Sean Brady Steps Down

[T Fearon]

They were guilty of mishandling it.

[Lar Naparka]

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

.
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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

[LCohen]

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

[muppet]

They were guilty of mishandling it.

...and of covering it up.

[T Fearon]

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.

[T Fearon]

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

[LCohen]

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.

[T Fearon]

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.

[muppet]

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

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.".

[Lar Naparka]

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

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.

[T Fearon]

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.

[Zip Code]

So why are you blaming children for being abused.

[muppet]

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.

[orangeman]

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

[T Fearon]

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?