Magdalene Laundries payout.

[T Fearon]

How is the "truth" never heard when it is recorded in writing by the notary and reported to superiors? Consider also that the notary was recording "allegations" at that stage which were unproven.

[Hardy]

Are you serious? The "superiors" were the ones who ordered the suppression of the truth. Talking about what was "reported" to the conspirators themselves seems to indicate that you actually don't understand what we're talking about here.

[johnneycool]

Are you serious? The "superiors" were the ones who ordered the suppression of the truth. Talking about what was "reported" to the conspirators themselves seems to indicate that you actually don't understand what we're talking about here.

He understands rightly, but chooses to block out logic, morality and decency when it involves wrong doing involving the Catholic church and Sean Brady.

That's not uncommon when the indoctrination runs deep in any faith or creed.

[T Fearon]

I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.

He met children, listened to them and reported  the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.

Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?


 

[take_yer_points]

I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.

He met children, listened to them and reported  the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.

Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?

So Sean Brady is a victim in this? I think you've highlighted why yourself and others have a different opinion on this - most people are looking at it from the point of view of the children who were abused and then silenced, whereas you're looking at it from Sean Brady's point of view.

I'd rather have been out of the organisation having highlighted to the proper authorities (with my head held high) rather than silence the children and report the allegations to my superiors and leave it at that (knowing the abuser was still free to carry out further crimes against innocent children - the children who are the real victims).

[T Fearon]

You are presuming way too much here. Was Fr Brady not entitled to think that his superiors would have acted appropriately? Remember too, this was the mid 70s, when allegations were few and far between and no one was aware of the extent of the problem.

The children concerned were listened to. They were granted a meeting and their allegations were recorded and passed on.

If at work, you, for example, observed a colleague stealing cash, and reported this to your boss, would you not feel that you have met your obligations and cleared your conscience?

[imtommygunn]

I don't think it is a comparable scenario you are making.

Material versus someone being pretty much scarred for life and have demons that will probably run through generations of the family.

If your superior wasn't to deal with it through the law or indeed deal with it then the vast majority of people would speak up.

It's a power thing at the end of the day. These people had power and don't want to lose it. The "fabric" of what they are made up of is tested by whether or not they get the thing dealt with and lose a lot of face because it happened on their watch or they sweep it under their carpet.

Tony you do seem to defend the catholic church to the hilt here and on one hand it is admirable but I wouldn't be convinced that if another organisation you weren't brought up with , religious or not, were to be involved in something like this you would defend them.

[Lar Naparka]

I am looking at this from Sean Brady's perspective, a young priest in the mid 70s, assigned a horrendous task in a bureacratic organisation, in which failure to obey orders or follow protocol could have catastrophic effects.

He met children, listened to them and reported  the "allegations" he heard in writing to his superiors. If there was any failure to act it rests with the superiors, though this is mitigated too in that they didnt have the benefit of hindsight or detailed knowledge of the truly perverse history of the perpetrator at the time. If I was Sean Brady my conscience would be totally clear on this.

Another thing, what did the parents of these children think they were taking their offspring to meet Fr Brady at the time, for? Surely at the very least they must have known it was something out of the ordinary? Should they not have demanded to accompany their children into the meeting?
Is this not a failure on the parents part too?

I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then.
Trust me, the Taliban are altar boys by comparison.
Brady was a career diplomat- nothing wrong with that, I suppose. He knew damn well that a lifelong curacy in Hackballscross or the likes was waiting for him if he should step out of line.
The bastard had a choice to make.
Should he continue to move up the career ladder or get off it? He chose the former.
He put promotion before principle.
Like I say, I can see things from Brady's perspective but I don't like what I see.
I believe those who accept this individual's right to speak for the Catholic Church in Ireland have a decision to make and there can be no equivocation in this.
Brady claimed he was merely carrying out orders from his superior. It was an act of blind obedience without thought of the consequences for all children at risk from Brendan Smyth.
That's bad enough but the fecker has refused to accept that he did anything wrong. But he's no longer a messenger boy and the good people of Hackballscross can breathe a sigh of relief.
Ergo, he'd still do the same if the situation arose.
I don't think I'd like to have an individual like this coming in contact with any child for any reason.
Now, if he wasn't a fool he had (has?) to be a knave; a ruthless promotion seeker, devoid of any sort of conscience who put his career before his Christian responsibilities and would do the same again.

So, jackass or jackal, who is the real Cardinal Sean Brady?

[take_yer_points]

You are presuming way too much here. Was Fr Brady not entitled to think that his superiors would have acted appropriately? Remember too, this was the mid 70s, when allegations were few and far between and no one was aware of the extent of the problem.

The children concerned were listened to. They were granted a meeting and their allegations were recorded and passed on.

If at work, you, for example, observed a colleague stealing cash, and reported this to your boss, would you not feel that you have met your obligations and cleared your conscience?

Fr Brady was entitled to think that alright - it's a real shame they didn't report it to the authorities. However it's also a shame that the future leader didn't act when he realised his superiors did nothing covered it up and actively allowed it to continue by moving priests to another parish. You never answered my question by the way - do you believe Sean Brady is a victim in this?

Your example of stealing money at work is laughable. I wouldn't report that to the police - there are many crimes I wouldn't report to the police if I found them out at work. However, if management in work found out about them I'm sure the person would be sacked for such offences rather than them being moved on to another department. On the other hand, if I uncovered a more serious crime at work, such as child abuse, then I would be on to the police in a flash with all the evidence I could lay my hands on.

[HiMucker]

"Last week I seen one of  the fellas in our stores department in work abusing one of the trainees in the toilet.  I reported it to my boss.  I came in on Monday this week and the fella is now working in the accounts department.  Ah well  I have done all I can"

Catch yourself on Tony.  Sean Brady should be brought before the courts for not reporting a serious crime to the police at the very least.

[theskull1]

I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then.
Trust me, the Taliban are altar boys by comparison.
Brady was a career diplomat- nothing wrong with that, I suppose. He knew damn well that a lifelong curacy in Hackballscross or the likes was waiting for him if he should step out of line.
The b**tard had a choice to make.
Should he continue to move up the career ladder or get off it? He chose the former.
He put promotion before principle.
Like I say, I can see things from Brady's perspective but I don't like what I see.
I believe those who accept this individual's right to speak for the Catholic Church in Ireland have a decision to make and there can be no equivocation in this.
Brady claimed he was merely carrying out orders from his superior. It was an act of blind obedience without thought of the consequences for all children at risk from Brendan Smyth.
That's bad enough but the fecker has refused to accept that he did anything wrong. But he's no longer a messenger boy and the good people of Hackballscross can breathe a sigh of relief.
Ergo, he'd still do the same if the situation arose.
I don't think I'd like to have an individual like this coming in contact with any child for any reason.
Now, if he wasn't a fool he had (has?) to be a knave; a ruthless promotion seeker, devoid of any sort of conscience who put his career before his Christian responsibilities and would do the same again.

So, jackass or jackal, who is the real Cardinal Sean Brady?

This is EXACTLY my take on Sean Brady. He's no dozer

[T Fearon]

I am not defending the catholic church, like every other organisation on this planet, comprised of humans, it has made serious mistakes, has had and still has its share of despicable members (some of whom wear the cloth), etc.

I think you are all confusing a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now.

For the umpteenth time I will repeat, he interviewed children who made "allegations" (as yet unproven) against a certain priest, and reported thse accurately and speedily to his superiors, following established protocol, right or wrong as it may have been. He was perfectly entitled to a) think that this report would have been acted upon appropriately and b) he was in all probability not privy to the decisions of his superiors on receipt and consideration of his report.

It is very easy to sit and criticise someone for an action nearly 40 years ago, armed with all the knowledge etc in possession now, but to truly understand this case, you have to set aside that and put yourself in the shoes of a young priest back in the mid 70s.

[theskull1]

Sean Brady knew the part he had to play to please his masters and he has been well rewarded for his subservience to the upper echelons. He has long since been part of the aristocracy and his record in that regard is just as damning.

Only brainwashed fools see otherwise.

[Lar Naparka]

I am not defending the catholic church, like every other organisation on this planet, comprised of humans, it has made serious mistakes, has had and still has its share of despicable members (some of whom wear the cloth), etc.

I think you are all confusing a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now.

For the umpteenth time I will repeat, he interviewed children who made "allegations" (as yet unproven) against a certain priest, and reported thse accurately and speedily to his superiors, following established protocol, right or wrong as it may have been. He was perfectly entitled to a) think that this report would have been acted upon appropriately and b) he was in all probability not privy to the decisions of his superiors on receipt and consideration of his report.

It is very easy to sit and criticise someone for an action nearly 40 years ago, armed with all the knowledge etc in possession now, but to truly understand this case, you have to set aside that and put yourself in the shoes of a young priest back in the mid 70s.

Now, now, Tony, where are you going with your "all?"
This is what I wrote in my last post and it's what I wrote in other topics as well.

I can see it from Brady's perspective also.
I am old enough to remember the absolute control the church had over the lives of ordinary people back then.

And or one more time, I say I can understand what he did and why he did it but I despise him for being a Pontius Pilate and washing his hands of the affair.

What he did then was heinous but what he is up to now is many times worse.
"the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady,"  as you term him, has refused to acknowledge that what he did back then was wrong in any way.
His attitude has not changed in the interim so you are the one who confuses "a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now."

There has been no change; he is still at heart the same Sean Brady who swore those kids to secrecy and then sat on his hands.

[deiseach]

What he did then was heinous but what he is up to now is many times worse.
"the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady,"  as you term him, has refused to acknowledge that what he did back then was wrong in any way.
His attitude has not changed in the interim so you are the one who confuses "a young Fr Sean Brady then with the Prince of the Church Cardinal Brady, as he is now."

Well said. I'm sure that, in his heart, Seán Brady knows he screwed up. A true Christian would admit to his failure to speak out when confronted by evil. To err is human etc. But the Prince of the Church won't offer up any hostages to fortune. By his own standards, he will pay a very heavy price on the Day of Reckoning for his cowardice.