[FergusODowd]

Originally Posted by Min

It is a pity the bishop of that time is dead as maybe he could have shone more light onto his role and that of the now Cardinal Brady.

That does not exonerate Brady, nor should it be trotted out to get him off the hook. You are not obliged to follow illegitimate, invalid, immoral orders from anyone, least of all an incompetant, prideful, vainglorius Bishop. Brady freely chose to do so for prideful vainglorious career reasons.

Never mind wheeling out and trying to hide behind dead bishops.

Brady can answer here and now, and do the decent thing here and now.

[Odysseus]

I will get a lot pf abuse for this, but in certain cases there are ethical questions to be considered. I have in the past reported sex offenders and may do so again if needed. Whilst in my HSE job I am required to [Childrens first act] in private practice I am not.

What it comes down to for me is whether we are dealing with something in the past vs ongoing; additioinally, the subject's willingness and ability to change needs to be considered.

A gent I was working with last year reported what you could call "playing doctors and nurses with his sister" when he was younger. He became unwell and was hospitalised, he told a psych nurse the same thing, the nurse reported him. After a year of being called in front of social workers it was deemed to be a non-starter. The point here is we need to be careful. This man was not more a sex offender than Barney [he had brough up a family since then, with no sexual thoughts towards his children], but he almost ended up on the sex offenders list.

Anyway my point is reporting is not always clear cut. A chap I currently work with was abused repeatedly by his mother, should I report her? If I do my client will stop seeing me, resulting in his recovery being stopped.

[celticcrash]

Originally Posted by FergusODowd

You're not intrested in honest decent balanced justice, that's plain to be seen.
So as I said, I don't want to be associated with your tripe.

There is no honest decent balanced justice in this banana republic so dont pretend there is.
Your just another rightous patronising fool who likes to gob off.

[FergusODowd]

Originally Posted by celticcrash

There is no honest decent balanced justice in this banana republic so dont pretend there is.
Your just another rightous patronising fool who likes to gob off.

Thankfully people like you don't make up the majority of ordinary decent Irish people, and thankfully the majority are not going to give the country up to your vision.

[Biggins]

Originally Posted by FergusODowd

Why should they ?

If he has a case to answer then they should be forced to do their duty, otherwise they are just as bad.

You will get no argument from me.

[celticcrash]

Originally Posted by FergusODowd

Thankfully people like you don't make up the majority of ordinary decent Irish people, and thankfully the majority are not going to give the country up to your vision.

And now your the spokesperson for the the majority of ordinary decent Irish people.
The majority of ordinary decent Irish people know that there is no honest decent balanced justice in this country.
If you dont like freedom of speech than dont come on here calling peoples posts tripe.
If you dont like how people express themselves, just say so and move on with out trying to belittle their posts.
And you only speak for yourself on boards.ie and not for the majority.
Keep your ego in check.

[FergusODowd]

Originally Posted by celticcrash

And now your the spokesperson for the the majority of ordinary decent Irish people.
The majority of ordinary decent Irish people know that there is no honest decent balanced justice in this country.
If you dont like freedom of speech than dont come on here calling peoples posts tripe.
If you dont like how people express themselves, just say so and move on with out trying to belittle their posts.
And you only speak for yourself on boards.ie and not for the majority.
Keep your ego in check.

A good example of the usually hypocrisy from the people who come on here inciting hatred.

[Corkfeen]

Originally Posted by FergusODowd

A good example of the usually hypocrisy from the people who come on here inciting hatred.

While there have been a few questionable posts. The fact is that Brady was aiding a Paedophile by failing to tell parents of those being abused of what had occurred and the general cover up of the abuse. This was a disturbingly immoral choice by a man and an organisation who were supposed to be an authority on morality. And it endangered children as a result of their failures.

So yes, I can't see how people can legitimately choose to follow a religious organisation that has engaged in cover ups of child abuse etc. And as well, Catholicism as an organisation regularly incites hatred, people who engage in homosexual behaviour are doomed to burn in hell alongside those who masturbate and fornicate (although they place particular emphasis on the homosexuality). But for some reason the Catholic Church endorsed cover-ups are perfectly acceptable by their logic and there was no fault on their part.

[Zebra3]

Originally Posted by Corkfeen

So yes, I can't see how people can legitimately choose to follow a religious organisation that has engaged in cover ups of child abuse etc.

+1.

How can people continue to enroll their kids in an organisation like that? Wtf?

[Min]

Originally Posted by Zebra3

+1.

How can people continue to enroll their kids in an organisation like that? Wtf?

They are doing is despite the failings of the church, when one takes away the human failings there are a lot of people on this planet who get a lot of positivity from their Catholic faith.
Their faith is not based on human failings, it is based on fundamental beliefs that go above the clergy.
This is why parents continue to teach their children the faith they have gotten a lot of good from. No Catholic is happy how the abuse was handled.

[mrsdewinter]

Originally Posted by Odysseus

I will get a lot pf abuse for this, but in certain cases there are ethical questions to be considered. I have in the past reported sex offenders and may do so again if needed. Whilst in my HSE job I am required to [Childrens first act] in private practice I am not.

What it comes down to for me is whether we are dealing with something in the past vs ongoing; additioinally, the subject's willingness and ability to change needs to be considered.

A gent I was working with last year reported what you could call "playing doctors and nurses with his sister" when he was younger. He became unwell and was hospitalised, he told a psych nurse the same thing, the nurse reported him. After a year of being called in front of social workers it was deemed to be a non-starter. The point here is we need to be careful. This man was not more a sex offender than Barney [he had brough up a family since then, with no sexual thoughts towards his children], but he almost ended up on the sex offenders list.

Anyway my point is reporting is not always clear cut. A chap I currently work with was abused repeatedly by his mother, should I report her? If I do my client will stop seeing me, resulting in his recovery being stopped.

You are coming from a professional background with, I'm guessing, years of training and experience. Fr Brady was coming from a background of no particular expertise in psychological and/or sexual trauma.
Surely a man working in a pastoral setting would have said to himself, 'Blimey, I'm in way over my head here - I'm not even sure that my line manager (the relevant bishop/head of the order) will know the correct course of action to take. Maybe I should take this to the RUC/ a health professional...'
I know I'm guilty of projecting the values of 2012 onto a situation that occurred 37 years ago here, but how disconnected from your own humanity would you have to be for that impulse not to strike you every once in a while over the years that followed? Say, when Smyth's name began cropping up again and again?

[Zebra3]

Originally Posted by Min

They are doing is despite the failings of the church, when one takes away the human failings there are a lot of people on this planet who get a lot of positivity from their Catholic faith.
Their faith is not based on human failings, it is based on fundamental beliefs that go above the clergy.
This is why parents continue to teach their children the faith they have gotten a lot of good from. No Catholic is happy how the abuse was handled.

All the teachings are decided by people who protected child rapists.

[Min]

Originally Posted by Zebra3

All the teachings are decided by people who protected child rapists.

So when I was taught the teachings of the ten commandments it was a person who abused minors that decided it?
Who was this person and what was their role in the abuse?

[Doctor Jimbob]

Originally Posted by Min

They are doing is despite the failings of the church, when one takes away the human failings there are a lot of people on this planet who get a lot of positivity from their Catholic faith.
Their faith is not based on human failings, it is based on fundamental beliefs that go above the clergy.
This is why parents continue to teach their children the faith they have gotten a lot of good from. No Catholic is happy how the abuse was handled.

There are a lot of people who get positivity from their catholic faith. This is a good thing. That doesn't mean they should stand up for catholic leaders who are defending and covering up vile crimes. In any other organisation, members would be calling for the leaders responsible to be removed. They can stand by their faith without standing by the criminals within the organisation.
Also child rape and covering it up is not a human failing, it's a disgusting crime. There's fuck all human about it.

[Zebra3]

Originally Posted by Min

So when I was taught the teachings of the ten commandments it was a person who abused minors that decided it?
Who was this person and what was their role in the abuse?

The protectors of child rapists who currently run the RC church decide that the ten commandments are part of their teachings.

Duh.