The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:00pm

problemchimp wrote: »

that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.

i answered it- "yes" was the answer.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:06pm

kbannon wrote: »

What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.
My point was that I have written documents of similar length to that of the Pope's letter and that quantity does not equal quality.

I found your M.Sc. remark quite witty and valid. Mione was 60,000 words long ten years ago so and that was just the written parts. stats and diagrams doubled the size. Maybe
quantity is quality?

OK I misunderstood because it appears that the only thing that the church upper hierarchy is interested in is saving itself. This certainly appears to be the case.

"appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.

Also can you please answer why you feel that most of the people in Ireland are going to hell and of these will those who did not speak out against child abuse (regardless of their role in either society or the church) be part of this group?

Are they voting Fianna Fail?

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:09pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

I was shocked by that statement too. Rape is rape and is wrong in any time frame.

I shocked you claim I justified rape. Where did I do such a thing? I am also annoyed that in spite of saying it everytime i mention rape you have to resort to smear tactics and not even read the post. especially where i constantly point out my belief rape is immoral even if it was not illegal!

In regards to the earlier comment that the majority are going to hell, maybe he's right, especially when the organisation that is here to represent god does everything in its power to protect it's image rather than protecting the most vulnerable in society.

and your evidence is?
and your personal involvement with victims or with the church is?

--amadeus-- · 22-03-2010 2:12pm

Right, I'm going to atempt to go past the hysteria and summarise the reasons that I have seen given for the cardinal to stay in place...

1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

2 - No law was broken (the LEGAL defence)

3 - Everyone makes mistakes, let's forgive and forget (the FORGIVENESS defence)

4 - Leave him alone, it's an anti-catholic consipracy (the CONSPIRACY defence)

5 - That was the standards of the time, don't judge then by now (the TIMES PAST defence)

In my opinion not a single one of these justifies him staying in place.

1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else. The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.

2 - The LEGAL defence:
On Brady himself this is yet to be proven in a court of law. There are several common law offences he could be tried for and the TV news reported that a criminal investigation is "likely". As for teh sophistry around the tightening of the laws on sexual abuse... Yes there are more clearly defined crimes now. But forcing a pre-teen boy to have sex with you was ALWAYS a crime in this country. And irrespective of the legal definitions rape is rape. Rape is morally wrong. Someone with information on an individual abusing children must be morally bound to report this crime.

3 - The FORGIVNESS defence:
I have no issue with forgiving teh cardinal. His "crime" is one of omission, which is lower by orders of magnitude than the crimes of those who carried out the abuse. However forgivness is normally accompanied by remorse and repentance. By refusing to resign he is not only wallowing in teh sin of Pride he is clearly showing a lack of remorse and repentance - his attitude seems to be that he will not resign as he has done nothing wrong. How can we forgive him if he will not repent?

4 - The CONSPIRACY defence:
Is totally irrelevant. The free press in a free society have a duty to expose corruption. This is not a witch hunt and a refusal to do the right thing just because you are being asked to do it is perverse and contrary as well as counter productive

5 - the TIMES PAST defence:
Standards have changed. Times, morals, laws and attitudes have (thankfully) changed beyond recognition since the mid 1970s. But evan as early as 1922 (Crimen Solicitationis, according to teh Sunday Business Post) child sex abuse was recognised as "the worst crime". Ignorance is no defence, irrespective of whatever standards there were in teh church he must have known that forcing pre-teens into having sex with you was wrong and deserved punishment. Punishment he helped prevent hapening, thus facilitating decades more abuse. Things haven't changed that much

If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 2:17pm

Bduffman wrote: »

Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia.

You and others most certainly DID but I'm not going into that issue in this thread. I highlight it when it was stated. go back yourself and see.

I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was.

Raping a male was not illegal n the past. Look at all the convictions and show me ONE where rape of a male was upheld BEFORE the law was changed. Can you do that?

Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.

I was quite clear about it! We can't judge the past based on the present. Slavery was wrong . I dont thin it was right. it was legal. child sex may be legal in Asian countries. it is still wrong. Sex with a man in his foutties who picks up a teenager is wrong in my opinion. It so happens that one man did this and found out it was also illegal since the girl was under 17. But should he be guilty of rape? that is the difference between the positive law and natural law.

Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.

NO! Not of rape of a male! If he was convicted of a sexual offence (and Priests WERE) it was a lesser offence. Manu of these convictions were for 12 or eighteen months! You can get 12 years for rape. The law needed to be reformed. Just like the one on "head shops".

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 2:20pm

ISAW wrote: »

........."appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.......

I find that argument offensive for many catholics. Just because someone states they are not happy with how certain members of the church managed this scandal over the last few decades, they are automatically not involved with the church or christian enough for your standards.

Brady did wrong and he has admitted that. So have others. They have been a part of a system of coverup and inaction over the last few decades. Anyone who facilitated this should go as called for by the survivors groups.

getz · 22-03-2010 2:23pm

ISAW wrote: »

Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.

i am not sure what you are saying,the church and the bishops was responsible for the large number of nuns[magdalene sisters] who are on record[a official irish report] for the locking up and abuse of over 60,000 young girls, some of were horrific abused and raped,or doesent that count ?

Bduffman · 22-03-2010 2:24pm

ISAW wrote: »

When you are discussing criminal charges is is what ios considered fair.
ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty" . Brady does not have to prove innocence if you are accusing him of being guilty.
But yes he is relying on hearsay . the point is whether he need to prove his hearsay.

The 'hearsay' we are talking about is whether he has support or not - not about his actions. He was at the meeting & did nothing. You don't see that as as issue but many people do.

ISAW wrote: »

Nope. if child abuse or slavery is wrong I don't have to wait for a referendum on it to say it is wrong. How does that relate to the church being a democracy? well the church should inform you conscience even if others try to subvert that. But the specific point was about electing Bishops. AS I pointed out only abbots today are elected but there is input into the process by local people for a Bishop. The pope doe not just appoint some pal from the Vatican. But don't expect it to be a popular election. However ther is a precident whereby if all the people of Dublin turned up and demanded such and such a priest be the next Bishop then he technically IS.

You are getting confused here. I was talking about a vote on whether catholics support him or not - not on whether he is right or wrong in his actions.

ISAW wrote: »

Nope as i pointed out a one year old child isnt assumed to be a mass goer. and "regularly" wasnt in the original claim was it? ~what do you mean by that? Once a mointh once a year or once a week?
My figures come fromn the 2006 census.
http://www.cso.ie/Census/census2006_volume_13.htm

You will find of the 3.6 million over one million are children/minors. that leaves about 2.6 million.
http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/117563-mass-attendance-ireland-up.html
The Red C poll, conducted between October 19th and 21st last, for the Catholic Iona Institute and based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over, found that weekly church attendance is now 46 per cent while monthly attendance is 65 per cent.

Mind you the criterion of mass attendance was not introduced by me was it?

Obviously this depends on the criteria for being a catholic. Obviously for you, someone does not have to go to mass every week to be a catholic. I'm sure not everyone agrees. But as you said youself, just going to mass doesn't make you a catholic. And neither does ticking a box in a census form.

ISAW wrote: »

In the case you were replying to yes. Cherish was founded and supported by Catholics.

By catholics or by the RCC organisation (& please don't give me the usual 'all catholics are the church rubbish). Incidentally I never heard of cherish - what have they done exactly?

ISAW wrote: »

No because in your blinkered view you assert that something is true WITHOUT EVIDENCE! Then when called on for evidence you ask "what other explanation could there be" . when you are offered several you jump back to unsupported bald assertion which you claim must be right because the numerous alternatives are "blinkered"? i dont have to prove Im not closed minded. I offered you several explanations and you rejected then in favour of your own unsupported one. what is your definition of "blinkered" ? do you apply it to anyone who doesn't accept your unsupported opinion?

The evidence is that he attended a meeting which involved a gagging order being signed by vulnerable children. And did nothing else even when Smyth abused again. That is evidence.

ISAW wrote: »

You are the one claiming he lied and he knows about other cases and covered them upi . when you are asked for evidence the evidence is your opinion that he lied. While you are struggling for a definition of blinkered look up "bigot" as well will you? If you insist that you must be right in spite of no supporting evidence and being offered alternative explanations then you have a bigoted position.

I am offering the possibility that he lied (or mentally reserved) as a possibility. Indeed, going on the RCCs track record, its not unlikely, is it? If your explanations are possible, why isn't mine?

ISAW wrote: »

I didn't refer to this particular case. I referred to the other 99 per cent of cases in society.
Gardai eventually knew about Smith and he was not charged. He was eventually extradited and convicted in Northern Ireland.

This entire thread is specifically about the Smyth case & the admission by Brady at being at that meeting. If you want to talk about other specific cases then maybe another thread might be appropriate?

Bduffman · 22-03-2010 2:36pm

ISAW wrote: »

You and others most certainly DID but I'm not going into that issue in this thread. I highlight it when it was stated. go back yourself and see.

Raping a male was not illegal n the past. Look at all the convictions and show me ONE where rape of a male was upheld BEFORE the law was changed. Can you do that?

I was quite clear about it! We can't judge the past based on the present. Slavery was wrong . I dont thin it was right. it was legal. child sex may be legal in Asian countries. it is still wrong. Sex with a man in his foutties who picks up a teenager is wrong in my opinion. It so happens that one man did this and found out it was also illegal since the girl was under 17. But should he be guilty of rape? that is the difference between the positive law and natural law.

NO! Not of rape of a male! If he was convicted of a sexual offence (and Priests WERE) it was a lesser offence. Manu of these convictions were for 12 or eighteen months! You can get 12 years for rape. The law needed to be reformed. Just like the one on "head shops".

You are very wrong here. Even if it was not referred to as 'rape' it was referred to as 'assault' - still a criminal offence. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Irish law might be able to confirm that.
But this is irrelevent to the argument. Brady sat there in that meeting knowing that what he heard was wrong. Are you actually suggesting that he sat there thinking 'well its not rape in the strict sense of the law so there is no point in reporting it'.
Give me a break.

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 2:37pm

ISAW wrote: »

and your evidence is?

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

Hopefully similar reports will be conducted for every diocese in the country showing how the church covered this up.

ISAW wrote: »

and your personal involvement with victims or with the church is?

Didn't know that catholics had to prove their worth to you or know an abuse victim before they could comment on what they believe what is wrong with the church.

Seth Brundle · 22-03-2010 3:25pm

ISAW wrote: »

I found your M.Sc. remark quite witty and valid. Mione was 60,000 words long ten years ago so and that was just the written parts. stats and diagrams doubled the size. Maybe
quantity is quality?

I presume that you are referring to your thesis. I was referring to a report not my thesis!

ISAW wrote: »

"appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.

What has the church done to reveal all information on file regarding abuse then?

On a related matter, when was Pope Pius V's order Horrendum removed?

In spite of the reforming legislation and the establishment of mandatory training, education and formation for priests, the bishops at Trent were no more successful at curbing celibacy violations than their predecessors. Illicit sex with women, men and young boys continued but for a time were much less obvious. By 1566, in the first year of his pontificate, Pope Pius V (1566-72) recognized a need to publicly attack clerical sodomy. The constitution Romani Pontifices promulgated legislation against a variety of actions and practices, including the ‘crime against nature.” This short canon condemned all who committed this crime and prescribed that they be handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Clerics however were to be first degraded, presumably by an ecclesiastical court, and then handed over to secular authorities.

[*]Two years later the same pope apparently found it necessary to fire another salvo at clerical sodomy. The constitution Horrendum specifically named clerics who committed “the sin against nature which incurred God’s wrath” (“quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae.”) and stipulated that they be punished with deprivation of income, suspension from all offices and dignities and in some cases, degradation.
http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm (#16 & 17).

Secondly, we have been told by the clergy all the way up to the Pope that homosexuality was wrong and yet they kept the secret of child abuse hidden - did this not occur to them they it was wrong? In the last 40 or 50 years (excluding the last 15-20), did they ever speak out about it?

philiporeilly wrote: »

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

Hopefully similar reports will be conducted for every diocese in the country showing how the church covered this up.

Which the Catholic church tried their best to prevent!
Desmond Connell tried via the high court (knowing full well what he was doing).
The week prior to its release, they were still actively lobbying against it.

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 4:55pm

underclass wrote: »

Alive O is full of half truths. Is a watered down version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible. I'll hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10, it's taught by teachers who aren't in full communion with the Church. I'd even go so far as to say that some don't even believe in God. My religion teacher in school was an open atheist - a Catholic school would you believe. This was in the 1990s. Thankfully, I met some great people when I left school who led me back to the light.

If qualified teachers are doing their jobs and delivering a set curriculum what does it matter about their personal beliefs?

underclass · 22-03-2010 5:09pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

If qualified teachers are doing their jobs and delivering a set curriculum what does it matter about their personal beliefs?

That's fine for secular schools. I'm sure you'd have no trouble if someone bearing Nazi tattoos was teaching your child.

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 5:25pm

underclass wrote: »

That's fine for secular schools. I'm sure you'd have no trouble if someone bearing Nazi tattoos was teaching your child.

Unsure if you have noticed but the majority of schools in this country are under the patronage of the RCC for historical reasons.

Religious considerations are important for some parents but for many other parents they are just looking to give their children a good education in a local school. I very much doubt that religious patronage lists in the top 5 reasons for sending a child to a school for a significant proportion of parents.

And as i said earlier, the personal beliefs of teachers are nobody's business outside of the classroom while they deliver the set curriculum.

underclass · 22-03-2010 5:26pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.

Very telling that you've left out any reference to your beloved secular authorities and focus solely on church men who "must go now".

underclass · 22-03-2010 5:29pm

kbannon wrote: »

What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.

Quite a lot actually. An MSc from Tralee IT pales in insignificance to an MSc from say Oxbridge or an Ivy League university. And yes, your name is very important when you're citing your academic credentials.

underclass · 22-03-2010 5:33pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

And as i said earlier, the personal beliefs of teachers are nobody's business outside of the classroom while they deliver the set curriculum.

I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends. Catholic schools will scrutinise potential candidates and they have every right to do so. And this screening process is going to be even more stringent once representatives from the Curia pull up their sleeves.

underclass · 22-03-2010 5:47pm

problemchimp wrote: »

that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.

I note that you post nothing on boards.ie about the failings of the regional health boards. You have proven yourself to be selective in your outrage. Do you have a good reason for this?

WesternNight · 22-03-2010 6:01pm

underclass wrote: »

I note that you post nothing on boards.ie about the failings of the regional health boards. You have proven yourself to be selective in your outrage. Do you have a good reason for this?

You don't do nit-picking, eh?

Why anyone would be anything other than selective in their outrage is beyond me. You'd be constantly outraged if you didn't pick your battles. But I'm afraid you just don't get to choose the battles other people pick.

underclass · 22-03-2010 6:05pm

WesternNight wrote: »

You don't do nit-picking, eh?

Why anyone would be anything other than selective in their outrage is beyond me. You'd be constantly outraged if you didn't pick your battles. But I'm afraid you just don't get to choose the battles other people pick.

Ah ok, a bubble of probability popped and you ended up over here. Fair play to you.

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 6:08pm

underclass wrote: »

I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends. Catholic schools will scrutinise potential candidates and they have every right to do so. And this screening process is going to be even more stringent once representatives from the Curia pull up their sleeves.

And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

And in regards to "homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends", church authorities had no issue in covering up and ignoring far more heinous offences, so maybe they might not want to act here either?

underclass · 22-03-2010 6:16pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

The curriculum sets out a minimum set of standards that schools must adhere to.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 6:17pm

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Right, I'm going to atempt to go past the hysteria and summarise the reasons that I have seen given for the cardinal to stay in place...

1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

2 - No law was broken (the LEGAL defence)

3 - Everyone makes mistakes, let's forgive and forget (the FORGIVENESS defence)

4 - Leave him alone, it's an anti-catholic consipracy (the CONSPIRACY defence)

5 - That was the standards of the time, don't judge then by now (the TIMES PAST defence)

In my opinion not a single one of these justifies him staying in place.

1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else.

Brady was not "at it" i.e. he was not a sexual offender.
Nor was he involved in covering up a criminal case.
the law isn't about what is wrong in Bradys case it applies to EVERYMAN at that time.
How many of people were charged with rape of a male at that time 1977?
None!
how many non clergy outside of the church were charged with other sexual offences. Several but not many in fact NONE as far as i am aware for rape of boys which is what the person you are saying he didn't do anything about was doing.

and he DID do something about it just as a policeman would. He took the statements and filed the report.

The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.

While I agree each case is judged on it's merits the law HAS TO be even handed with respect to other cases and so has to operate with reference to precedent i.e. what happened in other similar cases.

2 - The LEGAL defence:
On Brady himself this is yet to be proven in a court of law. There are several common law offences he could be tried for and the TV news reported that a criminal investigation is "likely".

You ASSUME there are several "common law" (not Criminal law) possibilities but the legal cite you yourself gave as reference as much as ruled out all but one of these possibilities. In the one remaining case it was also doubtfull abot a conviction or even the possibility of a charge.

But forcing a pre-teen boy to have sex with you was ALWAYS a crime in this country.

As you stated this isn't the Smith case it is the Brady case. Brady didn't force any children
to have sex. One can not report a rape when rape didn't exist under law. Yes lesser a crime under Irish law was committed but not reporting that was not a crime either. And Brady was following a line of enquiry by filing a report as was the procedure at the time.

And irrespective of the legal definitions rape is rape. Rape is morally wrong.

Brady neither then or at any time since then claimed or believed rape was morally acceptable. Blowing up people with bombs by the terrorists was morally wrong yet we are meant to forgive and accept that the people concerned have turned over a new leaf.

Someone with information on an individual abusing children must be morally bound to report this crime.

Which is what Brady did. You are faulting him for not reporting it to the police then which under today's circumstances he would do and which then was not clearly defined as something anyone knew about should report to the police. that fact that the ther 99 percent of child sex abuse were mostly not reported bears this out!

3 - The FORGIVNESS defence:
I have no issue with forgiving teh cardinal. His "crime" is one of omission, which is lower by orders of magnitude than the crimes of those who carried out the abuse. However forgivness is normally accompanied by remorse and repentance. By refusing to resign he is not only wallowing in the sin of Pride he is clearly showing a lack of remorse and repentance - his attitude seems to be that he will not resign as he has done nothing wrong. How can we forgive him if he will not repent?

He did repent but you assume repentance means resignation. Hewas njot a Bishop in 1977 when he did the thinkg you claim he should repent for. why should he have to resign form an office which was nothing to do with his status as a priest in 1977? furthermore he CANT resign Holy orders or from being a bishop he can only resign from active ministry.

4 - The CONSPIRACY defence:
Is totally irrelevant. The free press in a free society have a duty to expose corruption.

They why don't they concentrate on the 99 other percent and why do they focus on the one percent of clerical abusers?

This is not a witch hunt

I beg to differ. In this debate some posters have said he is a liar and criminal and when asked for evidence to support bald assertion have stated that people like me who made a case for Brady were supporting abusers.

and a refusal to do the right thing just because you are being asked to do it is perverse and contrary as well as counter productive

And your moral authority to judge that resigning is the best and only thing to do comes from where and is based on what evidence?

5 - the TIMES PAST defence:
Standards have changed. Times, morals, laws and attitudes have (thankfully) changed beyond recognition since the mid 1970s. But evan as early as 1922 (Crimen Solicitationis, according to teh Sunday Business Post) child sex abuse was recognised as "the worst crime".

Yes and Crimen Solicitationis in 1962 outlined the procedure for conducting investigations into such matters. www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf
based on 1917 cannon law
until replaced by this: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html

Ignorance is no defence, irrespective of whatever standards there were in teh church he must have known that forcing pre-teens into having sex with you was wrong and deserved punishment.

Yes an trusted the Bishop of the day to do it so he knows how people feel if he does nothing today. But he is doing something. He is saying that he knew even if he hadn't the wot courage or grace to act then.

Punishment he helped prevent hapening,

I am sorry but in such a case ignorance IS a defence of preventing punishment happening.
If he referred the case then he assuemd the authorities would deal with it. It took 15 years for this to happen.

thus facilitating decades more abuse. Things haven't changed that much

They ahave entirely changed. that fact that several bishops are now saying that they were made aware of something when Bishops NEVER did that in the 1970s is proof of that!

If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.

But iof you are saying this is a braod principle that everyone who knew about any abuse in 1977 should resign from any position of authority today then there might well be tens of thousands of doctors nurses teachers gardai and others who by your reasoning should have to resign. And how would that improve things? Maybe you want an auto-de-fey instead of a witchhunt?

ISAW · 22-03-2010 6:22pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Indeed, however non priest offenders have nowhere to hide, and only receive protection from other sex offenders. Clerical sex offenders were protected, and protected by a powerful organization at that. An organization that through fear and spiritual intimidation made it seem "wrong" for families of victims to speak ill of priests.

We know from one report that clerical offenders IN ORDERS did get favourable protection compared to lay offenders in the institutions run by the same orders.

But for the widespread clergy in parishes compared to non clergy and given that there were 99 non clerical for every clerical offender might you not think that ther should be 20 or 30 times as many convictions as there are of clerics?

Furthermore non clerical offenders as I have argued were protected by the same societal resistance to reporting . Families also hid or ignored non clerical abuser.

philiporeilly · 22-03-2010 6:28pm

underclass wrote: »

The curriculum sets out a minimum set of standards that schools must adhere to.

philiporeilly wrote: »

And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

Very interested in how you would answer my question though? If they do their job as required how can you remove them?

--amadeus-- · 22-03-2010 6:28pm

underclass wrote: »

Very telling that you've left out any reference to your beloved secular authorities and focus solely on church men who "must go now".

That would be:

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

Answerd by:

--amadeus-- wrote: »

1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else. The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.

ISAW I have already said that I don't intend to debate further with you for many, many reasons. The answers to all of your points are in my earlier posts, I'll be ignoring all of your representations from here in.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 6:30pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

I find that argument offensive for many catholics. Just because someone states they are not happy with how certain members of the church managed this scandal over the last few decades, they are automatically not involved with the church or christian enough for your standards.

I never said that! Let people who are catholics say so and let people who are anti catholic say so and it wil lall be clear. Ther are people who post the this forum who are militant atheist and have referred to the Catholic church as a threat to society. I don;t think such people have the authority to make claims for the church. If someoine in the Church or even an atheist who is not anti church posts without the intention of damaging the Church then that is a different matter.

Brady did wrong and he has admitted that. So have others. They have been a part of a system of coverup and inaction over the last few decades. Anyone who facilitated this should go as called for by the survivors groups.

Why? I have a deal of sympathy for survivors but why should they have the decision. You also have the Sinn Fein deputy first minister for N ireland parliamnet calling for Brady to resign. Has he also got such authority when he mentions nothing about a similar case where the president of his own party didn't report abuse?

underclass · 22-03-2010 6:32pm

ISAW wrote: »

You also have the Sinn Fein deputy first minister for N ireland parliamnet calling for Brady to resign. Has he also got such authority when he mentions nothing about a similar case where the president of his own party didn't report abuse?

Great point.

underclass · 22-03-2010 6:33pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

Very interested in how you would answer my question though? If they do their job as required how can you remove them?

It's very hard to remove someone from tenured employment. The trick is to weed them out before you let them into the classroom. That said, there are ways and means of getting rid of people - anyone who works for any organisation knows this.

ISAW · 22-03-2010 6:41pm

Bduffman wrote: »

You are very wrong here. Even if it was not referred to as 'rape' it was referred to as 'assault' - still a criminal offence. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Irish law might be able to confirm that.
But this is irrelevent to the argument. Brady sat there in that meeting knowing that what he heard was wrong. Are you actually suggesting that he sat there thinking 'well its not rape in the strict sense of the law so there is no point in reporting it'.
Give me a break.

nope I have stated it several times - what did you expect Brady should have done?
You are now in 2010 and you hae the internet and all the information at your fingertips.
What do you think Brady should have dnone in 1977?
Gone to the RUC? And reported what?
Did other Catholics go to the RUC? No. did Catholics r go to the RUC about non clerical abuse?

Lets take the Republic. SAy he filed the report and he waited and nothing happened. You are suggesting that a priest involved in a case who has filed a report should go to the Gardai and report a common law misdemeanor? When? Say a year later? doyou eally think in 1978 that a sexual assualt case would be entertained? SAy it was. The Gardai then go to the family and want to take statements and the parents refuse to allow them to. This type of thing happeded regularly with husbands who beat their wives back in the 1970s.
Yes it was wrong but the society or the law or the systems were not in place to deal with it. It was only later when women refuges got going in the 1980s that they could get away form the abuse and were prepared to make statements. And only then usually if they had children. yes thses womes should have left their husbands but they didnt . they were wrong but they dint know any better. Brady also knew something was wrong but I suspected felt powerless just as a woman being beaten feels powerless. it makes no difference if the woman is rich or a successful business woman she may still be paralyzed.

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments