'm asking is do we really need another long drawn out thread that gets absolutely nowhere?

Its keeping it in the public consciousness. There's some very pertinent questions being asked here.

Quote from: theskull1 on September 09, 2014, 12:30:14 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 09, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
Ouch. Cheap shot. What I'm asking is do we really need another long drawn out thread that gets absolutely nowhere?

Its keeping it in the public consciousness. There's some very pertinent questions being asked here.

And there's absolutely no chance of them being answered.

Quote from: johnneycool on September 09, 2014, 12:31:20 PM

Quote from: theskull1 on September 09, 2014, 12:30:14 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 09, 2014, 12:13:29 PM
Ouch. Cheap shot. What I'm asking is do we really need another long drawn out thread that gets absolutely nowhere?

Its keeping it in the public consciousness. There's some very pertinent questions being asked here.

And there's absolutely no chance of them being answered.

No...but the silence speaks volumes

Quote from: theskull1 on September 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM
No...but the silence speaks volumes

It's the lack of silence that's the problem.

Quote from: deiseach on September 09, 2014, 12:35:10 PM

Quote from: theskull1 on September 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM
No...but the silence speaks volumes

It's the lack of silence that's the problem.

Yeah, was just about to say that, plenty of volume on everything but the questions asked, just like most politicians.

But lads, all we're doing is asking someone questions we know he won't answer, nor is he actually in any position to talk for the church. It's the definition of pointless I think.

I don't agree, AZ, that it's pointless. You're right if you think the objective is to inject a scintilla of reason into the pea brain of T. Fearon. But this whole layer by layer exposure of the attitude of T. Fearon and, we can assume, his likes in the broader community, serves a valuable purpose.

We need to know there are people among us who will not only unthinkingly accept, but militantly defend and promote anything and everything they are directed to accept, defend or promote by those on whom they rely for instruction in what they ironically call morality.

This is how cynical and callous clerics got away with covering up and facilitating abuse and rape for generations - they could rely on people like T. Fearon simply to do what they were told, in practically any circumstances. We have to be aware that they could get away with it again if the likes of T. Fearon got to hold sway in society again.

I suppose I can see that somewhat. It just seems like a neverending circle with no real progress in terms of either arriving at a consensus (which will never happen) or agreeing to disagree. Is there anything 'new' being said by either side? New does not mean more outrageous by the way!

I sympathise with and share your frustration. But I'm trying to find the positive side and I hope paying out rope to T.Fearon and watching him tangle himself up in it and swing in the wind serves as a useful warning, as I say, in keeping us reminded of what some are capable of believing and supporting.

Quote from: Hardy on September 09, 2014, 12:42:36 PM
I don't agree, AZ, that it's pointless. You're right if you think the objective is to inject a scintilla of reason into the pea brain of T. Fearon. But this whole layer by layer exposure of the attitude of T. Fearon and, we can assume, his likes in the broader community, serves a valuable purpose.

We need to know there are people among us who will not only unthinkingly accept, but militantly defend and promote anything and everything they are directed to accept, defend or promote by those on whom they rely for instruction in what they ironically call morality.

This is how cynical and callous clerics got away with covering up and facilitating abuse and rape for generations - they could rely on people like T. Fearon simply to do what they were told, in practically any circumstances. We have to be aware that they could get away with it again if the likes of T. Fearon got to hold sway in society again.

Well, that's all very fine in an academic sense. All that is needed for evil to triumph and all that jazz. But there are costs to having someone repeat over and over again the same lies as if they are the truth. I used read the contributions on a certain other topic and would feel the rage building in me, rage that would be taken beyond what would be typed on this board and out into the real world. My wife would ask me "how was your day?" It did her no good to hear what my day had been like and about the topic that I had allowed to dominate my day. I dread to think of people alighting upon the lies regarding Seán Brady and the Catholic Church who were directly affected by the individual and collective actions that took place. If people wish to carry on fighting the good fight, fine. But even the best fight can impose externalities.

Quote from: deiseach on September 09, 2014, 12:57:47 PM

Quote from: Hardy on September 09, 2014, 12:42:36 PM
I don't agree, AZ, that it's pointless. You're right if you think the objective is to inject a scintilla of reason into the pea brain of T. Fearon. But this whole layer by layer exposure of the attitude of T. Fearon and, we can assume, his likes in the broader community, serves a valuable purpose.

We need to know there are people among us who will not only unthinkingly accept, but militantly defend and promote anything and everything they are directed to accept, defend or promote by those on whom they rely for instruction in what they ironically call morality.

This is how cynical and callous clerics got away with covering up and facilitating abuse and rape for generations - they could rely on people like T. Fearon simply to do what they were told, in practically any circumstances. We have to be aware that they could get away with it again if the likes of T. Fearon got to hold sway in society again.

Well, that's all very fine in an academic sense. All that is needed for evil to triumph and all that jazz. But there are costs to having someone repeat over and over again the same lies as if they are the truth. I used read the contributions on a certain other topic and would feel the rage building in me, rage that would be taken beyond what would be typed on this board and out into the real world. My wife would ask me "how was your day?" It did her no good to hear what my day had been like and about the topic that I had allowed to dominate my day. I dread to think of people alighting upon the lies regarding Seán Brady and the Catholic Church who were directly affected by the individual and collective actions that took place. If people wish to carry on fighting the good fight, fine. But even the best fight can impose externalities.

You're absolutely right and I considered asking for these threads to be closed for that reason. And, as you mention rage, I typed a long post of rage yesterday, but decided to leave it for an hour before posting. Thinking about it in the meantime, I came down on the side of the argument I've just outlined and didn't post it.

My feeling is that T. Fearon's lies and sick attitude have been so comprehensively exposed that any victim or person affected by clerical child abuse would be more likely to take heart at the disgust and contempt his opinions prompt among the majority of people than to take them seriously and be affected by them. But I may be wrong, of course.

Its vitally important that the debate continues on here and everywhere else. Keep asking the questions.

If the response is silence then that silence is evidence of a group that has ran out of excuses and needs to move on to acceptance and action.

If the response is an answer (as Tony has been good enough to provide) then expose the gaping holes in that answer (Tony has been equally helful here).

But do not let this thing blow over. When the catholic church makes a clear statement that it has looked under ever stone and handed every shred of evidence to the appropriate public authority, will co-operatefully with all criminal investigtions, make funds available for compensation and will reverse any decision to put funds/assets beyond the reach of victims then we can engage with it and offer it the opportunity to rebuild its credibility from its ground-zero base of today. Until that point we should continue to ask the questions and embarass them and their apologists into the required action.

I note Tony has answered many (most?) of the more recent questions.   

But the Catholic church is not answering *anything* here. It's Tony Fearon. You are engaged in an endless debate with a single poster, not the Catholic hierarchy.

And the debate is not just on this forum. As I said, the battle needs to take place everywhere and nobody should be allowed to get a way with defending the indefensible.

There are public and legal battles going on all over the country. The are debates ongoing in pubs, clubs and work places. Can't see why we should specifically not debate it here.

I'm not saying that, I just think any pretence of 'debate' has long since passed. Now it is one party being asked the same questions over and over, and giving the same answers. And now on a second thread!

Having said that, I do see the merit in keeping it as a 'front page' item, so I can understand it from that perspective I suppose. And as I'll doubtless soon be told "Don't bother reading it" :)

Should Sean Brady be canonised ? JP 2 was and he did nothing on child abuse in the church over 30 years either. 

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 09, 2014, 01:23:28 PM
But the Catholic church is not answering *anything* here. It's Tony Fearon. You are engaged in an endless debate with a single poster, not the Catholic hierarchy.

Yep  and you might as well go play handball against a haystack as trying to have a logical argument with him.
I started this topic with the hope that the discussion would move on to the aftermath of Brady's resignation.  What happens next?
Attacking Tony may help to lower blood pressure but it won't solve anything.
In the broader context, Brady was only a bit player also.
What about the Norbertine Order?
Smyth's superiors knew about his nefarious activities as far back as the late 40s but did nothing to stop him as he abused children everywhere he went. After he fled south, following his first conviction, his order continued to shield him until the RUC requested that he be extradited to the north to face charges.
Why has nobody from the Norbertine Order been brought to court to face charges. There's a wide selection to pick from.
What about DesmondConnell. the last Archbishop of Dublin?
He refused to co-operate with the gardai s until his successor threatened to bring civil charges against him unless he cooperated.
No mention of him being prosecuted but, IMO, he is at least as guilty as the abusers he tried to shield.
What about Brendan Comiskey and his predecessor as bishop of Ferns, Donal Herlihy and their failure to resort instances of child abuse to the authorities?

Ah, the list could go on and on but I'm feeling like Hardy right now and I know it's pointless to lose my  temper.
My point is that there are far bigger fish to fry than Tony Fearon. And the same goes for the laitcheko he's trying to defend.  Brady was only one of the very many who connived to put the welfare, as they saw it, of the church before the safety of children in their care.
So what happens next? .

There is an ongoing official inquiry in NI. The inquiry is not into the church specifically but into public services. Therefore if there was abuse of a child by a cleric in a youth club it would not fall within the remit of the inquiry. However if the abuse took place within a school, borstal or children's home then it would fall within the remit. Runbane House would fall within it. I think the report is due by the end of next year. The aim of the report is not to find individual prosecutions but rather to establish if there was systematic abuse. Individual criminal inquiries will be separate. Just as there has been a slow down in criminal prosecutions during the period of this inquiry it would be expected that where systematic absue (or the cover up of abuse) has been found that there will be fresh impetus to prosecutions. The content of the report and the accumulated evidence will be available to help support prosections and the aggregation of evidence against the same individuals/orders should increase the chances of succesful prosecutions.

The issue of what was known and sat on will be very interesting. In the north it is a criminal offence to know about abuse and to fail to report to the police.

In the wake of the report there will no doubt be a public clamour for the abuse/cover ups to pursued through the criminal courts.  2016 could be very interesting for a lot of esteemed citizens.

What you posted.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Yep  and you might as well go play handball against a haystack as trying to have a logical argument with him.
I started this topic with the hope that the discussion would move on to the aftermath of Brady's resignation.  What happens next?
Attacking Tony may help to lower blood pressure but it won't solve anything.
In the broader context, Brady was only a bit player also.
What about the Norbertine Order?
Smyth's superiors knew about his nefarious activities as far back as the late 40s but did nothing to stop him as he abused children everywhere he went. After he fled south, following his first conviction, his order continued to shield him until the RUC requested that he be extradited to the north to face charges.
Why has nobody from the Norbertine Order been brought to court to face charges. There's a wide selection to pick from.
What about DesmondConnell. the last Archbishop of Dublin?
He refused to co-operate with the gardai s until his successor threatened to bring civil charges against him unless he cooperated.
No mention of him being prosecuted but, IMO, he is at least as guilty as the abusers he tried to shield.
What about Brendan Comiskey and his predecessor as bishop of Ferns, Donal Herlihy and their failure to resort instances of child abuse to the authorities?

Ah, the list could go on and on but I'm feeling like Hardy right now and I know it's pointless to lose my  temper.
My point is that there are far bigger fish to fry than Tony Fearon. And the same goes for the laitcheko he's trying to defend.  Brady was only one of the very many who connived to put the welfare, as they saw it, of the church before the safety of children in their care.
So what happens next? .

What Tony sees.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Brady was only a bit player.

I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

There is certainly one person more vitriolic.

You're views on Brady are way out of touch with the vast majority,including top Protestant clerics and the highly respected and experienced religious correspondent of the Belfast Telegraph. Go figure.

Who are your views inline with Tony? Very few I'd imagine.

How do you know what the vast majority think? Is that what the vast majority think or what you think the vast majority think?

Quote from: Agent Orange on September 08, 2014, 09:46:32 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 08, 2014, 09:43:36 PM
It seems to me that Brady and the parents "assumed" Smyth would be dealt with.Now I'm saying if a Brady is guilty (and the vast majority of people on this thread think he was ) then the parents were similarly guilty in not following up.So if Brady is culpable so are the parents, that's my argument

Are you a parent yourself Tony?

I'll ask again Tony, in case you missed my question last time round.

I have seen no sustained vitriolic criticism of Sean Brady out with this Board, no protests about his continuation in office, a unanimous rousing reception by a nearly 10,000 strong crowd at last year's Armagh County Final and glowing tributes from Protestant Church Leaders and esteemed media commentators. I repose my case.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:56:04 PM
I have seen no sustained vitriolic criticism of Sean Brady out with this Board, no protests about his continuation in office, a unanimous rousing reception by a nearly 10,000 strong crowd at last year's Armagh County Final and glowing tributes from Protestant Church Leaders and esteemed media commentators. I repose my case.

Tony, I posted proof of your complete self delusion on this particular issue before.  You ignored it then and obviously will have to ignore it now (either that or admit your lunacy).

I strongly suspect Sean Brady would rather you stayed quiet instead of making such idiotic claims.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0614/132157-abuse/ (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0614/132157-abuse/)

QuoteThe poll for The Irish Times found 76% believed Cardinal Sean Brady should resign, 15% believed he should not and 9% had no opinion.

The reality is it wouldn't matter if everyone Tony ever met wore a 'Brady should go' t-shrt, he would still claim to be in the majority.

Newspaper polls prove nothing,especially not Dublin 4 polls.I witnessed the acclaim from 10,000 people

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 07:23:24 PM
Newspaper polls prove nothing,especially not Dublin 4 polls.I witnessed the acclaim from 10,000 people

Tony wise up

I was at that game. The man was introduced and there was bit of cheer and a bit more applause. There were others introduced and there were cheers/applause. Most of the cheers were polite but most peolpe didn't bother making any noise at all.

There certainly was no ringing endorsement of the man, his role, his perfomance within that role or his record on the particular issue being discussed here.

It would be deceitful to pretend otherwise

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

Calling for action to be taken against child abusers and those who protected them could not be described as warped.

I missed your direct response to the below

Quote from: LCohen on September 09, 2014, 11:33:49 AM
I totally agree that the perpretrators of abuse are depraved. What is your view on those who do not commit the abuse but are confronted with compelling evidence of abuse and either a) say nothing, b) actively cover it up, c) act to leave the perpretrator in a position with access to children (say vulnerable children in one on one scenarios), d) move the pepretrator to a new position where this situation could arise, e) do nothing when its known that children are at risk from this type of perpetrator in this type of situation or f) presurise a victim or a family to keep quiet.

What about these people - are they depraved or what word would you use to decribe them?

When known offenders were packed off to continue their "holy orders" in Uruaquay or the Phillipines say - was that just plain racism and exposing "lesser" victims?

The church has 2 very real problems here. Firstly there is the abuse (and the shear level of it). But secondly there is (too early to say "was") the truly horrifc and completely immoral reaction to the abuse. Only the first can be blamed on the "depraved" abusers.

It would be impossible to argue that those involved in the latter are the ones to provide moral guidance

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 07:23:24 PM
Newspaper polls prove nothing,especially not Dublin 4 polls.I witnessed the acclaim from 10,000 people

Was it the Brothers Grimm who wrote "there's none so blind as those who will not see"?

It was somebody like that anyway

Tony, would you support prison sentences for any individual who was aware of child abuse and did not report it to the appropriate public authorities?

But Brady wasn't aware of child abuse,he was involved in the preliminaries in which young children made allegations,unproven against a priest with whom Brady was unaquainted.He reported these allegations to his superiors.Now this is a totally different scenario to being aware if child abuse,to witnessing an act of child abuse, or a colleague telling you he is involved in child abuse.World of difference between hearing as yet unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse and catching someone in the act.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
But Brady wasn't aware of child abuse,he was involved in the preliminaries in which young children made allegations,unproven against a priest with whom Brady was unaquainted.He reported these allegations to his superiors.Now this is a totally different scenario to being aware if child abuse,to witnessing an act of child abuse, or a colleague telling you he is involved in child abuse.World of difference between hearing as yet unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse and catching someone in the act.

OK - on the first bit take Brady out of the equation and answer the question - should AN Other, when aware of child abuse report it to the appropriate public authorities and if they fail to do so should they go to prison?

You go on to describe 3 scenarios;
Being aware of allegations (from a victim) of child abuse
Witnessing an act of child abuse,
Hearing an admission of child abuse.

The senarios are different but the response in all 3 scenarios must include a report of the matter to the appropriate public authority where it can be investigated and the perpertrator is legally presumed innocent until proven guilty but the victims (and potential victims) are protected from the outset. No other position is defensible

Quote from: deiseach on September 09, 2014, 05:08:46 PM
What you posted.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Yep  and you might as well go play handball against a haystack as trying to have a logical argument with him.
I started this topic with the hope that the discussion would move on to the aftermath of Brady's resignation.  What happens next?
Attacking Tony may help to lower blood pressure but it won't solve anything.
In the broader context, Brady was only a bit player also.
What about the Norbertine Order?
Smyth's superiors knew about his nefarious activities as far back as the late 40s but did nothing to stop him as he abused children everywhere he went. After he fled south, following his first conviction, his order continued to shield him until the RUC requested that he be extradited to the north to face charges.
Why has nobody from the Norbertine Order been brought to court to face charges. There's a wide selection to pick from.
What about DesmondConnell. the last Archbishop of Dublin?
He refused to co-operate with the gardai s until his successor threatened to bring civil charges against him unless he cooperated.
No mention of him being prosecuted but, IMO, he is at least as guilty as the abusers he tried to shield.
What about Brendan Comiskey and his predecessor as bishop of Ferns, Donal Herlihy and their failure to resort instances of child abuse to the authorities?

Ah, the list could go on and on but I'm feeling like Hardy right now and I know it's pointless to lose my  temper.
My point is that there are far bigger fish to fry than Tony Fearon. And the same goes for the laitcheko he's trying to defend.  Brady was only one of the very many who connived to put the welfare, as they saw it, of the church before the safety of children in their care.
So what happens next? .

What Tony sees.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 09, 2014, 04:42:15 PM
Brady was only a bit player.

Unfortunately, you are dead right. ;D

That's what happens nowadays,all organisations have learned lessons,British government whitewashed the Bloody Sunday murders,but the current British PM has apologised for them,similarly a priest facing an allegation these days is immediately stood down.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 08:41:47 PM
But Brady wasn't aware of child abuse,he was involved in the preliminaries in which young children made allegations,unproven against a priest with whom Brady was unaquainted.He reported these allegations to his superiors.Now this is a totally different scenario to being aware if child abuse,to witnessing an act of child abuse, or a colleague telling you he is involved in child abuse.World of difference between hearing as yet unsubstantiated allegations of child abuse and catching someone in the act.

Tony, he signed as investigator at the 2nd interview.

He has said he believed the boys at the interviews. Thus, he believed Cavan Boy and was aware he was being abused by Smyth. Boland was safe because the first point of contact by Boland, Fr. McShane, contacted Boland's parents. Brady did not contact Cavan Boy's parents.

You are simply making things up.

I believe he or someone should have told the Police, I also am aware that he has acknowledged his failings in this regard and has apologised.What I don't believe is that an error of judgement in a bygone era makes him an ogre, miserable bastard or facilitator of child abuse.His failure was but one in a catalogue of failures at the time.

He didn't acknowledge in any Sunday Mass the horrendous crimes of his serving parish priest Father Gerald McQuillan, instead he buried his head in the sand and ignored it, just as he did when he was a young priest, seems he was always a cowardly bastard.

That case was dealt with and justice was done,it was well documented.Why should he have mentioned it on the altar? Do you consider him not mentioning it to be him condoning it? You really need psychiatric treatment.This is typical of the seething irrational  hatred for a man who didn't abuse anyone. >:(

And his 'failure(s)' ensured his masters knew he had the right qualities to be a leader down the line.

Tony you seem to be awful upset that Hardy called Brady a miserable bastard. I think Hardy was wrong when in fact what he should have said was that Brady was a child rapist protector, an indirect facilitator of child rape, a yes man, a coward, a bully, a man with no moral compass and a man with no empathy for victims (until it miraculously appeared when he was found out). In summary he is in my book a pathetic excuse of a human being. Oh and a miserable bastard too. I hope he has lots of time to reflect on what he has done because if he really believes he will be meeting his maker to be judged I bet he is shitting himself.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 09:57:35 PM
I believe he or someone should have told the Police, I also am aware that he has acknowledged his failings in this regard and has apologised.What I don't believe is that an error of judgement in a bygone era makes him an ogre, miserable b**tard or facilitator of child abuse.His failure was but one in a catalogue of failures at the time.

He is certainly not to blame for the abuse, and should not be cast in anything resembling the same light as an abuser, but he got the boys to sign an oath of silence, and then remained silent himself. From 1997 until 2010, while he was Primate of All Ireland, the records were not released to Brendan Boland as requested by his lawyer. During that time he never revealed his role, notary or otherwise, in Smyth's abuse. Then he (at best) understated his role as a notary (something you Tony, are still shouting from the rooftops) even though the records show he signed as an investigator at one of the two interviews. And the other man asking questions at the Boland interview, Msgr Francis Donnelly, told Gárdaí in an interview that his role was 'one of recording secretary'.

Donnelly refused to make a statement to the police and claimed that he couldn't remember the names of the two priests at the interview. Just 4 days later after Donnelly was interviewed by Gárdaí, Brady was ordained Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/book-has-evidence-of-cardinal-s-role-in-brendan-smyth-inquiry-1.1875988 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/book-has-evidence-of-cardinal-s-role-in-brendan-smyth-inquiry-1.1875988)

The reason we are to talking about a 'bygone era' is his own fault. If he released the documents in 1997 this story would have happened in the late 1990s. If he had actually come clean when Cahal Daly was stepping down, we would be long over it, but of course he may not have been promoted. But he didn't reveal it then. The truth came out in 2010 only when he was forced to reveal it.

QuoteTony Fearon ‏@TonyFearon  5h
@RuthDE You didn't debate with him,he exposed the fact that you were talking through your arse as usual! Lol

This resonated with me when I think of your contribution to this thread Tony

Muppet what is it about Brady acknowledging his mistakes and apologising (as recently as earlier this week once again) that you don't understand? What more do you require of him at this stage? Is there any one of us who hasn't a few skeletons in the cupboard?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 10:47:59 PM
That case was dealt with and justice was done,it was well documented.Why should he have mentioned it on the altar? Do you consider him not mentioning it to be him condoning it? You really need psychiatric treatment.This is typical of the seething irrational  hatred for a man who didn't abuse anyone. >:(

Because the weeks prior to it this individual was doing christening, weddings, funerals, administering the sick  - do you not think that Brady should have addressed his flack about this, to apologise, to sympathise etc, no like the coward he was when he was a younger man, leaving children to be abused again and again he walked away and thought no more off it.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 07:20:52 AM
Muppet what is it about Brady acknowledging his mistakes and apologising (as recently as earlier this week once again) that you don't understand? What more do you require of him at this stage? Is there any one of us who hasn't a few skeletons in the cupboard?

Helping to facilitate the rape and abuse of children by protecting his church rather than the vulnerable children within it, is a skeleton I'd say none of us on this board have.

Brady had no need to refer to this.Did the Managing Director of the Company that employed the Yorkshire Ripper as a driver apologise for his activities?  No, because it was nothing to do with him or the Company.

Did the managing director of that company put in robust procedures to protect  people from their drivers because of hundreds of known cases in the past, according to you Brady had done so within his church, and he failed just like he failed all those years ago to stop monsters abusing innocent children.  Your great man Brady is a sad cowardly excuse of a human being, much akin to yourself and your beloved Gerald McQuillan I feel.

A clean pair of hands, eh Edward, what can you mean by that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21073064 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21073064)

The administrator of the Diocese of Derry is set to be the next leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Monsignor Eamon Martin has been appointed as coadjutor (assistant) Archbishop of Armagh. It was announced by the current leader, Cardinal Sean Brady on Friday.

Msgr Martin said the church must learn from the "terrible trauma" of abuse.

Former Bishop of Derry Edward Daly said he was seen as "a clean pair of hands" after the church's abuse scandals.

"He does not carry any baggage from the past with him," the retired bishop said.

"It's a challenging time for the church in Ireland. He has been asked to lead that church".

Msgr Martin said the church had to learn from past scandals.

"I think today of all those who have been abused by clergy, and the hurt and betrayal they have experienced," he said.

"As the words on the Healing Stone at the International Eucharistic Congress remind us - they have been left with a lifelong suffering.
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Former Bishop of Derry Edward Daly said Msgr Martin was seen as "a clean pair of hands"

"I am saddened that many good Catholics were let down so badly over the issue of abuse and that some have even stopped practising their faith.

"As a church, we must continue in our efforts to bring healing to victims and ensure that young people are always protected, respected and nurtured."

Cardinal Brady has been under pressure to resign over revelations about his handling of clerical abuse claims.

It followed a BBC documentary last year that found that when he was a priest, he had names and addresses of those being abused by paedophile priest Brendan Smyth, but did not pass them to police or parents.

But he has consistently resisted resignation calls.

Cardinal Brady, 73, announced changes to the hierarchy at Mass in Armagh on Friday.

"I am delighted that the man chosen is Monsignor Eamon Martin," he said.

"I congratulate you most heartily, Monsignor Martin. I welcome you to the city and the Diocese of Patrick."

Earlier, the Irish Catholic newspaper described the appointment as an "exit strategy" for Cardinal Brady.
Cardinal Sean Brady Cardinal Brady was a priest in County Cavan at the time of the investigation

The paper's editor, Michael Kelly, told the BBC the identity of the coadjutor bishop had been a well-guarded secret.
Difficult position

"This is an exit strategy for Cardinal Brady and probably something where this new shadow bishop will take over within the next three or four months," he said.

"It's been very clear that the cardinal's position has been, to say the least, difficult in the church and the Vatican has been engaged in a search for his successor.

"It seems now they have eventually found a successor who will shadow the cardinal, allowing the cardinal, at least on paper, or at least publicly, to go at a time of his own choosing."

Meanwhile, the Church of Ireland's Bishop of Derry And Raphoe, Ken Good, congratulated Msgr Martin on his appointment.

He said he had enjoyed working with him over the past few years and described him as "a man of spiritual depth, of humility and of vision".
Dialogue

"I will be sorry to see Monsignor Martin move away from his native city, and will miss his friendship," he said.

Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Roy Patton, also offered his congratulations.

"I look forward to meeting him and welcome his comments that as church leaders we must continue in dialogue and working together for the good of all," Dr Patton said.

It means he is untainted with child abuse scandals unlike Cardinal Brady through absolutely no fault of his own

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 11:01:25 AM
It means he is untainted with child abuse scandals unlike Cardinal Brady through absolutely no fault of his own

yep, he was just a young, pig ignorant note taker.

You keep convincing yourself of that Tony.

I meant he was drawn into this cesspit involuntarily.He is as much a victim of the Church's then archaic procedures as anyone

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 11:53:00 AM
I meant he was drawn into this cesspit involuntarily.He is as much a victim of the Church's then archaic procedures as anyone

Well done Tony. You're serving the purpose of keeping this thread open very well. Keep posting that Brady is a victim and the victims were wrong and their parents were culpable and the church, an organisation that exists to propound a moral framework, "didn't have a clue" what to do about child rape and one of its leaders didn't know child rape was wrong until he took some months off to think about it.

You're doing a service to society in illustrating the difference between morality - "do what is right, no matter what you are told" and zealotry - "do what you're told, no matter what is right".

Tony knows rightly JC, he just doesnt care all that much about the actual points of the debate and will dodge and shift the goalposts til the cows come home. His central motivation in defending the sickeningly indefensible is stubborness, childishness (claiming 'victory') and provoking reaction and attention towards himself.

This is like a game for him and the more people that join in (like I am now  :o) the happier he will be. Salient points are a trifle inconvenience and merely serve to propogate his subversion and amuse him further.

When he takes up a position on the cover up of child rape in the same fashion that you would entrench your support for a soccer team, its no debate at all. I guess it comes down to whether its worth responding further merely to shine further light on a shameful episode in our history as Hardy says.

I am simply defending the character of a man that I know to be inherently decent, a view shared by his fellow church leaders, I am not in any way condoning or defending child abuse and I resent the inferences of that nature on this thread.

You are condoning and defending the cover-up and facilitation of child abuse. You are exonerating the perpetrators - educated, qualified, privileged people - for "not having a clue" and for needing to go on a think-in even to decide it was wrong, while not only refusing to extend that consideration to their child victims and parents but actually holding THEM culpable.

Well done again. You're a one-man demolition squad for respect for the church.

Lol! As if the world at large gives a toss about the opinions of a handful of keyboard warriors who havent even.got the courage to reveal their identities when posting abuse.

I think I'm safe in saying the opinion of other church leaders counts for far more in the public psyche than that of a five letter hologram on this Board.

Lol. Right. You actually think it's funny to blame the child victims and exonerate those responsible for enabling their abuse. Why am I not surprised? Any base behaviour is possible when you abandon responsibility for your actions to those who instruct you.

And the irony is that you are right without understanding why. Indeed it is not my posts that are effective in illustrating the moral vacuum and evil effects that result from blind faith in morally bankrupt leaders and unquestioning compliance with instructions on how and what to think.

It's yours.

That's why I urge you to keep on posting.

Tony, you make great play of the fact that some kids at your school did tell their parents that they had been molested. The parents believed them and complained to the authorities and action was taken.
By your logic, all kids should tell their parents if they have been abused, all parents should then report this to the relevant authorities and the said authorities will then take action and all will be right with the world- or something like that.
All the time, you  play down the very important fact that it was an older boy who was abusing them and not a priest.
To carry your argument a bit further, if kids don't report clerical molestation to their parents and the parents don't  make a complaint, the kids and parents are at fault.
I think that sums up your argument neatly. Am I right or am I correct?

However, we all know of another case where a boy did complain to a priest that he was being abused. The priest informed his parents. The bishop of the diocese was told about this and he decided that something must be done.
Are we still in agreement?

The bishop decided to take action.
He set up a heavy squad to go and interview this boy, not allow his parents to be present when they forced him to swear an oath of silence and then did nothing.
This meant the assailant was allow to go unpunished, the civil authorities were not informed and the abuse of children by this man continued for almost 20 more years.
In case you don't remember, the boy in question was Brendan Boland and the "36-year-old minion" who did the bishop's dirty work was one John Baptist Brady.
Today, you are still stoutly defending the honour of the same JJB and declaring that he did nothing wrong.
Here's a boy and his parents who took the course you suggested and look where it got them!
One of us, Tony, is speaking through his anal orifice and I don't think it's me.

It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

And showing no shame in blaming the child victims and their parents for the awful things that happened them, yet trying to exonerate those responsible for enabling their abuse.  I said it before you are a vile little man, hopefully you get what you truly deserve in life.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Excellent. The "demonisation" of Brady is "shameful". But his participation in the conspiracy to cover up child rape is nothing - an oversight, made no difference anyway.

You continue to enlighten our understanding of the twisted thinking of the zealot and of his masters by the selection of the things that are considered shameful.

Well done. Keep on posting.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Your response to some people being shameful has been to be shameful as well - do you not see that?

Quote from: imtommygunn on September 11, 2014, 04:23:24 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 04:07:35 PM
It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Your response to some people being shameful has been to be shameful as well - do you not see that?

Tony could teach Willie Frazer a thing or two about ignoring facts and carrying on regardless.

What about the questioning itself ? If the line of questioning was as alleged, and i am fairly certain it would have been, then surely anyone can see that Bradys performance in allowing the child to be effectively blamed with the inference of the questions was shameful in itself.

Quote from: muppet on September 10, 2014, 10:56:25 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 09:57:35 PM
I believe he or someone should have told the Police, I also am aware that he has acknowledged his failings in this regard and has apologised.What I don't believe is that an error of judgement in a bygone era makes him an ogre, miserable b**tard or facilitator of child abuse.His failure was but one in a catalogue of failures at the time.

He is certainly not to blame for the abuse, and should not be cast in anything resembling the same light as an abuser, but he got the boys to sign an oath of silence, and then remained silent himself. From 1997 until 2010, while he was Primate of All Ireland, the records were not released to Brendan Boland as requested by his lawyer. During that time he never revealed his role, notary or otherwise, in Smyth's abuse. Then he (at best) understated his role as a notary (something you Tony, are still shouting from the rooftops) even though the records show he signed as an investigator at one of the two interviews. And the other man asking questions at the Boland interview, Msgr Francis Donnelly, told Gárdaí in an interview that his role was 'one of recording secretary'.

Donnelly refused to make a statement to the police and claimed that he couldn't remember the names of the two priests at the interview. Just 4 days later after Donnelly was interviewed by Gárdaí, Brady was ordained Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/book-has-evidence-of-cardinal-s-role-in-brendan-smyth-inquiry-1.1875988 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/book-has-evidence-of-cardinal-s-role-in-brendan-smyth-inquiry-1.1875988)

The reason we are to talking about a 'bygone era' is his own fault. If he released the documents in 1997 this story would have happened in the late 1990s. If he had actually come clean when Cahal Daly was stepping down, we would be long over it, but of course he may not have been promoted. But he didn't reveal it then. The truth came out in 2010 only when he was forced to reveal it.

QuoteHe is certainly not to blame for the abuse, and should not be cast in anything resembling the same light as an abuser

,
Nah, can't altogether agree with you on this one.

Quotebut he got the boys to sign an oath of silence, and then remained silent himself. From 1997 until 2010, while he was Primate of All Ireland, the records were not released to Brendan Boland as requested by his lawyer. During that time he never revealed his role, notary or otherwise, in Smyth's abuse.

There's my reasons for the disagreement.

I've said I could understand, sort of, Brady's silence at the time he interviewed the boy but by 1994, the moral attitude of the people had changed greatly. He was in doubt then that clerical child abuse was a crime in the eyes of the law and still he kept silent. Until 2010 when the media learned about that infamous interview and landed on Brady's doorstep, he maintained his silence.
He was, or should have been, in doubt then that he had a duty to contact the RUC and report the incident.
Brendan Smyth, in the later stage of life anyway, was completely deranged and incapable of making  rational decisions.
  Going by what we saw of him on TV after his arrest, he should have been in a psychiatric institution for a long time beforehand. Brady's mission when he conducted that interview had only one objective in mind. He was there to silence the boy and to pretend that action was going to be taken to stop Smyth from inflicting further harm on innocent children.
For me, he is at least as guilty as Smyth for anything that Smyth did afterwards.
BTW, every bishop, abbot, cardinal or whatever, right up to the Vatican must share the blame for what went on as their inaction allowed abusers to think they could act with impunity.

Carry on twisting yourself up in knots, but rest assured you are in the minority, and ask yourself why your views are not shared by the vast majority of the populace and other church leaders? Could it be they are just damn right unfair and totally out of perspective?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 05:03:47 PM
Carry on twisting yourself up in knots, but rest assured you are in the minority, and ask yourself why your views are not shared by the vast majority of the populace and other church leaders? Could it be they are just damn right unfair and totally out of perspective?

The populace at the moment consists of a small hard core of devoted Catholics and the rest who know Catholicism is rotten to the core and don't give a flying one about it.  In 30 years there will be no one at mass and the clergy will shite themselves that their money isn't rolling in.

Rubbish.Ffs Croke Park was filled to the rafters for mass last year,billions of people all over the world can't be wrong.Get a grip

Furthermore I would bet that if this thread is revisited in a decade many of the current anti Catholics  will be devout believers due to a life changing experience.The irony is that they will be welcomed back with open arms by the church they once despised

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 06:15:40 PM
Rubbish.Ffs Croke Park was filled to the rafters for mass last year,billions of people all over the world can't be wrong.Get a grip

80,000 in a population of 4.5 million, amazing.  As for the billions, who comes up with that figure, did they do a census or just count developing countries whose children are probably being raped and abused by the priests as we speak.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 06:22:28 PM
Furthermore I would bet that if this thread is revisited in a decade many of the current anti Catholics  will be devout believers due to a life changing experience.The irony is that they will be welcomed back with open arms by the church they once despised

If you have a life changing experience is it only the Catholic God could be responsible, what about the Jewish one, the Hindu one, some kibbler from Scientology? 

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 05:03:47 PM
Carry on twisting yourself up in knots, but rest assured you are in the minority, and ask yourself why your views are not shared by the vast majority of the populace and other church leaders? Could it be they are just damn right unfair and totally out of perspective?

Good man, Tone, you're in flying form today!
Can you point out one single point I made in my last post that you feel is untrue?
G'wan, challenge anything you like!
BTW,  why are you telling me that my views are not shared by the vast majority  of the populace and other church leaders?
Didn't muppet post a link to a 2010  RTE opinion poll where 3 out of every 4 people wanted the hoor to step down?
What has changed since then?
Church leaders, hah?
I'll tell you one who'd give Brady a good kick up the arse if he got half a chance.
Ever hear of Diarmuid Martin, the archbishop of Dublin?
Go ask him what he thinks of Brady and your attempts to defend him, while your are at it.

I think he should have stepped down for his own good,but that doesn't mean I or the vast majority of others think he's bad or the devil incarnate as many people on this thread feel.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 08:17:22 PM
I think he should have stepped down for his own good,but that doesn't mean I or the vast majority of others think he's bad or the devil incarnate as many people on this thread feel.

Very good. Not for the sake of the victims, but for his own good.

Keep posting.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 08:17:22 PM
I think he should have stepped down for his own good,but that doesn't mean I or the vast majority of others think he's bad or the devil incarnate as many people on this thread feel.

Now, now Tone, you are evading the issue.
Point out anything you wish to challenge me on, like a good man.

I wonder does Sean Brady ponder the unfairness of life? Crucified for taking notes at a meeting and accurately reporting same,he must cast envious eyes at another ageing cleric,who after a lifetime of spreading hatred and causing multiple deaths as a result, now dresses in ermine and will be accorded a state funeral,attended by Kenny,Bruton,Ahern and other free state gobshites who will no doubt laud his great role as a peacemaker ( at the end of his career when he had no other choice).

I wonder does Cardinal Brady mutter ain't life a bitch, even occasionally?

Tactic number 173A - diversion.
Use - in desperation; in the absence of a valid argument.
Other names - whataboutery, distraction, misdirection.
Application - the suggestion that particular wrongdoings by a particular person or group are not wrongdoings at all because some other person or group committed other wrongdoings.

You would admit that the respective treatment of these two ageing clerics is a tad unfair all the same,would you not?

You wouldn't admit that your respective treatment of a facilitator of child rape and the victims of child rape is a tad unfair, would you?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 07:20:52 AM
Muppet what is it about Brady acknowledging his mistakes and apologising (as recently as earlier this week once again) that you don't understand? What more do you require of him at this stage? Is there any one of us who hasn't a few skeletons in the cupboard?

He has not apologised remotely sufficiently.

He accepted the job of Primate of All-Ireland, after his predecessor stood down over Smyth, without putting his own hand up about Smyth.

That looks bad, even by 1990s standards.

When victims sought documents on their own abuse, the Church, of which he was now head, refused to release the documents. The truth only came out when proceedings were initiated against him personally, and thus the courts would insist on discovery of the documents.

That looks even worse, and now he is judged by today's public standards because, imho, he didn't come clean earlier.

Now that he is out of the big job I hope that he presents himself to the Dundalk Gardai and makes a complete statement to them voluntarily. After, all the cover ups, denying the release of documents and 'merely a notary' spin, seeing something selfless from him after all these years, the victims might accept his apology.

He will do what he deserves to do,live out his days in prayer and peace

Here we go again, in case you missed it the first time!

Now, now Tone, you are evading the issue.
Point out anything you wish to challenge me on, like a good man.

I have and will continue to challenge practically every point you have made

I think even Tony will admit that Brady personally played a critical role in a process that allowed a compulsive child abuser to continue to offend (I have recently had the unfortunate cause to hear the details of what this abuse actually entailed), that that he lied about his role in this catastrophic event and that he headed an organisation that took deliberate steps to frustrate a legal inquiry into these events. Well wouldn't you Tony.

Added to that there is the suppression of the story when the big job came up.

When reflecting on Brady's honesty, integrity, morality etc this must be the starting point.

As it (rightly) is a legal offence to know off and not report a child abuser then i think it would be only right and proper for him to serve his sentence (I think the sentence is 3 years so he would be out in 18 months assuming he keeps his nose as well as those hands clean).

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 10:08:31 PM
I have and will continue to challenge practically every point you have made

Here we go again, in case you missed it the second time!

Now, now Tone, you are evading the issue.
Point out anything you wish to challenge me on, like a good man.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 09:46:50 PM
He will do what he deserves to do,live out his days in prayer and peace

The bible says an eye for an eye. I think Mr Brady would warrant something a bit harsher than a bit of peace to say his prayers.

 Yawn,he did not facilitate a child abuser,he heard and reported the allegations accurately.How many times do I have to repeat this? He is not in police custody because he committed no crime

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
Yawn,he did not facilitate a child abuser,he heard and reported the allegations accurately.How many times do I have to repeat this? He is not in police custody because he committed no crime

He was never interviewed because the Gardai did not know of his involvement. Remember the oaths of silence Tony? Have you figured out what their purpose was?

He should present himself to the Gardai and help them with their enquiries if he has a conscience.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
Yawn,he did not facilitate a child abuser,he heard and reported the allegations accurately.How many times do I have to repeat this? He is not in police custody because he committed no crime

Did he report the matter (and all the facts he was aware of) to the police?

Did he request that the key witnesses to any legal inquiry in fact take an oath of silence?

Quote from: LCohen on September 11, 2014, 10:56:30 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 11, 2014, 10:53:19 PM
Yawn,he did not facilitate a child abuser,he heard and reported the allegations accurately.How many times do I have to repeat this? He is not in police custody because he committed no crime

Did he report the matter (and all the facts he was aware of) to the police?

Did he request that the key witnesses to any legal inquiry in fact take an oath of silence?

Did he deny that he was an investigator until recently?

Saft fella.

He has apologised for his omissions,neither Garda or PSNI are interested in speaking to him,what's left to see here?

Here's a question that I wouldn't mind seeing being answered

Tony, if you had a child, would you feel comfortable with them being an altar boy in the current Catholic Church hierarchy?

If so - let me know why. If not - an answer would be nice as well

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 12, 2014, 08:02:23 AM
Here's a question that I wouldn't mind seeing being answered

Tony, if you had a child, would you feel comfortable with them being an altar boy in the current Catholic Church hierarchy?

If so - let me know why. If not - an answer would be nice as well

I'm not getting dragged into this, but my nephew is an altar boy.  He goes to mass fifteen minutes early with his dad, and his dad waits for him for ten minutes when mass is over. 
He does it because it makes mass interesting for him - he wasn't pressured by his parents or anything like that.  Plus he still gets a selection box at Christmas and money for doing weddings.

Was an Altar Boy myself.Loved weddings and funerals (big tips) and getting out of school for 10 0 clock mass! Only fear we had was a Priest,Ardboe man, who would lecture the lads for hours on morals etc.

Gabriel, why wouldnt I? You see I don't believe all priests or even a significant minority of priests are depraved.Why would you ask a question like that? You might as well ask a parent if they'd be happy to allow a child to appear on a children's TV show in the light of Jimmy Saville.Your mindset is all too typical of posters here that see the entire catholic church as the epitome of evil.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 11:05:16 AM
Gabriel, why wouldnt I? You see I don't believe all priests or even a significant minority of priests are depraved.Why would you ask a question like that? You might as well ask a parent if they'd be happy to allow a child to appear on a children's TV show in the light of Jimmy Saville.Your mindset is all too typical of posters here that see the entire catholic church as the epitome of evil.

Certainly I'd have concerns of allowing my child to be in the company of any individual who's organisation has a history of covering up child abuse, Catholic Church, BBC, Social services, the lot.
How could I be sure that these individuals haven't had previous in this regard and been moved on and now I'm expected to leave my child in their care!!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 11:05:16 AM
Gabriel, why wouldnt I? You see I don't believe all priests or even a significant minority of priests are depraved.Why would you ask a question like that? You might as well ask a parent if they'd be happy to allow a child to appear on a children's TV show in the light of Jimmy Saville.Your mindset is all too typical of posters here that see the entire catholic church as the epitome of evil.

The Pope believes 2% are pedophiles. I would suspect on the basis he is the head of the Church he is more likely to understate than overstate that number.

It's a risk leaving a child in anyone's care,even with family members.

What is the society average for paedophile percentages?

Quote from: Rois on September 12, 2014, 08:23:05 AM

Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on September 12, 2014, 08:02:23 AM
Here's a question that I wouldn't mind seeing being answered

Tony, if you had a child, would you feel comfortable with them being an altar boy in the current Catholic Church hierarchy?

If so - let me know why. If not - an answer would be nice as well

I'm not getting dragged into this, but my nephew is an altar boy.  He goes to mass fifteen minutes early with his dad, and his dad waits for him for ten minutes when mass is over. 
He does it because it makes mass interesting for him - he wasn't pressured by his parents or anything like that.  Plus he still gets a selection box at Christmas and money for doing weddings.

If I had a son of that age, I'd have no problems if he said he wanted to serve mass. Of course, if I had any reason to fell suspicious about a particular priest, I'd do the same as your nephew's dad.
IMO, the vast majority of priest are honest, upright individuals who wouldn't dream of molesting a child.
Even back when the likes of Brendan Smyth felt free to molest kids without fear of any consequences, there was only a very low percentage of priests who actually did so.
That doesn't make their crimes any less heinous but t does mean that those who wouldn't dream of abusing anybody, never mind a child, have to put up with abuse and distrust from all quarters.
I have yet to meet a priest, and I do know a large number of them, who shares Tony's point of view.
I'm talking about Brady's refusal to step down.
You can add in every other bishop, abbot, monsignors and anybody else that comes to mind, on up to the top of the pile who turned a blind eye to the immoral activities going on all around them. 
IMO,  those who shielded paedos from the law are at least as guilty as those who carried out the attacks on defenceless children.
I know the local curate very well. (Once there were four in the parish, now he's the only one.)
I don't share his religious beliefs but and he knows this but we are still on very friendly terms.
He finds it hard to get boys to serve at his masses. Once upon a time, he'd had only to ask the local school principal or talk to some of his parishioners and he'd as many as he liked without a problem.
Times have changed greatly since then, I'm afraid.
I know Tony believes that I am one of those who seeks to demonise Brady but I don't think he realises that by supporting him and his likes, he is demonising my local curate and everyone else who  had no hand, act or part in the clerical abuse of children.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
What is the society average for paedophile percentages?

Hard to say Tony. It depends on the source you takes your figures from.
According to a study (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379946/UK-has-250000-paedophiles-says-police-study.html) carried out by Scotland Yard,
"A QUARTER of a million Britons - more than one in every 200 adults - are paedophiles."
However, I've come across other surveys and the results vary a lot.
I found this (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) in a Wikipedia article.
"According to some studies, about 1% of all adult males may be pedophiles. Another study estimated the percentage of pedophiles to be between twelve and twenty percent."

Lar, I have said Sean Brady should have stepped down, for his own good. (How his stepping down would have helped the abused I don't know) The fundamental question is this. Do you believe (as I do) that Sean Brady is a fundamentally good and decent man who made mistakes or do you believe he is the Devil incarnate (as most other contributor to this thread seem to believe)?

He may be a decent human being, but he is proven to lack the moral fibre to be the leader of Catholicism in Ireland with the child abuse scandal coming to light, especially when his hands aren't clean in this regard.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 01:52:10 PM
Lar, I have said Sean Brady should have stepped down, for his own good. (How his stepping down would have helped the abused I don't know) The fundamental question is this. Do you believe (as I do) that Sean Brady is a fundamentally good and decent man who made mistakes or do you believe he is the Devil incarnate (as most other contributor to this thread seem to believe)?

So is there nothing in between a fundamentally good and decent human being and the devil? It's a binary scale we're working on here?

Read some of the derogatory comments and judge for yourself

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

Sorry for poking my nose in here folks as I don't post very often but I just cant read anymore of this sickeningly pious, nauseating and repulsive garbage coming from the above poster without saying something!

T Fearon, some may think its commendable of you to stick up for a man who I presume you feel you know ... The fact that S Brady, by his actions of considering his future career within the Catholic church as of more importance than that of protecting the lives of innocent children, should have done better in a moralistic way at least (i.e. without even being a holy man) doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in you is one thing,
however, whats absolutely disgraceful is when you blatantly blame the victims and their parents ... This is a reprehensible act from you and you really should be totally ashamed of yourself for this .. I only hope that you're not getting your ideas from current members of the Catholic church.

Personally I believe Brady behaved exceptionally badly during the "interrogations" and later when he blocked information leaving the church about these and similar issues and also when he stubbornly refused to retire, unbelievably espousing the point again that he'd "done his duty"!

Basically he placed his career above all else including the lives of many many children ... and their parents' lives and their entire family units.
The fact that you can somehow feel its ok to in "any" way blame the actual victims and parents is one the most disgusting things I think Ive ever read on the internet.

And before you slate me as another "Anti-Catholic" which you seem to do to everyone else because it fits your agenda, I'd like to confirm Im very much a Catholic but like many many people, I am now a lot more wary of the institution itself.    You seem to refuse to accept the fact that a large percentage of Catholics are thoroughly sick to death of hearing how "our" religion is being trashed and tarnished by a combination of pedophiles, career hungry priests, pedophile apologists and people who are out to protect the church at all costs ... The problem with the latter type of people is that they end up doing much more harm than good.

I will give you the example of my own Mother .. Shes in her late 80s and very religious all her life ,.,.. A good woman as well !! ... She and her ilk have found the last few years very hard to take and she is disgusted in what has been brought to the fore .. but she is also disgusted by the fact that Brady hadn't the "obvious" decency to retire .... She also has the good sense to know that Brady has done more harm to the church she loves by "NOT" retiring (even after all his inaction) than many, including you, seem to realise.
Church attendances have went down directly due to his actions ... I personally know many people who say his "I done my duty" comment as the last straw ... Im not sure how his belated departure will affect thier status!

So the man you're blindly and in most normal peoples view "wrongly" saying did no harm has actually created a double whammy ... He's contributed to the detrimental harming of many many children & their families lives AND he has had a drastic affect on attendances at his own Church in Ireland.

At the end of the day its up to you in whether you want to continue thinking Brady did the right thing and deserves no blame .. However, the fact that you have repeatedly blamed Victims & Parents makes you the antithesis of what I believe the true meaning of a Catholic/Christian to really be!

You really are a very sick puppy ... May God help you !!

Quote from: AhNowRef on September 12, 2014, 03:32:23 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

Sorry for poking my nose in here folks as I don't post very often but I just cant read anymore of this sickeningly pious, nauseating and repulsive garbage coming from the above poster without saying something!

T Fearon, some may think its commendable of you to stick up for a man who I presume you feel you know ... The fact that S Brady, by his actions of considering his future career within the Catholic church as of more importance than that of protecting the lives of innocent children, should have done better in a moralistic way at least (i.e. without even being a holy man) doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in you is one thing,
however, whats absolutely disgraceful is when you blatantly blame the victims and their parents ... This is a reprehensible act from you and you really should be totally ashamed of yourself for this .. I only hope that you're not getting your ideas from current members of the Catholic church.

Personally I believe Brady behaved exceptionally badly during the "interrogations" and later when he blocked information leaving the church about these and similar issues and also when he stubbornly refused to retire, unbelievably espousing the point again that he'd "done his duty"!

Basically he placed his career above all else including the lives of many many children ... and their parents' lives and their entire family units.
The fact that you can somehow feel its ok to in "any" way blame the actual victims and parents is one the most disgusting things I think Ive ever read on the internet.

And before you slate me as another "Anti-Catholic" which you seem to do to everyone else because it fits your agenda, I'd like to confirm Im very much a Catholic but like many many people, I am now a lot more wary of the institution itself.    You seem to refuse to accept the fact that a large percentage of Catholics are thoroughly sick to death of hearing how "our" religion is being trashed and tarnished by a combination of pedophiles, career hungry priests, pedophile apologists and people who are out to protect the church at all costs ... The problem with the latter type of people is that they end up doing much more harm than good.

I will give you the example of my own Mother .. Shes in her late 80s and very religious all her life ,.,.. A good woman as well !! ... She and her ilk have found the last few years very hard to take and she is disgusted in what has been brought to the fore .. but she is also disgusted by the fact that Brady hadn't the "obvious" decency to retire .... She also has the good sense to know that Brady has done more harm to the church she loves by "NOT" retiring (even after all his inaction) than many, including you, seem to realise.
Church attendances have went down directly due to his actions ... I personally know many people who say his "I done my duty" comment as the last straw ... Im not sure how his belated departure will affect thier status!

So the man you're blindly and in most normal peoples view "wrongly" saying did no harm has actually created a double whammy ... He's contributed to the detrimental harming of many many children & their families lives AND he has had a drastic affect on attendances at his own Church in Ireland.

At the end of the day its up to you in whether you want to continue thinking Brady did the right thing and deserves no blame .. However, the fact that you have repeatedly blamed Victims & Parents makes you the antithesis of what I believe the true meaning of a Catholic/Christian to really be!

You really are a very sick puppy ... May God help you !!

Sums it up perfectly

+1

I think we can lock this thread as well now

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 01:52:10 PM
Lar, I have said Sean Brady should have stepped down, for his own good. (How his stepping down would have helped the abused I don't know) The fundamental question is this. Do you believe (as I do) that Sean Brady is a fundamentally good and decent man who made mistakes or do you believe he is the Devil incarnate (as most other contributor to this thread seem to believe)?

I wouldn't say either Tony.
I say he should have stepped down for the good of the church when his part in that infamous interview was discovered.
My local curate finds the going even tougher than it used to be because of Brady's refusal to accept responsibility for his actions back then and his failure to report it to the authorities when Brendan Smyth first came to their notice.
It's fair to say that his criticism isn't directed specifically at Sean Brady but all all who help cover up the activities of paedophiles in their midst.
I have yet to meet a priest who agrees with the stance Sean Brady took and I do know quite a few.

Quote from: AhNowRef on September 12, 2014, 03:32:23 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 10, 2014, 06:25:16 PM
I apologise for my absence, I was celebrating my wedding anniversary in a magnificent Co Leitrim castle,while thanking God for his providence.

I was struck reading the glowing tributes paid to Sean Brady in the Irish News yesterday by all the main Protestant Church leaders (all of whom have worked with him politically and pastorally over the years and know the measure of the man),and it struck me that there is today no one more vitriolic in Irleand than lapsed Catholics.

It is once again comforting to know that this is the majority view of Sean Brady's long pastoral mission and the views of warped individuals on this thread represent an insignificant but nonetheless sad minority who cannot see beyond blind and irrational hatred.

Sorry for poking my nose in here folks as I don't post very often but I just cant read anymore of this sickeningly pious, nauseating and repulsive garbage coming from the above poster without saying something!

T Fearon, some may think its commendable of you to stick up for a man who I presume you feel you know ... The fact that S Brady, by his actions of considering his future career within the Catholic church as of more importance than that of protecting the lives of innocent children, should have done better in a moralistic way at least (i.e. without even being a holy man) doesn't seem to set off alarm bells in you is one thing,
however, whats absolutely disgraceful is when you blatantly blame the victims and their parents ... This is a reprehensible act from you and you really should be totally ashamed of yourself for this .. I only hope that you're not getting your ideas from current members of the Catholic church.

Personally I believe Brady behaved exceptionally badly during the "interrogations" and later when he blocked information leaving the church about these and similar issues and also when he stubbornly refused to retire, unbelievably espousing the point again that he'd "done his duty"!

Basically he placed his career above all else including the lives of many many children ... and their parents' lives and their entire family units.
The fact that you can somehow feel its ok to in "any" way blame the actual victims and parents is one the most disgusting things I think Ive ever read on the internet.

And before you slate me as another "Anti-Catholic" which you seem to do to everyone else because it fits your agenda, I'd like to confirm Im very much a Catholic but like many many people, I am now a lot more wary of the institution itself.    You seem to refuse to accept the fact that a large percentage of Catholics are thoroughly sick to death of hearing how "our" religion is being trashed and tarnished by a combination of pedophiles, career hungry priests, pedophile apologists and people who are out to protect the church at all costs ... The problem with the latter type of people is that they end up doing much more harm than good.

I will give you the example of my own Mother .. Shes in her late 80s and very religious all her life ,.,.. A good woman as well !! ... She and her ilk have found the last few years very hard to take and she is disgusted in what has been brought to the fore .. but she is also disgusted by the fact that Brady hadn't the "obvious" decency to retire .... She also has the good sense to know that Brady has done more harm to the church she loves by "NOT" retiring (even after all his inaction) than many, including you, seem to realise.
Church attendances have went down directly due to his actions ... I personally know many people who say his "I done my duty" comment as the last straw ... Im not sure how his belated departure will affect thier status!

So the man you're blindly and in most normal peoples view "wrongly" saying did no harm has actually created a double whammy ... He's contributed to the detrimental harming of many many children & their families lives AND he has had a drastic affect on attendances at his own Church in Ireland.

At the end of the day its up to you in whether you want to continue thinking Brady did the right thing and deserves no blame .. However, the fact that you have repeatedly blamed Victims & Parents makes you the antithesis of what I believe the true meaning of a Catholic/Christian to really be!

You really are a very sick puppy ... May God help you !!

+10
That is an amazingly insightful post!
I sure hope you will post more often in the future.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 12, 2014, 01:23:07 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
What is the society average for paedophile percentages?

Hard to say Tony. It depends on the source you takes your figures from.
According to a study (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1379946/UK-has-250000-paedophiles-says-police-study.html) carried out by Scotland Yard,
"A QUARTER of a million Britons - more than one in every 200 adults - are paedophiles."
However, I've come across other surveys and the results vary a lot.
I found this (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophile) in a Wikipedia article.
"According to some studies, about 1% of all adult males may be pedophiles. Another study estimated the percentage of pedophiles to be between twelve and twenty percent."

Some studies in the USA indicated that the Catholic Church does not have/had any more active pedophiles than other institutions.
What inflates the damage the church did  was the prolificacy of the  abusers facilitated by the cover ups, the active cover up policy handed down from the vatican and the moral position the church claimed in society.
I see Brady has apologised and asked for forgiveness,  but he does not state for what.
Previously he admitted the church  got it badly wrong and asked for forgiveness for the church while claiming his role was very minor a pen pusher of sorts. Does he now admit that he was an integral active cog of the cover up? I doubt it.

Ah NowRef,I was waiting for the anticipated response from the "proverbial stalker who never posts". What kept you? Jump off the bandwagon for a while and read my posts and you will see that far from blindly exonerating Brady, I point out he made mistakes and that the issue of child abuse was woefully mishandled by the Church.

My objection all along has been the absolute demonisation of a man that I,and the vast majority of others know to be fundamentally decent.

I'm sorry if you think responsible parents should not have been far more inquisitive as to find out why their children were summoned to meetings then wilfully agreeing to exclusion from these meetings.I do not see this as responsible parenting.

If Sean Brady has caused people to abandon the church then their faith is fragile already.True believers would never self disenfranchise and effectively consign themselves to eternal damnation.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 06:38:26 PM


If Sean Brady has caused people to abandon the church then their faith is fragile already.True believers would never self disenfranchise and effectively consign themselves to eternal damnation.

Not a million miles from the ISIS position ;D

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 06:38:26 PM
Ah NowRef,I was waiting for the anticipated response from the "proverbial stalker who never posts". What kept you? Jump off the bandwagon for a while and read my posts and you will see that far from blindly exonerating Brady, I point out he made mistakes and that the issue of child abuse was woefully mishandled by the Church.

My objection all along has been the absolute demonisation of a man that I,and the vast majority of others know to be fundamentally decent.

I'm sorry if you think responsible parents should not have been far more inquisitive as to find out why their children were summoned to meetings then wilfully agreeing to exclusion from these meetings.I do not see this as responsible parenting.

If Sean Brady has caused people to abandon the church then their faith is fragile already.True believers would never self disenfranchise and effectively consign themselves to eternal damnation.

You are blaming the uninformed people outside the room for not doing more.

Then you blindly defend the people who were in the room, for doing nothing,

If those outside had been inside they might have helped those inside to come to a better decision.Hence my belief that there was a catalogue of failure,clerical,parental.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 07:49:30 PM
If those outside had been inside they might have helped those inside to come to a better decision.Hence my belief that there was a catalogue of failure,clerical,parental.

They weren't allowed in by Brady, were they Tony? And do you understand that the children were silenced with excommunication probably being the stick? That was an abuse of the poor children in itself.

Tony on the point of fragile faith your description of faith was more or less that it was a case of hedging your bets because you don't know what happens when you die.To me that is fragile faith.

P.s. I come from a devout family, am not deeply religious myself, but respect their non fragile faith.

QuoteIf Sean Brady has caused people to abandon the church then their faith is fragile already.True believers would never self disenfranchise and effectively consign themselves to eternal damnation.

To quote Ron Burgundy, you are truly bizarre Tony. You seem to have more in common with the late Dr. Brimstone than you would care to admit.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 06:38:26 PM
.

If Sean Brady has caused people to abandon the church then their faith is fragile already.True believers would never self disenfranchise and effectively consign themselves to eternal damnation.

Nah, having being through 7 years in a Christian Brothers' primary school & 7 years in St. Malachy's College, Belfast [with a headmaster who was promoted to Bishop of Down & Connor & which had 2 so-called "priests" in the role of Deans of Discipline i.e. beating the crap outta young boys on a daily basis, so that the Bishop didn't have to dirty his hands doing it himself, is enough to make you take a punt on "eternal damnation".

Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

What those those who money will no good to, who couldn't handle the abuse and who are no longer around ?. The compo payments will be some use to them.

Btw, where has the money for the court cases and the out of court settlements come from so far ?.

And where will it come from in the future ?.

As if compo will dull the pain.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

That's disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

Even for you that's pretty low.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

ffs TF - you have hit some pretty low points in this and the other thread but you have surpassed yourself this time. Absolutely shameful.

Sorry to be so blunt,but what is the end point that will bring closure? Serious point.

Fr McQuillan getting booted up & down the street outside the Parochial house in Armagh many moons ago by a victim of his abuse probably brought a certain amount of closure to that victim.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 09:43:32 PM
Sorry to be so blunt,but what is the end point that will bring closure? Serious point.

The compo payments will bring closure.

Being blunt implies that your point is apt, which is not the case. A new look even for TF.

Quote from: bennydorano on September 12, 2014, 10:21:17 PM
Fr McQuillan getting booted up & down the street outside the Parochial house in Armagh many moons ago by a victim of his abuse probably brought a certain amount of closure to that victim.

He didn't wait on Tony's compo. Wasn't enough booting done.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Muppet,the parents shouldnt have allowed the meeting to proceed without them.Watch how this child abuse dies down by the way after compo payments.Amazing how lives destroyed are quickly normalised by moolah.

I knew this was coming, as it was the unmentioned subtext of T. Fearon's apologia for the cover-up. But it's still a new low in this discussion.

Keep on posting Tony. You're doing a fine job in opening people's eyes to the chilling reality of what the official church and its blind zealots think of the victims of child rape.

Change the record.I told you before no one of any importance reads this.But it is apt to bring the debate into new avenues.

+1 Hardy. If TF is the kind of follower the Church is producing then God help us.

Quote from: No Soloing on September 12, 2014, 11:28:55 PM
+1 Hardy. If TF is the kind of follower the Church is producing then God help us.

I suspect that very few think the same way as TF.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 12, 2014, 11:27:35 PM
Change the record.I told you before no one of any importance reads this.But it is apt to bring the debate into new avenues.

Oh it's done that, more or less - except that we're talking open sewers, not avenues.

Quote from: orangeman on September 12, 2014, 11:34:34 PM

Quote from: No Soloing on September 12, 2014, 11:28:55 PM
+1 Hardy. If TF is the kind of follower the Church is producing then God help us.

I suspect that very few think the same way as TF.

But he would try to make you believe that 10,000 people at the Athletic Grounds think the same as him

You are all wasting your time.

You might think that exposing Tony is a good deed or needs to be done.

But you're only reiterating what you already know, ad nauseam.

You're only annoying yourselves in this case.

Tip. Fearon wins' every argument he gets involved in as he will quite simply outlast everyone else and claim Victory by default when everyone else has given up in exasperation.

Rubbish,I win because I remain calm,don't resort to abuse or personal insults,and adhere to the core points.I wish there could be tolerant debates on this board where all views are respected.

You win nothing by making downright despicable comments. That's not an insult - it's a fact.

You have not provided one convincing argument here and have ignored two guys - lar and muppet- who have torn your arguments to shreds.

Being honest reading back on this whole thread i actually feel a bit sorry for you. You seem to take some form of self gratification from "winning". The insults seem to provide you with some form of validation and you seem to push boundaries to try and get them then deem it as a victory. Any intelligent points you ignore. I don't actually believe you even believe half of what you write.

So why do we encourage him? That's what I can't fathom. There's no jury here that says, "Tony you lose". These discussions are, to my mind, pointless and actually worse than that because they encourage bad behaviour on the board from people who normally stay away from insulting people.

Tony doesn't 'win' arguments.. He just refuses to lose them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. And as I say, there is no jury here to hand down a verdict, so why do we perpetuate the cycle all the time.

I take on board hardy's view about exposing Tonys outrageous views, but I don't think there's a person on here who is oblivious to that now. Imagine being a victim of that abuse, and liking the GAA. Imagine logging on here and reading that shite. What would that do to your psyche?

Quote from: ONeill on September 13, 2014, 12:23:05 AM
You are all wasting your time.

You might think that exposing Tony is a good deed or needs to be done.

But you're only reiterating what you already know, ad nauseam.

You're only annoying yourselves in this case.

True. But listening to shite isn't easy. Being goaded is worse.
I think he's getting off on it. No other explanation possible.

Maybe you, ONeill and others are right, AZ and I'll take your advice on board.

For my part, I am not in a contest with T. Fearon. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that these abhorrent views and beliefs are out there, to whatever small extent, in the community. It's a pure propaganda exercise, to reverse the intended effects of his own pathetic efforts. And he's co-operating in it.

Maybe I'm deluded in thinking it's necessary. He's doing a fine job on his own in attracting contempt for these attitudes and views. 

It is not a debate, as far as I'm concerned. The pigeon chess analogy applies: debating with T. Fearon would be like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.

Quote from: bennydorano on September 12, 2014, 10:21:17 PM
Fr McQuillan getting booted up & down the street outside the Parochial house in Armagh many moons ago by a victim of his abuse probably brought a certain amount of closure to that victim.

The cnut couldn't have been booted enough, but be careful benny we don't want to upset parents of abusers, just parents of the abused are open to criticism on this thread. according to McQuillans fellow parishioner Fearon.

Quote from: Hardy on September 13, 2014, 09:39:11 AM
Maybe you, ONeill and others are right, AZ and I'll take your advice on board.

For my part, I am not in a contest with T. Fearon. I am simply drawing attention to the fact that these abhorrent views and beliefs are out there, to whatever small extent, in the community. It's a pure propaganda exercise, to reverse the intended effects of his own pathetic efforts. And he's co-operating in it.

Maybe I'm deluded in thinking it's necessary. He's doing a fine job on his own in attracting contempt for these attitudes and views. 

It is not a debate, as far as I'm concerned. The pigeon chess analogy applies: debating with T. Fearon would be like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how well you play, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it's victorious.

Stupid pigeon. Can't play chess, full of shit of about 6 different colours.

My final word on this subject is  an extract from Alf Mc Creary's (Belfast Telegraph) column today on the  subject of Cardinal Brady's resignation being accepted.Reflect deeply on these words.

".....It was interesting to note the warmth of the tributes from other church leaders which went beyond the usual anodyne statements on such occasions.The comments showed that, whatever the Cardinal's human failures, he was regarded warmly as an ecumenist in a divided community.There are always two sides to every story."

These sentiments, from a respected and experienced religious affairs commentator, resonate with my own, for which I have been accused variously of being mentally ill,disturbed,and a host of other insults.I rest my case with complete vindication at this stage.

Auld fella called Alf, who writes about lads in funny hats who worship an auld lad with a beard who lives in the sky, says one bunch of lads in funny hats reckon another auld lad in a funny hat was sound.

Complete vindication. And I'm sure the vast majority of the population of Christendom agree.

Keep posting Easy Tiger.You are doing a resounding job for Theophobia and Atheist zealots.Hardy,I apologise for stealing your thunder

Paisley is getting all sorts of similarly glowing tributes in the past day or so.

We all know what kind of a hate filled and evil man man he was with the blood of many on his hands. So I wouldn't pass much remarks on these tributes.

I wouldn't pass much remarks on Alf's tribute either.

There are pigeons everywhere, some more full of shite than the other.

The subtext for the ire against Brady is of course the irrational hatred of the Catholic Church in particular and religion in general.It is truly sad that people's views cannot be at least tolerated (without ridicule and insults) if not respected.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2014, 11:59:47 AM
The subtext for the ire against Brady is of course the irrational hatred of the Catholic Church in particular and religion in general.It is truly sad that people's views cannot be at least tolerated (without ridicule and insults) if not respected.

You are blaming parents of victims, victims themselves and alluding to the fact all they want is compensation, you are like your fellow parishioner a vile human being.

Yawn

Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2014, 12:39:13 PM
Yawn

Which for you always stands for, all above is true and even I can't argue against it.

The only obvious motive here for Tony is that, by blindly defending the Church, he believes he is a superior Catholic to everyone else here and thus he is more likely to get his eternal reward.

However, I have truly never ever heard anyone sick enough to suggest that the victims of clerical child abuse are somehow linked to compensation claims arising out of the abuse. Blaming them and their parents for the abuse was adding insult to injury. But to suggest a motive, by the derogatory mention of compensation, is about as fundamentally pure an evil as I have come across. This line of thinking goes beyond Tony's earlier insinuation that they deserved it, by not stopping it, and hints at it all being due to their own greed. The last remaining vile argument would be to suggest that the victims sought out the abusers, rather than the other way round, and I expect to see Tony put this out shortly.

But as long as Tony keeps blindly defending, he will get his eternal reward.

To those who see no point to furthering this discussion, there is a point. Watching the depths to which Tony is willing to descen,d to try to persuade everyone else to see the victims as the abusers, and the abusers as the victims, is well worth the exercise. It is a real education.

Yawn, I'm not defending the church from its dreadful mishandling of child abuse decades ago,I'm defending Sean Brady from demonisation.At the end of the day blindly defending any organisation made up of human beings will not cut much ice in the eyes of God.

You seem tired Tone - why don't you f**k off to bed, there's a good boy.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 13, 2014, 06:53:55 PM
Yawn, I'm not defending the church from its dreadful mishandling of child abuse decades ago,I'm defending Sean Brady from demonisation.At the end of the day blindly defending any organisation made up of human beings will not cut much ice in the eyes of God.

Your choice of defence of Sean Brady is to blame the parents and the victims themselves and to absolve Brady - "he was just anotary", "he reported accurately to his superiors" - and to ignore any evidence to the contrary, presented by anyone, including that released by the Church itself. You then suggest compensation as if it is an issue driven by the victims, in the Child abuse scandal. Of course you have form on this, you were the only poster here to complain about the compensation to the Magdalene Laundry survivors. Your argument iirc was 'where will it all end?'.

The reality is this thinking is motivated by a fear that if the Church has to pay it's victims, it will be quickly bankrupt. Of course what is not involved in this thinking is any sense of doing right by any of the injured victims. Which brings us nicely back to Sean Brady's silence all these years. It seems to fit perfectly into the cover up agenda which betrays exactly who is really motivated by money in all of this.

Inevitably it is the opposite side to the one Tony claims it is.

Ah FFS, Tony you've done it again! ;D ;D
You have now given your readers your final say on the subject at least three times in the past fortnight and you're still going strong.
When does "final" become, well, "FINAL!" in your book?

Muppet I have said repeatedly that this incident was as a result of a catalogue of failures,including those of Sean Brady and the parents.I never exonerated Brady,just vehemently opposed his demonisation as you seem to be opposed to any hint of criticism of the parents.

Answer these three questions.

1: Were the abused kids to blame for being abused?

2: Were the parents of the kids to blame for the abuse of their children by the catholic clergy?

3: Did Brady fail the parents and kids?

The Pearly Gates, a few decades from now. St Peter skulks outside, carrying a clipboard in one hand and smoke in the other. It's been a long day.

Suddenly from the incorporeal ether a figure materialises – a heavyset gentleman, with thick specs, squeezed into an Armagh 2002 jersey with "Geezer" on the back, and a papal flag from the Pope's visit in 79 in his paw. He strides purposefully towards the gate, ignoring Peter who is fumbling the clipboard whilst ditching the fag.

Peter (apologetically): "Hold on there, my son, just need to check the list. Red tape you know?"

TF: "Is it you? Truly the good Lord has blessed a humble minion like myself, that providence should let me gaze upon the foundation, the Rock, nay, the McGeeney of His awesome church – St. Peter himself! Let me prostrate myself before you, let me touch my forelock, let me thump my craw for never did I dare to dream my path on the stony road of life would lead here. Tony Fearon, your Sainted Saintliness!" A greasy hand is extended – Peter shakes it gingerly.

Peter: "You're truly welcome Tony. Fearon, you say? Just need to make sure you're on here, you know what they say, if your name's not down, you're not coming in, wha?"(laughing)

Tony's expression grows stony. "I very much doubt that, your Holiness. For I have led truly the righteous life of the believer. I left no knee ungenuflected, no unbeliever unscorned, no one who needed to be smited unsmoten. I tell you solemnly, I approached my Christian Life as Francie Bellew approached corner forwards – from behind, with great violence."

Peter: "Really my son? Were you a martyr?"

TF: "Only to my acid reflux, your Spiritualizedness. For it was in the Perki Chicken on Dorset Street that I met my fate. Armagh had returned to Croke Park for the first time in thirty years, contesting the All Ireland ladies junior final (they were robbed!) and I had stopped in for a lunch box with two pieces to sooth my bilious humours. Alas, they were doing a special on dinner boxes (only one euro extra for a third piece! Of breast!!) and there the axe fell. As I lay wheezing my last, in a pool of kebab sauce and drool, I gasped for a priest and yet none could be found. Which I though very strange in a country where the vast majority (we're talking 99.9%) share my piety, virtue and charity."

Peter: "Yeeeeaaaahhhh.....well you must be a shoo in so. Let's go down here (licks his finger and runs it down the clipboard) hang on. Hang on. Jaysis! (looks around shamefacedly) Tony, you can't be saying this....did you honestly type this? Good gravy. Listen, Tone, we've had what you might call an image problem over the past few years, and the general feeling here is if you're explaining, you're losing. Let alone attacking people. I mean, put your hands up, yeah? Ask for forgiveness, try to make amends? That's the general idea.

And some of those boys must have been on crack, you know? Vows of silence, moving people about parishes. Crazy stuff.  I dunno about the Big Fella, he tends to keep himself to himself, but Junior? He's not going to be happy about this at all. "

TF (exceedingly stony): "Well, if the Saviour has a problem with my beliefs then he should debate me in an articulate and civilized manner. And no matter what He says, it doesn't change the fact that in 2013 10,000 people at the Armagh County Final cheered Sean Brady to the rafters. And even to look at Sean Brady's sunny countenance is to see the golden glades of Heaven itself, so soft and pious and lovely and cuddly is the man. And here (he whips out a newspaper clipping) Alf McGuffin of the Belfast Bile said that if a saint, a supermodel and a teddy bear could miraculously be contained in one being, then verily it would be Sean Brady. Truly I am vindicated. Maybe your Saviour should reflect on that."

Peter (jaw dropped): "Tony, are you f%$&ing serious?"

TF: "Yawn. When one has won the argument one thinks one has won, one's opponents always resort to profanity and name calling. This is my final word on the matter....And another thing..."

Peter (pacing up and down) "Shut it Tony" (TF continues to drone on, like a fat bluebottle battering a window).

Peter stops. "I've got it. Tony, you are of course right. And it is because of your upright backbone, charitable face and ecclesiastical hair that myself and JC have a very special mission for you. It's time to take it to the man." Beside Peter a shaft has opened through the clouds, with a deep slope and a distinct smell of sulphur. "Beelzebub and his minions have had their way too long. It's time to hit them where they live."

TF (face brightening):"You mean me to battle the theophobes and atheist zealots?"

Peter (grimly): "We mean you to battle Lucifer himself." He gestures towards the shaft. "Onward Christian soldier!"

TF (beaming broadly and walking into the shaft): "Let me at 'em! I wouldn't be surprised if I found Mickey Harte down here, heh, heh, heh." Tony slowly disappears from view and his voice starts to dwindle. "Yea, though I walk through the valley of death, I shall fear no evil.....Oh My God!!........Hello Archbishop, have they sent you as well to be my comrade against wickedness? Come, we shall smite the unbelievers together Sean!!.......Who is that up ahead? Big fella, looks familiar......Dr. Paisley!!! Lord Jes........." The shaft closes with a thump.

Peter lights up another fag.

One for the archives ET. Brilliant stuff. Should be published in a national newspaper! First time I have commented on this thread as people know my thoughts on Fearon and his previous rants. But I have to congratulate you. Superb.

Quote from: 5 Sams on September 13, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
One for the archives ET. Brilliant stuff. Should be published in a national newspaper! First time I have commented on this thread as people know my thoughts on Fearon and his previous rants. But I have to congratulate you. Superb.

+1  :)

Easy tiger,I almost grinned.nearly ,didn't quite make it though

Bravissimo, ET.

Quote from: Zip Code on September 13, 2014, 09:29:58 PM

Quote from: 5 Sams on September 13, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
One for the archives ET. Brilliant stuff. Should be published in a national newspaper! First time I have commented on this thread as people know my thoughts on Fearon and his previous rants. But I have to congratulate you. Superb.

+1  :)

I'll second that. Brilliant stuff there that gave me a few laugh out loud moments (particularly liked that Francie jibe  ;D)

Quote from: muppet on September 13, 2014, 03:34:09 PM


To those who see no point to furthering this discussion, there is a point. Watching the depths to which Tony is willing to descen,d to try to persuade everyone else to see the victims as the abusers, and the abusers as the victims, is well worth the exercise. It is a real education.

Really? A real education to whom?

As a premise - anyone who has been on this board long enough knows I'm the polar opposite to Tony in almost everything - from the field to religion.

However, I find it a bit distasteful the personal attacks.

For me, it's like goading someone with dyslexia or some other learning disability. Challenge his ethos initially, certainly, but leave it at that. The penny should drop. He's not that important and he's not a bad fellow. I don't know how many posters there are on here but he's 1 voice who many on here seem to place massive importance to.

Try to understand the person and their reasons for processing historical events rather than poking fun at. And when you understand it, leave it at that.

Easytiger's bit is brilliant and I know Tony would find it funny too.

Quote from: Tony Baloney on September 13, 2014, 10:46:19 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 13, 2014, 09:29:58 PM

Quote from: 5 Sams on September 13, 2014, 09:22:40 PM
One for the archives ET. Brilliant stuff. Should be published in a national newspaper! First time I have commented on this thread as people know my thoughts on Fearon and his previous rants. But I have to congratulate you. Superb.

+1  :)

I'll second that. Brilliant stuff there that gave me a few laugh out loud moments (particularly liked that Francie jibe  ;D)

+1

Brilliant stuff.

My favourite line -

Peter (pacing up and down) "Shut it Tony" (TF continues to drone on, like a fat bluebottle battering a window).

Shane, that's a bit profound! Still totally inaccurate though. I'm not averse to a bit of humour at my expense but I'm afraid Easytiger's efforts are right up there with Hardy's Patsy from Forkhill in terms of being totally devoid of humour.

The real psychological questions should be posed to those who resort to personal insult.In any argument it's a sure sign you've beaten your opponents when they resort to this, knowing full well that their own arguments are invalid.

(http://i648.photobucket.com/albums/uu206/Hardyarse/pigeonchess_zps06fe9dda.png) (http://s648.photobucket.com/user/Hardyarse/media/pigeonchess_zps06fe9dda.png.html)

I started this thread because I felt there was nothing to be gained by continuing with the previous one. That was just a case of Tony vs The rest  and it would remain so long after it had served any useful purpose.
I hoped we would move on to discuss what happens next now that he has stepped down.
I believe that John B Brady was only a very small fish in a very big pond.
Later on, when Fr. John B morphed into Bishop Sean  and ultimately Cardinal Sean, he was as guilty as any other prelate of the church.
Between the lot of the, theory operated a nationwide protection to keep the activities of clerics in their midst hidden from public view and by their tacit acceptance, they encouraged the likes of Brendan Smyth to continue abusing without fear of the consequences.
I'm entertain that many of his peers were sorry to see Sean Brady go. Now the fear for each of them is that he will be the next one to be asked to account for his actions.
Going by the story in today's Sindo, there was a hell of a lot of covering up and a lot of church authorities involved.

Here's the report.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/church-paid-up-to-50m-in-wake-of-sean-brady-revelations-30585232.html (http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/church-paid-up-to-50m-in-wake-of-sean-brady-revelations-30585232.html)

Church paid 'up to €50m' in wake of Sean Brady revelations

Rush to settle 300 cases in which Cardinal was named as defendant
The Catholic Church is believed to have paid out up to €50m in compensation to abuse victims since former Cardinal Sean Brady's direct involvement in the swearing to secrecy of two of the victims of the paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth was revealed by the Sunday Independent.


Senior legal sources said there was a rush to settle the bulk of up to 300 High Court cases in which Brady was nominally named as lead defendant on behalf of the Church.

Many of the cases had been before the court for more than a decade - some for up to 16 years - as the Church stonewalled the plaintiffs.

The case that exposed Brady's direct involvement, where he was the "note-taker" in a case involving the boys raped by Smyth, had been before the High Court for 13 years.

However, Since Brady's involvement came to light in March 2010, a considerable number of the cases that had been before the courts for years have been reported on official records as ending with "no orders made in this case".

Legal sources say this is the usual sign that a case has been settled out of court. Such settlements are also usually contingent on the plaintiffs accepting confidentiality clauses, legally preventing them from speaking publicly about their abuse.

One senior legal source involved in some of the cases said it was likely the total amount in settlements was between "€40m to €50m".

Cholesterol Study
Looking for People with Cardiovascular Disease. Learn more.
www.clinlife.ie/High_Cholesterol
Life Insurance Quotes
Life Insurance from €10 / month. Get An Instant Quote in 30 Seconds.
irishinsurance.ie/Life-Insurance
Ads by Google
In cases of "serious" abuse, individual settlements of up to and over €250,000 have been made, but most compensation payments are thought to be below this figure.

Many are known to have been in the €100,000 region. All the cases were outside the State compensation scheme known as the Redress Board.

Forty-three of the cases citing Brady as defendant also named as co-defendant Sister Helena O'Donoghue, Provincial of the Religious Sisters of Mercy. Both were sued in a representative capacity. There is no suggestion that Sister O'Donoghue ever attempted to swear any victims to secrecy. These cases, involving 32 females and 11 males, are understood to relate mainly to the Goldenbridge and other orphanages run by the Order. All are recorded as being settled with "no orders" by the High Court. Most of these had been before the court for more than a decade.

The Sunday Independent's 2010 story about Brady's involvement in the case in which two boys were sworn to secrecy in 1975 attracted international attention as Brady was the first Catholic cardinal to be directly linked to such actions.

The case had major repercussions in many countries, particularly those where victims had been afraid and slow in coming forward. The massive publicity given to the Brady case prompted a landslide of revelations and further claims against the Church.

It subsequently emerged that the swearing of victims to secrecy was widely used throughout the world by the Catholic hierarchy.

Brady, who retired last week, never felt any official repercussions other than the widespread calls for his resignation in 2010 - which he and the Church ignored.

There was relatively little criticism raised last week over his role in the investigation of the Smyth abuse and the subsequent stonewalling of the victims' claims. RTE reported that "it was under his watch that the Catholic Church in Ireland reappraised its responsibilities".

Brady was also thanked for his "love and dedication" by the incoming Cardinal Eamon Martin who said he would be assured "of our continued affection and prayers".

The former Cardinal was never interviewed by gardai in relation to the church's handling of the Smyth abuse. He was also able to benefit from the fact that the State had abolished the old criminal offence which made failure to report a serious offence a crime, known as misprision of felony. This was abolished in 1997 just around the same time one of Smyth's victims, Brendan Boland, finally made his complaint to gardai. If the case had been made known to gardai in 1975 it could have prevented Smyth from raping and molesting dozens more victims over the following years before his arrest by the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 1994 for offences in Northern Ireland. He died aged 70 in prison in 1997.

Brendan Boland, who as a 14-year-old boy was sworn to secrecy about his abuse at the hands of Brendan Smyth, last week was one of the few voices critical of the outgoing Cardinal.

He said that since the publication of his book Sworn to Silence on July 12, a dozen people have contacted him "via various channels" to speak of their abuse.

Mr Boland told the Sunday Independent: "Of the 12, five are victims of Brendan Smyth, three of whom have never spoken about the abuse before now. Four of the 12 are victims of other priests. Three are victims of sexual abuse in the home. All have thanked me for writing the book as they feel it has in some way given them a voice, and the impetus to seek help."

Mr Boland added: "It appears as though he's just retiring naturally as if he's done nothing wrong. I feel let down again. They're attempting to save face again. They've failed to acknowledge the mishandling of the information that I gave them back in 1975, which is the names and addresses of five or six other children that I knew were being abused. They failed to act on that."

A spokesman for the Catholic Church said there would be no comment from the ex-Cardinal or his nominated successor Archbishop Eamon Martin in realtion to the compensation payments. He pointed to Brady's remarks in announcing his retirement when he said: "Pope Francis' motto: 'Miserando atque eligendo', challenges and inspires me with its message of God having mercy and at the same time choosing us, despite our sinfulness. It reminds me that I too need to say sorry and to ask forgiveness. And I do so again, now. At the same time, Pope Francis' motto inspires me to trust in the mercy of God and to pray for the strength to do always as Jesus would have me do."

Sunday Independent

Quote from: ONeill on September 13, 2014, 11:45:29 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 13, 2014, 03:34:09 PM


To those who see no point to furthering this discussion, there is a point. Watching the depths to which Tony is willing to descen,d to try to persuade everyone else to see the victims as the abusers, and the abusers as the victims, is well worth the exercise. It is a real education.

Really? A real education to whom?

As a premise - anyone who has been on this board long enough knows I'm the polar opposite to Tony in almost everything - from the field to religion.

However, I find it a bit distasteful the personal attacks.

For me, it's like goading someone with dyslexia or some other learning disability. Challenge his ethos initially, certainly, but leave it at that. The penny should drop. He's not that important and he's not a bad fellow. I don't know how many posters there are on here but he's 1 voice who many on here seem to place massive importance to.

Try to understand the person and their reasons for processing historical events rather than poking fun at. And when you understand it, leave it at that.

Easytiger's bit is brilliant and I know Tony would find it funny too.

This is a bizarre post.

I agree ET's post is brilliant.

Regarding my comment on 'education', it is an education. I believe that is why so many posters read and post on this thread. They, like it or not, are fascinated with the blind intransigence of a fundamentalist Catholic, who will argue with everyone, and blame everyone, except his seriously flawed hero.

But what is bizarre is that my comment regarding it being an education is somehow a worse personal attack than either ET's great piece or your own 'For me, it's like goading someone with dyslexia or some other learning disability'. If you thought I was 'poking fun' then I think you may have misunderstood me. I was not poking fun, I was deadly serious. The child abuse scandal is about the biggest story on this island since partition. It is always worth hearing the other side of an argument and even better if it is taken to it's extreme limits. I genuinely see that as an education.

I would believe the Protestant Telegraph before the anti Catholic Sindo.But thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.This is largely about the Compo.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 03:04:38 PM
I would believe the Protestant Telegraph before the anti Catholic Sindo.But thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.This is largely about the Compo.

That has certainly been the Church's focus.

Which reinforces my previous point.

So not only do you advocate the facilitators of child abuse, but now you are saying those directly affected by such abuse should not receive any justice whatsoever from those who inflicted the abuse upon them?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 03:19:18 PM
Which reinforces my previous point.

Was that point about their covering everything up to avoid paying compensation?

No.I am always amazed how money can wash away or "settle" every grievance.

On another point you seem to spend every waking hour researching facts or more correctly unsubstantiated allegations re clerical child abuse.Why? What's the fascination?

Where's the compo coming from ?. Does anyone know ?.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 03:43:09 PM
No.I am always amazed how money can wash away or "settle" every grievance.

Unfortunately when the abused can't get their hands on the abuser and kick seven shades of shite out of the cnut as in the case of your fellow parishioner Gerald McQuillan, or when the abuser is dead, the only thing open to receive justice is compensation from the facilitators of the abuse, the Catholic Church in these cases. Are you saying that the abused don't deserve justice?

And the bit in bold is a direct question, but no doubt you won't answer it.

Beating the living shite out of Clergy is generally frowned upon, so I suppose monetary recompense is the most sensible way to settle a grievance, but shure it gives you an opportunity to mudsling and muddy waters - and it must be pretty clear to even you by now, nobody is buying what you're selling.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 03:43:09 PM
No.I am always amazed how money can wash away or "settle" every grievance.

On another point you seem to spend every waking hour researching facts or more correctly unsubstantiated allegations re clerical child abuse.Why? What's the fascination?

The use of money is unsatisfactory, but at the moment there isn't a better way to inflict the appropriate punishment on an abusive organisation. The article above estimates €50m paid out on cases involving Brady alone.

Wow! He must be the worst notary in the distinguished history of note-taking.

As for the second derogatory question. How is 'researching facts' 'more correctly unsubstantiated allegations'?

Anyway, I read books and am very interesting in Ireland and in particular Irish history. This scandal is the biggest Irish story since partition imho. Some people spout off the first 'unsubstantiated' thing that comes into their heads, others prefer to do some homework first and substantiate their arguments.

Er I would have thought the violence from the late 60s to the early 90s was the biggest story since partition.

Muppet - you only have facts that you've gone to the bother of researching. As you've just been clearly told, facts not only don't count against dogma and zeal but to pursue and ascertain them is eccentric foolishness.

Quote from: Hardy on September 14, 2014, 04:13:09 PM
Muppet - you only have facts that you've gone to the bother of researching. As you've just been clearly told, facts not only don't count against dogma and zeal but to pursue and ascertain them is eccentric foolishness.

Evidently it is also anti-Catholic.

Apologies Muppet. That post was in two parts. The first line aimed at you. The rest at those who use the argument to pile on the personal abuse. Not you. I was being economical with the oul environment and all by not posting twice.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 03:04:38 PM
I would believe the Protestant Telegraph before the anti Catholic Sindo.But thanks for confirming what I suspected all along.This is largely about the Compo.

Ah, FFS,Tone, here was me, trying to get you and your hero off the hook and this is my thanks!
Cripes! I'd be better off getting my handball and go looking for a haystack. ;D ;D
Just when I thought we were reaching common ground of some sort, you take off again n several directions at once!
I told you that at the time of that interview, I thought Brady was only a small fish in a very big pond. There were others, superior to him, that were covering far more up for a great many more abusers.
Maybe you will answer a few quickies for me.
Now the proverbial chickens are coming home to roost in a big, big way.
Why knock the Sindo?
Are you suggesting that it's printing lies?
If the editor hadn't double-checked his facts, he'd never post anything that would land him in a big, big trouble, wouldn't he?
Do you think the Church would pay out 50 cent, never mind €50 million if it could get away without doing so?
Why does the Church settle so many cases out of court?
Would you settle a case in this way if you didn't know you were guilty a shell?

These are the easy ones, I'll have a dozen more for you when you answer the ones above. 

Quote from: ONeill on September 14, 2014, 04:58:58 PM
Apologies Muppet. That post was in two parts. The first line aimed at you. The rest at those who use the argument to pile on the personal abuse. Not you. I was being economical with the oul environment and all by not posting twice.

Fair enough. I knew there was something I wasn't getting.

Lar I have never ever attempted even to deny child abuse by clerics.My sole argument was merely the defence of Sean Brady against sustained demonisation and the attempts to lay practically the entire blame upon his shoulders.

Most organisations (I've even benefitted from this myself thought not as a victim of anything remotely approaching child abuse) tend to settle out of court to avoid bad publicity.Surely you wouldn't fault anyone for doing this.

The Church badly mishandled child abuse in the past,is dealing with it (in terms of compensation) and what's more,is fully admitting its culpability,unlike a lot of other organisations who while settling out of court qualify this action with the  statement "Our decision to do this in no way reflects any acceptance of wrongdoing on our part".

Meanwhile the day is surely not far away before all citizens get bombarded with letters emails from legal firms , in a manner resembling the PPI fiasco, asking "Are you catholic? Were you abused by clergy without your consent? We can help" That's how farcical it has become.

Senior clerics like Sean Brady and the two living Popes deserve sympathy and assistance with sorting this mess out ( which was not of their making) instead of ridicule and insult.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 06:49:28 PM
Lar I have never ever attempted even to deny child abuse by clerics.My sole argument was merely the defence of Sean Brady against sustained demonisation and the attempts to lay practically the entire blame upon his shoulders.

Most organisations (I've even benefitted from this myself thought not as a victim of anything remotely approaching child abuse) tend to settle out of court to avoid bad publicity.Surely you wouldn't fault anyone for doing this.

The Church badly mishandled child abuse in the past,is dealing with it (in terms of compensation) and what's more,is fully admitting its culpability,unlike a lot of other organisations who while settling out of court qualify this action with the  statement "Our decision to do this in no way reflects any acceptance of wrongdoing on our part".

Meanwhile the day is surely not far away before all citizens get bombarded with letters emails from legal firms , in a manner resembling the PPI fiasco, asking "Are you catholic? Were you abused by clergy without your consent? We can help" That's how farcical it has become.

Senior clerics like Sean Brady and the two living Popes deserve sympathy and assistance with sorting this mess out ( which was not of their making) instead of ridicule and insult.

Do you seriously believe that Benedict and Sean Brady deserve sympathy, while you crassly lob blame at the victims themselves and their parents?

Yes,after all they weren't involved but are charged with sorting it out.I attach no blame to the child victims themselves.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 07:35:40 PM
Yes,after all they weren't involved but are charged with sorting it out.I attach no blame to the child victims themselves.

Thats mighty decent of you

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 07:35:40 PM
Yes,after all they weren't involved but are charged with sorting it out.I attach no blame to the child victims themselves.

Quote from: T Fearon on August 24, 2014, 11:53:08 AM
The children were wrong not to tell their parents, the parents were wrong to not bring their children up in an ethos of not sharing their concerns or peculiar experiences, the whole ethos of the catholic church in terms of dealing with child abuse was wrong.Sean Brady was a victim of circumstances which inevitably led him to make mistakes for whivh he has apologised.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 07:35:40 PM
Yes,after all they weren't involved but are charged with sorting it out.I attach no blame to the child victims themselves.

They most certainly were involved.

Not involved in the crime commission.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 09:15:20 PM
Not involved in the crime commission.

They were not involved in the abuse.

However they were certainly involved in covering it up.

They were guilty of mishandling it.

QuoteLar I have never ever attempted even to deny child abuse by clerics.My sole argument was merely the defence of Sean Brady against sustained demonisation and the attempts to lay practically the entire blame upon his shoulders

.
Tony, I'm trying to agree with you, if only you'd let me!
I hoped when I started this thread that the  discussion would focus on the bigger picture. After all, JB Brady was never going to rock any boats if he could help it. His bishop knew when sending him off to do his dirty work that Brady would follow the usual routine.
If the "36-year-old minion" had acted any differently, the best he could hope for would be a curacy in some one-horse town in Armagh or maybe, God forbid, in Roscommon.
Even if John B had objected, he knew the police north or south, wouldn't take action and some other lackey would leapfrog past him on the promotion ladder.

QuoteMost organisations (I've even benefitted from this myself thought not as a victim of anything remotely approaching child abuse) tend to settle out of court to avoid bad publicity.Surely you wouldn't fault anyone for doing this.

I think everybody and every body would tend to settle out of court if they knew they hadn't a hope of winning inside. Victims of paedophiles who have since gone to their eternal reward have no other avenue of redress, other than going to court.

QuoteThe Church badly mishandled child abuse in the past,is dealing with it (in terms of compensation) and what's more,is fully admitting its culpability,unlike a lot of other organisations who while settling out of court qualify this action with the  statement "Our decision to do this in no way reflects any acceptance of wrongdoing on our part".

Not so sure we are singing from the same hymn sheet here.
IT took a long time for anybody in the Church to admit anything about anybody.
Your hero is a case in point. He only admitted his part in that infamous interview when the media landed on his doorstep.
I know other organisations have settled out of court with some form of your statement. Fine, but A) they'd admit sweet FA unless there was no other option and B) so would the Catholic Church if it could insist on it.
NOI qualifier =  full admission that the party involved is 100% guilty as charged.

Meanwhile the day is surely not far away before all citizens get bombarded with letters emails from legal firms , in a manner resembling the PPI fiasco, asking "Are you catholic? Were you abused by clergy without your consent? We can help" That's how farcical it has become.

I agree Tony, that day may be just around the corner.
But, given that the Church has deep pockets, it's hardly that a single cent will be paid out to any claimant  unless it realises that  it would be less costly to admit guilt and settle out of court.

QuoteSenior clerics like Sean Brady and the two living Popes deserve sympathy and assistance with sorting this mess out ( which was not of their making) instead of ridicule and insult.

I think Pope Francis is a sound skin, dunno much about him but he's made a good start. I know Diarmuid Martin and if I was a Catholic, I'd back him before any other senior cleric, living or dead.
Benny and Sean?
Ah, you can take the pair of them with you when you go to do the job Peter asked you to do. ;D

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 09:15:20 PM
Not involved in the crime commission.

Tony

Would asking a child to sign an oath of silence be an act of commission or an act ot omission?

Anyway I don't think body actually thinks they were asked to so sign in that polite way that your are asked do you want salad and the works with your burger

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 09:48:28 PM
They were guilty of mishandling it.

...and of covering it up.

Lar and LCohen.The policy and procedures were wrong in the 70s,not necessarily the people operating them.Once again it is laughable to suggest the Catholic Church is some sort of career ladder.FFS who would want to be Pope or a Bishop.The likes of Brady followed a vocation and was ultra loyal to the church and its antiquated procedures.He has admitted that and apologised for it.

Equally laughable is the inference that I hero - worship Sean Brady.

By the way Lar how's the handball going? Surely even a Mayo man could beat a haystack,as long as it wasn't an All Ireland Final ;D

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 10:15:56 PM
Lar and LCohen.The policy and procedures were wrong in the 70s,not necessarily the people operating them.Once again it is laughable to suggest the Catholic Church is some sort of career ladder.FFS who would want to be Pope or a Bishop.The likes of Brady followed a vocation and was ultra loyal to the church and its antiquated procedures.He has admitted that and apologised for it.

Equally laughable is the inference that I hero - worship Sean Brady.

The old "Befehl ist Befehl" defence is a poor and discredited one at the best of times but is absolutely devoid of credibility when put forward as the defence of somebody who is supposed to know right from wrong and be in a position to guide other in differentiating right from wrong.

This swearing to secrecy.What was it for and for how long was it to last? Until the end of the investigation? Either way it was ineffective,Muppet said the victims parents were assured by the church that Smyth would be dealt with,therefore it is largely a red herring.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0017.html (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1939/en/act/pub/0013/sec0017.html)

Administering unlawful oaths.

17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or

(b) to join or become a member of or associated with any organisation having for its object or one of its objects the commission of any crime, or breach of the peace, or

(c) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the existence or formation or proposed or intended formation of any such organisation, association, or other body as aforesaid or from informing or giving evidence against any member of or person concerned in the formation of any such organisation, association, or other body, or

(d) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,

shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years,

(2) Every person who shall take any such oath, declaration, or engagement as is mentioned in the foregoing sub-section shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years unless he shall show—

(a) that he was compelled by force or duress to take such oath, declaration, or engagement (as the case may be), and

(b) that within four days after the taking of such oath, declaration, or engagement, if not prevented by actual force or incapacitated by illness or other sufficient cause, or where so prevented or incapacitated then within four days after the cessor of the hindrance caused by such force, illness or other cause, he declared to an officer of the Gárda Síochána the fact of his having taken such oath, declaration, or engagement, and all the circumstances connected therewith and the names and descriptions of all persons concerned in the administering thereof so far as such circumstances, names, and descriptions were known to him.

I understand form, the article published earlier, this was removed from the statue books in 1997. But it would appear that anyone administering an oath, to remain silent on a crime, was probably guilty of a crime.

This is what replaced it:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0008.html#sec8 (http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0014/sec0008.html#sec8)

8.—(1) Where a person has committed an arrestable offence, any other person who, knowing or believing that the offence or some other arrestable offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an offender for it, accepts or agrees to accept for not disclosing that information any consideration other than the making good of loss or injury caused by the offence, or the making of reasonable compensation for that loss or injury, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years.

(2) No proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

(3) The compounding of an offence shall not be an offence otherwise than under this section.

(4) The First Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act, 1951 (which specifies the indictable offences which may be tried summarily with the consent of the accused) is hereby amended by the insertion of the following reference:

"25. An offence under section 8 of the Criminal Law Act, 1997.".

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 10:17:54 PM
By the way Lar how's the handball going? Surely even a Mayo man could beat a haystack,as long as it wasn't an All Ireland Final ;D

My days at the oul' handball are but distant memories, I'm afraid.
I was just thinking that trying to play a game off a haystack would be less frustrating than trying to have a logical debate with you. ;D

Muppet,but what if the administrator of the oath was effectively compelled to administer the oath in the first place? Also that statute incriminates those who accept oaths,which places the children or more probably their parents in an equally sticky position.

So why are you blaming children for being abused.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2014, 06:49:04 AM
Muppet,but what if the administrator of the oath was effectively compelled to administer the oath in the first place? Also that statute incriminates those who accept oaths,which places the children or more probably their parents in an equally sticky position.

It does place the parents in a difficult position, if they knew anything. Boland's father did eventually go to the police.

But the priests who got the boys to sign the oaths should have all been arrested.

I suppose Brady and co didn't think that the state would "cross the line".

http://www.independent.ie/tablet/news/mcaleese-has-a-duty-to-name-and-shame-catholic-cleric-30586678.html

Muppet seems like you're moving on to my turf.There was a catalogue of failures by many people.I don't see how the oath legislation could be enforced.There are two parties to every oath,so who is ultimately responsible?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2014, 10:14:15 AM
Muppet seems like you're moving on to my turf.There was a catalogue of failures by many people.I don't see how the oath legislation could be enforced.There are two parties to every oath,so who is ultimately responsible?

Based on your previous posts you obviously blame the child who was abused.

There are two parties to every oath so who is responsible?

I'd say, at a wild guess, the 36 year old man, representing a massive world wide institution with huge political and social influence, who was coercing a 15 year old abuse victim to take said oath. Good Jesus.

Thanks all by the way for your kind comments re the other post.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 14, 2014, 10:15:56 PM
Lar and LCohen.The policy and procedures were wrong in the 70s,not necessarily the people operating them.Once again it is laughable to suggest the Catholic Church is some sort of career ladder.FFS who would want to be Pope or a Bishop.The likes of Brady followed a vocation and was ultra loyal to the church and its antiquated procedures.He has admitted that and apologised for it.

Equally laughable is the inference that I hero - worship Sean Brady.

Bejaysus Tony, you had me fooled. I honestly thought that you were the founder and only member of SB's fan club.
I think I understand your POV a bit better now. Not saying that I agree with you but I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,
Take the Dublin Archdiocese as an example.
The Murphy  Report in 2009 found that  "During the period under review, there were four Archbishops – Archbishops McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell. Not one of them reported his knowledge of child sexual abuse to the Gardaí throughout the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.
A total of 45 abusers were named in that report.

McNamara it turned out, had insured the archdiocese against financial liability without revealing the extent of child abuse in his jurisdiction. This only came to  light in an audit requested by the present archbishop, Diarmuid Martin.
Connell who refused point blank to release files associated with child abuse to the gardai, gave a secret loan of £30,000 to a priest named Ivan Payne to pay for an out of court settlement.  Connell blustered about the primacy of Canon Law over Civil Law.
He only changed his mind when his successor, Diarmuid Martin,  threatened to take a court action against him if he didn't hand them over.
There's loads more Tony as I am only skimming through the litany of reported abuse cases in the Dublin archdiocese in a period that stretched over 30 years. The Murphy Report only investigated claims from the 60s to the 80s.  (No mention of any cases in the 90s or later.)
Would you defend the role of any of 4 friggers I've mentioned or would you accept that there was widespread deceit and deception in the Dublin archdiocese during a 30 year period.

The Dublin Archdiocese responded to the child abuse allegations in the very same manner that all dioceses in Ireland (and beyond) dealt with them, which begs the question what is Canon laws ruling on the subject and did the Holy See in Rome offer guidance on how to deal/mask/spread the issue?

Is the role of EVERY christian not to stand up and defend your faith? This being the case, why is TF the only one doing the defending out of the 8 people sad to see Sean Brady go?

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2014, 11:49:27 AM
I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,

I disagree. The only reason Brady's record on the child rape issue is under discussion is because this thread and the other one are ABOUT him! Brady only comes up at all because T. Fearon continually lionises him, makes excuses for him and brings up his every appearance in public as an opportunity to taunt people with his successful (so far) cheating of justice. All "demonisation" of Brady, or discussion of his reprehensible carry-on, as I'd put it, is in response to that.

No comparisons have been made, that I've noticed, between Brady's particular transgressions and those of other conspirators, cover-uppers and child rape facilitators/abettors. If someone starts a thread on Connell or the conspirators in Ferns or in Cloyne, then when T. Fearon comes along to mount his defence of their behaviour in turn, and we respond with the truth, we might start seeing relative assessments of their crimes, if that's what seems important.

It's not what seems important to me. Nobody even wants to be discussing these creatures, but the likes of T. Fearon keep dragging them out for new coats of whitewash. That provokes the rest of us to point to out that the whitewash isn't sticking, as we hold our noses because of the stink.

Anyone read Justine McCarthy on Brady's retirement - which it is by the way, not a resignation or in any way a statement of cul;pability or even regret. It is a behind a pay wall on their site, but she was terrific on the soft soaping of Brady compared to the actual facts - he is involved in a mess of litigations, which he has and still continues to contest, skin and knuckles flying. A far cry from the unambitious, pious, vocation-follower TF describes.

Quote from: Hardy on September 15, 2014, 12:33:04 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2014, 11:49:27 AM
I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,

I disagree. The only reason Brady's record on the child rape issue is under discussion is because this thread and the other one are ABOUT him! Brady only comes up at all because T. Fearon continually lionises him, makes excuses for him and brings up his every appearance in public as an opportunity to taunt people with his successful (so far) cheating of justice. All "demonisation" of Brady, or discussion of his reprehensible carry-on, as I'd put it, is in response to that.

No comparisons have been made, that I've noticed, between Brady's particular transgressions and those of other conspirators, cover-uppers and child rape facilitators/abettors. If someone starts a thread on Connell or the conspirators in Ferns or in Cloyne, then when T. Fearon comes along to mount his defence of their behaviour in turn, and we respond with the truth, we might start seeing relative assessments of their crimes, if that's what seems important.

It's not what seems important to me. Nobody even wants to be discussing these creatures, but the likes of T. Fearon keep dragging them out for new coats of whitewash. That provokes the rest of us to point to out that the whitewash isn't sticking, as we hold our noses because of the stink.

I understand what you are saying and perhaps I didn't get across what I actually meant.
I started this thread in the hope that the discussion would focus on what is likely to happen now that Brady ha\s retired.
I think it's pure daft that a lot of otherwise sensible, rational adults (including me of course!) should continue trying to hammer sense into the brain of Tony Fearon, knowing full well that it is a pointless exercise.
I don't see any point in locking this thread as someone else will immediately start another one.
So far between both threads about Brady, a total of 77 pages have been devoted to attacks on Tony who promptly answers using a form of previously unknown logic.  There's no sense or meaning of any sort in most of his replies yet others continue trying to dispute issues with him.
Now that Brady has gone, I'd say the likes of Des Connell or Brendan Comiskey are fearing that they will be up next in the firing line.
I think that by demonising Brady, we all are losing sight of the bigger picture. IMO, Brady committed far worse crimes when he became Bishop Sean than when n he was merely Fr John B.
From there on, he ranks alongside Connell and Comiskey as a major player in the nationwide conspiracy to protects paedophiles.
I believe that there wouldn't have been nearly as many active paedophile clerics and consequently far few abused children if the Hierarchy hadn't organised this massive cover up.
Why focus on Brady alone when there were many others at least as guilty as he was?

The thread is about brady ???

In an another ridiculous effort to switch the blame, the Gardai are now being criticised for the Kingsmill's massacre which took place in Co Armagh ::)

Easytiger,Brady is the nominee at the head of these litigations simply because he was head of the Church.It's the same as victims of atrocities up here years ago, suing the current PSNI chief constable.

Quote from: imtommygunn on September 15, 2014, 02:35:46 PM
The thread is about brady ???

But it isn't really. Over 90% of the posts on this thread consist of criticism of Brady's part in the conspiracy to silence Brendan Boland and Tony's "rebuttals."
That's the major point being debated here but Brady has questions to answer on a lot of other issues.
So has his fellow bishops and I'd like to bring the parts they played in the shameful cover up.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 15, 2014, 07:01:58 PM

Quote from: imtommygunn on September 15, 2014, 02:35:46 PM
The thread is about brady ???

But it isn't really. Over 90% of the posts on this thread consist of criticism of Brady's part in the conspiracy to silence Brendan Boland and Tony's "rebuttals."
That's the major point being debated here but Brady has questions to answer on a lot of other issues.
So has his fellow bishops and I'd like to bring the parts they played in the shameful cover up.

Not to mention the Vatican. The Cloyne report was scathing of their attitude and this was continuing apparently unabated until the appointment of Pope Francis, and maybe it still hasn't changed: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0)

That must be your first internet trawl in 24 hours.Get a life.

Muppet - last warning. Stop spoiling this thread with facts.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2014, 10:59:08 PM
That must be your first internet trawl in 24 hours.Get a life.

Such pejoritive language Tony. Why? Do the devout not seek the truth the same as the rest of us?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2014, 10:59:08 PM
That must be your first internet trawl in 24 hours.Get a life.

What life would be good Tone, a life defending the indefensible, a life posting crap on message boards and twitter in an attention seeking rage, a life offering sympathy for facilitators of abuse and families of abusers whilst castigating the abused and their families, a life of unquestioning loyalty for one of the most corrupt organisations on earth?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 15, 2014, 10:59:08 PM
That must be your first internet trawl in 24 hours.Get a life.

Is this the same Tony?

QuoteIt is truly sad that people's views cannot be at least tolerated (without ridicule and insults) if not respected.

QuoteI win because I remain calm,don't resort to abuse or personal insults,and adhere to the core points.I wish there could be tolerant debates on this board where all views are respected.

It is the very same muppet - he is a total hypocrite who talks that much shite he ties himself up in knots and repeatedly contradicts himself, he deserves pity more than anything.

I mean seriously.Sexual predators are everywhere,unfortunately,no major.organisation hasn't been blighted by having them imadvertently in their midst.As the world's premier global organisation with a membership of billions,the Catholic Church sadly was always going to have more than its fair share.In my view, when allegations are made Priests are nkw quite correctly suspended, and upon conviction they should be immediately defrocked and indeed excommunicated.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:04:13 AM
I mean seriously.Sexual predators are everywhere,unfortunately,no major.organisation hasn't been blighted by having them imadvertently in their midst.As the world's premier global organisation with a membership of billions,the Catholic Church sadly was always going to have more than its fair share.In my view, when allegations are made Priests are nkw quite correctly suspended, and upon conviction they should be immediately defrocked and indeed excommunicated.

So abuse shouldn't ever be covered up then?

Ah muppet you know the rules by now, Tony will never answer a direct question, he will spout shite about Brady doing his job blah blah blah, as I said he deserves pity.

It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.It didnt stop the abuse and inevitably left the church exposed to attack from theophobic anti catholics who are only waiting for an excuse to demonise.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 11:22:45 AM
It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.It didnt stop the abuse and inevitably left the church exposed to attack from theophobic anti catholics who are only waiting for an excuse to demonise.

Correct. But compounding that mistake was that they actually moved these animals around to other parishes where they were free to continue. The leaders of the church were more interested in maintaining their position and power in society, and less interested by far in the victims, past and future, of this shower of tramps. That is to the eternal shame of the leaders of the church all the way up to the very recent past.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 11:22:45 AM
It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.It didnt stop the abuse and inevitably left the church exposed to attack from theophobic anti catholics who are only waiting for an excuse to demonise.

13 year old girl: Can I go to Copper's tonight?
Girl's Dad: No, of course not.
13 year old girl: You hate me!

Grow up Tony.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 11:22:45 AM
It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.It didnt stop the abuse and inevitably left the church exposed to attack from theophobic anti catholics who are only waiting for an excuse to demonise.

You're obviously a staunch defender of the Catholic church and I admire you for that as the church has taken a lot of slack by hypocrites in the press who probably wouldn't have stood up to the church back in the day. However you are trying to defend the indefensible here.

I wouldn't consider myself anti Catholic. I can't think of a more depraved crime than sexually abusing a helpless child. Covering it up (or "dealing with this issue in house" as you like to label it) and denying that you did so could be classed as depraved also. Defending people that tried to cover it up??

Thank you for your respectful contribution.I do not equate mishandling a problem with covering up,and those who repeatedly level such charges don't take into account the current robust procedures the church has in place. Sadly it is human nature to protect the integrity of organisations but the best way to do this is in a totally overt manner as soon as possible

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:06:46 PM
Thank you for your respectful contribution.I do not equate mishandling a problem with covering up,and those who repeatedly level such charges don't take into account the current robust procedures the church has in place. Sadly it is human nature to protect the integrity of organisations but the best way to do this is in a totally overt manner as soon as possible

This, whether you mean it or not, is precisely why some of us are critical of Brady. He has not dealt with this in a manner that could be called overt.

He didnt,he and the church should have,but he is not a demon for making a mistake

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:06:46 PM
Thank you for your respectful contribution.I do not equate mishandling a problem with covering up,and those who repeatedly level such charges don't take into account the current robust procedures the church has in place. Sadly it is human nature to protect the integrity of organisations but the best way to do this is in a totally overt manner as soon as possible

So it is OK to cover up abuse as long as you promise to try and not do it in the future?

He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

He may as well presented subsequent individual victims to Smyth such was his categorical failure in protecting future innocent children by his actions!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 11:22:45 AM
It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.It didnt stop the abuse and inevitably left the church exposed to attack from theophobic anti catholics who are only waiting for an excuse to demonise.

Tony, how do you reconcile those statements?

A) In my view, when allegations are made Priests are nkw quite correctly suspended, and upon conviction they should be immediately defrocked and indeed excommunicated.

B) It was the greatest mistake the church ever made to attempt to deal with this issue in house.

Whats wrong with them?  They are logically complementary

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 02:28:25 PM
Whats wrong with them?  They are logically complementary

Tony your argument has been blown to smithereens.

You are left with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikssfUhAlgg)

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

LB, according to Boland's book, there are two signatures on Boland's oath of silence.

One is the 14 year old's, and the other is that of Sean Brady.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

LB, according to Boland's book, there are two signatures on Boland's oath of silence.

One is the 14 year old's, and the other is that of Sean Brady.

no offence muppet - but that means feck all

if there was any evidence etc other than of brady being a useless hoor and keeping the perceived party line, then he would be incarcerated by now

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:54:49 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

LB, according to Boland's book, there are two signatures on Boland's oath of silence.

One is the 14 year old's, and the other is that of Sean Brady.

no offence muppet - but that means feck all

if there was any evidence etc other than of brady being a useless hoor and keeping the perceived party line, then he would be incarcerated by now

Keeping it quiet for 35 years has helped a lot. No one knew until 2010. I hope the Gárdaí re-open the investigation.

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:58:00 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:54:49 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

LB, according to Boland's book, there are two signatures on Boland's oath of silence.

One is the 14 year old's, and the other is that of Sean Brady.

no offence muppet - but that means feck all

if there was any evidence etc other than of brady being a useless hoor and keeping the perceived party line, then he would be incarcerated by now

Keeping it quiet for 35 years has helped a lot. No one knew until 2010. I hope the Gárdaí re-open the investigation.

that's why no matter how nice he has been to Tony etc - I think he is a b0llix.
glass ceiling minded idiot.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 03:02:28 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:58:00 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:54:49 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 02:49:09 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

LB, according to Boland's book, there are two signatures on Boland's oath of silence.

One is the 14 year old's, and the other is that of Sean Brady.

no offence muppet - but that means feck all

if there was any evidence etc other than of brady being a useless hoor and keeping the perceived party line, then he would be incarcerated by now

Keeping it quiet for 35 years has helped a lot. No one knew until 2010. I hope the Gárdaí re-open the investigation.

that's why no matter how nice he has been to Tony etc - I think he is a b0llix.
glass ceiling minded idiot.

I agree. I am not even really out to see him jailed or anything like that.

It is simply that I believe he should have stood down in 2010, at the latest. Better still if he put his hand up in the 1990s and admitted an error of judgement or whatever I think most people would have been sympathetic. But to stay on in the face of overwhelming adverse opinion against him was crass, insensitive to the victims and appeared arrogant in the extreme.

unfortunately it seems to be a common trait in us Irish folk- not knowing when to accept you've fcuked up and step down

governments, politicians, financiers, banks etc

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 02:28:25 PM
Whats wrong with them?  They are logically complementary

I f you mean convicted by a court of law, I agree with you. I f you mean an ecclesiastical investigation, then I'm afraid I don't.

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 16, 2014, 02:44:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 16, 2014, 12:56:06 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 12:48:57 PM
He didnt cover anything up,he was a relatively small part of a mishandled issue.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

as a matter of interest muppet- what evidence is that?


this and the other thread are a load of cobblers.
I personally don't wholly agree with either faction here- I think brady played a poor game here and should have been hauled off long ago
but no one knows who or what actions or steps he took to address things or raise the issue
the problem might not have been brady, but as I said, he didn't do well here imo
there is no evidence of anything
just a load of abused kids and a disgracefully antiquated system that has hopefully been addressed and fixed for future.
the handful of priests who did this should have got the death penalty imo.
the church system was dreadful. but worldwide in recent years we have seen that bad systems are only identified long after the abuse and sorry events have occurred.
Various abuses in religious faiths in various countries, financial abuses in our own and various countries.
Proper Procedure, policy and regulation in everything is so vitally important imo.

You just can't be serious if that means what I think it means.
This is the message I take out of it.

"Ah, sure FFS nothing happened really- no big deal. After all, we're only talking about kids, aren't we?
Okay, the system  that should have been in place to protect them just wasn't working and we didn't bother our arses doing anything about it until we were caught out.
Ah, but now that's been sorted out and we have nice, new robust procedures in place so all will be hunky dory from now on won't, it? So, it's business as usual after that trifling hiccup."

The PPI are delivering their answer, loud and clear.
The numbers of practising Catholic are in free fall. That's not just my opinion, Diarmuid Martin recently said that only 17% of the said PPI describe themselves as regular mass-goers.
Today in the IT. he had this to say;
Just two Catholic priests in Dublin are under 40, while a further 44 are aged between 70 and 75 and "in the next four or five years will be going into a more retired sort of life"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/just-two-catholic-priests-in-dublin-aged-under-40-martin-1.1818859

The "anti-Catholic bigots" that seem to bother Tony so much can't be held responsible for that, can they?

This is the secular world we live in.Nothing to do with child abuse.Anyone who has left the church,due to child abuse has cut their nose off to spite their face.They simply haven't thought it through,otherwise they wouldn't jeopardise their souls for all eternity

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 09:17:48 PM
This is the secular world we live in.Nothing to do with child abuse.Anyone who has left the church,due to child abuse has cut their nose off to spite their face.They simply haven't thought it through,otherwise they wouldn't jeopardise their souls for all eternity

Alright Big Ian....

Frequently Tony labels those who criticise the church (and its involment in the rape of children and the cover up of the rape of children) as anti-catholic. Then we have his comments on secularism. Can Tiny outline what difficulties he would have with secularism?

It seems from reading this thread that the standards to be aimed at for a high performing church member would be implement the rules of the church even it prevents serious crime being reported to the police and risk further heinous definition being committed, to swear to secrecy the victims of serios crime (worry not about the future victims this might leave exposed), keep quiet about any legal or moral wrong doing you might have been involved in and act to frustrate any investigation that expose your wrong doing, bring justice to the victims of heinous crime and bring to an end the commiting of that heinous crime by some people.

Any idea that leading church members should show bravery, do the right thing, have sympathy for victims, seek to protect victims, act with integrity and openess has been exploded as a fallacy   

I have no problem with secularism,each to their own,but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Your last comment is totally wrong.I have said time and again the church was wrong to try and protect its reputation 40 years ago by trying to manage this issue in house when it was not in any way experienced or equipped to do so effectively.But you would concede that lessons have been learned and apologies offered.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
I have no problem with secularism,each to their own,but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Your last comment is totally wrong.I have said time and again the church was wrong to try and protect its reputation 40 years ago by trying to manage this issue in house when it was not in any way experienced or equipped to do so effectively.But you would concede that lessons have been learned and apologies offered.

The church was wrong in its actions. We can agree that because its obvious.

The individual church members who committed the abuse, covered it up at the time, failed to report to the police at the time, frustrated legal inquiries at the time, frustrated the subsequent inquries, moved assets beyond the reach of victims and fail to bring forward all the evidence they have today were/are also wrong. This is equally obvious. Can you agree that?

When these actions are reversed/made good then I will join you in saying that the lessons that need to be learned have in fact been learned. Everything is inadequate and indeed shameful.

No I disagree.The Church responded in the time honoured way of trying to protect its reputation.I don't believe that Brady or anyone else in the mid 70s had a tiny conception of the scale of the problem or indeed that they were managing a monster in Brendan Smyth.Perhaps they in all innocence felt that if Smyth was made aware of his activities,like an errant schoolboy, he would not repeat them.It is all to easy knowing what we know now,to criticise mistakes and omissions 40 years ago.

The number of abusive clerics imprisoned in Ireland would suggest that the authorities are not being denied the required information and evidence to secure convictions.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:51:36 PM
No I disagree.The Church responded in the time honoured way of trying to protect its reputation.I don't believe that Brady or anyone else in the mid 70s had a tiny conception of the scale of the problem or indeed that they were managing a monster in Brendan Smyth.Perhaps they in all innocence felt that if Smyth was made aware of his activities,like an errant schoolboy, he would not repeat them.It is all to easy knowing what we know now,to criticise mistakes and omissions 40 years ago.

The number of abusive clerics imprisoned in Ireland would suggest that the authorities are not being denied the required information and evidence to secure convictions.

Do you understand that the Church is still covering up?
Do you understand that the problem is not stuck in 1970s?

How is the Church covering up ? If it is why are the Police not arresting people,or arriving with search warrants etc?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Correct - it's a combination of laziness / wealth / and the notion that you are invincible.

Who needs a god when you can drive to the pub on a sunday in your big feck-off SUV you couldn't really afford to watch the Man Utd game on Sky Sports.

Indeed.What a shallow and meaningless existence.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Correct - it's a combination of laziness / wealth / and the notion that you are invincible.

Who needs a god when you can drive to the pub on a sunday in your big feck-off SUV you couldn't really afford to watch the Man Utd game on Sky Sports.

Or a realisation that they whole thing is a load of bollocks.

Can you prove that?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 07:28:26 AM
Can you prove that?

Can you prove it's not?

No,just the  same way that you cannot prove it is.But if I'm wrong I've lost nothing,if you're wrong you've lost everything.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 07:34:02 AM
No,just the  same way that you cannot prove it is.But if I'm wrong I've lost nothing,if you're wrong you've lost everything.

Do you think if there is a God he will look more favorably on an altar lickers who defends the church for child abuse and demonizes those who were abused and the parents of those who were abused, than someone who doesn't believe in his/her existence?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 07:34:02 AM
No,just the  same way that you cannot prove it is.But if I'm wrong I've lost nothing,if you're wrong you've lost everything.

Also does everyone who has never believed lost everything, babies born without being baptised before the "law" changed, are they lost, people who never heard of God are they lost - anyone born before Jesus are they lost.  Murders who repent are they ok - evil child rapists who said the odd mass are they ok, as I said it is all bollocks.

Who are you trying to convince,  me or yourself?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 09:16:13 AM
Who are you trying to convince,  me or yourself?

Yawn  ;) - Why do you never answer one of my questions.

Answer this one.

Also does everyone who has never believed lost everything, babies born without being baptised before the "law" changed, are they lost, people who never heard of God are they lost - anyone born before Jesus are they lost.  Murders who repent are they ok - evil child rapists who said the odd mass are they ok, as I said it is all bollocks.

Also there are at least 100 Billion Galaxies - does each have a God or is there just the one looking after them / or not looking after them all?

These are mysteries of faith which I can't answer,but if there is a God,and people don't believe in him,he'd hardly going to look too kindly on these people.If you're happy as an atheist,Good Luck!

So what about my question - you are a man of faith surely you could answer this?

Also does everyone who has never believed lost everything, babies born without being baptised before the "law" changed, are they lost, people who never heard of God are they lost - anyone born before Jesus are they lost.  Murders who repent are they ok - evil child rapists who said the odd mass are they ok?

Those are mysteries of faith, no human can answer

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 10:23:57 AM
Those are mysteries of faith, no human can answer

You answered them.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 07:34:02 AM
No,just the  same way that you cannot prove it is.But if I'm wrong I've lost nothing,if you're wrong you've lost everything.

You said people who don't believe will have lost everything - but you do talk some balls.

Zip, you're right -  Pascal's wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager).

I don't want to divert this into another interminable theism vs. atheism bout, but this basis for "belief" in a god doesn't even claim to be based on a genuine belief or faith, motivation for good or concern for one's fellow man. Never mind reason or logic. It's simply an expression of fear.

Pascal's wager is good for a chuckle, but ultimately it's bogus. If God truly exists in the way described in the Bible, He will be able to see into a man's heart and see his belief for what it is - not true 'belief', but a cowardly each-way bet. Hell it is!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 11:20:47 PM
How is the Church covering up ? If it is why are the Police not arresting people,or arriving with search warrants etc?

I published this already, you ignored it then and will probably ignore it again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0)

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN AUG. 23, 2014

........But far from settling the matter, the Vatican has stirred an outcry because it helped Mr. Wesolowski avoid criminal prosecution and a possible jail sentence in the Dominican Republic. Acting against its own guidelines for handling abuse cases, the church failed to inform the local authorities of the evidence against him, secretly recalled him to Rome last year before he could be investigated, and then invoked diplomatic immunity for Mr. Wesolowski so that he could not face trial in the Dominican Republic......

Quote from: deiseach on September 17, 2014, 10:51:19 AM
Pascal's wager is good for a chuckle, but ultimately it's bogus. If God truly exists in the way described in the Bible, He will be able to see into a man's heart and see his belief for what it is - not true 'belief', but a cowardly each-way bet. Hell it is!

So God sees a person, invariably good and honest to those they have dealings with, but doesn't believe in god is damned to eternal fire and damnation whilst an alter rail hugger who goes to the sacraments regularly but is a backboneless spiv who signed children up to an oath of silence allowing a child abuser to go about their evil ways for another decade and more is welcomed into the pearly gates as they say a few hail marys then that's a god I don't want anything to do with!

Quote from: johnneycool on September 17, 2014, 11:05:06 AM
So God sees a person, invariably good and honest to those they have dealings with, but doesn't believe in god is damned to eternal fire and damnation whilst an alter rail hugger who goes to the sacraments regularly but is a backboneless spiv who signed children up to an oath of silence allowing a child abuser to go about their evil ways for another decade and more is welcomed into the pearly gates as they say a few hail marys then that's a god I don't want anything to do with!

That certainly seems to be Tony's God.

The mystery's of faith - you can't knock them.  ;D

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
I have no problem with secularism,each to their own,but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Your last comment is totally wrong.I have said time and again the church was wrong to try and protect its reputation 40 years ago by trying to manage this issue in house when it was not in any way experienced or equipped to do so effectively.But you would concede that lessons have been learned and apologies offered.

Tony, I don't want to muck up your day for you but I'd really like to know why you can state categorically that child abuse is not driving secularism.
And while you''r eat it, maybe you could explain what "secularism" means to you.
I believe it means the separation of church and state and that no religion should be held in higher regard than any other.
AS a matter of fact, it ties in nicely with the teachings of Jesus. If he said something, aren't you supposed to accept it as fact?
GO check for yourself. Try Mark 12:17 and you'll see what I mean.
(Y'know "Render unto Caesar .... ")
BTW, who said clerical abuse began only 40 years ago? Brendan Smyth was abusing kids as far back as the late 40s.  Do you think clerical abuse started with Smyth?
According to "The Nation," the oldest weekly magazine in the US;

"Documents going back to the fourth century show that the Church was aware of a pedophilia problem."
What do you think? Is it the usual, "Lies, all lies!"

Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 17, 2014, 12:37:54 PM
Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

This is an important point in all of this. To Tony, anyone who thinks like this is anti-Catholic, which is an obvious cover for a lack of a reasonable response.

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:27:18 AM

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Correct - it's a combination of laziness / wealth / and the notion that you are invincible.

Who needs a god when you can drive to the pub on a sunday in your big feck-off SUV you couldn't really afford to watch the Man Utd game on Sky Sports.

Or a realisation that they whole thing is a load of bollocks.

That's kinda arrogant. You don't know that.

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 17, 2014, 12:37:54 PM
Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

Only people who I've ever heard that from are the trendy brigade looking for excuses to condemn.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 01:16:46 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:27:18 AM

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 05:47:06 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Correct - it's a combination of laziness / wealth / and the notion that you are invincible.

Who needs a god when you can drive to the pub on a sunday in your big feck-off SUV you couldn't really afford to watch the Man Utd game on Sky Sports.

Or a realisation that they whole thing is a load of bollocks.

That's kinda arrogant. You don't know that.

And you don't know it's not.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 17, 2014, 12:37:54 PM
Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

Only people who I've ever heard that from are the trendy brigade looking for excuses to condemn.

Jesus wept so anyone who has been put off Catholicism because of the vile child abuse and subsequent cover up within the organisation is only doing it to be trendy - and you have the nerve to say I am arrogant. 

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 01:21:23 PM

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 17, 2014, 12:37:54 PM
Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

Only people who I've ever heard that from are the trendy brigade looking for excuses to condemn.

Jesus wept so anyone who has been put off Catholicism because of the vile child abuse and subsequent cover up within the organisation is only doing it to be trendy - and you have the nerve to say I am arrogant.

The trendy brigade already have no affiliation to the church (the secular lot). They left the church a long long time ago but still like to make their voices heard on any church subject as it suits their agenda.

fyi - I didn't say you were arrogant, I meant that it's an arrogant way to think.

You have a nice an arrogant way to think yourself, that is some bubble you have placed everyone who condemns the church in, a trendy brigade who already have no affiliation to the church.  It's people like yourself chewing the alter rails and not able to see the woods for the trees that will ensure others leave the church.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 01:29:27 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 01:21:23 PM

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 01:18:50 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 17, 2014, 12:37:54 PM
Clerical Abuse is absolutely contributing to the falling attendences at mass. I know for a fact that some people are saying 'Why should I listen to a priest lecturing about morality and sin, when they were covering up some of the worst sins and immorality for years'?

There are a number of factors, obviously, but it's head in the sand stuff to say that the scandal of Clerical abuse of children has not had an impact on people's devotion to the church. (Not necessarily God by the way).

Only people who I've ever heard that from are the trendy brigade looking for excuses to condemn.

Jesus wept so anyone who has been put off Catholicism because of the vile child abuse and subsequent cover up within the organisation is only doing it to be trendy - and you have the nerve to say I am arrogant.

The trendy brigade already have no affiliation to the church (the secular lot). They left the church a long long time ago but still like to make their voices heard on any church subject as it suits their agenda.

fyi - I didn't say you were arrogant, I meant that it's an arrogant way to think.

I know one person in particular who was devout and the last scandal to hit the church has made him a lot less devout and he rarely goes now. This is 40 years later. It is not only people who are anti religion who feel that way.

It's very easy to say the trendy brigade just say that but that is not the case. That one is a specific example of a person who I know pretty well. There are a few others who I wouldn't know quite so well but feel like that.

Secularism would have expanded with or without clerical abuse.Anyone who abandons their faith due to.clerical abuse hasn't thought it through.The Church is more about theology rather than flawed people.

Lar, my understanding of secularism is the abandonment of religion in favour of exclusively worldly matters.I have no problem with separation of Church and State ,though the Church has a right to have its voice heard.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 03:01:19 PM
Secularism would have expanded with or without clerical abuse.Anyone who abandons their faith due to.clerical abuse hasn't thought it through.The Church is more about theology rather than flawed people.

That makes no sense. They haven't thought it through applying the same logic as you apply - that is all.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 03:01:19 PM
Secularism would have expanded with or without clerical abuse.Anyone who abandons their faith due to.clerical abuse hasn't thought it through.The Church is more about theology rather than flawed people.

Cop yourself on - you don't have to chew the altar rails to have faith.  Now are you saying believers who don't go to mass will lose everything?  As Hardy says keep posting - you cover yourself and the Catholic church in glory with each new post.  ;D

It is logical.If parents don't practice the faith neither will their children.It's totally different from a believer abandoning the church due to.child abuse

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 03:15:18 PM
It is logical.If parents don't practice the faith neither will their children.It's totally different from a believer abandoning the church due to.child abuse

What faith is this?

funnily enough, ive seen the attendance swell in the past decade in my local church.
Undoubtedly there will be people who stop going due to feeling disillusioned about the whole abuse issue,
but as it was a small number or priests abusing and a small number that ballsed up the handling and stopping of this - the majority of priests were good men (mostly all with their own human problems etc imo ...drink, gambling etc) but as a whole good men.

the issue these days for the catholic church is not the attendances, its the falling numbers of priests.
lay priests, married priests and woman priests imo are the future for the church.

and yes, too many anti religious/anti church folk are speaking up slating the church when they have no stake in the matters or institution. Just an excuse to take pot shots.
 

Yes, and I'm saying that a lot of people who believe in God have 'abandoned' the church. Not necessarily because some priests were abusers, but because the institution of the church decided to protect itself, and put its power above the welfare of the children these priests had abused. Worse than that, it placed these priests in situations where they would have the opportunity to do the exact same thing to more people.

That cover up, and indeed facilitation, of child abuse is a large reason why people are disillusioned with the institution of the church. If you can't accept that, I think you are just willfully refusing to do so. Note, I said 'with the church', not with God, and not with their faith.

AZ surely you need to go to mass once a week and coma pray for eternal salvation!

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 17, 2014, 03:19:00 PM
funnily enough, ive seen the attendance swell in the past decade in my local church.
Undoubtedly there will be people who stop going due to feeling disillusioned about the whole abuse issue,
but as it was a small number or priests abusing and a small number that ballsed up the handling and stopping of this - the majority of priests were good men (mostly all with their own human problems etc imo ...drink, gambling etc) but as a whole good men.

I agree with this, but the Church as an institution was corrupt and failed its flock dramatically. I agree that most priests, and certainly any I know myself, are good and devout men, who help people as best they can.

Quote
the issue these days for the catholic church is not the attendances, its the falling numbers of priests.
lay priests, married priests and woman priests imo are the future for the church.

Again, I agree. The Vocation to the priesthood was , I believe, always influenced by the perceived power and prestige associated with joining the priesthood. The fact that this prestige has been tarnished, along with the spread of secularism means the numbers just are not there. I agree that Married priests will need to be allowed. Not sure about woman priests being allowed.

Quote
and yes, too many anti religious/anti church folk are speaking up slating the church when they have no stake in the matters or institution. Just an excuse to take pot shots.

Again, agree. And there will always be those who take pot shots at any organised religion, that's life. However I think there are lot of people who can be brought back into the church if the church is seen to finally and completely do the right thing, of its own volition instead of being harassed into it all the way. These are people of faith, who have simply been turned away from the Church because of its behaviour. These people are not the same as the group you mention, and I believe quite a few people fall into this category.

why the hang up with women priests, are you all misogynists?

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 17, 2014, 03:19:00 PM
funnily enough, ive seen the attendance swell in the past decade in my local church.
Undoubtedly there will be people who stop going due to feeling disillusioned about the whole abuse issue,
but as it was a small number or priests abusing and a small number that ballsed up the handling and stopping of this - the majority of priests were good men (mostly all with their own human problems etc imo ...drink, gambling etc) but as a whole good men.

the issue these days for the catholic church is not the attendances, its the falling numbers of priests.
lay priests, married priests and woman priests imo are the future for the church.

and yes, too many anti religious/anti church folk are speaking up slating the church when they have no stake in the matters or institution. Just an excuse to take pot shots.

There is no doubt that the problems of the Church are mainly higher up and that the vast majority of the clergy on the ground are fantastic, genuine people. I went to a school run by priests and have no complaints regarding any of them. They varied, but all had our interests at heart and did a good job.

But while the day to day stuff is with the members on the ground, the whole ideology and overall respect for the organisation is generated or destroyed higher up the ladder. This is a real problem for the Church and the Vatican in particular, many Cardinals and a lot (apparently declining numbers thankfully) of Bishops ignore this problem.

To do a Tony on it....a neighbour and family friend, and mother of a huge family of devout Catholics, recently left the Catholic Church completely. This wasn't the lure of secularism, this was a reaction to the problems facing the Catholic Church and she has since joined another Church. Some of us would call it a cult, but it offers her devotion something she felt the Vatican didn't.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 03:07:46 PM
Lar, my understanding of secularism is the abandonment of religion in favour of exclusively worldly matters.I have no problem with separation of Church and State ,though the Church has a right to have its voice heard.

Fair enough Tony but that's not the orthodox definition of secularism. I've no problem with the church having a say in social or political matters. In  fact, it has a duty to do so.
But it's very obvious that an increasing number of people have decided that the teachings of the Church doesn't meet their needs. They can't all be members of "the trendy brigade."
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin in a recent statement said that while 95% of the population are nominally Catholic, only 17% describe themselves as regular mass-goers.
I've known the man for many years and I genuinely like him. Definitely not a BS merchant.

And another thing, while the fall of in mass attendance may worry the church  authorities, the plummeting numbers studying for the priest must worry them even more. I've already quoted from what he had to say in yesterday's IT. And to jog your memory, here it is again.

"Just two Catholic priests in Dublin are under 40, while a further 44 are aged between 70 and 75 and in the next four or five years will be going into a more retired sort of life"
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/just-two-catholic-priests-in-dublin-aged-under-40-martin-1.1818859

Does all this not suggest to you that the Church's teachings  are being disregarded by the vast majority of the PPI and that its message means less and less to more and more  every day that passes?

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 03:51:31 PM

Quote from: lynchbhoy on September 17, 2014, 03:19:00 PM
funnily enough, ive seen the attendance swell in the past decade in my local church.
Undoubtedly there will be people who stop going due to feeling disillusioned about the whole abuse issue,
but as it was a small number or priests abusing and a small number that ballsed up the handling and stopping of this - the majority of priests were good men (mostly all with their own human problems etc imo ...drink, gambling etc) but as a whole good men.

the issue these days for the catholic church is not the attendances, its the falling numbers of priests.
lay priests, married priests and woman priests imo are the future for the church.

and yes, too many anti religious/anti church folk are speaking up slating the church when they have no stake in the matters or institution. Just an excuse to take pot shots.

There is no doubt that the problems of the Church are mainly higher up and that the vast majority of the clergy on the ground are fantastic, genuine people. I went to a school run by priests and have no complaints regarding any of them. They varied, but all had our interests at heart and did a good job.

But while the day to day stuff is with the members on the ground, the whole ideology and overall respect for the organisation is generated or destroyed higher up the ladder. This is a real problem for the Church and the Vatican in particular, many Cardinals and a lot (apparently declining numbers thankfully) of Bishops ignore this problem.

To do a Tony on it....a neighbour and family friend, and mother of a huge family of devout Catholics, recently left the Catholic Church completely. This wasn't the lure of secularism, this was a reaction to the problems facing the Catholic Church and she has since joined another Church. Some of us would call it a cult, but it offers her devotion something she felt the Vatican didn't.

Ah well her faith wasn't overly strong anyway and she'll burn in hell for that (c) T. Fearon.

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 17, 2014, 03:55:21 PM

But it's very obvious that an increasing number of people have decided that the teachings of the Church doesn't meet their needs. They can't all be members of "the trendy brigade."

Not everyone can be trendy.

I've lost count of the number of people I've had to listen to bad mouth the church and they never set foot in the doors except for funerals/baptism's and their "big day". They'll lie to the clergy in order to get the venue, even have heard boasting of how they blagged it.
They'll even try get the venue for free. The church certainly will meet their needs for a day.


Hypocrites.

Quote from: johnneycool on September 17, 2014, 03:49:32 PM
why the hang up with women priests, are you all misogynists?

Not really. I just don't think it will be allowed. I think it might be a step too far for the lads in Rome. I wouldn't have a problem with it, although it would be 'odd'. Do you call them Father, or Mother? :)

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 04:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 17, 2014, 03:55:21 PM

But it's very obvious that an increasing number of people have decided that the teachings of the Church doesn't meet their needs. They can't all be members of "the trendy brigade."

Not everyone can be trendy.

I've lost count of the number of people I've had to listen to bad mouth the church and they never set foot in the doors except for funerals/baptism's and their "big day". They'll lie to the clergy in order to get the venue, even have heard boasting of how they blagged it.
They'll even try get the venue for free. The church certainly will meet their needs for a day.


Hypocrites.

Wow! Evil b**tards! Vile hypocrites indeed!

Now - what were we talking about? Oh yes - the church covering up and facilitating child rape (while lecturing the public about morality).

Quote from: Hardy on September 17, 2014, 04:21:57 PM

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 04:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 17, 2014, 03:55:21 PM

But it's very obvious that an increasing number of people have decided that the teachings of the Church doesn't meet their needs. They can't all be members of "the trendy brigade."

Not everyone can be trendy.

I've lost count of the number of people I've had to listen to bad mouth the church and they never set foot in the doors except for funerals/baptism's and their "big day". They'll lie to the clergy in order to get the venue, even have heard boasting of how they blagged it.
They'll even try get the venue for free. The church certainly will meet their needs for a day.


Hypocrites.

Wow! Evil b**tards! Vile hypocrites indeed!

Now - what were we talking about? Oh yes - the church covering up and facilitating child rape (while lecturing the public about morality).

+1 You couldn't make it up.  The altar huggers here certainly put up a strong case to have fcuk all to do with the Catholic Church if they are all as brainwashed as fox and Tone.

Quote from: Hardy on September 17, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Wow! Evil b**tards! Vile hypocrites indeed!

I'm glad you agree. We may have some common ground after all.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 04:07:24 PM

Quote from: Lar Naparka on September 17, 2014, 03:55:21 PM

But it's very obvious that an increasing number of people have decided that the teachings of the Church doesn't meet their needs. They can't all be members of "the trendy brigade."

Not everyone can be trendy.

I've lost count of the number of people I've had to listen to bad mouth the church and they never set foot in the doors except for funerals/baptism's and their "big day". They'll lie to the clergy in order to get the venue, even have heard boasting of how they blagged it.
They'll even try get the venue for free. The church certainly will meet their needs for a day.


Hypocrites.

People who are disillusioned with the Church attend funerals wedding etc? You are preaching on behalf of the Church, but what you say is completely contrary to Church teaching. Jesus would welcome back all the prodigal sons with open arms. You, by the sounds of it, definitely wouldn't.

Who is the hypocrite?

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 04:56:07 PM

Quote from: Hardy on September 17, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Wow! Evil b**tards! Vile hypocrites indeed!

I'm glad you agree. We may have some common ground after all.

Good to see the nice Christian values instill in you.

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 05:20:59 PM

People who are disillusioned with the Church attend funerals wedding etc? You are preaching on behalf of the Church, but what you say is completely contrary to Church teaching. Jesus would welcome back all the prodigal sons with open arms. You, by the sounds of it, definitely wouldn't.

Who is the hypocrite?

Where did I say they shouldn't attend weddings/funerals? I just pointed out the hypocrisy that they have no problem attending on occasions when it suits. If they object to the church so much surely they can always just go graveside to pay their respects or head straight to the reception of whatever celebration

FYI - I'm not Jesus.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 06:26:18 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 05:20:59 PM

People who are disillusioned with the Church attend funerals wedding etc? You are preaching on behalf of the Church, but what you say is completely contrary to Church teaching. Jesus would welcome back all the prodigal sons with open arms. You, by the sounds of it, definitely wouldn't.

Who is the hypocrite?

Where did I say they shouldn't attend weddings/funerals? I just pointed out the hypocrisy that they have no problem attending on occasions when it suits. If they object to the church so much surely they can always just go graveside to pay their respects or head straight to the reception of whatever celebration

FYI - I'm not Jesus.

You called them hypocrites. This is hardly approval is it?

QuoteFYI - I'm not Jesus.

I never said you were. But you call some people who ignore some Church teaching hypocrites, while ignoring other teachings your self.

I think the point to be argued doesn't belong on this thread. This isn't about just another axe to grind - its about the systematic abuse of Children and Sean Brady's involvement in covering it up.

However what I think you might be getting at is there are a lot of contributors on this thread who have lots of axes to grind where the Church is concerned. I agree that the majority of those with axes to grind are the people who rarely go to Mass if at all and prefer to fix the Church via the world problem solving gaaboard :) who rubbish the Church but then go their for weddings, funerals etc... I get what you saying....

But that's for another time and another place.

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 06:32:23 PM
You called them hypocrites. This is hardly approval is it?

Just telling it as it is. That is the correct definition of that word isn't it?
I don't see that pointing out the flaw leads to me ignoring any teachings. I'm not stopping anyone from attending church.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 06:58:42 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 06:32:23 PM
You called them hypocrites. This is hardly approval is it?

Just telling it as it is. That is the correct definition of that word isn't it?
I don't see that pointing out the flaw leads to me ignoring any teachings. I'm not stopping anyone from attending church.

What flaw?

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 06:58:42 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 06:32:23 PM
You called them hypocrites. This is hardly approval is it?

Just telling it as it is. That is the correct definition of that word isn't it?
I don't see that pointing out the flaw leads to me ignoring any teachings. I'm not stopping anyone from attending church.

Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

My God is one who wants people to believe in him and the redemptive sacrifice of his Son on the cross,and living a life which gives witness to and reflects such beliefs.I also believe he doesn't expect anyone to be infallible all the time, and genuinely welcomes those who repent and come back into the fold.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:27:11 PM
My God is one who wants people to believe in him and the redemptive sacrifice of his Son on the cross,and living a life which gives witness to and reflects such beliefs.I also believe he doesn't expect anyone to be infallible all the time, and genuinely welcomes those who repent and come back into the fold.

If Brendan Smyth repented, how is he fixed?

If it's true,genuine and real,he's ok,according to doctrine,according to both Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
If it's true,genuine and real,he's ok,according to doctrine,according to both Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

Fair enough. And when is the deadline for his repenting?

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

The prodigal son gave up his old life but. Turned away from it. And because of that choice the Father ran to him. Ran.

I'm not sure where the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass happens? On the board?

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

The prodigal son gave up his old life but. Turned away from it. And because of that choice the Father ran to him. Ran.

I'm not sure where the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass happens? On the board?

It is usually Foxcommander.

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:41:18 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
If it's true,genuine and real,he's ok,according to doctrine,according to both Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

Fair enough. And when is the deadline for his repenting?

Thats the struggle of all believers Muppet. You can repent on your deathbed and if its genuine then you have hope of salvation.
Back to our old story of the prodigal son. The other brother was left a little upset about the whole thing....

The shepherd cares for us all equally but will seek out the lost sheep...

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

The prodigal son gave up his old life but. Turned away from it. And because of that choice the Father ran to him. Ran.

I'm not sure where the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass happens? On the board?

It is usually Foxcommander.

thankfully none of us are the Church - just a part of it. I wouldn't be getting too bothered about what the fox says ;)
I read somewhere or heard that thousands upon thousands of people hate what they think is the catholic church or how they understand the catholic church to be. but only hundreds actually know the church and still hate it...  could be true  - who knows.

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:44:48 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:41:18 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:38:44 PM
If it's true,genuine and real,he's ok,according to doctrine,according to both Catholic and Protestant beliefs.

Fair enough. And when is the deadline for his repenting?

Thats the struggle of all believers Muppet. You can repent on your deathbed and if its genuine then you have hope of salvation.
Back to our old story of the prodigal son. The other brother was left a little upset about the whole thing....

The shepherd cares for us all equally but will seek out the lost sheep...

I don't have a huge problem with this line of thinking but the obvious extreme cases would cause difficultly. For example, does Stalin get off if he genuinely repents? I am not asking you as it is not fair. But you can see the difficulty.

Did not Barabas repent at the very last minute,on the cross,and was assured of salvation by the Master himself

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:59:54 PM
Did not Barabas repent at the very last minute,on the cross,and was assured of salvation by the Master himself

Does anyone know if Paisley repented on his deathbed?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:59:54 PM
Did not Barabas repent at the very last minute,on the cross,and was assured of salvation by the Master himself

tony what are you talking about? If you are referring to the good thief at the crucifixion he was not assure salvatation. he was told he would join Jesus in "paradise" which if you look at Jewish tradition you would see is the holding place between heaven and hell  -what Catholics call purgatory.

If Stalin repented I believe he would go to purgatory. Were all of us would be lucky to get to. Repenting and reconciling are two different things. We can be forgiven but we need to work out our salvation in purgatory (to my understanding of it all anyway).

None of this is easy to understand or take in.

Paisley is doomed sure he is a prod ;)

Quote from: LCohen on September 16, 2014, 10:20:49 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:12:45 PM
I have no problem with secularism,each to their own,but the clerical abuse is not driving secularism.

Your last comment is totally wrong.I have said time and again the church was wrong to try and protect its reputation 40 years ago by trying to manage this issue in house when it was not in any way experienced or equipped to do so effectively.But you would concede that lessons have been learned and apologies offered.

The church was wrong in its actions. We can agree that because its obvious.

The individual church members who committed the abuse, covered it up at the time, failed to report to the police at the time, frustrated legal inquiries at the time, frustrated the subsequent inquries, moved assets beyond the reach of victims and fail to bring forward all the evidence they have today were/are also wrong. This is equally obvious. Can you agree that?

When these actions are reversed/made good then I will join you in saying that the lessons that need to be learned have in fact been learned. Everything is inadequate and indeed shameful.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 16, 2014, 10:51:36 PM
No I disagree.The Church responded in the time honoured way of trying to protect its reputation.I don't believe that Brady or anyone else in the mid 70s had a tiny conception of the scale of the problem or indeed that they were managing a monster in Brendan Smyth.Perhaps they in all innocence felt that if Smyth was made aware of his activities,like an errant schoolboy, he would not repeat them.It is all to easy knowing what we know now,to criticise mistakes and omissions 40 years ago.

The number of abusive clerics imprisoned in Ireland would suggest that the authorities are not being denied the required information and evidence to secure convictions.

When you get something wrong in a "time honoured" way that doesn't make you innocent it make your offending serial. I think you should set out why you claim otherwise.

If you are unaware of the scale of the child rape problem (and that is something that you contend have not in any way sought to prove) then that does not excuse the cover up/failure to investigate/ failure to report/failure to protect victims/failure to protect potential victims. I think you should set out why you claim otherwise.

Just watch this space on the issue of how much the church has and is cooperating with legal and criminal inquiries.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 03:07:46 PM
Lar, my understanding of secularism is the abandonment of religion in favour of exclusively worldly matters.I have no problem with separation of Church and State ,though the Church has a right to have its voice heard.

Abandonment?

Surely we are born without religion and adults bring us into that world.

Those brought up without religion are they not secular? If so how have they abandoned religion?

Secularism is the separation of church and state, the treatment of all religion's equally and generall requires religions to offer some form of proof/evidence to support their views when the religion is seeking to influence public policy. The latter seems to be the problem that the religious have with secularism.

Regrettably the church has used its voice to do some truely terrible things that extend well beyond child rape and its cover up

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 09:09:33 PM
Paisley is doomed sure he is a prod ;)

:O

Can't he at least hang about outside the Pearly gates with all the trendy brigade? Can't see them wanting to actually go in since they don't believe in the church of Rome.

;)

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:27:11 PM
My God is one who wants people to believe in him and the redemptive sacrifice of his Son on the cross,and living a life which gives witness to and reflects such beliefs.I also believe he doesn't expect anyone to be infallible all the time, and genuinely welcomes those who repent and come back into the fold.

Why does he want people to believe in "him" - sounds like petty jealousy. But seriously why does he want to be believed in. Surely "he" would be more worreid about what people do?

What is this redemptive sacrifice? (Its been a while since I last attended)

I think a lot of people are over estimating two things
-The amount of clergy in the chain of command that were involved with covering things up and keeping it quiet ( for whatever reasons)
- the amount of people leaving the church... So what if done do - it's their right!


The trendy brigade amuse and at times annoy me !
Nowhere better to see these charades than around Dublin !

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 08:59:54 PM
Did not Barabas repent at the very last minute,on the cross,and was assured of salvation by the Master himself

Nice religion, rape, murder - so whatever you want, then repent before death and you are saved.   ::)

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

The prodigal son gave up his old life but. Turned away from it. And because of that choice the Father ran to him. Ran.

I'm not sure where the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass happens? On the board?

It is usually Foxcommander.

Squealer.

Quote from: foxcommander on September 17, 2014, 09:43:26 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:43:16 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 17, 2014, 08:26:36 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 08:21:22 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 07:59:28 PM


Just saying a lot of people aren't welcome, you and Tone are of the same ilk.

who isn't welcome in Church?
The RC Church welcomes everyone. The Church calls us all out of sin into a relationship with Christ. If you don't want to leave behind your sin you can't then say the church isn't making you welcome.... there's no sense in that argument whatsoever....

He is responding to the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass, and their subsequent showing up at funerals, having wedding in a Church etc.

I tend to agree with you overall (not wholly gone on the sin bit). The view of Jesus was as per the Prodigal Son parable imho.

The prodigal son gave up his old life but. Turned away from it. And because of that choice the Father ran to him. Ran.

I'm not sure where the constant bashing of people who have stopped going to mass happens? On the board?

It is usually Foxcommander.

Squealer.

I went to confession and got 3 years purgatory on a plea bargain.

Sorry about that.  :D

What about this oul Immaculate Conception stuff? Is that line still on the go or has it gone the way of Limbo?

It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Perhaps one of the faithful can clarify but from what I can gather:

Imaculate Conception - the official line is they are sticking with that. To claim that God sent his only begotten son down to earth means they have to stick to that one. Although there is a fair amount of glossing over this requires of the whole Bethlehem story.
Purgatory - again the official line is sticking with this one. The aul fast tracking indulgences are not available though.
Meat on a Friday - sticking to it but making no attempt to to enforce. You can buy a ham sandwich in the vatican on a Friday (I kid you not) and some South American bishops decreed that anything that lived part of the time in water was in fact fish and could be eaten on a friday. The poor otter was hunted to extinction on this basis.
Original sin - sticking to that one also. In addition to preaching this horrific concept this ties the church to the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

It horrible and laughable in equal measure

Quote from: LCohen on September 17, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Perhaps one of the faithful can clarify but from what I can gather:

Imaculate Conception - the official line is they are sticking with that. To claim that God sent his only begotten son down to earth means they have to stick to that one. Although there is a fair amount of glossing over this requires of the whole Bethlehem story.
Purgatory - again the official line is sticking with this one. The aul fast tracking indulgences are not available though.
Meat on a Friday - sticking to it but making no attempt to to enforce. You can buy a ham sandwich in the vatican on a Friday (I kid you not) and some South American bishops decreed that anything that lived part of the time in water was in fact fish and could be eaten on a friday. The poor otter was hunted to extinction on this basis.
Original sin - sticking to that one also. In addition to preaching this horrific concept this ties the church to the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

It horrible and laughable in equal measure

I've addressed Limbo before- it was never an official teaching. It was more a supposition that became a popular way of dealing with an uncertain situation - death before infant baptism. The Church has since defined this- not sure what the whole big hulabaloo is about.... but then of course you need something to complain about.

You can't go off and do whatever you like and then rely on the fact that you can then repent. That isn't true repentance if you knowingly and willingly sin and then repent in an effort to receive mercy. You might be that stupid but God isn't....

The basics remain the same.Agree repentance must be sincere.I suspect those who mock are the one's who are least certain of their atheism.

Be interesting to revive this thread in five years time.I'd expect one or two of the most cynical would have undergone a conversion due to a live changing experience,and vice versa,some now devout May not be as convinced

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
The basics remain the same.Agree repentance must be sincere.I suspect those who mock are the one's who are least certain of their atheism.

Be interesting to revive this thread in five years time.I'd expect one or two of the most cynical would have undergone a conversion due to a live changing experience,and vice versa,some now devout May not be as convinced

You really are a ballbag of a man.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
The basics remain the same.Agree repentance must be sincere.I suspect those who mock are the one's who are least certain of their atheism.

Be interesting to revive this thread in five years time.I'd expect one or two of the most cynical would have undergone a conversion due to a live changing experience,and vice versa,some now devout May not be as convinced

Is savouring schadenfreude a sin?

Great to see Cardinal Brady speak on the UTV programme on life of Paisley tonight,as well as playing a full role in the new Deacons ceremony last Sunday. Ain't no way he's out on a limb.

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 10:26:46 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 17, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Perhaps one of the faithful can clarify but from what I can gather:

Imaculate Conception - the official line is they are sticking with that. To claim that God sent his only begotten son down to earth means they have to stick to that one. Although there is a fair amount of glossing over this requires of the whole Bethlehem story.
Purgatory - again the official line is sticking with this one. The aul fast tracking indulgences are not available though.
Meat on a Friday - sticking to it but making no attempt to to enforce. You can buy a ham sandwich in the vatican on a Friday (I kid you not) and some South American bishops decreed that anything that lived part of the time in water was in fact fish and could be eaten on a friday. The poor otter was hunted to extinction on this basis.
Original sin - sticking to that one also. In addition to preaching this horrific concept this ties the church to the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

It horrible and laughable in equal measure

I've addressed Limbo before- it was never an official teaching. It was more a supposition that became a popular way of dealing with an uncertain situation - death before infant baptism. The Church has since defined this- not sure what the whole big hulabaloo is about.... but then of course you need something to complain about.

You can't go off and do whatever you like and then rely on the fact that you can then repent. That isn't true repentance if you knowingly and willingly sin and then repent in an effort to receive mercy. You might be that stupid but God isn't....

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?

Just finished Brendan Boland's book. Staggering stuff.....and to think I used to go to mass and respect people like Smyth.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 10:37:47 PM
The basics remain the same.Agree repentance must be sincere.I suspect those who mock are the one's who are least certain of their atheism.

Be interesting to revive this thread in five years time.I'd expect one or two of the most cynical would have undergone a conversion due to a live changing experience,and vice versa,some now devout May not be as convinced

Geez, you're a gas man Tony. There should be no need to revive this thread in 5 year's time as I figure you'll still be going strong and  others  will still be daft enough to keep on trying to hammer sense into you.
Regarding the Afterlife, I really don't know if it really exists or if it's a case of eternal oblivion for all who exit this life.
I went damn close to finding out for myself a number of years ago when I realised there was a good chance that I was about to find out for myself. This happened 3 times  in a single year and I didn't , and still don't, think I know the answer.
(Series of seismic shocks between the lugs, if you follow me – status epilepticus if you don't.)
I believed that if there really  was a God, he already knew enough about me to draw his own conclusions and if there wasn't, all my supplications and lamentations would be in vain.
Seizures of this sort generally last 5-6 hours and the chances of survival aren't good but I decided I'd take my chances and hope for the best. Anyway, somehow or other, I'm still here.
I don't buy into the Christian concept of God but I think Stephen Hawking and his kind have a long, long way to go before they  find out how the Cosmos began. I don't think they ever will.
The only thing I'm certain is that  I wouldn't want to spend eternity, if it exists,, with the likes of those who shielded paedophiles and  allowed them to act with impunity.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 17, 2014, 11:34:14 PM
Great to see Cardinal Brady speak on the UTV programme on life of Paisley tonight,as well as playing a full role in the new Deacons ceremony last Sunday. Ain't no way he's out on a limb.

With 'friends' like you Brady certainly doesn't need enemies.

The Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are two different things, though they're often confused.

 [quote Reply #409 on: September 17, 2014, 08:59:54 PM »
Quote
Did not Barabas repent at the very last minute,on the cross,and was assured of salvation by the Master himself
][/quote]

eh, no Tony, Barabas did not repent. He was "in fact" released instead of Jesus, when Pontius Pilate gave the crowd the choice. Even an auld theophobe and atheist zealot like me knows that.

And we're supposed to take you seriously?

Quote from: ONeill on September 17, 2014, 11:52:37 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 10:26:46 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 17, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Perhaps one of the faithful can clarify but from what I can gather:

Imaculate Conception - the official line is they are sticking with that. To claim that God sent his only begotten son down to earth means they have to stick to that one. Although there is a fair amount of glossing over this requires of the whole Bethlehem story.
Purgatory - again the official line is sticking with this one. The aul fast tracking indulgences are not available though.
Meat on a Friday - sticking to it but making no attempt to to enforce. You can buy a ham sandwich in the vatican on a Friday (I kid you not) and some South American bishops decreed that anything that lived part of the time in water was in fact fish and could be eaten on a friday. The poor otter was hunted to extinction on this basis.
Original sin - sticking to that one also. In addition to preaching this horrific concept this ties the church to the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

It horrible and laughable in equal measure

I've addressed Limbo before- it was never an official teaching. It was more a supposition that became a popular way of dealing with an uncertain situation - death before infant baptism. The Church has since defined this- not sure what the whole big hulabaloo is about.... but then of course you need something to complain about.

You can't go off and do whatever you like and then rely on the fact that you can then repent. That isn't true repentance if you knowingly and willingly sin and then repent in an effort to receive mercy. You might be that stupid but God isn't....

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?

Just as well Mary and Joseph didn't have Jesus back in Catholic Ireland.

Firstly when Mary fell pregnant, Josephs family would have ensured he'd no more contact with the harlot, she'd have been dispatched off to the local Magdelene laundry to give birth to the saviour as it would have looked bad on the family.
Whilst in the laundry Mary would have been treated like a slave, the baby Jesus would have been treated like a sub human being,  lucky to survive the place and possibly despatched off to America or Australia for adoption or some other borstal to be buggered by the holy fathers, eh.

I wonder how much cynicism is simply a mask for fear?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 18, 2014, 11:02:42 PM
I wonder how much cynicism is simply a mask for fear?

Fear of what, eternal damnation? The only fear I can see is a fear of seeing another way other than the one drilled into you.

Tony for every insecurity an atheist has there will be practising people with similar insecurities. It works both ways. Read the bbc article on the archbishop of canterbury.

Faith can also be a very big mask of fear too. Not everyone's is but some people's faith is based on fear and that is it. I remain to be convinced that your faith is any more than fear.

I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception Tony?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

What was there before your first breath?

Shane yes.Eamonn do not understand your question.Fact is I exist now and believe I will continue to do so beyond this life

If it's possible that there was a time in the past when you didn't exist, why is it so unimaginable that there'll be a time in the future when you won't exist?

But we all could have previously existed in a different format

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM
But we all could have previously existed in a different format

What were you then? 8)

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM
But we all could have previously existed in a different format

What like reincarnation?

The Jehovah's might be right then?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Ok - then that's hope and fear. I guess both of those is what a lot of faith is built upon. The fear of the unknown and the hope that there must be something good/great at the end of it all.

i wonder what Brendan Smyth is at these days?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

I would be gutted to think that the likes of you could go on.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM
But we all could have previously existed in a different format

Were you Betamax?

Quote from: Hardy on September 19, 2014, 09:36:05 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM
But we all could have previously existed in a different format

Were you Betamax?

No he was "The Real Tony Fearon".

Surely fear of punishment governs a lot of our modus operandi,like keeping the civil law?

(http://superbfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/why-do-we-yawn-300x235.jpg)

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 11:48:00 AM
Surely fear of punishment governs a lot of our modus operandi,like keeping the civil law?

Does it f**k? ;D ;D
Did the fear of eternal punishment, in the place where you don't need to worry about fuel bills, ever stop  Brady and the likes? After all,  they went about breaking the laws of (their) God and Man for years and years.
Were they gambling that their  luck would hold and they'd manage to tell Holy God they were sorry  before setting off to meet Peter outside the pearly gates.
What do you think Tony?

Quote from: johnneycool on September 18, 2014, 09:15:28 AM

Quote from: ONeill on September 17, 2014, 11:52:37 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 17, 2014, 10:26:46 PM

Quote from: LCohen on September 17, 2014, 10:18:23 PM

Quote from: Zip Code on September 17, 2014, 10:02:07 PM
It is ever evolving, purgatory, meat on a Friday, original sin etc - all madey uppy stuff.

Perhaps one of the faithful can clarify but from what I can gather:

Imaculate Conception - the official line is they are sticking with that. To claim that God sent his only begotten son down to earth means they have to stick to that one. Although there is a fair amount of glossing over this requires of the whole Bethlehem story.
Purgatory - again the official line is sticking with this one. The aul fast tracking indulgences are not available though.
Meat on a Friday - sticking to it but making no attempt to to enforce. You can buy a ham sandwich in the vatican on a Friday (I kid you not) and some South American bishops decreed that anything that lived part of the time in water was in fact fish and could be eaten on a friday. The poor otter was hunted to extinction on this basis.
Original sin - sticking to that one also. In addition to preaching this horrific concept this ties the church to the literal truth of the Book of Genesis.

It horrible and laughable in equal measure

I've addressed Limbo before- it was never an official teaching. It was more a supposition that became a popular way of dealing with an uncertain situation - death before infant baptism. The Church has since defined this- not sure what the whole big hulabaloo is about.... but then of course you need something to complain about.

You can't go off and do whatever you like and then rely on the fact that you can then repent. That isn't true repentance if you knowingly and willingly sin and then repent in an effort to receive mercy. You might be that stupid but God isn't....

Do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?

Just as well Mary and Joseph didn't have Jesus back in Catholic Ireland.

Firstly when Mary fell pregnant, Josephs family would have ensured he'd no more contact with the harlot, she'd have been dispatched off to the local Magdelene laundry to give birth to the saviour as it would have looked bad on the family.
Whilst in the laundry Mary would have been treated like a slave, the baby Jesus would have been treated like a sub human being,  lucky to survive the place and possibly despatched off to America or Australia for adoption or some other borstal to be buggered by the holy fathers, eh.

Unfortunately v true, did any of you watch the programme on the other night about this, it was a hard watch. The catholic institutional church is disgusting.

It was unfortunate that the Church had to deal with unwanted (by their parents/families) children, and did the best they could for them, notwithstanding the abuse in some cases.By the cut of their gibs most of these people are doing very well thank you, but I suppose they'll never thank the Church for taking them in when their own familes even, didn't want to know.

When you think of it, with drunkeness and other failings, parenthood in Ireland generally was lousy back in the day

Quote from: johnneycool on September 18, 2014, 09:15:28 AM


Just as well Mary and Joseph didn't have Jesus back in Catholic Ireland.

Firstly when Mary fell pregnant, Josephs family would have ensured he'd no more contact with the harlot, she'd have been dispatched off to the local Magdelene laundry to give birth to the saviour as it would have looked bad on the family.
Whilst in the laundry Mary would have been treated like a slave, the baby Jesus would have been treated like a sub human being,  lucky to survive the place and possibly despatched off to America or Australia for adoption or some other borstal to be buggered by the holy fathers, eh.[/b]

Thats a very good and very apt point ... especially after watching a show on TV last night .. "Irelands Lost Babies" .... Absolutely Horrific stuff ... How any human being can perpetrate these acts or be an apologist or in any way condone someone who has had a hand in this type of thing is way beyond me.

Many people in these institutions are still raging against the tide here no matter what public perception they try to portray .. They seem to shed crocodile tears (much like Brady) after the fact but all the while try to wiggle out of admitting anything (until they're found out and have no choice) or giving information that could help .. even their apologies in many cases seem insincere !!

The show mentioned that a home for children in Tuam ran by Nuns from 1925-1961 had been bulldozed and they later found the skeletons of 800 children in the grounds ... Thats 800 kids died from malnutrition, mistreatment etc.. in 36 years ..... simply unbelievable !!

No parents to blame here... I guess some twisted minds may think it was their own fault eh :-( !!

Now lets say a priest had been in the home one day and lets say he wasn't one of the abuser types, lets say he saw abuse or maybe heard of abuse directly from a child and then went on to swear that child to secrecy upon the fires of hell (basically scare the living shit out of the kid .. as if he wouldn't be petrified already!) ... Then he tells his superior and goes happily about his business (career path) for many years later .. all the while not really knowing if anything had been done to rectify the situation or not .. actually probably knowing that the abuser(s) were still working away as priests/nuns...
Then many years later, after several denials & years of vigorous attempts to stop the truth coming out, the truth does come out but somehow this man (priest or possibly a cardinal by now) refuses to accept that he should have done more and that he was essentially morally corrupt and simply states over & over again .... I reported it .... "I did my duty" , as they would say at the nuremburg trials .. it didnt get them off but it seems to work pretty well within the Catholic church in Ireland!!

Brady should at least be ashamed of himself for putting career ahead of lives but I dont see the humility in him ... If he had humility he would have admitted his errors as major errors ... Maybe he will someday!!

People who back up abusers or facilitators have contributed to the long problems we see within the catholic church ... If people had the balls and decency NOT to support these people they would have been eradicated a long time ago ... But instead the catholic institution and its more naive/brainwashed followers created a safe haven for them ... and the terribly sad thing is that while it has improved, its still going on and you can be damned sure about that !!  ...

Its fairly unbelievable to me that the blinded fanatics and apologists dont realise that they're doing more harm to their own Church than good! .. Men like Diarmuid Martin are the only hope for the Catholic Church in Ireland .. pity there arent more like him!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 04:03:07 PM
It was unfortunate that the Church had to deal with unwanted (by their parents/families) children, and did the best they could for them, notwithstanding the abuse in some cases.By the cut of their gibs most of these people are doing very well thank you, but I suppose they'll never thank the Church for taking them in when their own familes even, didn't want to know.

When you think of it, with drunkeness and other failings, parenthood in Ireland generally was lousy back in the day

You are a real little treasure aren't you !!  .. Again, blame the families and suggest the children should be thankful for their torture .. Nice one you !!

As you know, it was the church itself who made these girls & families feel so ashamed in first place that they had to be hidden away ... And in many cases the church basically stole the children against the mothers will, a mother who was "locked" in an institution at the time... and for what crime exactly?
It was also the church who tortured and abused them (and their mothers) and sold them for coin .. .. And then to compound matters they lied and blocked at every opportunity to stop the poor mothers and children reuniting when they came looking for each other ... Scum suckers all the way for anyone involved in any of this, whether directly or indirectly!

As usual, your points seem to blame everyone but the actual perpetrators .. Disgusting stuff once again!!

I must say, listening to you is like listening to Anjem Choudary .. Did you both go to the same "FundeMENTAL school of inappropriate sycophantic adoration" by any chance ???   ... Pity you didnt Major in Islam like him - It would be one less nut for the Catholic Church !!

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 04:03:07 PM
It was unfortunate that the Church had to deal with unwanted (by their parents/families) children, and did the best they could for them, notwithstanding the abuse in some cases.By the cut of their gibs most of these people are doing very well thank you, but I suppose they'll never thank the Church for taking them in when their own familes even, didn't want to know.

When you think of it, with drunkeness and other failings, parenthood in Ireland generally was lousy back in the day

Your parents have done a fine job, they must be really proud of you.

We're a suspicious bunch the Irish. Fortune tellers, magpies, black cats, lucky charms and the like. unfortunately this has carried over into Christianity in Ireland amoung Catholics. It's an old suspicious faith that you would liken to Latin America (spent a lot of time there).
I don't think it's a true reflection of what Catholicism is supposed to be. It's more about acts and works and checking boxes out of fear than it is about relationship and acts driven by love. I think that's real Catholicism. It's what is in the catechism and it's what is supposed to be passed on.
Somewhere along the line as people - we got it wrong. The suspicion carried over into our faith. Lad's like Tony are not (IMO) a true reflection of what the Church teaches. I don't believe I am either but I'm striving to get there before I die.

Tony if you are genuinely trying to make a stand you're doing a horrible job of it and just making the fence sitters and axe grinders hate the Church all the more.

I can't and wont defend the wrongdoings of the church in Ireland and around the world. But I won't abandon it either. There is no other Church. No other Eucharist. No substitute.

QuotePosted by: The Iceman
« on: Today at 07:13:13 PM » Insert Quote
We're a suspicious bunch the Irish. Fortune tellers, magpies, black cats, lucky charms and the like. unfortunately this has carried over into Christianity in Ireland amoung Catholics. It's an old suspicious faith that you would liken to Latin America (spent a lot of time there).
I don't think it's a true reflection of what Catholicism is supposed to be. It's more about acts and works and checking boxes out of fear than it is about relationship and acts driven by love. I think that's real Catholicism. It's what is in the catechism and it's what is supposed to be passed on.
Somewhere along the line as people - we got it wrong. The suspicion carried over into our faith. Lad's like Tony are not (IMO) a true reflection of what the Church teaches. I don't believe I am either but I'm striving to get there before I die.

Tony if you are genuinely trying to make a stand you're doing a horrible job of it and just making the fence sitters and axe grinders hate the Church all the more.

I can't and wont defend the wrongdoings of the church in Ireland and around the world. But I won't abandon it either. There is no other Church. No other Eucharist. No substitute.

Brilliant post Iceman.

Very good post Iceman.

Iceman,I commend your post,but I have never condoned the irrefutable wrongdoings of the Church (though  you'll not find any acknowledgement here of the good things the church has done in health,education,social cohesion and morality etc,which far outweighs the harm caused by a relatively few number of perverts masquerading as clergymen).

I quite simply object to the utter demonisation of Sean Brady (who never abused anyone ) for his involvement at a relatively junior level in an investigation 40 years ago.

Also I think it's unfair to rake over events of 50 or 60 years ago,when the emphasis of the Church was penance and atonement fir sins.Life was a lot tougher in terms of punishment across the board in those days,as a young lad In primary school I was regularly on the receiving end of a cane whack across the fingers,imagine the outcry if that was happening nowadays.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 04:03:07 PM
It was unfortunate that the Church had to deal with unwanted (by their parents/families) children, and did the best they could for them, notwithstanding the abuse in some cases.By the cut of their gibs most of these people are doing very well thank you, but I suppose they'll never thank the Church for taking them in when their own familes even, didn't want to know.

When you think of it, with drunkeness and other failings, parenthood in Ireland generally was lousy back in the day

You are either not the brightest or simply ignorant of the fact, the reason and only reason these woman and their babies were put into these places was due to the teachings of the Catholic Church in Ireland, the attitudes and moral compasses they placed on their communities at the time, an ignorant and uneducated people led or needing a faith to help them believe or hope there was something better for them some where. Ireland was the largest practising catholic community in the world at the time. The churches influence in Irish society and politics was massive. As I said the institutional aspect of the church is bad, but at that time is was truly disgusting.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Iceman,I commend your post,but I have never condoned the irrefutable wrongdoings of the Church (though  you'll not find any acknowledgement here of the good things the church has done in health,education,social cohesion and morality etc,which far outweighs the harm caused by a relatively few number of perverts masquerading as clergymen).

I quite simply object to the utter demonisation of Sean Brady (who never abused anyone ) for his involvement at a relatively junior level in an investigation 40 years ago.

Also I think it's unfair to rake over events of 50 or 60 years ago,when the emphasis of the Church was penance and atonement fir sins.Life was a lot tougher in terms of punishment across the board in those days,as a young lad In primary school I was regularly on the receiving end of a cane whack across the fingers,imagine the outcry if that was happening nowadays.

Astounding. Sounds like you're trivialising  >:(

I'm not trivialising just putting into perspective.Ironically the reason why the anti Catholics on this thread can read and write is attributable to their catholic education.

Ironically again you seem to struggle to read or interpret a lot of what's written.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 11:17:27 PM
I'm not trivialising just putting into perspective.Ironically the reason why the anti Catholics on this thread can read and write is attributable to their catholic education.

Why do you believe in the Immaculate Conception?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 10:15:50 PM
Iceman,I commend your post,but I have never condoned the irrefutable wrongdoings of the Church (though  you'll not find any acknowledgement here of the good things the church has done in health,education,social cohesion and morality etc,which far outweighs the harm caused by a relatively few number of perverts masquerading as clergymen).

I quite simply object to the utter demonisation of Sean Brady (who never abused anyone ) for his involvement at a relatively junior level in an investigation 40 years ago.

Also I think it's unfair to rake over events of 50 or 60 years ago,when the emphasis of the Church was penance and atonement fir sins.Life was a lot tougher in terms of punishment across the board in those days,as a young lad In primary school I was regularly on the receiving end of a cane whack across the fingers,imagine the outcry if that was happening nowadays.

Come off it Tony, if the feckers you are defending had only half of Iceman's integrity, the Irish Catholic Church wouldn't  be in so much trouble today.

Lar Naparka exactly what is the issue with the modern Catholic Church in Ireland? Like every other organisation it has evolved and civilised.On here we have people going back in time  ( when attitudes were different and the church emphasis was more on the purging of sin rather than compassion) to find things to hammer the church with.Back in the day Governments still had the death penalty but thankfully like the church,most have modernised.

Shane the immaculate conception is as credible as the resurrection,and I believe in both.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Therein lies the root of religion. People find it hard to accept that this life is all we may have, therefore they have to invent a belief system that promises pie in the sky when we die. God didn't create man in his image, quite the reverse. Man created God in his. Think about it: if the God of most of the major religions exists, he is responsible for creating and sustaining the cosmos and all life in it. He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (if that's a word), so far beyond our understanding that the gap between us and him is greater than between us and a single cell amoeba. Yet man has reduced him to a kind of headmaster figure, one who waits in the sky to punish those who commit such heinous crimes as refusing to believe in him or worship him at church on sundays. The Lord of the universe has become an uptight, spiteful wee man who sometimes answers prayers, sometimes doesn't, depending on the mood he's in. He has become the sort of indecisive wee man whose will can be changed if only we can get enough of the faithful to pray  or enough masses said. We have made him the kind of tyrant who punishes trangressors for all eternity, despite the fact that he must've known when he was creating us that he was setting us up to fail. He punishes us for all eternity for committing 'sin', even though sin is something that he himself has created. Sin didn't exist before God created life, remember, so if God created life he created sin too. And he must've known that sin would result from his creation, because he's omniscient. Yet he still blames us for his creation and punishes us for ever and ever and ever. Nice. Which is why I believe such a God doesn't exist, that he has been created by man in his own image.

No one said religious beliefs are logical or even totally comprehensible,but the disbelieving are far too quick to dismiss religion and God on the basis of it being illogical or unscientific.

I happen to believe a man died on the cross and Rose again 3 days later (if this was a fairytale it has been perpetuated for a hell of a long time), that is reason enough for me to believe.

If ever there was a justification for religion, it is this:

Imagine a Tony without the fear of God?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 20, 2014, 09:27:34 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

Therein lies the root of religion. People find it hard to accept that this life is all we may have, therefore they have to invent a belief system that promises pie in the sky when we die. God didn't create man in his image, quite the reverse. Man created God in his. Think about it: if the God of most of the major religions exists, he is responsible for creating and sustaining the cosmos and all life in it. He is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent (if that's a word), so far beyond our understanding that the gap between us and him is greater than between us and a single cell amoeba. Yet man has reduced him to a kind of headmaster figure, one who waits in the sky to punish those who commit such heinous crimes as refusing to believe in him or worship him at church on sundays. The Lord of the universe has become an uptight, spiteful wee man who sometimes answers prayers, sometimes doesn't, depending on the mood he's in. He has become the sort of indecisive wee man whose will can be changed if only we can get enough of the faithful to pray  or enough masses said. We have made him the kind of tyrant who punishes trangressors for all eternity, despite the fact that he must've known when he was creating us that he was setting us up to fail. He punishes us for all eternity for committing 'sin', even though sin is something that he himself has created. Sin didn't exist before God created life, remember, so if God created life he created sin too. And he must've known that sin would result from his creation, because he's omniscient. Yet he still blames us for his creation and punishes us for ever and ever and ever. Nice. Which is why I believe such a God doesn't exist, that he has been created by man in his own image.

Nice passage Myles. Staying off the topic of the thread, I remember doing philosophy of religion for a-level. As a result most of the class started to doubt the existence of 'God'. It was a Christian brothers school and as you can imagine this went down Like a lead balloon. The teacher was quickly asked to explain himself, who admitted he just wanted his pupils to think for themselves.

It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

If one believes that (as they are perfectly entitled to do - and there is certainly very strong evidence for the first two claims)................how does that make it 'irrefutable proof of the existence of  God'?

Well rising from the dead surely proves there is a divine power

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:14:26 PM
Well rising from the dead surely proves there is a divine power

Hardly. It is simply one of the possibilities.

But your point was that 'believing' Jesus rose from the dead is 'irrefutable proof'.

Quote from: muppet on September 21, 2014, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 21, 2014, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

If one believes that (as they are perfectly entitled to do - and there is certainly very strong evidence for the first two claims)................how does that make it 'irrefutable proof of the existence of  God'?

If one believes that (as they are perfectly entitled to do - and there is certainly very strong evidence for the first two claims)................how does that make it 'irrefutable proof of the existence of  God'?

Evidence? Even strong evidence?

Quote from: Hardy on September 21, 2014, 12:34:57 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 21, 2014, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: muppet on September 21, 2014, 12:09:57 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

If one believes that (as they are perfectly entitled to do - and there is certainly very strong evidence for the first two claims)................how does that make it 'irrefutable proof of the existence of  God'?

If one believes that (as they are perfectly entitled to do - and there is certainly very strong evidence for the first two claims)................how does that make it 'irrefutable proof of the existence of  God'?

Evidence? Even strong evidence?

That Jesus existed and was crucified?

There are many accounts from different sources that he both existed and that he was crucified.

Sorry - misread - I thought you were including the resurrection claim.

If there was evidence then its not faith,merely acceptance of fact

Quote from: T Fearon on September 20, 2014, 07:06:48 AM
Lar Naparka exactly what is the issue with the modern Catholic Church in Ireland? Like every other organisation it has evolved and civilised.On here we have people going back in time  ( when attitudes were different and the church emphasis was more on the purging of sin rather than compassion) to find things to hammer the church with.Back in the day Governments still had the death penalty but thankfully like the church,most have modernised.

Shane the immaculate conception is as credible as the resurrection,and I believe in both.

Okay Tony, since you asked....

See if you can make sense of this.

"SPE SALVI facti sumus"—in hope we were saved, says Saint Paul to the Romans, and likewise to us (Rom 8:24). According to the Christian faith, "redemption"—salvation—is not simply a given. Redemption is offered to us in the sense that we have been given hope, trustworthy hope, by virtue of which we can face our present: the present, even if it is arduous, can be lived and accepted if it leads towards a goal, if we can be sure of this goal, and if this goal is great enough to justify the effort of the journey. Now the question immediately arises: what sort of hope could ever justify the statement that, on the basis of that hope and simply because it exists, we are redeemed? And what sort of certainty is involved here?"

That's from Spe Salvi (Saved Hope to you and I) and it was issued by Benedict in 2007.
That's what passes for spiritual guidance nowadays!
I'm  using that as an example of the Church's inability (unwillingness?) to communicate with modern society. There are plenty of other howlers out there if you want to go looking.
Your church is totally out of sync with the modern world and that includes Ireland.
I think it's fair to say that a mixture of arrogance and incompetence is the main reason that the Catholic Church is losing out in the battle for the hearts and minds of the Irish people.
Diarmuid Martin's statement that, while 95% of the population is nominally Catholic, only 17% are regular mass-goers is proof enough of this.
Clerical child abuse is one of the reasons why the "laity" is giving up on the church but it's not the only one.  On civil marriage, divorce, abortion and just about every other aspect of daily living, he church is perceived as being out of touch.
People were deserting the church in numbers before child abuse came up on the radar but it certainly hastened the exodus.
Now Tony there's enough reasons there to keep you going for a while!

The Church must stay true to its beliefs which cannot change regardless of era or to court popularity.Its secular society who have turned their back on these beliefs in favour of the pursuit of materialism,hedonism etc.

I know the match wasn't great, but cripes, lads!

No doubt someone will blame the Catholic Church for the poor quality All Ireland Final,after all if it permitted abortion those who devised negative tactics might never have been born, or someone in one or the other back room teams should have screamed to all of Gaeldom when the tactics were being developed over tae and sandwiches in someone's outhouse in the wilds of Donegal and Kerry.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 05:20:20 PM
The Church must stay true to its beliefs which cannot change regardless of era or to court popularity.Its secular society who have turned their back on these beliefs in favour of the pursuit of materialism,hedonism etc.

When was Purgatory invented? Didn't that coincide with the time some Pope needed a bit of cash for a building job in Rome?

Does Limbo still exist?

How's the clergy getting on with refusing to marry couples that have cohabited and had children first?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 07:07:21 AM
But we all could have previously existed in a different format

Didn't think reincarnation was a catholic thing.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 19, 2014, 12:13:51 AM
I believe life without faith is meaningless,and would be gutted to think that after our last breath there is nothing.Naturally therefore I want my eternal existence to be pleasant

So you believe it to be true because you want it to be true. The fact that you want something to be true has no bearing on whether or not it's true. Kids want to believe that Santa and the tooth fairy are real. Does that wish make them any more real?

http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

The basis of catholic belief in purgatory.

Why cannot people who don't believe not tolerate if not respect the opinions of those who do? What niggles those who react ferociously against believers? Could it be they are just not 100% convinced about their atheism?

Limbo seems to have been abolished. The purgatory I was indoctrinated with and terrified by when I was a child has been watered down. In my day we were told, as an immutable truth, that in purgatory you were grilled over flames by devils for indeterminate periods of time (typically hundreds of years, they said) in a setup that was a full replica of hell and different only in that you eventually got out. Now it's suggested to be some wishy-washy "purification" in which your "works" are "tested" by fire. What can that even mean?

Isn't it a fairly simple application of logic to form a judgement on this tosh? If the version of my childhood is correct, you believe that, at this moment, generations of your family and your closest loved ones who have departed this life are being systematically tortured beyond what any being could possible bear? Can you really contemplate something like that and accept that there might even be a scintilla of truth in it? How could you stay sane believing that that was happening to anyone, never mind someone you love? I can't believe you believe that, because if you did, with all its implications, you couldn't function as a human being. How could you ever do anything or concentrate on anything? Don't you just find it so grotesque as to be absurd?

And if that version is not correct, when and why did it change? And, if it did, how can it be an eternal truth? And if it is thus incontrovertibly proven not to be true, what of all the other doctrines? Don't they all crumble on their foundation of illogicality and nonsense.

Simply none of us know if it's true or not.Back in the day,the Church placed the emphasis on fear to save souls,nowadays it's the more compassionate approach.

If you believe and live a good clean life,you have no need to fear the afterlife.

I was always taught, don't believe everything you read. Quite ironic really...

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 08:30:16 PM
Simply none of us know if it's true or not.Back in the day,the Church placed the emphasis on fear to save souls,nowadays it's the more compassionate approach.

If you believe and live a good clean life,you have no need to fear the afterlife.

Back in the day you could live a very clean life indeed, but if you committed a venial sin (say succumbing to the temptation of sausage on a Friday) you would still roast for perhaps centuries. If it was merely a question of emphasis, that means it was/is true, but we just don't talk about it now, as we have a different PR policy.

If you say you don't know whether it's true or not, you're accepting that it MIGHT be true. The question stands, then - how could you contemplate even that POSSIBILITY and stay sane?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

By the way, have you ever actually done that?

By living a good life,free as far as possible from sin, and believing, trusting that this will save you from such a horrendous fate.No other approach (certainly not discounting its possibility or ignoring it completely) would keep me sane.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 08:44:51 PM
By living a good life,free as far as possible from sin, and believing, trusting that this will save you from such a horrendous fate.No other approach (certainly not discounting its possibility or ignoring it completely) would keep me sane.

But the teaching is that everybody is a sinner. Practically nobody escapes purgatory. You and I and our families, past, present and future - 99.9% of us anyway -  are CERTAIN to be undergoing now or about to undergo in the future the tortures of fire. That's what I'm asking whether you can contemplate and live with?

Do yourself a liberating favour and accept the obvious.

It's like asking how do I prevent mortal death in an earthly fire.I take as many precautions as I can practically,to minimise the risk.I don't simply say it's statistically very unlikely to happen or I don't believe it will happen.

Similarly with one's eternal fate.Do as best you can to avoid the worst possible outcomes.

But, statistically, as we are all sinners, there is a minuscule possibility of avoiding that fate. And an even more minuscule one that ALL your closest family have avoided/will avoid it. That can't be an acceptable thought to contemplate.

Come on. You can do it. I'll help. repeat after me ...

It's

all

bollocks.

Doesn't that feel great?

That's wishful thinking,what if it is true,and you have not prepared? Why take the risk? Any form of bearable torment that has a finite ending is easier to contemplate than eternal torment.

Simply denying the possibility of something scary does not mean you avoid the actual scenario

That's Pascal's Wager again. It's just a statement of fear. As Stephen Hawking put it - heaven is a fairytale for people who are afraid of the dark. The wishful thinking is on the part of the faithful. Wishing it to be true doesn't make it true.

Accepting the possibility that it might be true must raise the question of why one would think it is true. Accepting it just because you were told it as a small child is not a logically sound way of reaching a conclusion on its potential veracity. Have you ever tested the hypothesis in your imagination?

No,it comes from the very real concept that everything has a creator and a karma like instinct that doing wrong inevitably results in punishment.Furthermore I believe that Jesus existed and rose from the dead,and his mission in doing so.

As I said before if it's bollocks I have lost absolutely nothing anyway

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

The basis of catholic belief in purgatory.

Why cannot people who don't believe not tolerate if not respect the opinions of those who do? What niggles those who react ferociously against believers? Could it be they are just not 100% convinced about their atheism?

You made a point that catholic doctrine is permanent and unchanging.

I made a point that it is not.

Instead of whining about people criticizing your beliefs, why don't you just stay on point and debate the topic?

The fundamentals never change,the emphasis and means of communication may.

So the existence or otherwise of purgatory is not a fundamental?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 09:23:40 PM
No,it comes from the very real concept that everything has a creator and a karma like instinct that doing wrong inevitably results in punishment.Furthermore I believe that Jesus existed and rose from the dead,and his mission in doing so.

As I said before if it's bollocks I have lost absolutely nothing anyway

Who created the creator?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 09:23:40 PM
No,it comes from the very real concept that everything has a creator and a karma like instinct that doing wrong inevitably results in punishment.Furthermore I believe that Jesus existed and rose from the dead,and his mission in doing so.

As I said before if it's bollocks I have lost absolutely nothing anyway

Oh. bollicks!
Tony, do you think the Church have a policy on retrospective redirection?

If there is no Purgatory, then I wasted thousands of Hail Marys, praying for the poor souls who are poor no longer because they weren't there in the first place.
All my childhood years wasted!
But I was thinking that if I contacted someone up there and asked that my prayers be re-directed to the "Please God, let Mayo Win an All-Ireland" department instead, it might be enough to get them over the line next year.
AS you know far more about those things than I do, would you please tell me who I'd need to pray to see justice being done at long, effin' last

Dont dwell on purgatory.Aim high,believe and avoid sin and you will go straight to heaven

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 01:49:21 PM
Dont dwell on purgatory.Aim high,believe and avoid sin and you will go straight to heaven

So you don't need to go to mass, confessions and all that, thats good news..

Quote from: johnneycool on September 22, 2014, 01:51:14 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 01:49:21 PM
Dont dwell on purgatory.Aim high,believe and avoid sin and you will go straight to heaven

So you don't need to go to mass, confessions and all that, thats good news..

Or be a catholic, it gets better!

So a-la-cartery is OK after all? I'm confused. But, then again, that's probably the whole idea. Abracadabra!

This thread in many ways nearly justifies some of Tony's rants. It has moved on from a discussion about Sean Brady to a full on 'Does God exist' debate and attack on Catholic teaching.
I mentioned in some of my posts recently there would always be axes to grind and there they are.

How you expect anyone to "debate" anything when it's Tony versus the army is beyond me. He or anyone is expected to answer questions, but not ask and respond to multiple people and then challenged when he can't or won't respond to the 5 different people on one page who just demanded the truth.

Smells a bit like a classroom when the teacher isn't around and the bullies come out to play.....  ::)

Brady well able to bully.

Quote from: orangeman on September 22, 2014, 04:40:10 PM
Brady well able to bully.

No doubt. But it doesn't negate my point orangeman

Sorry Iceman your patronizing rant doesn't mention Tony blaming parents of the abused or the abused children themselves, are we all to let his vile comments slide - catch a f**king grip of yourself kid.

2 seperate issues Zip. Tony and his nonsensical defending of what Brady and the Church did, or didn't do, to stop the abuse is the first issue. The second issue is the carry on over is there a God or not. Those discussions are even more pointless than the other one at this stage.

Both interlinked here AZ Tony is using the God argument to justify Catholicism, which is rotten to the core. 

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
2 seperate issues Zip. Tony and his nonsensical defending of what Brady and the Church did, or didn't do, to stop the abuse is the first issue. The second issue is the carry on over is there a God or not. Those discussions are even more pointless than the other one at this stage.

  Actually I thought I was getting somewhere last night in discussing (an aspect of) the god question with Tony. I thought we had a relatively civilised discussion for a change. I got an insight into his thinking (he believes because he has to because he's afraid of being damned if he doesn't and so he is impervious to all logical refutations of the claims of religion, however outlandish).

I don't see why such a discussion should be off limits, provided it's conducted with a modicum of respect. As regards Iceman's complaints about bullying of Tony, the man himself didn't seem to have any problem with the most recent discussion. To flog a cliché, Iceman seems to be confusing reluctance to accept catholic dogma with an attack on his religion. The fact that you're not prepared to discuss doesn't give you the right to ban discussion. "The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society."

Quote from: Hardy on September 22, 2014, 05:20:23 PM
"The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society."

The Thin Blue Line was absolutely shit.

Quote from: Hardy on September 22, 2014, 05:20:23 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
2 seperate issues Zip. Tony and his nonsensical defending of what Brady and the Church did, or didn't do, to stop the abuse is the first issue. The second issue is the carry on over is there a God or not. Those discussions are even more pointless than the other one at this stage.

  Actually I thought I was getting somewhere last night in discussing (an aspect of) the god question with Tony. I thought we had a relatively civilised discussion for a change. I got an insight into his thinking (he believes because he has to because he's afraid of being damned if he doesn't and so he is impervious to all logical refutations of the claims of religion, however outlandish).

I don't see why such a discussion should be off limits, provided it's conducted with a modicum of respect. As regards Iceman's complaints about bullying of Tony, the man himself didn't seem to have any problem with the most recent discussion. To flog a cliché, Iceman seems to be confusing reluctance to accept catholic dogma with an attack on his religion. The fact that you're not prepared to discuss doesn't give you the right to ban discussion. "The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society."

That's not my case at all hardy. We are talking about two seperate discussions. Sean Brady and God does exist.
I believe in God and I worship God through the Catholic Church. I don't support Sean Brady.

I don't like Tony. He is half of the problem most times. But I don't like the axe grinders ganging up on him either.
We've flogged the debates to death on religion and Catholicism and doctrine. We go around in circles. I'm not prepared to discuss? I've discussed more on the topic for the Catholic/God side than anyone else.
Your quote is very conveniently used. I like it. I respect it and I agree with it. I disagree with the bully tactics. I'm not saying it's you personally but collectively there is a fair few lads firing the same old questions at Tony. Axes ground again...

Asking questions IS bullying  :-X

Quote from: theskull1 on September 22, 2014, 06:21:08 PM
Asking questions IS bullying  :-X

Quote from: theskull1 on September 15, 2014, 12:25:56 PM
Is the role of EVERY christian not to stand up and defend your faith? This being the case, why is TF the only one doing the defending out of the 8 people sad to see Sean Brady go?

I would deem the above to be a form of bullying.

Mostly the questions cannot be answered and if they could then there wouldn't be a debate,it wouldn't by a faith issue (where one trusts his instincts but cannot prove if he or she is right ), it would simply be the formality of accepting fact.

Abuse I don't mind,and wouldn't be at all comfortable having some people on this board taking a liking to me,but I am bemused by how and why someone who does profess to believe is ridiculed incessantly.Surely if those who don't believe were confident in their non belief they wouldn't be exercised at all by believers.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 08:30:16 PM
Simply none of us know if it's true or not.Back in the day,the Church placed the emphasis on fear to save souls,nowadays it's the more compassionate approach.

If you believe and live a good clean life,you have no need to fear the afterlife.

I don't believe, I live a life which is ordinary, and I do not fear the afterlife (though being a coward, I sometimes worry about the manner of how I get there). Only religious people fear the afterlife, which is odd, as they're forever banging on about the joys of heaven and God's great mercy. 

If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

Is fear the explanation for your blind loyalty to Sean Brady?

No,neither is it the prime factor in my belief.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

Strip everything away...it is.

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 08:18:42 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

With respect, I don't think it is semantics. Love is only love, imo, if it is freely given, without any hint of threat or duress. The God of the major religions demands that we love him and threatens to torment for all eternity those who refuse. You yourself say in your post that if God exists 'then a lot of us are in trouble'. Your God is a colossal, cosmic bully, one who trades on threat and intimidation.

...and he's a tout too and we know what happens touts around these parts.

Best comparison is the relationship between an earthly father and son.There is a natural love there but punishment if the son does wrong,and the love grows as the years go by.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Best comparison is the relationship between an earthly father and son.There is a natural love there but punishment if the son does wrong,and the love grows as the years go by.

What sort of parent sends his son to hell for all eternity?

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 08:41:57 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 08:18:42 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

With respect, I don't think it is semantics. Love is only love, imo, if it is freely given, without any hint of threat or duress. The God of the major religions demands that we love him and threatens to torment for all eternity those who refuse. You yourself say in your post that if God exists 'then a lot of us are in trouble'. Your God is a colossal, cosmic bully, one who trades on threat and intimidation.

I say I'm in trouble because I'm under no illusion that I lead the perfect life.
The church teaches God created everything. And we messed it up. And continued to mess it up until He made one last covenant with the blood and Death and Resurrection of His Son. He gave us the opportunity to again be with Him for all eternity. But let it be our choice.
If you end up in hell you can't blame God for being harsh. That's like the teenager complaining in their rooms for being grounded for smoking weed....

God doesn't want your fear - just your love. Your life will be a reflection of that Love. And the world would be a better place and eternity in Heaven is the promise.

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 08:59:12 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 08:41:57 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 08:18:42 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 07:42:37 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 06:51:00 PM
If you don't believe in an afterlife,and the two distinctly opposite potential destinations,why would you fear it?

Also there is nothing wrong with a faith motivated by a healthy fear,as it is the prime motivator in this life.

If 'love' of God is motivated by fear, is that love worth anything? If a woman says she loves her husband only because she knows he'll physically harm her if she doesn't, what sort of love is that?

We're talking about semantics here I think?
A husband loves his wife so much he makes sure to treat her like a queen. A husband is afraid of hurting his wife so he always treats her like a queen.

Everything we do is done on the scale of fear or love. In some shape or form it boils down to either.

Pre-vatican II Catholicism was all about hell fire and brimstone. Post Vatican II Catholicism is more about love.
But there is room for both.

I love God and want to spend eternity in that love so I live my life in accordance.
(I love God and) I'm afraid to do anything that would seperate me from that eternity.

I think Tony leaves the love part out but it doesn't mean it isn't there?

Either God exists or He doesn't.

If He does then a lot of us are in trouble.
If He doesn't then none of this matters. We're all just worm food?

My belief isn't based on hedging my bets.
You're free to choose your own too.

With respect, I don't think it is semantics. Love is only love, imo, if it is freely given, without any hint of threat or duress. The God of the major religions demands that we love him and threatens to torment for all eternity those who refuse. You yourself say in your post that if God exists 'then a lot of us are in trouble'. Your God is a colossal, cosmic bully, one who trades on threat and intimidation.

I say I'm in trouble because I'm under no illusion that I lead the perfect life.
The church teaches God created everything. And we messed it up. And continued to mess it up until He made one last covenant with the blood and Death and Resurrection of His Son. He gave us the opportunity to again be with Him for all eternity. But let it be our choice.
If you end up in hell you can't blame God for being harsh. That's like the teenager complaining in their rooms for being grounded for smoking weed....

God doesn't want your fear - just your love. Your life will be a reflection of that Love. And the world would be a better place and eternity in Heaven is the promise.

We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Remember IM... its men who have taught you this.

Exactly.Do I detect that the non believers while trying all they know to ridicule any belief in God have just this tiny little bit of a nagging doubt at the back of their minds,that little voice that won't go away that keeps saying "What if I'm wrong?"

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 09:12:52 PM
Exactly.Do I detect that the non believers while trying all they know to ridicule any belief in God have just this tiny little bit of a nagging doubt at the back of their minds,that little voice that won't go away that keeps saying "What if I'm wrong?"

Who are you talking to?

You are defending the Catholic Church specifically Tony, not belief in God.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 20, 2014, 07:06:48 AM
the immaculate conception is as credible as the resurrection,and I believe in both.

So you don't believe that Jesus Christ fulfils the prophecy of coming from the House of David?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 20, 2014, 12:14:34 PM
I happen to believe a man died on the cross and Rose again 3 days later (if this was a fairytale it has been perpetuated for a hell of a long time), that is reason enough for me to believe.

Do you belive in Adam & Eve (this is a genuine & serious question)?

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 05:56:24 PM

Quote from: Hardy on September 22, 2014, 05:20:23 PM

Quote from: AZOffaly on September 22, 2014, 05:04:38 PM
2 seperate issues Zip. Tony and his nonsensical defending of what Brady and the Church did, or didn't do, to stop the abuse is the first issue. The second issue is the carry on over is there a God or not. Those discussions are even more pointless than the other one at this stage.

  Actually I thought I was getting somewhere last night in discussing (an aspect of) the god question with Tony. I thought we had a relatively civilised discussion for a change. I got an insight into his thinking (he believes because he has to because he's afraid of being damned if he doesn't and so he is impervious to all logical refutations of the claims of religion, however outlandish).

I don't see why such a discussion should be off limits, provided it's conducted with a modicum of respect. As regards Iceman's complaints about bullying of Tony, the man himself didn't seem to have any problem with the most recent discussion. To flog a cliché, Iceman seems to be confusing reluctance to accept catholic dogma with an attack on his religion. The fact that you're not prepared to discuss doesn't give you the right to ban discussion. "The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is one of the fundamental freedoms of society."

That's not my case at all hardy. We are talking about two seperate discussions. Sean Brady and God does exist.
I believe in God and I worship God through the Catholic Church. I don't support Sean Brady.

I don't like Tony. He is half of the problem most times. But I don't like the axe grinders ganging up on him either.
We've flogged the debates to death on religion and Catholicism and doctrine. We go around in circles. I'm not prepared to discuss? I've discussed more on the topic for the Catholic/God side than anyone else.
Your quote is very conveniently used. I like it. I respect it and I agree with it. I disagree with the bully tactics. I'm not saying it's you personally but collectively there is a fair few lads firing the same old questions at Tony. Axes ground again...

On reflection, I think I went over the ball, studs up there, Iceman. I was wrong to suggest you're not prepared to discuss. Apologies.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 09:12:52 PM
Exactly.Do I detect that the non believers while trying all they know to ridicule any belief in God have just this tiny little bit of a nagging doubt at the back of their minds,that little voice that won't go away that keeps saying "What if I'm wrong?"

Yes I often ask myself could Tony be right and Sean Brady is a great man, there is a God and the catholic church is a powerful force for good. I normally resolve by saying this out loud and concluding that it is a pile of dog poo.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 12:03:21 PM
It all boils down to this.Do you believe Jesus existed,was crucified, and then rose from the dead? If you do that is surely irrefutable proof of the existence of  God, if you don't then you need to ask yourself why this myth has been perpetuated for so long effectively conning billions of people for over two thousand years.

Blathering idiocy.

If I don't belive in the resurection story is that PROOF that god doesn't exist? Thats the inference of what you claim

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 05:20:20 PM
The Church must stay true to its beliefs which cannot change regardless of era or to court popularity.Its secular society who have turned their back on these beliefs in favour of the pursuit of materialism,hedonism etc.

I was baptised a catholic and educated in part through the catholic system. I do not believe in god and advocate a secular society. Why is it that you belive that I have chosen materialism or hedonism? In fact you should really only repeat this hedonistic/materialistic slim if you provide some evidence to support it.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:09:49 PM
We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

The basis of catholic belief in purgatory.

Why cannot people who don't believe not tolerate if not respect the opinions of those who do? What niggles those who react ferociously against believers? Could it be they are just not 100% convinced about their atheism?

The more realistic explantaion is the following. An atheist is probably quite happy for others to belive whatever they like but when believers start to act on their beliefs in a way that negatively impacts on them personally or society as they say see it and do so based upon "belief" but offer no proof (or incredulous "proof") of what it is they believe then an atheist will probably pipe up at that stage. Thats certanly they way I operate.

But the Catholic Church was founded by God

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 08:44:51 PM
By living a good life,free as far as possible from sin, and believing, trusting that this will save you from such a horrendous fate.No other approach (certainly not discounting its possibility or ignoring it completely) would keep me sane.

It seems you also "believe" in your own sanity. What evidence for this have you?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 09:05:30 PM
That's wishful thinking,what if it is true,and you have not prepared? Why take the risk? Any form of bearable torment that has a finite ending is easier to contemplate than eternal torment.

Simply denying the possibility of something scary does not mean you avoid the actual scenario

What if you have wasted the only life tou will ever have preparing your self for the big nothing? Is that not the big risk in your MO?

You're wrong. No you're wrong. You're wrong. No you're wrong. You're wrong. No you're wrong. You're wrong. No you're wrong. You're wrong. No you're wrong.

A good Mass would sort this out.

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 09:37:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:09:49 PM
We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

If he knows all things, he created us in the full knowledge that he was creating a flawed creature. He created us knowing that many of us were destined for eternal punishment. So why bother? If I leave a group of 6 year olds in a room containing bowls of sweets and chocolates, after telling them not to eat any, who's to blame if some of the kids can't resist temptation and end up eating a sweet or two? I could say that the kids have free will and chose to disobey me, but I don't think many people would support me if I decided to inflict a catastrophic punishment on those kids who 'sinned'.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 21, 2014, 07:27:11 PM
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/is-purgatory-in-the-bible

The basis of catholic belief in purgatory.

Why cannot people who don't believe not tolerate if not respect the opinions of those who do? What niggles those who react ferociously against believers? Could it be they are just not 100% convinced about their atheism?

Why cannot people who don't believe not tolerate if not respect the opinions of those who don't? What niggles those who react ferociously against non-believers? Could it be they are just not 100% convinced about their atheism?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 09:44:39 PM
But the Catholic Church was founded by God

Any links?

Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2014, 08:50:46 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Best comparison is the relationship between an earthly father and son.There is a natural love there but punishment if the son does wrong,and the love grows as the years go by.

What sort of parent sends his son to hell for all eternity?

Feck I can barely get the to stay 2 mins on the naughty step.

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 09:37:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:09:49 PM
We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

If he knows all things, he created us in the full knowledge that he was creating a flawed creature. He created us knowing that many of us were destined for eternal punishment. So why bother? If I leave a group of 6 year olds in a room containing bowls of sweets and chocolates, after telling them not to eat any, who's to blame if some of the kids can't resist temptation and end up eating a sweet or two? I could say that the kids have free will and chose to disobey me, but I don't think many people would support me if I decided to inflict a catastrophic punishment on those kids who 'sinned'.

You are over simplifying it for your own argument.  God isn't inflicting catastrophic punishment on 6 year-old's for eating sweets. We have multiple opportunities in our life to repent - until our last breath. There are many sins and they aren't all as appealing as a bowl of sweets - unless you are one of the few who enjoy killing.....

Quote from: muppet on September 22, 2014, 09:57:26 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 09:44:39 PM
But the Catholic Church was founded by God

Any links?

Hurry up Tony

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 10:11:46 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:53:11 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on September 22, 2014, 09:37:50 PM

Quote from: Myles Na G. on September 22, 2014, 09:09:49 PM
We messed up? Surely if God created us, he's the one who messed up, since he created something capable of sin? What's more, even as he was in the act of creating us, he must've known that he was creating a sinful creature, since he's omniscient. And if he knew that he was creating a sinful creature, he also knew that he was creating many of us to burn in eternal hell fire, no? And if he knew that, why did he continue? Why create mankind when he must've known that many of his 'children' would end up in hell?

Being all knowing and all controlling are two different things Myles. God created us. He didn't create us to be evil or to sin. That's on us. We have the ability (through free will) to choose Him or reject Him. To love him sincerely or out of fear or not at all. Without free will we would just be machines. Not humans. Even Satan cannot make us sin - he tempts us to sin but the choice is always ours.

Should God not have bothered at all knowing that some people would choose sin and choose hell? Is that what you are asking?

Do you know why God created the world? Or what the Church teaches or what Catholics believe?
That the world was created to show every aspect of God's character fully. His loving kindness, His creative Power, His justice, His mercy, His wrath...

I sometimes think you ask the questions without thinking about them and what the response might be.

If he knows all things, he created us in the full knowledge that he was creating a flawed creature. He created us knowing that many of us were destined for eternal punishment. So why bother? If I leave a group of 6 year olds in a room containing bowls of sweets and chocolates, after telling them not to eat any, who's to blame if some of the kids can't resist temptation and end up eating a sweet or two? I could say that the kids have free will and chose to disobey me, but I don't think many people would support me if I decided to inflict a catastrophic punishment on those kids who 'sinned'.

You are over simplifying it for your own argument.  God isn't inflicting catastrophic punishment on 6 year-old's for eating sweets. We have multiple opportunities in our life to repent - until our last breath. There are many sins and they aren't all as appealing as a bowl of sweets - unless you are one of the few who enjoy killing.....

I'm not sure I am over simplifying things by using an adult / child analogy. In fact, I'm possibly understating things, given that the gap between ourselves and the creator of the cosmos is far greater than the intellectual distance between an adult and a child. I don't think I'm over stating things in terms of proportionality, either. Any sense of injustice at the idea of me severely punishing a 6 year old is nothing compared to the notion of an all powerful, all knowing being inflicting eternal torment on mere mortals. As for repentance - if anyone has cause to repent, it surely has to be the architect of this flawed creation, the being who created mankind, gave him free will, then decided to punish him when he exercised it.

I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Quote from: LCohen on September 22, 2014, 09:29:56 PM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 20, 2014, 07:06:48 AM
the immaculate conception is as credible as the resurrection,and I believe in both.

So you don't believe that Jesus Christ fulfils the prophecy of coming from the House of David?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 20, 2014, 12:14:34 PM
I happen to believe a man died on the cross and Rose again 3 days later (if this was a fairytale it has been perpetuated for a hell of a long time), that is reason enough for me to believe.

Do you belive in Adam & Eve (this is a genuine & serious question)?

Go on Tony - any chance of an answer?

Yes/No would be good but certainly some form of an answer that leaves the reader in no doubt that you do/don't belive in the Line of David prophecy being fulfilled and separately about the Adam & Eve story?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 11:16:21 PM
I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Explain this heavy price for non-belief? You contend that god exists and will sit in judgement at the end of our early life but are you saying that God will value belief higher than say kindness or charity? If so why?

What is the veidence of what Jesus said to whom?

That's the dilemma that makes faith what it is,there is no evidence to satisfy doubters.Do you not believe a man died on the cross and rose again? That is the core evidence to prove the existence of God

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 11:16:21 PM
I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Predestination? So we don't have free will, then? And the fact that God 'knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth' is surely evidence of his supreme cruelty, is it not? What sort of being creates a sentient creature knowing that this creature is destined for eternal torture?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 11:16:21 PM
I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Again any links, also and please answer what about those billions who believe in a different God than your God - are they fooked as well?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 23, 2014, 07:12:19 AM
That's the dilemma that makes faith what it is,there is no evidence to satisfy doubters.Do you not believe a man died on the cross and rose again? That is the core evidence to prove the existence of God

Evidence? If that's "evidence" (big if), and belief in a deity is based on evidence, what's all this business about faith?

Quote from: T Fearon on September 22, 2014, 11:16:21 PM
I do also subscribe to the theories that God has an elect and predestination.Sadly many will deny the existence of God for all their days and pay a heavy price.God surely knows the ultimate fate of every man and woman prior to their birth and I thank him for his benevolence to me personally in this regard.

Muppet Jesus said to Peter you are the rock upon whom I will build by church,so Peter was effectively the first Pope and the present Pope can trace a direct lineage to him,so for this reason the Catholic Church can claim him as its founder

Does everyone who died before Jesus 'pay a heavy price'? This seems terribly unfair doesn't it?

The 'direct line' from Peter is a shambles, containing many Popes who were considered anti-Christs, is at best debatable who should be on it and features men who broke every rule in the Church's book. The validity of the Archbishop of Rome as leader is also somewhat  debatable, but we have talked about that before. You seem to know nothing of the subject, but Iceman does. You are probably better leaving that subject to him.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on September 23, 2014, 08:04:02 AM

Quote from: T Fearon on September 23, 2014, 07:12:19 AM
That's the dilemma that makes faith what it is,there is no evidence to satisfy doubters.Do you not believe a man died on the cross and rose again? That is the core evidence to prove the existence of God

Evidence? If that's "evidence" (big if), and belief in a deity is based on evidence, what's all this business about faith?

Whilst Tony's quote is contradictory to say the least, but judging by his other posts Tony doesn't need evidence as he has faith, which is OK if you don't think too much about things.

Very simply I believe in an afterlife and a God who will judge and everyone will get what they deserve.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 23, 2014, 12:51:32 PM
Very simply I believe in an afterlife and a God who will judge and everyone will get what they deserve.

Do you believe every story you were told as a child is true Tony? Quite simply you were indoctrinated as a child and you've committed too much to your faith at this stage to question it. No investigation, no doubt. You just know it to be true. 

Heres a very good short audio lecture by New Testament Scholar Bart Erhmann. Well worth a listen
https://archive.org/details/HeynsLectureSeriesBartEhrman-MisquotingJesus (https://archive.org/details/HeynsLectureSeriesBartEhrman-MisquotingJesus)

I said that is my core belief,I don't see the need to get bogged down in theological doctrinal.minutiae.Simply believe inHod,keep the commandments ,love your neighbour.

Quote from: T Fearon on September 23, 2014, 01:41:13 PM
I don't see the need to get bogged down in theological doctrinal.minutiae.

Surely your core beliefs came from somewhere? Your leaving yourself open to be exploited if your not prepared to look at the evidence/detail. Maybe ignorance is bliss

Quote from: T Fearon on September 23, 2014, 01:41:13 PM
I said that is my core belief,I don't see the need to get bogged down in theological doctrinal.minutiae.Simply believe inHod,keep the commandments ,love your neighbour.

Glenn Hoddle?

What is the point in making it complicated? Believe in Jesus and try to imitate his way of life.Simple as that.