Sean Brady Steps Down

[Zip Code]

Muppet seems like you're moving on to my turf.There was a catalogue of failures by many people.I don't see how the oath legislation could be enforced.There are two parties to every oath,so who is ultimately responsible?

Based on your previous posts you obviously blame the child who was abused.

[easytiger95]

There are two parties to every oath so who is responsible?

I'd say, at a wild guess, the 36 year old man, representing a massive world wide institution with huge political and social influence, who was coercing a 15 year old abuse victim to take said oath. Good Jesus.

Thanks all by the way for your kind comments re the other post.

[Lar Naparka]

Lar and LCohen.The policy and procedures were wrong in the 70s,not necessarily the people operating them.Once again it is laughable to suggest the Catholic Church is some sort of career ladder.FFS who would want to be Pope or a Bishop.The likes of Brady followed a vocation and was ultra loyal to the church and its antiquated procedures.He has admitted that and apologised for it.

Equally laughable is the inference that I hero - worship Sean Brady.

Bejaysus Tony, you had me fooled. I honestly thought that you were the founder and only member of SB's fan club.
I think I understand your POV a bit better now. Not saying that I agree with you but I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,
Take the Dublin Archdiocese as an example.
The Murphy  Report in 2009 found that  "During the period under review, there were four Archbishops – Archbishops McQuaid, Ryan, McNamara and Connell. Not one of them reported his knowledge of child sexual abuse to the Gardaí throughout the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s.
A total of 45 abusers were named in that report.

McNamara it turned out, had insured the archdiocese against financial liability without revealing the extent of child abuse in his jurisdiction. This only came to  light in an audit requested by the present archbishop, Diarmuid Martin.
Connell who refused point blank to release files associated with child abuse to the gardai, gave a secret loan of £30,000 to a priest named Ivan Payne to pay for an out of court settlement.  Connell blustered about the primacy of Canon Law over Civil Law.
He only changed his mind when his successor, Diarmuid Martin,  threatened to take a court action against him if he didn't hand them over.
There's loads more Tony as I am only skimming through the litany of reported abuse cases in the Dublin archdiocese in a period that stretched over 30 years. The Murphy Report only investigated claims from the 60s to the 80s.  (No mention of any cases in the 90s or later.)
Would you defend the role of any of 4 friggers I've mentioned or would you accept that there was widespread deceit and deception in the Dublin archdiocese during a 30 year period.

[johnneycool]

The Dublin Archdiocese responded to the child abuse allegations in the very same manner that all dioceses in Ireland (and beyond) dealt with them, which begs the question what is Canon laws ruling on the subject and did the Holy See in Rome offer guidance on how to deal/mask/spread the issue?

[theskull1]

Is the role of EVERY christian not to stand up and defend your faith? This being the case, why is TF the only one doing the defending out of the 8 people sad to see Sean Brady go?

[Hardy]

I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,

I disagree. The only reason Brady's record on the child rape issue is under discussion is because this thread and the other one are ABOUT him! Brady only comes up at all because T. Fearon continually lionises him, makes excuses for him and brings up his every appearance in public as an opportunity to taunt people with his successful (so far) cheating of justice. All "demonisation" of Brady, or discussion of his reprehensible carry-on, as I'd put it, is in response to that.

No comparisons have been made, that I've noticed, between Brady's particular transgressions and those of other conspirators, cover-uppers and child rape facilitators/abettors. If someone starts a thread on Connell or the conspirators in Ferns or in Cloyne, then when T. Fearon comes along to mount his defence of their behaviour in turn, and we respond with the truth, we might start seeing relative assessments of their crimes, if that's what seems important.

It's not what seems important to me. Nobody even wants to be discussing these creatures, but the likes of T. Fearon keep dragging them out for new coats of whitewash. That provokes the rest of us to point to out that the whitewash isn't sticking, as we hold our noses because of the stink.

[easytiger95]

Anyone read Justine McCarthy on Brady's retirement - which it is by the way, not a resignation or in any way a statement of cul;pability or even regret. It is a behind a pay wall on their site, but she was terrific on the soft soaping of Brady compared to the actual facts - he is involved in a mess of litigations, which he has and still continues to contest, skin and knuckles flying. A far cry from the unambitious, pious, vocation-follower TF describes.

[Lar Naparka]

I'd accept that Brady is being demonised to an excessive degree. That's because  others who were far superior to him at the time of that interview covered up far more than he did,

I disagree. The only reason Brady's record on the child rape issue is under discussion is because this thread and the other one are ABOUT him! Brady only comes up at all because T. Fearon continually lionises him, makes excuses for him and brings up his every appearance in public as an opportunity to taunt people with his successful (so far) cheating of justice. All "demonisation" of Brady, or discussion of his reprehensible carry-on, as I'd put it, is in response to that.

No comparisons have been made, that I've noticed, between Brady's particular transgressions and those of other conspirators, cover-uppers and child rape facilitators/abettors. If someone starts a thread on Connell or the conspirators in Ferns or in Cloyne, then when T. Fearon comes along to mount his defence of their behaviour in turn, and we respond with the truth, we might start seeing relative assessments of their crimes, if that's what seems important.

It's not what seems important to me. Nobody even wants to be discussing these creatures, but the likes of T. Fearon keep dragging them out for new coats of whitewash. That provokes the rest of us to point to out that the whitewash isn't sticking, as we hold our noses because of the stink.

I understand what you are saying and perhaps I didn't get across what I actually meant.
I started this thread in the hope that the discussion would focus on what is likely to happen now that Brady ha\s retired.
I think it's pure daft that a lot of otherwise sensible, rational adults (including me of course!) should continue trying to hammer sense into the brain of Tony Fearon, knowing full well that it is a pointless exercise.
I don't see any point in locking this thread as someone else will immediately start another one.
So far between both threads about Brady, a total of 77 pages have been devoted to attacks on Tony who promptly answers using a form of previously unknown logic.  There's no sense or meaning of any sort in most of his replies yet others continue trying to dispute issues with him.
Now that Brady has gone, I'd say the likes of Des Connell or Brendan Comiskey are fearing that they will be up next in the firing line.
I think that by demonising Brady, we all are losing sight of the bigger picture. IMO, Brady committed far worse crimes when he became Bishop Sean than when n he was merely Fr John B.
From there on, he ranks alongside Connell and Comiskey as a major player in the nationwide conspiracy to protects paedophiles.
I believe that there wouldn't have been nearly as many active paedophile clerics and consequently far few abused children if the Hierarchy hadn't organised this massive cover up.
Why focus on Brady alone when there were many others at least as guilty as he was?

[imtommygunn]

The thread is about brady

[T Fearon]

In an another ridiculous effort to switch the blame, the Gardai are now being criticised for the Kingsmill's massacre which took place in Co Armagh

[T Fearon]

Easytiger,Brady is the nominee at the head of these litigations simply because he was head of the Church.It's the same as victims of atrocities up here years ago, suing the current PSNI chief constable.

[Lar Naparka]

The thread is about brady

But it isn't really. Over 90% of the posts on this thread consist of criticism of Brady's part in the conspiracy to silence Brendan Boland and Tony's "rebuttals."
That's the major point being debated here but Brady has questions to answer on a lot of other issues.
So has his fellow bishops and I'd like to bring the parts they played in the shameful cover up.

[muppet]

The thread is about brady

But it isn't really. Over 90% of the posts on this thread consist of criticism of Brady's part in the conspiracy to silence Brendan Boland and Tony's "rebuttals."
That's the major point being debated here but Brady has questions to answer on a lot of other issues.
So has his fellow bishops and I'd like to bring the parts they played in the shameful cover up.

Not to mention the Vatican. The Cloyne report was scathing of their attitude and this was continuing apparently unabated until the appointment of Pope Francis, and maybe it still hasn't changed: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/whisked-away-vatican-ambassador-accused-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors.html?_r=0

[T Fearon]

That must be your first internet trawl in 24 hours.Get a life.

[Hardy]

Muppet - last warning. Stop spoiling this thread with facts.