The irony of it all, remove it as if nothing has ever happened......................
Indeed
Mods ... can this be explained please?
can anyone tell us what happened, did some finally go to far?
That was a bit abrupt. Would locking it have not sufficed? Unless, as guy notes, someone really went too far. Damn, I need closure on this!
Tony's fault. ;)
I won the argument and my detractors were piling on libellous abuse.
Sure ya did Tone... ::)
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 12:56:35 PM
I won the argument and my detractors were piling on libellous abuse.
You didn't even understand what the argument was ;D
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 03, 2015, 01:05:15 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 12:56:35 PM
I won the argument and my detractors were piling on libellous abuse.
You didn't even understand what the argument was ;D
Anti-Catholics...something something....catholic haters....something....free state.....something something....start a new thread....something something....repeat....faceless keyboard warrior.....something....I met someone once......something something....colouring in competition.....something.......anti-Catholics....something...repeat.......
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 12:56:35 PM
I won the argument and my detractors were piling on libellous abuse.
I am beginning to think O'Neill was right.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 12:56:35 PM
I won the argument
Well you were certainly very convincing. Previously we had only suspected you of what we thought was too grotesque to be true.
So, Tony for Dummies. Victims' parents, who trusted the Church and lived in fear of eternal damnation, were largely responsible. The Church, in whom they placed innocent faith, and which covered up and facilitated ongoing child abuse, and which in the view of many continued and continues to do so, bears scant responsibility. And those who point out the malfeasance are simply anti-Catholic. If damning the Church in the eyes of many of this board's readers, then you certainly scored a Bassett own goal victory. Nice going. Hope Armagh has a different kind of victory against Galway.
The comments made on the deleted thread were certainly libellous against Sean Brady made by the usual cowardly faceless keyboard warriors who haven't the guts to reveal their identity.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
The comments made on the deleted thread were certainly libellous against Sean Brady made by the usual cowardly faceless keyboard warriors who haven't the guts to reveal their identity.
List them Tony
Too numerous to list.
List the top 5 then
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
The comments made on the deleted thread were certainly libellous against Sean Brady made by the usual cowardly faceless keyboard warriors who haven't the guts to reveal their identity.
If you're so in to everyone showing their true colours, why don't you send some of your disgusting posts in to the press and see how that goes for you.
Anyway, I was glad to see your last post on the old thread which went basically like "Anyone who knows of child abuse claims and doesn't report it to the police are bordering on facilitating abuse" ... Good boy, you got it at last so there's maybe hope for you yet.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
The comments made on the deleted thread were certainly libellous against Sean Brady made by the usual cowardly faceless keyboard warriors who haven't the guts to reveal their identity.
You are actually a danger to yourself putting your name to what you write. If families of the abused read what you wrote they'd be mortified. Not that you grasp this.
Quote from: imtommygunn on July 03, 2015, 05:20:09 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 03, 2015, 03:59:10 PM
The comments made on the deleted thread were certainly libellous against Sean Brady made by the usual cowardly faceless keyboard warriors who haven't the guts to reveal their identity.
You are actually a danger to yourself putting your name to what you write. If families of the abused read what you wrote they'd be mortified. Not that you grasp this.
If they read what he wrote, they could sue him.
Laughable Fact 1.The Irish people were awestruck by the Catholic Church in the mid 70s (when dissention and armed insurrection against authority was rife and people like Haughey were climbing up the greasy pole not to mention entering adulterous relationships) to the extent that they feared eternal damnation if they defied the Church. ::)
Laughable Post, Tone. So you see no distinction between average God-fearing church-going people and one rapacious adulterous politician and a handful of armed insurrectionists? For the most part, people trusted their Church. They were horribly let down by its higher echelons and those who knowingly enacted it's appalling mandates.
But why trust anyone or anything unconditionally,particularly when your child has been the victim of an ordained so called priest?
Have you got that libel list ready yet Tony?
Quote from: theskull1 on July 03, 2015, 10:19:31 PM
Have you got that libel list ready yet Tony?
He doesn't understand the word 'evidence' or the word 'fact'. His comprehension of the word libelous should be hilarious.
Oh well that was a great laugh while it lasted, I popped in every so often for the craic and pleased to find it continuing.
At least the mods had a bit of wit and deleted it, but it looks like yous are intent to keep it going ;D
For all Tony's madness I kinda admire is ability to turn pretty much everyone against him and come out with similar nutter stuff to him. And then he proceeds in the same vein, going around and round in circles with the jolly band of eejits chasing him around and around and around...
But I mostly admire him for coming out with some crazy crap and seemingly believing it. It cracks me up
Perhaps the parents' failure to act, Tony, was indicative of both the stranglehold the Church had on its members and their own misplaced faith in an organization they revered and believed that institutionally would always do right.
You could well be right.But if it was down to either of the two scenarios it still doesn't excuse their inaction.I don't have blind faith in anything.That has to be earned by deed.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 09:03:51 AM
You could well be right.But if it was down to either of the two scenarios it still doesn't excuse their inaction.I don't have blind faith in anything.That has to be earned by deed.
If you don't have blind faith in anything how is the old Catholicism thing going with you? You have to be on the wind up.
The list Tony? Remember?
Calling someone a child abuse facilitator is at the top of the list.
Haveaharp.I have total faith in catholic theology,and would never abandon this on account of human failings of certain clerics which led to the mishandling of issues
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 09:25:29 AM
Haveaharp.I have total faith in catholic theology,and would never abandon this on account of human failings of certain clerics which led to the mishandling of issues
So blind faith. Just like the parents.
People's religious beliefs are almost always the very same religious beliefs that they've been brought up to believe in.
Odd that.
Haveaharp.The Parents had blind faith in people in the Church,mine is in the theology.Big difference.
Skull,how is that particularly odd.Most children are baptised in the faith and at some point in their lives too many choose to reject it.How is it odd that many people simply retain the faith throughout their lives, from cradle to grave?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 10:42:46 AM
Haveaharp.The Parents had blind faith in people in the Church,mine is in the theology.Big difference.
The theology and the dogma of the day went hand in hand. Believe what comes from the pulpit and question nothing or risk ex communication. You know that as well as anyone else otherwise there would have been literally 100s of these cases coming to light at the time. There wasn't. Why was that?
I don't know.I do not remember blind faith in the church or pulpit in the 70s.You had bozos coming in late and loitering round the door of the chapel during mass,and people still stole,had sex outside marriage etc.I know a man then who worked as a church sexton and he badmouthed every priest in the parish.Famously a teacher of ours in St Pat's Armagh, (right next door to the cathedral and Cardinal's residence) was asked as a joke by one of my classmates to buy a ticket for a school development draw and the teacher replied"Away over to Cardinal Conway and get him to rattle his pockets!"
The supposition that there was Blind adherence to the Catholic Church in the 1970s is a simply and utterly a myth.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 11:06:22 AM
I don't know.I do not remember blind faith in the church or pulpit in the 70s.You had bozos coming in late and loitering round the door of the chapel during mass,and people still stole,had sex outside marriage etc.I know a man then who worked as a church sexton and he badmouthed every priest in the parish.Famously a teacher of ours in St Pat's Armagh, (right next door to the cathedral and Cardinal's residence) was asked as a joke by one of my classmates to buy a ticket for a school development draw and the teacher replied"Away over to Cardinal Conway and get him to rattle his pockets!"
The supposition that there was Blind adherence to the Catholic Church in the 1970s is a simply and utterly a myth.
Primary school levels of logic there Tony. You would almost think using your brain that because there wasn't 'blind adherence' in every quarter that there was none at all. The zeitgeist of the time had an unwholesome deference expected from the clergy (even if it wasn't shown from all quarters) and this was used to seek out the vulnerable to exploit and then silence.
Repeating so that Tony can read it again....hopefully he'll understand what I'm saying this time
People's religious beliefs are almost always the very same religious beliefs that they've been brought up to believe in.
Odd that.
I'll repeat this for you again.You are brought up with a lot of beliefs,values etc (including religion).As you progress through life you will inevitably reject some of these,pick up new ones, and retain a lot from the cradle to the grave.In doing so this does not infer blind child like unquestioning adherence from childhood through to old age.It means that you have thought about what you believe in,in adulthood and have concluded that it's worth continuing to believe in,not due to some farcical indoctrination in childhood.
During my adulthood I have concluded that life without religious faith is utterly meaningless.
People's religious beliefs are almost always the very same religious beliefs that they've been brought up to believe in.
Meaning ... 99.9999% of believers believe the religious message that they've been taught to believe in. You would believe Vishnu is your protector if your parents were Hindu ... odd that
This is really for a different thread
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 12:11:36 PM
During my adulthood I have concluded that life is utterly meaningless.
Good man Tone. We're sailing in the same ship now. Join my stoic society. I'll DM you details.
Quote from: ONeill on July 04, 2015, 12:49:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 12:11:36 PM
During my adulthood I have concluded that life is utterly meaningless.
Good man Tone. We're sailing in the same ship now. Join my stoic society. I'll DM you details.
Or why bother?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 04, 2015, 09:23:32 AM
Calling someone a child abuse facilitator is at the top of the list.
You were the one who said that. ;D ;D ;D
You said anyone who didn't report the rape of a child to the police was borderline facilitating child abuse.
Most of us agreed with your opinion on that one.
So Fearons' list to date is:
1. Tony Fearon.....
For the record, I never used the term child abuse facilitator. I called it what it was. Child rape facilitation.
And the difference in essence,is?
I for one, would love to know what a judge would call the silencing of clerical abuse victims, via a bizzarre oath.
Whitewashing history to suit yourself, Tony. Skull put it succinctly when he talked about the zeitgeist of the time and an unwholesome deference to the clergy. Just because one sardonic
teacher at the college (oops, professor as they were known) made a snide remark does not mean that the vast majority did not hold the clergy with a blend of respect and fear, whatever about complaining behind their backs. Was St. Pat's such an ivory tower that you were oblivious to that fact.
Even Tony Fearon accepts that Sean Brady had an opportunity to bring to an end the horrific activities of an agressive child rapists. The fact that Brady did not take that opportunity is hugely regrettable and in the eyes of most, plainly inexplicable.
But we need to go further than this. Brady had not only an opportunity but a duty. As Brady's involvement was in RoI rather than NI, Brady's duty was not a legal duty but a moral one. He failed in that moral duty in the most complete and absolute sense (and the consequences of his failre where dire). Failure in discharging a moral duty calls into the question the morality of the individual. Brady was an active member of a church that claims to be moral, to provide moral guidance & leadership and seeks to involve itself in the education of our children because of its moral role. The morality of the church members is therefore important. But this individual was not only a church member but a church professional and one that ultimately sought and obtained the leadership of that church in Ireland. As a result his moral failure and its dire consequences are important.
And we need to go further again. Brady did not only fail to take the actions that very basic morality would demand but he went further. He didn't just do nothing he took deliberate and calculated actions to silence witnesses. This frustrated the ability of others to take the actions that Brady himself, abjectly failed to take.
The man's actions were shameful.
I'm an atheist. I am no friend of the catholic church. Calling my words "anti-catholic" is the sort of nonsense that will fool nobody. Drawing attention to the roles of others (the parents, the gardai, the victims themselves) does absolutely nothing to change the actions of Brady and the consequences of those actions
He has (as I have) acknowledged his failures and those of the Church,and should be given credit for doing so.When will others do likewise.When will parents apologise to their now grown up children for not probing what was wrong for driving them to and letting them attend meetings with clergy alone? Don't give me any bullshit about fear of the Church etc,if you are brainwashed by anything or anyone its largely your own fault.
As for not wanting to report the rapist of one's offspring to the police for fear of getting him into trouble I cannot and will never get my head around such perverse logic.Simply there is no excuse for this whatsoever.
The problem, Tony, is that you have not adequately apportioned blame. You seem to be unfairly heaping it on the victims' parents and diminishing the Church's culpability. The parents TRUSTED the people who betrayed them and others like them and, like yourself in so many other threads, believed that following the Church's rules and guidance would secure them eternal salvation. The Church, arbiters of and paragons of morality, lied and covered up atrocities. Stop blaming the parents, for crying out loud.
Can the Mods please delete this thread again? Please? It is annoying at this stage! We clearly have a person who has great respect for Brady and holds him in high regard. But for the love of god he was part of a kangaroo court that made young people swear an oath that they would not tell of being RAPED!
Church and parents equally to blame.In saying that since the Garda were aware of Smyth since 1973,if either the Church or parents told them would it have made any difference?
Quote from: From the Bunker on July 05, 2015, 02:13:46 AM
Can the Mods please delete this thread again? Please? It is annoying at this stage! We clearly have a person who has great respect for Brady and holds him in high regard. But for the love of god he was part of a kangaroo court that made young people swear an oath that they would not tell of being RAPED!
+1
Aye lock it, delete it and make everyone swear an oath that there will be no more similar threads and that we shall keep hush about past threads.
Lock it or delete it,but past experience shows another one will spring up.We must deal with anti Catholicism (which is really what this is all about) at source.
You still don't understand do you ???
There is zero logic in closing this thread (by locking or deleting it). Nobody is being forced to read or contribute it. If anybody crosses the line then the mods can delete their particular post.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:14:36 AM
He has (as I have) acknowledged his failures and those of the Church,and should be given credit for doing so.
This is pitiful stuff.
Point me in the direction of where Brady explained what he did and why he did it?
Point me in the direction of where Brady explained his silence until his past caught up with him?
When I see the detail of your responses on these 2 points then I will consider the value of his apology for his intial actions. I cannot consider his apology for his subsequent actions as he has yet to get around to apologising for these. He must be a very busy man.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:14:36 AM
When will others do likewise.When will parents apologise to their now grown up children for not probing what was wrong for driving them to and letting them attend meetings with clergy alone?
Who do you want to apologise? To address your point re the parents: The parents were acting in a private capacity. Do you apologise publicly for that what you do privately??
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:14:36 AM
Don't give me any bullshit about fear of the Church etc,if you are brainwashed by anything or anyone its largely your own fault.
Tony, I will stand shoulder to shoulder with you in a call for a full review of the role of teh church on the island of ireland. Full and independent and with teeth.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:14:36 AM
As for not wanting to report the rapist of one's offspring to the police for fear of getting him into trouble I cannot and will never get my head around such perverse logic.Simply there is no excuse for this whatsoever.
Lets have that review. Lets someone independent look at the influences that the parents were acting under. Its only fair
Tony.
Do you accept that Brady's actions were immoral? (a wee hint: the actions of others are an irrelevance here so no hiding there please)
If Brady had done what he did in Northern Ireland he would either now be in prison or he would be awaiting a criminal trial to commence upon conclusion of the current historical abuse inquiry. Regrettably the law in RoI is not the same but if it were I take it you are not making any argument that Brady should be above the law? Just interested (a wee hint: Brady's admissions to date would be enough to convict him in NI so no hiding behind the old misquoted lie of "innocent until proven guilty")
What is immoral about conducting an investigation and giving an accurate account of those investigations?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 07:09:36 AM
Church and parents equally to blame.In saying that since the Garda were aware of Smyth since 1973,if either the Church or parents told them would it have made any difference?
Based upon what has been released to date the Gardai were aware that Brady was a paedophile. There is not a lot they could do with that information then or now. Paedophilia is not a crime
Brady was aware of specific abuse. He had direct interaction with victims and critically with victims who could corroborate each other's evidence. He was in a real position to do something. What he did was catastrophic in that it was worse than doing nothing. He frustrated the actions of others that could have save no many others. The fact that his actions were deliberate and calculated is chilling
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:34:47 AM
What is immoral about conducting an investigation and giving an accurate account of those investigations?
They used to say that there was no such thing as a stupid question.
One is an alcoholic,because one is addicted to actual intake of alcohol.
One is a paedophile because one has engaged in paedophilia.How did the Garda become aware that Smyth was a paedophile? Did they investigate his activities after hearing he was a paedophile?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:42:15 AM
One is a paedophile because one has engaged in paedophilia.
That is not actually true.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:42:15 AM
How did the Garda become aware that Smyth was a paedophile? Did they investigate his activities after hearing he was a paedophile?
Lets find out. Let there there be real learning in this. Let there be consequences for wrong doers.
Note that Brady had all he needed to take action. He failed. Failed in themost absolute sense
Interesting that you excuse the Garda,but not Sean Brady.Proof positive that you like all other posters are driven by innate anti Catholicism.
Bollocks.How is one a paedophile if he or she has not engaged in actual paedophilia,which is a crime and should have been fully investigated by the Garda.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:46:11 AM
Interesting that you excuse the Garda,but not Sean Brady.Proof positive that you like all other posters are driven by innate anti Catholicism.
Where did I ecuse the garda?
Also you see the difference between what Brady has admitted to and the investigations that have already taken place and separately the lack of insight of what actually happened within the Gardai. Read my posts on the garda and do do so selectively this time
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:47:56 AM.
Bollocks.How is one a paedophile if he or she has not engaged in actual paedophilia,which is a crime and should have been fully investigated by the Garda.
Tony if someone has a sexual interest in children they are a paedophile.
If a man has a sexual interest is adult woman they are hetrosexual. If a man has a sexual interest in adult males they are homosexual. All of this remains true whether or not they act on their sexual impulses
Paedophilia is not a crime. Its just a lie on your part to claim that it is
Tony, I'm a very fair man and I know that I asked you some questions earlier. It would be unfair of me to expect an instance response and truthfully I am more interested in your considered response. But it is a waste of my time sitting here waiting on a repsonse so can we agree when you will come back to me with considered answers to:
"Point me in the direction of where Brady explained what he did and why he did it?
Point me in the direction of where Brady explained his silence until his past caught up with him?
When I see the detail of your responses on these 2 points then I will consider the value of his apology for his intial actions. I cannot consider his apology for his subsequent actions as he has yet to get around to apologising for these. He must be a very busy man."?
Thanking you kindly in anticipation
Paedophilia is not a crime? Then why is Sean Brady being lambasted? Why did Brendan Smyth serve time in jail?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:00:28 PM
Paedophilia is not a crime? Then why is Sean Brady being lambasted? Why did Brendan Smyth serve time in jail?
For raping children and for covering up the rape of children you numpty
Quote from: Itchy on July 05, 2015, 12:02:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:00:28 PM
Paedophilia is not a crime? Then why is Sean Brady being lambasted? Why did Brendan Smyth serve time in jail?
For raping children and for covering up the rape of children you numpty
Tony is once again ignorant of the subject matter he attempts to debate
Ffs,if the Garda became aware of Brendan Smyth as a paedophile it can only have been as a result of a report of paedophile activity.Or did someone ring them up and say Fr Brendan Smyth has paedophile thoughts? LCohen you are making Muppet look like an intellectual!
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:34:47 AM
What is immoral about conducting an investigation and giving an accurate account of those investigations?
Sorry Tony, I just couldn't resist butting in one more time. ;D
Brady did
not give an accurate account of what happened at the
interrogation investigation.
He claimed he took no part in the proceedings, he was only a mere notary.
However, as you known damn well, it later transpired that he arranged the meeting, on the orders of his bishop.
Furthermore, he drew up the infamous oath and controlled and directed proceedings from start to finish.
He was following archaic Church procedures laid down not devised by him.Shock,an incident from an individual's life nearly forty years ago,which has probably caused him untold heartache when the full implications became known (and this was long before his role became public knowledge) tries to downplay his role, most likely out of concern for the Church and not for selfish reasons.Entirely natural human reaction.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:31:20 PM
Ffs,if the Garda became aware of Brendan Smyth as a paedophile it can only have been as a result of a report of paedophile activity.Or did someone ring them up and say Fr Brendan Smyth has paedophile thoughts? LCohen you are making Muppet look like an intellectual!
You have already been told the facts regarding the Gardai being made aware of Smyth and you ignore them as usual. You need to ignore them as the facts don't suit your argument. Smyth asked his doctor to write a letter to the Gardai, which he did. To date that is all we know and it hardly compares with what Brady and the Church knew, and covered up.
Why did Smyth do this? Surely given his "vocation" (I know,don't laugh) and his interaction with loads of children this deserved some sort of proactive response.
Brady knew nothing more or less than the allegations he heard during a relatively short interview.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 02:55:41 PM
Why did Smyth do this? Surely given his "vocation" (I know,don't laugh) and his interaction with loads of children this deserved some sort of proactive response.
Brady knew nothing more or less than the allegations he heard during a relatively short interview.
There were two interviews. How long were they Tony?
You seem to think Brady could hear the claims of the boys and think nothing of them. It was his job to investigate them, which he did, and he believed the boys were abused. He has admitted this. Thus Brady believed he had a multiple child abuser on his hands.
You said that anyone who knew of the rape of a child and didn't report it to the cops was 'borderline facilitating child abuse'. You said that, and when you add in the oaths of secrecy, I agree with you completely.
Regardless of whether he believed them or not,they were not proven at that stage.
So the Garda received a letter from Brendan Smyth's Doctor to the effect "Dear Garda.My patient Fr Brendan Smyth is a paedophile and a Merry Christmas to you all?"
If this is the case why are victims now suing the Garda,and why does Mr Boland hold the Garda equally to blame with the Catholic Church?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 08:25:53 PM
Regardless of whether he believed them or not,they were not proven at that stage.
So the Garda received a letter from Brendan Smyth's Doctor to the effect "Dear Garda.My patient Fr Brendan Smyth is a paedophile and a Merry Christmas to you all?"
If this is the case why are victims now suing the Garda,and why does Mr Boland hold the Garda equally to blame with the Catholic Church?
Proven is irrelevant. That can only happen in a court. Brady investigated, found credible evidence, he believed that evidence and he buried it behind an oath of silence. His role in this matter was hidden for 35 years while he rose to become Primate of All-Ireland. This has not been explained. Far from stopping Smyth's abuse, it is difficult to see how he could have helped Smyth more.
You said that anyone who knew of the rape of a child and didn't report it to the cops was 'borderline facilitating child abuse'. Brady knew.
And you finally seem to have got the gist of the letter to the Gardai. It was at Smyth's direction the letter was sent and it doesn't appear to have admitted any crime.
But he did report his findings to his Church superiors.The oath of silence was an archaic Church procedure.You said Brady stayed silent for 35 years.Why did the victims he interviewed do likewise?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 08:48:35 PM
But he did report his findings to his Church superiors.The oath of silence was an archaic Church procedure.You said Brady stayed silent for 35 years.Why did the victims he interviewed do likewise?
BECAUSE THEY WERE FORCED TO TAKE AN OATH OF SILENCE WHICH COULD ONLY BE REVOKED BY A POPE! THEY BELIEVED THEY WOULD GO TO HELL IF THEY SAID ANYTHING!
Brady reporting to his superiors is meaningless nonsense. It doesn't change anything regarding his personal failure. e didn't report the abuse to the parents of the other 4 children. What kind of man knows there is a very good chance children are being sexually abused, and doesn't tell their parents?
You said this: anyone who knew of the rape of a child and didn't report it to the cops was 'borderline facilitating child abuse'.
Brady knew and didn't report it to the cops or even tell the parents. But he silenced the children so that they wouldn't tell anyone.
When did the victims stop believing they would go to hell,and break the oath without the express permission of the Pope? Why did they wait until middle age to do so? Do you accept that the Garda were informed about Smyth in 1973 and had they acted appropriately Sean Brady would never have been drawn into this catastrophe? If Smyth's Doctor told the Garda that he was a paedophile and they did nothing, what difference would it have made in Brady or any Senior member of the Church had told them?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 09:37:57 PM
When did the victims stop believing they would go to hell,and break the oath without the express permission of the Pope? Why did they wait until middle age to do so? Do you accept that the Garda were informed about Smyth in 1973 and had they acted appropriately Sean Brady would never have been drawn into this catastrophe? If Smyth's Doctor told the Garda that he was a paedophile and they did nothing, what difference would it have made in Brady or any Senior member of the Church had told them?
Why don't you ask those people your ridiculous questions?
There is nothing you can or say do to remove Sean Brady from his share of the blame for not stopping Smyth. He could have and should have had him dealt with. But he failed miserably.
Telling the Gardai Smyth is a pedophile is not the same thing as saying Smyth raped these children. The former is information, and we don't know what happened after they received that information. The latter is reporting crimes. The Gardai must act on a report of a crime.
Here is what the Doctor wrote:
"I have been asked to write to you by Fr Brendan Smyth of Holy Trinity Abbey, Kilnacrott," the doctor said. "He has been a patient under my care for some months and I am familiar with the nature of his problems. I am writing to his superior suggesting that he should have a period of inpatient care in St Patrick's Hospital or in St Edmonds Bury."
The doctor said he hoped "this arrangement will be satisfactory to you and your superiors".
So you can't answer why the victims waited a full 35 years,until they were middle aged,to break the oath?
I am not denying Sean Brady at least acted irresponsibly and neither is he.He has in fact apologised for it.
My contention is,and always has been,that he was but a minor cog in the sorry saga of Brendan Smyth whose unholy reign should have been stopped long before Sean Brady became involuntarily involved in the mid 70s.
Let's consider the feelings of the victims and Mr Boland who now holds both the Garda and the Catholic Church equally to blame,unless of course you would presume to know better than the actual victims.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 10:14:48 PM
So you can't answer why the victims waited a full 35 years,until they were middle aged,to break the oath?
I am not denying Sean Brady at least acted irresponsibly and neither is he.He has in fact apologised for it.
My contention is,and always has been,that he was but a minor cog in the sorry saga of Brendan Smyth whose unholy reign should have been stopped long before Sean Brady became involuntarily involved in the mid 70s.
Let's consider the feelings of the victims and Mr Boland who now holds both the Garda and the Catholic Church equally to blame,unless of course you would presume to know better than the actual victims.
You are asking me to answers questions on behalf of the victims (see top) and then claiming I presume to know better than the actual victims. All I have done in all of these posts if presented you with the facts as we know them. You ignore facts, make other facts up and make the daftest conclusions. You wrote about 'a relatively short interview' but you didn't know there were two interviews, and you have no idea how long they were.
As for your first question, maybe the complete collapse of the credibility of the Church in the last 2 decades was the reason. Or maybe it was hearing about Smyth's arrest by the Gardai no less, on the TV or radio, and his subsequent trial and conviction that convinced them to ignore the despicable oath administered by Brady. But you would really have to ask them.
Do you respect Mr Boland's position in holding both Garda and Church equally to blame?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 10:27:58 PM
Do you respect Mr Boland's position in holding both Garda and Church equally to blame?
You and Sean Brady had no respect for Boland who called for Brady's resignation in 2010 and said Brady's apology was 'weak and feeble'.
No one, including Boland, knows yet exactly what the Gardai knew back then. It may be that they were every bit as pathetic as Sean Brady was, but we don't have the facts yet.
However we do know that the Gardai eventually did stop Brady. The Church failed utterly.
The Gardai stopped Brady eventually? You've lost the plot completely and are now embarrassing yourself.
Respect the views of Mr Boland.If the Garda had done their jobs in 1973 Brady wouldn't have been involved in this wretched saga.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 10:54:02 PM
The Gardai stopped Brady eventually? You've lost the plot completely and are now embarrassing yourself.
Respect the views of Mr Boland.If the Garda had done their jobs in 1973 Brady wouldn't have been involved in this wretched saga.
Embarrassing myself. :D :D :D :D :D
We don't have the facts of what the Gardai knew in 1973 yet and neither does Boland. All they have is a note and and a letter. I posted the letter, which you ignored, because as usual the facts don't support your argument.
If Brady had done the right thing in 1975 Smyth would have been stopped. That is a fact and you ignore it, in favour of something we don't have the facts on from 1973. Again the facts as we know them, don't support your argument.
The fact is that the Gardai stopped Smyth. It may be proven that they should have done this 20 years earlier, but we have to wait and see. The other fact is that the church failed to stop Smyth at all. In fact the church appears to have known Smyth was a pedophile as early as the late 1940s, and did nothing about it, but again you ignore that fact as it doesn't support your argument.
I have for the umpteenth time acknowledged the failings of the Church and its misguided priority of protecting Church reputation ahead of Smyth's victims.This was totally and utterly wrong.
You say Brady could have stopped Smyth in 1975.Maybe he thought he had,by reporting his findings to his Superiors,but if he had gone to the Guards would it have made any difference as they had already been aware of Smyth for two years.
The fact that Mr Boland now holds the Garda equally responsible alongside the Church suggests that he knows a lot more about their dereliction of duty than you or I.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 11:40:48 PM
I have for the umpteenth time acknowledged the failings of the Church and its misguided priority of protecting Church reputation ahead of Smyth's victims.This was totally and utterly wrong.
You say Brady could have stopped Smyth in 1975.Maybe he thought he had,by reporting his findings to his Superiors,but if he had gone to the Guards would it have made any difference as they had already been aware of Smyth for two years.
The fact that Mr Boland now holds the Garda equally responsible alongside the Church suggests that he knows a lot more about their dereliction of duty than you or I.
If he did, it would have been in his book.
You defend Brady over and over again. You are willing to offend and insult victims and their families in trying to defend Brady. You are actually adding to the abuse of the victims.
Look up Father Bruno Mulvihill. He told his Norbertine superiors that Smyth was abusing altar boys in 1964.
https://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/tag/father-bruno-mulvihill/ (https://patrickjwall.wordpress.com/tag/father-bruno-mulvihill/)
Like many priest perpetrators, Fr. Brendan Smyth O.Prae. was intentionally shuffled across dioceses, countries and continents. But Father Bruno Mulvihill O.Prae. remained on his tail. He spent his career reporting Smyth's crimes to his own priors in Ireland, abbots in California, bishops in Ireland, the Papal Nuncio to Ireland and finally to Rome. In no other case has a priest dedicated himself to protecting children from a single serial predator.
While his actions did not get results, his efforts may not have been in vain.
Because of Mulvihill and decades of litigation in Ireland and the United States, we now know that Rome and the Congregation for Religious knew Smyth was a child molester as early as 1964. Cardinal Sean Brady J.C.D. (Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland) conducted a canonical investigation and is keeping evidence under the "pontifical secret" while the public and Smyth's victims await his production of the documents.Brady spent 13 year fighting against victims of Smyth's abuse in the courts.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_21_Cusack_AbuseVictims.htm (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_21_Cusack_AbuseVictims.htm)
The case is now one of the longest-running compensation claims in the history of the law courts, and lawyers who are representing the woman have complained of delays, sometimes running into years, and "incomplete" discovery of documents from Cardinal Brady's side.
An affidavit lodged in the High Court by solicitor Brian Coady, of Navan, Co Meath, on June 13, 2008, accuses the cardinal and two other named members of the hierarchy of failing to disclose documents despite two orders by the High Court and missing deadlines set by the High Court in May and November 2002.
Mr Coady sought non-party disclosure of documents relating to Brendan Smyth from the garda commissioner in 2006 from the investigations carried out by the gardai after Smyth was extradited and imprisoned in Northern Ireland. Smyth was also prosecuted in the Republic and died in prison in 1997.
It was as a result of this disclosure by the then-Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy that Cardinal Brady's involvement in the interviews with the two boys and vows of secrecy sworn by them at the behest of clergy in 1975 emerged. The documents released by the Garda Commissioner also contained statements by the clerical whistleblower, Fr Bruno Mulvihill, who made repeated attempts from 1968 onwards to have Brendan Smyth exposed and prosecuted.Sean Brady's 'investigation' failed to find any of the above information. In fact his investigation appears to have only achieved the following:
* he confirmed the abuse claims of Boland by interviewing a 2nd boy
* he witnessed the boys signing the oaths of secrecy
* he sent a report to the Bishop
* this appears to have the effect of a cover-up, whether intentional or not
Here is what he failed to do:
* He didn't speak to the other 3 children named by Boland
* He didn't inform the parents of any of the children
* He failed on his promise to the Bolands that the abuse would stop
* He failed to discover any of the previous abuse by Smyth
* He failed to tell the Gardai, the RUC or Interpol (given that Smyth was moved to the USA and abused children over there)
* He, according to the above mentioned affidavit, failed to properly disclose document regarding Smyth to victims, despite being ordered to by the courts
* He never mentioned his connection to Smyth at any stage publicly as he rose to the top position in the church in Ireland
* He failed to have anything done to Smyth who continued to abuse for years.
If new information turns up a Gárda, or Gárdaí, that match even part of Brady's list above, then they should be roundly condemned and probably investigated depending on that info.
And he has admitted his failings.Your post once again proves that Smyth should have been stopped long before Brady was involuntarily involved in the mid 70s.
The oaths were part of an archaic Church procedure,which Brady as a junior Priest was obliged to follow.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 06, 2015, 07:23:35 AM
And he has admitted his failings.Your post once again proves that Smyth should have been stopped long before Brady was involuntarily involved in the mid 70s.
The oaths were part of an archaic Church procedure,which Brady as a junior Priest was obliged to follow.
I'm confused. In one post you admitted about the size of the errors he made. Are you now retracting that?
Brady, like most criminals, only finally admitted his "failings" when there was no denying them. That is, he only admitted his involvement (and snivelled for forgiveness) AFTER the guards disclosed his role as interrogator in chief of the kids and cover-upper of their revelations. Until that point his strenuous cover up and refusal to release documents included hiding his own involvement. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that was the main aspect of the affair he was trying desperately to cover up in his single-minded pursuit of his ecclesiastical ambitions. Not to mention his ambition to stay out of jail.
Quote from: Hardy on July 06, 2015, 09:44:17 AM
Brady, like most criminals, only finally admitted his "failings" when there was no denying them. That is, he only admitted his involvement (and snivelled for forgiveness) AFTER the guards disclosed his role as interrogator in chief of the kids and cover-upper of their revelations. Until that point his strenuous cover up and refusal to release documents included hiding his own involvement. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that was the main aspect of the affair he was trying desperately to cover up in his single-minded pursuit of his ecclesiastical ambitions. Not to mention his ambition to stay out of jail.
Very well put.
And of course he hasn't fully explained this or properly apologised for it.
Maybe he could go on Oprah and explain it all.
This of course is the elephant which the boul Tony continually chooses to ignore.
If Brady has committed a crime why has he not been arrested? He was a young priest following procedures and reported his findings accurately to his superiors,no case to answer.
Of course he tried to keep his involvement concealed,that is perfectly human nature.
Not one original point made.Still trying to blame Brady entirely for Smyth,who should have been arrested two years previously when the Guards became aware of him,and as prominent victim Brendan Boland says,Garda and Church equally to blame.
Undoubtedly if Sean Brady hadn't become Cardinal he would be a mere footnote in Brendan Smyth's saga
Quote from: Hardy on July 06, 2015, 09:44:17 AM
Brady, like most criminals, only finally admitted his "failings" when there was no denying them. That is, he only admitted his involvement (and snivelled for forgiveness) AFTER the guards disclosed his role as interrogator in chief of the kids and cover-upper of their revelations. Until that point his strenuous cover up and refusal to release documents included hiding his own involvement. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that was the main aspect of the affair he was trying desperately to cover up in his single-minded pursuit of his ecclesiastical ambitions. Not to mention his ambition to stay out of jail.
Which crime do you believe was committed? Brady's actions in this respect fell well short, but no crime was committed and jail was not therefore an issue.
Armaghmaniac,in the mindset of anti Catholics Sean Brady is the equivalent of Ian Brady.So sad to be full of hatred.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:57:11 PM
He was following archaic Church procedures laid down not devised by him.Shock,an incident from an individual's life nearly forty years ago,which has probably caused him untold heartache when the full implications became known (and this was long before his role became public knowledge) tries to downplay his role, most likely out of concern for the Church and not for selfish reasons.Entirely natural human reaction.
I'm afraid the old "I was only following orders" doesn't wash ... You have numerous examples but Nuremberg should suffice.. Or do you think that only Hitler should have been held responsible for the holocaust and everyone else let off?
Also, not only did he not do his moral duty at the time, but he succeeded for quite a few years in preventing the disclosure of documents relating to these issues.
I believe that Brady did what he did to protect and enhance his own career at the expense of these children and many others in Smyths future... You say above that he did it out of concern for the church .. Its amazing that you actually admit that and don't see or admit that there's anything wrong with it... Do you not see that no matter what reason he had for doing it, what he did was still wrong... You are basically agreeing that he did wrong but sure he did it for the church so its ok ... Its not ok...
I think you gave away more in the above post than you thought you did ..
You don't seem to address any issues put to you, rather you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over ... I would like to hear your response to these points:-
1/ Do you believe that people who commit legally or morally wrong things should be free of any liability if they were "following orders"?
2/ Do you believe Brady believed the boys in the interview, as he said he did?
3/ Do you believe (as you said in a previous post) that anyone who knows about child abuse claims and doesn't report it is bordering on facilitating child abuse?
4/ Why did Brady wait until it had already came out until he showed any remorse ?
5/ Why did brady stifle, for years, the disclosure of documents relating to these interviews etc..
6/ Did Brady do what he did for the benefit of the church or himself?
7/ Do you think being 35 or 36 means that you have no sense and shouldn't be responsible for your own behaviour?
8/Do you believe that if you did something wrong 40 years ago that you should not be held responsible for it?
9/ Was the church and its clergy generally held in a position of authority & respect in Ireland 40 years ago?
10/ When you constantly blame the victims, their parents & Garda of wrong doing, why do you apportion no blame on Brady?
11/ If you were in his shoes, what would you have done?
Maybe you could try and respond directly to these points and address them separately instead of your usual blanket anti-catholic, blah blah blah responses?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:57:11 PM
He was following archaic Church procedures laid down not devised by him.Shock,an incident from an individual's life nearly forty years ago,which has probably caused him untold heartache when the full implications became known (and this was long before his role became public knowledge) tries to downplay his role, most likely out of concern for the Church and not for selfish reasons.Entirely natural human reaction.
I'm afraid the old "I was only following orders" doesn't wash ... You have numerous examples but Nuremberg should suffice.. Or do you think that only Hitler should have been held responsible for the holocaust and everyone else let off?
Also, not only did he not do his moral duty at the time, but he succeeded for quite a few years in preventing the disclosure of documents relating to these issues.
I believe that Brady did what he did to protect and enhance his own career at the expense of these children and many others in Smyths future... You say above that he did it out of concern for the church .. Its amazing that you actually admit that and don't see or admit that there's anything wrong with it... Do you not see that no matter what reason he had for doing it, what he did was still wrong... You are basically agreeing that he did wrong but sure he did it for the church so its ok ... Its not ok...
I think you gave away more in the above post than you thought you did ..
You don't seem to address any issues put to you, rather you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over ... I would like to hear your response to these points:-
1/ Do you believe that people who commit legally or morally wrong things should be free of any liability if they were "following orders"? Depends.The Garda knew about Smyth already.
2/ Do you believe Brady believed the boys in the interview, as he said he did? Yes,but that doesn't prove the allegations.
3/ Do you believe (as you said in a previous post) that anyone who knows about child abuse claims and doesn't report it is bordering on facilitating child abuse? Yes,but Brady did report his findings.Like the parents he didn't go to the Police,equally at fault.
4/ Why did Brady wait until it had already came out until he showed any remorse ? Human nature,also we do not know privately how he felt in the preceding years,did he lose sleep,tortured by his conscience,none of us know.
5/ Why did brady stifle, for years, the disclosure of documents relating to these interviews etc..as above.
6/ Did Brady do what he did for the benefit of the church or himself? The Church undoubtedly.
7/ Do you think being 35 or 36 means that you have no sense and shouldn't be responsible for your own behaviour? You do not have the experience you have when you're 75.
8/Do you believe that if you did something wrong 40 years ago that you should not be held responsible for it? No
9/ Was the church and its clergy generally held in a position of authority & respect in Ireland 40 years ago? Not nearly as much as the myth perpetuates.
10/ When you constantly blame the victims, their parents & Garda of wrong doing, why do you apportion no blame on Brady? I have always said Brady was at fault,he says so himself.
11/ If you were in his shoes, what would you have done? Honestly don't know.Would I say this isn't right,but should I turn my back on my vocation or try to reform the system
Maybe you could try and respond directly to these points and address them separately instead of your usual blanket anti-catholic, blah blah blah responses?
Quote from: armaghniac on July 06, 2015, 06:08:37 PM
Quote from: Hardy on July 06, 2015, 09:44:17 AM
Brady, like most criminals, only finally admitted his "failings" when there was no denying them. That is, he only admitted his involvement (and snivelled for forgiveness) AFTER the guards disclosed his role as interrogator in chief of the kids and cover-upper of their revelations. Until that point his strenuous cover up and refusal to release documents included hiding his own involvement. In fact, it's reasonable to assume that was the main aspect of the affair he was trying desperately to cover up in his single-minded pursuit of his ecclesiastical ambitions. Not to mention his ambition to stay out of jail.
Which crime do you believe was committed? Brady's actions in this respect fell well short, but no crime was committed and jail was not therefore an issue.
Not to be sophist, I never stated a crime was committed. Nevertheless, if Brady had committed his "failings" as Fearon so quaintly terms them, in the last decade or so, the "failings" would have been definitively criminal, as per the most recent legislation. However, aiding and abetting a crime was always a crime in itself. I think any reasonable assessment of Brady's facilitation of Smyth's rampage of child rape through concealment, cover-up and coercion of the victims would construe it as aiding and abetting multiple crimes.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 06, 2015, 05:57:50 PM
If Brady has committed a crime why has he not been arrested? He was a young priest following procedures and reported his findings accurately to his superiors,no case to answer.
That's what Rudolf Hess, Hermann Goering and their ilk said. International law has something to say about that defence.
QuoteOf course he tried to keep his involvement concealed,that is perfectly human nature.
That's what all criminals, from the above mentioned right down to Graham Dwyer do. It's human nature.
Quote
Undoubtedly if Sean Brady hadn't become Cardinal he would be a mere footnote in Brendan Smyth's saga.
Undoubtedly Sean Brady wouldn't have become a cardinal if his prime mover role in the concealment of Smyth's crimes had become public knowledge. The vatican politburo wouldn't have been that blatant.
Conversely, his diligent service to the criminal conspiracy probably did no harm to his red hat prospects by endorsing his credentials as a willing conspirator who could be relied upon to keep embarrassing inconveniences like the rape of children under wraps.
Do all prominent people not try to keep skeletons in the cupboard,like Clinton,Haughey,Major etc did?
Sean Brady had no way of knowing the full implications of his failings in 1975.Also the two points I make is that he did report his findings to his superiors in an era when police north and south of the border in Ireland,in conjunction with the British govt moved a priest strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing to a parish in Donegal,and were aware of the activities of Brendan Smyth in 1973.
I've responded in bold below..
Quote from: AhNowRef on July 06, 2015, 08:21:45 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 05, 2015, 12:57:11 PM
He was following archaic Church procedures laid down not devised by him.Shock,an incident from an individual's life nearly forty years ago,which has probably caused him untold heartache when the full implications became known (and this was long before his role became public knowledge) tries to downplay his role, most likely out of concern for the Church and not for selfish reasons.Entirely natural human reaction.
I'm afraid the old "I was only following orders" doesn't wash ... You have numerous examples but Nuremberg should suffice.. Or do you think that only Hitler should have been held responsible for the holocaust and everyone else let off?
Also, not only did he not do his moral duty at the time, but he succeeded for quite a few years in preventing the disclosure of documents relating to these issues.
I believe that Brady did what he did to protect and enhance his own career at the expense of these children and many others in Smyths future... You say above that he did it out of concern for the church .. Its amazing that you actually admit that and don't see or admit that there's anything wrong with it... Do you not see that no matter what reason he had for doing it, what he did was still wrong... You are basically agreeing that he did wrong but sure he did it for the church so its ok ... Its not ok...
I think you gave away more in the above post than you thought you did ..
You don't seem to address any issues put to you, rather you keep spouting the same nonsense over and over ... I would like to hear your response to these points:-
1/ Do you believe that people who commit legally or morally wrong things should be free of any liability if they were "following orders"?
Depends.The Garda knew about Smyth already.
What does that statement even mean ?????
Im not talking about the Garda .. why bring them up , they are irrelevant in discussing Brady's own moral duties..
I can only gather from your intentionally vague response that you think people should get off scott free if they were "following orders" .. I take this to include covering up child abuse .. it must naturally also include Germans at the Nuremberg trials etc.....
This is a very enlightening yet damning view you have, which outlines a very strange set of values.. A first in my book anyway..
2/ Do you believe Brady believed the boys in the interview, as he said he did?
Yes,but that doesn't prove the allegations.
It doesn't need to for it to be reported ... in your skewed train of thought, no one would ever report any crime as in your view it has to be proved first ... and obviously it cant be proved until it goes to court .. but then how do crimes get to court ... Vicious circle of the insane kind..
Tell me you understand how stupid that is?
3/ Do you believe (as you said in a previous post) that anyone who knows about child abuse claims and doesn't report it is bordering on facilitating child abuse?
Yes,but Brady did report his findings.Like the parents he didn't go to the Police,equally at fault.
I wont be blaming the parents for their misguided devotion to the church and their belief that the church would do the right thing .. They were in a position to do that and most people believed they would ... The person in authority who handled the claims and then swore the kids to secrecy under pain of eternal damnation and then did nothing is the main culprit here .. Brady didnt report it to the police or even ensure that Smyth was correctly dealt with ... There are other broken links in the chain but he is the main culprit when you consider all his inaction to do the right things and his actions in doing the wrong things .. i.e. cover up, kids oath, dont tell parents, dont report to police, dont follow up on Smyth in any way and then to finally use all his efforts to prevent disclosure of relevant documents etc..
He was mostly at fault and he knew it !!
4/ Why did Brady wait until it had already came out until he showed any remorse ?
Human nature,also we do not know privately how he felt in the preceding years,did he lose sleep,tortured by his conscience,none of us know.
Human nature?? ... I'd like to hear that as a defense in a court of law..
He was doing what he did all along .. protecting his own skin ,, simple as.
One thing for sure is that he didn't have a hundredth of the sleepless nights and tortured days that the multitude of victims he let down had
5/ Why did brady stifle, for years, the disclosure of documents relating to these interviews etc..
as above.
As above too .. protecting his own skin and getting to wear the red hat .... He would have been an extraordinarily better man if he had foregone the career and done his moral duty .. Its strange when a man of religion foregoes his morals for his career .. People were always led to believe they were better than that .. Not in Brady's case..
6/ Did Brady do what he did for the benefit of the church or himself?
The Church undoubtedly.
If he had been thinking of the church and not himself he would have done the right thing as that would have been a damn site better for the church than to leave a monster to run amok ... He was thinking of himself and he continued being a "yes man" and finally got his reward ... I wonder was it worth it?
7/ Do you think being 35 or 36 means that you have no sense and shouldn't be responsible for your own behaviour?
You do not have the experience you have when you're 75.
I asked this because you repeatedly quote his age at the time as if he too was a child ... 36 is quite old enough to make rational informed decisions so you should maybe stop using that as an excuse for his moral dereliction of duty..
8/Do you believe that if you did something wrong 40 years ago that you should not be held responsible for it?
No
Why do you continuously say this should be forgotten about by now then?
9/ Was the church and its clergy generally held in a position of authority & respect in Ireland 40 years ago?
Not nearly as much as the myth perpetuates.
Even in my memory it was .. Most catholic households I know were still saying the Rosary every evening in the 70's .. the priest was a huge figure of respect and most of them were very good people but we all know now they werent all like that ... You try to play down the huge role the clergy had in years gone past as it suits your agenda and you can say it all you like but anyone with any modicum of sense know how it really was..
People clung to the clergy at that time, as was the case with the interviewee's and their families..
10/ When you constantly blame the victims, their parents & Garda of wrong doing, why do you apportion no blame on Brady?
I have always said Brady was at fault,he says so himself.
I dont believe you have ... you say this but then go on to say he did everything he could at the time, which is simply not true.
He hasnt either.. he didnt even have the decency to retire when it all came out .. even after it came out that he was stifling the document disclosures..
He seems to have regret for himself, but that seems to be all ...as is the case with you .. You seem to feel sorry for him, but show no sympathy for the innocent children and their families .. you even blame them and make disgusting comments like "Well it looks like it never did them any harm" etc...
You're sycophantic obsession is clearly clouding your mind and it cant be good to think the way you do .. Its surely not natural.
11/ If you were in his shoes, what would you have done?
Honestly don't know.Would I say this isn't right,but should I turn my back on my vocation or try to reform the system
So you dont know what you'd do :-/ ... Thats a hideous point of view .. to even consider not doing the right thing is so disgusting its unbelievable, especially when you consider the ramifications of doing the wrong thing just as Brady has done .. and the legacy that has left .. Yet you still dont know what you'd do ..... Thats F**cked up !!.
With views like that I hope you're never in a position where you have to make a decision like that .. God forbid.
You should contact Anjem Choudary .. you two religious fundamental nutjobs should get on like a house on fire !![/b]
Quote from: T Fearon on July 06, 2015, 09:41:50 PM
Do all prominent people not try to keep skeletons in the cupboard,like Clinton,Haughey,Major etc did?
Sean Brady had no way of knowing the full implications of his failings in 1975.Also the two points I make is that he did report his findings to his superiors in an era when police north and south of the border in Ireland,in conjunction with the British govt moved a priest strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing to a parish in Donegal,and were aware of the activities of Brendan Smyth in 1973.
So covering up child abuse is ok then because other prominent people cover other stuff up ... You are one of 3 things - A WUM, Not of sound mind or a dangerous sick creature.... Either way, Im pretty sure you're not in a good place..
that's a forensic take down Ahnowref - well done.
ANR I wasn't excusing Brady's behaviour just commenting that the human being who draws attention to his or her past errors has not yet been born
Would someone direct tony to the nearest burns unit. Ahnowref legendary demolition job there.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 05:48:37 PM
ANR I wasn't excusing Brady's behaviour just commenting that the human being who draws attention to his or her past errors has not yet been born
Oh there are many, many people who do this all the time.
Snooker players and golfers call shots against themselves that even the cameras don't see the foul. But then most snooker players and golfers value their integrity. Rugby players and other sports have honesty sessions post match.
Many industries have No Fault and/or Just Culture philosophies for employees who put their hands up and admit errors.
You might call this confession.
Even Lance Armstrong managed it.
Usually when there is incontrovertible evidence.To err is human and all that
All atrocities in history have been committed by humans Tony - so all evil acts are inherently part of human nature. But we don't give these people a pass - we create laws and norms to live by - and when someone violates these laws and norms we punish them. We don't just shake our head and say "Pesky human nature."
There is a world of difference between evil acts and interviewing two young boys and reporting accurately what you hear to your superiors in the presumption that they will act appropriately
If that was all he did, then I could accept that statement. that is not all he did - he administered an oath of silence to the interviewees, and then engaged in a decades long cover up. Not only did he abdicate all personal responsibility (in itself a repudiation of the Christian ethos of free will) he actively prevented the truth coming out.
not even the presentation of a GAA jersey will change the fact that he facilitated evil, atrocious, terrible acts to be perpetrated on innocent victims from a position of great responsibility.
Pesky human nature, eh?
He followed Church procedures.Numerous people,with far greater influence and power that the young Sean Brady had in 1975,had ample opportunities to stop Brendan Smyth,they all failed these children,and all must bear responsibility and that includes the parents who didn't,for example,report the person who raped their children,which still defies belief.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 05:48:37 PM
ANR I wasn't excusing Brady's behaviour just commenting that the human being who draws attention to his or her past errors has not yet been born
Oh yes that human has been born, many times.
In sports we have often seen, for example, golfers and snooker players call fouls against themselves that no one else saw. Many sports teams have 'honesty' session as part of the post match analysis.
Many industries have No Fault and/or Just Culture reporting philosophies for employees who put their hands up and admit an error.
And eh, the Catholic Church preaches its own version of Confession.
Even Lance Armstrong tried it.
Is this Groundhog Day? I could quote numerous examples where tax payer funded Police forces act appropriately when hearing reports of paedophilia
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 08:15:55 PM
He followed Church procedures.Numerous people,with far greater influence and power that the young Sean Brady had in 1975,had ample opportunities to stop Brendan Smyth,they all failed these children,and all must bear responsibility and that includes the parents who didn't,for example,report the person who raped their children,which still defies belief.
He wasn't young, he already wielded power and influence at the time (as evidenced by his selection as investigator) and the Nuremburg defence is not accepted in any court of law, let alone the court of public opinion. Everyone has a choice - and as a mature man, in his mid 30s, and already a rising star in the Church hierarchy, he was better placed than many to make a difference. He chose not to.
Ironic, isn't it, given that he ministers a faith based on a man who chose the cross rather than deny his divinity?
Blah, blah, allegations aren't evidence....blah, blah, guards knew as well.....blah, blah, my mother wouldn;t have let me anywhere near them....blah, blah, looks like it didn't do them any harm....
Just wanted to save you the trouble of defending his magnificent pastoral record once again.
What is it about he reported accurately his findings to his superiors that you do not understand.Whats more he believed the allegations and didn't try to confuse or intimidate the children by casting doubts upon them.
Except he told them to take an oath of silence. What about that do you not understand?
And then, even though he believed them (if what you state is correct) he didn't once follow up with his superiors and didn't go to the police. And obstructed enquiries into Smyth by refusing to release records.
So he believed Brendan Smyth was a serial rapist, did he? Why didn't he do something about him, when he knew that Smyth was at liberty to do the same atrocious things to other children? Ever hear of free will tony? It's the cornerstone of your religion.
Only following orders...I hate to breach Godwin's law but it is the same kind of excuses you hear from old concentration camp guards when they are exposed.
Suffer the little children - or shut them up, let me get on with my career, when I know, in my heart, that an absolute beast is preying on hundreds - hundreds - of others.
That's a real hero you're defending there tony.
What he did was wrong,but it was Church procedure in an age when protecting the reputation of the Church was paramount.Just as the parents failure to report to the police was wrong.But this shouldn't be allowed to detract from an outstanding ministry.
The Police knew about Smith since 1973, would they have acted if Brady had reported to them?
The responsibility ultimately lies at the Head of any Organisation's Desk,and this was not Sean Brady in 1975.
Yawn.
Have a nap,best way of recovering from losing an argument
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 10:16:26 PM
Have a nap,best way of recovering from losing an argument
You should know that better than anyone in fairness.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 10:16:26 PM
Have a nap,best way of recovering from losing an argument
Lol. In what world are you winning any argument.
How you are viewed by other people after any thread about brady and the depths you sank to could not be seen as a win by any sane person.
All I could think of was Willie Frazer when I seen Tonys latest riposte ..... sorry Willie
Grammar.When I "saw" latest "riposte".Nap time for you too.You'll feel better in the morning,not only will you forget you lost the argument,you won't even remember what it was about! Lol
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 11:08:02 PM
you won't even remember what it was about! Lol
I wonder did Sean use that one on the kids?
Tony, if you're going to get fussy about form, how about including a space after every period and comma, as a courtesy to your reader, and while you're at it, how about a period after "morning" instead of a comma?
Don't have time for that.But nothing creates a poor impression as much as bad spelling.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 07, 2015, 09:32:20 PM
What he did was wrong,but it was Church procedure in an age when protecting the reputation of the Church was paramount.Just as the parents failure to report to the police was wrong.But this shouldn't be allowed to detract from an outstanding ministry.
The Police knew about Smith since 1973, would they have acted if Brady had reported to them?
The responsibility ultimately lies at the Head of any Organisation's Desk,and this was not Sean Brady in 1975.
If he had reported a crime to the Gárdaí, they were obliged to act on it. Imagine if that had happened, we would all be pointing the finger at the Gárdaí and you could hail the great pastor here without a single objection.
Instead all we know, so far, is that the Gárdaí had a letter from Smyth's doctor which didn't report a crime.
And BTW the Head of the Organisation that fought clerical abuse victims in the courts for 13 years, certainly was Sean Brady.
You don't know the half of it.Why does Mr Boland now hold the Garda to blame equally alongside Catholic Church?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 06:36:39 AM
Don't have time for that.But nothing creates a poor impression as much as bad spelling.
We all have different standards i suppose, bad spelling doesn't bother me too much. Facilitating and covering up rapists bothers me just a little bit more.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 07:30:09 AM
You don't know the half of it.Why does Mr Boland now hold the Garda to blame equally alongside Catholic Church?
Why don't you ask him?
You won't ask him why he considered Brady's apology 'weak and feeble'. You won't ask him why he demanded Sean Brady's resignation in 2010. And now you won't ask him why he considers Gárdaí equally to blame, but you ask me. ;D
Here is a fact Tony. It was a member of the Catholic Church that sexually abused him, not a member of An Gárda Síochana. It is difficult to see how they are both equal, but if you ask him, instead of abusing him and other survivors, he might tell you.
So you have no regards for victim's views?
Tony, you don't have time for what's right? Well, at least that's an honest concession on your part.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
So you have no regards for victim's views?
The victims has a book full of views, which I have read, that you ignore completely and which I agree with completely.
YOU have no regard for the victims views, you have posted a derogatory comment regarding how they appear nowadays. You seem to think they don't look traumatised enough.
However you like the sound of one single comment, made to the media, and we don't know either the facts, or the context in which the comment was made. But you now start lecturing others on regards for the views of victims!
You have some cheek, considering you are also the man who condemned the the survivors of the Magdalene Laundries on this website as well.
Stop spoofing!
I support the up to date views of the victims informed by up to date events and disclosures
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 06:37:40 PM
I support the up to date views of the victims informed by up to date events and disclosures
You support a convient sound bite.
Today.
Tomorrow, who knows what you will support.
I want to see the facts of what the Gárdaí knew.
Who knows maybe they can plea the Nuremberg Defence as well, saying they followed archaic procedures and reported accurately to their superiors.
In this way they can justify fighting against victims, for example by refusing request for disclosure, for at least another 13 years, while ignoring any professional, moral or ethical responsibilities that the world might perceive that they had. You of course would support this, unless you are an outrageous hypocrite. But the victims you are now claiming to agree with certainly wouldn't, nor would I.
Unlike you who has blamed Sean Brady and the Catholic Church exclusively for the devious reign of Brendan Smyth,I have always acknowledged the faults and failings of the Church (which have let not only victims down buts its own good clerics like Sean Brady),but have consistently maintained that Smyth's reign owed a lot to multiple failure by agencies other than the Church, eg the Garda,and the parents.As time goes on,my position,unlike yours,is being fully vindicated
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 08:19:38 PM
Unlike you who has blamed Sean Brady and the Catholic Church exclusively for the devious reign of Brendan Smyth,I have always acknowledged the faults and failings of the Church (which have let not only victims down buts its own good clerics like Sean Brady),but have consistently maintained that Smyth's reign owed a lot to multiple failure by agencies other than the Church, eg the Garda,and the parents.As time goes on,my position,unlike yours,is being fully vindicated
Unlike you I stick to the facts, not fantasy.
In conclusion, this is what we know:
The Catholic Church knew Smyth had a problem as early as the late 1040s;
The Catholic Church housed and fed the criminal until his incarceration;
The Catholic Church simply moved him on and put him in a new parish whenever they had to face Smyth's problem;
The congregation of the Catholic Church was where he found and groomed his victims;
The Catholic Church made victims swear oaths of silence;
The Catholic Church fought victims who attempted to assert their legals rights, to documents for example, in the courts for years;
The Catholic Church didn't tell either the parents of the victims or the Gárdaí;
We know for certain one parent of the thousands of victims of child abuse knew and didn't tell the Gárdaí;
We know the Gárdaí received a strange letter from Smyth's Doctor in 1973.
Because of the latter two events, you try to water down the Church's responsibility for the Church's abuse of children.
My opinion is that the Church couldn't possibly have been more wrong with regard to the scandal, and this continues todayi. No new information regarding Gárdaí or the State, mitigates in any way what the Catholic Church did. Brady and his peers should be on their knees offering every single shred of documentation and every possible assistance they possibly can for the horrors of clerical abuse.
If the Gárdaí are found to have been incompetent in any way then those involved should also be dealt with appropriately. But any failure there doesn't change the hideous failure of the Church. You don't seem to understand this.
Finally, blaming the parents is beneath contempt, even for you.
The Church made mistakes desperately trying to save its reputation.It was wrong but many people in the Church tried in vain to stop him therefore it is wrong to blame the Church as an entity.It is wrong to pillory Sean Brady largely and only because he became Cardinal.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how not reporting the rapist of your child to the Gardai is in any way shape or form good parenting.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 09:09:54 PM
The Church made mistakes desperately trying to save its reputation.It was wrong but many people in the Church tried in vain to stop him therefore it is wrong to blame the Church as an entity.It is wrong to pillory Sean Brady largely and only because he became Cardinal.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how not reporting the rapist of your child to the Gardai is in any way shape or form good parenting.
WHA!!!!
It is wrong to blame the Church as an entity?
If there was only one Brendan Smyth it might be arguable, but I would still disagree. But this an argument we don't need to have.
Here is a list of 424 Priests convicted of child abuse on a US database: http://www.ranker.com/list/christian-priests-convicted-for-sexual-abuse/robert-wabash?format=BLOG&action=tab&type=filter (http://www.ranker.com/list/christian-priests-convicted-for-sexual-abuse/robert-wabash?format=BLOG&action=tab&type=filter)
That is just priests in the USA!
The Church ignored those within the Church who shouted stop. Look up Father Bruno Mulvihil who tried to stop Brendan Smyth. He ended up leaving the Church.
This was a serious systematic failure. We certainly can blame the entity involved.
As for Brady, he is being criticised not only for his abject failure in 1975, but his actions ever since.
Here is few paragraphs from Boland's book:
(regarding the settlement)
...There was no admission of liability nor an apology on the terms I wanted. I had asked for Cardinal Brady to publicly acknowledge and accept the failings of the Church in its handling of the circumstances which gave rise to the case and to apologise for them. That didn't happen.
.....Cardinal Brady was happy to meet in private and apologise; that was the method he considered appropriate. Me, I considered any private meeting to be inappropriate. That was far too much water under this particular bridge for a chat over a cup of tea and biscuits to be appropriate.....Then a day or so later, I got a call form my sister Eilish. The Irish Independent had published an apology about their coverage of the story.
This is what the paper wrote:
'In reference to a story in yesterday's Irish Independent, we have been asked to clarify that Cardinal Seán Brady, then Fr. Seán Brady, did not make Brendan Boland take an oath in 1975. Whilst he witnessed the statement of Brendan Boland, Fr Brady's role was as note-taker in this Church enquiry team charged with bringing a case against Fr Brendan Smyth.'
Well that took the biscuit! This was wordplay gone mad. I knew that Cardinal Brady had sworn me to secrecy because his name was down in black and white beside my own. He had administered it, just as he had done with Cavan Boy.......It would appear that Brady's demand for an apology from the Indo was the final straw for Boland. He phoned the BBC and agreed to do a documentary on Smyth. The BBC examined the documents that Boland had fought for years to get and it was their investigator who noticed, written in Sean Brady's hand, the line
'I was dispatched to investigate the complaint. I listened to what Brendan had to say and I believed every word of it.'. Notice it didn't say 'I was merely a note-taker'.
The book goes on to say that the BBC team and Boland tracked down Cavan Boy and the other children named by Boland, to Brady. Their parents were never told.
From the book...
'Belfast Boy was abused for another year. His sister, who I recall telling the inquiry about, was abused for another 7 years. Their first four cousins were abused in turn, right up until 1988. All it would have taken to spare these children abuse was to warn the parents. A phone call. House visit.'Brady new these children were at the very least at risk. He had their names and in his own words, 'believed every word of it'. But he failed those children. Miserably.
Two sides to every story.One sided version of events should be treated with scepticism.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 10:49:29 PM
Two sides to every story.One sided version of events should be treated with scepticism.
Bbbbbbbbut you said:
QuoteQuote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 02:09:37 PM
So you have no regards for victim's views?
And Seán Brady said:
"'I was dispatched to investigate the complaint. I listened to what Brendan had to say and I believed every word of it.'"
You are the only one who doesn't believe it, which sums up your argument in a nutshell.
That is the measure of the man,admitting his error.The fact remains Brady heard,believed and told his superiors,who had the power to act.Unlike the Gardai and some parents who heard,believed and refused to act.
Quote from: muppet on July 08, 2015, 09:57:08 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on July 08, 2015, 09:09:54 PM
The Church made mistakes desperately trying to save its reputation.It was wrong but many people in the Church tried in vain to stop him therefore it is wrong to blame the Church as an entity.It is wrong to pillory Sean Brady largely and only because he became Cardinal.
I'm sorry but I fail to see how not reporting the rapist of your child to the Gardai is in any way shape or form good parenting.
WHA!!!!
It is wrong to blame the Church as an entity?
If there was only one Brendan Smyth it might be arguable, but I would still disagree. But this an argument we don't need to have.
Here is a list of 424 Priests convicted of child abuse on a US database: http://www.ranker.com/list/christian-priests-convicted-for-sexual-abuse/robert-wabash?format=BLOG&action=tab&type=filter (http://www.ranker.com/list/christian-priests-convicted-for-sexual-abuse/robert-wabash?format=BLOG&action=tab&type=filter)
That is just priests in the USA!
The Church ignored those within the Church who shouted stop. Look up Father Bruno Mulvihil who tried to stop Brendan Smyth. He ended up leaving the Church.
This was a serious systematic failure. We certainly can blame the entity involved.
As for Brady, he is being criticised not only for his abject failure in 1975, but his actions ever since.
Here is few paragraphs from Boland's book:
(regarding the settlement)
...There was no admission of liability nor an apology on the terms I wanted. I had asked for Cardinal Brady to publicly acknowledge and accept the failings of the Church in its handling of the circumstances which gave rise to the case and to apologise for them. That didn't happen.
.....Cardinal Brady was happy to meet in private and apologise; that was the method he considered appropriate. Me, I considered any private meeting to be inappropriate. That was far too much water under this particular bridge for a chat over a cup of tea and biscuits to be appropriate.....
Then a day or so later, I got a call form my sister Eilish. The Irish Independent had published an apology about their coverage of the story.
This is what the paper wrote:
'In reference to a story in yesterday's Irish Independent, we have been asked to clarify that Cardinal Seán Brady, then Fr. Seán Brady, did not make Brendan Boland take an oath in 1975. Whilst he witnessed the statement of Brendan Boland, Fr Brady's role was as note-taker in this Church enquiry team charged with bringing a case against Fr Brendan Smyth.'
Well that took the biscuit! This was wordplay gone mad. I knew that Cardinal Brady had sworn me to secrecy because his name was down in black and white beside my own. He had administered it, just as he had done with Cavan Boy.......
It would appear that Brady's demand for an apology from the Indo was the final straw for Boland. He phoned the BBC and agreed to do a documentary on Smyth. The BBC examined the documents that Boland had fought for years to get and it was their investigator who noticed, written in Sean Brady's hand, the line 'I was dispatched to investigate the complaint. I listened to what Brendan had to say and I believed every word of it.'. Notice it didn't say 'I was merely a note-taker'.
The book goes on to say that the BBC team and Boland tracked down Cavan Boy and the other children named by Boland, to Brady. Their parents were never told.
From the book...
'Belfast Boy was abused for another year. His sister, who I recall telling the inquiry about, was abused for another 7 years. Their first four cousins were abused in turn, right up until 1988. All it would have taken to spare these children abuse was to warn the parents. A phone call. House visit.'
Brady new these children were at the very least at risk. He had their names and in his own words, 'believed every word of it'. But he failed those children. Miserably.
That's a great post. Comprehensive, and backed up with facts and easily accessible sources. This puts any 'debate' on the subject to bed.
But what's happening here isn't debate, and the substance of your post will be ignored while some insignificant point will be picked apart for a few pages.
If you are trying to get Tony to do an about turn and agree, surely you know that's not going to happen.
You (and others) have done a great job of ensuring that Tony's many incorrect assertions, accusations and history rewriting has not gone unchecked, however there is nothing new to be gained here
I totally agree ...
Pointing out facts, truths & morals to this little creature is a waste of time .. they are simply ignored and the same old vile reprehensible nonsense comes spewing out again ..
It must be a horrible existence when you find yourself apologising for and treasuring pedophile facilitators over the lives of "hundreds" of innocent children .... I suggest just letting him slowly decay in his own bile .. There's no happy ending here
I almost pity him, but how can you pity someone who clearly shows no pity for the "real" victims of abuse..
QuoteYou (and others) have done a great job of ensuring that Tony's many incorrect assertions, accusations and history rewriting has not gone unchecked
Good man. That is precisely the point.
It is such a serious and emotive subject, not to mention a horrific blot on our history, that any remote attempt at a cover-up from people like Fearon should be exposed. You may believe that he is influencing no one, but he is hardly unique. No matter how many times he lies, ignores the truth, twists things, or hides behind sophistry, I will feed him the facts.
The idea is not to persuade him, that would be hopeless. The idea is that his nonsense is always countered for fear he persuades anyone else.
There are none so blind.....etc
Here is a view I agree with from the Redemptorist Priest Fr. Tony Flannery. I think it's from 25 June 2015. If Sean Brady has any, any, real sense of contrition he should do as Fr. Flannery suggests:
Sean Brady gave evidence to the commission investigating the abuse perpetrated by Brendan Smith today. A media outlet rang me this evening to know if I would go on their programme in the morning to comment on his evidence. I declined, saying I was sick to death of the whole thing. It is a sordid affair from beginning to end.
We have had a couple of cases in the past few years of bishops saying things when they have retired which they should have said while still in positions of influence. Today was a perfect example of that, when Sean Brady said that the way he and his fellow priests interviewed the boys who were abused by Smith was in order to protect the good name of the Church. Now, that is no news to any of us who have followed this story. So much of the behaviour of the Church in dealing with this issue from the beginning was self-preservation. (Indeed, I sometimes wonder if the present conversion to 'zero tolerance' in their treatment of priests is not also driven by the same motivation). The question that I had, listening to what Brady said today, was why he had not said that ten years ago, or whenever the issue was first brought into the public forum. A statement like that, coming from the Archbishop of Armagh, would have been a refreshing breath of truth. But no. He waited till he was retired!
Considering how he and his fellow priests behaved in interviewing the boys – and the fact that it was forty years ago is no justification – I believe he should now make some gesture of penitence for his actions. What I would like to see him doing is to renounce his title of 'cardinal' with all the trappings that go with it, including the title, the mitre and the ornate attire, and just dress and act as an ordinary retired priest for the rest of his days. This would be some public acknowledgement of how appalling both he and the Church generally handled that dreadful case. And it would be more in tune with the type of humility that Francis is constantly calling his bishops and priests to display.
A walk to Canterbury (so to speak) would be an appropriate gesture.
I don't know. I don't see the point of it. What would it achieve other than possibly some measure of relief for his own conscience? I couldn't care less how he feels and I'm sure the victims care even less than that about his private struggle with his conscience. What's done cannot be undone. I'd guess a frank admission of his guilt and an unconditional apology for his mistreatment of them (not couched in terms of "mistakes") would mean more to them than some sort of penitential ritual.
More important than any of these are (1) to ensure that his behaviour and that of the church throughout this scandal are kept in the public mind as a guard against their ever being repeated and (2) that any and every attempt at denial, minimisation or whitewash by the likes of Fearon and other facilitation apologists is exposed.
I'm sure it would be good for the victims to see an "unconditional" apology even after all this time but I think we're dealing with a type of person who will concoct (and has done) every type of pathetic excuse not to take any "real" blame, will hide behind the "I was only following orders" line and will stick his head in the sand and hope it will all go away .. remind you of anyone? :-/
I doubt his excuse for a human being (never mind a supposedly religious man) will ever accept his rightful responsibility ..
I think a public display of contrition would actually demonstrate he really understands that he has something to be contrite about. As things stand, we're getting the stance (repeatedly regurgitated by the apologist-in-chief) that I've already said sorry what more do ye want from me. Obviously our mileage may vary on how effective such a gesture is.
Quote from: AhNowRef on July 09, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
I'm sure it would be good for the victims to see an "unconditional" apology even after all this time but I think we're dealing with a type of person who will concoct (and has done) every type of pathetic excuse not to take any "real" blame, will hide behind the "I was only following orders" line and will stick his head in the sand and hope it will all go away .. remind you of anyone? :-/
I doubt his excuse for a human being (never mind a supposedly religious man) will ever accept his rightful responsibility ..
I'm pretty sure Seán Brady sees himself as a victim here. He'll be surrounded by a certain type telling him how put upon he is.
Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2015, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on July 09, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
I'm sure it would be good for the victims to see an "unconditional" apology even after all this time but I think we're dealing with a type of person who will concoct (and has done) every type of pathetic excuse not to take any "real" blame, will hide behind the "I was only following orders" line and will stick his head in the sand and hope it will all go away .. remind you of anyone? :-/
I doubt his excuse for a human being (never mind a supposedly religious man) will ever accept his rightful responsibility ..
I'm pretty sure Seán Brady sees himself as a victim here. He'll be surrounded by a certain type telling him how put upon he is.
Yep, he's got friends in low places !!
Quote from: deiseach on July 09, 2015, 01:09:59 PM
Quote from: AhNowRef on July 09, 2015, 12:54:34 PM
I'm sure it would be good for the victims to see an "unconditional" apology even after all this time but I think we're dealing with a type of person who will concoct (and has done) every type of pathetic excuse not to take any "real" blame, will hide behind the "I was only following orders" line and will stick his head in the sand and hope it will all go away .. remind you of anyone? :-/
I doubt his excuse for a human being (never mind a supposedly religious man) will ever accept his rightful responsibility ..
I'm pretty sure Seán Brady sees himself as a victim here. He'll be surrounded by a certain type telling him how put upon he is.
We are getting very close......
(https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.netanimations.net%2Farg-hammer-chasing-nail-animbg-320x200-url.gif&f=1)
Oh dear, surprise surprise! The anti catholics have coalesced to back slap each other and unanimously agree with each other in placing maximum blame on the Church and no blame on the Garda (even though a victim apportions the blame 50/50 between them and the church) and no blame at all on the mother who activey didn't report to save the culprit (if that isn't facilitation I don't know what is!)
Interesting that these hypocrits place 100% blame on a then young priest who had no influence, but was badly let down by his superiors, without knowing what his mental state was at the time of dealing with this vile scenario, or ever since, who only did what any of the rest of us, in hindsight would do, seek to protect our reputation and keep the skeletons locked away.
Sean Brady is not wnated by the Police, gets a thunderous reception for the most part wherever he goes (County Finals etc) which shows that those anti catholics on this Board in no way relfect popular opinion in this country, and for that we should thank God.
Quote from: Bingo on July 03, 2015, 02:00:24 PM
Anti-Catholics...something something....catholic haters....something....free state.....something something....start a new thread....something something....repeat....faceless keyboard warrior.....something....I met someone once......something something....colouring in competition.....something.......anti-Catholics....something...repeat.......
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 03:29:54 PM
Oh dear, surprise surprise! The anti catholics have coalesced to back slap each other and unanimously agree with each other in placing maximum blame on the Church and no blame on the Garda (even though a victim apportions the blame 50/50 between them and the church) and no blame at all on the mother who activey didn't report to save the culprit (if that isn't facilitation I don't know what is!)
Blaming the victims again .. BTW, Im not anti-catholic .. just anti-child abuse .. pity you cant say the same.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 03:29:54 PM
Interesting that these hypocrits place 100% blame on a then young priest who had no influence, but was badly let down by his superiors, without knowing what his mental state was at the time of dealing with this vile scenario, or ever since, who only did what any of the rest of us, in hindsight would do, seek to protect our reputation and keep the skeletons locked away.
So you would cover up child abuse .. No big surprise but its good to see you showing exactly what you are..
oh and I see you've a new excuse now .. his "mental state" .. ah poor
Baby Brady. ... Try showing some concern where is should be shown..
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 03:29:54 PM
Oh dear, surprise surprise! The anti catholics have coalesced to back slap each other and unanimously agree with each other in placing maximum blame on the Church and no blame on the Garda (even though a victim apportions the blame 50/50 between them and the church) and no blame at all on the mother who activey didn't report to save the culprit (if that isn't facilitation I don't know what is!)
Interesting that these hypocrits place 100% blame on a then young priest who had no influence, but was badly let down by his superiors, without knowing what his mental state was at the time of dealing with this vile scenario, or ever since, who only did what any of the rest of us, in hindsight would do, seek to protect our reputation and keep the skeletons locked away.
Sean Brady is not wnated by the Police, gets a thunderous reception for the most part wherever he goes (County Finals etc) which shows that those anti catholics on this Board in no way relfect popular opinion in this country, and for that we should thank God.
Were the Gárdaí responsible for the 424 Catholic priests convicted of child abuse in the US?
Or that poor widow in Ireland? Was she responsible too?
Quotewithout knowing what his mental state was at the time of dealing with this vile scenario,
WTF??? Please expand on this one Tony
*pulls over chair*
Bingo is dead on. This constant siege mentality in the face of hordes of purported anti-Catholicism is a sleazy way to wriggle out of a tight corner. Catholics and non-Catholics alike have a a right, no a duty, to question what occurred in this shameful phase of Church history. And given the evidence that posters like Muppet present, and I emphasize evidence, I am frankly dismayed.
And these repeated references to a young priest are irritating. He was in his 30s, not a mere babe, old enough to be President of the United States. References to the Garda, too, are a red herring, and though their part is pertinent to the topic at large, it is entirely immaterial to the topic of this thread-- the part played by a man who rose to be Primate of All Ireland.
Moral responsibility is at the heart of this discussion. What moral responsibility did Fr. Brady at the time of, and immediately following, the inquisition. And, more importantly, what duty as Cardinal did he have to release documents and make a FULL confession of his part in an obvious cover-up as well as the Church's as a whole.
I've acknowledged before that I don't know Cardinal Brady myself, but I've heard many good things about his character, and by character I mean personality. What I'm interested in his character in the sense of moral backbone, especially since he held the post of moral paragon.
I just want to discover the truth, not hear weak and weasely excuses, Tony.
Phillipines:
According to the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference, Archbishop Orlando Quevedo, about 200 of the country's 7,000 priests may have committed "sexual misconduct" - including child abuse, homosexuality and affairs - over the past two decades.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2116154.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2116154.stm)
Belgium:
Take your pick Tony: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Europe#Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sexual_abuse_cases_in_Europe#Belgium)
Maybe this one: Diocese of Namur: On 25 October 2000, former parish priest André Louis of Ottré parish near Namur was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment for the rape of 26 children over a long period of time.
Croatia:
Archdiocese of Zagreb
Ivan Čuček convicted in 2000 for sexual abuse of 37 young girls, sentenced to three years in prison, which was later reduced by Supreme Courtto to one and a half years.
Archdiocese of Rijeka
Drago Ljubičić convicted in 2007 was Catholic priest on the isle of Rab sentenced to three years in prison for molesting five teenage boys. He will be the first Catholic priest to serve prison time for sexual abuse in Croatia. When asked by Catholic press agency Glas Koncila (prior to scandal) why children avoid going to church he blamed 'strong influence of communism on island Rab'.
The bit in bold sounds a lot like you Tony.
France:
Plenty here too, here is just one: Jean Luc Heckner - sentenced to 16 years in jail on charges of raping seven young boys (11-14yrs) between 1992 and 1998.
Germany
In February 2010 Der Spiegel reported that more than 94 clerics and laymen have been suspected of sexual abuse since 1995; but only 30 of those suspects had actually been prosecuted because of legal time constraints on pursuing cases.
Archdiocese of Munich and Freising
Main article: Peter Hullermann
The German daily newspaper the Süddeutsche Zeitung revealed details of the mishandling of the case of a pedophile priest in the archdiocese of Munich in the early 1980s when Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) was archbishop of Munich. In January 1980 Cardinal Ratzinger approved the transfer of Father Peter Hullermann, who had been accused of sexual abuse, including forcing an 11-year-old boy to perform oral sex upon him, to Munich to undergo therapy.[44] Despite his record, Hullermann was assigned work in the area of pastoral care where he again abused minors. In June 1986 he was convicted of sexually abusing minors, fined DM4,000 and given an 18-month suspended sentence. Hullermann continued to serve as a priest in a variety of parishes in Bavaria, Germany until he was suspended on Monday March 14, 2010. In March 2010, Fr. Gerhard Gruber, who was at the time vicar general in Munich, assumed total responsibility for the decision to readmit Hullermann to pastoral care work, expressing regret and seeming to suggest that Cardinal Ratzinger had not been fully informed. According to sex abuse whistleblower Fr Tom Doyle, who was quoted in the New York Times, "Pope Benedict is a micromanager. He's the old style. Anything like that would have been brought to his attention. Tell the vicar general to find a better line. What he's trying to do, obviously, is protect the pope."
Italy
Main article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Europe § Italy
It is difficult to ascertain the actual statistics for clerical sexual abuse in Italy because the Italian Government has a treaty with the Vatican that guarantees areas of immunity to Vatican officials, including bishops and priests.[40]
Three former students have claimed abuse and 65 former students signed statements saying that they or other students were abused by Catholic priests when attending the Antonio Provolo Institute for the Deaf, a Catholic school for deaf children in Verona, Italy. The abuse is alleged to have occurred from the 1950s to 1980s, and was reportedly conducted by 24 priests including the late bishop of Verona.
There are more cases in Malta, Holland, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, Britain, Canada, the USA as mentioned earlier, Mexico, Australia, Brazil, Chile & Peru.
All of the above is the Catholic Church.
But Tony Blames the Gárdaí equally, no less, for the child abuse, and of course the parents.
Someone else did something wrong and someone else did something wrong etc etc does not excuse doing things wrong Tony.
You say the church did not fail as a whole because individuals within it tried to do something about it. That defines why it failed and a blind man could see that.
The argument is not about garda and it's not about parents it's about brady and brady only(and not even the catholic church but that is a convenient distraction for you). What anyone else did or didn't do doesn't change what he did.
You are either on the wind up or don't possess the intellect to dissect the information in front of you.
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Yes because child abuse is just sooooo funny.
Quote from: muppet on July 09, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Yes because child abuse is just sooooo funny.
Jeez you're a gas man for an argument Muppet. Nobody mentioned anything to do with fun, much less associated it with child abuse.
Straw man anyone?
Quote from: muppet on July 09, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Yes because child abuse is just sooooo funny.
He's playing you all like puppets and probably having a great laugh at the reaction he gets!
The only thing more tiresome than a WUM is someone sneering at everyone else for falling for WUMs.
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 09, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Yes because child abuse is just sooooo funny.
He's playing you all like puppets and probably having a great laugh at the reaction he gets!
This is exactly my point. You think this is play or fun. Or some sort of joke.
Child abuse is not fun. And cheering on someone like Fearon for his posts on the subject is disturbed.
If it's all just a wind up it's a pretty sick one.
Quote from: muppet on July 09, 2015, 05:35:09 PM
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 05:18:31 PM
Quote from: muppet on July 09, 2015, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Premier Emperor on July 09, 2015, 04:35:32 PM
Tony throws in the bait once every page and without fail he hooks several fish every time.
It's one of the best WUMs I've ever seen on a forum.
Yes because child abuse is just sooooo funny.
He's playing you all like puppets and probably having a great laugh at the reaction he gets!
This is exactly my point. You think this is play or fun. Or some sort of joke.
Child abuse is not fun. And cheering on someone like Fearon for his posts on the subject is disturbed.
You guys have some inflated sense of your own self importance at times. You are arguing tirelessly with the village idiot on a fairly obscure discussion forum in Ireland.
You are NOT shouting down some government who is intent on absolving the entire Catholic Church from blame for child abuse.
You are NOT protecting everyone else's minds from being infiltrated by his views.
You are NOT striking a blow for the victims of institutional child abuse.
You are NOT protecting any further children from being abused by animals like Smyth.
Most sane people can see that the man is a clown and have long since written off trying to argue with him because you might as well be arguing with someone who is insisting that the earth is flat. I wish you'd stop trying to define this as some sort of noble crusade. Why don't you just admit that you love arguing and dont want to leave it at that because you just can't bear the thought of Fearon getting the last word (no matter how fcuked up this word may be).
I will say this again.What the Catholic Church did in terms of child abuse was wrong,or those who led it at the time.They bear the responsibility for ignoring the cleric who recommended that Smyth's ordination should not proceed,through to Sean Brady who believed the children (rare enough from what I've heard in terms of some Parish Priests laughing off allegations) and reported these accurately to his superiors who let him down.
But it can't have been easy for a relatively junior Priest to deal with this in the 70s with no structures and guidelines,and who knows what Brady's relationship was like with his Superiors? Plenty of younger priests were subject to bullying etc themselves
So don't rush to judge just because Fr John Brady became Cardinal Sean Brady 37 years after this event.Plenty of people both clerical and lay had opportunities to stop Smyth long before his and Brady's paths crossed
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 06:27:19 PM
I will say this again.What the Catholic Church did in terms of child abuse was wrong,or those who led it at the time.They bear the responsibility for ignoring the cleric who recommended that Smyth's ordination should not proceed,through to Sean Brady who believed the children (rare enough from what I've heard in terms of some Parish Priests laughing off allegations) and reported these accurately to his superiors who let him down.
But it can't have been easy for a relatively junior Priest to deal with this in the 70s with no structures and guidelines,and who knows what Brady's relationship was like with his Superiors? Plenty of younger priests were subject to bullying etc themselves
So don't rush to judge just because Fr John Brady became Cardinal Sean Brady 37 years after this event.Plenty of people both clerical and lay had opportunities to stop Smyth long before his and Brady's paths crossed
The ball is thrown in and the game is back on!
I think possibly there is indeed no point conversing with this "thing" ... This post says it all really
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 03:29:54 PM
Interesting that these hypocrits place 100% blame on a then young priest who had no influence, but was badly let down by his superiors, without knowing what his mental state was at the time of dealing with this vile scenario, or ever since, who only did what any of the rest of us, in hindsight would do, seek to protect our reputation and keep the skeletons locked away.
Anyone who openly admits that he'd quite happily cover up abuse is a sick person, but there it is in black & white .. and notions of this all being some sort of jolly old wind up (har de har) are almost as disturbing..
He didn't cover up abuse,merely his own mistakes.Show me one example in History where any prominent person admitted that he or she made a total c**k up in their handling of a controversy?
This is getting surreal.
Disgusting. That's all I can think of. And it takes a warped thinking that Fearon is a Wum on this subject.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/541/000/6ed.gif)
Quote from: T Fearon on July 09, 2015, 08:50:37 PM
He didn't cover up abuse,merely his own mistakes.Show me one example in History where any prominent person admitted that he or she made a total c**k up in their handling of a controversy?
Even Lance Armstrong came clean in the end.
But I do recognise your argument for the banishment of the Sacrament of Confession.
And so has Sean Brady.
It is time to end the witchhunt against a inherently decent man, a retired man in his 70s, for a mistake made 40 years ago. Sean Brady was not responsible for Brendan Smyth, many others of greater influence could and should have stopped him long before 1975.
Ha, ,,Neither him nor yourself would come close to knowing the meaning of the word "decent" ...
Like Brady, (who was more interested in his own career, so to that end thought he had to support the church) you're a sad little man who would happily forgo common decency in order to protect a floundering church from its own inherent immorality, hoping for some thanks from above when you pop your clogs ...
At least Brady got his red hat (although he also did the church irreparable harm .. and views like yours only deepen that) .. though not sure if he would consider it all worth it now thats it all came out .. What will you get for your hideous views?
There will be no end prize for you Im afraid and I'm greatly heartened to know that either way your f**cked :-) .... If there isn't a God you've harboured & divulged all your many disgusting septic views for nothing and if there is a God I'm pretty damn sure he would have no time for child abuse facilitator apologists and people who would incomprehensibly blame parents and even castigate the victims themselves ....and then even state that you would do the same as Brady did ... You admit that you would cover up child abuse ... You are the dregs .. but you also must be a wee bit insane as you seem incapable of seeing that ...
At the end of the day, just like Brady ...You loose !!
Thankfully God is my judge and not you! Once again I laugh at the notion of a Church career! What's the attraction? Loads of money? Women? Get a grip.Most churchmen land in senior roles involuntarily and with no desire for them.
I know a couple of ex-priests who left their vocation to get a break from the wemen.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 10, 2015, 06:46:23 PM
Thankfully God is my judge and not you! Once again I laugh at the notion of a Church career! What's the attraction? Loads of money? Women? Get a grip.Most churchmen land in senior roles involuntarily and with no desire for them.
Bishop Brennan for one would disagree
Yes fictional Bishops would,but as Sean Brady's or Pope Benedict's ministry should prove to anyone with a brain cell,"Who in their right mind would be Cardinal or Pope for that matter?"
You cannot be that naive.
Not necessity, not desire - no, the love of power is the demon of men. Let them have everything - health, food, a place to live, entertainment - they are and remain unhappy and low-spirited: for the demon waits and waits and will be satisfied.
- Friedrich Nietzsche.
Tony, I think you're undervaluing the appeal of ego, power, prestige and being cared for for life as a motivation for moving up in any organization.
On the topic of famous people admitting their mistakes, most do it I think to repaint a tarnished reputation, but some do emerge better. JFK admitting that the Bay of Pigs adventure was a catastrophe helped his reputation, I think, unless Lee Harvey Oswald didn't care for it. George H. W Bush and his failure to keep his "No New Taxes Pledge." Tiger Woods publicly apologized for mistreating his wife and kids. His reputation improved, but his golf game didn't. I'm sure Google will supply an ample list.
Sometimes, whether it helps them individually or not is irrelevant, it may instead help the organization itself. And the Church needs a lot of help right now in fixing its brand. I, for instance, am warming to it again when I hear Pope Francis denouncing greed, denouncing the powerful's indifference to climate change, or apologizing for the Church's mistreatment of natives during the various colonial periods. At least for a while, it's back on message. Feels better than being in the business of concealment.
Its a shame the previous tread was deleted, there was a good record on that over the years of this sordid affair. I actually started that thread and I certainly did not delete it so it must have been the mods which is very strange as if there was something on there they didn't like they could have just deleted the offending post.
While some clerics (Casey and Cleary spring to mind) undoubtedly are or were egotistical and power loving I do not believe there are any traits in Sean Brady's ministry or life that even hint that he is one of them.
Once again there is gross over estimation of the power and influence of the Catholic Church globally and in Ireland, this effectively died with Archbishop Mc Quade.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 10, 2015, 11:52:00 PM
While some clerics (Casey and Cleary spring to mind) undoubtedly are or were egotistical and power loving I do not believe there are any traits in Sean Brady's ministry or life that even hint that he is one of them.
Once again there is gross over estimation of the power and influence of the Catholic Church globally and in Ireland, this effectively died with Archbishop Mc Quade.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
That is the funniest thing I have read in a long time.
Could you point out any evidence of his egotism?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 05:28:29 AM
Could you point out any evidence of his egotism?
What would be the the point, you will ignore everything.
But anyway.............
He, and you in turn, insisted he was merely a note-taker. That simply wasn't true. Why wasn't he telling the truth? Cui bono?
He demanded, and got, a printed apology from the Indo for an article that turned out to be correct. The full truth emerged in the documents that the Church, with Brady at the helm, had tried to prevent Boland getting for 13 years. I have read no apology from him to the Indo. I have read no apology from him for the failure to release the documents and for fighting bitterly against victims in the courts.
He refused to resign, even though anyone with an ounce of sense could see his position was completely untenable.
He replaced Cathal Daly, who resigned because of his failure to deal with an issue connected to Brendan Smyth. But of course he never revealed his own failure to deal with Brendan Smyth.
Brady offered an apology to Boland but only with Brady's terms & conditions attached. Boland wisely refused to accept Brady's terms.
I believe it would be impossible for anyone to behave as he did without having a phenomenal ego.
Many without ego seek to downplay their role in a controversy.He effectively was a note taker.The key points are that he believed what he heard (many other clerics wouldn't,or would have attempted to brush it off and convince the children to do likewise) and reported what he heard accurately to his superiors who let him and the children down.
Then again if the Garda had done their jobs properly in 1973,Brady wouldn't have become involved in this sorry saga.No wonder Mr Boland divides the blame equally between Church and Garda.He has revised his opinion,it's time you did likewise.
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 05:13:26 PM
Many without ego seek to downplay their role in a controversy.He effectively was a note taker.The key points are that he believed what he heard (many other clerics wouldn't,or would have attempted to brush it off and convince the children to do likewise) and reported what he heard accurately to his superiors who let him and the children down.
Then again if the Garda had done their jobs properly in 1973,Brady wouldn't have become involved in this sorry saga.No wonder Mr Boland divides the blame equally between Church and Garda.He has revised his opinion,it's time you did likewise.
Stop telling lies.
The facts are now fully known and you can't dispute them.
Are you saying he didn't record on paper what he heard at the interview from the children?
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 05:40:00 PM
Are you saying he didn't record on paper what he heard at the interview from the children?
He was the Canonical Investigator.
Despite the hiding of this fact for decades, it is now firmly established as a fact.
Stop bearing false witness.
He still recorded his findings on paper so wasn't telling lies when he said he was a notary.Also what did he hide? He reported and believed what he heard to his superiors.Totally transparent
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 07:22:08 PM
He still recorded his findings on paper so wasn't telling lies when he said he was a notary.Also what did he hide? He reported and believed what he heard to his superiors.Totally transparent
A note-taker doesn't ask the questions.
A note-taker doesn't get people to sign oath of silence.
A note-taker is not an investigator.
Claiming to be merely a notary would have the effect of covering up the above.
It was this particular untruth that made Boland's mind up to contact the BBC and to set the record straight regarding Brady's true role. It is now established as factual, despite your efforts to continue the lie.
He also said this before the facts came out:
"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."Here is an article from 1997 which quotes the official lie about Brady's role: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Archbishop+Brady+knew+about+evil+Smyth+for+22+YEARS%3b+THE+STORY+THAT...-a061139172 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Archbishop+Brady+knew+about+evil+Smyth+for+22+YEARS%3b+THE+STORY+THAT...-a061139172)
QuoteThe Catholic Press and Information Office said this week: "Father Sean Brady, now Archbishop of Armagh, was at the time of the 1975 tribunal a full-time post-primary teacher and a part-time secretary to the diocese of Kilmore. He was asked by the Bishop of Kilmore to attend the tribunal in Dundalk.
"Father Brady's role was to record the boy's evidence.""
Brady had the names of children that were being abused, and he did nothing. Worse than that, he silenced those willing to give evidence.
Boland appears on this BBC documentary from 30 mins onwards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuyZ90xBpw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuyZ90xBpw)
I wouldn't bother watching it Tony, as you are tot disturbed to be affected in any way. But everyone else should watch this view into the hideous past of clerical abuse by the Catholic Church in Ireland.
So he was multi tasking,as well as taking notes? Doesn't disguise fact that he believed what he heard and reported it.
Two parties to every oath.I accept the victims were children and the church procedure shouldn't have placed an oath in front of them but they were not physically forced to sign it,and could have renounced it in early 80s upon reaching adulthood.The oath was not designed by Brady and is immaterial as he reported accurately to his superiors
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 09:27:37 PM
So he was multi tasking,as well as taking notes? Doesn't disguise fact that he believed what he heard and reported it.
Two parties to every oath.I accept the victims were children and the church procedure shouldn't have placed an oath in front of them but they were not physically forced to sign it,and could have renounced it in early 80s upon reaching adulthood.The oath was not designed by Brady and is immaterial as he reported accurately to his superiors
Ah yes, the abused children are to blame, but Brady did nothing wrong.
Brady got them to sign the oath and the oath was used to cover up Smyth's crimes.
Brady knew of 5 other children at risk of abuse by Smyth and didn't even tell their parents. What sort of man can do that? Worse again, what sort of man can defend that?
I have said the use of the oath was wrong already.However the children were not forced to sign it and could have refused (children frequently disobey orders never mind requests) and could certainly have retracted this a lot earlier
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 09:48:33 PM
I have said the use of the oath was wrong already.However the children were not forced to sign it and could have refused (children frequently disobey orders never mind requests) and could certainly have retracted this a lot earlier
You are still blaming the sexually abused children for what happened them.
I am arguing the contention that they were "forced" to sign an oath.They were not.
Tony, I haven't seen a pummeling like this since a player on my softball team punched a kid called Shea before checking the team lineup card and discovering that there were seven Shea brothers listed on the team roster. And yet you persist. At least in boxing a ref can call a halt.
You're seriously suggesting that little Tony Fearon would have had the backbone to refuse to sign an oath that a priest required him to sign. Shoot, against a barrage of evidence, you still don't have the backbone to do what is right, and you're no mere callow boy, or priest as you characterize him.
The oath is largely irrelevant here.They were not "forced" to sign it however,and could have retracted it at any time,if they didn't have the backbone at the time.It is a red herring,if it wasn't it would have come to light a lot earlier than recent years
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/540/658/5e8.jpg)
Quote from: T Fearon on July 11, 2015, 11:08:10 PM
The oath is largely irrelevant here.They were not "forced" to sign it however,and could have retracted it at any time,if they didn't have the backbone at the time.It is a red herring,if it wasn't it would have come to light a lot earlier than recent years
We can add the words
oath[/i and secrecy to the word evidence as concepts that you are completely clueless about.
It is also incredible that Tony blames the sexually abused children for not having backbone, but pleads the Nuremberg Defence on behalf of Brady, a Canon Lawyer.
Those children have far more backbone than people like Fearon or Brady could ever comprehend.
Ah children and secrets that they always keep.You cannot keep on using the excuse of vulnerability and youth to completely exonerate parents and over egg an oath.If an adult can rationalise that reporting the rapist of her child to the authorities will get that rapist into trouble then she is of sound mind and able to discern the consequences of decisions.Similarly the oath presented to children was not going to make them super grasses if they breached it,with all the consequences that might have had in contemporaneous organisations at the time.
We will continue this debate as long as necessary until you grasp this whole issue with objective circumspection and come to the same conclusion as Mr Boland,that blame for Brendan Smith hould be apportioned to numerous agencies not just Sean Brady.
Mods please close this thread down again. It is reaching a new level of crass.
Perhaps the reason the children felt bound by their oath was because, unlike all the clerical cover-uppers, they understood that truth matters and had never heard of "mental reservation", a trick that was only available to the clerics as their get-out-of-an-oath-free card.
Setting children an oath (which was wrong and of its time) is as valid as setting children homework and expecting each and everyone to do it.Those children reached the age of reason relatively soon afterwards.In any event if Brady's Superiors had acted appropriately the oath would have been utterly irrelevant.
It is a consolation to those not riven by anti Catholicism to know that the victims themselves are coming round to the more circumspect view that the entire blame for Brendan Smyth cannot be placed exclusively at the door of the Catholic Church and particularly Sean Brady.
Lock the f***ing thread, mods. Let Tony go and talk his old shite somewhere else.
where else can he spew his bile - he certainly won't be doing it on FB or Twitter, nor down his workplace either.
Yawn,ago old argument of argument losers,insult the victor