Sean Brady stands down - 2

[Bingo]

One question - are you a parent?

[muppet]

Read this very carfeully. The Church's attempt to protect it's reputation was deeply flawed and the wrong course of action.Victims were not given due consideration. But to blame it all on a 36 year old Priest, whose only crime was to rise to the rank of Cardinal over 30 years later. is equally wrong.

As for the Children, they should have told their parents, they should hav been reared with the ethos of telling their parents about anything or anyone endangering them, just like the two young boys did in my tenuous work related experience of the horrors of child abuse in the late 1970s.

No one is blaming it all on Brady.

In fact you are the only one that keeps bringing this up, presumably to justify your blaming the abused children and their parents.

[whiskeysteve]

As for the Children, they should have told their parents, they should hav been reared with the ethos of telling their parents about anything or anyone endangering them, just like the two young boys did in my tenuous work related experience of the horrors of child abuse in the late 1970s.

It's a vile job holding children to account for their post rape silence but somebody has to do it.

[AhNowRef]

Read this very carfeully. The Church's attempt to protect it's reputation was deeply flawed and the wrong course of action.Victims were not given due consideration. But to blame it all on a 36 year old Priest, whose only crime was to rise to the rank of Cardinal over 30 years later. is equally wrong.

As for the Children, they should have told their parents, they should hav been reared with the ethos of telling their parents about anything or anyone endangering them, just like the two young boys did in my tenuous work related experience of the horrors of child abuse in the late 1970s.

Like it or not, an oath is in effect a contract between two complicit parties, therefore it has no legitimate merit in this argument. I'm sure if the kids had been asked to put their hands in the fire they would have refused. Again I ask about the negligence of the parents.

Staggering !! .... I hope the rest of you folk on here remember whats really in the depths of this mans mind ... A lower form of live I have never encountered !!

[Gabriel_Hurl]

You really are a piece of work TF

Bingo to answer your question - he isn't.  I posed the same question in the closed thread.

[T Fearon]

I am simply relating my own experience on the periphery of child abuse which was simply and quickly resolved due tothe children involved telling their parents they were being abused and identifying the abuser.Seems like a natural response to me, why couldn't other child victims of abuse have done likewise?

[Lar Naparka]

This thread isn't going to solve anything, mup. Why give this super troll the attention he craves?
It would upset him more if the rest of humanity  ignored him.
You are going to get the same shite over and over again:
Tony saw two parents verbally abusing a priest when he was a kid in school. Ergo, the people of Ireland were never in fear of priests and the stories we hear of clerical dominance are  just myths. Two kids at  a summer school once  told their parents that an older boy was messing with them, therefore all kids everywhere who were molested by a priest should have told their parents what was going on.
Tony is certain that if a priest had ever wanted to talk to him, his mother would want to know the reason why before she consented so that means all parents, if they found themselves in Mr. Boland's position, should not allow the interview to go ahead and the children in question did not  tell their parents what went on, oath or no oath, they are guilty also.
You've got this line in logic on thread after thread and you are going to get the same here if you persist.
Honestly, a single-cell amoeba with cognitive difficulties  wouldn't come out with that sort of nonsense.
Lock the thread, you're only giving yourself a headache and let Tony look elsewhere for his "anti-Catholic bigots."

[T Fearon]

For the umpteenth time I have acknowledged the faults and failings of the church in its handling of child abuse,but I am seriously mystified by the passive reaction of parents to their young children being summoned to meetings with clergy without demanding (that's not too strong a word) to know what the hell was going on.If they were afraid to ask the clergy they have no excuse (I don't care about oaths,cross my hearts hope to die or any other shite we all mouthed as kids) for not interrogating their children.

I would suggest such inaction in the modern era would attract attention of social services.

I would ask you all to set aside your personal views and feelings about me and ask yourselves was this really good parenting in action?

[theskull1]

As for the Children, they should have told their parents, they should hav been reared with the ethos of telling their parents about anything or anyone endangering them, just like the two young boys did in my tenuous work related experience of the horrors of child abuse in the late 1970s.

And Reeva Steenkamp should have woken Oscar to tell him she was going to the loo.

[T Fearon]

How sick of you,poking fun at a murder

[theskull1]

Using your logic you bafoon

[ziggysego]

Ah lads. For f**k's sake.

+1

+2

[muppet]

For the umpteenth time I have acknowledged the faults and failings of the church in its handling of child abuse,but I am seriously mystified by the passive reaction of parents to their young children being summoned to meetings with clergy without demanding (that's not too strong a word) to know what the hell was going on.If they were afraid to ask the clergy they have no excuse (I don't care about oaths,cross my hearts hope to die or any other shite we all mouthed as kids) for not interrogating their children.

I would suggest such inaction in the modern era would attract attention of social services.

I would ask you all to set aside your personal views and feelings about me and ask yourselves was this really good parenting in action?

Child sex abusers target the vulnerable.

Most posters here, even as kids, would have walloped Brendan Smyth. But this is the point you are completely missing. Smyth and his ilk wouldn't choose most posters here, nor indeed most children. He chose vulnerable children of devout Catholics. He groomed the children and terrorised them into not telling their parents. The fear of God and all that. This is how it worked.

Can you understand that for you to come in now asking 'why didn't they tell their parents' is utterly ridiculous? They were targeted by Smyth precisely because he could scare them into not to telling their parents. Everyone else here understands that.

Following on from that, the main reason for the above is that the parents of these children were like you. They believed that doing what men of the cloth told them to do, was always the right thing to do. If the Secretary of the Bishop showed up in most of our houses, looking to speak to one of us, he would have had to deal with our parents, but again these weren't most houses. These were devout parents whose trust of the Church could be abused. Smyth, Fortune, "Fr Filth" Tony Walsh and the others identified in the Murphy Report and the other reports, and the rest of their ilk, could spot these families miles away.

Blaming such parents for trusting a man of the Church such as Brady, while absolving Brady of covering up for Smyth is pretty pathetic. Brady accepted the boys evidence in 1975, as he has admitted, and thus believed that Smyth had abused the kids. Some of the parents didn't know anything, they trusted Brady. But these two unfortunate children, who were actually brave enough to speak out, were then silenced by Brady. And Brady never investigated the status of the other children who were allegedly being abused. That abuse continued. Brady never properly dealt with this particular catastrophic failing in any capacity, in my opinion, let alone as Primate of All-Ireland.

The parents first mistake mistake was to trust Smyth obviously, but their second was to trust the rest of the Church and people like Sean Brady. But I have no doubt they torture themselves as parents over it. Brady has always appeared defiant to me, almost without conscience. His apologies have been extremely lame and not backed up by any actions on his part.

For Tony to start posts or even threads here, as he does from time to time, about how 100 people clapped Brady at a match, or about what a humble man he is, or most galling, how wonderful his pastoral work was is sickening. I make no apologies for continuing to post and expose this moral thought vacuum for exactly what it is.

[theskull1]

+1

As long as there's revisionists like Fearon continuing to adulate the likes of Sean Brady, its important there's people there to tell it like it is.

[Mike Sheehy]

The church is a complicated thing. Some people can look on it as a benevolent dictatorship that allows them to exist without the inconvenience of a genuinely held opinion. All moral heavy lifting is done by somebody else. Never any need to explain or justify ones own personal opinions.

I think you and Fearon have a lot more in common than you think skull1.

maybe you should +1 him ?