New Catholic Church/ DUP coalition! Is this they way forward?

[T Fearon]

If he broke the law why isn't he charged? An oath has never been broken of course.Perjury doesn't exist

[muppet]

If he broke the law why isn't he charged? An oath has never been broken of course.Perjury doesn't exist

Let's examine this idiotic argument for the craic.

"If he broke the law why isn't he charged?" - Probably because of his standing of the Church and/or the statue of limitations or both. But it was against the law at the time. He should at the very least be interviewed for his role, if any, in prolonging Smyth's abuse.
"An oath has never been broken of course." - This is a crass sarcastic attempt to play down the disgusting silencing of victims. These boys were victims of child sex abuse and you are blaming them for not breaking an illegal oath, which the church forced them into signing. (Sometimes it is really incredible how low you will go Tony).
"Perjury doesn't exist" - So lying is ok then? I must add that to Tony's flexible religion 10 Commandments.

[T Fearon]

Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.

I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently

[muppet]

Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.

I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently

Here we have children sexually abused by men of the church, this is covered up by the church and to this day the church level of co-operation has been no more than the barest minimum, but Tony Fearon blames the victims' parents.

It is hard to imagine a single poster that undermines the Catholic Church on these boards more than you. Bravo.

[Maguire01]

Without rehashing old arguments which I've won previously ,I believe Brady's judgement was poor,his Superiors were guilty of prioritising the reputation of the church ahead of victims (which they acknowledge and have apologised for) but the parents bear a huge responsibility too for their failings which if repeated nowadays would attract attention of social services.

I don't support perjury,just saying it happens frequently

In your own head.

[heganboy]

I would not let a room to an unmarried hetrosexual couple either

oh look a unicorn!

is it a non profit you're running?

[T Fearon]

No just a moral upright business

[Oraisteach]

Or did you mean, 'Not just, amoral/immoral, uptight'?

[muppet]

No just a moral upright business

Would you allow priests silence victims of child abuse there?

[T Fearon]

You can only silence someone by murdering them.I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of that. Would you drive a young son or daughter to a meeting with clergy without making your business to find out what its all about.Would you consent to the meeting proceeding without you being present to support your young children?

[muppet]

You can only silence someone by murdering them.I certainly wouldn't be an advocate of that. Would you drive a young son or daughter to a meeting with clergy without making your business to find out what its all about.Would you consent to the meeting proceeding without you being present to support your young children?

You get more idiotic with age.

The children we victims because a priest abused his position.
The children were further victimised because the church prioritised its reputable over the suffering of innocent children.
Brady said in 2009: "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign."
In 2010 when we all found out that he had been precisely in that position, he ignored his own advice and didn't resign.

But you blame the parents.

[T Fearon]

Yawn.What responsible parent would drive their young children to a meeting with any group of adults (an extraordinary scenario) without finding out what its purpose was,what if any trouble their children were in etc.Its called gross negligence nowadays

[muppet]

Yawn.What responsible parent would drive their young children to a meeting with any group of adults (an extraordinary scenario) without finding out what its purpose was,what if any trouble their children were in etc.Its called gross negligence nowadays

No matter how hard you try, nothing in your argument excuses the child abuse cover up by the church, nor anyone who took part in silencing the victims.

For the record, Brendan Boland's father was outside the meeting. This was at the request of the priests. He knew what had happened his son, he had vomited in the garden when he was told. Brady promised him that Smyth wouldn't touch another child. That was Boland's father's concern at that stage, we now know it certainly wasn't Brady's.

The other child's parents knew nothing. They probably thought he had been caught smoking. That boy was also sworn to secrecy, by Brady and Smyth abused the boy's cousins. The parents may not know even now.

You blind defence of Brady is pretty sickening, and that is without your truly evil attempts to deflect the blame onto the parents.

[T Fearon]

If Mr Bolands father knew,why didn't he go to the Guards? You blame Brady for not going to the Guards,then logic dictates you must also blame Mr Boland.I have never denied the Church failed those boys shamefully,I dispute Sean Brady being held utterly responsible for this failure though.

[muppet]

If Mr Bolands father knew,why didn't he go to the Guards? You blame Brady for not going to the Guards,then logic dictates you must also blame Mr Boland.I have never denied the Church failed those boys shamefully,I dispute Sean Brady being held utterly responsible for this failure though.

It was the Bolands that went to the Gárdaí you fool. I told you that before but you keep ignoring it.

That is what blew it all open. They waited a few years, but when they found out that Smyth had abused many more children after Brendan and that Brady's promise to them was complete bullshit, they went to the Gárdaí. The problem is that no one could remember who one of the priests (i.e. Brady) was in the investigation. The Church then disgracefully denied Boland his civil right to access the records of the investigation into his abuse, from when he asked for them around 1997 (I think) until they released them in 2010. When the church finally released the documents, everything became far, far clearer. This despite that Brady had changed his name from John Brady to Sean Brady.

The questions asked by the two priests were, to be frank, disgusting. Even now reading the questions it is obvious they attempted to lead the boy into blaming himself for the abuse. They asked him had he mentioned it in confessions. Think about that. Why would you mention you being abused in a 'confession'? Was it his sin? Boland named 5 other children he thought were also being abused by Smyth. They then made Boland sign the oath of secrecy. Brady met one of the named children, to corroborate Boland's evidence, and then silenced him with an oath. Brady never informed any of the parents. Some of them suffered more abuse along with relatives of theirs.

The church behaved despicably in this case. Their apology rings very hollow given they didn't remotely co-operate until 2010. Anyone here suggesting Brady was somehow a victim of circumstance by merely following orders is completely insane.

Anyone who blames the parents is positively evil, imho. Even Brady didn't do that.