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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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)

1596062646579

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    optogirl wrote: »
    ISAW, you used to make me really angry. Now you make me so so sad. This thread pertains to clerical child abuse. Your non stop spouting of percentages does nothing to take away from the fact that children were raped by priests.

    Yes and by non priests. About a hundred non priests for every priest. but nobody seems interested in the other hundred.
    Those children who were brave enough to speak up were silenced and the rapists were allowed to continue to rape.

    none were allowed continue! some of the already small number were moved by misinformed elements of the hierarchy.
    there were very few four or five i guess with dozens of victims (some of them over a hundred) but such is also true of non clerical abusers; ther were no "rings" as exist elsewhere.
    for the minority of abusers who were moved -again single digit numbers- several bishops or the Vatican didnt sit down and decide to move them. a local bishop acting on his own made the decision.

    that situation has changed. New policies mean the Bishop must report it to the Vatican and also follow the local legal requirements.
    If I knew a colleague of mine had raped somebody, I would go through the proper channels to alert management. If I then found that nothing was done I would go to the police and would pursue it until the person was brought to justice .

    no you wouldn't. Even if you were an adult woman fifty years ago! Various publications have shown the likelihood is that the vast majority of rapes went unreported and still do today. the unreported percentage for children is probably higher.

    Far better to implement policies that avoid the possibility of child sexual abuse and i,introduce profiling and vetting of staff. The church did this and did it in advance of other organisations for example One in four
    The rape of children is now and was then the most appalling of crimes

    I agree. but it seems people are interested only in rape by less than 0.01% of rapists or historically by less than 1% and the other 99.99% of people who rape children are not of interest to them. How come that?
    and for the likes of Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children is, at best, disingenuous.

    PS thank you Optogirl for you honesty. Im happy you actually read what I write and dont get angry and react to other pêoples hype and try to understand my arguments before you comment.

    I think maybe anyone who was not raped can not understand the effect it has on victims. And then maybe some victims react in different ways.

    I rarely discuss my beliefs here. i once admitted i had been a victim (of physical abuse by a religious brother) and I was berated for not reporting it or demanding compensation by someone whose main agenda was claiming without evidence that abuse was endemic to priests.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    prinz wrote: »
    Do you feel the same about the people who call the gardaí when they need them? Do you feel the same about the people who go to/send their kids to school every week? Going to mass does not mean people are happy with what has gone on/is going on. How involved are you in your local parish?

    I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

    I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist. I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and oops I used a word the mods don't like you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

    They certainly had an idea of what was happening. If you read the reports you'd see cases such as in a convent in Kilkenny I think it was where a Dept. of Education inspector wrote a report of all their genuine fears and concerns. Was it ever acted upon? No. If you read John Cooney's (IIRC the author) biography of John Charles McQuaid you'll notice that two detectives started an investigation into abuse claims decades ago. Want to guess what happened to them? They were split up and sent to opposite ends of the country to check on dog licences. How many lay teachers turned a blind eye at best, and engaged in corporal punishment too?
    eviltwin wrote: »
    I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist. I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and fcuk you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.

    No doubt, and that's understandable, but how do you know then how the massgoer feels, or what they are saying?

    Edit: And before I get accused of supporting Brady in any way whatsoever, I'll leave these two posts from March 2010 here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64949769&postcount=28

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64918473&postcount=47


  • Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭Brer Fox


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

    A lot of sex abuse does happen in public schools. It's a massive problem in America. Not sure about Ireland though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Oh I have no doubt many lay people knew and did nothing, I have equal contempt for them but we're talking about the Church in this thread. If a teacher in my childs school raped a child and was allowed teach my child would be out of there. I'd feel the same anger towards parents who just carried on.

    My family still go to mass, two members of my family are in the orders, I have to hear how every sunday half ten mass is full of children. I don't get it, I honestly don't understand it. It feels like no one cares really.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'm not sure what you mean re the Gardai and schools? Have they abused thousands of kids? I don't think so.

    Yes. In fact ther is at least one Garda convicted as far as i am aware. There were far more non priest abusers in schools than priests. but you find that in the worst "industrial schools" institutions (about five of the fifty or so in the reports) there were a higher proportion of priests. But this was because such institutions were run by religious orders. Industrial schools account for 170,000 children of which ther are about 250 really serious cases. But
    http://www.rirb.ie/annualReport.asp
    2010 report page 49

    Level five most severe - 29
    Level four quite severe - 216

    this include physical abuse but let us assume about 200 sexual severe.
    that is out of 170,000 children.

    About four or five million children went through the non Industrial schools system
    I would assume the number of victims while less concentrated were much higher among lay people in non priest =teacher dominated schools.

    I have zero involvement with my local parish, I am atheist.

    no wonder you are ignorant of present policies and statistics then.
    I used to be very involved however, Legion of Mary, church choir etc but having a priest try and fcuk you and then be told by your church that you are a dirty liar kinda ruins the relationship somewhat.

    If that happened to you i hope you did get some redress; i doubt the church called you a dirty liar however or that such abuse happened to you in the last 20 years.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Oh I have no doubt many lay people knew and did nothing, I have equal contempt for them but we're talking about the Church in this thread. If a teacher in my childs school raped a child and was allowed teach my child would be out of there. I'd feel the same anger towards parents who just carried on.

    But that is what happened. Lay teachers also abused. Much more than Priests. Non priests abused - a hundred times more of them.
    My family still go to mass, two members of my family are in the orders, I have to hear how every sunday half ten mass is full of children. I don't get it, I honestly don't understand it. It feels like no one cares really.

    so you think not going to Mass is a solution to the problem of dozens of abusing priests among tens of thousands of abusers from the seventies eighties and before?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    It would send a strong message. As for your 'if it happened' comment I am not going to attempt to convince you. It happened.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    eviltwin wrote: »
    It would send a strong message. As for your 'if it happened' comment I am not going to attempt to convince you. It happened.

    Im not asking you to convince me.
    Have you reported the priest you claim tried to rape you to the Gardai?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭280special


    Anyone watching the Stephen Nolan programme on BBC1 at the moment?

    When will these arrogent clerical ******s learn that this is a crime that they must be held accountable for??

    Anyone else would have been up on "aiding and abetting" charges years ago !


  • Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children.
    He is a lying scumbag. Who helped one of the worst child rapists to carry on his crimes.
    He should be prosucuted for aiding and abetting a monster who raped children.


  • Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭280special


    Backseat modding deleted. If you wish to comment on moderating please do it by PM, not inthread - particularly since you have now used up your one and only Get out of Jail Free card.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Clerical abuse is a small amount, though not unfortunately null, compared to the total of such child abuse. This is based on a term length course I've attended on family and child welfare, looking at cases since the first Children Acts of the early 1990s, where the majority of incidents came from an immediate pool of family members.
    Where the state is at fault is both from the under-funding of resources where in certain incidents Judges have threaten the government with contempt (AFAIK) over substandard juvenile facilities and the states persistent failure to back up its own children first guidelines with statutory penalties for non-compliance, which would have primarily impacted state institutions. There have been reports highlighting such issues such have effected thousands of children, which have not generated that much notice.
    The Church hierarchy whilst having serious questions to answer have to be differentiated from the vast majority of clerics who from personal experience contributed in a positive way to my own upbringing with their sense of service and commitment to the poorest sections of Irish society.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭steelcityblues


    The worst ever PR week for the Catholic Church in this country.


  • Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭cdsb46


    96% vote on the Nolan show for Brady to resign, its time he goes and maybe face some criminal charges for his actions.....or lack of!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 145 ✭✭barfizz


    How can this man pretend to care about children when he abandoned so many to continued abuse.

    Not only should he resign from the church, he should also be arrested and tried in a criminal court for crimes against humanity (children).

    Let him try to plead (lie) his case under real scrutiny.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 145 ✭✭barfizz


    newmug wrote: »
    In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.

    Don't, just Don't....

    following procedure, are you for real????


    OK I am going to get a warning or worse, but you are just stupid for posting this crap.

    <insult removed>


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 145 ✭✭barfizz


    newmug wrote: »
    If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.
    Never in my life have I been asked to investigate (sorry "take notes") on a case of child abuse.
    How dare you compare me to this guy.

    He failed as a human being, never mind as a priest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭ratticus


    ISAW: Yes, I did make a personal attack because you have posted comments I found to be abhorrent. All I have seen you do is try to explain why the Catholic Church is not worse than anyone else and to try to deflect focus away from your precious priests.

    Anyone who protects a rapist is as bad as the rapist, and yes, that is you ISAW. There, that is a direct attack.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    cdsb46 wrote: »
    96% vote on the Nolan show for Brady to resign, its time he goes and maybe face some criminal charges for his actions.....or lack of!!

    The church should not run like a PR firm or political party based on whatever mood the people happen to be in. It should be based on the truth and what is right and wrong. If 96% of the people on a whim decide the Trinity isn't true the church doctrine doesn't just follow that because most people say it.
    The worst ever PR week for the Catholic Church in this country.

    Actually it is all based on a BBC TV show outlining two cases one in Raphoe another in Armagh. Those cases are already known and little new evidence emmerged. The issue isnt who were the abusers that is already old news. the central issue is people in the hierarchy who knew about abuse and did not react adequately to it. That would be the local bishop at the time. The role of Fr. Brady at the time was to record the witness statements and to tell the witnessess not to discuss the process. NB that doies ,not mean "do not report it to the gardai/RUC" but it would be most unlikely for a catholic in 1975 to report anything to the RUC.

    The central issue is whether people (Brady or anyone else) had information and did not act on that information to prevent further cases of abuse. People could have gone to the parents of the Children but didn't. The parents probably would not have gone to the RUC anyway but they could have been given the option. Ironically, in another threadf on the subject of free will Marianibad asked whether intervention removed free will. this is possibly a case where intervention could have enabled free will.

    I would like to know what the parents of the Belfast boy would have done in 1975; Mc Kintyre the journalist of the BBC documentary did trace the Belfast boy. He also made the point than when another priest knew he went to the parents. Whether the parents are alive i do not know but i would like their view. Also the parents were in a different juristiction to Brady as was his Bishop. Im not suggesting Mc Kintyre dorstep them like he did Brady.
    barfizz wrote: »
    How can this man pretend to care about children when he abandoned so many to continued abuse.

    He filed a report and he didn't contact parents of a second. As I understand it (I stand open to correction) he had a child in his own school which he interviewed who was abused by Smith and lived in Belfast. The child confirmed the abuse and Brady filed it but didnt contact the parents in Belfast. that is the only new evidence and the central issue in this case.
    Not only should he resign from the church, he should also be arrested and tried in a criminal court for crimes against humanity (children).

    Such a crime would not apply in either jurisdiction.
    Let him try to plead (lie) his case under real scrutiny.

    I dont think there is any question of Brady lying! He has not told any lies and it is your unsupported opinion that he did so.

    barfizz wrote: »
    Never in my life have I been asked to investigate (sorry "take notes") on a case of child abuse.
    How dare you compare me to this guy.

    that is a sidestep and shows double standards.
    You can't on one level say "if i was in his position" and claim he should have reacted in a certain way and then when pressed on it say "i have never been in that position so dont ask me"
    He failed as a human being, never mind as a priest.

    Well who do you think he should report to as regards child abuse in Belfast in 1975.
    Remember he was a priest in a school in the south who had then gone to rome the following year i believe.
    Under what law and based on what evidence should the RUC even listen to him?
    Would the pârtent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭ratticus


    So he was right not to even tell the parents? You do not needs laws to know what is the right thing to do in this situation.

    ISAW, What is your agenda? Why are you trying to find reasons to exonerate these people?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    ratticus wrote: »
    ISAW: Yes, I did make a personal attack because you have posted comments I found to be abhorrent.

    but that is your opinion. You are bringing personal bias into it. which comments? In what way are the abhorrent? The comments please not the person making them!
    All I have seen you do is try to explain why the Catholic Church is not worse than anyone else

    In your "all i have seen" opinion. i have done a lot more than that but your bias again is that based on a few comments I allege abuse is okay because it is not worse than elsewhere.
    i NEVER made such a commnet
    I have frequently stated (unlike relativists who say "right or wrong depends on the society of the day" or "right or wrong is meaningless") that child abuse by anyone is always wrong. Not a single case of child sexual abuse is right or ever can be. It is not justified or never will be. but you have to look at the big picture. Why disregard almost all child abuse cases and focus only on a tiny minority of cases?
    and to try to deflect focus away from your precious priests.

    AHA! so you admit yu want to focus only on Roman Catholic Priests?
    My point is proved by your own admission!
    Why ? why focus only on them?
    And please dont personalise this! I never claimed they were MY priests or PRECIOUS.
    Anyone who protects a rapist is as bad as the rapist, and yes, that is you ISAW. There, that is a direct attack.

    Not alone that but you are claiming that we should have lynch law and noone is entitled to the assumption of innocence and that any defence lawyer defending a rapist should be convicted of rape.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »
    The church should not run like a PR firm or political party based on whatever mood the people happen to be in. It should be based on the truth and what is right and wrong. If 96% of the people on a whim decide the Trinity isn't true the church doctrine doesn't just follow that because most people say it.

    You are comparing on the one hand Trinity, and on the other, judgement of a man who facilitated (by his actions) rape of children.

    I think you should consider that blind faith is not a pleasant thing, and it is also at the route of this issue.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    ratticus wrote: »
    So he was right not to even tell the parents? You do not needs laws to know what is the right thing to do in this situation.

    I don't think you are paying attention.
    i drew attention to this as the only relevant difference from all prior reports.
    I have yet to see it confirmed but I take the journalists word that the parents had not been informed by Fr. Brady.
    I would like to know if they were informed by anyone else and whether if informed they decided not to report the abuse or if not informed whether they would have gone to the RUC.
    ISAW, What is your agenda? Why are you trying to find reasons to exonerate these people?

    Ad hominem.
    when yu cant deal with the issues do you always resort to attacking the poster?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    You are comparing on the one hand Trinity, and on the other, judgement of a man who facilitated (by his actions) rape of children.

    No I am not.
    I am comparing acting on truth or morally right and saying what you believe or were told to be true.
    Brady didn't facilitate Smyth. He offered smith no facilities and he never even met Smyth as far as I know.
    And it was not his action but his inaction his lack of action (in this case informing the parents in Belfast) which is the point.
    I think you should consider that blind faith is not a pleasant thing, and it is also at the route of this issue.

    I agree blind faith isn't faith. i agree to some extent it is at the root of the issue because that would imply that people are not really concerned with victims of sexual abuse but in attacking members of the hierarchy of the roman catholic church. If Brady was not a bishop today little if anything would appear in the media about this. do you agree?

    Would the partent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?


  • Registered Users Posts: 93 ✭✭ratticus


    Mod Edit:
    Post deleted as poster ignored mod warning and continued to attack another poster. Ratticus is now on a holiday from the Forum
    PDN


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭heybaby


    Humanity's greatest obligation in my opinion is to protect its young. Organised religion, in this instance the catholic church, has flagrantly done the opposite in an attempt at self-preservation purely to retain its power. Its ethos is power not faith.

    Colm O Gorman founder of One in Four, stated yesterday that abuse of minors by the clergy has existed for centuries, so there is nothing new about the latest revelations and the latest shocking attempts by the catholic church to attempt to use internal church laws and protocol to excuse the inexcusable.

    At this stage with revelations coming thick and fast and with repeated failure by those in the highest positions within the church to do the correct human thing, I believe the catholic church in its current form and its relationship with the irish state needs to be altered dramatically.

    If it is to survive, I suggest the catholic church in ireland break away from rome entirely. The cutting off of all ties with the vatican is essential if the catholic church is to have any future in ireland. I would also suggest drawing up an new ethos for this breakaway catholic church which would include female ordination, the reappraisal of womens role in religion as a whole and doing away with celibacy to start with. Having both men and women saying mass and allowing them to marry and have families would restore a normality to an institution that has been deeply flawed in their absence.

    These are radical steps, totally unacceptable to some people no doubt, however in its current form the catholic church represents nothing more than a spiritual holocaust in its all pervasive destruction of their childhoods and their humanity. If the catholic church / catholicism has failed even one child then it has failed full stop. The fact is child sex abuse by the clergy for centuries has been the norm, as has its cover up by the vatican, catholicism as it stands is rotten to the core. It must change or die.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »

    Would the partent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?

    Raping children.

    Why the inverted comments on Smiths crime?

    EDIT>> Would it matter whether it was the RUC or the Garda that stopped Smith?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    ISAW rape of a minor was a crime as far back as 1975

    I find you quite cold. I wonder do you have any idea what child abuse does to a person? It destroys a child, takes away their trust, makes them live in constant fear and with terrible guilt and shame. I heard a very apt comment once that child abuse is like murder because it kills the person that child should be and instead leaves a shell.

    I think you are out on your own in terms of your constant defense of Brady and his kind. Some of the most devout Catholics I know are very distressed over all that has happened and want him out.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »
    No I am not.
    I am comparing acting on truth or morally right and saying what you believe or were told to be true.
    Brady didn't facilitate Smyth. He offered smith no facilities and he never even met Smyth as far as I know.
    And it was not his action but his inaction his lack of action (in this case informing the parents in Belfast) which is the point.

    I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.
    fa·cil·i·tate
       [fuh-sil-i-teyt]
    verb (used with object), fa·cil·i·tat·ed, fa·cil·i·tat·ing.
    1.
    to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): Careful planning facilitates any kind of work.
    2.
    to assist the progress of (a person).
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facilitate

    So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth". It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth. Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    I dont know - you mean by the state e.g. department of education? By sports clubs? By "family" institution that controlled behaviour? i dont know. the vast majority of abusers i would guess?
    And the church certainly the Vatican had no pôlicy to protect abusers.
    I am aware of some church officials -whether by inaction or by misinformed action (with the knowledge and permission of the family) or by the very rare case of positive intervention - protecting some abusing priests (numbers in the tens at most). I am also aware currently of maybe over 1000 cases per year none of which are priests. assuming historic rates were similar one could assert most abuse came under this category and not under the "anonymous stranger dirty old man waiting in the dark " sterotype
    1. what sports clubs had the moral aspect and also concealed crimes such as the raping of children?
    2. How do you know that the church has/had no policy to protect abusers? Just because they haven't shown us a policy document does not mean that a policy did not exist! We are told by Father Bruno Mulvihill that documentation relating to Smith was sent from the vatican to kilnacrott was found by BM in a drawer and not acted upon. There must have been something there to ensure that canon law was followed but to avoid the relevant civil authorities (presumably because of the daft perception that canon law actually meant something).
    Also, the idea of conducting an investigation into allegations of abuse using an expert in canon law (Sean Brady) and not using civil authorities meant that this procedure, which we can only assume to have been the norm, was part of the policy to protect abusers.
    Furthermore, roughly what percentage of the rapists say between 1950 and 1990 were reported straight away by the church to civil authorities. On the flip side, what percentage were dealt with internally by the church?
    3. "misinformed action" - clarify this please?
    There is a difference between doing something because you were misinformed and not doing something that you know is the right thing purely because you are following procedures. The Nurenburg defence does not work, don't forget. Brady could have quickly penned a note or, less likely given the times, made a quick call to the parents. He didn't.
    Tell me something, would you have been satisfied to have stood back in this same scenario? Would you have been happy to not follow up on such a serious allegation? Would you have been happy to sit there listening to questions about how a kid may have enjoyed the experience of being raped and not considered that they needed proper care from their family?
    ISAW wrote: »
    the vast majority I guess since given at their highest levels of clerical abuse one percent of abusers were priests. i cant believe of the other 99% that more than 98% of these were involved in any non church institution.
    That is not answering my question. How many abusers had an institution available to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities because the institution did not want to look bad? Can you refer to some of them please? I know that both the Department of Education & the Dept of Health/HSE and certain Gardai have been included within reports (seemingly based on an adherence to catholicism). Care to name some of the others?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Raping children.

    there was no such crime in 1975.
    Only females could be raped. Rape did not apply to males.
    Rape in Belfast (the case being discussed) would not come under Garda juristiction in the Republic (where Brady lived).
    Why the inverted comments on Smiths crime?

    QED Rape of a male was not a crime in the republic.
    Brady was not a witness to the rape so his reporting of it would be inadmissible anyway.
    EDIT>> Would it matter whether it was the RUC or the Garda that stopped Smith?
    I would think so
    considering the whole government collapsed over an extradition warrant for Smyth and that the extradition could only happen after a law enabling such extradition was passed in both jurisdictions in 1986 I think.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.


    So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth".

    Brady did not plan to make abuse easier or assist Smyth or help smyth in forwarding his intent to abuse children.
    He did not facilitate Smyth.
    It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth.

    That isnt "facilitating" it. To facilitate you have to be aware of the intent to do something and of the probability of that thing coming about. i dont believe Brady either knew Smyth would re offend or believed his lack of action would cause Smyth to re-offend or be a contributing factor in any way.
    Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.

    I don't believe that Brady viewed things like that then.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    kbannon wrote: »
    1. what sports clubs had the moral aspect and also concealed crimes such as the raping of children?
    I would be guessing but ...
    were there cases of swimming instructors which caused or contributed to the collapse of their whole structure and the subsequent formation of Swim Ireland?
    Even after that
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-child-abuse-claims-rock-swim-ireland-despite-reform-135115.html
    As a result of a series of high-profile scandals, Swim Ireland, a largely voluntary organisation, has been forced to radically reform the way it conducts its business.

    then you have One in Four who dint introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse until a decade after the roman catholic church. and they are a victims group.
    2. How do you know that the church has/had no policy to protect abusers? Just because they haven't shown us a policy document does not mean that a policy did not exist!

    How do you know it was not space aliens or Unicorns did it?
    Look up "Argument from ignorance" and "proving a negative" . You will find them under "fallacy"
    We are told by Father Bruno Mulvihill that documentation relating to Smith was sent from the vatican to kilnacrott was found by BM in a drawer and not acted upon.

    Where are we told that?

    He is what I do know note smith is not smyth
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-who-blew-whistle-on-smyth-estranged-from-order-2101285.html
    n 1995, Rev Kevin Smith, the Norbertine abbot who was Smyth's superior for 25 years, admitted Smyth had abused children in two parishes in the US to which he was dispatched.

    Rev Smith stated in a letter to UTV television about Smyth's time in America: "On neither occasion was the bishop of the diocese to which he was sent notified of (Smyth's) propensity to molest children.

    "On both occasions, Fr Smyth offended against young parishioners," the abbot said. "I acknowledge that I, as his religious superior, committed a grave error in sending him abroad without warning the bishop to whom I sent him."

    That is a bishop=the abbot admitting responsibility.

    Im not aware of Vatican documents sent to Kilnacrott.
    Thank you for drawing that to my attention
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/abuse-victims-legal-case-dragging-on-for-13-years-2106165.html
    Mulvihill said that he had previously seen a document sent from the Vatican in 1968 instructing the Norbertine Order to compel Brendan Smyth to stay within the grounds of the Abbey at Kilnacrott, Co Cavan, and to have no priestly, or any, duties outside. He said he found the letter in a drawer and said it was never acted on.

    Where is that letter now?
    Did the Vatican send such a letter?
    Why was it not acted on if they did?
    Why didnt they ask why it was not acted on when the Smyth case broke in the 1980s?
    There must have been something there to ensure that canon law was followed but to avoid the relevant civil authorities (presumably because of the daft perception that canon law actually meant something).

    Again more argument from ignorance. Canon law does not supercede local law except in cases where local law is immoral e.g. nazism there was no policy to circumvent local law. some bishops by some i mean ten or so per ten thousands.
    Also, the idea of conducting an investigation into allegations of abuse using an expert in canon law (Sean Brady) and not using civil authorities meant that this procedure, which we can only assume to have been the norm, was part of the policy to protect abusers.

    N oin fact we cant assume that. we can however see that the secrecy of the procedure (NOT of reporting the crime) was to protect the victims from a plea by the abuser to destroy the case or to protect the family of the abused. such "in camera" cases happen daily in Ireland.
    Furthermore, roughly what percentage of the rapists say between 1950 and 1990 were reported straight away by the church to civil authorities. On the flip side, what percentage were dealt with internally by the church?

    As the church does not deal with criminal cases zero percent -it is for the criminal law to deal with . the church only deal with canon law and they can only disallow a priest from holding an office.
    3. "misinformed action" - clarify this please?
    There is a difference between doing something because you were misinformed and not doing something that you know is the right thing purely because you are following procedures.

    Bishops did things because they thought at the time they were the right thing to do. They did it witiout talking to other bishops or to the Vatican. what they decided was wrong. This happened to maybe ten bishops out of tens of thousands.
    The Nurenburg defence does not work, don't forget.

    Nor does its court which was based on retroactive law. One cant invent "war crimes" and then try people after the law is invented. The Nazis were evil people yes and were opposed by the church before WWII but one can argue they didnt break laws. They actually legally passed anti Jew laws. This is a case where the Church would disregard civil law.
    Brady could have quickly penned a note or, less likely given the times, made a quick call to the parents. He didn't.

    a quick call to Belfast in 1975? unlikely.
    Penned a note??? surely this is something parents shoul be informed of directly ?
    Maybe they were informed. We dont know. all we know is Brady didnt inform them.
    Tell me something, would you have been satisfied to have stood back in this same scenario? Would you have been happy to not follow up on such a serious allegation? Would you have been happy to sit there listening to questions about how a kid may have enjoyed the experience of being raped and not considered that they needed proper care from their family?

    i certainly would not. i was one of the few who talked out to brothers; It was not done. It didnt enter peoples heads. they expected priests (and other adults) not to even think about such things.
    That is not answering my question. How many abusers had an institution available to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities because the institution did not want to look bad?

    How much more can you load a question before asking it?
    You question assumes an intent and collosion by the Church to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities.
    Can you refer to some of them please? I know that both the Department of Education & the Dept of Health/HSE and certain Gardai have been included within reports (seemingly based on an adherence to catholicism). Care to name some of the others?

    already done. swiming organisations/ Kincora boys home Bethany homes . I dont want to go into Protestant vs catholic issues. Im sure if educate together existed 50 years ago similar problems would have appeared there.
    http://www.paddydoyle.com/category/bethany-homes/
    Ruairi Quinn has rejected not just Bethany survivors but his own party colleagues Joe Costello and Kathleen Lynch who have been campaigning for years on this issue. Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch was thrown out of the Dail last October while trying to raise the issue of Bethany survivors with the then Fianna Fail minister.


    In fact in the US shakeshaft has produced such statistics which i have posted in this thread.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
    In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994.[3] She found that "All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."
    In 2004, Shakeshaft published Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature for the United States Department of Education.[2] The report indicated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, had been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    eviltwin wrote: »
    ISAW rape of a minor was a crime as far back as 1975
    Rape of a male wasnt!
    Care to cite the law?
    I find you quite cold. I wonder do you have any idea what child abuse does to a person? It destroys a child, takes away their trust, makes them live in constant fear and with terrible guilt and shame. I heard a very apt comment once that child abuse is like murder because it kills the person that child should be and instead leaves a shell.

    Lets not get all worked up with "think oif the children" when aksed to cite the rape law you claim existed.
    In such matters cold facts are required.
    And as someone who discussed my own abuse here before i dont require a lecture from anyione as to the ramifications of abuse.
    Now have you got the rape law you claim smyth could be charged under?
    Then how would you get him into an Irish court? given he was in Northern Ireland?
    REmember he could not be extradited until 1986 or so.
    I think you are out on your own in terms of your constant defense of Brady and his kind.

    I think you are not supporting your claims and are resorting to attacking the person who shows up your position rather than deal with the issue.
    Some of the most devout Catholics I know are very distressed over all that has happened and want him out.

    Look up "argument from authority" and Appeal to Popularity

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭280special


    newmug wrote: »
    In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.

    Where have we heard the "i was just following orders" argument before ?? All he could do ?????

    Give it a rest !!

    The church and its clerics are, after all, meant to be amongst the best examples of moralistic values to the rest of the world. So what was he thinking of when he sat back and ignored what was happening around him ???? This man and those like him who ignored the tears of abused children, their pleas for help,were more concerned with saving the church, saving the church's money, saving their own careers than doing what was the RIGHT, the MORALISTIC thing to do.

    How they can show their faces in public is beyond me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭280special


    I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.


    So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth". It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth. Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.

    Smyth didnt just know it he went to where one of his victims worked and intimidated the young lad....as reported in person by the victim on the Stephen Nolan show last night.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »
    there was no such crime in 1975.
    Only females could be raped. Rape did not apply to males.
    Rape in Belfast (the case being discussed) would not come under Garda juristiction in the Republic (where Brady lived).



    QED Rape of a male was not a crime in the republic.
    Brady was not a witness to the rape so his reporting of it would be inadmissible anyway.

    If you wish to use the quoted logic then did Smyth not rape little girls as well as little boys after Brady was notified of the abuse?

    If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children. It is an issue of morals above church rules, and prevention of crime as opposed to hiding behind technicalities about extradition, etc.

    I am unclear about what you think of Bradys conduct or morals in this?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    heybaby wrote: »
    Humanity's greatest obligation in my opinion is to protect its young. Organised religion, in this instance the catholic church, has flagrantly done the opposite in an attempt at self-preservation purely to retain its power. Its ethos is power not faith.
    In your unsupported opinion?
    Colm O Gorman founder of One in Four, stated yesterday that abuse of minors by the clergy has existed for centuries,

    And by the non clergy. As has church law opposing child abuse.
    You do realise One in Four failed to introduce mandatory reporting until a decade after the RC church did? So using One in four as an example of dating actions isnt really good evidence.
    so there is nothing new about the latest revelations and the latest shocking attempts by the catholic church to attempt to use internal church laws and protocol to excuse the inexcusable.

    It isnt shocking! It isnt news it is all odl information . the only difference is that Brady did not inform a Belfast child's parents about that child being abused by Smyth. Informing was not looked up to in Belfast at the time.

    Nor did the church use internal laws to excuse anyone of child abuse.
    At this stage with revelations coming thick and fast and with repeated failure by those in the highest positions within the church to do the correct human thing,

    they are not coming thick and fast. It is all old news except that one piece of new information.
    I believe the catholic church in its current form and its relationship with the irish state needs to be altered dramatically.

    It has been altered dramatically since the 1970s!
    Constitutional change. Extradition Act. etc.
    If it is to survive, I suggest the catholic church in ireland break away from rome entirely. The cutting off of all ties with the vatican is essential if the catholic church is to have any future in ireland.
    So your solution to a local abuse problem which Rome always opposed is become Protestants?
    That denomination already exists . they are called the church of Ireland. They declined much much more than Catholics. Although they are now growing and are the second largest religious denomination in Ireland.
    I would also suggest drawing up an new ethos for this breakaway catholic church which would include female ordination, the reappraisal of womens role in religion as a whole and doing away with celibacy to start with.

    Actually this is what really caused the decline. so no points there. In fact about 150 Anglican Priests left and became Roman Catholic poriests after they intorduced women priests.
    If the catholic church / catholicism has failed even one child then it has failed full stop.

    So we should shut down hospitals, lifeboats, police etc; because they sometimes fail?
    The fact is child sex abuse by the clergy for centuries has been the norm,

    No it hasent! that is your opinion as you stated above! It is not a FACT!
    as has its cover up by the vatican, catholicism as it stands is rotten to the core. It must change or die.

    You have not provided ANY evidence of Vatican coverup!

    Colme on hundreds of victims cases of abuse you must be able to produce hundreds of cover ups by the vatican? No? Im not surprised.


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


    ISAW wrote: »
    It isnt shocking! It isnt news it is all odl information . the only difference is that Brady did not inform a Belfast child's parents about that child being abused by Smyth. Informing was not looked up to in Belfast at the time.

    In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    280special wrote: »
    Where have we heard the "i was just following orders" argument before ?? All he could do ?????

    Give it a rest !!

    the Naziism line was already dealt with above;
    The church and its clerics are, after all, meant to be amongst the best examples of moralistic values to the rest of the world. So what was he thinking of when he sat back and ignored what was happening around him ???? This man and those like him who ignored the tears of abused children, their pleas for help,were more concerned with saving the church, saving the church's money, saving their own careers than doing what was the RIGHT, the MORALISTIC thing to do.

    We are here discussing a particular case of a boy from Belfast. He was not ignored since if he was a statement would not have been taken by Brady.
    280special wrote: »
    Smyth didnt just know it he went to where one of his victims worked and intimidated the young lad....as reported in person by the victim on the Stephen Nolan show last night.

    And this relates to Brady??? How???

    If you wish to use the quoted logic then did Smyth not rape little girls as well as little boys after Brady was notified of the abuse?

    Yes apparently he did.
    But
    1. It happened in Belfast i believe since the girl was a sister of the Belfast boy. so the rape law in the Republic would not apply and you are back into criminality juristictional problems. 2. Brady was not aware of the girl and that happened after he left Ireland
    If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children.

    And according to 1975 law and procedures what would "properly" be?
    It is an issue of morals above church rules, and prevention of crime as opposed to hiding behind technicalities about extradition, etc.

    So you suggest people should disregard the law of the land and put church morals ahead of actual local legal matters? I thought that was what you were complaining about?
    I am unclear about what you think of Bradys conduct or morals in this?

    What are you suggesting he did that was
    1. illegal?
    2. Immoral

    If you cant supply an answer to 1 then you cant suggest he be charged with anything.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.

    Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.


  • Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I think you should re-read that post.
    The IRA would not have had an issue with Brady or anyone reporting abuse against a minor to the minor's parents.


  • Moderators Posts: 51,847 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ISAW wrote: »
    Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

    PDN said informing the parent of the child, not the police, so your post doesn't address his point.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    Originally Posted by PDN
    In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.
    Forget the RUC- you are trying to muddy the waters.

    If the parents had been told it would have prevented child sex abuse. A simple phonecall would have protected a whole series of boys and girls from sex abuse. The phonecall was not made dispite a 14 year old boy being brave enough to report the sex to church authority.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,578 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »
    I
    posted by jonniebgood1
    If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children.
    And according to 1975 law and procedures what would "properly" be?

    Ringing the childs parents- there is no civil law or procedure against decency.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    http://www.psni.police.uk/1973_to_1980_indictable_offences_known_and_cleared.pdf

    page 2
    Cases of rape (and this includes adult rape)

    1974- 29 cases
    1975- 17 cases

    In 1977 they reclassified offences

    Sexual offence page 6
    Unlawful carnal knowledge with a girl under 14 - ten cases.

    It would seem like in the Republic this offence didnt exist against boys.

    Now if in a million people only ten cases were reported to the RUC what do you think the likelihood of a clerical abuse case being reported ?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Ringing the childs parents- there is no civil law or procedure against decency.

    People didn't have phones in 1975.
    You might have to ring the local phone box.
    Also you are calling cross border and calls were monitored.
    You really think that is a proper way to deal with such matters?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    I haven't been following this thread for some time, leaving it for Catholics and ex-Catholics to deal with the mess. But I have been ruminating on the matter of sexual abuse and the Church institution, and listening to those familiar with the workings and history of the institution.

    Seems to me Brady was one of these:
    1. A vile concealer of a child-rapist.
    2. A coward who feared questioning his superiors.
    3. A regular guy, operating the normal system of his Church.

    I've no reason to doubt it was No.3. Seems to fit the mentality of the Roman institution back then. He was offended by the vileness of Smyth's crimes, but was in no doubt that THE way to deal with it was the institution's rule.

    Did he feel obliged to tell the parents or the police? No - for the Church was in his view the highest authority on earth. Their decisions would be for the best.

    Brady was delusional, but not deliberately immoral. He had given his morals into the care of Mother Church. The tragedy was that she is in reality a corrupt human institution.

    Brady was doing his duty, so I see his reasoning about not resigning now. But if he and the Church now admit the Church was guilty of not protecting the flock, resignation of everyone involved in the failure is surely the least they can do. It would not be an admission of wilful malpractice, just of massive error of judgement on his part that contributed to the disaster.

    *******************************************************************
    Ezekiel 34:7 ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”— 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! 10 Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”






  • Advertisement
Advertisement