Sean Brady Steps Down

[deiseach]

No...but the silence speaks volumes

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

[johnneycool]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

[Hardy]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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!

[Hardy]

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.

[deiseach]

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.

[Hardy]

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.

[LCohen]

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.   

[AZOffaly]

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.

[LCohen]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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"

[seafoid]

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

[Lar Naparka]

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? .

[LCohen]

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.