Poll
Question:
Shoud Sean Brady be charged and put before the courts?
Option 1: Yes-he should be charged
votes: 69
Option 2: No- he should not
votes: 32
I know there are other threads on this but I think our esteemed spiritual ::) leader deserves his own one. As he has obviously not come forward about this right throughout the last 10 or more years of these revelations, should he be before the court for concealing a crime or whatever the charge is... child rape, molestation, assaults... that sort of thing...
Ironic/disgusting that he will spend the next few months going around the parishes giving children their First Communion with this doubt hanging over him...
The Irish Catholic primate, Cardinal Sean Brady, has said he was at meetings when two alleged victims of Fr Brendan Smyth signed an oath of silence.
The complaints of abuse by the two teenagers were investigated by Cardinal Brady in his capacity as secretary to the Bishop of Kilmore in 1975.
Cardinal Brady said he had been following his bishop's orders and there were no guidelines for dealing with such investigations at that time.
Fr Smyth was a notorious child abuser.
He is believed to have abused at least 20 children over a 40 year period and was convicted of more than 90 offences.
A campaigner for victims of clerical child abuse in Ireland, Colm O'Gorman, said Cardinal Brady should resign following the admission that he had represented the church at the meetings.
A statement from Cardinal Brady's office said he had believed the complaints he received and had provided the information he received to his then bishop, Dr Francis McKiernan.
"In 1975, Fr Sean Brady, as he then was, was the part-time secretary to the then Bishop of Kilmore, the late Bishop Francis McKiernan," the statement said.
"At the direction of Bishop McKiernan, Fr Brady attended two meetings: in the Dundalk meeting Fr Brady acted as recording secretary for the process involved and in the Ballyjamesduff meeting he asked the questions and recorded the answers given.
"At those meetings the complainants signed undertakings, on oath, to respect the confidentiality of the information gathering process. As instructed, and as a matter of urgency, Fr Brady passed both reports to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action."
I'm a bit confused. Did they sign oaths to the effect that they'd never speak of these matters again or that they would not reveal the "information gathering process" i.e. reveal who was involved or that there was a process at all?
As for the lack of guidelines at the time, I find it hard to believe that (even) the Irish state had no laws in effect as to the criminality of child abuse. They could have passed this stuff on to the Gardai like any decent, courageous, moral human beings instead of acting like sociopaths trying to cover their arse. I don't know how these people sleep at night.
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 14, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
Maybe you should let us know what the charge would be?
Perverting the course of justice (by being party to two vunerable children being made to swear not to tell anyone ie; the police)... aiding and abetting child abuse... withholding information about an offence being committed against two children.... I'm sure there is a law against this sort of thing :o
Quote from: J70 on March 14, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
I'm a bit confused. Did they sign oaths to the effect that they'd never speak of these matters again or that they would not reveal the "information gathering process" i.e. reveal who was involved or that there was a process at all?
As for the lack of guidelines at the time, I find it hard to believe that (even) the Irish state had no laws in effect as to the criminality of child abuse. They could have passed this stuff on to the Gardai like any decent, courageous, moral human beings instead of acting like sociopaths trying to cover their arse. I don't know how these people sleep at night.
Yeah, I wasn't too sure about that myself. But even if it was just to keep quiet about the 'information gathering process', that seems to be a whitewash. What ever came from this process??
They never had any intention of allowing Smyth to be prosecuted under the law of the land. And instead he went on to rape more children and ruin more lives.
The Catholic Church in Ireland (and in general) disgusts me more and more with every new revelation. Brady should stand down immediately, but I doubt very much that will happen. Like a Fianna Fáil minister, he'll stand there defiantly and try to ride out the storm.
Two of the big power's since the foundation of the state - hopefully both in rapid terminal decline (at least with their present personalities and structures).
The Catholic Church is rotten to the core, it's not the only church rotten. Many others are rotten, corrupt, vengeful or hateful.
Looks like the Pope is in trouble too.
It's about time we removed God from the constitution.
To think Cavan GAA let this fella on to meet the players like royalty prior to the championship match in Breffni last year. He is an embarrasment to Cavan people and I hope he pays a price - but no doubt he'll claim it was someone elses fault etc.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 03:44:38 PM
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Dry up ffs, what do you want people to say?
I dont think anyone's going to be surprised that the church have yet another ****.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 03:44:38 PM
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Dry up ffs, what do you want people to say?
I dont think anyone's going to be surprised that the church have yet another ****.
Predictable pints ::)
It was an hour later and loads of posts elsewhere. It is infuriating how these c***ts don't go to court for this and I thot no-one was going to say anything. However they did and then typically you came in ranting and raving per usual...
In fairness, though I wasn't involved in it, I think this topic has been talked to death on this board at this stage, hence Pints point about the lack of surprise (and thus, presumably, interest) at yet another revelation is probably apt.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 03:44:38 PM
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Dry up ffs, what do you want people to say?
I dont think anyone's going to be surprised that the church have yet another ****.
Predictable pints ::)
It was an hour later and loads of posts elsewhere. It is infuriating how these c***ts don't go to court for this and I thot no-one was going to say anything. However they did and then typically you came in ranting and raving per usual...
I'll ask again, what do you want people to say that they already haven't? What else is there left to say?
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 03:44:38 PM
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Dry up ffs, what do you want people to say?
I dont think anyone's going to be surprised that the church have yet another ****.
Predictable pints ::)
It was an hour later and loads of posts elsewhere. It is infuriating how these c***ts don't go to court for this and I thot no-one was going to say anything. However they did and then typically you came in ranting and raving per usual...
I'll ask again, what do you want people to say that they already haven't? What else is there left to say?
Like the Bloody Sunday injustice, Robert Hamill etc, it needs to be said and re-said lest these people think they are getting off the hook... This is new about Brady and he is the boss ffs!
As a good friend of mine so rightly says about the catholic church and this abuse issue, 'Don't take your foot off their necks"...
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 05:59:34 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 05:31:19 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 04:47:07 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 04:40:41 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 03:44:38 PM
One hour later... one comment and one vote... If it was a police officer or someone in Orange Order, DUP or UUP there would have been loads of votes and comments by now... sad.
Dry up ffs, what do you want people to say?
I dont think anyone's going to be surprised that the church have yet another ****.
Predictable pints ::)
It was an hour later and loads of posts elsewhere. It is infuriating how these c***ts don't go to court for this and I thot no-one was going to say anything. However they did and then typically you came in ranting and raving per usual...
I'll ask again, what do you want people to say that they already haven't? What else is there left to say?
Like the Bloody Sunday injustice, Robert Hamill etc, it needs to be said and re-said lest these people think they are getting off the hook... This is new about Brady and he is the boss ffs!
As a good friend of mine so rightly says about the catholic church and this abuse issue, 'Don't take your foot off their necks"...
and are you surprised? because I'm not, not in the slightest.
There's only so many times people can register their disgust but that doesnt mean they're any less disgusted or angry.
Anyone want to re-establish the Celtic Catholic Church, take in a all the Catholics & High Church of Ireland folk that want to be away from these folk.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 04:14:44 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 14, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
Maybe you should let us know what the charge would be?
Perverting the course of justice (by being party to two vunerable children being made to swear not to tell anyone ie; the police)... aiding and abetting child abuse... withholding information about an offence being committed against two children.... I'm sure there is a law against this sort of thing :o
Proving it will be the problem.
Its like the Adams case. Its clear his niece will never forgive Gerry for not intervening, but how can anyone prove that he knew what was going on.
Fair enough Pints... is how you see it and I would keep going on about it... c'est la vie.
Quote from: Hound on March 14, 2010, 06:10:04 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 04:14:44 PM
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 14, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
Maybe you should let us know what the charge would be?
Perverting the course of justice (by being party to two vunerable children being made to swear not to tell anyone ie; the police)... aiding and abetting child abuse... withholding information about an offence being committed against two children.... I'm sure there is a law against this sort of thing :o
Proving it will be the problem.
Its like the Adams case. Its clear his niece will never forgive Gerry for not intervening, but how can anyone prove that he knew what was going on.
wtf? It's nothing like the Adams case.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cardinal-brady-is-sued-by-victim-of-serial-abuse-priest-2098868.html
Cardinal Brady is sued by victim of serial abuse priest
Primate accused of not passing report on child victim of Smyth to gardai
Sued: Cardinal Sean Brady attended meetings with abuse complainants as far back as 1975
By JIM CUSACK
Sunday March 14 2010
Cardinal Sean Brady is being sued in his personal capacity by a victim of serial paedophile rapist, Fr Brendan Smyth, who is claiming the primate was one of three priests who interviewed her in 1975 about her five-year long ordeal and then failed to ensure it was reported to the civil authorities, including the gardai.
The cardinal was present at two meetings at which clergy interviewed victims of Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975. At both meetings the victims, a young woman who Smyth had abused for five years and a boy who was also abused, were made to sign oaths saying they would not discuss their meetings with anyone other than authorised clergy.
After 1975, Smyth went on to abuse many more children.
Cardinal Brady is being sued in a personal capacity as well as in his role as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland by the female victim who Smyth brutalised and sexually abused between 1970 and 1975, on occasions when she was taken on church outings. She brought a case against the church in 1997 and it has been in the High Court ever since.
Cardinal Brady is, according to court affidavits, accused of: "1. Failing to report to An Garda Siochana the fact of formal signed complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth of sexual assault and paedophilia on other children made to the church authorities investigated by them at interviews -- at which the second named defendant was present and participated -- on March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, respectively.
"2. Failing following such interviews to take any adequate steps to ensure that Fr Brendan Smyth did not continue to perpetrate sexual assaults on children including the plaintiff.
"3. Requiring and causing the two children, the subject matter of the inquiries held on the March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, to sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss the interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it.
"4. By failing in its duty to report complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth negligently deprived the plaintiff and others of appropriate medical treatment."
In a statement yesterday on behalf of the Cardinal, the Catholic Information Office confirmed to the Sunday Independent that Fr Sean Brady had attended meetings with then alleged victims of Fr Smyth.
The Catholic Information Office said: "In 1975, Fr Sean Brady, as he then was, was the part-time secretary to the then Bishop of Kilmore, the late Bishop Francis McKiernan. At the direction of Bishop McKiernan, Fr Brady attended the two meetings referred to in your email. In the Dundalk meeting, Fr Brady acted as recording secretary for the process involved. In the Ballyjamesduff meeting he asked the questions and recorded the answers given.
"At those meetings the complainants signed undertakings, on oath, to respect the confidentiality of the information-gathering process. As instructed, and as a matter of urgency, Fr Brady passed both reports to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action," the statement added.
The Sunday Independent has learned that for 10 years the solicitor representing the woman had unsuccessfully attempted to force disclosure of documents relating to the handling of her case by the church. In 2007, the solicitor sought and received documentation from gardai who by then were examining documents relating to abusing priests. These documents finally disclosed the meetings at which Cardinal Brady was present. The case is still before the High Court.
In an affidavit before the High Court last December, the woman's solicitor said the victims were made to "sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss their interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it".
Cardinal Brady is the second named defendant in the case. The other two clergy are Fr Gerard Cusack, head of the Norbertine Order, of which Smyth was a member, and Bishop Leo O'Reilly of Lismore diocese, where the Norbertine's head abbey is situated, outside Ballyjamesduff in Co Cavan.
Fr Cusack and Bishop O'Reilly were not involved in any way directly with the young woman and are not being sued in a personal capacity but in their capacities as head of the order and head of the diocese respectively in which it is claimed negligence towards the victim took place. The proceedings are being defended by the defendants.
The lawyer, Brian Coady, of Murphy Coady Solicitors of Navan, Co Meath, wrote to the cardinal in January 2008, after examining the files unearthed by the gardai.
In his affidavit to the High Court last December, Mr Coady said: "I made it clear in my letter of January 25, 2008, enclosing the particulars of negligence that those allegations were made against the second named defendant (Sean Brady) in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as Catholic Primate of All Ireland. I also requested that the second named defendant indicate if he had any objections to same.
"However, the second named defendant client failed to indicate his position. I begged to refer to the copy of the letter of January 25, 2008, upon which marked the letters BC2 I have signed prior to the swearing thereof."
He wrote again in June last year. His affidavit to the High Court on this date reads: "By letter dated June 16, 2009, this firm again wrote to the second named defendant's solicitors seeking their consent to the amendments proposed by the statement of claim. I beg to refer to a copy of this letter upon which marked the letters BC3. I have signed my name prior to the swearing thereof.
"The plaintiff continued to wait for a response to the said letters in order to admit this application to be heard by the Master of this Honourable Court and to reduce costs. The second named defendant was aware of his personal involvement in and at all other details of the enquiry from the outset of proceedings and also knew that until September 2007 the plaintiff was unaware of same.
"In the circumstances the plaintiff assumed that he would consent to the amendment and gave him every opportunity to do so. However, at the date of swearing the second named defendant has not done so. In the circumstances, I believe the plaintiff has no option but to bring this motion before this Honourable Court."
By 1975 there had already been an enormous number of complaints about Smyth's abuse of children in Ireland, the UK and the US. At least one priest, Fr Bruno Mulvhill, had raised the complaints with the Irish hierarchy as early as 1968. It later emerged that Smyth had been abusing children from the 1940s but was continuously moved and allowed to go on abusing right up to the 1990s when his extradition from the Republic was finally sought by the RUC and he was convicted and imprisoned. It was the scandal that arose after it emerged that the RUC's extradition warrant had sat for months in the Attorney General's office in 1994 that led to the collapse of the FF/Labour coalition government. Fr Smyth died in prison in 1997.
The plaintiff, according to the affidavit, "suffered sustained and continued to suffer from very severe personal injuries, distress, trauma, loss and damage by virtue of the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants".
It says the defendants: "Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned church activities and in particular children's outings when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe to do so;
"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the organisation of such outings by a servant or agent of whom they knew or ought to have known had paedophile tendencies or was, in fact, a paedophile;
"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned access to children and in particular to the plaintiff herein by a servant or agent who they knew or ought to have known presented a grave risk to children;
"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in circumstances of great danger of which they knew or ought to have known of;
"Required the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in which they knew or ought to have known she was likely to be sexually assaulted which in fact occurred;
"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned a servant or agent to have unlimited, unregulated and unsupervised access to young children and particular to the plaintiff herein which access was utilised for repeated sexual abuse;
"Failed to protect children and in particular the plaintiff herein from sexual assaults by their servants or agents;
"Exposed the plaintiff to the immediate danger of ongoing sexual assaults which in fact occurred; and faced the plaintiff in a real apprehension of immediate battery being committed on her."
The affidavit states that the victim continues to suffer from the trauma of the violent sexual abuse which began when she was 14 and continued until she was 20. It states: "She complained of sleep disturbance, nightmares, reduced energy, mood swings, flashbacks and hyper vigilance. The plaintiff also suffered from a sense of estrangement, an absent sex life and distress even at the mention of sexuality. Her symptoms further included fear, nervousness, diarrhoea, choking sensations, muscle tension, increased heart rate and breathing difficulties. The plaintiff complained of thoughts of death, loss of concentration, interest and appetite. She avoids closeness to people including her husband and is fearful of rejection. Her marriage and quality of life have been greatly affected. The plaintiff was deeply distressed and overwhelmed by sexual abuse from the time she was 14 to 20 years of age."
- JIM CUSACK
Brady is no better than the rest.
He should resign. No doubt about it.
Definitely complicit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm)
Might as well let the man's own version of events be aired :)
When asked why he had not contacted the relevent statutory authorities, Cardinal Brady said that he was not the designated person to do so.
When asked if he was going to resign he said that he would not because he did not think it was a resigning matter.
No question, the Cardinal must resign. Though he was acting in obedience, by carrying out the instructions of his Bishop, whose duty it was to deal with this matter, his responsibility did not end there. To claim as he now does that proper procedures to deal with these matters were not in existence at this time, is a complete cop out. Is he seriously suggesting that a senior churchman required a procedure to tell him the difference between right and wrong. He has no credibility left, and should go quickly, before the Church is damaged further, by his non-sensical defence
I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.
Quote from: slow corner back on March 14, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.
Spot on -
The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.
Quote from: orangeman on March 14, 2010, 08:36:22 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on March 14, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.
Spot on -
The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.
The old defence of the "couple of bad apples" is well and truly blown at this stage. Brendan Smyth was one of the most heinous scumbags that ever walked in this country and to cover up his deeds is even worse. Imagine a scenario where you as part of your job came across evidence that a guy was a rampant paedophille, would you seriously say "its not my responsibility to tell the cops". No one would say that unless they were tryin to cover it up.
Boys will you just put you hands in your pockets, help the church put this to bed and shut the f**k up
The issue here is whether the process, in which the Cardinal played a key role, concluded with the matter being reported to the authorities in a timely fashion.
If it was not then his defense of not being the 'designated person' to do so is irrelevant and he should resign immediately.
It should also be noted that only the Ferns & Dublin dioceses have been properly independently investigated to date. Here is a very good reason to investigate another and there is probably an argument to do the lot of them.
Quote from: muppet on March 14, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
The issue here is whether the process, in which the Cardinal played a key role, concluded with the matter being reported to the authorities in a timely fashion.
If it was not then his defense of not being the 'designated person' to do so is irrelevant and he should resign immediately.
It should also be noted that only the Ferns & Dublin dioceses have been properly independently investigated to date. Here is a very good reason to investigate another and there is probably an argument to do the lot of them.
Brendan Smyth abused kids for a further 18 years as a priest after this "process" - the Gardai were never informed. On this evenings news they played an interview from the cardinal stating some time ago that if his failure to act in the past had resulted in children being abused then he would resign (he gave this at a time when people were looking for the resignation of the 4 bishops criticised in the Dublin Diocese.) Surely, he will now live up to his word and do just that.
Quote from: orangeman on March 14, 2010, 08:36:22 PM
Quote from: slow corner back on March 14, 2010, 08:31:49 PM
I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.
Spot on -
The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.
Well said OM.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 14, 2010, 08:14:44 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm)
Might as well let the man's own version of events be aired :)
I don't think that helps him at all, in fact it makes me even more angry.
Quote from: muppet on March 14, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
It should also be noted that only the Ferns & Dublin dioceses have been properly independently investigated to date. Here is a very good reason to investigate another and there is probably an argument to do the lot of them.
A very good point. My other worked in the old Surgical hospital in Cavan town back in the 70s when Brendan Smyth was based in Kilnacrott. He used to parade around the place and would often be around the childrens ward, while being treated like royalty by most of the nurses. He had no right to be about the place but because he was a priest, questions were never asked.
As she said herself there has to be alot of stories to come out in this diocese yet and a full investigation should take place,as it should in every other diocese in the country.
Brady was on the RTE news and said he stopped Brendan Smyth hearing confessions :o ...Jees! Sean why didn't you say that in the first place?... sure that makes it all ok... ::)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 11:34:52 PM
Brady was on the RTE news and said he stopped Brendan Smyth hearing confessions :o ...Jees! Sean why didn't you say that in the first place?... sure that makes it all ok... ::)
What world do these boys live in?
"The responsibility for his behaviour as a priest rested with his religious superior in Kilnacrott."
This sort of language makes me sick, was there no Garda in co Cavan at this time? Perhaps fr Sean didn't know their number? Or was it up to his superiors to look up the golden pages?
He has to go!
maygodhelpus You are going to have to change your name, drop the god and we really are in trouble. ;D
He said today on radio ulster that it was not up to him to tell the police to investigate it.
Feck you wonder whats going on today and what stories we will hear in the future and why the clergy stood by and do nothing about it.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 14, 2010, 11:47:25 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 14, 2010, 11:34:52 PM
Brady was on the RTE news and said he stopped Brendan Smyth hearing confessions :o ...Jees! Sean why didn't you say that in the first place?... sure that makes it all ok... ::)
What world do these boys live in?
Our world unfortunately. The world you and i grew up in. The mass rocks is the only answer for these f**kers. When the money doesn't flow then the questions will start in earnest.
Cardinal Brady will not resign over abuse 'cover-up'
Cardinal Sean Brady said he was following bishops' orders
The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland says he will only resign over claims he helped cover up sex abuse if he is asked to do so by the Pope.
Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings in the 1970s where two abused teenagers signed vows of silence over their complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth.
Fr Smyth was a notorious sex offender jailed in the 1990s for child abuse.
"There was no cover up, I believed those people. I brought what I heard to the bishop," Cardinal Brady said.
The complaints of abuse were investigated by Cardinal Brady in his capacity as secretary to the bishop of Kilmore in 1975.
Cardinal Brady said he had been following his bishop's orders and there were no guidelines for dealing with such investigations at that time.
"Now I know with hindsight that I should have done more. I thought at that time I was doing what I was required to do, and not just that, but most effectively. I acted with great urgency to get that evidence and produce it.
Child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign
Cardinal Sean Brady, December 2009
"I believed in doing so, I was following the most effective route to get this stopped. That is my concern and always was - the safety of children."
He said his actions were part of a process that removed the shamed cleric's licence to act as a priest.
He said he did not believe this was a resigning matter.
However, in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE last December, the cardinal said he, himself, would resign if he found that a child had been abused as a result of any managerial failure on his part.
"I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign," he said.
At that time, the cardinal apologised on behalf of the Church after an Irish government report revealed abuse over decades, a systematic cover-up by the Church and a lack of action by Irish police.
At that time, he said: "No-one is above the law in this country.
"Every Catholic should comply fully with their obligations to the civil law and co-operate with the Gardai (Irish police) in the reporting and investigation of any crime."
He said children's welfare was now a priority for the Church.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 09:45:23 AM
Cardinal Brady will not resign over abuse 'cover-up'
Cardinal Sean Brady said he was following bishops' orders
Was that not the lame excuse given by the Nazi's at the Nuremberg trials?
What galls me is that these hoors think they operate only under the jurisdiction of Rome and not local legal legislation like the rest of them.
The decent members of the Clergy that we keep hearing so much about have to grow a set of balls and stand up for what is right rather than hide in the shadows.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 15, 2010, 10:19:10 AM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 09:45:23 AM
Cardinal Brady will not resign over abuse 'cover-up'
Cardinal Sean Brady said he was following bishops' orders
Was that not the lame excuse given by the Nazi's at the Nuremberg trials?
What galls me is that these hoors think they operate only under the jurisdiction of Rome and not local legal legislation like the rest of them.
The decent members of the Clergy that we keep hearing so much about have to grow a set of balls and stand up for what is right rather than hide in the shadows.
This whoe power thing that they think they have has gone unchallenged by us for generations. So when we're blaming Brady and the rest of them, we should be kicking our own arses for not having the courage to stand up to them ourselves.
I know a man who a couple of weeks ago went to a Parish Priest to politely object to some development that the PP was doing in the chapel grounds. The PP took great exception to being challenged and so ordered him out of the parochial house, told him never to come back, told him that he owned the chapel and the chapel grounds and told him that he could do whatever the hell he liked as he was the boss !!!
Some things never change.
Should Cardinal Sean Brady resign?
BBC Talkback put that question to its listeners today in a straw poll and of the hundreds who responded...81% said yes. Only 19% said they didn't think he should resign.
I've always had a lot of time for Sean Brady. I've known him going on 10+ years and he was always a sound man.
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People will not be satisfied until there is no Church, until God is out of the constitution (as another poster wrote) until Christians everywhere beg forgiveness of atheists all over the world for getting it wrong.
Things need fixed not destroyed.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
If thats the best what the hell must the rest be like then, doesn't bear thinking about really.
RTÉ and BBC cameras all over the "city" centre this morning ask for peoples views.... Half of them hadnt a clue what it was even about, should make interesting viewing!!
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I've always had a lot of time for Sean Brady. I've known him going on 10+ years and he was always a sound man.
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People will not be satisfied until there is no Church, until God is out of the constitution (as another poster wrote) until Christians everywhere beg forgiveness of atheists all over the world for getting it wrong.
Things need fixed not destroyed.
You are of course right. Until that enlightned day we will have to make do with those in the clergy who broke the law and exposed thousands of kids to abuse be made face the consequences of their actions. This man should be in jail. Open and shut.
If there is no better bishop in Ireland, the talent pool must be very shallow.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I've always had a lot of time for Sean Brady. I've known him going on 10+ years and he was always a sound man.
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People will not be satisfied until there is no Church, until God is out of the constitution (as another poster wrote) until Christians everywhere beg forgiveness of atheists all over the world for getting it wrong.
Things need fixed not destroyed.
So there is no such thing as accountability. What do you tell the raped children that he could have prevented - sorry your life was destroyed but its all those nasty anti catholics spreading vile rumours and everything is well in the church? I'm beginning to wonder are you under some sort of spell, is there anything the church can do that is wrong. Personnally, I couldn't care less if you know harbourers of Paedophilles like Brady or not. Its a sad reflection on you that you can't call him that, exactly what he is.
Quote from: delboy on March 15, 2010, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
If thats the best what the hell must the rest be like then, doesn't bear thinking about really.
Who would you put in charge Delboy? Or do you even care?
Plenty of complaints and no suggestions
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:21:26 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 15, 2010, 03:05:11 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
If thats the best what the hell must the rest be like then, doesn't bear thinking about really.
Who would you put in charge Delboy? Or do you even care?
Plenty of complaints and no suggestions
Im not or never have been a member of the catholic church, so i wouldn't be so arrogant as to tell you who you should put in his place, but i suppose someone who wasn't complicit in covering up child abuse might be a step in the right direction.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I've always had a lot of time for Sean Brady. I've known him going on 10+ years and he was always a sound man.
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People will not be satisfied until there is no Church, until God is out of the constitution (as another poster wrote) until Christians everywhere beg forgiveness of atheists all over the world for getting it wrong.
Things need fixed not destroyed.
Suggestions :
Brady is a sound man ? Always has been ? My God, are you on a wind up ? He may and might well have been a sound man but obviously lacks / lacked sound judgment.
And how you would describe him as being sound is beyond belief in light of the recent relevations.
You're right - things need fixed, not destoyed. Brady isn't fit to do the necessary repairs. That's why I've said that Brady and the rest should all step aside and let the younger men take up the reins. These younger men are more in touch and will be able to make the changes necessary.
Dermot Martin is being shunned by the vast majority of bishops in Ireland for putting his hands up and admitting the wrong's of the church. He's not a popular boy as far as the hierarchy are concerned.
Brady is no better than the rest. He's going to have his day in court and this time won't have the power to force the complainants to swear an oath of secrecy.
He should be forced out - not asked to resign.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
You're right - things need fixed, not destoyed. Brady isn't fit to do the necessary repairs. That's why I've said that Brady and the rest should all step aside and let the younger men take up the reins. These younger men are more in touch and will be able to make the changes necessary.
What younger men? What is your experience of these younger men and how are they more in touch and what are they more in touch with?
What experience can they bring?
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:41:50 PM
What younger men? What is your experience of these younger men and how are they more in touch and what are they more in touch with?
What experience can they bring?
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
Brady broke the law and children got raped as a result.
Your moral compass is way off to even consider defending him as a decent man.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 02:46:39 PM
I've always had a lot of time for Sean Brady. I've known him going on 10+ years and he was always a sound man.
I don't think he should resign, in fact I would encourage him to continue his role as Arch-Bishop. I don't know of a better Bishop in Ireland.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. People will not be satisfied until there is no Church, until God is out of the constitution (as another poster wrote) until Christians everywhere beg forgiveness of atheists all over the world for getting it wrong.
Things need fixed not destroyed.
Jees! the rest must be bad if he's the best. Pitiful comments by the way...
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:41:50 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
You're right - things need fixed, not destoyed. Brady isn't fit to do the necessary repairs. That's why I've said that Brady and the rest should all step aside and let the younger men take up the reins. These younger men are more in touch and will be able to make the changes necessary.
What younger men? What is your experience of these younger men and how are they more in touch and what are they more in touch with?
What experience can they bring?
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
I may be misreading you here, but because Brady has no ready made successor untainted by child abuse cover ups then he should stay in his position?
Is that what your are saying?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:41:50 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 03:30:50 PM
You're right - things need fixed, not destoyed. Brady isn't fit to do the necessary repairs. That's why I've said that Brady and the rest should all step aside and let the younger men take up the reins. These younger men are more in touch and will be able to make the changes necessary.
What younger men? What is your experience of these younger men and how are they more in touch and what are they more in touch with?
What experience can they bring?
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
Experience of NOT being complicit in child sexual abuse, of NOT being guilty of covering up child sexual abuse, of NOT being guilty of getting TEENAGE child abuse victims to sign secret oaths of silence.
That's just for starters !!
Brady has no future in leadership of the Irish church.
That Jim Allister cnut is even calling for him to resign ???
I think he has no choice but to step down, appalling arrogance if he cannot see the wrong in this situation.
Quote from: Doogie Browser on March 15, 2010, 03:59:14 PM
That Jim Allister cnut is even calling for him to resign ???
I think he has no choice but to step down, appalling arrogance if he cannot see the wrong in this situation.
I think he can see the wrong in the situation - thats my point.
He can see it but he is putting something bigger than him first. Maybe that's been the problem all along - putting the Church first and this escalated and escalated out of control to bring us to today. The difficult thing now is starting off again from scratch - how is it done? Clean out everyone over 40 and start over - how does that happen?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on March 15, 2010, 03:59:14 PM
That Jim Allister cnut is even calling for him to resign ???
I think he has no choice but to step down, appalling arrogance if he cannot see the wrong in this situation.
I think he can see the wrong in the situation - thats my point.
He can see it but he is putting something bigger than him first. Maybe that's been the problem all along - putting the Church first and this escalated and escalated out of control to bring us to today. The difficult thing now is starting off again from scratch - how is it done? Clean out everyone over 40 and start over - how does that happen?
Jesus Christ of almighty.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 04:26:16 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 04:02:30 PM
Quote from: Doogie Browser on March 15, 2010, 03:59:14 PM
That Jim Allister cnut is even calling for him to resign ???
I think he has no choice but to step down, appalling arrogance if he cannot see the wrong in this situation.
I think he can see the wrong in the situation - thats my point.
He can see it but he is putting something bigger than him first. Maybe that's been the problem all along - putting the Church first and this escalated and escalated out of control to bring us to today. The difficult thing now is starting off again from scratch - how is it done? Clean out everyone over 40 and start over - how does that happen?
Jesus Christ of almighty.
Is no wonder, 'Jesus wept.'
Is that not what happened?
Did the abuse not get covered up to protect the "Church" or am I missing something?
BTW I'm not taking anything away form the abuse itself but we are talking about Brady here and the cover up.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 04:38:40 PM
Is that not what happened?
Did the abuse not get covered up to protect the "Church" or am I missing something?
BTW I'm not taking anything away form the abuse itself but we are talking about Brady here and the cover up.
I think thats maybe where you are missing the point Iceman, the abuse is bad enough but to have our moral guardians hiding the issue and moving these sicko's around to ruin even more youngsters lives is nearly as deplorable even if they were doing it for some misguided reason of 'protecting the church'.
The two are inextricably linked.
7 vote that he should not resign but only Iceman has the balls to at least try and defend that stance by posting. Iceman, I think your love of the catholic church is seriously clouding your judgement here. I put it to you that if this was any other organisation you'd be saying the same as the rest of us. I urge you to step back and look at what is and has happened here. You could well be a parent like me, are you not revolted by someone putting a church over the innocent lives of wee children? I would expect and demand better from any organisation I belonged to and if I didn't get it I'd have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 15, 2010, 04:54:00 PM
7 vote that he should not resign but only Iceman has the balls to at least try and defend that stance by posting. Iceman, I think your love of the catholic church is seriously clouding your judgement here. I put it to you that if this was any other organisation you'd be saying the same as the rest of us. I urge you to step back and look at what is and has happened here. You could well be a parent like me, are you not revolted by someone putting a church over the innocent lives of wee children? I would expect and demand better from any organisation I belonged to and if I didn't get it I'd have nothing to do with it.
Myles love of church is no excuse. I am no hater of the church and teach my kids as devoutly as my ould pair taught me, but i find it more and more difficult to highlight the undoubted good that exists, when surrounded and confronted with the intrisic evil that has prevailed. Iceman is clearly delusional. Brady has lost all credibility having been complicit in a henious cover up. Smyth was lower than a snake, but for brady to know about it and do nothing makes him more of a snake. God Forgive Him. I cant. he should be kicked out without hesitation
You have to wonder at the mindset of these people, it seems as if the good name of 'the church' is more important than preventing vile acts like child abuse, its almost as if 'the church' as an institution is more important than the faith itself.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 15, 2010, 04:54:00 PM
7 vote that he should not resign but only Iceman has the balls to at least try and defend that stance by posting. Iceman, I think your love of the catholic church is seriously clouding your judgement here. I put it to you that if this was any other organisation you'd be saying the same as the rest of us. I urge you to step back and look at what is and has happened here. You could well be a parent like me, are you not revolted by someone putting a church over the innocent lives of wee children? I would expect and demand better from any organisation I belonged to and if I didn't get it I'd have nothing to do with it.
7 vote he should not be charged in court... that was the question.
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
The next steps are to confess the lot and I mean
the lot. Every pervert that still hasn't been outed, but is known to church authorities regardless of how old or infirm they are must be handed up.
This stance of only admitting each atrocity as it newly comes to light, reeks of intransigence and continued cover up and f**king sinful deceipt. (By supposed church doctrines)
The only way to restore any confidence in the church's ability to be trusted is to confess openly and maybe some absolution will be forthcoming.
Do they have the capacity? Unfortunately I dont believe so. On the last word just now, another monsignor said it wasn't their job to 'Blab to the Gards'
What f**king reality are they living in???????
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:41:50 PM
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
What talent is required, from the outside looking in it seems being a yes man and having the ability to put aside your own moral concerns for the supposed greater good of 'the church' would take you a long way.
Quote from: delboy on March 15, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 03:41:50 PM
If there was a rich talent pool of men willing and able to step up and get the job done then I would have no problem with Brady resigning. But there isn't.
What talent is required, from the outside looking in it seems being a yes man and having the ability to put aside your own moral concerns for the supposed greater good of 'the church' would take you a long way.
Thats not helping matters. You say there is others ready to step forward - I ask you where are they and you have no response.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
As i said in a previous post Cardinal Brady must go. Having said that, we must recognise that he too is a victim. A victim of institutionalism which the Hierarchial nature of the Church created. We all know the symptoms of this illness, for that is what it is, an illness. Conformity, unquestioning loyalty, keeping problems or difficulties in-house, archaic procedures and the employment of obscure jargon based on Vatican legalese. Anyone employed in any institution be it in Education,Health,Justice, or any large private corporation will instantly recognise the symptoms of this disease, which in the Church has reached an advanced state.
Whats the cure. First you must remove all the infected parts of the organisation. A programme of education geared towards de-institutionalism must be implemented across all the component parts of the Church body,clerical and lay. No longer should the safe pair of hands be the main criteria for advancement in the Church. The majority of good priests and pastors who still exist within the Church, will then be free to work with the Laity, and restore the Church to its calling of service. Out with sterile laws and in with the love and compassion of Christ. No more talk of Princes and Palaces, no more kissing of rings. Let the washing of the feet be our guide this lenten season, and let your actions be the true witness and gospel, of the greatness of Gods Church. Popes and Prelates will sin and fall, just like the rest of us, but the Church will survive in a more chastened and effective form. Let your voices be heard but temper them with humility and compassion
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
So what? We're talking about the sexual abuse of children here. What's more important, Brady being a priest or the stopping several innocent children being raped?!
Iceman, the church needs a leader, not a coward who sat in a meeting while teenage rape victims signed some bullshit oath and were brainwashed (like you seem to be) and then buried his head in the sand while their rapist went on to rape again and again and again!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
So what? We're talking about the sexual abuse of children here. What's more important, Brady being a priest or the stopping several innocent children being raped?!
Iceman, the church needs a leader, not a coward who sat in a meeting while teenage rape victims signed some bullshit oath and were brainwashed (like you seem to be) and then buried his head in the sand while their rapist went on to rape again and again and again!
Wonder of wonders... I agree with Pints 100 per cent here. Is NO excuse to cover up the rape and other abuse of children. So wat if he was kicked out of the church? Why did he want to be part of a church engaged in cover up of paedophiles?
Words generally fail me on this thread.
I am horrified at what has gone on here and that Brady is advocating staying on.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
So what? We're talking about the sexual abuse of children here. What's more important, Brady being a priest or the stopping several innocent children being raped?!
Iceman, the church needs a leader, not a coward who sat in a meeting while teenage rape victims signed some bullshit oath and were brainwashed (like you seem to be) and then buried his head in the sand while their rapist went on to rape again and again and again!
So Pints in the post you have quoted what did I say that suggests I am brainwashed?
I think I am being very real about it all. I admit and agree to most things people have said but at least I talking about going forward. I haven't seen any suggestions from you. Show me one leader in the world who hasn't made mistakes, who hasn't been a coward or been walked over at some point.
I am not brainwashed but I am ready to do something. You my friend seem content to simply complain about it all.
What are you doing? Same as always probably......
If you only do what you have always done, you'll only get what you have always got......
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
Can you make it fit both ways? Here the buck is passed fully to the Bishop and in another situation accept an explanation that Bishop Ratzinger was not informed.
Did anyone else hear this Canon law Professor Monsignor Maurice Dooley on RTE this morning? He was defending the Church's actions of collusion and concealment within a legal context. That man chilled me to the bone. Is this what is meant by the witnessing of the devil?
He was very capable of ruthlessly divorcing himself from all compassion in order to justify the 'following orders' and concealment from the police. He did so with a callous efficiency.
.
pints, obviously Brady chose his vocation. That's for him to answer to the man above as to whether he was right or not. Ireland was a much different place then, he may not have been aware of other cases at that time. As a young priest he would have had no reason to question his bishop as to what was happening with Smyth, it was someone else's responsiblity to inform the authorities
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
So what? We're talking about the sexual abuse of children here. What's more important, Brady being a priest or the stopping several innocent children being raped?!
Iceman, the church needs a leader, not a coward who sat in a meeting while teenage rape victims signed some bullshit oath and were brainwashed (like you seem to be) and then buried his head in the sand while their rapist went on to rape again and again and again!
So Pints in the post you have quoted what did I say that suggests I am brainwashed?
I think I am being very real about it all. I admit and agree to most things people have said but at least I talking about going forward. I haven't seen any suggestions from you. Show me one leader in the world who hasn't made mistakes, who hasn't been a coward or been walked over at some point.
I am not brainwashed but I am ready to do something. You my friend seem content to simply complain about it all.
What are you doing? Same as always probably......
If you only do what you have always done, you'll only get what you have always got......
All your posts on the subject suggest you're brainwashed. I don't know how someone can come on here, knowing what we do, and describe Brady as a decent man. It's people with attitudes like yours that led to all this. I'm not angry with the abusers, I'm angry with those who covered it up and turned their heads, clergy and non clergy, and their apologists and you're one of them.
People make mistakes, Brady didn't make a mistake, he turned his head while a man raped children because, at best, he was worried about his own position in the church. How would you feel if you were one of those children that had to sign an oath or if you were one of the children Smyth went on to abuse? It makes me sick.
and what exactly are you ready to do? Turn your head the other way?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
pints, obviously Brady chose his vocation. That's for him to answer to the man above as to whether he was right or not. Ireland was a much different place then, he may not have been aware of other cases at that time. As a young priest he would have had no reason to question his bishop as to what was happening with Smyth, it was someone else's responsiblity to inform the authorities
No, he should be answering his actions to the garda/police and to the courts!
I don't care what Ireland was like then or if he was or wasn't aware of other cases. He knew a fellow priest had sexually abused two people, at least and what did he do? Turned his head the other way and done nothing. Nothing. What was the church's punishment for Smyth? Sent him to another parish to allow him to abuse again?
As a young priest he had no reason to question his bishop? Someone else said he was 37 at the time, he should have known better, a 17 year old would know better - it was not someone else's responsibility to inform the authorities. He knew no one did. Did he go forward to the authorities when Smyth was being prosecuted?
You're another apologist and if it was a member of Sinn Fein that had done what Brady done you wouldn't have the same views.
Honestly, people must have been brainwashed (and some still are), it's like a cult.
I am outraged at the treatment of Cardinal Brady a thoroughly decent man. He did his duty and informed his superiors,what else could he do? Should priests be expected to betray other confidences like what they hear in the confession box?
Its bad enough the Orange media conducting this witchhunt without others getting involved
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 08:38:40 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 08:29:57 PM
pints, obviously Brady chose his vocation. That's for him to answer to the man above as to whether he was right or not. Ireland was a much different place then, he may not have been aware of other cases at that time. As a young priest he would have had no reason to question his bishop as to what was happening with Smyth, it was someone else's responsiblity to inform the authorities
No, he should be answering his actions to the garda/police and to the courts!
I don't care what Ireland was like then or if he was or wasn't aware of other cases. He knew a fellow priest had sexually abused two people, at least and what did he do? Turned his head the other way and done nothing. Nothing. What was the church's punishment for Smyth? Sent him to another parish to allow him to abuse again?
As a young priest he had no reason to question his bishop? Someone else said he was 37 at the time, he should have known better, a 17 year old would know better - it was not someone else's responsibility to inform the authorities. He knew no one did. Did he go forward to the authorities when Smyth was being prosecuted?
You're another apologist and if it was a member of Sinn Fein that had done what Brady done you wouldn't have the same views.
Honestly, people must have been brainwashed (and some still are), it's like a cult.
Pints, Your standard village idiot would know better!
Also as a punishment, Smyth was not allowed to hear confessions! The whole thing beggars belief! How disgusting
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
I am outraged at the treatment of Cardinal Brady a thoroughly decent man. He did his duty and informed his superiors,what else could he do? Should priests be expected to betray other confidences like what they hear in the confession box?
Its bad enough the Orange media conducting this witchhunt without others getting involved
Tell the police/garda tony! He didn't hear it in a confession box.
Decent man my arse.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
I am outraged at the treatment of Cardinal Brady a thoroughly decent man. He did his duty and informed his superiors,what else could he do? Should priests be expected to betray other confidences like what they hear in the confession box?
Its bad enough the Orange media conducting this witchhunt without others getting involved
Ridiculous!!
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
All your posts on the subject suggest you're brainwashed. I don't know how someone can come on here, knowing what we do, and describe Brady as a decent man. It's people with attitudes like yours that led to all this. I'm not angry with the abusers, I'm angry with those who covered it up and turned their heads, clergy and non clergy, and their apologists and you're one of them.
People make mistakes, Brady didn't make a mistake, he turned his head while a man raped children because, at best, he was worried about his own position in the church. How would you feel if you were one of those children that had to sign an oath or if you were one of the children Smyth went on to abuse? It makes me sick.
and what exactly are you ready to do? Turn your head the other way?
In my experience of Brady he is a decent man. In any dealings I have had with him he is a decent man. Therefore I have every right and every justification to give my opinion on him based on my experiences of him.
I take offense that you think its my fault or people like me that led to all this happening. In fact its the other way around Pints. Its people who have no real relationship with Jesus, who don't respect their fellow human being, who are sick and have no morals that abused and raped the children.
I have made my point clearly that I agree that the Church F'ed it all up and that the cover up is a disgrace.
I am however trying to move towards fixing things and discussing how to rebuild. You however (and this is an observation form the majority of your posts on the board) are more happy being miserable.
I am not ready to turn my head the other way. I haven't called for people to forget the past. Let's move forward, remembering the mistakes of the past, embracing the present and making best efforts to heal and repair and looking forward in the hope that this doesn't happen again.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
I am outraged at the treatment of Cardinal Brady a thoroughly decent man. He did his duty and informed his superiors,what else could he do? Should priests be expected to betray other confidences like what they hear in the confession box?
Its bad enough the Orange media conducting this witchhunt without others getting involved
Not getting involved solved a lot in this issue. Have you connected the IFA to the abuse scandal yet?
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 08:50:45 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 08:31:18 PM
All your posts on the subject suggest you're brainwashed. I don't know how someone can come on here, knowing what we do, and describe Brady as a decent man. It's people with attitudes like yours that led to all this. I'm not angry with the abusers, I'm angry with those who covered it up and turned their heads, clergy and non clergy, and their apologists and you're one of them.
People make mistakes, Brady didn't make a mistake, he turned his head while a man raped children because, at best, he was worried about his own position in the church. How would you feel if you were one of those children that had to sign an oath or if you were one of the children Smyth went on to abuse? It makes me sick.
and what exactly are you ready to do? Turn your head the other way?
In my experience of Brady he is a decent man. In any dealings I have had with him he is a decent man. Therefore I have every right and every justification to give my opinion on him based on my experiences of him.
I take offense that you think its my fault or people like me that led to all this happening. In fact its the other way around Pints. Its people who have no real relationship with Jesus, who don't respect their fellow human being, who are sick and have no morals that abused and raped the children.
I have made my point clearly that I agree that the Church F'ed it all up and that the cover up is a disgrace.
I am however trying to move towards fixing things and discussing how to rebuild. You however (and this is an observation form the majority of your posts on the board) are more happy being miserable.
I am not ready to turn my head the other way. I haven't called for people to forget the past. Let's move forward, remembering the mistakes of the past, embracing the present and making best efforts to heal and repair and looking forward in the hope that this doesn't happen again.
You take that from the pope's statement? You don't need to have a relationship with Jesus to have morals but anyway, would you describe those who covered up the abuse, like Brady, as having high morals and a relationship with Jesus?
All this abuse happened because of brain washed idiots, non clergy people, who wouldn't believe such things about the priests, even when it was their own children telling what happened them, who thought the priests knew best, who thought they'd go to hell if they told the relevant authorities, who thought they'd go to hell if they pursued cases against the clergy, who thought excommunication from the
glorified paedophile ring catholic church would be the end of the world etc etc.
I can understand Brady passing it up the line to his superior at the time. However, if in the course of the next few months and years, it became apparent to him that Smyth was still a working priest, still moving about the place and being given access to children, then what did he do? Having investigated the case, he above all people knew what sort of man Smyth was. Did he turn and look the other way? Did he tell himself 'not my problem'? If he knew Smyth was at large and did nothing, then he is a spineless, gutless individual.
Quote from: Myles Na G. on March 15, 2010, 09:05:37 PM
I can understand Brady passing it up the line to his superior at the time. However, if in the course of the next few months and years, it became apparent to him that Smyth was still a working priest, still moving about the place and being given access to children, then what did he do? Having investigated the case, he above all people knew what sort of man Smyth was. Did he turn and look the other way? Did he tell himself 'not my problem'? If he knew Smyth was at large and did nothing, then he is a spineless, gutless individual.
Well he would have known that was going to be the case when he sat at meeting and got children to sign oaths of silence.
At best, he's a spineless and gutless individual
Why did the Parents of these children, not go too the Garda, and could they possibly have requested Fr.Brady to deal with it in-house, to avoid publicity. Take a deep breath before responding Pints, i am just asking a question
Quote from: Main Street on March 15, 2010, 08:26:38 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
Can you make it fit both ways? Here the buck is passed fully to the Bishop and in another situation accept an explanation that Bishop Ratzinger was not informed.
Did anyone else hear this Canon law Professor Monsignor Maurice Dooley on RTE this morning? He was defending the Church's actions of collusion and concealment within a legal context. That man chilled me to the bone. Is this what is meant by the witnessing of the devil?
He was very capable of ruthlessly divorcing himself from all compassion in order to justify the 'following orders' and concealment from the police. He did so with a callous efficiency.
.
He said that there is nothing in canon law or civil law that "obliges" bishops or priests to report criminal acts to the police / gardai ??.
I can't f--king believe that this sort of defence is being used in this situation !!!
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Wanting to keep your job isn't a good enough reason for ignoring child abuse.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
If someone at my work was sexually abusing children I would be doing more than telling the boss and if it meant losing the job than so be it.
PB, the parents probably done what the priests told them - whole lot of them brainwashed.
Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Really ? Do you really think that's an appropriate comparison ?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Well Tony, compared to an idiot like you he probably came across as a genius. As for being a Cavan player, I don't give a f**k and I'm a Cavan man with a great respect for our past players. But once you do nothing to stop a child rapist then you are nothing but a criminal in my eyes. He had 18 years to figure out how to deal with it and at year 1 he was in his mid 30's, not a teenager. Why don't you take your head out of your arse and stop being such an idiotic bigot all your life. In your pea brain everything Orange, protestant = bad and everything green and catholic =good. You're a joke.
Cardinal Brady was tasked with interviewing and reporting on his findings. This he did honestly and urgently. If a priest listens to a confession of murder in the Confession Box, theft, adultery etc, what should he do? Inform the Police, betrayed partners
In any event would telling the Police have had any effect anyway? 10 Years or more when I was still resident in Drumcree, I was stopped by masked men and forced to turn my car less than a mile from my home. I informed a Police patrol sitting at the bottom of the hill, a few hundred yards away, and they told me there was nothing they could or would do about it.
This was Ireland in 1975 remember.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 08:16:16 PM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 07:56:33 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 15, 2010, 07:21:20 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 05:46:04 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 15, 2010, 05:36:30 PM
I really don't know how to get my point across on this one.
The Church F'ed up and the cover up is just as bad as the abuse. At some level everyone would have to be implicated if we take that route. How many priests didn't know about it, or suspected something and did nothing or looked the other way?
What the Church did was wrong - they should not have put the Church first and they should have done the right thing immediately. But they didn't. And here we are today one big huge mess and thousands of lives ruined. So what are the next best steps and does the Church have the capacity to take them based on the stance they have taken all along?
I don't have the answers. I don't think any of you do either.
I believe Brady did what he was told to do. In the Church, the sad reality for the Clergy, is they do what they are told to do or leave. Maybe Brady should have left back then - who knows why he stayed. But he is here now and I think he can offer something in the rebuilding process. So I don't think he should resign.
My opinions are not based on any delusional love of the Church.
No excuse saying he did what he was told. Hitler's generals said that... He was 36 years of age not an impressionable 18-year-old in Maynooth. How bad would the order have to be for him to say 'No-I won't do that?'
Iceman is right. Diocesan priests must do what they are instructed to by their bishop. There are no exceptions to that rule. Religious orders like the Jesuits, Redemptorists etc all have someone in charge of their communities who tells individual priests where they are going to next etc For someone in a religious order to disobey what they have been told to do, it could mean them being kicked out of that order as it is one of the vows they make
So what? We're talking about the sexual abuse of children here. What's more important, Brady being a priest or the stopping several innocent children being raped?!
Iceman, the church needs a leader, not a coward who sat in a meeting while teenage rape victims signed some bullshit oath and were brainwashed (like you seem to be) and then buried his head in the sand while their rapist went on to rape again and again and again!
So Pints in the post you have quoted what did I say that suggests I am brainwashed?
I think I am being very real about it all. I admit and agree to most things people have said but at least I talking about going forward. I haven't seen any suggestions from you. show me one leader in the world who hasn't made mistakes, who hasn't been a coward or been walked over at some point.
I am not brainwashed but I am ready to do something. You my friend seem content to simply complain about it all.
What are you doing? Same as always probably......
If you only do what you have always done, you'll only get what you have always got......
Show us other leaders with any credibility who covered up for child rapists.
Then tell us when Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi in Burma, Leck Walensa, Martin Luther King, Jesus (who the catholic church claim the monoploy to) were 'cowards and walked over.' You need to think about what you write first.
The way some of these apologists are going on here is pathetic. You'd swear the mid 70's was the dark ages the pathetic excuses that are being pedaled. Someone on the last word today made a great point how Bishop Casey was dragged to Rome to explain himself when fathered a child with a woman in 1974 and then forced to resign. Funny how those morals were fully functioning for surely the lesser crime of having consenual sex with a woman. But raping children is different I suppose in Canon law. What do you reckon Jesus would make of all this I wonder lads, I'd say he reign fire on this country that his name would be disgraced like this by a corrupt bunch of self serving b**tards.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:52:13 PM
Cardinal Brady was tasked with interviewing and reporting on his findings. This he did honestly and urgently. If a priest listens to a confession of murder in the Confession Box, theft, adultery etc, what should he do? Inform the Police, betrayed partners
In any event would telling the Police have had any effect anyway? 10 Years or more when I was still resident in Drumcree, I was stopped by masked men and forced to turn my car less than a mile from my home. I informed a Police patrol sitting at the bottom of the hill, a few hundred yards away, and they told me there was nothing they could or would do about it.
This was Ireland in 1975 remember.
Again, is this really a fair comparison ? It#s a child rapist we're talking about here and the failure of a high ranking now leader of the church to report the matter.
Would we be as forgiving ifa GAA president made the same mistake and not report a child rapist ? Would we say, sure it's alright, that was just back in the day ???
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:52:13 PM
Cardinal Brady was tasked with interviewing and reporting on his findings. This he did honestly and urgently. If a priest listens to a confession of murder in the Confession Box, theft, adultery etc, what should he do? Inform the Police, betrayed partners
In any event would telling the Police have had any effect anyway? 10 Years or more when I was still resident in Drumcree, I was stopped by masked men and forced to turn my car less than a mile from my home. I informed a Police patrol sitting at the bottom of the hill, a few hundred yards away, and they told me there was nothing they could or would do about it.
This was Ireland in 1975 remember.
Not good enough.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 09:56:20 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:52:13 PM
Cardinal Brady was tasked with interviewing and reporting on his findings. This he did honestly and urgently. If a priest listens to a confession of murder in the Confession Box, theft, adultery etc, what should he do? Inform the Police, betrayed partners
In any event would telling the Police have had any effect anyway? 10 Years or more when I was still resident in Drumcree, I was stopped by masked men and forced to turn my car less than a mile from my home. I informed a Police patrol sitting at the bottom of the hill, a few hundred yards away, and they told me there was nothing they could or would do about it.
This was Ireland in 1975 remember.
Again, is this really a fair comparison ? It#s a child rapist we're talking about here and the failure of a high ranking now leader of the church to report the matter.
Would we be as forgiving ifa GAA president made the same mistake and not report a child rapist ? Would we say, sure it's alright, that was just back in the day ???
Or a member of the IFA - god forbid. Orangeman, its a waste of time talking to Tony - he's a total and utter lost cause.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
So? He was part of the cover up. Forget Canon Law, he is answerable to State Law. He's answerable to God's Law also. Sure it was a different time and a different way of thinking..... but surely the thinking couldn't have been
that different. He should have been straight to the Garda/RUC.
In an article a week ago, the writer said that if Jesus were around now to see this, he'd have burned down the churches.
Jesus would have wrecked the joint - I don't think he'd have tolerated that Monsignor who says that Canon law places no obligation on the clergy to report wrong doing.
What planet exactly are these boys on ?.
What sort of training did they get in arrogance and being as brazen as anything ?.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 15, 2010, 09:55:05 PM
The way some of these apologists are going on here is pathetic. You'd swear the mid 70's was the dark ages the pathetic excuses that are being pedaled. Someone on the last word today made a great point how Bishop Casey was dragged to Rome to explain himself when fathered a child with a woman in 1974 and then forced to resign. Funny how those morals were fully functioning for surely the lesser crime of having consenual sex with a woman. But raping children is different I suppose in Canon law. What do you reckon Jesus would make of all this I wonder lads, I'd say he reign fire on this country that his name would be disgraced like this by a corrupt bunch of self serving b**tards.
Not just this country. There's a similar scandal going on in Germany at the minute.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8565986.stm
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Unbelievable Tony... you hammer the likes of Joe Kernan over a football matter and defend this 'great gael' (watever the fuc that is supposed to mean) who kept quiet about a child rapist so he could keep his job.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 08:43:45 PM
I am outraged at the treatment of Cardinal Brady a thoroughly decent man. He did his duty and informed his superiors,what else could he do? Should priests be expected to betray other confidences like what they hear in the confession box?
Its bad enough the Orange media conducting this witchhunt without others getting involved
The answer is YES YES YES if the confessor is a rapist or murder. You say they won't confess if they know the priest will report them, so fckn what, HELL or PRISON, YOUR CHOICE SINNER.
Orange Media is that like an app for i-phones.
Seriously Tony, take off those blinkers.
Fearon's mealy-mouthed excuses are disgusting. He said Brady "discharged his responsibility" by telling his superiors. His responsibilty would have been discharged when Smyth was behind bars. This is the sort of numbing jumbo you hear all the time when people are covering their arse. In his 3 or 4 posts he has also managed to refer to the Orange media and the police blocking the way to his house. Tragic individual.
aye Tony... if it was an RUC man, member of the IFA or Linfield supporter you would have hammered him for covering up for child rapists no matter wat the excuse... wouldn't you? :o
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 10:02:47 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
Unbelievable Tony... you hammer the likes of Joe Kernan over a football matter and defend this 'great gael' (watever the f** that is supposed to mean) who kept quiet about a child rapist so he could keep his job.
Is Fearon even an Irish/Gaelic name? ::)
http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Fearon (http://www.surnamedb.com/surname.aspx?name=Fearon)
"Surname: Fearon
This unusual and interesting name is of Old French origin, introduced into England by the Normans after the Conquest of 1066. It is an occupational surname for a worker in iron, a blacksmith, and derives from the Old French term "ferron, feron", ironmonger, smith, from the Latin "ferro", a derivative of "ferrum", iron. The English surname from this source has two forms, Fearon and Feron, while the cognate French forms range from Ferron, Ferronier and Fernier to the diminutives Fer(r)onet, Fernez, and Fer(ro)nel. The London Hundred Rolls of 1273 record three examples of the name: Alan, Stephen and Henry le Reon. Among the recordings of the name in London church registers are those of the christening of Mary Fearon on September 9th 1660 at St. Botolph's, Bishopgate, and of the marriage of John Fearon and Mary ann Contine at St. Dunstan's, Stepney, on April 14th 1712. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Walter le Ferrun, which was dated circa 1179, in the History of St. Bartholomew's Hospital London, during the reign of King Henry 11, known as "The Builder of Churches", 1154 - 1189. Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation. In England this was known as Poll Tax. Throughout the centuries, surnames in every country have continued to "develop" often leading to astonishing variants of the original spelling."
As a true Gael myself I won't be listening a fake Gael like Yourself, get out of my country ya bloody English Invader, Colonist and Occupier :D
This investigation was in 1975. During this time, Brady got 2 teenagers victims who were raped by Smyth, to sign a sworn statement that they wouldn't tell anybody about the church's investigation ( in order to protect mother church ).
That was in 1975.
Brady admits that he believed the victims in 1975.
So for 20 years, Brady knew that Smyth was out there raping more children, that he was being shifted around to rape more, and al the while Brady did nothing to stop the abuse.
And all the while, he, Brady, was rising through the ranks of the church.
And now, he, Brady, tells us that what he did was right, and that he was only carrying out instructions.
And that the only man that he'll obey is the Pope ( knowing full well that the Pope won't sack him ).
And then apologists for Brady say that he did nothing wrong, is a good Gael, a decent man, and is the best man for the job.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 10:16:31 PM
This investigation was in 1975. During this time, Brady got 2 teenagers victims who were raped by Smyth, to sign a sworn statement that they wouldn't tell anybody about the church's investigation ( in order to protect mother church ).
That was in 1975.
Brady admits that he believed the victims in 1975.
So for 20 years, Brady knew that Smyth was out there raping more children, that he was being shifted around to rape more, and al the while Brady did nothing to stop the abuse.
And all the while, he was rising through the ranks of the church.
And now, he tells us that what he did was right, and that he was carrying out instructions.
And that the only man that he'll obey is the Pope ( knowing full well that the Pope won't sack him ).
And then apologists for Brady say that he did nothing wrong, is a good Gael, a decent man, and is the best man for the job.
Thats it in a nutshell.
Quote from: muppet on March 14, 2010, 09:02:41 PM
The issue here is whether the process, in which the Cardinal played a key role, concluded with the matter being reported to the authorities in a timely fashion.
I still believe this is the issue. It seems pretty clear that at no stage was the abuser reported to the Gardai by the designated person or by anyone else involved in the investigation. The Church has introduced a defense of 'moral obligation' which it seems to think absolves it's members from any responsibility to anything other than itself.
The most galling thing for me personally is that this behaviour is the complete antithesis of what I thought the Church was about.
Anything Dan Brown has written now seems plausible. Well sort of...
You really wouldn't put anything past them. It seems that plenty in the church put their own selfish ambition ahead of the lives of innocent children. If there is a heaven, does the like
of Brady really expect to be welcomed at the gates. If it was a lay person involved he'd be preaching that they're for the hot place.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 15, 2010, 10:21:35 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 10:16:31 PM
This investigation was in 1975. During this time, Brady got 2 teenagers victims who were raped by Smyth, to sign a sworn statement that they wouldn't tell anybody about the church's investigation ( in order to protect mother church ).
That was in 1975.
Brady admits that he believed the victims in 1975.
So for 20 years, Brady knew that Smyth was out there raping more children, that he was being shifted around to rape more, and al the while Brady did nothing to stop the abuse.
And all the while, he was rising through the ranks of the church.
And now, he tells us that what he did was right, and that he was carrying out instructions.
And that the only man that he'll obey is the Pope ( knowing full well that the Pope won't sack him ).
And then apologists for Brady say that he did nothing wrong, is a good Gael, a decent man, and is the best man for the job.
Thats it in a nutshell.
[/b]
Sorry, I forgot to say that Brendan Smyth was prevented from hearing confessions !!! FFS.
Brady didn't cover up anything. He investigated, believed and reported. Also how the hellcould he have known what Smyth was up to in the ensuing twenty years? Was he with him all the time, 24/7? Did he even know what action his superiors took after considering his report?
Awful lot of know alls (who knkw fcuk all ) on this thread making an awful lot of assumptions.
I personally would have had no faith in Police, be they RUC, PSNI or Garda acting in any event, even if they had been informed.
The whole system in the catholic church was wrong, no point in blaming one man for that
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 10:47:59 PM
Brady didn't cover up anything. He investigated, believed and reported. Also how the hellcould he have known what Smyth was up to in the ensuing twenty years? Was he with him all the time, 24/7? Did he even know what action his superiors took after considering his report?
Awful lot of know alls (who knkw fcuk all ) on this thread making an awful lot of assumptions.
I personally would have had no faith in Police, be they RUC, PSNI or Garda acting in any event, even if they had been informed.
The whole system in the catholic church was wrong, no point in blaming one man for that
No-one is blaming Brady for the failings of the Catholic Church. He has to accept his portion of the blame for abdicating his responsibility in ensuring the welfare of the children being preyed on by Smyth. Are you a social worker?! It was the systems fault / he discharged his responsibility etc etc .
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 10:47:59 PM
Brady didn't cover up anything. He investigated, believed and reported. Also how the hellcould he have known what Smyth was up to in the ensuing twenty years? Was he with him all the time, 24/7? Did he even know what action his superiors took after considering his report?
Awful lot of know alls (who knkw fcuk all ) on this thread making an awful lot of assumptions.
I personally would have had no faith in Police, be they RUC, PSNI or Garda acting in any event, even if they had been informed.
The whole system in the catholic church was wrong, no point in blaming one man for that
there's far more than just one cnut to blame for this.does it matter what he knew about what smyth did after he investigated.he
KNEW that smyth had abused two children,and didnt inform the proper authorities.how people can defend him is actually beyond belief.
He was forbidden from doing so by the archaic rules of his organisation. Also did he know anything else about Smyth, other than what he heard from two individuals, and children at that?
I would actually credit Sean Brady for taking this seriously at the time and believing it and reporting it. Now in that era, if he, as a relatively junior cleric, had informed the authorities, do you think anything would have been done? Would the local Bishop now have used his undue influence with the Garda to have it all brushed under the carpet.
I'm sure in my childhood if I'd went home and told my own mother that a priest was abusing me, she wouldn't have believed me in that era, and in fact would probably have given me a hiding for "telling lies"
Quote from: Dougal on March 15, 2010, 10:56:08 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 10:47:59 PM
Brady didn't cover up anything. He investigated, believed and reported. Also how the hellcould he have known what Smyth was up to in the ensuing twenty years? Was he with him all the time, 24/7? Did he even know what action his superiors took after considering his report?
Awful lot of know alls (who knkw fcuk all ) on this thread making an awful lot of assumptions.
I personally would have had no faith in Police, be they RUC, PSNI or Garda acting in any event, even if they had been informed.
The whole system in the catholic church was wrong, no point in blaming one man for that
there's far more than just one cnut to blame for this.does it matter what he knew about what smyth did after he investigated.he KNEW that smyth had abused two children,and didnt inform the proper authorities.how people can defend him is actually beyond belief.
In addition he didn't make it his business to ensure that Smyth was sent to the authorities.
To use Tony's example imagine you work somewhere and had to investigate a colleague for child abuse. Imagine then that you believe the victims and have no doubt that the abuse happened. You make your report on that basis and submit it to your superior. Would that be it? Would you feel anyway inclined to follow it up to make sure something was done about it?
Remember he believed 2 children were raped and no one followed it up. I would be disgusted with myself for life if I failed as badly as he has, no matter what my job or organisation.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 11:04:34 PM
He was forbidden from doing so by the archaic rules of his organisation. Also did he know anything else about Smyth, other than what he heard from two individuals, and children at that?
I would actually credit Sean Brady for taking this seriously at the time and believing it and reporting it. Now in that era, if he, as a relatively junior cleric, had informed the authorities, do you think anything would have been done? Would the local Bishop now have used his undue influence with the Garda to have it all brushed under the carpet.
I'm sure in my childhood if I'd went home and told my own mother that a priest was abusing me, she wouldn't have believed me in that era, and in fact would probably have given me a hiding for "telling lies"
That means f**k all to most people, we're talking about child abuse here.
Whether or not the garda would have brushed it under the carpet is irrelevant - they were never told.
spot on muppet.
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 11:04:34 PM
He was forbidden from doing so by the archaic rules of his organisation. Also did he know anything else about Smyth, other than what he heard from two individuals, and children at that?
I would actually credit Sean Brady for taking this seriously at the time and believing it and reporting it. Now in that era, if he, as a relatively junior cleric, had informed the authorities, do you think anything would have been done? Would the local Bishop now have used his undue influence with the Garda to have it all brushed under the carpet.
I'm sure in my childhood if I'd went home and told my own mother that a priest was abusing me, she wouldn't have believed me in that era, and in fact would probably have given me a hiding for "telling lies"
If I had told my mother in 1975 that a priest was molesting and raping me (thank God I didn't have to) she would have gone to the Garda or police. she certainly wouldn't have beat me...
Tony he wouldn't have needed to follow him for the next 20 years he already knew he was a child sex abuser FFS!! He needed to be removed from all contact with children not sent round the country to ruin lives upon lives...he had a moral obligation! How he slept at night knowing that scum like this was up to god knows what sickens me, disgusting!
On today fm someone from the church was talking about this subject (missed his name) and had the gall to suggest that you wouldn't find doctors or lawyers going willy nilly round the community telling people about disclosed abuse as they are bound by confidentiality. Yeah maybe if it is something inoxuous but once you are told something that endagers others or themselves you have a duty to break that confidentiallity!!
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 11:04:34 PM
He was forbidden from doing so by the archaic rules of his organisation. Also did he know anything else about Smyth, other than what he heard from two individuals, and children at that?
I would actually credit Sean Brady for taking this seriously at the time and believing it and reporting it. Now in that era, if he, as a relatively junior cleric, had informed the authorities, do you think anything would have been done? Would the local Bishop now have used his undue influence with the Garda to have it all brushed under the carpet.
I'm sure in my childhood if I'd went home and told my own mother that a priest was abusing me, she wouldn't have believed me in that era, and in fact would probably have given me a hiding for "telling lies"
exactly,brainwashed cnuts,some people believed and would have believed priests over their own children.that still doesnt mean that brady shouldnt of done the right thing and informed the proper authorities,and because he didnt,he should resign.
Of course Brady knew what Smyth was up to. Abuse was rife - raping children, altar boys and girls etc was insitutional in the Irish church. Brady realised that Smyth was a paedophile - a child abuser -
For 20 years, Smyth and many like him, were moved around from parish to parish abusing all in front of him.
Brady did not report what he believed back then because he says he was not the "designated" person.
Does he really expect us to buy this bullshit ??.
Brady can be given credit for certain achievements during his leadership of the church, but this certainly is not worthy of any credit whatsoever.
The man should hang his head in shame and resign immediately and hand over the reigns to someone fit to do the job.
The Murphy found that the Church (in Dublin) had an "obsessive concern with secrecy and the avoidance of scandal" and had "little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child".
We need the Murphy report to go nationwide to find out the truth.
Murphy's findings you can safely assume are nationwide.
Is disapointing Sinn Fein or the SDLP have nothing to say about this. It ain't a vote winner but they fall over each other in the rush to comment on injustices such as Bloody Sunday and Robert Hamill's murder and the subsequent cover up by the police. Both parties, who represent the vast majority of catholics, are gutless on this.
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Murphy's findings you can safely assume are nationwide.
The scope of the report was just the Dublin archdiocese, I mean for the scope to be increased to Nationwide.
Quote from: muppet on March 15, 2010, 11:30:09 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 15, 2010, 11:28:48 PM
Murphy's findings you can safely assume are nationwide.
The scope of the report was just the Dublin archdiocese, I mean for the scope to be increased to Nationwide.
Aye that's what I meant to say - that if the scope was nationwide, the findings would be the same - The greater "good" of the church was more important than a few hundred of children's lives being ruined forever.
Who could possibly take over Brady in Ireland if he was to retire? I've heard whispers on RTE that Bishop Dermot Martin would be a strong contender. Would a change help, or is there just too much distrust in the Catholic Church in Ireland now?
Sean Brady is doomed by his own words.
"I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."
His failure to act in 1975 meant other children were abused. This is only one possible course of action now for Sean Brady.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 16, 2010, 12:33:17 AM
Who could possibly take over Brady in Ireland if he was to retire? I've heard whispers on RTE that Bishop Dermot Martin would be a strong contender. Would a change help, or is there just too much distrust in the Catholic Church in Ireland now?
Only man I would possibly trust is Father Patrick McCafferty.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2579159.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2579159.stm)
A County Antrim priest has called on all senior clerics involved in what he describes as the mis-handling of sex abuse cases within the Catholic Church to resign. Father Patrick McCafferty, of St Patrick's parish in Lisburn, said he believes the Archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, should follow the lead of the Archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Bernard Law.
Cardinal Law resigned last week following criticism of his handling of clerical sex abuse in his diocese.
Speaking on BBC Radio Ulster on Monday, Father McCafferty accused senior churchmen of showing contempt for the abused.
"These men, like Bernard Law, whoever they are, wherever they are, get out," he said.
"You are not fit to lead the people of God, you are not fit for office.
"Get out, take his example and get out."
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 15, 2010, 09:30:10 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 15, 2010, 09:26:57 PM
I have had several dealings with Sean Brady and found him to be a thoroughly decent and humble man and a great Gael as well (former Cavan player). He was thrust into a situation here he didn't know how to deal with and which you wouldn't wish on your worst enemy. He discharged his duty fully and informed his superiors and fully followed all procedures. Its like spotting something awry at work If you have a conscience you inform your boss and leave it at that, if you want to keep your job.
If someone at my work was sexually abusing children I would be doing more than telling the boss and if it meant losing the job than so be it.
PB, the parents probably done what the priests told them - whole lot of them brainwashed.
The Parent's trust and faith was abused by the jobsworth Brady.
Quote from: ziggysego on March 16, 2010, 12:33:17 AM
Who could possibly take over Brady in Ireland if he was to retire? I've heard whispers on RTE that Bishop Dermot Martin would be a strong contender. Would a change help, or is there just too much distrust in the Catholic Church in Ireland now?
I don't think the people lining up for the lifeboats on the Titanic were wondering who was going to take over from Captain Smith.
With a little luck, some good will come from this whole squalid circus and people will be motivated to take a rationalist view of the world and embrace the concept of individual responsibility without a get-out-of-jail fairy godfather card and without looking to witch doctors in frocks to direct their lives and moral choices.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
Is disapointing Sinn Fein or the SDLP have nothing to say about this. It ain't a vote winner but they fall over each other in the rush to comment on injustices such as Bloody Sunday and Robert Hamill's murder and the subsequent cover up by the police. Both parties, who represent the vast majority of catholics, are gutless on this.
I suppose they're all on junkets this week to bother their arses with this little issue.
Has any of the southern parties spoke on this issue yet?
I've only really caught up on the detail of this case in the last 24 hrs or so. But watching Brady on the news last night he displayed all the hallmarks of someone with something to hide. FFS does these people just "not get it"?? Brady would have better served the community by getting Smyth to sign something...a full confession.
What is particularly galling is his defence of "I voss only obeying ze orders of ze Kommondant". Has he never heard of Nuremburg??
No, Brady should not have to resign...he should have his arse booted out onto the streets of Armagh before he has a chance to write "Dear Benedict..." (won't happen of course).
Why does this particular revelation make me angrier than most of the rest of what's gone on??
Quote from: A Quinn Martin Production on March 16, 2010, 09:38:21 AM
I've only really caught up on the detail of this case in the last 24 hrs or so. But watching Brady on the news last night he displayed all the hallmarks of someone with something to hide. FFS does these people just "not get it"?? Brady would have better served the community by getting Smyth to sign something...a full confession.
What is particularly galling is his defence of "I voss only obeying ze orders of ze Kommondant". Has he never heard of Nuremburg??
No, Brady should not have to resign...he should have his arse booted out onto the streets of Armagh before he has a chance to write "Dear Benedict..." (won't happen of course).
Why does this particular revelation make me angrier than most of the rest of what's gone on??
Maybe it is because Brady was lining himself up to be the man who was enlightened and would lead catholic Ireland out of this scandal. He was effectively calling for those other 4 bishops to resign a few months ago and all the time he had this and a court case about this hanging over his head. Did he think it was all going to go away? Maybe he thinks that he is too big, being a cardinal, to be subject to the laws of this puny little state?
Quote from: johnneycool on March 16, 2010, 09:24:34 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
Is disapointing Sinn Fein or the SDLP have nothing to say about this. It ain't a vote winner but they fall over each other in the rush to comment on injustices such as Bloody Sunday and Robert Hamill's murder and the subsequent cover up by the police. Both parties, who represent the vast majority of catholics, are gutless on this.
I suppose they're all on junkets this week to bother their arses with this little issue.
Has any of the southern parties spoke on this issue yet?
On what basis should a political part get involved? The political party may have a majority of catholics as members but they are not there to interpret that religious doctrine for the church members.
Why should non-catholics be concerned with whether Brady steps down or not?
I can only think of one reason in this instance, that it further acknowledges the experience of the abused.
I don't have any concern for which spiritual guide a religion decides to be a fit and proper person to lead them.
Gardai knew of Brady link to Smyth for years
Tuesday March 16 2010
GARDAI have known about Cardinal Sean Brady's involvement in the Fr Brendan Smyth affair for several years, the Irish Independent has learnt.
But despite this, detectives made no attempt to charge the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland and others with orchestrating a cover-up during investigations into Smyth's reign of terror.
The revelation came as the Catholic Primate last night refused to bow to intense pressure to resign over revelations he failed to report complaints against the paedophile priest to the civil authorities.
The link between Cardinal Brady and the Smyth case became apparent to gardai several years ago when officers obtained documents giving details of meetings with victims the then Fr Brady attended in 1975.
However, a senior garda source with knowledge of the Smyth inquiry last night said Cardinal Brady's involvement "never came up" as an issue for gardai to pursue.
At those meetings, two children, a boy and a girl, were made to sign undertakings not to discuss their allegations with anybody other than an approved priest.
As secretary to the diocese of Kilmore, Cardinal Brady acted as the recorder of the evidence on behalf of the late Bishop Francis McKiernan at one meeting. At a second meeting, he questioned witnesses and recorded their answers.
The female victim whose evidence was recorded by Cardinal Brady is suing him personally for his failure to alert the civil authorities about her allegations.
Smyth continued abusing children and was not jailed until 1994. He died three years later. During his lifetime, he sexually abused and indecently assaulted 90 children.
Cardinal Brady resisted calls for his resignation for the second day in a row. He again defended his role at the 1975 meetings where the children were asked to take a vow of silence.
Although admitting he would act differently today if faced with the same situation, he said he had obeyed church law at the time by reporting his findings to a bishop.
"I played my part, the part I had 35 years ago, as a priest recording secretary to the best of my ability. We are judging the behaviour of 35 years ago by the standards we set today and I don't think that is fair and it's not applied to other sectors of society," he said.
Cardinal Brady insisted he would only step down if ordered by the Pope.
However, victims groups were unequivocal in their demands for Cardinal Brady to resign.
One-in-Four accused the prelate of "reckless endangerment" and said that his actions could not be excused because it was the prevailing culture within the church at the time.
Misguided
"One does not need to be a learned theologian or an ordained priest to appreciate how grievously wrong it is to silence young children in order to protect a sex offender," executive director Maeve Lewis said.
"People from every walk of life would instinctively know that such a course of action is completely misguided."
Well-known priest Fr Brian D'Arcy also urged the cardinal to consider his position. However, a veil of silence enveloped all bar two of the country's 23 bishops. Some 22 bishops either refused to comment or their staff said they were unavailable.
Just one, the Bishop of Clogher Joseph Duffy, responded to questions on the controversy submitted by the Irish Independent to each diocese.
Bishop Duffy said he did not believe Cardinal Brady should resign and said he would support the cardinal's decision to stay in office. He also said victims of abuse in his diocese were not required to sign confidentiality agreements as part of their legal settlement or as part of canonical investigations.
Bishop Duffy said he had never taken part in an interview with an abuse victim where they were asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.
There was also support from a former canon law professor, Monsignor Maurice Dooley, who told RTE Radio Cardinal Brady should not have gone to gardai with the allegations.
The monsignor said that as Cardinal Brady had been conducting in-camera investigations within the church, he would have violated his responsibilities by going to gardai.
Meanwhile, Cardinal Brady could be summoned to Rome to explain to senior cardinals in the Roman Curia why he did not alert them that he and two other clerics were being sued over the affair.
- Shane Phelan, John Cooney, Grainne Cunningham and Breda Heffernan
Irish Independent
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 16, 2010, 10:00:04 AM
He was effectively calling for those other 4 bishops to resign a few months ago and all the time he had this and a court case about this hanging over his head.
And you can be sure that if that brave woman had not pursued the court case, we never would have heard a word about this. Brady is simply on a PR damage-limitation exercise in advance of the court case.
It's shocking, but not surprising, that Brady can call for the heads of Bishops that are named in a report into abuse cover-ups. When he himself is named in an impending court action, well hey-presto, an excuse is found. And what's particularly galling is that the excuse is based on semantics.
Here's his own quote from December;
"I would remember that child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign".
(source : http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1207/breaking8.html)
But NOW he's saying that he only meant that quote to apply IF the 'failure to act' happened at a time when he was 'a bishop or a manager';
"Today he said: "The fact is that, 35 years ago,
I was not a manager, I was recording secretary with no decision-making power, and the question of my resignation... I discharged my responsibilities then, which was to collect evidence... in church investigations, to determine what action the church itself would take against Brendan Smyth. I did that, I acted."
....
But the Cardinal said: "I played my part, the part I had 35 years ago,
as a priest recording secretary to the best of my ability. We are now judging the behaviour of 35 years ago by the standards we set today and I don't think that is fair and it's not applied to other sectors of society."
...
Later, in a separate interview, Cardinal Brady said he was a school teacher at St Patrick's College in Cavan at the time of the interviews and a "
very part-time secretary" to the bishop.
Although the evidence was not given to the gardai, the senior churchman said he felt he had carried out his duties.
...
"I repeat that
I was not the manager. I was not bishop then. I did act, that's the most important thing, and acquired the evidence which allowed Bishop McKiernan to act decisively."
(source : http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cardinal-will-only-step-down-if-told-to-do-so-by-pope-2099642.html)
---------------------------
So because he was a mere priest, this magically absolved him of any responsibility to report a known paedophile to the authorities - in 1975, or at any point thereafter in the next 20 years?
His rank as a mere priest made his conscience disappear, to the point where he couldn't even walk into a phone box and anonymously tip off the Gardai about Smyth? All the while knowing that Smyth was out there abusing defenceless children?
This organisation is rotten to the core. Their 'credibility' is in ruins.
I have every sympathy for Cardinal Brady in this affair - he was bound by the rules of the church - just like a lawyer is bound by confidentiality, he reported the actions to his superior who should then have taken the necessary action - the bishop didn't take the correct actions, so was it Cardinal Bradys responsibiluty - probably yes.
He was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Also - did the teenagers parents know about the abuse, were they involved in the meetings etc, why did they not take the case to the police instead of the church?
Should they then also be charged in court?
Quote from: Main Street on March 16, 2010, 10:05:48 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 16, 2010, 09:24:34 AM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
Is disapointing Sinn Fein or the SDLP have nothing to say about this. It ain't a vote winner but they fall over each other in the rush to comment on injustices such as Bloody Sunday and Robert Hamill's murder and the subsequent cover up by the police. Both parties, who represent the vast majority of catholics, are gutless on this.
I suppose they're all on junkets this week to bother their arses with this little issue.
Has any of the southern parties spoke on this issue yet?
On what basis should a political part get involved? The political party may have a majority of catholics as members but they are not there to interpret that religious doctrine for the church members.
Why should non-catholics be concerned with whether Brady steps down or not?
I can only think of one reason in this instance, that it further acknowledges the experience of the abused.
I don't have any concern for which spiritual guide a religion decides to be a fit and proper person to lead them.
Well maybe not a specific political party, but the government(s) on whose jurisdiction these crimes have happened should be jumping all over this and the opposition parties should be jumping all over the government(s) to find out why it happened just like they're all up in arms over the Tallagh hospital x-ray and referal issues.
Quote from: Lazer on March 16, 2010, 10:37:22 AM
I have every sympathy for Cardinal Brady in this affair - he was bound by the rules of the church - just like a lawyer is bound by confidentiality, he reported the actions to his superior who should then have taken the necessary action - the bishop didn't take the correct actions, so was it Cardinal Bradys responsibiluty - probably yes.
He was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Also - did the teenagers parents know about the abuse, were they involved in the meetings etc, why did they not take the case to the police instead of the church?
Should they then also be charged in court?
A very naive post Lazer, complete horseshit.
A pervert preist was abusing children and he did fcuk all about it and the man continued to rape/molest for almost 20yrs.
To retain any sort of Public confidence in the Church he has to go, simple as that.
The best Cardinal we never had was Eddie Daly.
Look how the whole conversation turns when people like Tony make half wit comments.
I think we have come to the conclusion that change is needed. You can continue to spend another ten pages saying the same stuff about Brady or be constructive and talk about suggestions on how to rebuild. Maybe even go back to Mass and try to effect change from the inside out. Our maybe this is just a forum for talkers not do-ers. For bitches not men
One of our local priests was interviewed on the 9 o clock news last night, he was the editior of the catholic church newspaper , Intercom, who was sacked as editor in 94 for amoung other things, rasing the issue of sexual abuse in the church
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/bishops-gave-editor-sack-over-articles-on-sex-abuse-1764670.html
Here was one priest willing to tackle this issue and he was silenced, im sure there are lots of good decent priests who have been similarly silenced, Iceman wonders who should replace the current bishops and its hard to know when the organisation demoted anyone not towing the party line. Would it be a bad thing to get rid of the majority over the age of 40 who havent been associated with any of the scndals? Diarmuid Martin seems to be fighting a lonley battle amoung all the bishops and what happens to him? He gets reprimanded by the vatican!
Does anyone know of any other organsiation in the world where all the senior management have to be in their 60's to qualify ( or whatever age?)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 15, 2010, 11:29:10 PM
Is disapointing Sinn Fein or the SDLP have nothing to say about this. It ain't a vote winner but they fall over each other in the rush to comment on injustices such as Bloody Sunday and Robert Hamill's murder and the subsequent cover up by the police. Both parties, who represent the vast majority of catholics, are gutless on this.
According the the BBC, Sue Ramsey of Sinn Fein has called for Brady to step down. Less surprisingly so has Jim Allister
Quote from: Lazer on March 16, 2010, 10:37:22 AM
I have every sympathy for Cardinal Brady in this affair - he was bound by the rules of the church - just like a lawyer is bound by confidentiality, he reported the actions to his superior who should then have taken the necessary action - the bishop didn't take the correct actions, so was it Cardinal Bradys responsibiluty - probably yes.
He was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Also - did the teenagers parents know about the abuse, were they involved in the meetings etc, why did they not take the case to the police instead of the church?
Should they then also be charged in court?
Complete rubbish.
Blame somebody else. That's the way to do it.
Brady KNEW in 1975 that Smyth was raping little, innocent children and continued to do so whilst Smyh was moving around from parish to parish whilst Brady was moving up the ranks of the church.
It's not good enough for Brady to say that he acted - he DIDN'T. It's not good enough to say that he wasn't the designated person.
"In what I have done and what I have failed to do".
Brady failed all those children. He should be kicked out. He shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to resign.
He called on other bishops to resign. What a hypocrite.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 10:56:20 AM
Look how the whole conversation turns when people like Tony make half wit comments.
I think we have come to the conclusion that change is needed. You can continue to spend another ten pages saying the same stuff about Brady or be constructive and talk about suggestions on how to rebuild. Maybe even go back to Mass and try to effect change from the inside out. Our maybe this is just a forum for talkers not do-ers. For bitches not men
So people are bitches if they want accountability for people who covered up rapists and peadophiles? Surely the onus is on the defenders of the faith to make the changes and get the non believers faith restored.
The other bishops in Ireland have stopped speaking to Dermot Martin for what they see as Martin's "betrayal" of them and the church.
Bring in the younger lads who have not been involved in the cover ups. Start from the beginning again.
Even the older generation who would not have said a bad word about priests are now saying that change is needed. Brady is not doing the church any favours by trying to defend the indefensible. It's time someone told him that.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 10:56:20 AM
Look how the whole conversation turns when people like Tony make half wit comments.
I think we have come to the conclusion that change is needed. You can continue to spend another ten pages saying the same stuff about Brady or be constructive and talk about suggestions on how to rebuild. Maybe even go back to Mass and try to effect change from the inside out. Our maybe this is just a forum for talkers not do-ers. For bitches not men
We may have, but the church haven't and there is no sign that they are anyway near that realisation. Their election of Ratzinger may be seen in decades to come as being a disaster and it is not as if that couldn't have been predicted.
It might feel like a witch hunt but until the Church stop hiding behind sleeveen excuses like 'it wasn't my job' and 'sure lawyers wouldn't tell you either' this will continue. The church are supposed to be our moral guides, instead they are teaching us how to duck responsibility.
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 11:02:52 AM
Quote from: Lazer on March 16, 2010, 10:37:22 AM
I have every sympathy for Cardinal Brady in this affair - he was bound by the rules of the church - just like a lawyer is bound by confidentiality, he reported the actions to his superior who should then have taken the necessary action - the bishop didn't take the correct actions, so was it Cardinal Bradys responsibiluty - probably yes.
He was caught between a rock and a hard place.
Also - did the teenagers parents know about the abuse, were they involved in the meetings etc, why did they not take the case to the police instead of the church?
Should they then also be charged in court?
Complete rubbish.
Blame somebody else. That's the way to do it.
Brady KNEW in 1975 that Smyth was raping little, innocent children and continued to do so whilst Smyh was moving around from parish to parish whilst Brady was moving up the ranks of the church.
It's not good enough for Brady to say that he acted - he DIDN'T. It's not good enough to say that he wasn't the designated person.
"In what I have done and what I have failed to do".
Brady failed all those children. He should be kicked out. He shouldn't be afforded the opportunity to resign.
He called on other bishops to resign. What a hypocrite.
Agree with this 100%.
Anyone with knowledge, clergy or otherwise, of this assault of innocent children and did not alert the authrorities should be treated as accomplices to the act and prosecuted as such.
I watehced the news last night and a thought that came to my head was that it was obvious he didnt have any children of his own. Jail is where he and those like him belong. They should suffer the way those children suffered then and will continue to suffer for the rest of their lives.
I think this article will give you a good insight into how the survival of the church was put above any other issue : You might be surpised, even shocked at its' content ( but then again maybe not ) :
Vatican officials defend pope on abuse Vatican officials defend pope on abuse
Tuesday, March 16, 2010 | 12:31 a.m.
The Vatican on Saturday denounced what it called aggressive attempts to drag Pope Benedict XVI into the spreading scandals of pedophile priests in his German homeland. It also insisted that church confidentiality doesn't prevent bishops from reporting abuse to police.
The Vatican's campaign to defend the pope's reputation and resolve in combatting clergy abuse of minors followed acknowledgment by the Munich archdiocese that it had transferred a suspected pedophile priest to community work while Benedict was archbishop there.
Benedict is also under fire for a 2001 church directive he wrote while a Vatican cardinal, instructing bishops to keep abuse cases confidential.
Germany's justice minister has blamed the directive for what she called a "wall of silence" preventing prosecution.
Skeptical about the Vatican's handling of abuse, a U.S.-based advocacy group for abuse victims, Survivors Network of those Abused for Priests, urged faithful to bring candles and childhood photos to vigils outside churches, cathedrals and German consulates across the U.S. this weekend to remind people to "call police, not bishops" in cases of suspected abuse.
But the Holy See's so-called prosecutor for clergy sex abuse cases, providing some of the first statistics about his office's handling of allegations, decried what he called "false and defamatory" contentions that Benedict had promoted a "policy of cover up."
At the Vatican, rules on handling sexual abuse were "never understood as a ban on making a complaint to civil authorities," Monsignor Charles Scicluna told Italian bishops conference daily Avvenire.
But Irish bishops have said the document was widely taken to mean they shouldn't go to police. And victims' lawyers in the U.S. say the document shows the church tried to obstruct justice.
Scicluna contended that in countries that do not oblige bishops to go to authorities with allegations of abuse, "we encourage them to invite the victims to report these priests."
The Maltese prelate said the pope had taken on the "painful responsibility" of personally deciding to remove those priests involved in "particularly grave cases with heavy proof."
Those cases amounted to about 10 percent of some 3,000 cases handled by the Vatican in the last decade, what Scicluna described as a small fraction of the 400,000 priests worldwide, and cover crimes committed over the last 50 years.
Clergy in another 10 percent of the cases were defrocked upon their own request, said Scicluna, adding that among them were priests in possession of pedophilia-pornography or with criminal convictions.
Meanwhile, the scandal swirling around Benedict's brother, Georg Ratzinger, escalated with the first public allegations of abuse of choirboys during some of the 30 years he ran the boys' choir in Regensburg. Thomas Mayer told Germany's Der Spiegel weekly that he had been sexually and physically abused while a member of the Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir through 1992.
The pontiff's brother led the group from 1964 to 1994. Previously reported cases of sexual abuse date back to the late 1950s.
Mayer charged in Spiegel that he had been raped by older pupils. Spiegel quoted him as saying that pupils were forced to have anal sex with one another in the apartment of a prefect at the church-run boarding school attached to the choir. The Regensburg diocese has refused to comment on the report.
The Vatican spokesman, speaking to Vatican Radio and Associated Press Television News, defended Benedict.
"It's rather clear that in the last days, there have been those who have tried, with a certain aggressive persistence, in Regensburg and Munich, to look for elements to personally involve the Holy Father in the matter of abuses," the Rev. Federico Lombardi told Vatican Radio.
"For any objective observer, it's clear that these efforts have failed," Lombardi said, reiterating his statement a day earlier noting the Munich diocese has insisted that Benedict wasn't involved in the decision while archbishop there to transfer the suspected child abuser.
Lombardi told The AP that "there hasn't been in the least bit any policy of silence."
"The pope is a person whose stand on clarity, on transparency and whose decision to face these problems is above discussion," Lombardi said, citing the comments by Scicluna, who works in the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which was long headed by Benedict before his election as pontiff.
"To accuse the current pope of hiding (cases) is false and defamatory," Scicluna said.
As Vatican cardinal in charge of the policy on sex abuse, the future pope "showed wisdom and firmness in handling these cases," Scicluna said.
He said in the first years after the 2001 directive, most of the 3,000 cases came from the U.S., where dioceses across the nation were rocked by allegations by priests and systematic cover-ups by hierarchy and drained by hefty lawsuits by victims.
Only about 10 percent of the case dealt with "acts of true pedophilia," Scicluna said, while 60 percent of the cases involved priests who were sexually attracted to male adolescents. Some 30 percent of cases dealt with heterosexual abuse, he said.
How the Vatican has handled the cases since the 2001 directive provides "a very important signal to all the bishops of the church to face these problems with the required seriousness, clarity, rapidity and efficiency," Lombardi said.
The Catholic church in Switzerland has become swept up in the scandals. Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung quoted a Benedictine abbot, Martin Werlen, as saying that the Swiss bishops conference and various dioceses are investigating allegations after 60 people came forward to say they were victims of abuse by priests.
Shortly before becoming pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger denounced what he called "filth" in the priesthood, but so far hasn't directly commented on the cases in his homeland.
He has promised to write a letter soon to faithful in Ireland about decades of systematic abuse in church-run schools, orphanages and other institutions in that predominantly Roman Catholic nation.
The Archdiocese of Munich and Freising, where Benedict served as archbishop from 1977 to 1982, says that a working group, established last month after allegations of abuse in a church-run school, would be expanded to include an external, independent legal office.
___
"I repeat that I was not the manager. I was not bishop then. I did act, that's the most important thing, and acquired the evidence which allowed Bishop McKiernan to act decisively."
Acted decisvely to facilitate a known child abuser to change communties so he could repeat the whole process again with fresh meat (victims), case closed, duties discharged. Hang your head in shame brady, if there is a hell i hope they've kept a nice warm spot beside Smyth for you.
Quote"The pope is a person whose stand on clarity, on transparency and whose decision to face these problems is above discussion,"
...above discussion? Well that settles that then. Not even a discussion never mind an investigation.
When Cardinal Brady refers to different times to me he is really on a different planet.
Despite all the recent scandal, I remain a practicing Catholic and pray that the Church comes through this eventually.
My uncle is a priest. If I thought that he carried this knowledge about what had happened, and also knew that the priest continued to be free to repeat the horrific actions, I would be disgusted.
Whilst I accept that at the time (70s) sexual abuse was dealt with differently, I think that for the good of the Church, Brady should resign as leader of the Church in Ireland.
Doogie, I'm a big fan of Bishop Daly but I'm interested in what would make you say he was the best cardinal we never had? From his book I never got the impression that he ever aspired to be a cardinal.
Quote from: Rois on March 16, 2010, 11:53:48 AM
Doogie, I'm a big fan of Bishop Daly but I'm interested in what would make you say he was the best cardinal we never had? From his book I never got the impression that he ever aspired to be a cardinal.
To be honest Rois it was a personal observation more than a qualified statement so not trying to stoke controversy. I have the greatest respect for the man and when I see the way his diocese has been run since he left it makes me appreciate him all the more.
I watched the recent documentary 'The Boys of St Columb's' and even now his mind is as sharp as it ever was despite his health problems and I suppose I just feel he was under utilised by the Church hierarchy as he is and was a brilliant scholar.
I think some of the outrage in this thread is misplaced, in that it equates those that did not do enough with the perpetrators. Brady did not directly facilitiate Smyth, indeed he probably believed that he was helping close down the ***tard. Brady didn't challenge the system and he should be condemned for that. But people work within systems all the time, many people in banks helped provide 100% mortagages that ruined the people who got them, the shareholders of the bank and the country at large. People in the NICS promote British rule in Ireland and don't speak out. It is a much less serious issue, but Ireland is full of GAA clubs where nobody seems to see the foul.
I don't think he can survive not least because this should have come out long ago. However I imagine he has learned from this. People find it acceptable to have the likes of Martin McGuinness and Peter Robinson in leadership positions, in part because we want them to lead away from their previous positions, there is a case for Brady to have similar role.
But for the court case, would Brady have kept his silence as he has done on Brendan Smyth for the past 35 years ??
Is this what it takes for us to get clarity on this scandal ? If it takes the victims to start legal proceedings against the individuals, then maybe there should be more court cases - get the issues and the individuals out into the open and wipe the slate clean and start again.
Whilst there is silence and whilst there are signed oaths of silence we will not make progress. How many more oaths of silence have victims been forced to sign ?.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:11:09 PM
I think some of the outrage in this thread is misplaced, in that it equates those that did not do enough with the perpetrators. Brady did not directly facilitiate Smyth, indeed he probably believed that he was helping close down the ***tard. Brady didn't challenge the system and he should be condemned for that. But people work within systems all the time, many people in banks helped provide 100% mortagages that ruined the people who got them, the shareholders of the bank and the country at large. People in the NICS promote British rule in Ireland and don't speak out. It is a much less serious issue, but Ireland is full of GAA clubs where nobody seems to see the foul.
Bollocks, dishing out 100 % mortgages to people or GAA clubs 'not seeing the foul' shouldn't even be one the same thread as whats being discussed here, its probably the worst crime imaginable, to compare it with malpractice in the banking industry or the goings on at your local sport club is crass.
You're either part of the solution or part of the problem, brady was part of the problem, his own stance on the matter shows that he belives the actions taken against smyth at the time were adequate, i don't think they were and as far as im concerned i hope he rots in hell for his part in this sorry saga. Actually i hope the female victim takes him to the cleaners with her civil suit against him, hit him were it probably really hurts in his pocket and reputation.
I'd say that more than a few posters here have been in the company of people who have had a few drinks and then headed off to the car park. They may even have bought them some of the drink. Did they call the police and alert them to a possible drunk driver who might kill someone or did they just turn a blind eye?
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 12:33:34 PM
But for the court case, would Brady have kept his silence as he has done on Brendan Smyth for the past 35 years ??
Is this what it takes for us to get clarity on this scandal ? If it takes the victims to start legal proceedings against the individuals, then maybe there should be more court cases - get the issues and the individuals out into the open and wipe the slate clean and start again.
Whilst there is silence and whilst there are signed oaths of silence we will not make progress. How many more oaths of silence have victims been forced to sign ?.
This is a very serious question given the documented modus operandi of abusers, i.e. say nothing or God will send you to hell.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:44:31 PM
I'd say that more than a few posters here have been in the company of people who have had a few drinks and then headed off to the car park. They may even have bought them some of the drink. Did they call the police and alert them to a possible drunk driver who might kill someone or did they just turn a blind eye?
I didn't let them drive.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:44:31 PM
I'd say that more than a few posters here have been in the company of people who have had a few drinks and then headed off to the car park. They may even have bought them some of the drink. Did they call the police and alert them to a possible drunk driver who might kill someone or did they just turn a blind eye?
Do you think knowing a child was raped is the same as wondering how many milligrams of alcohol might have found it's way into someones blood stream before they might take a car out of a car park?
If you cant defend the Church on it's own merits, without trying to hide behind straw man arguments, then you are as bad as they are.
QuoteIf you cant defend the Church on it's own merits, without trying to hide behind straw man arguments, then you are as bad as they are.
This is the you are as bad as them argument, as an attempt to stifle debate. I merely point out that people routinely turn a blind eye for their own convenience. Speaking of milligrams of alchohol is an attempt to disguise that a drunk driver might kill multiple people.
The "Oath of Silence" is a key point, if it related to the confidentiality of the church disciplinary proceedings then it is merely old fashioned. If it implied that the children etc could not report the matters to the authorities then throw the book at Brady.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
QuoteIf you cant defend the Church on it's own merits, without trying to hide behind straw man arguments, then you are as bad as they are.
This is the you are as bad as them argument, as an attempt to stifle debate. I merely point out that people routinely turn a blind eye for their own convenience. Speaking of milligrams of alchohol is an attempt to disguise that a drunk driver might kill multiple people.
The "Oath of Silence" is a key point, if it related to the confidentiality of the church disciplinary proceedings then it is merely old fashioned. If it implied that the children etc could not report the matters to the authorities then throw the book at Brady.
Big difference between 'might' doing something and actively covering up rapists and peados
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
QuoteIf you cant defend the Church on it's own merits, without trying to hide behind straw man arguments, then you are as bad as they are.
This is the you are as bad as them argument, as an attempt to stifle debate. I merely point out that people routinely turn a blind eye for their own convenience. Speaking of milligrams of alchohol is an attempt to disguise that a drunk driver might kill multiple people.
The "Oath of Silence" is a key point, if it related to the confidentiality of the church disciplinary proceedings then it is merely old fashioned. If it implied that the children etc could not report the matters to the authorities then throw the book at Brady.
if the driver was over the limit and injured someone while driving when over the limit,i would report them to the guards,friend or no friend.brady knew that 2 children had been abused and didnt inform the proper authorities.knowing that someone is more likely to cause an accident than usual,and knowing someone abused children are 2 massively different situations.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2010, 12:58:28 PM
QuoteIf you cant defend the Church on it's own merits, without trying to hide behind straw man arguments, then you are as bad as they are.
This is the you are as bad as them argument, as an attempt to stifle debate. I merely point out that people routinely turn a blind eye for their own convenience. Speaking of milligrams of alchohol is an attempt to disguise that a drunk driver might kill multiple people.
The "Oath of Silence" is a key point, if it related to the confidentiality of the church disciplinary proceedings then it is merely old fashioned. If it implied that the children etc could not report the matters to the authorities then throw the book at Brady.
A pedophile demonstrates sexual attraction to children, potentially dangerous
A driver over the limit has potential to cause an accident.
There is a similarity
Your allegory only makes some sense if you know the inebriated driver was involved in a hit and run and colluded with him to avoid prosecution and continued to collude with him as he continued to demonstrate his ability get involved with hit and runs every day.
QuoteThe "Oath of Silence" is a key point, if it related to the confidentiality of the church disciplinary proceedings then it is merely old fashioned. If it implied that the children etc could not report the matters to the authorities then throw the book at Brady.
The oath is only one of the issues involved, not the key issue.
The first conspiracy is done by the sexual abuser, he threatens the children (with eternal damnation?) should they open their mouths. The second conspiracy is done after the children overcome their fear and shame to testify against the sex abuser.
Then the children are required by the investigators to take an (another) oath of silence.
If the children and parents were not advised to take it to the police then it is a conspiracy imposed upon the children by the people entrusted to investigate their abuse. Not only is that enough proof that the oath was not to protect the children but the complete inaction afterwards against the abusive priest completes the argument.
Brady participated in a conspiracy.
http://fullergalway.blogspot.com/2010/03/cardinal-sean-brady-dont-resign.html
This is old news really!
Quote from: HIGH BALL CENTRE FIELD on March 16, 2010, 01:52:27 PM
http://fullergalway.blogspot.com/2010/03/cardinal-sean-brady-dont-resign.html
This is old news really!
We, the Catholic people, need to know and assert that the media are not in the driving seat. It's alright lads, it's the media's fault !!!! Them ba---rds of reporters and editors !!! ??? ::)
I'm with Turk here - words simply fail me.
The Rape Crisis Network Ireland (RCNI) said Cardinal Brady's position has become untenable.
"Cardinal Brady is personally implicated in collusion with clerical child sexual abuse," RCNI director Fiona Neary said.
"In recent public statements regarding clerical child abuse he did not make public his role in pressuring and bullying victims to remain silent. He did not make public his own failures to disclosure a known abuser to civil authorities."
"Sexual abuse that could have been prevented was not, and Brendan Smyth continued to abuse children."
The opposition Irish Labour party has added to the pressure on Cardinal Brady calling for the police to investigate his role.
The party's spokeswoman on social and family affairs, Roisin Shortall, said the cardinal was "hopelessly compromised by what had emerged".
"I believe that there should be a Garda (Irish police) investigation to determine whether or not the failure to report Fr Smyth's crimes to the civil authorities was, itself, a criminal offence," she said.
"I am advised that the administering of an oath requiring these children not to disclose the abuse to anyone else may also have constituted an offence."
I wonder is the Catholic Church's behaviour in Ireland an unorthodox attempt to ensure a majority of Protestants in Ireland vote for a United Ireland. The way they are going Ireland might end up with more Nationalist dissenters than Unionist ones.
We need to cut through all the emotional stuff and get to the kernel of procedure re child protection. The question is - Was the proper procedure followed when he was faced with the disclosures.
And the answer is yes he did.
Firstly, the latest and most modern procedures for dealing with child abuse is contained ina circular for teachers called 1999 10. This states that you have to take notes, not investigate or unearth and then pass the information on. He did just that.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened.
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
Which is fine if Cardinal Brady was a civil servant who acted in line with his job description. But he is charged with leading a Christian faith in Ireland that should promote Christian values and it is my opinion that he has lost that authority on a moral level, if not on a procedural one.
I don't think criminal procedures are appropriate, but for the sake of the Church, I think he should step aside.
Does this procedure involve making the child sign an oath which prevents them from telling anyone else about what went on. I'd severely doubt it.
The reputation and credibility of the man that is leader of the church lies in ruins and for that reason, he should step aside.
He condemned himself in that interview in December. Now he should follow what he said. Resign.
Quote from: Rois on March 16, 2010, 02:58:28 PM
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
Which is fine if Cardinal Brady was a civil servant who acted in line with his job description. But he is charged with leading a Christian faith in Ireland that should promote Christian values and it is my opinion that he has lost that authority on a moral level, if not on a procedural one.
I don't think criminal procedures are appropriate, but for the sake of the Church, I think he should step aside.
Not at the time he wasn't. He was simply a clergyman following church protocols and orders from above. You think he should have thought "ah now maybe some day i'll be an arch bishop..."
Granted, if he had his time again he may have stepped outside his ecumenical resposibilities, given what he knows now.
Wouldn't it be great to have 20:20 hindsight.
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 02:59:21 PM
Does this procedure involve making the child sign an oath which prevents them from telling anyone else about what went on. I'd severely doubt it.
I think we should be careful about what is said about this oath.
From the Church Statement:
Quotethe intention of the confidentiality oath was "to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry's evidence" and to ensure that the process was "robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth".
The Child Protection Program currently adhered to by the Church is the same one adhered to by teachers and all people who's job involves contact with Children. I myself completed these courses and as Seany points out Brady did act in accordance with today's procedures.
I can imagine Sean Brady is not with remorse or guilt here - he has to know he should have done more and just 'doing what he was told' wasn't enough. That being said I can also see that he was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
We need to cut through all the emotional stuff and get to the kernel of procedure re child protection. The question is - Was the proper procedure followed when he was faced with the disclosures.
And the answer is yes he did.
Firstly, the latest and most modern procedures for dealing with child abuse is contained ina circular for teachers called 1999 10. This states that you have to take notes, not investigate or unearth and then pass the information on. He did just that.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened.
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
OK- Seany.. thanks for clearing that up. I'll delete the thread now... sure it is only child rape, nothing to get emotional about and church rules is church rules...
I have also completed these child protection courses. The general procedure is that any allegations of child abuse are passed to the designated officer in the school/club/institution who then deals with them from there and informs the relevant authorities. However, IF the person feels that the allegations are of a serious enough nature and that the child in question (or other children) may be at risk in the short term, the advice is that the person by-passes the chain of command and goes straight to civil authorities. NOWHERE do these procedures mention oaths of silence for the alleged victim or anything of that nature whatsoever.
It's everyone else's fault apart from Brady's and the church as a whole.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 02:59:21 PM
Does this procedure involve making the child sign an oath which prevents them from telling anyone else about what went on. I'd severely doubt it.
I think we should be careful about what is said about this oath.
From the Church Statement:
Quotethe intention of the confidentiality oath was "to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry's evidence" and to ensure that the process was "robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth".
The Child Protection Program currently adhered to by the Church is the same one adhered to by teachers and all people who's job involves contact with Children. I myself completed these courses and as Seany points out Brady did act in accordance with today's procedures.
I can imagine Sean Brady is not with remorse or guilt here - he has to know he should have done more and just 'doing what he was told' wasn't enough. That being said I can also see that he was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Good luck peddling that line, even the dogs in the street know that oath would have been for the benefit of the church and not the victims, they're running to catch up and making it up on the fly, otherwise why not publicise that at the outset, i'll tell you why because some damage limitation commitee has only just thought of it.
So what you are saying is that no-one that isn't a member of the clergy and who in the past has put church law above state law to protect a peadophile and the reputation of the church should really have an opinion on the matter ::)
This abuse has happened in a lot of places in the world. Look what the Pope wrote in 2001 :
Pope Benedict is under fire for a 2001 church directive he wrote while a Vatican cardinal, instructing bishops to keep abuse cases confidential.
Germany's justice minister has blamed the directive for what she called a "wall of silence" preventing prosecution.
Skeptical about the Vatican's handling of abuse, a U.S.-based advocacy group for abuse victims, Survivors Network of those Abused for Priests, urged faithful to bring candles and childhood photos to vigils outside churches, cathedrals and German consulates across the U.S. this weekend to remind people to "call police, not bishops" in cases of suspected abuse.
But the Holy See's so-called prosecutor for clergy sex abuse cases, providing some of the first statistics about his office's handling of allegations, decried what he called "false and defamatory" contentions that Benedict had promoted a "policy of cover up."
At the Vatican, rules on handling sexual abuse were "never understood as a ban on making a complaint to civil authorities," Monsignor Charles Scicluna told Italian bishops conference daily Avvenire.
But Irish bishops have said the document was widely taken to mean they shouldn't go to police. And victims' lawyers in the U.S. say the document shows the church tried to obstruct justice.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 16, 2010, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
We need to cut through all the emotional stuff and get to the kernel of procedure re child protection. The question is - Was the proper procedure followed when he was faced with the disclosures.
And the answer is yes he did.
Firstly, the latest and most modern procedures for dealing with child abuse is contained ina circular for teachers called 1999 10. This states that you have to take notes, not investigate or unearth and then pass the information on. He did just that.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened.
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
OK- Seany.. thanks for clearing that up. I'll delete the thread now... sure it is only child rape and church rules is church rules...
Yip there is a witch hunt, and too right, times to rid the Church of evil, evil doers, evil protectors and evil facilitators. Maybe when the hunt is over we will have a church to trust and be proud of.
Fck Cannon Law, this is Ireland a REPUBLIC we serve neither King nor Kaiser nor Pope for that matter.
I can't wait for the day the British Empire & London and the Roman Empire & The Vatican get the f**k out of my country. Down with foreign Monarchs.
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 03:29:16 PM
I have also completed these child protection courses. The general procedure is that any allegations of child abuse are passed to the designated officer in the school/club/institution who then deals with them from there and informs the relevant authorities. However, IF the person feels that the allegations are of a serious enough nature and that the child in question (or other children) may be at risk in the short term, the advice is that the person by-passes the chain of command and goes straight to civil authorities. NOWHERE do these procedures mention oaths of silence for the alleged victim or anything of that nature whatsoever.
Damning stuff indeed, that puts a huge hole in the apologists comments.
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 03:31:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:13:32 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 02:59:21 PM
Does this procedure involve making the child sign an oath which prevents them from telling anyone else about what went on. I'd severely doubt it.
I think we should be careful about what is said about this oath.
From the Church Statement:
Quotethe intention of the confidentiality oath was "to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry's evidence" and to ensure that the process was "robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth".
The Child Protection Program currently adhered to by the Church is the same one adhered to by teachers and all people who's job involves contact with Children. I myself completed these courses and as Seany points out Brady did act in accordance with today's procedures.
I can imagine Sean Brady is not with remorse or guilt here - he has to know he should have done more and just 'doing what he was told' wasn't enough. That being said I can also see that he was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Good luck peddling that line, even the dogs in the street know that oath would have been for the benefit of the church and not the victims, they're running to catch up and making it up on the fly, otherwise why not publicise that at the outset, i'll tell you why because some damage limitation commitee has only just thought of it.
So what you are saying is that no-one that isn't a member of the clergy and who in the past has put church law above state law to protect a peadophile and the reputation of the church should really have an opinion on the matter ::)
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 16, 2010, 03:26:24 PM
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
We need to cut through all the emotional stuff and get to the kernel of procedure re child protection. The question is - Was the proper procedure followed when he was faced with the disclosures.
And the answer is yes he did.
Firstly, the latest and most modern procedures for dealing with child abuse is contained ina circular for teachers called 1999 10. This states that you have to take notes, not investigate or unearth and then pass the information on. He did just that.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened.
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
OK- Seany.. thanks for clearing that up. I'll delete the thread now... sure it is only child rape, nothing to get emotional about and church rules is church rules...
That's a bit emotive and off at a tangent if you don't mind me saying. Brady was not involved in child rape or anything of the sort.
He certainly had a role in the catholic church's despicible "clean up operation" but i'm not sure he was in a position to make that big a difference. noone is saying that brady couldn't have done more with his opportunity to intervene, but removing a (in my view) fine pastrol leader for not having the strength to break his vows when he was a young working priest is too much
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 03:29:16 PM
I have also completed these child protection courses. The general procedure is that any allegations of child abuse are passed to the designated officer in the school/club/institution who then deals with them from there and informs the relevant authorities. However, IF the person feels that the allegations are of a serious enough nature and that the child in question (or other children) may be at risk in the short term, the advice is that the person by-passes the chain of command and goes straight to civil authorities. NOWHERE do these procedures mention oaths of silence for the alleged victim or anything of that nature whatsoever.
Damning stuff indeed.
This legislation was not in place in 1975 so how can it be damning stuff?
We are running away with things here and only focusing on how fast we can get the pitchforks and lighted torches together.
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 03:31:37 PM
It's everyone else's fault apart from Brady's and the church as a whole.
here you go with your usual crap of putting words in peoples' mouths.
This isn't a game. you can throw out your flippant comments if you wish but there are serious considerations here - not least the future direction that the catholic church may take in ireland.
I would imagine Sean Brady is torn apart by this situation and doesn't need half informed people like us telling him what he should and shouldn't do.
It's rare that i would say this about someone in a position of power, but i believe ach bishop brady to be a fundamentally good man with nothing but good intentions. I trust him to make the right decisions for his flock, including myself. He's an intelligent and articulate leader who can be very important for the church moving forward.
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 16, 2010, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 03:31:37 PM
It's everyone else's fault apart from Brady's and the church as a whole.
here you go with your usual crap of putting words in peoples' mouths.
This isn't a game. you can throw out your flippant comments if you wish but there are serious considerations here - not least the future direction that the catholic church may take in ireland.
I would imagine Sean Brady is torn apart by this situation and doesn't need half informed people like us telling him what he should and shouldn't do.
It's rare that i would say this about someone in a position of power, but i believe ach bishop brady to be a fundamentally good man with nothing but good intentions. I trust him to make the right decisions for his flock, including myself. He's an intelligent and articulate leader who can be very important for the church moving forward.
It's obvious his intentions were to climb the church ladder and to hell with the children...
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:38:51 PM
This legislation was not in place in 1975 so how can it be damning stuff?
We are running away with things here and only focusing on how fast we can get the pitchforks and lighted torches together.
While you want to do nothing or have anyone accountable?
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 16, 2010, 03:10:57 PM
Not at the time he wasn't. He was simply a clergyman following church protocols and orders from above. You think he should have thought "ah now maybe some day i'll be an arch bishop..."
No that's not what I mean at all.
Whether he was archbishop at the time or not is irrelevant - it remains that he knew of the terrible actions of Brendan Smyth half way through his career of abuse. I would like the leader of my faith to have shown courage - he had 35 years to do so.
I am fearful for the future of the Catholic church and while I won't abandon it if he doesn't resign, I think it would do more harm than good if he stayed on.
Good man Fox and Ludermor
More lies
Put more words in my mouth there sure
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:38:51 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 03:36:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on March 16, 2010, 03:29:16 PM
I have also completed these child protection courses. The general procedure is that any allegations of child abuse are passed to the designated officer in the school/club/institution who then deals with them from there and informs the relevant authorities. However, IF the person feels that the allegations are of a serious enough nature and that the child in question (or other children) may be at risk in the short term, the advice is that the person by-passes the chain of command and goes straight to civil authorities. NOWHERE do these procedures mention oaths of silence for the alleged victim or anything of that nature whatsoever.
Damning stuff indeed.
This legislation was not in place in 1975 so how can it be damning stuff?
We are running away with things here and only focusing on how fast we can get the pitchforks and lighted torches together.
Its damning to arguments put forward by a few of the apologists on here that cherry picked and presented the present day child protection legislation, to make it look like that Brady was in complete concurrence with what is best practice today, they conviently left out the damning stuff about going straight to the civil authorities which fortunately franko was able to enlighten us about.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:13:32 PM
The Child Protection Program currently adhered to by the Church is the same one adhered to by teachers and all people who's job involves contact with Children. I myself completed these courses and as Seany points out Brady did act in accordance with today's procedures.
Bollocks >:(
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 16, 2010, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 03:31:37 PM
It's everyone else's fault apart from Brady's and the church as a whole.
here you go with your usual crap of putting words in peoples' mouths.
This isn't a game. you can throw out your flippant comments if you wish but there are serious considerations here - not least the future direction that the catholic church may take in ireland.
I would imagine Sean Brady is torn apart by this situation and doesn't need half informed people like us telling him what he should and shouldn't do.
It's rare that i would say this about someone in a position of power, but i believe ach bishop brady to be a fundamentally good man with nothing but good intentions. I trust him to make the right decisions for his flock, including myself. He's an intelligent and articulate leader who can be very important for the church moving forward.
You have a view - your's is different to mine - I didn't call your's crap -
If Brady is as torn as you suggest he is, WHY then did it take him 35 years to tell us of his involvement in making 2 young boys swear an oath of silence so that this scandal could not get out and why did Smyth get away with abusing left, right and f--king centre for a further 20 years ?
Why ?
Cos he has a civil case on the go ? Were it not for the civil case, would we have EVER found out about it ?.
You think he is a good with man with nothing but good intentions and you trust him.
I never have trusted him.
Quote from: DuffleKing on March 16, 2010, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 03:31:37 PM
It's everyone else's fault apart from Brady's and the church as a whole.
here you go with your usual crap of putting words in peoples' mouths.
This isn't a game. you can throw out your flippant comments if you wish but there are serious considerations here - not least the future direction that the catholic church may take in ireland.
I would imagine Sean Brady is torn apart by this situation and doesn't need half informed people like us telling him what he should and shouldn't do.
It's rare that i would say this about someone in a position of power, but i believe ach bishop brady to be a fundamentally good man with nothing but good intentions. I trust him to make the right decisions for his flock, including myself. He's an intelligent and articulate leader who can be very important for the church moving forward.
Are you brain dead? - Did he not just make one huge wrong decision or what the hell do you think everyone is talking about here?
Its easy to see how the cops ignored what they knew too. Probably full of people lile you, iceman, Fearon who put canon law above the only law in this REPUBLIC.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Good man Fox and Ludermor
More lies
Put more words in my mouth there sure
WTF! So what do you want to happen? You dont think he done anything worng!
The Green Party leader and Minister for Environment has said he would have no difficulty with gardaí investigating the circumstances in which two children were asked to sign oaths of secrecy during the Church inquiry, involving the then Fr Séan Brady, into Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975.
John Gormley said there were conflicting views on whether this might have constituted a criminal offence, but if it were appropriate he would have no difficulty with gardaí investigating the matter.
He was commenting on disclosures about Cardinal Brady's involvement with the inquiry in 1975.
Asked if the Cardinal should resign the Minister said:
'It is a matter for the Church authorities and indeed for the Cardinal himself. I suppose in many ways, it is a case of evil triumphing while a good man stood back from a situation. I suppose it is a matter for the Church authorities themselves and Cardinal Brady and his own conscience. He will have to deal with that.'
He said it was very clear none of those involved in the inquiry reported these matters to gardaí and an 'evil character' like Fr Smyth was able to continue his abuse for many years.
It was 'a deeply regrettable situation', he added.
The Minister said no decision had been made yet on extending the Murphy Inquiry to other dioceses or on whether issues such as children signing oaths of secrecy should be included in any new terms of reference.
Quote from: ludermor on March 16, 2010, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Good man Fox and Ludermor
More lies
Put more words in my mouth there sure
WTF! So what do you want to happen? You dont think he done anything worng!
Read my posts lad - I think the opposite.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Thats a weak assed arguement style, trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own by claiming only certain individuals have a right to express an opinion, weak, very weak.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:10:58 PM
Quote from: ludermor on March 16, 2010, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Good man Fox and Ludermor
More lies
Put more words in my mouth there sure
WTF! So what do you want to happen? You dont think he done anything worng!
Read my posts lad - I think the opposite.
You think? I dont.
You havent commented on my earlier post about the priest who was sacked after he done some articles on child sex abuse, bit surprising as you seem to have a comment on everything else
All this about church is sh*te... Sean Brady the man covered up for the rape and brutalisation of children. Personally I couldn't care less if he stays in power or not as I have no truck with that outfit.
He should be before the criminal court. Canon law means nada-zilch...
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Thats a weak assed arguement style, trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own by claiming only certain individuals have a right to express an opinion, weak, very weak.
I didn't say others could not have an opinion - again - stop putting words in peoples mouths.
I said we cannot fully understand what Brady went through at the time.
End of
Quote from: ludermor on March 16, 2010, 04:15:59 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:10:58 PM
Quote from: ludermor on March 16, 2010, 03:57:10 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:50:14 PM
Good man Fox and Ludermor
More lies
Put more words in my mouth there sure
WTF! So what do you want to happen? You dont think he done anything worng!
So I am supposed to comment on all your posts now? Catch a grip of yourself will you and stop wasting everybody's time with your comments
Read my posts lad - I think the opposite.
You think? I dont.
You havent commented on my earlier post about the priest who was sacked after he done some articles on child sex abuse, bit surprising as you seem to have a comment on everything else
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Thats a weak assed arguement style, trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own by claiming only certain individuals have a right to express an opinion, weak, very weak.
I didn't say others could not have an opinion - again - stop putting words in peoples mouths.
I said we cannot fully understand what Brady went through at the time.
End of
It amounts to the same thing, f*ck what he went through, what about what the victims went through, he didn't even have the balls to come forward, not much of a man in my estimations, certainly not worth following.
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Thats a weak assed arguement style, trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own by claiming only certain individuals have a right to express an opinion, weak, very weak.
I didn't say others could not have an opinion - again - stop putting words in peoples mouths.
I said we cannot fully understand what Brady went through at the time.
End of
It amounts to the same thing, f*ck what he went through, what about what the victims went through, he didn't even have the balls to come forward, not much of a man in my estimations, certainly not worth following.
You're being a ballix now. You're twisting. The trend of the conversation when I posted the comments you highlighted was about why Brady did what he did.
When I posted those comments I was not trying to do anything else but explain why I thought he did what he did.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:29:28 PM
So I am supposed to comment on all your posts now? Catch a grip of yourself will you and stop wasting everybody's time with your comments
Well thats me told!
So are you saying the fact that a priest who got sacked from his job for highlighting child sex abuse has no relevance to the present situation where the head of the church was actively involved in the cover up ( even if he was follwoing orders) then that is fair enough.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 04:23:12 PM
Quote from: delboy on March 16, 2010, 04:13:53 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 16, 2010, 03:36:49 PM
No delboy I think this is what I said
Quotehe was bound by vows to do what he was told and unless you are a member of the clergy posting on the GAA Board I don't think any of us can fully understand what this means.
Thats a weak assed arguement style, trying to stifle opinions contrary to your own by claiming only certain individuals have a right to express an opinion, weak, very weak.
I didn't say others could not have an opinion - again - stop putting words in peoples mouths.
I said we cannot fully understand what Brady went through at the time.
End of
It amounts to the same thing, f*ck what he went through, what about what the victims went through, he didn't even have the balls to come forward, not much of a man in my estimations, certainly not worth following.
You're being a ballix now. You're twisting. The trend of the conversation when I posted the comments you highlighted was about why Brady did what he did.
When I posted those comments I was not trying to do anything else but explain why I thought he did what he did.
So you allow yourself to explain away his actions but at the same time seek to stop others passing comment, doesn't work like that old chap.
The correct answer to the question is
YES
debate over ;)
It'll not be over till these abusers and their accomplices face justice
QuoteDid Brady covered up child abuse?
Yes.
Bishop Hegarty on apologising over abuse by Nazreth nuns in Derry today.
Martin Mc Guinness has asked Brady to consider his position !!!
Pressure is on.
good for Martin... in spirit of equality, hopefully he was as robust in challenging his leader over
brother Liam's abuse.
Quote from: Seany on March 16, 2010, 02:47:44 PM
We need to cut through all the emotional stuff and get to the kernel of procedure re child protection. The question is - Was the proper procedure followed when he was faced with the disclosures.
And the answer is yes he did.
Firstly, the latest and most modern procedures for dealing with child abuse is contained ina circular for teachers called 1999 10. This states that you have to take notes, not investigate or unearth and then pass the information on. He did just that.
Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened.
Cardinal Brady acted perfectly appropriately when put up against these 2 most modern of criteria in that he passed on the information and asked no more. This was his duty and nothing whatsoever beyond that.
No more comment required. I sense a complete witchhunt against the Catholic Church here.
I agree with everything you said, especially the bit I bolded
McGuinness has a cheek
Here's what Mc Guinness has to say on the issue :
The head of Ireland's Catholic Church "should consider his position", Martin McGuinness has said.
As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
The Northern Ireland deputy first minister questioned how many other children were asked to stay silent.
He said many Catholics shared his "great sense of unease at what we've learned over the last couple of days".
"Secondly, under the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 - the Need to Know principle bars ANYONE who passed information on from receiving a report on what happened. "
Why do agree with that line, ardmhachaabu?
What relevance does the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 specifically titled "Private life and family" have in this matter?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 07:00:42 PM
McGuinness has a cheek
Are you wondering about the other methods of silencing people ??
I can't help but think that.
Cheeky enough alright.
'No way' says Papa... 'there's a witch hunt on' over there :o
No Pope visit for Northern Ireland
Pope Benedict XVI will not come to Northern Ireland as part of his visit to the UK, it has been confirmed.
The Pope's four-day visit in September will include a meeting with the Queen in Edinburgh.
He will not visit Northern Ireland as it comes under a separate bishops' conference and he will not visit Wales because of time constraints.
A papal visit to Northern Ireland was rumoured, although the Catholic Church dismissed this as "pure speculation".
It will be the first papal visit to the UK since 1982 when Pope John Paul II came to England for a pastoral visit.
Pope Benedict XVI's trip is an official visit, and his engagement with the Queen at Holyrood Palace will be the first ever official meeting between a Pope and the British monarch.
Huge crowds greeted Pope John Paul II during his visit to the Irish Republic in 1979, but security concerns meant he was not able to come to Northern Ireland.
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 07:00:42 PM
McGuinness has a cheek
Are you wondering about the other methods of silencing people ??
I can't help but think that.
Cheeky enough alright.
Not just that, for how many years did he and his fellow travellers urge people NOT to support the police? NOT to tell them anything about say a murder that might have happened outside their own doorstep
On top of that, his organisation was responsible for a lot worse. I don't see him or Gerry resigning over murders that the IRA were responsible for since the ceasefire
I thought it was something to do with him not turning the other cheek.
Unreal - to think it was only a few months ago I couldnt understand how this all could have happened - there's a few boys on this board and I'd be willing to bet they'd turn a blind eye to child abuse if it meant protecting their precious church.
Bloody right this is a witch hunt against the Catholic church.
Yous are arguing today over what he done, did he follow canon law, did he follow some procedure and even drink driving ffs! - can we get back to the reality here.
A man, of 37 years of age, knew two youngsters were raped, multiple times, by Brendan Smyth.
He sat in a room while they were made/brainwashed in to signing oaths of silence.
And he watched as the Church cover it up, moved Brendan Smyth on to do it again. Smyth was prosecuted and not once during all those years that passed or during Smyth's prosecution did Brady come forward.
What sort of human being does that. He's as bad as the perverts he was protecting.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 07:56:00 PM
Quote from: orangeman on March 16, 2010, 07:32:35 PM
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 07:00:42 PM
McGuinness has a cheek
Are you wondering about the other methods of silencing people ??
I can't help but think that.
Cheeky enough alright.
Not just that, for how many years did he and his fellow travellers urge people NOT to support the police? NOT to tell them anything about say a murder that might have happened outside their own doorstep
On top of that, his organisation was responsible for a lot worse. I don't see him or Gerry resigning over murders that the IRA were responsible for since the ceasefire
Worth a seperate thread...but a good attempt at deflecting from Brady
I saw somewhere today that Smyth was a member of the Norbertine Order. If that's true, it means that Brady was utterless powerless as he couldn't have done a thing about Smyth still being a member of the clergy or anything else for that matter. There are very strict protocols in place between a diocese and any religious order living inside the boundaries of the diocese. It's also up the the head of any order to decide what punishment a member should receive and if they should be reported to the authorities
I know that some of you will say none of matters in which case I am wasting my time. Anyway, I have said all I have to say and won't be replying to any more posts
What's the point in re-hashing everything for the millionth time? You have your views, I have mine and we aren't going to agree
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
I saw somewhere today that Smyth was a member of the Norbertine Order. If that's true, it means that Brady was utterless powerless as he couldn't have done a thing about Smyth still being a member of the clergy or anything else for that matter. There are very strict protocols in place between a diocese and any religious order living inside the boundaries of the diocese. It's also up the the head of any order to decide what punishment a member should receive and if they should be reported to the authorities
I know that some of you will say none of matters in which case I am wasting my time. Anyway, I have said all I have to say and won't be replying to any more posts
You do know smyth wasn't stealing stealing pens from the stationary cupboard, he was repeatedly raping children.
I wonder would you or iceman have the same views if, god forbid, it was one of your children or family that he'd been raping.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
I saw somewhere today that Smyth was a member of the Norbertine Order. If that's true, it means that Brady was utterless powerless as he couldn't have done a thing about Smyth still being a member of the clergy or anything else for that matter. There are very strict protocols in place between a diocese and any religious order living inside the boundaries of the diocese. It's also up the the head of any order to decide what punishment a member should receive and if they should be reported to the authorities
I know that some of you will say none of matters in which case I am wasting my time. Anyway, I have said all I have to say and won't be replying to any more posts
I'm sorry little boy that this fat beast buggered and beat you and lots of other children but there were protocols ::) ... you know... unwritten rules
Protocol... "Unwritten rules or guidelines that are peculiar to every culture or organization, and are supposed to be observed by all parties in the conduct of business, entertaining, negotiating, politics, etc.
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on March 16, 2010, 08:09:58 PM
I saw somewhere today that Smyth was a member of the Norbertine Order. If that's true, it means that Brady was utterless powerless as he couldn't have done a thing about Smyth still being a member of the clergy or anything else for that matter. There are very strict protocols in place between a diocese and any religious order living inside the boundaries of the diocese. It's also up the the head of any order to decide what punishment a member should receive and if they should be reported to the authorities
I know that some of you will say none of matters in which case I am wasting my time. Anyway, I have said all I have to say and won't be replying to any more posts
Aha, ardmhachaabu strikes again! And his credibility drops yet further.
That is amongst the biggest piles of utter shite I have ever read on this board. Actually, come to think of it, it's no wonder you are not going to reply to any more posts. If I came out with something like that I'd probably lie low for a while myself.
Before omerta strikes all of a sudden, I wouldn't mind some explanation why Ardmhachaabu and Seany are quoting the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 8 as some reference to support Cardinal Brady's actions,
While listening to the William Crawley show today on Radio Ulster, he interviewed Monsignor Maurice Dooley.
Now, without going into the full details, this man demonstrated exactly what is wrong with the catholic church in Ireland right now. Defending Brady to the last, he said on numerous occasions that Brady was not "Morally Oblidged" to report Smith to the police. Brady did his duty, and broke no criminal or moral law!
He even went futher, and said that "the responsibility for going to the police was the children, their parents, and in the event of no parents, their gaurdians" .
Now, the arrogance in this man while saying all this was scary. I think it shows the church up in it's complete lack of understanding, morality, honesty, compassion, guilt, and a severe lack of respect to it's follower's.
If this man is a reflection of the men in charge of the catholic church in Ireland, then, it may as well close its doors now. The sooner the top brass are removed from power, the better.
Parents right across the north are telling principals of primary schools that they will refuse to allow their child be confirmed by Brady this spring. How can this man stand in front of a congregation right now knowing that everyone in front of him know that he knew about Smith raping 2 children, about how he made them sign a shut up for life agreement, and how Smith was rewarded with a new parish to do it all again, which he did for another 20 years, and until this weekend, never said a word.
There is no defence for Brady as far as i'm concerned. He has to step down for the sake of the people who were abused as children by Smith. He knew what Smith did, he knew it was wrong, he shut the children up, and for 20 more years, Smith abused more children. Brady said nothing, and ended up Cardinal. He could of saved countless lives, but he choose to save his ass, and that of the Church. Could he look a victim of child abuse straight in the eye and say, "I did all I could"?
Quote from: give her dixie on March 16, 2010, 09:09:19 PM
While listening to the William Crawley show today on Radio Ulster, he interviewed Monsignor Maurice Dooley.
Now, without going into the full details, this man demonstrated exactly what is wrong with the catholic church in Ireland right now. Defending Brady to the last, he said on numerous occasions that Brady was not "Morally Oblidged" to report Smith to the police. Brady did his duty, and broke no criminal or moral law!
He even went futher, and said that "the responsibility for going to the police was the children, their parents, and in the event of no parents, their gaurdians" .
Now, the arrogance in this man while saying all this was scary. I think it shows the church up in it's complete lack of understanding, morality, honesty, compassion, guilt, and a severe lack of respect to it's follower's.
If this man is a reflection of the men in charge of the catholic church in Ireland, then, it may as well close its doors now. The sooner the top brass are removed from power, the better.
Parents right across the north are telling principals of primary schools that they will refuse to allow their child be confirmed by Brady this spring. How can this man stand in front of a congregation right now knowing that everyone in front of him know that he knew about Smith raping 2 children, about how he made them sign a shut up for life agreement, and how Smith was rewarded with a new parish to do it all again, which he did for another 20 years, and until this weekend, never said a word.
There is no defence for Brady as far as i'm concerned. He has to step down for the sake of the people who were abused as children by Smith. He knew what Smith did, he knew it was wrong, he shut the children up, and for 20 more years, Smith abused more children. Brady said nothing, and ended up Cardinal. He could of saved countless lives, but he choose to save his ass, and that of the Church. Could he look a victim of child abuse straight in the eye and say, "I did all I could"?
He also sat at home with his evidence when a court case in the north and later in the south prosecuted Smyth and never came forward with what he knew. At this time he could not cry ignorance of paedophilles and their effects. There was a woman on prime time just now. Smyth abused her when she was 6 and her sister at the age of 11. Her sister had depression all her life and died of a drug overdose at the age of 48. This woman brought a picture of herself as a six year old into the studio. A black and white picture of a smiling little girl who was raped by a evil piece of scum. The same as the little kids that sat in front of a 38 year old priest Fr Sean Brady and recounted the horror of what happened to them. Anyone who could sit and listen to the story from the mouths of little kids and not do the right thing thereafter is beyond my comprehension. I'd personally have to be restrained from getting the shotgun. Brady did nothing and that makes him the equal of Smyth - a sc**bag - and I hope he rots in hell with Smyth. Anyone that makes apologies for Brady should really think what they would do if it were there kids in that position because there position on this is pathetic, disgraceful and immoral. Blessed are the children indeed, Blessed is greed and power more like...
edit - here is the little girl in question. Would you protect her or the church..
http://www.independent.ie/independent.ie/editorial/todaysPaper/todayspaper.pdf
What planet are these lads living on to think that they can say these things and get away with them ?
Vatican official speaks on responsibility
This afternoon, a Vatican official said that a Roman Catholic confessor can do no more than absolve a sinner, even one who confesses to paedophilia.
The confessor is not required to 'ask the sinner to turn himself in to the authorities,' Gianfranco Girotti said in an interview with the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.
Bishop Girotti is responsible for one of the Vatican's three courts. He said: 'The only possible outcome of confession is absolution.'
Asked about recent paedophilia scandals, he said: 'It is not up to the confessor to make (confessions of paedophilia) public, nor to ask the repenter to turn himself in to his superiors.'
Bishop Girotti argued: 'For one thing, the seal of the (confession) sacrament is inviolable, and for another we must not engender mistrust among penitents.'
When a sinner approaches the confessional he 'must expect only absolution from the confessor, and surely not a judgement or an injunction to confess his crime in public.'
This Dooley **** is livin in a f**king bubble.. This canon law bullshit should be torn to shreds! They just dont get it and by the looks of things never will, until the church is brought to its knees!!
A few months ago I watched a documentary called "Deliver Us From Evil". It is about a priest in northern California, Oliver O' Grady, who abused children from as young as 1, to a mother of another abuse victim.
The church knew about it from before he was ordained, and until the police caught up with him many many years later, they did nothing about it. He was moved from parish to parish after complaint after complaint.
This documentary includes interviews with O'Grady who describes in grafic detail his behaviour, what made him do it, what the church did, and how he was set up for life with a pension by the church in order to keep quiet. Just as disturbing is the video of Cardinal Mahony in police interviews where he refuses to answer questions, and put himself and the church 1st. The victims dont even register on his radar.
This documentary was nominated for an Oscar for "Best Documentary" in 2007. It is a compelling piece of work, and although it is tough to watch in parts, it is well worth watching to see what happened, what the church did, and how they covered it up. The cover up even goes up to the present Pope.
Please take the time to watch this documentary, and by doing so, you will get a sense of what the victims of abuse went through, and how the church let them down. If anyone thinks Brady should stay in power right now, then I would advise them to watch this and I will gaurantee you that you will have changed your mind by the end of the film.
"Deliver Us From Evil" : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028#
Quote from: give her dixie on March 16, 2010, 11:01:10 PM
A few months ago I watched a documentary called "Deliver Us From Evil". It is about a priest in northern California, Oliver O' Grady, who abused children from as young as 1, to a mother of another abuse victim.
The church knew about it from before he was ordained, and until the police caught up with him many many years later, they did nothing about it. He was moved from parish to parish after complaint after complaint.
This documentary includes interviews with O'Grady who describes in grafic detail his behaviour, what made him do it, what the church did, and how he was set up for life with a pension by the church in order to keep quiet. Just as disturbing is the video of Cardinal Mahony in police interviews where he refuses to answer questions, and put himself and the church 1st. The victims dont even register on his radar.
This documentary was nominated for an Oscar for "Best Documentary" in 2007. It is a compelling piece of work, and although it is tough to watch in parts, it is well worth watching to see what happened, what the church did, and how they covered it up. The cover up even goes up to the present Pope.
Please take the time to watch this documentary, and by doing so, you will get a sense of what the victims of abuse went through, and how the church let them down. If anyone thinks Brady should stay in power right now, then I would advise them to watch this and I will gaurantee you that you will have changed your mind by the end of the film.
"Deliver Us From Evil" : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7745088455537169028#
I saw that Dixie. horrific stuff and right the whole way to the vatican mafia with the peaked hats. That priest who supported the families was vey good and couragous and was on RTE radio yesterday. No rules or protocol stopping him for trying to help abused children. (Is it Fr Tom ...something)
http://www.youtube.com/user/jbyeats&rclk=cti#p/a/u/1/40Gu_8zhhmw
With the Catholic Church still setting out to maintain canon law and the churches good name above all else what parent of sound mind would let their child get involved with a priest of person of the cloth in any capacity?
Quote from: johnneycool on March 17, 2010, 09:12:15 AM
With the Catholic Church still setting out to maintain canon law and the churches good name above all else what parent of sound mind would let their child get involved with a priest of person of the cloth in any capacity?
I believe that any parent that allows a priest to have sole unaccompanied access to the children is being negligent. Of course there is only a small chance that this priest is a Paedophille but if he were one we all know the church will do everything in its power to protect the culprit. My child will have nothing to do with any organisation that has no respect for the law of the land and no respect for the innocence of children.
Was listening to some old bollox called Msgr Maurice Dooley on the Nolan Show saying he would not report a priest who told him he was molesting children.... so much for the 1975 arguement, some things never change. It was unbelievable wat he was saying including, "I would tell him to stop being a paedophile.' Laughable if it wasn't so stomach churning...
'Hang down yer head Maurice Dooley'...
same as Myles, I don't bring my children near their door... we can talk to God from the house...
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 17, 2010, 11:02:26 AM
Was listening to some old bollox called Msgr Maurice Dooley on the Nolan Show saying he would not report a priest who told him he was molesting children.... so much for the 1975 arguement, some things never change. It was unbelievable wat he was saying including, "I would tell him to stop being a paedophile.' Laughable if it wasn't so stomach churning...
'Hang down yer head Maurice Dooley'...
same as Myles, I don't bring my children near their door... we can talk to God from the house...
Heard that man too. One of the things he said was, if a priest came to him now confessing that he was currently molesting children, Dooley
would not report him to the police
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 17, 2010, 11:02:26 AM
Was listening to some old bollox called Msgr Maurice Dooley on the Nolan Show saying he would not report a priest who told him he was molesting children.... so much for the 1975 arguement, some things never change. It was unbelievable wat he was saying including, "I would tell him to stop being a paedophile.' Laughable if it wasn't so stomach churning...
'Hang down yer head Maurice Dooley'...
same as Myles, I don't bring my children near their door... we can talk to God from the house...
The very same man
http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15720.msg750022#msg750022 (http://gaaboard.com/board/index.php?topic=15720.msg750022#msg750022)
I listened to the Cardinal's "homily" this morning on radio, maybe there will be a report of it someplace. It would appear that he has distanced himself from the justifications offered here (still no explanation offered for that bizarre Human Rights one ::) and distanced himself from the likes of Dooley, the devil's own disciple.
More or less said he failed and was ashamed, no reservations mentioned about his reasons but some clouded reference to stopping the drip drip effect. What could he be referring to? the media?
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
While it doesn't lessen the original failing, he has apologised and he used the word ashamed, which is rarely used by leaders in Ireland. Not much prospect of the likes of Bertie Aherne or Martin mcGuinness saying that they are ashamed.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
You probably place a great emphasis on the sacraments and going to church and thats fine, I don't and hence my children (IMO) won't suffer for the lack of them, however I will emphasise to them the difference between right and wrong and hopefully be strong enough individuals to make their own minds up on any moral issues they encounter in life.
They will be going to a maintained school as its a good school but I will make it abundantly clear to the principal and teachers that at no time will my children be left unaccompanied with a priest who may not have the welfare of my child as their main objective.
A wee bird tells me the excrement is going to hit the air-conditioning tomorrow over another abuse cover-up involving two well-known, high-ranking northern churchmen ... have a feeling Brady won't be the only one 'reflecting' on his position over coming days
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
One thing I noticed about the congregation today on the news that they were mostly pensioner age
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
What's your address?... why would I want to teach them in matters of religion? Do you think God is to be found in stain glass windows and statues... and the religions were created by man not God. I'm sure Jesus is very impressed with your catholic church ::) with its riches and abuse and palace in Rome
Ok I can't take it any more can someone change the title of the topic from did Brady covered up child abuse. I can't stand bad grammar, it is making me crack up.
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 17, 2010, 08:31:42 PM
Ok I can't take it any more can someone change the title of the topic from did Brady covered up child abuse. I can't stand bad grammar, it is making me crack up.
Nope... 8)
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
In fairness to brady, and applying your logic, maybe they did send their message by showing him support?
http://www.u.tv/News/Cardinal-sorry-over-abuse-failure/5e23b2e1-c70f-4cc9-b253-20a7d9634ec5
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
i abandoned the church a while after the abuse scandals were revealed,but not because of the abuse scandals.i dont have children,and if i do in the future,i wont be bringing them to mass,unless the mother wishes to bring them.il teach them the the story of jesus and tell them that it might be true,and in time they can make their own decision.why is receiving sacraments a requirement?
Quote from: Aghdavoyle on March 17, 2010, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
In fairness to brady, and applying your logic, maybe they did send their message by showing him support?
There are people will keep going to church even if that lunatic Monsignor Dooley was saying mass and was their bishop. God help their wit. I was impressed with Brady today however... at last he showed some humility and said he was 'ashamed.' Hopefully the court case he is involved in won't be an out of court settlement and the full truth will come out. A lot of priests must be sh*tting themselves at the minute as we probably ain't heard the half of it yet.
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
Well I was in church for the first time in a year on friday at a funeral and I saw the strangest thing, and t'was all I could do to stop myself from laughing out loud. Id spent most of the mass wondering if I was going to go up to communion because I wasnt honestly sure that I should or that Id be welcome - but whatever, what happened next made me realise I could go surely.
This 6ft 6 giant of a man waltzed up to communion (from the outside he looked like a bit of a head the ball), I assume mainly because everyone else was going and he took the host - said thank you to the priest and stuffed it into his pocket as he returned to his seat.
I couldnt believe I was seeing that - as a child I remember the fecking choke plate being jammed into your throat for fear of the host landing on the floor. I remember hearing the hulabaloo that accompanied a dropped host and how it was sacralige. Well it ended up in among yer mans tissues and car keys and not an eyelid batted. Except for mine.
You can't simply dismiss people going to mass today as sheep, irrespective of the celebrant. particularly if the opposite had happened it'd have been held up as a huge statement. In my day to day experiences most people are disappointed in brady but aren't prepared to condemn him for a mistake he made under pressure as a young priest. where would we be if we toss everyone who's done that on the scrap heap?
Brady remains a good man for me - as brain dead and irrisponsible as the decision he made back then was.
I was in Armagh today for the St. Patrick's Day Parade....guess who was leading the procession all smiles to everyone!
The Cardinal himself.
I found this very inapproriate given that the majority of those there were children. Children similar to those that were abused as a result of inaction by the Cardinal and those around him and the disgraceful behaviour that went on. Very poor taste IMO.
Quote from: Aghdavoyle on March 17, 2010, 08:55:29 PM
You can't simply dismiss people going to mass today as sheep, irrespective of the celebrant. particularly if the opposite had happened it'd have been held up as a huge statement. In my day to day experiences most people are disappointed in brady but aren't prepared to condemn him for a mistake he made under pressure as a young priest. where would we be if we toss everyone who's done that on the scrap heap?
Brady remains a good man for me - as brain dead and irrisponsible as the decision he made back then was.
With the breadth and depth of this scandal is he really the best man to lead the Catholic Church in Ireland? If the church wants to regain the trust of the thousands of "lapsed Catholics" there shouldn't even be a whiff of scandal from the top man in Ireland. The best thing would be to install a man who isn't up to his oxters in this and start rebuilding. As the older "faithful" in Ireland pass on, the younger generation are growing up in time with no fear of the Church which is mired in paedophilia, corruption and scanda. With this background they may not be so keen to get involved. In several generations this could be the rock the Church in Ireland perishes on.
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 17, 2010, 09:21:29 PM
I think it is possible to over estimate the role of the clergy in the propagation of the faith. Parents are the first and most important educators. However, the amount of work carried out in our Catholic schools should never be over-estimated especially our primary schools. It is those teachers who teach the tenets of our faith, prepare the children for sacraments, first communion, first confession and confirmation. Without these people maintaining not just their own faith but faith in the formal structures and/or leaders in the Church the Catholic Church as we know it is doomed. We can concentrate too much on the formal structures, the future of the Church lies with the parents and teachers and there is little recognition of the vital work they carry out.
I agree, but don't you think (as a man, parent and pedagogue) there would be difficulties for some schools and individual teachers in actively promoting the teachings of a Church which is looking increasingly morally bankrupt?
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 17, 2010, 09:21:29 PM
I think it is possible to over estimate the role of the clergy in the propagation of the faith. Parents are the first and most important educators. However, the amount of work carried out in our Catholic schools should never be over-estimated especially our primary schools. It is those teachers who teach the tenets of our faith, prepare the children for sacraments, first communion, first confession and confirmation. Without these people maintaining not just their own faith but faith in the formal structures and/or leaders in the Church the Catholic Church as we know it is doomed. We can concentrate too much on the formal structures, the future of the Church lies with the parents and teachers and there is little recognition of the vital work they carry out.
I agree TYP
TB, I agree with you too. I believe that this is very possibly the crisis in the church that was predicted by many. It is up to those with faith to continue practicing as they can only lead by example. I have said before on here that this is the worst scenario the Catholic Church in Ireland could have found themselves in and that people only did at the time what they were told to do, yes there were many mistakes made.
Someone mentioned Fr McCafferty in the previous argument. As it happens, I have met him on a few occasions, he has always struck me as a very dedicated priest. He was abused by a priest while he was in seminary and is still a priest. That says it all about the man and the priest that he is. He has his criticisms of the church and is working within it to change things even more than they have been changed already in order to allow for full accountability across the board, he is insisting on it island-wide as far as I know
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 17, 2010, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Aghdavoyle on March 17, 2010, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
In fairness to brady, and applying your logic, maybe they did send their message by showing him support?
There are people will keep going to church even if that lunatic Monsignor Dooley was saying mass and was their bishop. God help their wit. I was impressed with Brady today however... at last he showed some humility and said he was 'ashamed.' Hopefully the court case he is involved in won't be an out of court settlement and the full truth will come out. A lot of priests must be sh*tting themselves at the minute as we probably ain't heard the half of it yet.
Why would you be impressed. Yesterday he was totally innocent, not going to resign and all the wankers like Dooley where wheeled out to defend him. But the shit storm kept coming so today a different approach. Express a bit of shame, consider your position and maybe people will send a little pity his way and we'll all say "sure the poor cardinal made a mistake". Bullshit! He is spinning the story to get himself out of a hole. He had 30 years to think about what he did and he made his decision to put his beloved corrupt church in front of little childrens welfare. Now he is leading f**king St Patricks day parades, he should be hanging his head low in a dark room somehere. I have nothing but disrespect for the man.
Did any of you hear on Talkback with William Crawley today, the chancellor for Down and Connor ( I think ) who was on to challenge Monsignor Dooley's advice of yesterday.
William Crawley eventually ended up making an eejit out of him and tying him up in knots.
On the same show, the editor of the Irish Catholic said that Brady should resign as cardinal and offer himself up to an independent investigation and accept its' recommendations.
Quote from: Take Your Points on March 17, 2010, 09:53:51 PM
Exactly, not as big a problem in primary school but even there children may only be brought to first confession, first communion and not be brought back to church until confirmation. It can be so obvious that the parents are unfamiliar with the church surroundings.
Just imagine the uphill struggle we have in school to keep young people engaged with their faith in present circumstances. The young tend to see things more clearly and in black and white. We continue to do our best.
The young are not the only ones to see things in black and white :)
Why be so stuck on the Catholic Church teachings as the guide for young people?
Try out a few other religions.
We sent our kids from the age of 2 until 6 to a kindergarden run by a few Hindu nuns (or whatever a female monk is called). The kids ate vegetarian food and did meditation twice a day. God was a happy experience for them.
Any of you experts been to Mass recently!
The Big Bad Catholic Church are responsible for all the Ill's of the world.
Have'nt even bothered to read the last lock of pages, all I know are good Priests.
GDA, should you not be over in the 'Drunk Again' thread ;D
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2010, 11:07:42 PM
GDA, should you not be over in the 'Drunk Again' thread ;D
Sad, usual shite from anyone who disagree's, thought more of you.
f**k them GDA, drunken posts are generally the most inciteful!
Quote from: johnneycool on March 17, 2010, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
You probably place a great emphasis on the sacraments and going to church and thats fine, I don't and hence my children (IMO) won't suffer for the lack of them, however I will emphasise to them the difference between right and wrong and hopefully be strong enough individuals to make their own minds up on any moral issues they encounter in life.
They will be going to a maintained school as its a good school but I will make it abundantly clear to the principal and teachers that at no time will my children be left unaccompanied with a priest who may not have the welfare of my child as their main objective.
If that's what you think I really recommend you read this:
Quote
The scale of sexual abuse and rape in Irish society is shocking, as revealed in a report by the organisation that undertook the survey of clerical abuse for the Irish Catholic Bishops.
Only a tiny fraction of abusers are members of the clergy and only a miniscule proportion of these sexual crimes are reported to the gardai or, indeed, to anyone else. It is an epidemic of enormous proportions, one largely ignored or diminished by the state, politicians and commentators.
The startling facts of abuse are:
* One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood and a further one in ten reporting non-contact sexual abuse. (That is 30 per cent of all women being sexually abused as children.)
* More than one in 20 women (5.6 per cent), over 110,000 in all,were raped as children.
* One in five women reported experiencing contact sexual assault as adults with 6.1 per cent of women experiencing unwanted penetrative sex (ie rape). That is over 76,000 women raped during their adulthood.
* One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing sexual abuse in childhood, with a further one in 14 reporting non-contact abuse.
* 2.7 per cent of all men were subjected to penetrative sex (anal or oral sex) in childhood. That is around 12,000 men raped as children.
* One in ten men (9.7 per cent) experienced contact sexual assault as adults and 0.9 per cent of men were subjected to unwanted penetrative sex as adults.
* Most of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse were men (89 per cent) acting alone.
* In the case of those who abused girls, a quarter were family members, half were nonfa m ily but known to the abused girl and a quarter were strangers.
* In the case of the abuse of boys, only one in seven (14 per cent) was a family member, two-thirds were non-family but known to the abused boy and only one in five were strangers.
* Only a small fraction of child sex abusers (3.7 per cent) were members of the clergy and a smaller fraction (2.5 per cent) were fathers.
* In the case of sexual violence against adult women, one-quarter of the perpetrators were partners or ex-partners.
These startling revelations are in a report, Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI), undertaken by the Health Services Research Centre at the Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons, the body that conducted the recently published report on clerical abuse.
The report was commissioned by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Over 3,000 people, randomly selected, were interviewed anonymously by telephone.
This information was published a year ago, but caused little fuss. Remarkably, only 47 per cent of those who disclosed information to the interviewers for this survey said they had reported the abuse to anybody else. The remainder had never previously disclosed it.
A tiny fraction (1 per cent) of men who had been abused as an adult, and only 7.8 per cent of women had reported their experiences to the gardai. In the case of child sex abuse, only about 10 per cent of victims reported their abuse to the gardai.
The phenomenon of sexual crime is by far the most startling of all criminality in the state andyetalmostno attention is focused on it, apart from clerical sex abuse, which is a minor, almost incidental, part of the problem, although, obviously neither minor nor incidental for the victims of clerical abuse.
For those of us who have ranted for ages about clerical abuse, perhaps a more balanced assessment of the phenomenon is overdue.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/12/07/story315403517.asp
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on March 17, 2010, 11:36:30 PM
f**k them GDA, drunken posts are generally the most inciteful!
Don't know whether that's a typo, or intentional.... Either way, very punny
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on March 17, 2010, 11:13:14 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2010, 11:07:42 PM
GDA, should you not be over in the 'Drunk Again' thread ;D
Sad, usual shite from anyone who disagree's, thought more of you.
You will, when you sober up.
One rider though,
if you had no alcohol consumed when you joined the thread, then I can understand your ill humour.
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on March 17, 2010, 11:03:30 PM
Have'nt even bothered to read the last lock of pages, all I know are good Priests.
another one that's out of touch with reality. What does it matter who's been to mass? When people are protecting paedos and allowing them to rape children it's everyone's business.
One in five women and one in six men abused as children - and it has to be higher than that because not everyone will tell - that's shocking. I wonder how that compares to other countries.
Quote from: mylestheslasher on March 17, 2010, 10:08:49 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 17, 2010, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Aghdavoyle on March 17, 2010, 08:42:16 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 17, 2010, 07:22:22 PM
The people in Armagh had a chance to send a message today. Of course the sheep flock couldn't take their heads out of their arses long enough to make a stand. Standing at the pulpit of an empty cathedral would have made Brady's mind up about what the right and proper decision was.
In fairness to brady, and applying your logic, maybe they did send their message by showing him support?
There are people will keep going to church even if that lunatic Monsignor Dooley was saying mass and was their bishop. God help their wit. I was impressed with Brady today however... at last he showed some humility and said he was 'ashamed.' Hopefully the court case he is involved in won't be an out of court settlement and the full truth will come out. A lot of priests must be sh*tting themselves at the minute as we probably ain't heard the half of it yet.
Why would you be impressed. Yesterday he was totally innocent, not going to resign and all the w**kers like Dooley where wheeled out to defend him. But the shit storm kept coming so today a different approach. Express a bit of shame, consider your position and maybe people will send a little pity his way and we'll all say "sure the poor cardinal made a mistake". Bullshit! He is spinning the story to get himself out of a hole. He had 30 years to think about what he did and he made his decision to put his beloved corrupt church in front of little childrens welfare. Now he is leading f**king St Patricks day parades, he should be hanging his head low in a dark room somehere. I have nothing but disrespect for the man.
We don't know if Dooley is connected to Brady.
Brady spoke well to a point and nearly pulled it off.
The point was when he came to end, he added this line
"For the sake of survivors, for the sake of all the Catholic faithful as well as the religious and priests of this country, we have to stop the drip, drip, drip of revelations of failure."Not in my opinion Cardinal. There are sound reasons why information is only coming in drips.
The main responsibility for that belongs to the Church and the other one is that even decades later, many of the abused have great difficulties with even acknowledging their own abuse suffered.
The rights of the abused vastly supercede the right of the Church to stop new information coming to the light.
Here we go again :But I was expecting this boyo, given his record :
Bishop 'helped cover up abuse'
Dr Seamus Hegarty's name was included in court papers
The Bishop of Derry has been accused of being involved in a compensation deal to cover up alleged child sex abuse.
Dr Seamus Hegarty was one of three priests named in a civil settlement after an eight-year-old girl was abused over a 10-year period from 1979.
The Belfast Telegraph reported £12,000 was paid to the alleged victim, subject to a confidentiality agreement.
She told the paper the "settlement meant nothing" to her and a note of apology "wasn't sincere".
The civil action was settled out of court in December 2000 and was signed by lawyers on behalf of Dr Hegarty, Bishop Edward Daly and the alleged abuser without admission of liability.
Bishop Daly was named in the court papers, but at the time his duties were being carried out by another bishop due to illness.
There was a handwritten letter asking for "some forgiveness" from the alleged abuser in which he offered the family his "deepest apology for any pain I caused you through inappropriate gesture or mistaken signs of affection".
The Derry diocese told the paper it would not comment immediately because church records would need to be checked.
The girl's father said that they had not gone to the police because "it was not the culture" in Derry at the time to do so.
Ian Elliott, who is chief executive of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland, said that he did not know the details of the specific case but that out of court settlements were "not acceptable".
"If any situation comes to light involving a child then the policy of the church, and the absolute commitment that is given, is that that information will be conveyed to the appropriate state authorities, the PSNI and the social services," he said.
In 2005 Bishop Hegarty disclosed details of the extent of child sex abuse allegations against priests in his diocese, revealing that 26 had been accused in 40 years.
Quote
The girl's father said that they had not gone to the police because "it was not the culture" in Derry at the time to do so.
That's not good enough.
Quote from: Bogball XV on March 18, 2010, 12:17:05 AM
Quote from: johnneycool on March 17, 2010, 02:08:59 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on March 17, 2010, 12:40:17 PM
So telll me this everyone now who is jumping ship and abandoning the Church.
Where you Church go-ers who actually gave a shit before all this or did you rarely darken the door anyways?
If you were Church go-ers and will no longer go how will you now teach your children in the faith, how will you instruct them in matters of religion, how will you introduce them to Jesus? Will they receive sacraments?
Answers on a post card......
You probably place a great emphasis on the sacraments and going to church and thats fine, I don't and hence my children (IMO) won't suffer for the lack of them, however I will emphasise to them the difference between right and wrong and hopefully be strong enough individuals to make their own minds up on any moral issues they encounter in life.
They will be going to a maintained school as its a good school but I will make it abundantly clear to the principal and teachers that at no time will my children be left unaccompanied with a priest who may not have the welfare of my child as their main objective.
If that's what you think I really recommend you read this:
Quote
The scale of sexual abuse and rape in Irish society is shocking, as revealed in a report by the organisation that undertook the survey of clerical abuse for the Irish Catholic Bishops.
Only a tiny fraction of abusers are members of the clergy and only a miniscule proportion of these sexual crimes are reported to the gardai or, indeed, to anyone else. It is an epidemic of enormous proportions, one largely ignored or diminished by the state, politicians and commentators.
The startling facts of abuse are:
* One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood and a further one in ten reporting non-contact sexual abuse. (That is 30 per cent of all women being sexually abused as children.)
* More than one in 20 women (5.6 per cent), over 110,000 in all,were raped as children.
* One in five women reported experiencing contact sexual assault as adults with 6.1 per cent of women experiencing unwanted penetrative sex (ie rape). That is over 76,000 women raped during their adulthood.
* One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing sexual abuse in childhood, with a further one in 14 reporting non-contact abuse.
* 2.7 per cent of all men were subjected to penetrative sex (anal or oral sex) in childhood. That is around 12,000 men raped as children.
* One in ten men (9.7 per cent) experienced contact sexual assault as adults and 0.9 per cent of men were subjected to unwanted penetrative sex as adults.
* Most of the perpetrators of child sexual abuse were men (89 per cent) acting alone.
* In the case of those who abused girls, a quarter were family members, half were nonfa m ily but known to the abused girl and a quarter were strangers.
* In the case of the abuse of boys, only one in seven (14 per cent) was a family member, two-thirds were non-family but known to the abused boy and only one in five were strangers.
* Only a small fraction of child sex abusers (3.7 per cent) were members of the clergy and a smaller fraction (2.5 per cent) were fathers.
* In the case of sexual violence against adult women, one-quarter of the perpetrators were partners or ex-partners.
These startling revelations are in a report, Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI), undertaken by the Health Services Research Centre at the Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons, the body that conducted the recently published report on clerical abuse.
The report was commissioned by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. Over 3,000 people, randomly selected, were interviewed anonymously by telephone.
This information was published a year ago, but caused little fuss. Remarkably, only 47 per cent of those who disclosed information to the interviewers for this survey said they had reported the abuse to anybody else. The remainder had never previously disclosed it.
A tiny fraction (1 per cent) of men who had been abused as an adult, and only 7.8 per cent of women had reported their experiences to the gardai. In the case of child sex abuse, only about 10 per cent of victims reported their abuse to the gardai.
The phenomenon of sexual crime is by far the most startling of all criminality in the state andyetalmostno attention is focused on it, apart from clerical sex abuse, which is a minor, almost incidental, part of the problem, although, obviously neither minor nor incidental for the victims of clerical abuse.
For those of us who have ranted for ages about clerical abuse, perhaps a more balanced assessment of the phenomenon is overdue.
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/12/07/story315403517.asp
I'm not arguing with that, the point I am trying to make is that the Cathoilic church would knowingly send an offending priest to our parish in an attempt to hide their deeds they've committed in other parishes. It's not solely about the individual priest because there are good and decent ones, its about the organisation I now do not trust to have the best interests of my child as its main aim.
If I thought for one moment the GAA or whatever organisation i chose to send my child to had unwritten procedures for hiding paedophiles and ensuring that they were not prosecuted then I'd hold the same requirements.
You might use the arguement that all this happened 20 odd years ago, but until a sitting Bishop lifts the phone and without prior approval from on high, rings the guards or PSNI to inform them that they've just been informed of an accusation of inappropriate behaviour by one of his clery and could they investigate with the full support of the church then and only then will I cut the organisation some slack no matter what Fr John McManus, a man I know well enough says on TV.
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 18, 2010, 10:23:42 AM
Quote
The girl's father said that they had not gone to the police because "it was not the culture" in Derry at the time to do so.
That's not good enough.
Incredible to think they would probably have gone to the police if their house had been burglared in order to be able to claim the insurance. But protecting children doesn't seem to be as important as money.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 18, 2010, 10:31:11 AM
Quote from: pintsofguinness on March 18, 2010, 10:23:42 AM
Quote
The girl's father said that they had not gone to the police because "it was not the culture" in Derry at the time to do so.
That's not good enough.
Incredible to think they would probably have gone to the police if their house had been burglared in order to be able to claim the insurance. But protecting children doesn't seem to be as important as money.
Or protecting the church, even when their own child is involved.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2010, 10:26:59 AM... until a sitting Bishop lifts the phone and without prior approval from on high, rings the guards or PSNI to inform them that they've just been informed of an accusation of inappropriate behaviour by one of his clery and could they investigate with the full support of the church then and only then will I cut the organisation some slack ...
I have no doubt that any and all of them would do that today, because they have rules in place (that they were dragged, kicking and screaming into adopting) and none of them would dare chance a cover-up now.
The real question is when will any or all of them visit their local garda/PSNI stations with the full list of cases, documented and undocumented, for as far back as they exist, that they know of, participated in, facilitated, recorded or even heard rumours of. If Brady wants to stop the "drip-drip", that's how to do it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that's what he meant in his statement.
Of course, given what Murphy revealed, we have no guarantee that the guards would do anything, though we can probably assume that my first sentence above applies to them too. But I, for one, am a little perplexed at how little comment this aspect of the scandal has received and how we seem to have been distracted by the concentration on the church cover-up from pursuing the state for its criminal abdication of its duty to its citizens.
There's two ways to stop a tap from dripping - one is to open it and let it run until the tank is empty. The other is to close the tap tighter until it is shut off and the drip stops.
Which one does the church want in this case? I remain to be convinced.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2010, 10:38:13 AM
If Brady wants to stop the "drip-drip", that's how to do it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that's what he meant in his statement.
That assumption for your benefit of doubt is not supported by the history, right up to the time of that homily. The benefit of doubt has to be earned before being given a value.
Imo the drip drip that he talks about is more about his annoyance at the ordeal, how the allegation from these lowly subjects are still coming out of the sewer, affecting the high and mighty leaders like himself, that they cant keep the lid on and move away.
His last words were "pray for me". In context I find that incredibly egotistic.
Quote from: turk on March 18, 2010, 10:57:46 AM
There's two ways to stop a tap from dripping - one is to open it and let it run until the tank is empty. The other is to close the tap tighter until it is shut off and the drip stops.
Which one does the church want in this case? I remain to be convinced.
Not much point fixing the tap if the water is contaminated
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-the-oath-brady-smyth-and-the-children-swore-2102869.html
What sort of bastard would ask a child to sign something like this?
Revealed: the oath Brady, Smyth and the children sworeThursday March 18 2010
"I will never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause (even) for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless a...dispensation has been expressly given to me by the Supreme Pontiff."
THIS is the oath of secrecy the child victims of paedophile priest Brendan Smyth were told to sign during their meetings with Cardinal Sean Brady 35 years ago.
Crimen Solicitationis, the Latin for 'Crime of Solicitation', is a secret 1962 Vatican document which only came to light in recent years. It instructed bishops how to handle allegations of sex abuse against priests in their diocese and set out an oath of secrecy.
All those involved in the 1975 investigation into Smyth, Cardinal Brady -- then a 36-year-old priest -- the children who had been abused and Smyth himself, were required to sign the oath. To break the vow would lead to excommunication from the Catholic Church. The document was written by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, previously known as the Inquisition.
It was only to be circulated among bishops and it demanded that all parties to an investigation keep a "perpetual silence".
Scripted in dense legal language, the document sets out the steps to be taken for investigating crimes of solicitation against priests.
Once the tribunal has reached its conclusion, it lays out a number of different courses. If there is no foundation to the allegations, all documents relating to the accusation must be destroyed.
If it is not possible to determine if a crime has occurred, the documents should be stored in the diocesan archives to be re-opened if another allegation is made in the future.
Morals
Should the tribunal find there are "indications of a crime serious enough but not yet sufficient to institute an accusatorial process", a check should be kept on the "morals" of the priest.
In the event where it is certain the priest has offended, he is tried under canon law.
Since its unearthing in 2003, opinion has been split on whether the document provides the "smoking gun" to prove there was a conspiracy by the Vatican to cover-up the problem of paedophile priests.
The Irish Bishops' Conference last week said the document had been consistently misrepresented in the media and that it was never the intention of the oath to prevent victims from reporting crimes to the civil authorities.
One canon lawyer has said an oath of secrecy is not unusual in church investigations and is not specific to sex abuse cases. And although those taking part in the investigation are required to remain silent while it is being carried out, they can report the abuse to police before this.
However Paddy Doyle, author of 'The God Squad' and a survivor of institutional abuse, last night described the oath of secrecy as "chilling".
"It's tough enough to read it as an adult because of the language that is used, never mind putting that to a terrified child. How are they supposed to understand that?
"My first reaction is absolute disgust, it has to be some sort of criminal offence. In effect, what you are doing is... the bishops and priests are dragging children into becoming criminals by making them collude," he told the Irish Independent.
Quote from: Main Street on March 18, 2010, 09:39:56 AM
Quote from: Gaoth Dobhair Abu on March 17, 2010, 11:13:14 PM
Quote from: Main Street on March 17, 2010, 11:07:42 PM
GDA, should you not be over in the 'Drunk Again' thread ;D
Sad, usual shite from anyone who disagree's, thought more of you.
You will, when you sober up.
One rider though,
if you had no alcohol consumed when you joined the thread, then I can understand your ill humour.
No work early today, I'm not the Donegal county squad contrary to some "experts" on this board!
Quote from: Main Street on March 18, 2010, 10:59:25 AM
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2010, 10:38:13 AM
If Brady wants to stop the "drip-drip", that's how to do it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that's what he meant in his statement.
That assumption for your benefit of doubt is not supported by the history, right up to the time of that homily. The benefit of doubt has to be earned before being given a value.
Imo the drip drip that he talks about is more about his annoyance at the ordeal, how the allegation from these lowly subjects are still coming out of the sewer, affecting the high and mighty leaders like himself, that they cant keep the lid on and move away.
His last words were "pray for me". In context I find that incredibly egotistic.
I think he does need our prayers to help him find the moral fibre to do the right thing for the children who have been abused in the past and may be abused today and in the future.
I certianly hope and pray that he lifts the lid on this sordid mess.
When I heard him speak his homily on the radio and tv, I certainly got the audible and visible impressions of a man who had the opinion that the lid be shut to stop the drip drip effect.
'Retract your statement or I'll rape you again'
Friday March 19 2010
'SARAH' was 17 and having problems at home and school when her parents suggested she might speak to the new young priest who was making waves with the school children in their Armagh diocese.
It was close to Christmas 1997 when Sarah confided in Fr X, who put her at ease by asking her to relax and offering to massage her shoulders as he soothed her teenage angst.
Sarah left the meeting confused by his conduct but returned to speak with him again, this time with near- fatal consequences.
During their second meeting, Fr X masturbated in front of her and asked her to do the same.
The teen fled the parochial house and tried to kill herself, ending up in a psychiatric hospital.
But several months later in the early part of 1998 she plucked up the courage to tell her school principal.
On the day she confided about the abuse, she returned home to emergency accommodation she was now staying in following her admission to hospital.
She thought she had done the right thing and fell asleep only to find Fr X in her room at the emergency shelter -- he had inveigled his way into her bedroom by using the respect afforded to his priestly garb.
Initially he cried and begged her to withdraw her statement to the school principal, but she said that she could not, prompting an angry outburst from Fr X who said: "If this [complaint] is to finish it, then there is one thing I've got to do before I go."
With those words, he raped the troubled teen and leaving her bedroom he warned her: "You can expect a lot more of that [rape] if you don't retract your statement".
Gripped with fear, Sarah withdrew the statement, causing even more problems with her school principal and her parents who thought she had made a malicious allegation.
Speaking to the Irish Independent last night, Sarah said: "He had me convinced that nobody would believe me".
Sarah fled the North and moved to the south-west of Ireland to recover from her ordeal and to escape Fr X's clutches.
In 2002, she travelled back to the North and told her parents and the PSNI about her abuse.
She received huge support from her family and the police and was devastated when the DPP directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the cleric.
The matter did not end there, however, and Sarah began a civil action against Fr X in 2003.
She also sued Cardinal Sean Brady on the basis he was ultimately responsible for Fr X as Archbishop of Armagh, the diocese where the priest worked.
Sarah did not want to settle her case and wanted it to go to a full hearing at the High Court in Belfast, but said she could not compete financially with Fr X whom, she said, was receiving legal aid for his case. She finally settled at the start of 2010.
One of the main stumbling blocks to the settlement, which was concluded without any admission of liability, was a clause insisting on confidentiality.
Sarah's lawyers tried to have the secrecy clause removed and her father even went to see Cardinal Brady personally seeking its removal.
"I never wanted to be gagged and my dad tried to make sure I couldn't," said Sarah.
"I still have nightmares, but I tell it now like it is somebody else's story."
- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Irish Independent
Quote from: passedit on March 19, 2010, 09:54:07 AM
'Retract your statement or I'll rape you again'
Friday March 19 2010
'SARAH' was 17 and having problems at home and school when her parents suggested she might speak to the new young priest who was making waves with the school children in their Armagh diocese.
It was close to Christmas 1997 when Sarah confided in Fr X, who put her at ease by asking her to relax and offering to massage her shoulders as he soothed her teenage angst.
Sarah left the meeting confused by his conduct but returned to speak with him again, this time with near- fatal consequences.
During their second meeting, Fr X masturbated in front of her and asked her to do the same.
The teen fled the parochial house and tried to kill herself, ending up in a psychiatric hospital.
But several months later in the early part of 1998 she plucked up the courage to tell her school principal.
On the day she confided about the abuse, she returned home to emergency accommodation she was now staying in following her admission to hospital.
She thought she had done the right thing and fell asleep only to find Fr X in her room at the emergency shelter -- he had inveigled his way into her bedroom by using the respect afforded to his priestly garb.
Initially he cried and begged her to withdraw her statement to the school principal, but she said that she could not, prompting an angry outburst from Fr X who said: "If this [complaint] is to finish it, then there is one thing I've got to do before I go."
With those words, he raped the troubled teen and leaving her bedroom he warned her: "You can expect a lot more of that [rape] if you don't retract your statement".
Gripped with fear, Sarah withdrew the statement, causing even more problems with her school principal and her parents who thought she had made a malicious allegation.
Speaking to the Irish Independent last night, Sarah said: "He had me convinced that nobody would believe me".
Sarah fled the North and moved to the south-west of Ireland to recover from her ordeal and to escape Fr X's clutches.
In 2002, she travelled back to the North and told her parents and the PSNI about her abuse.
She received huge support from her family and the police and was devastated when the DPP directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the cleric.
The matter did not end there, however, and Sarah began a civil action against Fr X in 2003.
She also sued Cardinal Sean Brady on the basis he was ultimately responsible for Fr X as Archbishop of Armagh, the diocese where the priest worked.
Sarah did not want to settle her case and wanted it to go to a full hearing at the High Court in Belfast, but said she could not compete financially with Fr X whom, she said, was receiving legal aid for his case. She finally settled at the start of 2010.
One of the main stumbling blocks to the settlement, which was concluded without any admission of liability, was a clause insisting on confidentiality.
Sarah's lawyers tried to have the secrecy clause removed and her father even went to see Cardinal Brady personally seeking its removal.
"I never wanted to be gagged and my dad tried to make sure I couldn't," said Sarah.
"I still have nightmares, but I tell it now like it is somebody else's story."
- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor
Irish Independent
Jesus Christ of almighty !!! This is the same story as appeared in yesterday's news bulletins.
Quote from: johnneycool on March 18, 2010, 10:26:59 AMI'm not arguing with that, the point I am trying to make is that the Cathoilic church would knowingly send an offending priest to our parish in an attempt to hide their deeds they've committed in other parishes. It's not solely about the individual priest because there are good and decent ones, its about the organisation I now do not trust to have the best interests of my child as its main aim.
If I thought for one moment the GAA or whatever organisation i chose to send my child to had unwritten procedures for hiding paedophiles and ensuring that they were not prosecuted then I'd hold the same requirements.
You might use the arguement that all this happened 20 odd years ago, but until a sitting Bishop lifts the phone and without prior approval from on high, rings the guards or PSNI to inform them that they've just been informed of an accusation of inappropriate behaviour by one of his clery and could they investigate with the full support of the church then and only then will I cut the organisation some slack no matter what Fr John McManus, a man I know well enough says on TV.
I agree with all of that, the church was a disgrace, although I find the state's behaviour just as reprehensible. It seemed to me that your earlier post was saying that you wouldn't want your child left alone with a priest, but you didn't seem to have a problem with leaving them alone with other people, I was just trying to point out that once again we've allowed ourselves to be led on by media hysteria about clerical sex abuse, when studies show that the percentage of abusers within the clergy is actually lower than in the population at large.
Quote from: Hardy on March 18, 2010, 10:38:13 AMI have no doubt that any and all of them would do that today, because they have rules in place (that they were dragged, kicking and screaming into adopting) and none of them would dare chance a cover-up now.
The real question is when will any or all of them visit their local garda/PSNI stations with the full list of cases, documented and undocumented, for as far back as they exist, that they know of, participated in, facilitated, recorded or even heard rumours of. If Brady wants to stop the "drip-drip", that's how to do it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that's what he meant in his statement.
Of course, given what Murphy revealed, we have no guarantee that the guards would do anything, though we can probably assume that my first sentence above applies to them too. But I, for one, am a little perplexed at how little comment this aspect of the scandal has received and how we seem to have been distracted by the concentration on the church cover-up from pursuing the state for its criminal abdication of its duty to its citizens.
It suits the state better to have it that way, it's disgusting, but not quite as sexy for the media.
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.
Quote from: Ulick on March 19, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.
5/6 years back - jaysus you spread your 215 post very thin over the weeks ;)
I aim for quality not quantity Myles ;)
Quote from: Ulick on March 19, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.
Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?
Just lost my rag with Nolan on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/UlickO (http://twitter.com/UlickO)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 19, 2010, 11:44:45 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 19, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.
Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?
I thought exactly the same on reading the story, now, I didn't hear her on radio and maybe there was more information, but surely the fact that the DPP dropped the case would lead one to question her story?
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 19, 2010, 11:44:45 PM
Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?
The timeline and how she recounted the events changed as the interview progressed. That could be down to any number of reasons but for me it just flags up how uncomfortable I am with trial by media.
Quote from: Bogball XV on March 19, 2010, 11:49:25 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 19, 2010, 11:44:45 PM
Quote from: Ulick on March 19, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.
Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?
I thought exactly the same on reading the story, now, I didn't hear her on radio and maybe there was more information, but surely the fact that the DPP dropped the case would lead one to question her story?
So why did he pay £45,000? Also the cardinal did throw him out even when there was no conviction. This is the same DPP did not want to take a case against the killers of Thomas Devlin or the RUC man who helped the killers of Robert Hamill.
is this the same priest that was named on bbc teletext last night?
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 19, 2010, 11:58:05 PMSo why did he pay £45,000? Also the cardinal did throw him out even when there was no conviction. This is the same DPP did not want to take a case against the killers of Thomas Devlin or the RUC man who helped the killers of Robert Hamill.
Has the priest actually been thrown out, the article said he was suspended while the investigation was carried out? I don't know the facts in this case at all, just what i've seen above so forgive my ignorance.
As for paying the 45K, there are many reasons why that could have been done, in many instances insurance companies advise/insist that is the best way to proceed as the costs of proceeding with court actions would be higher than the payout, there are other reasons too of course, it just seems to me that the girls allegations seem a bit flakey.
Aye he's been stood down but wears the collar despite being told not to.
Is no way an innocent person would pay out £45,000 and he does not even respond to newspapers saying he raped her. So, reputation destroyed and £45,000 paid and he is innocent and says nothing... I don't think so.
Quote from: Ulick on March 19, 2010, 11:25:30 PM
I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.
I fail to find holes in the timeline. I think you are way out of order here.
Be specific, listen to it again and make exact reference to your misgivings.
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/northernireland/nolan/nolan_20100319-0900a.mp3 (http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/northernireland/nolan/nolan_20100319-0900a.mp3)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on March 20, 2010, 12:48:05 AM
Aye he's been stood down but wears the collar despite being told not to.
Is no way an innocent person would pay out £45,000 and he does not even respond to newspapers saying he raped her. So, reputation destroyed and £45,000 paid and he is innocent and says nothing... I don't think so.
I didn't know the priest's name was actually out in public domain, that does throw a very different complexion on the story.
christ! ???
No surprise here.
Cardinal Brady set to remain an Archbishop
Cardinal Seán Brady has indicated that he intends staying on for a considerable time as Archbishop of Armagh.
He made a veiled reference to his intentions when he pledged to implement the recommendations of the Visitation of parts of the Irish Church which Pope Benedict intends holding into various parts of the Church here.
A church spokesman said the inspection process has not yet been established and is not expected to be completed quickly.
AdvertisementPreaching at Easter Sunday mass in St Patrick's Cathedral in Armagh, Cardinal Brady also said he would be proposing to the Holy See that the Diocese of Armagh would be among those which will be visited.
On St Patrick's Day, Dr Brady said he would be reflecting on his position until the third week of next month after it was revealed that he had sworn two teenage victims of Fr Brendan Smyth to secrecy and failed to report the paedophile to the civil authorities.
Cardinal Brady issued another apology to the victims of child sexual abuse by clerics.
The Cardinal promised that proper reparation would be made for the harm that had been caused.
Positive news for Cardinal Brady - fight back is on :
Cardinal Daly brokered secret deal with RUC to arrest Smyth
FRESH details of a secret deal that led to the arrest and imprisonment of notorious paedophile monk Brendan Smyth have emerged.
The deal was brokered in 1994 by Cardinal Cahal Daly, who was exasperated by the actions of an abbot who refused to deal effectively with complaints against serial child sex abuser Smyth.
Cardinal Daly agreed with the North's chief constable, Hugh Annesley, to end the church's previous practice of informing only the Vatican and to encourage bishops to report complaints to the police.
This Annesley-Daly deal triggered a fundamental change in the Irish hierarchy's approach to clerical paedophilia, according to a retired RUC detective who interrogated Smyth.
Money
The Catholic Church then began to put aside substantial amounts of money in anticipation of compensation claims.
This was just months before the current Primate of All Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady, was ordained coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh in February 1995.
Cardinal Brady has been under pressure in recent weeks after admitting he was at meetings in 1975 where two abused children signed vows of silence over complaints against Smyth.
The previously unknown timing of the 1994 deal points to the fact that Fr Smyth was still being discussed at the top level of the church hierarchy at that time.
And as assistant archbishop with right of succession to the primacy, Cardinal Brady would have been appraised by Cardinal Daly of the horrendous list of victims abused by Smyth since 1945.
Retired RUC Detective Superintendent Kevin Sheehy disclosed details of the deal in his memoir and confirmed to the Irish Independent that it would have been struck in autumn 1994.
Mr Sheehy said that it came about because Cardinal Daly was increasingly frustrated by failures of the Norbertine Abbot of Kilnacrott Abbey in Co Cavan to hand Smyth over to the RUC.
Cardinal Daly, who died last December, had contacted Abbot Kevin Smith in February 1990, when the allegations against Smyth first came to his attention. The cardinal did so again in March 1990, February 1991, and August 1992.
Each time, Abbot Smith undertook to deal effectively with the matter.
Cardinal Daly was following canon law in respecting the day-to-day autonomy of a religious order -- which lies outside the control of a diocesan bishop.
But an exasperated Cardinal Daly finally overruled the abbot, ordering Smyth to present himself to the civil authorities in the North.
Mr Sheehy said: "I strongly suspect that the cardinal contacted Rome to explain that, in the delicate context of Ulster, it was necessary for him to cooperate fully with the civil authorities."
Suspect
He added: "Cardinal Daly and his solicitors met with the chief constable of the day, Sir Hugh Annesley, to agree on a process whereby suspect clerical paedophiles would be made available to the police for interview."
Mr Sheehy also claimed the cardinal was advised to set aside a multi-million pound sum for forthcoming claims against offending clerics.
Mr Sheehy's journal shows that the deal was struck in September-October 1994, only a few months before Fr Brady, the former rector of the Irish Pontifical College in Rome, was named as Cardinal Daly's successor by Pope John Paul II.
- John Cooney
Irish Independent
Orangeman I wouldn't see that as good news for Brady or the Church.
In fact if I had been involved with Smyth as Brady was in the 1970s, failed to stop him, and then got handed a list of all his victims after that in 1994, as suggested in the article I would probably have either fled in disgrace or done something to myself.
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2010, 01:17:35 PM
Orangeman I wouldn't see that as good news for Brady or the Church.
In fact if I had been involved with Smyth as Brady was in the 1970s, failed to stop him, and then got handed a list of all his victims after that in 1994, as suggested in the article I would probably have either fled in disgrace or done something to myself.
Aye but you're living in the real world - Cardinal Brady lives in a different planet.
He's trying to take credit for being the man that collared Smyth after letting him rape children up and down the country for nigh on 20 years. How perverse !!
Quote from: orangeman on April 08, 2010, 01:25:14 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 08, 2010, 01:17:35 PM
Orangeman I wouldn't see that as good news for Brady or the Church.
In fact if I had been involved with Smyth as Brady was in the 1970s, failed to stop him, and then got handed a list of all his victims after that in 1994, as suggested in the article I would probably have either fled in disgrace or done something to myself.
Aye but you're living in the real world - Cardinal Brady lives in a different planet.
He's trying to take credit for being the man that collared Smyth after letting him rape children up and down the country for nigh on 20 years. How perverse !!
It is sickening to read about how these people ignored state law in favour of Canon law. Just think of our own outrage when Sky News shows us yet another story of an 'honour killing' of some 15 or 16 year old in Britain. While murder is not quite child abuse they are both very serious crimes.
Cardinal Brady taken to hospital
Cardinal Brady has lead the Catholic Church in one of its most difficult times
The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Sean Brady has been taken to hospital after becoming ill during a church ceremony.
An ambulance was called for the cardinal who was officiating at a confirmation in County Tyrone which began at about 1700 BST on Tuesday.
It is believed the 70-year-old remained conscious throughout.
The Catholic Church said he was taken to hospital for observation and is in a comfortable condition.
Cardinal Sean Brady has been Catholic primate of all-Ireland since 1996.
The past year has been the most difficult of his time in charge as he has faced the fall-out from two major reports into child sex abuse in the Irish church.
It emerged last month that Cardinal Sean Brady was present when children signed vows of silence over allegations against a paedophile priest in 1975.
He has since admitted he was part of a culture which put avoiding scandal above bringing clerical child abusers to justice.
QuoteHe has since admitted he was part of a culture which put avoiding scandal above bringing clerical child abusers to justice.
He has indeed and fair play to him but he needs to go a bit further for me. Admission is one thing; redress is another.
The following extract, from an article by Patsy McGarry (Irish Times - Wednesday, April 7, 2010) haunts me:
A WOMAN who was repeatedly sexually abused as a girl by Fr Brendan Smyth has called on Catholic primate Cardinal Seán Brady to apologise to her and to "walk the walk" over his handling of a church investigation into the paedophile priest.
"Samantha", who was abused by Smyth between 1974 and 1979, asked "how can he expect to head the church knowing that I was abused and raped because he didn't do what he should have done?"
She told The Irish Times : "All I want from him is two sentences, and spoken as a man not as a priest.
"I want him to say, 'Samantha, I'm really sorry that because I didn't go to the guards you went through four more years of torture at the hands of Brendan Smyth. For that I am truly sorry'."
I sincerely wish him a speedy recovery and also the gift of humility. If he can't respond to that poor woman's plea, his notion of what it takes to be a follower of Christ differs greatly from mine. The concepts of 'Informed Conscience' and 'Free Will' heavily influence catholic teaching, don't they? Both my 'Informed Conscience' and my 'Free Will' tells me he is talking a load of b*****x.
Will Cardinal Brady exit due to ill health ?.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 14, 2010, 01:18:17 AM
QuoteHe has since admitted he was part of a culture which put avoiding scandal above bringing clerical child abusers to justice.
He has indeed and fair play to him but he needs to go a bit further for me. Admission is one thing; redress is another.
The following extract, from an article by Patsy McGarry (Irish Times - Wednesday, April 7, 2010) haunts me:
A WOMAN who was repeatedly sexually abused as a girl by Fr Brendan Smyth has called on Catholic primate Cardinal Seán Brady to apologise to her and to "walk the walk" over his handling of a church investigation into the paedophile priest.
"Samantha", who was abused by Smyth between 1974 and 1979, asked "how can he expect to head the church knowing that I was abused and raped because he didn't do what he should have done?"
She told The Irish Times : "All I want from him is two sentences, and spoken as a man not as a priest.
"I want him to say, 'Samantha, I'm really sorry that because I didn't go to the guards you went through four more years of torture at the hands of Brendan Smyth. For that I am truly sorry'."
I sincerely wish him a speedy recovery and also the gift of humility. If he can't respond to that poor woman's plea, his notion of what it takes to be a follower of Christ differs greatly from mine. The concepts of 'Informed Conscience' and 'Free Will' heavily influence catholic teaching, don't they? Both my 'Informed Conscience' and my 'Free Will' tells me he is talking a load of b*****x.
I think these 2 lines sums up the feelings not only on this board, but right across the world.
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
The fact that "society" have to drag these moral gaurdians kicking and screaming to a point where they might say something that resembles a proper apology tells me that that apology would be meaningless. At the high levels they are totally corrupt and self serving
Quote from: Lar Naparka on April 14, 2010, 01:18:17 AM
QuoteHe has since admitted he was part of a culture which put avoiding scandal above bringing clerical child abusers to justice.
He has indeed and fair play to him but he needs to go a bit further for me. Admission is one thing; redress is another.
Actually he has not admitted anything. It is mere smokey spineless waffle.
What culture is he talking about? The general culture of the time that existed in society?
The culture was sex abuse was a crime. The institutional cover up, allowing an abuser to go and abuse elsewhere, was a crime of omission.
Equal, if not greater, than the crimes of the abuser.
Admitting the cover up was a crime is what I would call an admission.
Quote from: theskull1 on April 14, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
The fact that "society" have to drag these moral gaurdians kicking and screaming to a point where they might say something that resembles a proper apology tells me that that apology would be meaningless. At the high levels they are totally corrupt and self serving
That simply highlights what I have been saying for the longest time.
Some people will never be happy.
QuoteSome people will never be happy.
Yeah, some people will never be happy that they have been abused by people in their community that they thought they could trust.
And some folk will never be happy that the 'moral guardians' in their community (and their leaders) don't have the morality to admit they were wrong and submit themselves to the law of the state in which they live.
And some folk will never be happy that our state continues to allow these people to effectively run our education system.
What a country!
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 03:08:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 14, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
The fact that "society" have to drag these moral gaurdians kicking and screaming to a point where they might say something that resembles a proper apology tells me that that apology would be meaningless. At the high levels they are totally corrupt and self serving
That simply highlights what I have been saying for the longest time.
Some people will never be happy.
.. and some people will remain in denial about the horrific damage these abusers and their hierarchy has done to so many people. ...'ain't it great the wind stopped blowing' they coo, while all around is carnage and destruction.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 03:26:59 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 03:08:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 14, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
The fact that "society" have to drag these moral gaurdians kicking and screaming to a point where they might say something that resembles a proper apology tells me that that apology would be meaningless. At the high levels they are totally corrupt and self serving
That simply highlights what I have been saying for the longest time.
Some people will never be happy.
.. and some people will remain in denial about the horrific damage these abusers and their hierarchy has done to so many people. ...'ain't it great the wind stopped blowing' they coo, while all around is carnage and destruction.
I am not in denial at all Fox, infact I have called for the apologies and the recompense that everyone else has.
My point is that there are a lot of people on here who are simply using this as an excuse to grind their axe.
No matter what becomes of this they still will have no time for the Church and will still find something to complain about it.
You can go off on another tangent if you want and falsely cry for the victims but the stances of a lot of people are quite evident.....
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of hurt and anger perpetrated on this nation by the church for decades... and they were supposed to be our moral guardians. It runs very very deep and has caused many broken lives, suicides and alcoholism-drug addiction. If any other organisation had done the same, there would have been calls for it to be disbanded.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of hurt and anger perpetrated on this nation by the church for decades... and they were supposed to be our moral guardians. It runs very very deep and has caused many broken lives, suicides and alcoholism-drug addiction. If any other organisation had done the same, there would have been calls for it to be disbanded.
Thats if you look at it as an organisation or business Fox. Some people don't. I don't think God can be disbanded no matter how hard you try.
I certainly don't underestimate the hurt - I come from a wider family circle deeply affected by the abuse and being involved in Youth Ministry over the years I have had contact with a lot of the priests who have since been exposed. Not an easy thing to come to terms with or reconcile but I won't jump ship.....
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of hurt and anger perpetrated on this nation by the church for decades... and they were supposed to be our moral guardians. It runs very very deep and has caused many broken lives, suicides and alcoholism-drug addiction. If any other organisation had done the same, there would have been calls for it to be disbanded.
Thats if you look at it as an organisation or business Fox. Some people don't. I don't think God can be disbanded no matter how hard you try.
I certainly don't underestimate the hurt - I come from a wider family circle deeply affected by the abuse and being involved in Youth Ministry over the years I have had contact with a lot of the priests who have since been exposed. Not an easy thing to come to terms with or reconcile but I won't jump ship.....
Yet again the assumption that to leave the catholic church means disbanding God, like they have the monopoly on God. I left the church years ago... so you assume I walked away from God. No... I walked away from the church... thank God ;)
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 04:07:15 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of hurt and anger perpetrated on this nation by the church for decades... and they were supposed to be our moral guardians. It runs very very deep and has caused many broken lives, suicides and alcoholism-drug addiction. If any other organisation had done the same, there would have been calls for it to be disbanded.
Thats if you look at it as an organisation or business Fox. Some people don't. I don't think God can be disbanded no matter how hard you try.
I certainly don't underestimate the hurt - I come from a wider family circle deeply affected by the abuse and being involved in Youth Ministry over the years I have had contact with a lot of the priests who have since been exposed. Not an easy thing to come to terms with or reconcile but I won't jump ship.....
Yet again the assumption that to leave the catholic church means disbanding God, like they have the monopoly on God. I left the church years ago... so you assume I walked away from God. No... I walked away from the church... thank God ;)
The difference in us is that I assume God meant what He said and I believe the specific instructions given to us in how to Worship Him and follow Him. You assume He doesn't care.
I can't remember who said this but I once heard:
The Devil has tried 3 times to take the world.
The first time he tried to convince us that God didn't exist - but deep down people knew this wasn't true and it didn't work.
The second time the devil tried to convince us that he didn't exist - but with all the evil in the world people knew that wasn't true either.
The third time the devil convinced us that God doesn't care. Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 03:08:43 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on April 14, 2010, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: give her dixie on April 14, 2010, 10:15:12 PM
The church need to show some humility and not only apologise, but provide the police in each and every country they operate in with names and evidence of abusers.
Only then, can they move on.
The fact that "society" have to drag these moral gaurdians kicking and screaming to a point where they might say something that resembles a proper apology tells me that that apology would be meaningless. At the high levels they are totally corrupt and self serving
That simply highlights what I have been saying for the longest time.
Some people will never be happy.
I shiver to think of what the catholic institution would have to do to you or your young family members before you wouldn't be "happy" to move on with your faith unbroken.
My point still stands regardless of my position with the RC church. Hollow, forced apologies are worthless at this stage.
QuoteMy point is that there are a lot of people on here who are simply using this as an excuse to grind their axe.
An excuse? You're seriously deluded, or are choosing to be.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 04:07:15 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
I think you greatly underestimate the depth of hurt and anger perpetrated on this nation by the church for decades... and they were supposed to be our moral guardians. It runs very very deep and has caused many broken lives, suicides and alcoholism-drug addiction. If any other organisation had done the same, there would have been calls for it to be disbanded.
Thats if you look at it as an organisation or business Fox. Some people don't. I don't think God can be disbanded no matter how hard you try.
I certainly don't underestimate the hurt - I come from a wider family circle deeply affected by the abuse and being involved in Youth Ministry over the years I have had contact with a lot of the priests who have since been exposed. Not an easy thing to come to terms with or reconcile but I won't jump ship.....
Yet again the assumption that to leave the catholic church means disbanding God, like they have the monopoly on God. I left the church years ago... so you assume I walked away from God. No... I walked away from the church... thank God ;)
The difference in us is that I assume God meant what He said and I believe the specific instructions given to us in how to Worship Him and follow Him. You assume He doesn't care.
I can't remember who said this but I once heard:
The Devil has tried 3 times to take the world.
The first time he tried to convince us that God didn't exist - but deep down people knew this wasn't true and it didn't work.
The second time the devil tried to convince us that he didn't exist - but with all the evil in the world people knew that wasn't true either.
The third time the devil convinced us that God doesn't care. Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
You can't remember who said this but take it as truth?... Rowan Atkinson? Alex Ferguson? Shane McGowan?... Jesus wept :'(
QuoteI can't remember who said this but I once heard:
The Devil has tried 3 times to take the world.
The first time he tried to convince us that God didn't exist - but deep down people knew this wasn't true and it didn't work.
The second time the devil tried to convince us that he didn't exist - but with all the evil in the world people knew that wasn't true either.
The third time the devil convinced us that God doesn't care. Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
No Foxie, it was Chris de Burgh.
I thought it was some Country and Western song. Sounds like something Billy Bob and Buttf*cks would sing, inspired by the various zealot churches in the American South/Mid West.
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 04:18:55 PM
You can't remember who said this but take it as truth?... Rowan Atkinson? Alex Ferguson? Shane McGowan?... Jesus wept :'(
Where did I say I accepted it as truth. You're a serious man for putting words in peoples mouths.
I accept it as a fair assumption/analogy.
But go off on another tangent.................
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: longrunsthefox on April 15, 2010, 04:18:55 PM
You can't remember who said this but take it as truth?... Rowan Atkinson? Alex Ferguson? Shane McGowan?... Jesus wept :'(
Where did I say I accepted it as truth. You're a serious man for putting words in peoples mouths.
I accept it as a fair assumption/analogy.
But go off on another tangent.................
You didn't say you accept it as a fair assumption/analogy in that post. Anyway, it's a load of bollocks ::)
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
Do you seriously believe this to be an evil philosophy?
By the way, this is offensive and redolent of the arrogant rebuttals of criticism that we hear regularly from the headquarters of the conspiracy itself:
Quote
You can ... falsely cry for the victims but the stances of a lot of people are quite evident.....
Quote from: Hardy on April 15, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
Do you seriously believe this to be an evil philosophy?
By the way, this is offensive and redolent of the arrogant rebuttals of criticism that we hear regularly from the headquarters of the conspiracy itself:
Quote
You can ... falsely cry for the victims but the stances of a lot of people are quite evident.....
I think it is a fair word to use hardy when the tears for the victims are coupled with accusations about infallibility, the existence of limbo, eating meat on Good Friday and the position of Mary Magdalene.
2 years ago the Vatican's chief exorcist Father Amorth
(http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/images/exorcist.jpg)
announced that the Pope was setting up exorcist squads to wage war on Satan. Every bishop was to have a squad in their diocese. As they say, it sounded like a plan.
The Vatican denied the plan existed and Amorth was thwarted.
Now he claims Satan is merrily at work inside the Vatican
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece)
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 05:47:55 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 15, 2010, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 15, 2010, 04:17:04 PM
Each to their own, live and let live, be a good person and follow God as you see fit - and the devil won.
Do you seriously believe this to be an evil philosophy?
By the way, this is offensive and redolent of the arrogant rebuttals of criticism that we hear regularly from the headquarters of the conspiracy itself:
Quote
You can ... falsely cry for the victims but the stances of a lot of people are quite evident.....
I think it is a fair word to use hardy when the tears for the victims are coupled with accusations about infallibility, the existence of limbo, eating meat on Good Friday and the position of Mary Magdalene.
No where on this thread did any of the above come up so stop talking out of your hole.
Archbishop Brady is not going anywhere :
Brady to stay on as Archbishop
Cardinal Sean Brady revealed he has asked Pope Benedict's representatives to 'consider' a visit to Armagh
Cardinal Brady has said he will stay on as the Archbishop of Armagh.
He had been facing increasing pressure to resign after he participated in an investigation into clerical abuse.
It was revealed in March that the Cardinal was present when children signed vows of silence over allegations against a paedophile priest in 1975.
Dr Brady also revealed he has asked a Vatican inspection of child protection procedures to include a visit to the Armagh diocese.
His comments follow the publication of the Annual Report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland.
It found that nearly 200 new allegations of abuse have been reported to the Catholic Church's child protection watchdog since April 2009.
In a statement, Cardinal Brady said he was committed with all his "human weaknesses to walk this journey of renewal and to discern God's will for the Church at this time".
Dr Brady said the impact on abuse survivors of the "drip-by-drip revelation of past failings has to be addressed".
The Archbishop revealed he had held both public and private meetings with survivors of abuse.
"I also listened to people from the Diocese, in Parishes and in Diocesan groups."
Cardinal Brady said he was committed to building on the substantial progress made in child safeguarding in recent years and to achieve the objectives set out by Pope Benedict XVI in his pastoral letter to Irish Catholics.
He has also asked Pope Benedict for an additional bishop in the diocese.
Cardinal Brady said that he would be appointing a Director of Child Safeguarding for the diocese who would handle all future allegations of child abuse and report to civil authorities in both jurisdictions.
Sharing 'soft information'
"In the future, it will be this statutory authority and not the Church (or any other organisation which works with children in Northern Ireland) that will decide who is permitted to work with children," he said.
" As part of our registration with this new Independent Safeguarding Authority, Bishops in Northern Ireland will give a commitment to sharing 'soft information' held or known about any person working in a Church context, as well as all allegations of abuse, with the new Authority."
The head of Ireland's Catholics apologised in March for his role in mishandling the case of a serial child abuser.
As a priest in 1975 Cardinal Sean Brady was at meetings where children signed vows of silence over complaints against paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth.
The Catholic Church in Ireland released more details about why Cardinal Brady asked two victims, aged 10 and 14, to sign secrecy agreements.
The church said the boys were asked to sign oaths "to avoid potential collusion" in evidence-gathering for an internal church inquiry.
It added this this would ensure that the complaints could "withstand challenge."
The church statement did not explain why either Cardinal Brady or his superiors at the time did not share their information with the police. Fr Smyth went on to abuse more children in the following years.
I doubt anyone cares what Brady says anymore. He is totally discredited and all he is doing now is wrecking his beloved church
Dr Brady said the impact on abuse survivors of the "drip-by-drip revelation of past failings has to be addressed".
The Archbishop revealed he had held both public and private meetings with survivors of abuse.
The head of Ireland's Catholics apologised in March for his role in mishandling the case of a serial child abuser.
The devil, you might say, lies in the detail here.
Sean Brady and his supporters will be judged by their actions in the future and not by the archaic jargon that he and other Church spokespeople use. I think it's a welcome development that he has acknowledged the impact that the "drip-by-drip revelation of past failings has to be addressed" has had on the survivors of clerical child abuse.
He has also had meetings with some of those survivors and that is a step in the right direction also.
But it also has to be kept in mind that he and his colleagues fought a dogged rearguard action all the way in attempting to stop those revelations coming into the open. It will be interesting to watch future developments to find out what "addressed" is going to mean.
He has had meetings with abuse survivors alright but ASAIK, none of those who met with him came out afterwards and said that he or she was satisfied with the outcome of their meeting.
"Samantha" has said that all she wanted was a face to face meeting and to hear him say "Samantha, I am sorry" or words to that effect.
Until this woman, and others who endured abuse due to his inaction, say that his has acknowledged his human failings in his conduct, I'll regard his utterances as window dressing, pure and simple.
I hope his actions in time to come will match his words and that would be a welcome development. Only time will tell...
Talk about not living in the real world :
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8689586.stm
" I was on pilgrimage to Lourdes yesterday and there were 800 people there from this diocese and not one said that they had no confidence in me, they said they wanted me to stay and continue this work "
Why would Brady worry about what people outside of the Church say? Should he not be more concerned with his own people and his own Church than those outside of it who have no love for it?
Why is this even making news headlines?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 19, 2010, 12:57:07 AM
Why would Brady worry about what people outside of the Church say? Should he not be more concerned with his own people and his own Church than those outside of it who have no love for it?
Why is this even making news headlines?
So anyone who criticises is not a member of the Church?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on May 19, 2010, 12:57:07 AM
Why would Brady worry about what people outside of the Church say? Should he not be more concerned with his own people and his own Church than those outside of it who have no love for it?
Why is this even making news headlines?
Were all those people, young and old on the Falls Road yesterday not church goers ?.
Eveyone who came out of 10am mass yesterday in Armagh cathedral yesterday were backing Archbishop Brady. No surprise there.
Everyone is entitled to their view.
Quote from: orangeman on May 18, 2010, 05:36:08 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8689586.stm
"I was on pilgrimage to Lourdes yesterday and there were 800 people there from this diocese and one said that they had no confidence in me, they said they wanted me to stay and continue this work"
The correct quote is "not one said"
Quote from: Main Street on May 19, 2010, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: orangeman on May 18, 2010, 05:36:08 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8689586.stm
"I was on pilgrimage to Lourdes yesterday and there were 800 people there from this diocese and one said that they had no confidence in me, they said they wanted me to stay and continue this work"
The correct quote is "not one said"
True. Sorry bout that.
Maybe Cardinal Brady should have another period of reflection ?.
Majority of Irish adults say cardinal should quit, poll
Cardinal Sean Brady should resign his post, three-quarters of people surveyed claimed Three-quarters of adults in the Irish Republic believe Cardinal Sean Brady should resign because of the sex abuse scandals, a survey suggests.
Ulster and Connacht were most supportive of the Irish Primate with 67% saying he should resign.
The strongest opposition to the cardinal was found in Dublin where 83% felt he should quit the post.
The Irish Times /Ipsos, MRBI survey, taken over two days last week, polled 1,000 voters over 18 on the issue.
Of all those surveyed, 76% said the cardinal should resign, 15% said he should not, while 9% had no opinion.
Most hostile
In the rest of Leinster 75% of respondents said the cardinal should quit while the figure for Munster was 74%.
The survey found that the most hostile voters were in the skilled working-class C2 category, where 84% wanted the cardinal to go
The most supportive were farmers, followed by the best-off AB voters.
Those in the 25 to 34 age group were strongest in the view that the cardinal should go while the over-65s were most supportive.
However, the older age group still favoured resignation by a margin of two to one.
Amongst members of political parties, Fianna Fáil voters were most supportive of the cardinal while Sinn Fein voters were the most hostile.
The poll was taken on Tuesday and Wednesday in face-to-face interviews at 100 sampling points in the Republic's 43 electorial constituencies.
Indeed, it would appear the cardinal was very selective about who he consulted in his flock. Perhaps he honed in on over 60 year olf fine fail voters from Ulster and Connaught!
He was on a trip to lourdes when he canvassed opinion I seem to recall myles (but can't be bothered checking)
As selective an audience as he could get and well he knew it..... the fraud
I can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 01:10:24 PM
He was on a trip to lourdes when he canvassed opinion I seem to recall myles (but can't be bothered checking)
As selective an audience as he could get and well he knew it..... the fraud
I can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 01:10:24 PM
He was on a trip to lourdes when he canvassed opinion I seem to recall myles (but can't be bothered checking)
As selective an audience as he could get and well he knew it..... the fraud
I can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
It's not about Skull or any other poster on this board.
It's the leader of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland we're talking about.
Don't be trying to deviate.
Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 02:16:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 01:10:24 PM
He was on a trip to lourdes when he canvassed opinion I seem to recall myles (but can't be bothered checking)
As selective an audience as he could get and well he knew it..... the fraud
I can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Iceman is highlighting a serious problem in the church.
If Catholic A attends church more often than Catholic B then Catholic B has no right to question the opinion of Catholic A. This is more noticeable higher up the ranks where a priest cant question a bishop, no one in Ireland can question a cardinal and God help anyone who asks a question of Rome.
This to me is why it has taken decades to even discuss serious issues such as child abuse.
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
It's not about Skull or any other poster on this board.
It's the leader of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland we're talking about.
Don't be trying to deviate.
Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 02:16:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 01:10:24 PM
He was on a trip to lourdes when he canvassed opinion I seem to recall myles (but can't be bothered checking)
As selective an audience as he could get and well he knew it..... the fraud
I can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
It's not about Skull or any other poster on this board.
It's the leader of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland we're talking about.
Don't be trying to deviate.
QuoteI can't get over the silence/inaction of those who consider themselves catholic. They want to sit in silience and "hope" that it all goes away rather than show their teeth. Sheep
Orangeman I am not trying to deviate. Skull made a comment and I replied to it.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
Like the rest of you I was indocrinated as an infant into believing the teachings as well as a trust in the the structures of the church. No different than any child in a religious society (i.e one perspective only & no other alternative belief systems allowed a fair hearing)
Obviously my position has evolved from there because I lacked faith (i.e I questioned things) ;)
So I do not consider myself to be a catholic and haven't for manys a year.
So with that in mind .........What should athiests like me do to influence change from within the CC that would be met with great support from the faithful who are sitting with their hands clasped together? Join them in prayer?
I think you know that change has to happen from the inside but faithful congregations have been so oppressed by the powerful church hierarchy for many many many generations (and probably the main reason why these vile acts went on for so long such was their corrupt grip on society), that they now lack the ability to stand up (or think) for themselves and for what is right?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
Like the rest of you I was indocrinated as an infant into believing the teachings as well as a trust in the the structures of the church. No different than any child in a religious society (i.e one perspective only & no other alternative belief systems allowed a fair hearing)
Obviously my position has evolved from there because I lacked faith (i.e I questioned things) ;)
So I do not consider myself to be a catholic and haven't for manys a year.
So with that in mind .........What should athiests like me do to influence change from within the CC that would be met with great support from the faithful who are sitting with their hands clasped together? Join them in prayer?
I think you know that change has to happen from the inside but faithful congregations have been so oppressed by the powerful church hierarchy for many many many generations (and probably the main reason why these vile acts went on for so long such was their corrupt grip on society), that they now lack the ability to stand up (or think) for themselves and for what is right?
Change does have to happen from within and there is a real need for people to step up and voice their opinions on all of this and demand action. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen. I have penned a letter to Cardinal Brady and he has not replied to date. He has however replied to me in the past and I am sure I am one of hundreds of letters to go through.
There is a lot of varying levels of faith in the Church and it is hard not to judge. The majority of people go to Mass because they feel they should, some go because they have to and others go because they really want to. Within all these groups there is varying respect for the hierarchy of the Church, there is varying opinions on the teachings of the Church and varying relationships with God.
Trying to get people to act from these groups is a challenging task because everyone has a differing opinion on how things were, are and should be.
As Irish people and particularly northerners, we all look for the negative first and are great at complaining and complaining about complaining. What we are not great at is doing. When some people do step up and "do" something, we'll complain about that too. It's who we are.
On one of the many abuse threads I asked for people to post up some suggestions of a positive path forward for the Church, I encouraged people to write letters and encouraged people to "do" something. That thread is now in GaaBoard wasteland as there was only one reply from BrokenCrossBar and nobody else had anything to add. This thread was dead until there was something else to complain about.
What does it take for something to get done?
I think that's obvious........
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 03:45:21 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 02:14:29 PM
Do you consider yourself Catholic Skull? If so what have you done other than post on a GAA Board?
Like the rest of you I was indocrinated as an infant into believing the teachings as well as a trust in the the structures of the church. No different than any child in a religious society (i.e one perspective only & no other alternative belief systems allowed a fair hearing)
Obviously my position has evolved from there because I lacked faith (i.e I questioned things) ;)
So I do not consider myself to be a catholic and haven't for manys a year.
So with that in mind .........What should athiests like me do to influence change from within the CC that would be met with great support from the faithful who are sitting with their hands clasped together? Join them in prayer?
I think you know that change has to happen from the inside but faithful congregations have been so oppressed by the powerful church hierarchy for many many many generations (and probably the main reason why these vile acts went on for so long such was their corrupt grip on society), that they now lack the ability to stand up (or think) for themselves and for what is right?
Change does have to happen from within and there is a real need for people to step up and voice their opinions on all of this and demand action. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen. I have penned a letter to Cardinal Brady and he has not replied to date. He has however replied to me in the past and I am sure I am one of hundreds of letters to go through.
There is a lot of varying levels of faith in the Church and it is hard not to judge. The majority of people go to Mass because they feel they should, some go because they have to and others go because they really want to. Within all these groups there is varying respect for the hierarchy of the Church, there is varying opinions on the teachings of the Church and varying relationships with God.
Trying to get people to act from these groups is a challenging task because everyone has a differing opinion on how things were, are and should be.
As Irish people and particularly northerners, we all look for the negative first and are great at complaining and complaining about complaining. What we are not great at is doing. When some people do step up and "do" something, we'll complain about that too. It's who we are.
On one of the many abuse threads I asked for people to post up some suggestions of a positive path forward for the Church, I encouraged people to write letters and encouraged people to "do" something. That thread is now in GaaBoard wasteland as there was only one reply from BrokenCrossBar and nobody else had anything to add. This thread was dead until there was something else to complain about.
What does it take for something to get done?
I think that's obvious........
For what its worth I posted on this thread what I believed the church needed to do before it had any credibility and also what the government should do. I am not going to write to cardinal brady because I don't really care about the catholic church, what I care is the wellfare of the irish state and its citizens.
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Change does have to happen from within and there is a real need for people to step up and voice their opinions on all of this and demand action. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen. I have penned a letter to Cardinal Brady and he has not replied to date. He has however replied to me in the past and I am sure I am one of hundreds of letters to go through.
There is a lot of varying levels of faith in the Church and it is hard not to judge. The majority of people go to Mass because they feel they should, some go because they have to and others go because they really want to. Within all these groups there is varying respect for the hierarchy of the Church, there is varying opinions on the teachings of the Church and varying relationships with God.
Trying to get people to act from these groups is a challenging task because everyone has a differing opinion on how things were, are and should be.
As Irish people and particularly northerners, we all look for the negative first and are great at complaining and complaining about complaining. What we are not great at is doing. When some people do step up and "do" something, we'll complain about that too. It's who we are.
On one of the many abuse threads I asked for people to post up some suggestions of a positive path forward for the Church, I encouraged people to write letters and encouraged people to "do" something. That thread is now in GaaBoard wasteland as there was only one reply from BrokenCrossBar and nobody else had anything to add. This thread was dead until there was something else to complain about.
What does it take for something to get done?
I think that's obvious........
Trying to get them to unite and do something is a challenging task Iceman because the CC has (through proper consideration) afforded it's congregations NO VOICE in regards to the running of the church. There is no forum for them to collectively voice their feelings and the CC to act on it. It's always been a top down hierarchy.
Would you not rather be standing up individually for what is right rather than wait on the flock joining you? Does this issue not require some sort of revolution to bring about the changes to stop the corruption of something you hold so dear?
Your something isn't obvious to me BTW. Perhaps you'll help me out?
Quote from: theskull1 on June 14, 2010, 04:48:57 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on June 14, 2010, 04:00:28 PM
Change does have to happen from within and there is a real need for people to step up and voice their opinions on all of this and demand action. Unfortunately it doesn't always happen. I have penned a letter to Cardinal Brady and he has not replied to date. He has however replied to me in the past and I am sure I am one of hundreds of letters to go through.
There is a lot of varying levels of faith in the Church and it is hard not to judge. The majority of people go to Mass because they feel they should, some go because they have to and others go because they really want to. Within all these groups there is varying respect for the hierarchy of the Church, there is varying opinions on the teachings of the Church and varying relationships with God.
Trying to get people to act from these groups is a challenging task because everyone has a differing opinion on how things were, are and should be.
As Irish people and particularly northerners, we all look for the negative first and are great at complaining and complaining about complaining. What we are not great at is doing. When some people do step up and "do" something, we'll complain about that too. It's who we are.
On one of the many abuse threads I asked for people to post up some suggestions of a positive path forward for the Church, I encouraged people to write letters and encouraged people to "do" something. That thread is now in GaaBoard wasteland as there was only one reply from BrokenCrossBar and nobody else had anything to add. This thread was dead until there was something else to complain about.
What does it take for something to get done?
I think that's obvious........
Trying to get them to unite and do something is a challenging task Iceman because the CC has (through proper consideration) afforded it's congregations NO VOICE in regards to the running of the church. There is no forum for them to collectively voice their feelings and the CC to act on it. It's always been a top down hierarchy.
Would you not rather be standing up individually for what is right rather than wait on the flock joining you? Does this issue not require some sort of revolution to bring about the changes to stop the corruption of something you hold so dear?
Your something isn't obvious to me BTW. Perhaps you'll help me out?
My "something" I thought was very obvious.
As a people all we do is complain and see the negative first. What we need is less complaining and more "doing".
I think there should be no question on whether or not I stand up individually. I do it on most religion threads on this board and I walk it everyday. My last name is not Luther and I'm not ready for a revolution - I am ready for change and I am doing what I can to bring that about. My faith and that of my immediate household remains in tact and grows stronger every day. I have contacted Brady and encourage everyone else to.
Change does have to happen from within the church but I think it needs to happen within all of us too.
I suggested at the outset that Cardinal Brady had lost the confidence of the majority and that he should step aside along with the rest that were implicated in the abuse scandals and let a younger generation of leaders take over the helm and try and make good the damage caused.
Cardinal Brady for some reason doesn't seem to realise this yet. His period of reflection only served to reinforce his need for power.
Could someone please fixed the title of this thread!
To what?
Quote from: orangeman on June 14, 2010, 08:02:30 PM
I suggested at the outset that Cardinal Brady had lost the confidence of the majority and that he should step aside along with the rest that were implicated in the abuse scandals and let a younger generation of leaders take over the helm and try and make good the damage caused.
Cardinal Brady for some reason doesn't seem to realise this yet. His period of reflection only served to reinforce his need for power.
I think this is a fair comment Orangeman but for the sake of discussion lets break it down a bit:
Brady has the lost the confidence of the Majority of whom? The people of Ireland? Yes. The majority of the people he is supposed to minister to? Yes. The majority of the people he actually ministers to? I think, No.
If they all step aside who are these younger group of leaders? To be fair there are a lot of great priests in the country. How many of them are leaders, how many of them are experienced enough for the job, how many of them are fit for the job?
I am definitely not rubbishing your ideas or comments. I would like to hear some more good constructive suggestions and also hear about people willing to step up and take leadership roles and get involved at the parish level. What can and is being done by people?
There are calls for Ireland to respond to everything has went on like the Church in America. The major difference for me, and I believe I can make a decent call on this having been heavily involved with the Church in Armagh at the Arch-diocese level and being heavily involved with my Church here in America at the Diocesan level, is the people. People in America are very pro-church, most parishes in NJ, or at least in my Diocese have a youth group, active ministries and a dedicated team of lay people who serve week in and week out. People are also positive here. They look for the good in people and circumstances first. Instead of disasters and negatives they see challenges and opportunities to do better. As I mentioned before as an Irish man I look for the negative first, look for the worst and don't really want to do anything but complain. I think this is the reason why the Church in Ireland cannot respond to all of this like the Church in the USA managed to. We just don't have the people.
It doesn't mean we can't emerge from this a stronger people and a stronger Church.
Complaining won't get us out of this whole mess. Doing something will.
Doing anything. Just some kind of movement from the people.
Posters on here are rightly passionate about this - but how many of yous have done something about it bar posting on the boards?
Will anyone stand up to be counted and do something, or is the sofa to comfortable, is Eastenders easier than dealing with reality?
Quote from: Arthur_Friend on June 14, 2010, 08:33:43 PM
Could someone please fixed the title of this thread!
;D
Church pays Father Brendan Smyth abuse victim £200k
Page last updated at 21:13 GMT, Monday, 14 June 2010 22:13 UK
E-mail this to a friendPrintable version Father Brendan Smyth leaving court with two police officers The Catholic Church in Ireland has paid damages believed to be well in excess of 250,000 euros (about £207,000) to a female victim of paedophile priest Father Brendan Smyth.
The out-of-court settlement was made without admission of liability on the part of the defendants.
Her case was due to go to a hearing in the High Court in a month's time.
The victim, who now lives in Canada, is believed to have accepted apologies from the defendants.
She sued Cardinal Sean Brady in his personal and official capacities, the diocese of Kilmore and the Norbertine Order to which Smyth belonged.
The woman accused the Cardinal of failing to take any adequate steps to ensure that Smyth did not sexually assault her and other children, despite knowing about complaints by two male victims of Smyth.
She said that 35 years later, her marriage and quality of life have been greatly affected by the trauma of the violent abuse which began when she was 14 and continued until she was 20.
In her sworn affidavit, she accused Cardinal Brady of failing to tell Irish police that the Church had received formal signed complaints against Smyth of sexual assault and paedophilia on two boys.
When he was a priest in 1975, Dr Brady had helped to investigate the allegations and had sworn the boys to secrecy about them.
The woman accused the Cardinal of failing to take any adequate steps to ensure that Smyth did not sexually assault her and other children, despite knowing about the complaints by the two male victims.
Since the controversy about the secret interviews became public last March, Dr Brady has said the did his duty by informing his bishop of Smyth's abuse of the boys.
He also said that he was not the designated authority to report to the Irish police and that Smyth's Norbertine Order was responsible for the paedophile following his removal of his priestly functions in Kilmore and other dioceses.
Still in denial.
Cardinal Seán Brady has said he is aware of this morning's opinion poll finding that three out of four adults in the Republic think he should resign.
But the Catholic Primate of All Ireland also expressed confidence that he had the prayers and support of many people as he continued his work in renewing faith and structures in the Church at what he termed 'this challenging time'.The Cardinal was responding to a query from RTÉ News about his unpopularity revealed in the latest set of results of last week's Ipsos/MRBI survey.
What were the demographics of the poll?
Quote from: ardmhachaabu on June 14, 2010, 10:59:20 PM
What were the demographics of the poll?
Don't know but they were able to break results down by province, age and even political party. Also, even in Ulster/Connaught in the older generations they were 2:1 against him
Woman who speaks for child abused spoke well on news last night... that Brady is so arrogant he believes no-one else can lead the Catholic church in Ireland.
He is so tainted his views on anything no will have no respect. last week he was on about the situation in the Gaza... like wind your neck in Brady and look at your own human rights record.
And on it goes.
Police raid Belgian Catholic hierarchy in child sex probe
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/police-raid-belgian-catholic-hierarchy-in-child-sex-probe_79117.html (http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/police-raid-belgian-catholic-hierarchy-in-child-sex-probe_79117.html)
Quote from: theskull1 on June 24, 2010, 11:23:46 PM
And on it goes.
Police raid Belgian Catholic hierarchy in child sex probe
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/police-raid-belgian-catholic-hierarchy-in-child-sex-probe_79117.html (http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/police-raid-belgian-catholic-hierarchy-in-child-sex-probe_79117.html)
At least the Belgian authorities have the guts to investigate these crimes.
Pity the Gardai / RUC didn't do the same when they ought to have.
Belgian law is different and the judiciary appears to function just fine without the burden of a Government.
Just goes to show that the Vatican guideline to report sex abuse cases to the authorities *if* required by local law, will be ignored if it is not required by local law. Looks like the investigating commission were not going to hang around any longer after being stonewalled for months.
This makes good reading ;D
'30 armed police officers with dogs swooped down on the palace of the archbishop of Brussels-Mechelen, sealing off the building and removing a variety of documents, while another raid took place at the home of Cardinal Godfried Danneels, 77, where police officers seized the personal computer of the former head of Belgium's Catholic Church'.