Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

1356779

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Even if the family/abuse victim wanted things to remain private? "reported" to who exactly? What does "tried" mean exactly?

    Which abuse victims wanted their abuse to "remain private"?
    And can you tell us which abuse vicitims did not want justice?


    Tried : means being tried in the courts of law of this land for crimes committed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage



    He may not have been in power then but he did nothing to stop smyth over the following years he rose through the ranks.

    What rank did Smyth achieve after it came to light that he was fiddling with children? I have no doubt that he was ordered to Craggy Island with an oath of silence. But he was a defiant, disobedient ****er and carried on with his perversions despite countless warnings.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    Dont feed the troll


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Which abuse victims wanted their abuse to "remain private"?
    And can you tell us which abuse vicitims did not want justice?
    I was making the point that we don't know how the victims wished their plight to be treated.

    Cardinal Brady has committed no crime and is entitled to his good name until he is charged and convicted in a a court of law. His impeccable career is testimoney to his unerring character.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    What rank did Smyth achieve after it came to light that he was fiddling with children? I have no doubt that he was ordered to Craggy Island with an oath of silence. But he was a defiant, disobedient ****er and carried on with his perversions despite countless warnings.

    Cop out.

    Smyth was transferred by the RCC to other parishes/locations, whenever claims of abuse were made against Smyth to the RCC authorities.

    It would appear that the RCC did their best to subvert the testimonies of the abuse victims by transferring accused clergy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    Anyone from my parents / grandparents generation will testify to being in fear of irish religious orders such as the Christian Brothers / Sister of Mercy Beating those very ideals into people.

    Are you serious? Your granny was beaten up by a nun for not conforming to flower power and free-love?

    Many abuse victims have publicly stated that those inactions and coverup have been far more damaging to them.

    That may well be true, but in the case of Sean Brady, he didnt cover anything up. He did however do an "inaction", and has since apologised. Case closed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    Outrage, if this was a member of your family - your child for example - would you be satisfied with the way things were handled?

    I live in the suburbs of Dublin in 2010 in a society where the phenomenon of child rape is known about. Yes, I'd go straight to the police if a family member were abused (comforted by the fact that the courts would facilitate anonymity if necessary). I honestly don't know what I'd do if I lived in 1960 in a small town in Ireland where gossip was rife, even pornography was unheard of, and everyone knew everyone else (including the local Garda).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    Where is the line drawn?

    Should priests that abuse/rape children be listened to as long as they teach the faith? Are they worthy of being listened to?
    Any priest who harms a child or young person (or anyone else, especially sexually) should be subject to severe punishment and be sent to spend his days in penance in a spartan monastery. I believe this was the case before Vatican II. Before humanistic psychology ran riot through the Church.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Cop out.

    Smyth was transferred by the RCC to other parishes/locations, whenever claims of abuse were made against Smyth to the RCC authorities.

    It would appear that the RCC did their best to subvert the testimonies of the abuse victims by transferring accused clergy.

    Brendan Smyth was a serial paedophile who accounted for a huge proportion of the abuse. He should have been sent to an enclosed monastery where speaking was not allowed (as he probably was). I can speculate that not only was he a pervert, but he was also a defiant, disobedient ****er who took orders from nobody until he was dragged away in chains by the civil authorities. I fear he is currently burning in hell. I can only hope that he begged for God's forgiveness while in prison.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    I've got to put my cards on the table here.

    One particular priest named in the Ryan Commission report was in my old parish in Dublin.

    As kids growing up there were always rumours about the behaviour of the priest but the rumours were left at that - rumours.

    Reading the Ryan report published last May, it was now clear that what was presumed back then (in the late 1970's/early 1980's) had foundation.

    Based on my own childhood and the rumours circulating, I find it very difficult to accept that grown adults did not know about the behaviour of similar clergy in their parishes.

    I was only 10/11 at the time - and let me tell you we were a lot more innocent than 10/11 year olds today - but even we sensed that there was something irregular about that priest's behaviour.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth was a serial paedophile who accounted for a huge proportion of the abuse. He should have been sent to an enclosed monastery where speaking was not allowed. I fear he is currently burning in hell. I can only hope that he begged for God's forgiveness while in prison.


    He should have been reported to the civil authorities, by the RCC authorities, when the first allegations of his abuse were made in the late 1950's.

    Instead, when allegations were made against Smyth to the RCC authorities, he was willfully and deliberately transferred, by the RCC authorities to other locations.
    That's what happened in his case and many other cases, Outrage.


    Every single alleged abuse case should have been reported by the RCC authorities to the civil authorities.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    He should have been reported to the civil authorities, by the RCC authorities, when the first allegations of his abuse were made in the late 1950's.

    Instead, when allegations were made against Smyth to the RCC authorities, he was willfully and deliberately transferred, by the RCC authorities to other locations.
    That's what happened in his case and many other cases, Outrage.


    Every single alleged abuse case should have been reported by the RCC authorities to the civil authorities.

    Even if the family/abuse victim didn't wish the local Garda to know?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,204 ✭✭✭FoxT


    Brady, like many others, appears to be a decent person who got caught up in the nuances of canon law, the culture of the environment where he worked, and , perhaps, he over-trusted his superiors to do the right thing.

    I am horrified that children who were raped were pressurised into signing an oath of silence. I abhor Brady's apparent complicity in this. I am sure that there are many others still in the church today who are far more culpable then he - but nevertheless it appears from the media reports that his actions, while in keeping with canon law etc., were completely in opposition to the Christian Message. I believe that the most positive Christian action that Brady could take today would be to resign of his own volition. A forced resignation would be of no value.

    Interestingly, I have not seen any mention in the media of the roles played by the parents of the children involved. Why did they not go to the gardai & initiate a criminal case? Or, did they in fact attempt to do so? My point - there seems to have been many failings here by people who could have escalated the issue at the time & did not.

    Brady should resign - not because he is the most culpable individual - but in order to send a signal to others that the Church is serious about reform. His resignation is, I believe a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the Church to start regaining its moral position.

    What about the children's parents though? Should they resign too? Resign from what? If they did nothing then they too must be guilty of failing to meet their responsibilities. Why has the media not mentioned them?
    - FoxT


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I was making the point that we don't know how the victims wished their plight to be treated.

    Cop out.

    We do know that a large number of victims wanted to their allegations followed up by the RCC and we know that they wished to have their
    cases made public.
    We know that for a fact.




    Outrage wrote: »

    Cardinal Brady has committed no crime and is entitled to his good name until he is charged and convicted in a a court of law. His impeccable career is testimoney to his unerring character.


    No one accused Brady of a crime.

    The accusation against Brady is that he failed to make the correct decision in 1975.
    His decision making - his ability to make the right decision - is what is being called in to question.

    He has been shown to have made the wrong decision then - how do we know that he is capable of making the correct decision now?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Even if the family/abuse victim didn't wish the local Garda to know?

    Yes.

    The law is the law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Yes.

    The law is the law.

    I'm so glad you are so sure of yourself with your 20/20 hindsight. I'm also so glad that you have access to the full facts and can pass anonymous judgement on holy men with impeccable characters from the comfort of your keyboard.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'm so glad you are so sure of yourself with your 20/20 hindsight.

    A crime is a crime, Outrage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    No one accused Brady of a crime.

    Good. Because you'll have a job on your hands trying to nail Cardinal Brady to a cross.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    A crime is a crime, Outrage.

    What is the crime that the then Father Brady "allegedly" committed please? Please quote the law you refer to.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Outrage wrote: »
    I live in the suburbs of Dublin in 2010 in a society where the phenomenon of child rape is known about. I'd go to the police if a family member were abused. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I lived in 1960 in a small town in Ireland where gossip was rife, even pornography was unheard of and everyone knew everyone else (and everyone knew the local Garda).

    What a difference 50 years makes! But the thing is we aren't talking about 50 years, this scandal was 35 years ago. While I can see the psychology behind a subordinate-superior relationship - where the subordinate often assumes that things will get done simply because the superior is the superior - being some sort of defence for Brady. One imagines that the Cardinal was aware that Smyth was still a free man years after he conducted these interviews.

    I realise that in their own shamefully inadequate way the Church did try to do something about Smyth - he was on a number of occasions sent for intensive counselling - but the fact is that this man should have been locked up in a padded cell, not passed around like a hot potato. And I believe that there are still some in the Church that just... don't... get... it...

    I don't think Brady is a bad man - quite the contrary - but he didn't do the right thing - either at the time (possibly somewhat understandable) or later. The RCC is foundering on scandals of their own making. Unless the Church can be seen to be willing to be accountable for its sins and not come up with excuses or write pastoral letters, then I believe it has a long way to fall yet. It might simply be best for all involved if he stepped down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Good. Because you'll have a job on your hands trying to nail Cardinal Brady to a cross.

    You need to redirect your attention to the real victims in all of this.
    Understood?


    Take a good look at this video and then tell me who's the victim in all of this.
    Instead of wasting our collective time.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    What is the crime that the then Father Brady "allegedly" committed please? Please quote the law you refer to.

    Where did I say that Brady committed a crime?


    I have said repeatedly that Brady's decision making is what is being called in to question.


    You're becoming tedious at this point.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    hinault wrote: »

    You're becoming tedious at this point.


    In all fairness, given that your spat now spans two threads, both of you are becoming tedious. How about calling a truce?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Where did I say that Brady committed a crime?

    I'm glad you've essentially clarified that you are not alleging that Fr Brady committed a crime. We're making progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'm glad you've essentially clarified that you are not alleging that Fr Brady committed a crime. We're making progress.

    The only allegation I made concerned Sean Brady's decision making ability.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    The only allegation I made concerned Sean Brady's decision making ability.

    How can you "allege" something and at the same time admit that he has committed no crime? lol Specifically, what are you "alleging"? What ability (or lack thereof) and what decision do you refer to? I assume you have access to the full facts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    How can you "alledge" something and at the same time admit that he has committed no crime? lol Specifically, what are you "alledging"?

    What am I "alledging"?

    I am alleging that Sean Brady's decision making ability is being questioned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    I am alleging that Sean Brady's decision making ability is being questioned.

    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    What am I "alledging"?

    Edited at 1:41


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 103 ✭✭casey junior


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    As is yours


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    As is yours

    The difference is, I am on the side of those with opinions that matter. The Church-haters crib and moan from the sidelines and have no power, money or influence worth talking about: they're a disorganised mess of chip-on-the-shoulder types who are prone to in-fighting and transfixed by their meagre earthly posessions.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Edited at 1:41


    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Outrage, either calm down or you will be taking a break from the forum.

    You don't have to live up to your screen name with every post.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Ultravid wrote: »
    I am not in a position to decide one way or the other. But I will say this: the man did what he thought was right at the time.

    So he is saying that he believes child rape was acceptable then.

    Could any body here tell me when he might have changed his mind and decided that child abuse was wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    So he is saying that he believes child rape was acceptable then.

    Could any body here tell me when he might have changed his mind and decided that child abuse was wrong.

    For better or worse that was the nature of Irish society at the time, things where to be covered up.

    It doesn't excuse his actions, but it does provide a context in which you can understand why what happened happened.

    This wasn't limited to the catholic church but was a symptom of Irish society at the time, the Irish church merely reflected Irish cultural norms for the time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage




  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady has committed no crime and is entitled to his good name until he is charged and convicted in a a court of law. His impeccable career is testimoney to his unerring character.

    That is only your opinion.

    I believe that he has committed a crime. Morality a crime against humanity.

    Anybody that believes its OK not to report child abuse to the proper authorities is very much misguided.
    (and the proper authorities are not members of the institution that is carrying out the abuse)

    A person knowing about child rape and not reporting it(again to the proper authorities) is as guilty as the abuser themselfs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    That is only your opinion.
    He has led an impeccable career. That is not an opinion. It's a fact.
    I believe that he has committed a crime.
    Fair play to you. You should go down to your local Garda station and make a statement. I mean any person "knowing about child rape and not reporting it... [blah, blah]".
    A person knowing about child rape and not reporting it(again to the proper authorities) is as guilty as the abuser themselfs.
    The child or the child's family came to the Church; not the guards. How do you know the child or the child's family even wanted the local Garda to know about the scandal? That they even wanted to stand in a public court? There was no anonymous protection back then like there is today. The point I am making is this: you don't have the full facts. Therefore, your foaming-at-the-mouth screaming "child abuser" is the stuff of Koo Klux Klan marches.


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    For better or worse that was the nature of Irish society at the time, things where to be covered up.

    It doesn't excuse his actions, but it does provide a context in which you can understand why what happened happened.

    This wasn't limited to the catholic church but was a symptom of Irish society at the time, the Irish church merely reflected Irish cultural norms for the time.

    A society that was very heavily influenced and in some cases almost policed by the Catholic Church. Sad but true.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    A society that was very heavily influenced and in some cases almost policed by the Catholic Church. Sad but true.
    That was a two way door, just as the society reflected the attitudes of the Irish church so too was the Irish church influenced by the Irish people who guided it and attended to it. It’s a bit disingenuous for the Irish to throw their hands up and say we had nothing to do with it, t’was that nasty church.

    They may have the Llions share of the blame, but the Irish in general aren’t coming off spotless either.

    imho etc etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,294 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I suppose it could be said that he is responsible for every child that has been abused by a priest since 1975?
    Say for example the child in question reported the crime to somebody like an irish erin brockovich, it would have been made public and kickstarted the whole process of weeding out these criminals in 1975. That would have prevented 1000's of lives being ruined. Instead the cardinal made the poor kid keep the little "secret".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Ultravid wrote: »
    Any priest who harms a child or young person (or anyone else, especially sexually) should be subject to severe punishment and be sent to spend his days in penance in a spartan monastery. I believe this was the case before Vatican II. Before humanistic psychology ran riot through the Church.
    Outrage wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth was a serial paedophile who accounted for a huge proportion of the abuse. He should have been sent to an enclosed monastery where speaking was not allowed (as he probably was). I can speculate that not only was he a pervert, but he was also a defiant, disobedient ****er who took orders from nobody until he was dragged away in chains by the civil authorities. I fear he is currently burning in hell. I can only hope that he begged for God's forgiveness while in prison.
    These church inflicted punishments would, I presume, be after they had served the appropriate sentences laid down by the courts if they found guilty?

    MrP


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    I suppose it could be said that he is responsible for every child that has been abused by a priest since 1975?

    Sigh. Would you apply that logic to Mary McAleese, Mary Robinson, Patrick Hillery and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh?

    (* you do realise that Cardinal Brady has been Primate of All Ireland since 2007 and not 1975, dont you?)


  • Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?
    MrP

    Yes Cardinal Brady is guilty of misprision of felony. It was a civil law at the time and he can (but wont) be charged.

    So all those poor misguided posters who say he didn't commit any crime are wrong. He did and by his own admission is guilty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    misprision of felony

    Lol. I'm sure the DPP is very interested.

    Also, where is that law that you refer to on the statute books please? :lol:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,294 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Outrage wrote: »
    Sigh. Would you apply that logic to Mary McAleese, Mary Robinson, Patrick Hillery and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh?

    (* you do realise that Cardinal Brady has been Primate of All Ireland since 2007 and not 1975, dont you?)

    His position has nothing to do do with what i said. He was told something very serious in 1975 and the child was silenced.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    His position has nothing to do do with what i said. He was told something very serious in 1975 and the child was silenced.

    Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

    Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    I posted the above yesterday.....
    today's headlines
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0318/abuse.html


    Flood gates appearing to opening, DS.

    As an RC, I welcome the exposure of the crimes committed.

    Because left to the institutional RCC nothing would ever be exposed or admitted to, by the criminals or the hierarchy who aided and abetted those criminal perverts.

    All RC's should welcome the exposure and criminal prosecution of these criminal clerical perverts.

    I am truly sorry to the victims of abuse, that these criminal acts were committed by the clerical perverts in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    Outrage wrote: »
    Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

    Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.

    Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?


Advertisement