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

Ongoing religious scandals

«134567124

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    "I deeply regret that this decision led to offences against youths. I apologise to all those who were harmed.” He did not indicate whether the convicted paedophile would be allowed to continue working in the church."

    Yep, same old story. They probably took out insurance against compo claims, so nothing to worry about.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,553 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Methinks it might be time for an "RCC/Abuse" sticky.

    At this stage it's just clogging up every page of the forum.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Mr Gruber wrote:
    "The repeated employment of H in pastoral duties was a serious mistake ... I deeply regret that this decision led to offences against youths. I apologise to all those who were harmed."
    Interesting to chase this quote around the internet, since this German site indicates that while Gruber has said that he's taking full responsibility for the decision, it seems that Ratzinger was in on it too.
    It was decided in 1980 to give H. accommodation in a rectory so that he could receive therapy. The archbishop [now Pope Benedict XVI] took part in this decision


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Dades wrote: »
    Methinks it might be time for an "RCC/Abuse" sticky. At this stage it's just clogging up every page of the forum.
    Done!


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Independent writes that Cardinal Brady is being sued.
    The Indo wrote:
    Cardinal Sean Brady is being sued in his personal capacity by a victim of serial paedophile rapist, Fr Brendan Smyth, who is claiming the primate was one of three priests who interviewed her in 1975 about her five-year long ordeal and then failed to ensure it was reported to the civil authorities, including the gardai.

    The cardinal was present at two meetings at which clergy interviewed victims of Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975. At both meetings the victims, a young woman who Smyth had abused for five years and a boy who was also abused, were made to sign oaths saying they would not discuss their meetings with anyone other than authorised clergy.After 1975, Smyth went on to abuse many more children.

    Cardinal Brady is being sued in a personal capacity as well as in his role as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland by the female victim who Smyth brutalised and sexually abused between 1970 and 1975, on occasions when she was taken on church outings. She brought a case against the church in 1997 and it has been in the High Court ever since.

    [...]


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    robindch wrote: »
    The Independent writes that Cardinal Brady is being sued.

    Hope they hang him out to dry.


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    The head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, facing calls to resign over revelations that he did not report complaints against a paedophile priest to police, said today that he will only step down if told to by the Pope.

    Catholic primate Cardinal Sean Brady defended his role at a 1975 meeting where children abused by sex offender Father Brendan Smyth were asked to take a vow of silence.

    For the second day in a row, he resisted calls for his resignation and said that, while he would act differently today if faced with the same situation, he had obeyed church law at the time by reporting his findings to a bishop.

    A woman who was abused by Fr Brendan Smyth as a child in the US has added her voice to calls for the Cardinal to step down.

    Abuse survivor Helen McGonagle said several bodies missed the opportunity to protect children.

    Colm O’Gorman, who founded child abuse support group One In Four, said Dr Brady rose through the ranks in the Catholic Church hierarchy while Smyth continued to rape and abuse children for 18 years.

    Asked why he did not see it as a moral obligation to ensure the police were alerted, the Catholic primate said today: “Yes, I knew that these were crimes, but I did not feel that it was my responsibility to denounce the actions of Brendan Smyth to the police.”

    He said he had helped gather evidence for the church to stop Smyth operating as a priest, and that thereafter it was the relevant bishop, plus Smyth’s religious order, who had responsibility for the case.

    “Now I know with hindsight that I should have done more, but I thought at the time I was doing what I was required to do. Not just that, but most effectively, I can tell you, I acted with great urgency to get that evidence and to produce it and I believed that in doing so I was following the most effective route to have this stopped and that was my main concern and always has been – the safety of children,” he said.

    Dr Brady claimed that wider society handled child abuse cases differently in the 1970s.

    “There was a culture of silence about this, a culture of secrecy, that’s the way society dealt with it.”

    Pressed on the calls for his resignation, he added: “I will only resign if asked by the Holy Father.”

    Asked if he had reconsidered resigning as a result of criticisms made since his initial refusal to step down yesterday, he said: “Certainly not. I have heard other calls for me to stay. I have been very heartened by those calls, calls of support, to stay and to continue the work of addressing this most difficult problem.

    “There are lots of calls here in Armagh, where I serve, in the form of phone calls and emails from priests and people around the country.”

    The Catholic primate had previously said that bishops who were responsible for managing abuse cases, but who had failed to alert the authorities, should resign.

    Today he said: “The fact is that, 35 years ago, I was not a manager, I was recording secretary with no decision-making power, and the question of my resignation... I discharged my responsibilities then, which was to collect evidence... in church investigations, to determine what action the church itself would take against Brendan Smyth. I did that, I acted.”

    He said that, within three weeks, church authorities withdrew Smyth’s rights to act as a priest. The move, however, did not prevent Smyth from targeting further children.

    But the Cardinal said: “I played my part, the part I had 35 years ago, as a priest recording secretary to the best of my ability. We are now judging the behaviour of 35 years ago by the standards we set today and I don’t think that is fair and it’s not applied to other sectors of society.”

    The Cardinal – then a part-time secretary to the then Bishop of Kilmore, the late Bishop Francis McKiernan – took notes during two meetings with children who he believed had been abused by Smyth.

    The senior churchman told BBC Radio Ulster that his actions in 1975 had been part of a process which removed the shamed cleric’s licence to act as a priest. He maintained that Smyth’s Norbertine order was otherwise responsible for him.

    Smyth was at the centre of one of the first paedophile priest scandals to rock the Catholic Church in Ireland.

    A seven-month delay in extraditing Smyth to the North also collapsed the Government in the Republic of Ireland in November 1994 when the Labour Party withdrew from its coalition with Fianna Fáil over claims that a warrant was withheld.

    The prolific offender later admitted a litany of sex attacks on about 90 children in the North and South of Ireland over a 40-year period and was jailed - where he died in 1997.

    Later, in a separate interview, Cardinal Brady said he was a school teacher at St Patrick’s College in Cavan at the time of the interviews and a “very part-time secretary” to the bishop.

    Although the evidence was not given to the gardaí, the senior churchman said he felt he had carried out his duties.

    “Thirty-five years ago we were in a different world. We had no guidance, we were in uncharted territory. Now we have higher standards, thankfully,” he said.

    “Certainly I would not act in the same way now as I did then.

    “I repeat that I was not the manager. I was not bishop then. I did act, that’s the most important thing, and acquired the evidence which allowed Bishop McKiernan to act decisively.”

    The Cardinal told RTE Radio that he passed the information “to the man who had the power to act”.

    “My focus was on the task I had been given, which was to assist in a canonical investigation, in other words a church investigation,” the Cardinal said.

    “I felt I did my duty.

    “I think it’s not fair to judge actions of 35 years ago with the standards we are following today.”

    The Cardinal said there had been a culture of secrecy and silence in society regarding child abuse at the time, not just in the church.

    “Now we act differently and, of course, the first thing we have to do is report to the statutory authorities. We are well aware of that, that this is a crime and that it should be reported and we are not above the law,” he said.
    Read more: http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/brady-only-the-pope-can-tell-me-to-go-450035.html#ixzz0iF87fHpM

    He's not going to resign. TBH if there were any justice he should be imprisoned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    “Yes, I knew that these were crimes, but I did not feel that it was my responsibility to denounce the actions of Brendan Smyth to the police.”

    I cannot believe that he said that, that is shocking. It's not resignation he should be facing, it's criminal charges.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Yes, I knew that these were crimes, but I did not feel that it was my responsibility to denounce the actions of Brendan Smyth to the police.
    Even with my dim view of the church as it is and apart from the gravity of Smyth's crimes, I'm having a seriously hard time understanding how anybody, let alone somebody with enough political nous to rise almost to the very top of his chosen profession, could say something so unbelievably bloody stupid.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I just can't work out how these people's consciences function. I'm an atheist, supposedly moral free and I'd take a child in rather than leave them in a position where they risk abuse.

    How can these people, important christians who represent all their religion stands for do such unfathomably awful things without regret or remorse. How can anyone trust these people? Or consider these people their link to god or worth supporting. It just defies all logic. :confused::( :mad:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    In the local shop today I noticed that this story was on the front of every paper besides some catholic one that was talking about media bias :rolleyes:. Has anyone ever taken that amount of pressure and not resigned?

    From what hes saying he thinks that hes more important than those children and he thinks that much should be obvious. I cant fathom it, he was there and he didnt come forward, his defense is that he didnt have to?!


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


    robindch wrote: »
    I'm having a seriously hard time understanding how anybody, let alone somebody with enough political nous to rise almost to the very top of his chosen profession, could say something so unbelievably bloody stupid.

    That's because its hard to find an excuse for the inexcusable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,371 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    What exactly is his position legally? Surely he could be tried for aiding and abetting or something. It has to be a crime to be fully aware of ongoing sexual abuse and not report it to the police?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Zillah wrote: »
    What exactly is his position legally? Surely he could be tried for aiding and abetting or something. It has to be a crime to be fully aware of ongoing sexual abuse and not report it to the police?

    He has basically admitted to Perverting teh course of justice, more exactly conspiring to pervert the course of justice by being party to meetings that facilitated teh protection of a criminal.

    Surely teh Guards have no excuse for not at the very least interviewing him?


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    I mean, if anyone else said that they'd be in court in no time flat. But for some reason because he wears a dress and stupid hat (or whatever) and calls himself a man of God he seems to be able to get away with it.
    Sometimes it's easy to forget that we live in the 21st Century.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    The thing about these guys is that they spend years studying medieval Canon Law and carefully follow it. You can be sure that he is entirely innocent of everything according to Canon Law. When he says he "knew it was a crime" he means a crime according to another (lesser) set of laws which didn't apply to him at the time.

    As I'm a bit stuck for cash myself, I'm off down to the supermarket now to take whatever I want, and afterwards I'll burn it. If the Gardai ask, I intend to tell them I'm a Mongolian Animist and operate strictly in accordance with the laws of Genghis Khan. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 446 ✭✭sonicthebadger*


    Just heard another priest on the radio defending him for not going to the Gardaí, saying it would be a breach of his duties to his parish. Likening it to a doctor blabbing about a patient in public. There's a huge huge difference between gossip and reporting a crime to the relevant authorities.


    But oh wait... I forgot, there is no authority higher than the Catholic Church. Damn. Oh well, looks like he made the right decision so, let's give him a medal and a pat on the back for all his good work.


  • Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Tyler MacDurden


    Just heard another priest on the radio defending him for not going to the Gardaí, saying it would be a breach of his duties to his parish. Likening it to a doctor blabbing about a patient in public. There's a huge huge difference between gossip and reporting a crime to the relevant authorities.


    But oh wait... I forgot, there is no authority higher than the Catholic Church. Damn. Oh well, looks like he made the right decision so, let's give him a medal and a pat on the back for all his good work.

    I think you mean this interview from Matt Cooper's show, featuring Colm O'Gorman and Monsignor Maurice Dooley. Infuriating stuff, I couldn't believe what I was hearing from the Monsignor. He's a Canon lawyer, and appears to think it supercedes the laws of the state.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,141 ✭✭✭eoin5


    Its clear that he'll have to go anyway now, hes really making them look very bad by hanging on with such a feeble excuse.
    bbc wrote:
    He said it was not fair to judge him by the child protection standards of today.

    Ouch..


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    bbc wrote:
    He said it was not fair to judge him by the child protection standards of today.
    It's almost as if this "absolute morality" doesn't exist...!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    As per post title, if il papa accepts Brady's resignation, then his own position is vulnerable and Brady has specifically left it to the pope to decide.

    It looks as though the meeting in Rome was to shut up Martin and put a halt to his attempts to clean out the stables.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    if il papa accepts Brady's resignation, then his own position is vulnerable
    Whatever about Brady, the idea of The Pope resigning never occurred to me.....mmmmm.....


  • Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Article (sorry, I mean opinion piece) in the Indo today by some former priest and also 'canon lawyer' (whatever the flying fook that is) stating taht Brady was under no obligation to report the incidents in question. He also blamed the media for whipping up an anti-Catholic frenzy.

    It really makes you wonder, do these guys really believe the crap they spout or do they even listen to tehmselves?


  • Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Arcus Arrow


    The Vatican’s oath of secrecy: You can be excommunicated for telling the Police about child rape but not for child rape itself.

    http://www.u.tv/News/Hundreds-abused-after-Church-cover-up/0d92a1fa-0e81-45b0-92c3-84c18a266e44


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Galvasean wrote: »
    Article (sorry, I mean opinion piece) in the Indo today by some former priest and also 'canon lawyer' (whatever the flying fook that is) stating taht Brady was under no obligation to report the incidents in question. He also blamed the media for whipping up an anti-Catholic frenzy.
    He who lives by the whim of the public will die by the whim of the public.

    Actually, now that I think about it, all of this 'canon law' stuff might have -- I think -- an interesting legal angle when it comes to corporate responsibility. I don't know the legal ins and outs of it, and I believe it varies greatly from country to country anyway, but certain legal entities are able effectively to 'hide' individuals behind their internal rules and codes of conduct, so that once a member adheres to them, the entity can and does assume legal responsibility for the actions carried out by the member concerned (think of soldiers with guns, commercial pilots flying planes, engineers designing bridges etc).

    If the church's internal rules are allowed, in this way, to assume the responsibility that normally resides within individuals, then the institutional church itself is legally liable for the actions of its employees, and that's a situation which the church does not want to be in, since it can be asset-stripped.

    Somebody more up on corporate law than I might have more info on this, but my limited understanding of the topic suggests that hiding behind canon law is a very poor long-term strategy.
    Galvasean wrote: »
    It really makes you wonder, do these guys really believe the crap they spout or do they even listen to tehmselves?
    I suspect most believe it in the moment they say it, but forget it more quickly than is good or proper.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 47,997 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    there's specific mention in the crimes against the state act of 1939 forbidding anyone of having any hand, act or part in making someone swear an oath to cover up a crime. sounds like the gardai would have comething concrete to work with if they were to chase this up.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Brady applauded at Armagh mass

    Makes me sick. He's as much as admitted to a criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists and his fucking parishioners applaud him.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    sink wrote: »
    Brady applauded at Armagh mass

    Makes me sick. He's as much as admitted to a criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists and his fucking parishioners applaud him.

    I can't say I'm particularly surprised. I know lots of theists that prior to the Murphy report and, probably more importantly, the RC's reaction to the report who were avid church goers and haven't attended a mass in months now. I'd say anyone left in the pews have somehow managed to convince themselves that Brady has done nothing wrong and/or what ever has been done the RC church is not responsible for...

    o_O


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    sink wrote: »
    Brady applauded at Armagh mass

    Makes me sick. He's as much as admitted to a criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists and his fucking parishioners applaud him.

    Lines like this
    “We didn’t need to clap him,” parishioner Maura McClean said afterwards, “because I think God will applaud him”
    is why religion can be so dangerous. And the whole canon law thing. People think they have the support of god, so they can do what they like as long as they think God supports them.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    sink wrote: »
    Should have been clapped in irons, not clapped in the church!


Advertisement