http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/royal-hospital-paedophile-doctor-morris-fraser-continued-to-work-with-children-after-abuse-convictions-study-finds-34587112.html
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 08:27:41 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/royal-hospital-paedophile-doctor-morris-fraser-continued-to-work-with-children-after-abuse-convictions-study-finds-34587112.html
Are you outraged by this? If yes are you outraged that he was allowed to continue?
This is in really poor taste as usual >:(
On the contrary,the mishandling of child abuse was endemic in the 70s and to isolate one institution/group is grossly unfair.
Those charged with the population's well being,allowing a child psychiatrist with a conviction for child abuse,to have further contact with children is still incomprehensible
Don't see anyone defending it.
There is however a much greater emphasis on the Catholic Church's failings and the role of junior note takers,in this regard
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 09:29:05 PM
On the contrary,the mishandling of child abuse was endemic in the 70s and to isolate one institution/group is grossly unfair.
Those charged with the population's well being,allowing a child psychiatrist with a conviction for child abuse,to have further contact with children is still incomprehensible
in terms of the amount of doctors and priests, how many have been convicted of child abuse.. i.e the ratio
Because there's a much lower percentage of doctors that are child abusers, and the NHS isn't known for knowingly shuttling abusers around in an attempt to keep it all under wraps.
Next question.
So it's all down to percentages? How does anyone even know this
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 01, 2016, 06:05:08 AM
Because there's a much lower percentage of doctors that are child abusers, and the NHS isn't known for knowingly shuttling abusers around in an attempt to keep it all under wraps.
Next question.
the numbers don't matter, one is too many
This thread is pathetic tony - pathetic.
Petty point scoring on child abuse. It doesn't come much lower.
Fyi the Belfast telegraph is a terrible rag so it's unlikely anyone read about it.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 09:29:05 PM
On the contrary,the mishandling of child abuse was endemic in the 70s and to isolate one institution/group is grossly unfair.
Those charged with the population's well being,allowing a child psychiatrist with a conviction for child abuse,to have further contact with children is still incomprehensible
in terms of the amount of doctors and priests, how many have been convicted of child abuse.. i.e the ratio
What does that matter, a child abuser is a child abuser, why does their profession matter, every abuser be it a priest, a doctor, a footballer, a tv celeb or just the kids father, mother, uncle, brother or sister should be condemned and should face the full force of the law, including those who covered it up or help facilitate it.
Quote from: No wides on April 01, 2016, 08:15:56 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 09:29:05 PM
On the contrary,the mishandling of child abuse was endemic in the 70s and to isolate one institution/group is grossly unfair.
Those charged with the population's well being,allowing a child psychiatrist with a conviction for child abuse,to have further contact with children is still incomprehensible
in terms of the amount of doctors and priests, how many have been convicted of child abuse.. i.e the ratio
What does that matter, a child abuser is a child abuser, why does their profession matter, every abuser be it a priest, a doctor, a footballer, a tv celeb or just the kids father, mother, uncle, brother or sister should be condemned and should face the full force of the law, including those who covered it up or help facilitate it.
Who's condoning or not condemning child abusers troll?
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 08:27:41 PM
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/royal-hospital-paedophile-doctor-morris-fraser-continued-to-work-with-children-after-abuse-convictions-study-finds-34587112.html
why don't you blame the parents or his boss? He was just following his urges like Fr Brendan
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2016, 09:10:49 AM
Quote from: No wides on April 01, 2016, 08:15:56 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 31, 2016, 09:59:38 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on March 31, 2016, 09:29:05 PM
On the contrary,the mishandling of child abuse was endemic in the 70s and to isolate one institution/group is grossly unfair.
Those charged with the population's well being,allowing a child psychiatrist with a conviction for child abuse,to have further contact with children is still incomprehensible
in terms of the amount of doctors and priests, how many have been convicted of child abuse.. i.e the ratio
What does that matter, a child abuser is a child abuser, why does their profession matter, every abuser be it a priest, a doctor, a footballer, a tv celeb or just the kids father, mother, uncle, brother or sister should be condemned and should face the full force of the law, including those who covered it up or help facilitate it.
Who's condoning or not condemning child abusers troll?
You have serious issues, I think you need to start going for a long walk before posting here, maybe go round to your working class mates and show them your newly washed car that you have got an immigrant to wash for you, or maybe take your anger out in a productive manner and report all the lazy benefit cheats you know, thebigfella could write an algorithm for you to weed out the lazy people in DLA cars, that would be a good start, you are getting truly embarrassing - take a leaf our of Mr R.Keating, you say it best when you say nothing at all.
It's a ŵonder you weren't all over the cover story on this weeks Sunday World, Tony.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 01, 2016, 06:37:02 AM
So it's all down to percentages? How does anyone even know this
Would you prefer to use absolute numbers instead? I still think you'll find your beloved mother church coming out ahead in the child abuse stakes.
Tony is right that we should be outraged at the inaction regarding a known pedophile. The cover-ups referred to mirror Sean Brady's silencing of victims and Tony is absolutely correct to be enraged at the emergence of yet another bunch of moral cowards.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 02, 2016, 12:01:08 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 01, 2016, 06:37:02 AM
So it's all down to percentages? How does anyone even know this
Would you prefer to use absolute numbers instead? I still think you'll find your beloved mother church coming out ahead in the child abuse stakes.
Do the numbers really matter? One is too many
So you have to be high up the league table in terms of known or assumed numbers of child abusers in your ranks to merit condemnation and outrage,seems to be the message coming from this thread.That is truly pathetic.
The fact is (and I am not condoning child abuse or those who failed to deal with it in any era) child abusers have existed,in larger numbers than we imagine,throughout history,but it is only in recent times that protocols and adequate protection measures have been developed and implemented in society and in institutions and organisations.
Previously,whether it be in all Churches,the BBC,NHS and all other organisations there seems to have been a hands off approach when the subject of child abusers arose,with no protocols to guide,and turn a blind eye and remove the cause of the problem to somewhere else in the hope that it is dealt with.Perfectly human if inexcusable reaction but to single out one group or organisation for its failings, is a mark simply of personal bias.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 02, 2016, 08:55:46 AM
So you have to be high up the league table in terms of known or assumed numbers of child abusers in your ranks to merit condemnation and outrage,seems to be the message coming from this thread.That is truly pathetic.
The fact is (and I am not condoning child abuse or those who failed to deal with it in any era) child abusers have existed,in larger numbers than we imagine,throughout history,but it is only in recent times that protocols and adequate protection measures have been developed and implemented in society and in institutions and organisations.
Previously,whether it be in all Churches,the BBC,NHS and all other organisations there seems to have been a hands off approach when the subject of child abusers arose,with no protocols to guide,and turn a blind eye and remove the cause of the problem to somewhere else in the hope that it is dealt with.Perfectly human if inexcusable reaction but to single out one group or organisation for its failings, is a mark simply of personal bias.
The only truly pathetic thing is yourself, you have constantly defended the church and Sean Brady in particular for covering up and facilitating child abuse, blaming the parents of the victims and the victims themselves rather that accepting that people like Smyth would not have had free reign if people like Brady and the church hadn't facilitated his abuse. You then try to deflect further starting these threads to justify somehow that Brady and his cohorts weren't that bad in the whole scheme of things, you really are some piece of work, to call yourself a christian is the most truly pathetic thing of all.
Quote from: No wides on April 02, 2016, 09:28:12 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 02, 2016, 08:55:46 AM
So you have to be high up the league table in terms of known or assumed numbers of child abusers in your ranks to merit condemnation and outrage,seems to be the message coming from this thread.That is truly pathetic.
The fact is (and I am not condoning child abuse or those who failed to deal with it in any era) child abusers have existed,in larger numbers than we imagine,throughout history,but it is only in recent times that protocols and adequate protection measures have been developed and implemented in society and in institutions and organisations.
Previously,whether it be in all Churches,the BBC,NHS and all other organisations there seems to have been a hands off approach when the subject of child abusers arose,with no protocols to guide,and turn a blind eye and remove the cause of the problem to somewhere else in the hope that it is dealt with.Perfectly human if inexcusable reaction but to single out one group or organisation for its failings, is a mark simply of personal bias.
The only truly pathetic thing is yourself, you have constantly defended the church and Sean Brady in particular for covering up and facilitating child abuse, blaming the parents of the victims and the victims themselves rather that accepting that people like Smyth would not have had free reign if people like Brady and the church hadn't facilitated his abuse. You then try to deflect further starting these threads to justify somehow that Brady and his cohorts weren't that bad in the whole scheme of things, you really are some piece of work, to call yourself a christian is the most truly pathetic thing of all.
+1
Quote from: T Fearon on April 02, 2016, 08:55:46 AM
So you have to be high up the league table in terms of known or assumed numbers of child abusers in your ranks to merit condemnation and outrage,seems to be the message coming from this thread.That is truly pathetic.
The fact is (and I am not condoning child abuse or those who failed to deal with it in any era) child abusers have existed,in larger numbers than we imagine,throughout history,but it is only in recent times that protocols and adequate protection measures have been developed and implemented in society and in institutions and organisations.
Previously,whether it be in all Churches,the BBC,NHS and all other organisations there seems to have been a hands off approach when the subject of child abusers arose,with no protocols to guide,and turn a blind eye and remove the cause of the problem to somewhere else in the hope that it is dealt with.Perfectly human if inexcusable reaction but to single out one group or organisation for its failings, is a mark simply of personal bias.
Switzerland, the US, Scotland, Ireland, Australia/ what links the Catholic church and children in these countries? Singling out or systematic ?
Is sex abuse more prevalent amongst the catholic priests?
No, the figure is about 4%, similar to male school teachers.
However the catholic priests were more predatory
eg, in the USA some 149 priests were responsible for more than 25,000 cases of abuse over the 52-year period studied
Why the focus on the sex crimes of the catholic church?
The Church's unpopular positions on sexual ethics (e.g., masturbation, contraception, homosexuality, divorce) make sex crimes committed by priests even more scandalous.
Eg.- their hypocritical position on homosexuality, considering that 22% to 45% of priests who are homosexual in orientation according to a variety of studies and reports.
All that has put more focus on the criminal and immoral conduct of the Catholic Church.
There is the sex abuse,
the institutionalised cover up which came from the very top, downwards.
The refusual to hand over known paedophiles to the legal process.
The stubborn refusal to cooperate with due process of the law.
The refusal to admit that these actions were paedophile enabling and at least as morally reprehensible as the sex abuse itself.
etc etc etc
The acts were committed by perverts masquerading as priests,and not endorsed by the Church.
The NHS failed to prevent a convicted paedophile from having access to children,the BBC and loads of other organisations didn't restrict Savile's access etc,there were paedophile rings at the heart of govt etc.
Why single out the Church and a junior note taker in particular?
In earlier decades paedophilia was the elephant in the room universally that no one,sadly,wanted to think about much less deal with.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 11:01:05 AM
The acts were committed by perverts let masquerading as priests,and not endorsed reprimanded by the Church.
The NHS failed to prevent a convicted paedophile from having access to children,the BBC and loads of other organisations didn't restrict Savile's access etc,there were paedophile rings at the heart of govt etc.
Why single out the Church and a junior note taker in particular?
In earlier decades paedophilia was the elephant in the room universally that no one,sadly,wanted to think about much less deal with.
Fixed that!
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 11:01:05 AM
The acts were committed by perverts masquerading as priests,and not endorsed by the Church.
The NHS failed to prevent a convicted paedophile from having access to children,the BBC and loads of other organisations didn't restrict Savile's access etc,there were paedophile rings at the heart of govt etc.
Why single out the Church and a junior note taker in particular?
In earlier decades paedophilia was the elephant in the room universally that no one,sadly,wanted to think about much less deal with.
What a load of horseshite, they didn't just put on a collar and rape children, they had to serve 7 years to become a priest. They were therefore men of God armed with all the teaching and doctrines of the catholic church and with this armory they went off into parishes to rape and abuse kids, and when they were discovered their superiors moved them on to another parish to continue raping and abusing kids.
Yawn.Paedophilia in the church,nhs,bbc etc was mishandled not facilitated in past eras.It was wrong but sadly it was the culture of these times.No point in singling out one organisation just because you have an irrational hatred of it.
There are most definitely rational reasons why the Church was and is still being singled out.
But rationality is not your thing Tony, is it? ;D
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 01:44:46 PM
Yawn.Paedophilia in the church,nhs,bbc etc was mishandled not facilitated in past eras.It was wrong but sadly it was the culture of these times.No point in singling out one organisation just because you have an irrational hatred of it.
So moving a know rapist of children from one parish to another is not facilitating that individual to continue to rape and abuse children?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 11:01:05 AM
The acts were committed by perverts masquerading as priests,and not endorsed by the Church.
The NHS failed to prevent a convicted paedophile from having access to children,the BBC and loads of other organisations didn't restrict Savile's access etc,there were paedophile rings at the heart of govt etc.
Why single out the Church and a junior note taker in particular?
In earlier decades paedophilia was the elephant in the room universally that no one,sadly,wanted to think about much less deal with.
Brady had to change his story from mere note taker to Investigator, when he was forced by the courts to release his notes. You are adding to the abuse of victims by peddling your junior note taker lie over and over again.
And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 07:43:59 PM
And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard
Would your morals make you go to the proper authorities Tony? Or would you have be happy with knowing these abusers were allowed back into society ?
I would have investigated,reported to my superiors and expect them to do the right thing.Then again,reporting to the authorities and even gaining convictions,did not necessarily prevent paedophiles having access to children back in the 1970s,as the case with the NHS Consultant proves
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 08:16:56 PM
I would have investigated,reported to my superiors and expect them to do the right thing.Then again,reporting to the authorities and even gaining convictions,did not necessarily prevent paedophiles having access to children back in the 1970s,as the case with the NHS Consultant proves
So you personally would not have told the authorities and been happy with him being allowed to go on and continue molesting children .... The Nazi's said they were just following orders too
I would have told my superiors and expected them,with greater power and influence than me, to act.Thats my conscience clear.To be honest after I'd passed on this information I wouldn't have wanted this odious individual in my mind,never mind following his subsequent moves.The responsibility for this lies with Fr Brady's superiors.
But an NHS consultant with a conviction for child abuse still had access to children,so what good did telling the so called authorities and even securing a conviction actually do in terms of protecting children?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 07:43:59 PM
And the difference is what? He investigated and noted what he heard
You don't know the difference between a note taker and an investigator?
The Church knew the distinction judging by their decade long fight against releasing the notes. But then they probably thought it mightn't look good when people knew they had asked a sexually abused boy the following questions:
Q: Would you know the meaning of the word erection?
Q: Would you notice your penis becoming stiff?
Q: You never got to like it?
Q: Would you ever have done these things in the first place with another boy or grown-up man?
Q: If not, why not?
Q: Why did you do it with Fr Smyth?
Q: Had you any worry that this was wrong?
Q: You didn't go to Confession for some time after that. Why?
Q: Did this happen between you and any other person - another boy and yourself for instance? (This again despite saying NO earlier)
Q: Has this led to any actions with yourself?
Q: Would seed come from your body as a result?The above was in Brady's notes. Boland doesn't publish the questions asked in the 2nd boy's interview, but he does say that Brady asked the boy if he had liked it ('it' being the abuse by Smyth) and this time Brady signed as 'Interrogator'.
The line of questioning is clearing trying to see if the boy (who was 11 years old when it began) was responsible for his own abuse. That is what you are defending Tony. That is what you are defending.
Difficult questions I would concede,but nothing more than would be asked by the Police or a Barrister in court,attempting to defend a paedophile or rapist.
Look these were the inadequate and inappropriate systems of dealing with paedophilia at the time, ie mid 70s.It is still absurd to blame a young an non influential Sean Brady for the horror that was Brendan Smyth
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 10:20:22 PM
Difficult questions I would concede,but nothing more than would be asked by the Police or a Barrister in court,attempting to defend a paedophile or rapist.
Look these were the inadequate and inappropriate systems of dealing with paedophilia at the time, ie mid 70s.It is still absurd to blame a young an non influential Sean Brady for the horror that was Brendan Smyth
Smyth did his thing, Sean did his, which helped cover it up.... Like saying withholding evidence in multiple sex abuses cases is ok... Which begs the question why hasn't anyone been charged with doi g that??
Quote from: T Fearon on April 03, 2016, 09:18:09 PM
I would have told my superiors and expected them,with greater power and influence than me, to act.Thats my conscience clear.To be honest after I'd passed on this information I wouldn't have wanted this odious individual in my mind,never mind following his subsequent moves.The responsibility for this lies with Fr Brady's superiors.
In other words you'd have participated in the cover-up by failing to report these crimes to the authorities. If you had gone into the priesthood then you too would have taken part in the heinous organized crimes of the church. You have the morals of a concentration camp guard.
The point is twofold.
If I as a Junior member of an organisation told my superiors,with much greater influence and experience than me,then my conscience is clear.
Telling the authorities in the 70s would have in all probability made no difference,when NHS consultants with actual child abuse convictions were allowed to resume working with children,and the authorities colluded in moving clerics,suspected of involvement in fatal bombings,to parishes across the Border.
You are a great illustration that you can really justify anything when you put your mind to it.
What's that saying... There are none so blind as those who will not see?
Either that or you're a wum. It's a very strange topic to point score, fight battles and wind up on mind.
The circular argument that Tony offers is bankrupt, due to a total absence of rationality.
The historical facts established, based on Brady's own evidence, the evidence of the children and the case documents which were forcibly released by court order, have established as fact that Brady was a mature canon lawyer who diligently performed his duty in interrogating the kids, he psychologically terrorised them, betrayed the trust of their parents and afterwards washed his hands of any responsibility.
Imo, Brady's even more disreputable than the child molester Smith who at least was subject to his form of insanity.
The rationality is twofold.
Brady reported his findings to his superiors who were empowered to act.
Reporting to the authorities in the 70s and gaining a conviction even was no baŕrier to paedophiles having subsequent access to children sadly.
What Tony? Please tell me you didn't mean no point reporting as when they're freed, they'll do it again??
Tony you really need to get a new hobby (horse).
Those questions are horrendous. Horrendous.
How anyone can read them and still think the guy did the right thing is incomprehensible.
A lawyer / barrister would ask them you say. Yes they would in order to get the oerson convicted or not convicted.
Those questions just added serious trauma to an already hugely traumatic saga. For what... Nothing.
What is it now? The justice system may not have convicted him. The prison system may not have reformed him.
What about if they were in jail they would at the very least have had no access to anyone to do any harm for at absolute minimum the period of time they were in jail. Does that mean nothing?
I found those questions difficult,but the boys would have faced a similar line of questioning,and probably worse,had the case been reported and had it gone to court.I think it's fair to say that Sean Brady and the Church itself would admit that their response in the 1970s was woefully inadequate.
There were many opportunities to stop Brendan Smyth,Jimmy Savile and every other predatory paedophile.To blame one person for Brendan Smyth's reign of terror is crass all the same.
No one has ever solely blamed one person though. He is part of it.
When you, yes you, start a thread on the guy this is what you will get.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 04, 2016, 06:43:54 PM
I found those questions difficult,but the boys would have faced a similar line of questioning,and probably worse,had the case been reported and had it gone to court.I think it's fair to say that Sean Brady and the Church itself would admit that their response in the 1970s was woefully inadequate.
There were many opportunities to stop Brendan Smyth,Jimmy Savile and every other predatory paedophile.To blame one person for Brendan Smyth's reign of terror is crass all the same.
To blame parents of the victims and the victims themselves is even more crass especially from one who purports to being a christen!
A christen? If a parent nowadays allowed their children to attend a meeting after being summonsed by adults,without making it their business to find out what was going on,social services would be getting involved
Quote from: T Fearon on April 04, 2016, 09:45:12 PM
A christen? If a parent nowadays allowed their children to attend a meeting after being summonsed by adults,without making it their business to find out what was going on,social services would be getting involved
OK a christian - that is what you purport to be, why do you think it was OK in "them" days to just move the abuser on?
I didn't say it was ok,it wasn't ok.However it seemed to be the common practice at the time,to turn a blind eye etc,and not deal effectively with the scourge of child abuse
Quote from: T Fearon on April 04, 2016, 10:25:07 PM
I didn't say it was ok,it wasn't ok.However it seemed to be the common practice at the time,to turn a blind eye etc,and not deal effectively with the scourge of child abuse
I don't think people have an issue with that statement, however you must see that people do have an issue with the fact that to detract from Brady's inadequacies as a human being and a christian you have spent years defending the man and pushing blame on the victims and the parents of the victims, do you seriously believe all this you post or are you seriously on the wind?
Is this post about the child abuse perpetrated by the Doctor? Or about the different emphasis by media/posters?
Quote from: Keyboard Warrior on April 05, 2016, 12:45:02 PM
Is this post about the child abuse perpetrated by the Doctor? Or about the different emphasis by media/posters?
This thread is about a poster using the sexual abuse of one man to justify the covering of of sexual abuse of another. There isn't even a hint of empathy or grief for the victims in either case. In fact, worse than that, the abused families have even been blamed.
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
From the rules:
Quote4. Inappropriate posts, incitement or racist posting.
This is a very broad topic, and can be the most subjective in the way the moderators view things. In general, it would be the 'good manners' rule. Specific examples of
inappropriate posts would be the following. (This list is by no means conclusive)
- Abusive posts between fans of soccer teams, clearly not part of good humoured banter. Mentions of Hillsborough, Munich, Heysel or alluding to these incidents in a
way designed to incite other posters to break forum rules.
- Sectarian posts, or posts advocating violence against any community or person. Some of the topics under discussion from the different cultures on this island have
come close to this. That will not be allowed or accomodated.
- Racist posts, including posts propogating racist views about any race or community.
- inappropriate posts such as the Maddie McCann jokes etc.
What do you think, boys? Can we sh*tcan this thread on account of Tony's persistent defence of paedophiles?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2016, 10:17:14 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
That is a hell of an insult to victims and families of victims, you should be ashamed of that statement.
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2016, 10:17:14 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
Is this post meant to suggest that the father of this victim of Smyth and Brady was an abuser himself?
If not, what exactly is the point of this post in the context of this thread?
This thread is an irrelevance. It is trying to excuse the cover-up of abuse in the Church by pointing the finger elsewhere. I wouldn't for one minute offer any excuse for secular organisations trying to cover their own arses, it is not on. But the Church in Ireland and elsewhere set itself up as the arbiter of the moral code by which we should live our lives, it decided what was sinful and what wasn't and in that context that makes its actions much much worse. No amount of waffle from Tony over God knows how many threads and posts can change that. I say this as a Catholic who in this instance still loves the sinner (The Church) whilst despising the sin. I have said before I can accept to a certain degree the predicament Brady was in as a youngish Priest in an unforgiving environment. But as Bishop he could have taken a lead, he could have come clean and castigated the then Hierarchy as complicit in the cover up of sinful and criminal actions. He chose not to and that is unforgivable. Except of course to Tony who has his own freewheeling moral compass which allows him to defend paedophiles whilst damning Gay people to hell.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 06, 2016, 12:15:02 PM
This thread is an irrelevance. It is trying to excuse the cover-up of abuse in the Church by pointing the finger elsewhere. I wouldn't for one minute offer any excuse for secular organisations trying to cover their own arses, it is not on. But the Church in Ireland and elsewhere set itself up as the arbiter of the moral code by which we should live our lives, it decided what was sinful and what wasn't and in that context that makes its actions much much worse. No amount of waffle from Tony over God knows how many threads and posts can change that. I say this as a Catholic who in this instance still loves the sinner (The Church) whilst despising the sin. I have said before I can accept to a certain degree the predicament Brady was in as a youngish Priest in an unforgiving environment. But as Bishop he could have taken a lead, he could have come clean and castigated the then Hierarchy as complicit in the cover up of sinful and criminal actions. He chose not to and that is unforgivable. Except of course to Tony who has his own freewheeling moral compass which allows him to defend paedophiles whilst damning Gay people to hell.
I've said it a few times, but I'll try it one more time. If you don't reply to Tony's shite, you don't give threads like this the chance to develop. Let him have his first post, open the thread, ignore what he's said, close it again and watch it drift away into the ether with the rest of the bullshit.
I have an uncle who is a priest and we were talking one time about the Church and he said the abuse story would kill it in Ireland. I thought he was being unduly pessimistic then but I wouldn't any more. The support for immorality that Tony F repeats every time he posts on the subject more or less proves it. the rape of children is unacceptable .
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2016, 10:17:14 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
Remarkable post.
The family didn't go to the authorities because of the assurances given by the two priests, Brady and Donnelly (I think) that Smyth wouldn't bother Boland or any other child again. When they subsequently discovered that nothing whatsoever had been done about Smyth, the Dad went to the Gardai.
Point out to me where I condoned never mind supported paedophiles? By referring to instances of child abuse unfettered in the NHS and BBC in the 70s was simply to point out the culture of the time,in that organisations'reputations meant more than the fate of victims,and no one knew or apparently wanted to get to grips with this abomination,and blind eyes were turned or perpetrators moved on to other areas for someone else to deal with the problem.
Child abuse was mishandled in the Catholic Church then,as it was mishandled everywhere else.But we are examining Sean Brady's role, as a youngish priest with little influence (who happened 30 years later to become Cardinal),constrained by archaic protocols in a top heavy bureaucracy.
It is my view, that having been charged with examining allegations and reporting them,he fulfilled this role,and in my view has every moral right to consider his conscience to be clear.In short the victims of Smyth were let down by senior clerics in the Church,not the relatively junior Sean Brady
Quote from: Franko on April 06, 2016, 02:04:17 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 06, 2016, 12:15:02 PM
This thread is an irrelevance. It is trying to excuse the cover-up of abuse in the Church by pointing the finger elsewhere. I wouldn't for one minute offer any excuse for secular organisations trying to cover their own arses, it is not on. But the Church in Ireland and elsewhere set itself up as the arbiter of the moral code by which we should live our lives, it decided what was sinful and what wasn't and in that context that makes its actions much much worse. No amount of waffle from Tony over God knows how many threads and posts can change that. I say this as a Catholic who in this instance still loves the sinner (The Church) whilst despising the sin. I have said before I can accept to a certain degree the predicament Brady was in as a youngish Priest in an unforgiving environment. But as Bishop he could have taken a lead, he could have come clean and castigated the then Hierarchy as complicit in the cover up of sinful and criminal actions. He chose not to and that is unforgivable. Except of course to Tony who has his own freewheeling moral compass which allows him to defend paedophiles whilst damning Gay people to hell.
I've said it a few times, but I'll try it one more time. If you don't reply to Tony's shite, you don't give threads like this the chance to develop. Let him have his first post, open the thread, ignore what he's said, close it again and watch it drift away into the ether with the rest of the bullshit.
Agree 100%
Quote from: Franko on April 06, 2016, 02:04:17 PM
I've said it a few times, but I'll try it one more time. If you don't reply to Tony's shite, you don't give threads like this the chance to develop. Let him have his first post, open the thread, ignore what he's said, close it again and watch it drift away into the ether with the rest of the bullshit.
+1
Quote from: muppet on April 06, 2016, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2016, 10:17:14 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
Remarkable post.
The family didn't go to the authorities because of the assurances given by the two priests, Brady and Donnelly (I think) that Smyth wouldn't bother Boland or any other child again. When they subsequently discovered that nothing whatsoever had been done about Smyth, the Dad went to the Gardai.
why not go to the Gardai first?
anyway my point is we can be as out raged as we like about child abuse but if the figure Quoted are correct the it is much more prevalent part of society and human nature that we care to think about, Its very easy to hate bogey men such as Priests and odd celebrities like jimmy saville and rolf harris or whoever but the reality is most child abusers are Family members,
It is a subject that need much closer examination and spewing condemation and hatred may sooth some people conscience but it will also ensures nothing changes
Quote from: rosnarun on April 07, 2016, 12:16:30 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 06, 2016, 05:50:21 PM
Quote from: rosnarun on April 06, 2016, 10:17:14 AM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on April 06, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 05, 2016, 11:05:57 PM
This thread is exposing the irrational anti Catholicism of most posters on this board who continue to blame a 30 something junior cleric,over 40 years ago,for the entire failings of the Catholic Church in terms of child abuse in general.
There were no abused families,there were abused family members, whose parents displayed what would nowadays be termed criminal negligence in their failure to ascertain the reasons why their small children were summoned to a meeting with adult priests,and then,unbelievably drove them to the meeting and allowed them to attend unaccompanied.Thank God my parents weren't remotely negligent like that, and you would have been hard pushed to find more devout Catholic parents than mine.
So Sean Brady wasnt negligent, but the boys family was?
Is taht what youa re saying Tony?
Plus all this 'young priest' BS when defending brady, he was in his mid 30s FFS. If you cant make the right moral judgement at that age, you will never be able to.
I am in my mid 30s now, i certainly would never try and use my age as a defence for anything.
I think tony has a good point here ,
why if the family believed a crime had taken place would they not bring it to the authorities ?
is it because they like the church thought it would be swept under the carpet and not have to deal with it themselves?
more worryingly is that figure mentioned earlier that 4% of father abuse their children much like priests. on a rough estimate of 1 million men of parenting age that would leave at least 40,000 active pedophiles in the country .now there a heading for the sunday world .
Remarkable post.
The family didn't go to the authorities because of the assurances given by the two priests, Brady and Donnelly (I think) that Smyth wouldn't bother Boland or any other child again. When they subsequently discovered that nothing whatsoever had been done about Smyth, the Dad went to the Gardai.
why not go to the Gardai first?
anyway my point is we can be as out raged as we like about child abuse but if the figure Quoted are correct the it is much more prevalent part of society and human nature that we care to think about, Its very easy to hate bogey men such as Priests and odd celebrities like jimmy saville and rolf harris or whoever but the reality is most child abusers are Family members,
It is a subject that need much closer examination and spewing condemation and hatred may sooth some people conscience but it will also ensures nothing changes
Excusing the covering up of abuse ensures abuse continues and nothing changes. Most of us would expect more of our moral guardians but if you simply consider priest as oddballs, then I can see your reasoning.
I gave the reason why they didn't go to the Gardai first. The boy went to his local priest. This priest went immediately to the family and informed them. The family were told that there would be a Canonical Investigation and after that investigation the father was told Smyth would bother no child again. When they discovered he had continued to abuse, they went to the police. You can disagree with their actions with the benefit of hindsight, but like your point above, you can surely see their reasoning.
Rsonarun. Anti catholics have no sympathy for the victims of child abuse, its just another stick for them to beat the church they hate with a passion. So much the better if they can root out some skeleton from the cupboard of a Cardinal decades ago.
I have said before, and by doing so I am not in any way condoning child abuse or the mismanagement of same in any era, that the world was a hell of a lot less sophisiticated in the 1970s,and at an institutional level the culture throughout all organisations who didnt know how to deal with it, was to turn a blind eye or move the problem on. This was wrong, as were many things in decades past.
In the late 70s I was involved on the periphery of a child abuse scandal, when in my student days a work colleague abused two young boys while taking them swimming.The parents, on hearing of the abuse from their children, went straight to the Police, and the culprit was swiftly arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned (though there were no sex registers in those days so I don't know if he was supervised on his release).
That, in the 70s, as in any other era was an example of good family relations (the boys who were primary school kids were able to tell their parents) and good parenting (they immediately went to the Police)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 04:36:28 PM
Rsonarun. Anti catholics have no sympathy for the victims of child abuse, its just another stick for them to beat the church they hate with a passion. So much the better if they can root out some skeleton from the cupboard of a Cardinal decades ago.
I have said before, and by doing so I am not in any way condoning child abuse or the mismanagement of same in any era, that the world was a hell of a lot less sophisiticated in the 1970s,and at an institutional level the culture throughout all organisations who didnt know how to deal with it, was to turn a blind eye or move the problem on. This was wrong, as were many things in decades past.
In the late 70s I was involved on the periphery of a child abuse scandal, when in my student days a work colleague abused two young boys while taking them swimming.The parents, on hearing of the abuse from their children, went straight to the Police, and the culprit was swiftly arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned (though there were no sex registers in those days so I don't know if he was supervised on his release).
That, in the 70s, as in any other era was an example of good family relations (the boys who were primary school kids were able to tell their parents) and good parenting (they immediately went to the Police)
Tony, given your relationship with the truth of Brady's behaviour (you still pretend he was merely a 'notary'), I don't believe a single word of your story, which as usual comes without a link or a source.
There was a huge difference between a kid being terrified of a swimming coach and being terrified of going to hell for ratting on a priest. That is how Brendan Smyth operated and some of the victims never told the parents, even as adults, due to the fear and shame. You blaming them and their families for this is some of the lowest stuff I've seen on the internet.
I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.
Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 05:53:24 PM
I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.
Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.
Are you a parent?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 05:53:24 PM
I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.
Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.
Sean Brady was told about 5 children.
He met 2 of them and didn't tell the parents of one of those.
He never met, nor told the parents of the other 3. One of them went on to be abused for years by Smyth, along with his sisters and cousins. Brady knew and the parents knew nothing. No one from the church ever contacted these 3 children even though Brady & Donnelly knew their names from 1975.
But he did tell his superiors? Why didnt the kids tell their parents? Are you seriously saying Brady followed Smyth's "career" after he noted the allegations of the children in 1975?
If Brady is guilty of any crime why hasn't he been arrested?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 07:31:56 PM
But he did tell his superiors?
So what? The Nuremberg defence has been pulled asunder by everyone here. You don't seem to realise how stupid this mantra is.
QuoteWhy didnt the kids tell their parents?
I told you many times. Smyth targeted the vulnerable as he saw it, often children of very devout families who wouldn't dare question a priest.
QuoteAre you seriously saying Brady followed Smyth's "career" after he noted the allegations of the children in 1975?
I never said that anywhere. However Brady was made Primate of All-Ireland when Cardinal Cahal Daly resigned over his own handling of Smyth cases. Also Brady & Donnelly promised Boland's father that Smyth wouldn't abuse again. If he didn't check up on Smyth's career as you crassly put it, then he had no intention of keeping his promise. http://www.thejournal.ie/abuse-victim-calls-for-brady-apology-as-more-lawsuits-against-cardinal-emerge-295912-Dec2011/ (http://www.thejournal.ie/abuse-victim-calls-for-brady-apology-as-more-lawsuits-against-cardinal-emerge-295912-Dec2011/)
QuoteIf Brady is guilty of any crime why hasn't he been arrested?
He should be arrested imho, along with anyone who conspired to silence victims or impede in any way those making complaints about church pedophiles or BBC pedophiles or any pedophiles. But then the church, with Brady as head, fought against abuse victims in the courts to delay them getting the real story.
There hasn't even been a proper investigation (like Ferns, Murphy & Cloyne) into the Kilmore Diocese ffs, nor most of the dioceses where Smyth was hidden to keep him from the authorities.
Brady could only make that promise on behalf of the church.In any event the parent showed a serious error of misjudgement as it was a promise made in good faith but in reality could not possibly be honoured.
Smyth should have been stopped long before Sean Brady was cast into this sad affair.
Quote from: reddgnhand on April 07, 2016, 06:57:46 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 05:53:24 PM
I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.
Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.
Are you a parent?
Of course he isn't.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 08:44:46 PM
Brady could only make that promise on behalf of the church.In any event the parent showed a serious error of misjudgement as it was a promise made in good faith but in reality could not possibly be honoured.
Smyth should have been stopped long before Sean Brady was cast into this sad affair.
This is beyond farcical.
How can a promise made in good faith be one that 'could not possibly be honoured'? Who was not operating in good faith then, Brady or the Catholic Church?
As for stopping Smyth earlier, of course that is true. But as long as there were people like Brady involved, it was never going to stop.
As an aside, we know Brady was told by one victim the names 4 other probable victims. Brady only spoke to one of them. He didn't say anything to that child's parents and as far as we know, he never made contact with the other 3 families. I wonder if he spoke to Smyth about the allegations as part of his investigation into an allegation against Smyth?
We cannot wonder or speculate,only deal with facts.The core facts are that a) Brady reported his findings punctually to his superiors b) Some parents were aware of their offspring being abused by Smyth,but chose not to tell the Police.
Some facts which fit my agenda are...
Any that don't fit my agenda i will ignore.
::)
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2016, 07:27:41 AM
We cannot wonder or speculate,only deal with facts.The core facts are that a) Brady reported his findings punctually to his superiors b) Some parents were aware of their offspring being abused by Smyth,but chose not to tell the Police.
Why does a mere 'notary' produce findings?
How does someone who is charged with producing findings of alleged sexual abuse, not bother to speak to 3 of the 5 children alleged to be at risk of abuse?
Why didn't he speak to the other 3, could it be that as they hadn't made any complaints there was no threat to the Church and he wasn't concerned about them?
How does he make 'findings' without speaking to the alleged culprit to hear what he has to say?
Why is it that the only meaningful outcome of his 'findings' was his signature on the 2, then illegal, oaths of silence?
Is he the most incompetent investigator in history?
It is very sad that this hasn't been thoroughly investigated and all documents released. I am aware of a Commission being set up in the north on this matter but it needs to be a cross-border joint exercise. Brady and the Church should be forced to reveal all their documentation on Brendan Smyth once and for all.
Tony, if you trust Brady always did the right thing, you too should be calling for all document to be released as they should vindicate him.
I believe all documents should be released and if it is found a criminal offence was committed then there should be prosecutions.I believe Sean Brady and the church did things a whole lot differently in the 70s than they do today.It's easy with hindsight to look back and say this and that should have been done.Parents would probably go straight to the Police nowadays
As regards your criticisms I can only assume investigators can only investigate formal complaints,not hearsay
Once again I reiterare Brady told his superiors at the time
It is they not him who deserve censure.
Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 05:24:51 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on April 07, 2016, 04:36:28 PM
Rsonarun. Anti catholics have no sympathy for the victims of child abuse, its just another stick for them to beat the church they hate with a passion. So much the better if they can root out some skeleton from the cupboard of a Cardinal decades ago.
I have said before, and by doing so I am not in any way condoning child abuse or the mismanagement of same in any era, that the world was a hell of a lot less sophisiticated in the 1970s,and at an institutional level the culture throughout all organisations who didnt know how to deal with it, was to turn a blind eye or move the problem on. This was wrong, as were many things in decades past.
In the late 70s I was involved on the periphery of a child abuse scandal, when in my student days a work colleague abused two young boys while taking them swimming.The parents, on hearing of the abuse from their children, went straight to the Police, and the culprit was swiftly arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned (though there were no sex registers in those days so I don't know if he was supervised on his release).
That, in the 70s, as in any other era was an example of good family relations (the boys who were primary school kids were able to tell their parents) and good parenting (they immediately went to the Police)
Tony, given your relationship with the truth of Brady's behaviour (you still pretend he was merely a 'notary'), I don't believe a single word of your story, which as usual comes without a link or a source.
There was a huge difference between a kid being terrified of a swimming coach and being terrified of going to hell for ratting on a priest. That is how Brendan Smyth operated and some of the victims never told the parents, even as adults, due to the fear and shame. You blaming them and their families for this is some of the lowest stuff I've seen on the internet.
I am aware of the case Tony speaks of, although I didn't know of the connection to Tony.
The one big flaw in Tony's argument in relation to parents is the grip the church in Ireland had on parents in the '60's and '70's. The parents of most of these Children would have been mortified if anyone would suggest the take on the might of the Church. In addition the sense of shame that would have attached itself to the family would have been to much to bear, so of course they went along with what the Church did. it is difficult for people not of my vintage to understand what society was like in those days, I have to think hard to remember myself, perhaps Tony is having difficulty remembering?
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2016, 11:27:37 AM
I believe all documents should be released and if it is found a criminal offence was committed then there should be prosecutions.I believe Sean Brady and the church did things a whole lot differently in the 70s than they do today.It's easy with hindsight to look back and say this and that should have been done.Parents would probably go straight to the Police nowadays
As regards your criticisms I can only assume investigators can only investigate formal complaints,not hearsay
Once again I reiterare Brady told his superiors at the time
It is they not him who deserve censure.
They should be jailed, but unfortunately they are all dead.
However their deaths should not be used as convenient cover for Brady's (and all of the others - there were many involved who heard of Smyth's activities and conspired to keep moving him around) actions and inactions.
As for you hearsay comment, that is again disgraceful. You know exactly what you are doing. You are publicly discrediting Boland's testimony to Brady, of which Brady is on the record as saying he believed every word, and dismissing it as 'hearsay'. Even Brady disagrees with your defence of Brady.
Brady believed it was completely true and he went to one of the named children to verify it, and that child confirmed Boland's testimony. Brady then got that child to swear an oath of silence. Brady just didn't bother to speak with the other 3 children, nor inform anyone that those children were at risk of sexual abuse. Abuse that lasted years. That isn't hearsay, it is on the record.
Quote from: Applesisapples on April 08, 2016, 11:53:36 AM
The one big flaw in Tony's argument in relation to parents is the grip the church in Ireland had on parents in the '60's and '70's. The parents of most of these Children would have been mortified if anyone would suggest the take on the might of the Church. In addition the sense of shame that would have attached itself to the family would have been to much to bear, so of course they went along with what the Church did. it is difficult for people not of my vintage to understand what society was like in those days, I have to think hard to remember myself, perhaps Tony is having difficulty remembering?
This is completely correct. Especially considering that the likes of Smyth would have carefully groomed children of such families, as he saw them.
Also, the criticism of blaming bad parenting for not knowing what your children are saying to a priest in confidence, falls flat when you look at Confessions.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the church was allegedly omnipotent.I knew a church sexton who fxxxded all the local priests up and down and had constant stand up rows with the parish priest,his employer.I saw a parent threatening to throttle the most volatile curate in the parish after mass accusing him of making a fool out of his altar boy son during mass.
In short this notion of an all powerful church claiming blind allegiance is a myth.And if anyone gives blind allegiance to anyone or anything they bring the consequences on themselves.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2016, 02:20:23 PM
I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the church was allegedly omnipotent.I knew a church sexton who fxxxded all the local priests up and down and had constant stand up rows with the parish priest,his employer.I saw a parent threatening to throttle the most volatile curate in the parish after mass accusing him of making a fool out of his altar boy son during mass.
In short this notion of an all powerful church claiming blind allegiance is a myth.And if anyone gives blind allegiance to anyone or anything they bring the consequences on themselves.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jY_WWFGfzS8/UtwuiVuIXZI/AAAAAAAAAF4/Vex0A-sVHig/s1600/missingthepoint-1.gif)
This isn't about you or what you have seen, or who you sat beside at a match. Can you understand that? A man who would throttle a priest for making fun of an alter boy, would certainly not be the sort of family Brendan Smyth would pick for grooming. You claiming that this silly anecdote someone proves anything is idiotic.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2016, 02:20:23 PM
I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the church was allegedly omnipotent.I knew a church sexton who fxxxded all the local priests up and down and had constant stand up rows with the parish priest,his employer.I saw a parent threatening to throttle the most volatile curate in the parish after mass accusing him of making a fool out of his altar boy son during mass.
In short this notion of an all powerful church claiming blind allegiance is a myth.And if anyone gives blind allegiance to anyone or anything they bring the consequences on themselves.
Yet it was too much to as Sean Brady to stand up to his superiors and do the right thing?
You are a walking contradiction Tony.
Quote from: T Fearon on April 08, 2016, 02:20:23 PM
I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the church was allegedly omnipotent.I knew a church sexton who fxxxded all the local priests up and down and had constant stand up rows with the parish priest,his employer.I saw a parent threatening to throttle the most volatile curate in the parish after mass accusing him of making a fool out of his altar boy son during mass.
In short this notion of an all powerful church claiming blind allegiance is a myth.And if anyone gives blind allegiance to anyone or anything they bring the consequences on themselves.
Tony these are exceptions, no one is saying that 100% of parishioners followed blindly but a majority did and paedo priest new which to choose.
I'm a practising Catholic, a church goer and supporter however, as far as I'm concerned any abusers should have been jailed long ago. If they have t and are still about they should be. Anyone complicit in cover ups should be jailed. Anyone who knew and done nothing, I don't know if they can be jailed legally but maybe they should be excommunicated. The church is, I believe, in grave danger. They seem to have lost a lot of faith with people. Being completely open and honest and transparent about all of this is a necessity if they want to win people back, to regain trust.
That said it works both ways. Priests who are completely innocent get accused and out through the ringer. Even when it's found out that they're innocent they still have a stigma attached. A priest in my own home parish faced this recently and even though to be innocent and charges dropped he has not been able to return which is sad. And what happens the accuser? Nobody knows as that person gets to remain anonymous. That annoys me
Quote from: tonto1888 on April 08, 2016, 05:25:37 PM
I'm a practising Catholic, a church goer and supporter however, as far as I'm concerned any abusers should have been jailed long ago. If they have t and are still about they should be. Anyone complicit in cover ups should be jailed. Anyone who knew and done nothing, I don't know if they can be jailed legally but maybe they should be excommunicated. The church is, I believe, in grave danger. They seem to have lost a lot of faith with people. Being completely open and honest and transparent about all of this is a necessity if they want to win people back, to regain trust.
That said it works both ways. Priests who are completely innocent get accused and out through the ringer. Even when it's found out that they're innocent they still have a stigma attached. A priest in my own home parish faced this recently and even though to be innocent and charges dropped he has not been able to return which is sad. And what happens the accuser? Nobody knows as that person gets to remain anonymous. That annoys me
This is also fair. I went to a school where, years later, my mother was told of an allegation against one of the priests. I said 'no way!' when I heard it. 6 months later the person who told her said she had the wrong school. I hate people who don't bother with things like checking their facts and don't mind accidentally slurring good people.