Sean Brady stands down - 2

[T Fearon]

So Muppet now suggests that Smyth ( in total control of his urges no doubt )  carefully researched his victims and vetted them to ensure they were the offspring of the devout?  Did you ever hear anything more ridiculous?

Like all unsavoury events this needs careful circumspect forensic analysis.The Church's procedures  were wholly inadequate,but lessons have been learned.It is not an attempt in any way to exonerate the Church to say that the parents failed their children too by neglecting to find out what was wrong (presumably there were tell tale signs in the children's behaviour) and the absolute belief defying action of driving their children to a meeting with clergy,without finding out the purpose of that meeting and agreeing to be absent from that meeting.Blind devotion,trust,piety is absolutely no excuse I'm afraid.

[Eamonnca1]

It is not an attempt in any way to exonerate the Church to say that the parents failed their children too by neglecting to find out what was wrong

Well it is actually. It's also a vile, evil, disgusting, disgraceful, contemptible attempt to shift the blame onto the victims.

You must be the last person on earth who has the gall to stick up for these sickos and their fellow travellers who facilitated them.

The English language pales with inadequacy in attempting to describe the sheer depravity of what you are shamelessly doing.

Shame on you. Shame on you!

[muppet]

So Muppet now suggests that Smyth ( in total control of his urges no doubt )  carefully researched his victims and vetted them to ensure they were the offspring of the devout?  Did you ever hear anything more ridiculous?

Like all unsavoury events this needs careful circumspect forensic analysis.The Church's procedures  were wholly inadequate,but lessons have been learned.It is not an attempt in any way to exonerate the Church to say that the parents failed their children too by neglecting to find out what was wrong (presumably there were tell tale signs in the children's behaviour) and the absolute belief defying action of driving their children to a meeting with clergy,without finding out the purpose of that meeting and agreeing to be absent from that meeting.Blind devotion,trust,piety is absolutely no excuse I'm afraid.

It is time to move beyond the denial stage Tony. You are stuck in the 1970s somewhere

Smyth gained access to the vulnerable children via the Church. The more devout & the more trusting of men of the cloth, the more vulnerable they were and the more access he got. He raped children in their own homes, with the parents downstairs. How do you think this happened?

Let's put it this way, did Smyth abuse any protestant children?

Smyth and Father Filth Walsh and people like that, took the children on weekends away from the their families. They did trips to Cork and things like that. He would plan these trips weeks in advance. Most families wouldn't allow that. But they didn't target most families. They knew exactly what they were doing.

[brokencrossbar1]

So Muppet now suggests that Smyth ( in total control of his urges no doubt )  carefully researched his victims and vetted them to ensure they were the offspring of the devout?  Did you ever hear anything more ridiculous?

Like all unsavoury events this needs careful circumspect forensic analysis.The Church's procedures  were wholly inadequate,but lessons have been learned.It is not an attempt in any way to exonerate the Church to say that the parents failed their children too by neglecting to find out what was wrong (presumably there were tell tale signs in the children's behaviour) and the absolute belief defying action of driving their children to a meeting with clergy,without finding out the purpose of that meeting and agreeing to be absent from that meeting.Blind devotion,trust,piety is absolutely no excuse I'm afraid.

That is exactly how child abusers work.  They identify the vulnerable, they 'befriend' them, gifts, help them out with homework that their parents can't do, give them extra days as altar boys etc.  They create a bond between themselves and the victims,  trying to supplant themselves as the 'father' figure.  This ensures that the victim finds it difficult to challenge it.  You through this whole debacle have shown a complete ignorance of the impact that this has on the victims and also the horrific attitude of the church.  You have weaseled repeatedly into a whatabout stance and that itself should be condemned.  The children and parents were victims not just of the abuse that the priests put them through but the mental abuse that the church as a whole put them through by the actions of the hierarchy.  Brady was a central part to that in Ireland as he was a canon lawyer with no doubt his 'career' in mind when he did what he did to facilitate a cover up.  The Church's response was completely inadequate but that doesn't mean that Brady as a man of some purported morals should not stood up and called this wrong.  He was a coward and when he goes to his final judgement he can never be absolved in his own heart of what he did and he will burn in hell (If that is what you believe in.)

[T Fearon]

I have never in my life and never will condone,excuse or be an apologist for child abusers, let's get that straight.

But was Mr Boland for example from a deprived or vulnerable background? I am referring to the specific case in which Sean Brady was involved.The children were not from broken homes or from a deprived background, the same as many other victims of Smyth,so that nails the myth that these perverts preyed solely on the vulnerable.

Time for the parents to do what Bob Geldoff (a man I have little time for generally) courageously did this week and admit their parenting failures, and accept their share of the blame alongside the church in this whole sorry saga.

[muppet]

I have never in my life and never will condone,excuse or be an apologist for child abusers, let's get that straight.

But was Mr Boland for example from a deprived or vulnerable background? I am referring to the specific case in which Sean Brady was involved.The children were not from broken homes or from a deprived background, the same as many other victims of Smyth,so that nails the myth that these perverts preyed solely on the vulnerable.

Time for the parents to do what Bob Geldoff (a man I have little time for generally) courageously did this week and admit their parenting failures, and accept their share of the blame alongside the church in this whole sorry saga.

You certainly are an apologist for clerical abuse. You are trying to diminish the role of the Church, and in particular people like Brady, and argue that these families and/or the victims somehow brought it on themselves. They didn't. This fact has been acknowledged by the various reports and anyone with an ounce of empathy. Geldof's tragic daughter was in her 20s. The Smyth victims were often pre-teen, so another absurd Tony Fearon whataboutery comparison.

The Ferns Report page 19:

The question is asked why children, who were being abused by priests in Ferns, did not confide in their parents or other trusted adults who would have been in a position to protect them and prevent such abuse form recurring. We know from research evidence and from the evidence to this Inquiry that only a minority of children who are abused will tell a protective adult, and the unpalatable reality is that the reported and treated cases are the exception rather than the norm. The reasons for this are numerous but include: intimidation generated by blackmail or threats, fear of being disbelieved and guilt or dread of official intervention both for themselves and for the abuser.......

..From speaking with victims of child sexual abuse, it appears to the Inquiry that children abused by priests, particularly during the decades prior to the increased awareness of child sexual abuse and the development of a child protection system within the Church, were notably less likely to disclose their abuse to their parents. The very powerful position of the priest within the community and the reverence with which families held him militated against the child speaking about what had happened...

The report talks about how the abuser rarely abuses on the first contact and how he 'grooms' and intimidates the children, exactly as BC1 said above, separating them from their normal relationships. It also talks about how the lack of an adequate response from the Church when they did report the abuser caused 're-traumatisation' for the victims.

Nowhere in the report is there any blame attached to the families or the victims. But then the report dealt with the reality of clerical sex abuse, you on the other hand inhabit a very disturbed world.

[T Fearon]

I agree.The people responsible for child abuse are child abusers.But if we are drawing in people like Brady for failing to deal with it then lets look at the gross failure of the parents as well.

[Itchy]

Muppet - Tony is not a well person, you should probably leave him alone. Even the best wums couldn't keep going this long so I can only guess he has a problem himself. I mean what sane person could equate someone who make rape victims sign secrecy papers with parents of the rape victims.

[muppet]

I agree.The people responsible for child abuse are child abusers.But if we are drawing in people like Brady for failing to deal with it then lets look at the gross failure of the parents as well.

You don't agree.

You want to scapegoat the parents to deflect attention away from Brady's failures. The great irony is, there is probably no one on the entire internet who is drawing as much attention to Brady's failing as yourself. I would hardly be bothered to looks him up, if I hadn't been so offended by your crass blaming of the victims parents and annoyed by your deranged starting of threads congratulating him on his retirement etc.

There are probably many posters here who were either indifferent to Brady or didn't know much about his involvement, until you started 'defending' him. We should be all grateful to you in a way. Most of us are now very well versed in Brady's failures and the impact he had on some of Smyth's victims.

Did you miss this again:

Ferns report page 20

We know from research evidence and from the evidence to this Inquiry that only a minority of children who are abused will tell a protective adult....

So the majority of parents wouldn't have know then.

What about other Church members who knew:

Research on clerical sexual abuse carried out in Ireland indicates that when victims reported their abuse and received an inadequate response from church authorities, they experienced retraumatisation.

So the unfortunate victims often experienced 'retraumatisation' when the response was inadequate. Brady's response was completely inadequate.

The more interesting bits of the report outline the role of The Vatican, which might go some way to explain Brady's actions.

[easytiger95]

Muppet, for your own sake, lock the thread.

[muppet]

Muppet, for your own sake, lock the thread.

Because of one man's attempted reality distortion and attempt to hide an issue of national importance? That would be a victory for Fearon.

Would it not be simpler for a mod to block Fearon's offensive and sickening posts?

I will however, suggest moving on to other parts of the various reports which could explain Brady's actions, though he denies the existence of any guidelines at the time.

From Ferns Page 20:

Early Church law ranked sexual sins as the most serious offences along with homicide and idolatry. The three most serious of these were fornication, adultery and sexual corruption of young boys. II The first Code of Canon law, published in 1917, contained specific canons condemning solicitation, false denunciation and the failure to denounce. This only became relevant to the issue of child sexual abuse by clergy when, in 1962 Pope John XXIII issued a special procedural law for the processing of solicitation cases. The document was sent to a number of Bishops throughout the world who were directed to keep it in secret archives and not to publish or comment upon it. This document related specifically to solicitation in the course of hearing Confession. It is of interest to the Inquiry as it also specifically dealt with how priests who abused children were to be handled and imposed a high degree of secrecy on all Church officials involved in such cases. The penalty for breach of this secrecy was automatic excommunication. Even witnesses and complainants could be excommunicated if they broke the oath of secrecy. The Inquiry has seen no evidence of the existence of this document in the files of the Diocese of Ferns that it has examined. It has been informed that the Diocese never received such a communication from Rome and was not aware of its existence until it was publicly discussed by commentators in 200 1. This is the first document from the Vatican of which the Inquiry is aware which directs bishops on the handling of child abuse allegations. The code of secrecy which was emphasised in the document has been perceived by the media and members of the general public as informing the Church authorities on how allegations of child sexual abuse should be dealt with. This 1962 document was referred to in a document issued by the Vatican in 200 I outlining new norms for handling certain grave offences. The document which was entitled, "Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela,,12 (Protection of the Holiness of the Sacraments), was issued "motu proprio ,,13 by Pope John Paul II.

[easytiger95]

I asked for him to be blocked a month ago - the response from the board admin was bizarre. What can't be cured must be endured. Lock the thread and walk away. Everyone knows what he is. No point repeating it over and over.

[muppet]

I asked for him to be blocked a month ago - the response from the board admin was bizarre. What can't be cured must be endured. Lock the thread and walk away. Everyone knows what he is. No point repeating it over and over.

Ok, I reluctantly will agree to close the thread.

However the main reason is I am concerned for Fearon's wellbeing. His argument is on a steep spiral descent whereby he is actually becoming an abuser. If he persists with that on a public forum, there could be serious consequences.