Why no outrage or multiple threads about this?

[muppet]

I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.

Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.

Sean Brady was told about 5 children.

He met 2 of them and didn't tell the parents of one of those.

He never met, nor told the parents of the other 3. One of them went on to be abused for years by Smyth, along with his sisters and cousins. Brady knew and the parents knew nothing. No one from the church ever contacted these 3 children even though Brady & Donnelly knew their names from 1975.

[T Fearon]

But he did tell his superiors? Why didnt the kids tell their parents? Are you seriously saying Brady followed Smyth's "career" after he noted the allegations of the children in 1975?

If Brady is guilty of any crime why hasn't he been arrested?

[muppet]

But he did tell his superiors?

So what? The Nuremberg defence has been pulled asunder by everyone here. You don't seem to realise how stupid this mantra is.

Why didnt the kids tell their parents?

I told you many times. Smyth targeted the vulnerable as he saw it, often children of very devout families who wouldn't dare question a priest.

Are you seriously saying Brady followed Smyth's "career" after he noted the allegations of the children in 1975?

I never said that anywhere. However Brady was made Primate of All-Ireland when Cardinal Cahal Daly resigned over his own handling of Smyth cases. Also Brady & Donnelly promised Boland's father that Smyth wouldn't abuse again. If he didn't check up on Smyth's career as you crassly put it, then he had no intention of keeping his promise. http://www.thejournal.ie/abuse-victim-calls-for-brady-apology-as-more-lawsuits-against-cardinal-emerge-295912-Dec2011/

If Brady is guilty of any crime why hasn't he been arrested?

He should be arrested imho, along with anyone who conspired to silence victims or impede in any way those making complaints about church pedophiles or BBC pedophiles or any pedophiles. But then the church, with Brady as head, fought against abuse victims in the courts to delay them getting the real story.

There hasn't even been a proper investigation (like Ferns, Murphy & Cloyne) into the Kilmore Diocese ffs, nor most of the dioceses where Smyth was hidden to keep him from the authorities.

[T Fearon]

Brady could only make that promise on behalf of the church.In any event the parent showed a serious error of misjudgement as it was a promise made in good faith but in reality could not possibly be honoured.

Smyth should have been stopped long before Sean Brady was cast into this sad affair.

[No wides]

I am not going to divulge any names in this case.The victims are grown adults and the perpetrator is deceased.He wasn't a swimming coach,but a leisure centre employee.

Priest or no priest,the parents should have been told.They should have made it their business to find out why their young children were summoned to attend a meeting with clergy (an extraordinary circumstance), they must share the blame along with many others,clerical and lay,who failed to stop Smyth.

Are you a parent?

Of course he isn't.

[muppet]

Brady could only make that promise on behalf of the church.In any event the parent showed a serious error of misjudgement as it was a promise made in good faith but in reality could not possibly be honoured.

Smyth should have been stopped long before Sean Brady was cast into this sad affair.

This is beyond farcical.

How can a promise made in good faith be one that 'could not possibly be honoured'?  Who was not operating in good faith then, Brady or the Catholic Church?

As for stopping Smyth earlier, of course that is true. But as long as there were people like Brady involved, it was never going to stop.

As an aside, we know Brady was told by one victim the names 4 other probable victims. Brady only spoke to one of them. He didn't say anything to that child's parents and as far as we know, he never made contact with the other 3 families. I wonder if he spoke to Smyth about the allegations as part of his investigation into an allegation against Smyth?

[T Fearon]

We cannot wonder or speculate,only deal with facts.The core facts are that a) Brady reported his findings punctually to his superiors b) Some parents were aware of their offspring being abused by Smyth,but chose not to tell the Police.

[imtommygunn]

Some facts which fit my agenda  are...

Any that don't fit my agenda i will ignore.

[muppet]

We cannot wonder or speculate,only deal with facts.The core facts are that a) Brady reported his findings punctually to his superiors b) Some parents were aware of their offspring being abused by Smyth,but chose not to tell the Police.

Why does a mere 'notary' produce findings?
How does someone who is charged with producing findings of alleged sexual abuse, not bother to speak to 3 of the 5 children alleged to be at risk of abuse?
Why didn't he speak to the other 3, could it be that as they hadn't made any complaints there was no threat to the Church and he wasn't concerned about them?
How does he make 'findings' without speaking to the alleged culprit to hear what he has to say?
Why is it that the only meaningful outcome of his 'findings' was his signature on the 2, then illegal, oaths of silence?
Is he the most incompetent investigator in history?

It is very sad that this hasn't been thoroughly investigated and all documents released. I am aware of a Commission being set up in the north on this matter but it needs to be a cross-border joint exercise. Brady and the Church should be forced to reveal all their documentation on Brendan Smyth once and for all.

Tony, if you trust Brady always did the right thing, you too should be calling for all document to be released as they should vindicate him.

[T Fearon]

I believe all documents should be released and if it is found a criminal offence was committed then there should be prosecutions.I believe Sean Brady and the church did things a whole lot differently in the 70s than they do today.It's easy with hindsight to look back and say this and that should have been done.Parents would probably go straight to the Police nowadays

As regards your criticisms I can only assume investigators can only investigate formal complaints,not hearsay
Once again I reiterare Brady told his superiors at the time
It is they not him who deserve censure.

[Applesisapples]

Rsonarun. Anti catholics have no sympathy for the victims of child abuse, its just another stick for them to beat the church they hate with a passion. So much the better if they can root out some skeleton from the cupboard of a Cardinal decades ago.

I have said before, and by doing so I am not in any way condoning child abuse or the mismanagement of same in any era, that the world was a hell of a lot less sophisiticated in the 1970s,and at an institutional level the culture throughout all organisations who didnt know how to deal with it, was to turn a blind eye or move the problem on. This was wrong, as were many things in decades past.

In the late 70s I was involved on the periphery of a child abuse scandal, when in my student days a work colleague abused two young boys while taking them swimming.The parents, on hearing of the abuse from their children, went straight to the Police, and the culprit was swiftly arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned (though there were no sex registers in those days so I don't know if he was supervised on his release).

That, in the 70s, as in any other era was an example of good family relations (the boys who were primary school kids were able to tell their parents) and good parenting (they immediately went to the Police)

Tony, given your relationship with the truth of Brady's behaviour (you still pretend he was merely a 'notary'), I don't believe a single word of your story, which as usual comes without a link or a source.

There was a huge difference between a kid being terrified of a swimming coach and being terrified of going to hell for ratting on a priest. That is how Brendan Smyth operated and some of the victims never told the parents, even as adults, due to the fear and shame. You blaming them and their families for this is some of the lowest stuff I've seen on the internet.

I am aware of the case Tony speaks of, although I didn't know of the connection to Tony.

[Applesisapples]

The one big flaw in Tony's argument in relation to parents is the grip the church in Ireland had on parents in the '60's and '70's. The parents of most of these Children would have been mortified if anyone would suggest the take on the might of the Church. In addition the sense of shame that would have attached itself to the family would have been to much to bear, so of course they went along with what the Church did. it is difficult for people not of my vintage to understand what society was like in those days, I have to think hard to remember myself, perhaps Tony is having difficulty remembering?

[muppet]

I believe all documents should be released and if it is found a criminal offence was committed then there should be prosecutions.I believe Sean Brady and the church did things a whole lot differently in the 70s than they do today.It's easy with hindsight to look back and say this and that should have been done.Parents would probably go straight to the Police nowadays

As regards your criticisms I can only assume investigators can only investigate formal complaints,not hearsay
Once again I reiterare Brady told his superiors at the time
It is they not him who deserve censure.

They should be jailed, but unfortunately they are all dead.

However their deaths should not be used as convenient cover for Brady's (and all of the others - there were many involved who heard of Smyth's activities and conspired to keep moving him around) actions and inactions.

As for you hearsay comment, that is again disgraceful. You know exactly what you are doing. You are publicly discrediting Boland's testimony to Brady, of which Brady is on the record as saying he believed every word, and dismissing it as 'hearsay'. Even Brady disagrees with your defence of Brady.

Brady believed it was completely true and he went to one of the named children to verify it, and that child confirmed Boland's testimony. Brady then got that child to swear an oath of silence. Brady just didn't bother to speak with the other 3 children, nor inform anyone that those children were at risk of sexual abuse. Abuse that lasted years. That isn't hearsay, it is on the record.

[muppet]

The one big flaw in Tony's argument in relation to parents is the grip the church in Ireland had on parents in the '60's and '70's. The parents of most of these Children would have been mortified if anyone would suggest the take on the might of the Church. In addition the sense of shame that would have attached itself to the family would have been to much to bear, so of course they went along with what the Church did. it is difficult for people not of my vintage to understand what society was like in those days, I have to think hard to remember myself, perhaps Tony is having difficulty remembering?

This is completely correct. Especially considering that the likes of Smyth would have carefully groomed children of such families, as he saw them.

Also, the criticism of blaming bad parenting for not knowing what your children are saying to a priest in confidence, falls flat when you look at Confessions.

[T Fearon]

I grew up in the 60s and 70s when the church was allegedly omnipotent.I knew a church sexton who fxxxded all the local priests up and down and had constant stand up rows with the parish priest,his employer.I saw a parent threatening to throttle the most volatile curate in the parish after mass accusing him of making a fool out of his altar boy son during mass.

In short this notion of an all powerful church claiming blind allegiance is a myth.And if anyone gives blind allegiance to anyone or anything they bring the consequences on themselves.