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)

24567…79

Comments

  • #52
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    Could have. Would have. Should have.

    Who's to say that the child/parents even wanted the matter to be referred to the local Garda station and the town/village at large? ........

    It was not up to him or anyone in the church to make the decision of guessing what the victims want.

    The first, correct and moral response is to protect the victim(s) and ensure this doesn't happen again by informing the correct authorities.

    It's a pity that these 'men of god' saw it only fit to protect the name of their institution by denying, scorning victims and covering up what happened.


  • #53
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    allthedoyles wrote: »
    For everyone's sake and for the Church's sake , he needs to step down .

    His speech today confirms that his position within the Church in untenable , - in my opinion

    He's staying put. He has an important mission to fulfill here in Ireland. He has to oversee the compensation of all abuse victims and the conversion of the Irish Church from a large appeal-to-the-masses organisation to a smaller, more agile, smarter, more authentic church.


  • #54
    Ultravid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 436 ✭✭Ultravid


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    The point is that this hierarchy professes what it deems morally right and wrong to millions yet will lie, deceive and cover-up for the sake of the institution.

    I'm sure Jesus didn't appoint 12 lawyers / spin-doctors to spread his gospel.

    He chose 12 ordinary sinful men, one of whom was an unrepentant back-stabber. The other denied him three times, but repented. He was the first Pope*.

    Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

    Mt. 23:1-3

    Even if our leaders don't live the faith themselves, as long as they are teaching the faith as passed on to us through the Magisterium, Catholics should listen to them.

    I'm not passing judgement on anyone here, merely stating that even if ordained Ministers of Christ are hypcrits, as long as they teach the Catholic faith, they are worthy of being listened to:

    He who hears you, hears me.
    Lk. 10:16

    *(Start another thread if you want to debate any of this. I won't be joining you!)


  • #55
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    Nobodys perfect. The first man in heaven was the thief hanging off the cross beside Jesus, Saint Peter completely denied even knowing who Jesus was 3 times when Jesus needed him most, and he got sainted! Brady was the gofer for his boss one day when he came to know some very private and sensitive information regarding an investigation his boss was conducting, and he (wrongfully) chose to keep out of it! All failings, but let he who has no sin cast the first stone...................


  • #56
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    It was not up to him or anyone in the church to make the decision of guessing what the victims want.

    The first, correct and moral response is to protect the victim(s) and ensure this doesn't happen again by informing the correct authorities.

    It's a pity that these 'men of god' saw it only fit to protect the name of their institution by denying, scorning victims and covering up what happened.

    Direct question: If you were abused by a priest in 1960s small-town Ireland, would you want the whole town to know about it?

    Another direct question: who was the Bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland when Fr Brady had these elusive meetings?


  • #57
    sarahlulu
    Registered Users Posts: 295 ✭✭sarahlulu


    I would want it to be my decision.


  • #58
    bob50
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 535 ✭✭✭bob50


    I think he should stay as cardinal what happened was 35 years ago

    dont forget he didnt abuse any kids the way man is being treated is a disgrace

    Im not a lover of the church but i can see that Sean Ryan as cardinal is a good man & has hard job to do


  • #59
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Ultravid wrote: »
    I'm not passing judgement on anyone here, merely stating that even if ordained Ministers of Christ are hypcrits, as long as they teach the Catholic faith, they are worthy of being listened to:

    Where is the line drawn?

    Should priests that abuse/rape children be listened to as long as they teach the faith? Are they worthy of being listened to?


  • #60
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    bob50 wrote: »
    I think he should stay as cardinal what happened was 35 years ago

    dont forget he didnt abuse any kids the way man is being treated is a disgrace

    Im not a lover of the church but i can see that Sean Ryan as cardinal is a good man & has hard job to do

    Sean Brady.:)


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    sarahlulu wrote: »
    I would want it to be my decision.

    That's all very fine from your ooh so liberal 2010 perspective. But you're a passive observer. Someone who has access to nothing but third-hand information from 35 years ago that you've picked up in the media (who are in the business of selling advertising). You're not an abuse victim. Nor are you charged with having to compensate an abuse victim or stand in front of them and offer them a sincere apology from the depth of your heart in the most sensitive manner possible. It's all too easy for you to sit back and spout anonymous opinion from the comfort of your keyboard. Cardinal Brady is on the coal face dealing with the reality of child abuse. As is Archbishop Martin and countless others, both lay and religious.


  • #62
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    sarahlulu wrote: »
    I would want it to be my decision.

    And the victims / parents had no powers of decision of their own?


  • #63
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    How is he causing any pain to anyone? ............

    Saves me typing....

    me_right_one wrote: »
    .....He should have gone to the guards, but he didnt. He fcuked up, chickened out. .........

    The sexual/physical abuse caused by a few priests is terrible but the institution denying / scorning abuse victims and covering up has caused far more damage and pain. That's why he should go.


  • #64
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Outrage wrote: »
    The Cardinal won't be resigning. Get used to it.

    You're closely connected, are you?

    The original question posed will be answered more than once by more than one person. Get used to it.


  • #65
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Where is the line drawn?

    Should priests that abuse/rape children be listened to as long as they teach the faith? Are they worthy of being listened to?

    No they are not worthy of being listened to. But Sean Brady never abused/raped anyone.


  • #66
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Sean Brady.:)

    Great contribution there.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great contribution there.

    reference was made to Sean Ryan.


  • #68
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    WesternNight wrote: »
    You're closely connected, are you?

    The original question posed will be answered more than once by more than one person. Get used to it.

    Actually, you're wrong (yet again). I'm a Mass-going layperson. A sinner who prays regularly and strives to live like Jesus. I have every faith in the Church and her mission on this earth. Where do you get your moral guidance from? The State? The latest fad of public opinion? From inside your own mind and what little knowledge you've acquired up to now?


  • #69
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    reference was made to Sean Ryan.

    Do you think I can't read? Have you had too many cheap beers on this, our national holiday?


  • #70
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Do you think I can't read? Have you had too many cheap beers on this, our national holiday?

    What's your problem, mate?

    It's obvious you can't read because you failed to notice that incorrect name reference to the cardinal.

    And no, the only drink I had today was Earl Gray tea.


  • #71
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    The sexual/physical abuse caused by a few priests is terrible but the institution denying / scorning abuse victims and covering up has caused far more damage and pain. That's why he should go.

    How do you know that the child/family that suffered abuse at the hands of a perverted priest didn't want anonymity? That they didn't want the protection of an oath of secrecy with the penalty of excommunication? In this ooh so liberal society, it's very hard for people to be scandalised. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1960's abuse victim and tell me that you'd want the whole town to know that you were abused at the hands of a perverted priest.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    What's your problem, mate?

    It's obvious you can't read because you failed to notice that incorrect name reference to the cardinal.

    And no, the only drink I had today was Earl Gray tea.

    Oh deary, deary me... I think it's time you went to bed.

    Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Duit.


  • #73
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    No they are not worthy of being listened to. But Sean Brady never abused/raped anyone.

    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.


  • #74
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.

    I note that you can't answer some direct questions. Do you have a good explanation for this?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64957797&postcount=58


  • #75
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,429 ✭✭✭testicle


    This is the only primate who's position I support...

    763px-Olive_baboon.jpg


  • #76
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    How do you know that the child/family that suffered abuse at the hands of a perverted priest didn't want anonymity? That they didn't want the protection of an oath of secrecy with the penalty of excommunication? In this ooh so liberal society, it's very hard for people to be scandalised. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1960's abuse victim and tell me that you'd want the whole town to know that you were abused at the hands of a perverted priest.

    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

    Today, yesterday, a thousand years ago..... its wrong to knowingly allow anyone the risk of being abused through inaction or deception.


  • #77
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs
    <<<relevant

    philiporeilly wrote: »
    and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.
    <<<irrelevant

    Saves me typing;)


  • #78
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note that you can't answer some direct questions. Do you have a good explanation for this?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64957797&postcount=58

    So many posts missed that one but I believe my previous posts answer your question.

    It's not up to anyone in the church to decide whether abuse should be reported or not. It should be reported in every case to protect the victim(s) and to save others.


  • #79
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

    You go on as if the Church denied people of free will. Man can do as he pleases (often to detrimental consequences).

    Also what are these "1960s ideals" that you speak of?

    I note you still are having difficulty answering direct questions.


  • #80
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    <<<irrelevant

    Saves me typing;)

    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.


  • #81
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.

    I'll ask you again: who was Fr Brady's Bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time? Do you even know the answer to this?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Outrage wrote: »
    You're not an abuse victim.

    What kind of thing is that to assume? How do you know who is and who isn't? You seem to think you know people here personally. You have no idea whether people who've posted here are abuse victims, relatives of abuse victims, or just bystanders.


  • #83
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still are having difficulty answering direct questions.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    It's not up to anyone in the church to decide whether abuse should be reported or not. It should be reported in every case to protect the victim(s) and to save others.

    thought i said the above a few times.

    He failed, his superiors failed, and he has no credibility left for repairing the damage caused by these scandals.


  • #84
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    thought i said the above a few times.

    He failed, his superiors failed, and he has no credibility left for repairing the damage caused by these scandals.

    Who were Fr Brady's superiors? Do you even know what you are talking about?


  • #85
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    WesternNight wrote: »
    What kind of thing is that to assume? How do you know who is and who isn't? You seem to think you know people here personally. You have no idea whether people who've posted here are abuse victims, relatives of abuse victims, or just bystanders.


    Exactly.


  • #86
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.

    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?


  • #87
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Who were Fr Brady's superiors? Do you even know what you are talking about?

    The Bishop (McKiernan) to whom Brady reported the abuse, failed to report the matter to the police.

    Throughout the entire spectrum of abuse cases highlighted in the industrial schools, the abuse highlighted in the parishes and individual cases of abuse by the likes of Brendan Smyth, Ivan Payne and other criminals,those cases were not reported to the police by the IRCC at the time.
    In fact, it would appear that the IRCC at various levels attempted to subvert the testimony of the people making the allegations of abuse.

    The failure to report those crimes is no defence.

    The crimes should have been reported.


  • #88
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

    Ah I see, we're talking about two different churches. You must be on about scientology or something, cos my church, the Roman Catholic Church as its known, the direct church Jesus set up in 0000 never beat year-based ideals into anyone, and they certainly aren't continuing to cover up any past wrongs some paedophiles-disguised-as-priests committed. Note I used the word continuing, the same word you used. I for one cant turn on the tele without apologies and resignations and inquires filling my sitting room. You're on a loser there with that scientology.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Today, yesterday, a thousand years ago..... its wrong to knowingly allow anyone the risk of being abused through inaction or deception.

    100% correct. Its a far less wrong than actually abusing someone, but a wrong nonetheless. It definately warrants an apology.
    When Brady found out that brendan smith had abused children, it was during the course of an investigation. This meant it WAS being dealt with. How was Brady to know his boss wouldnt tell the guards? How was Brady to know brendan smith would do it again? How was he to know whether or not smith ever did it again? Being a priest doesnt make you psychic. If anyone should be criticised it should be Brady's boss, but he's dead now. He is well-and-truly paying for any crimes he committed now.


  • #89
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?

    Bishop McKiernan.


    Cardinal Conway.


  • #90
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?

    Wan't even born at the time but websites like this help http://tinyurl.com/ycl9hd2

    As I said earlier he was wrong, his superiors were wrong by not protecting victims of decades of abuse


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    me_right_one wrote: »
    Its a far less wrong than actually abusing someone, but a wrong nonetheless. It definately warrants an apology.
    When Brady found out that brendan smith had abused children, it was during the course of an investigation. This meant it WAS being dealt with. How was Brady to know his boss wouldnt tell the guards? How was Brady to know brendan smith would do it again? How was he to know whether or not smith ever did it again? Being a priest doesnt make you psychic. If anyone should be criticised it should be Brady's boss, but he's dead now. He is well-and-truly paying for any crimes he committed now.

    But Brendan Smyth had been a known abuser since 1950's.

    The IRCC institution knew he was an abuser : his abuses had been documented by various agencies.

    Smyth should have been reported/charged/tried.


  • #92
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Smyth should have been reported/charged/tried.

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


  • #93
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Wan't even born at the time but websites like this help http://tinyurl.com/ycl9hd2

    As I said earlier he was wrong, his superiors were wrong by not protecting victims of decades of abuse

    I'm afraid that quoting lmgtfy.com in your bibliography will not get you that dissertation/thesis from a reputable institution that you yearn. Anyway, someone more knowledgeable than you has provided you with an answer, so you're saved. That still leaves the other direct question for you to answer.


  • #94
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    Ah I see, we're talking about two different churches. You must be on about scientology or something, cos my church, the Roman Catholic Church as its known, the direct church Jesus set up in 0000 never beat year-based ideals into anyone, and they certainly aren't continuing to cover up any past wrongs some paedophiles-disguised-as-priests committed. Note I used the word continuing, the same word you used. I for one cant turn on the tele without apologies and resignations and inquires filling my sitting room. You're on a loser there with that scientology.

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

    me_right_one wrote: »
    100% correct. Its a far less wrong than actually abusing someone, but a wrong nonetheless. It definately warrants an apology.

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

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


  • #95
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'm afraid that quoting lmgtfy.com in your bibliography will not get you that dissertation/thesis from a reputable institution that you yearn. Anyway, someone more knowledgeable than you has provided you with an answer, so you're saved.

    What exactly is your problem? You seem to have some kind of beef with people in this thread and you seem unwilling to be an adult about it instead resorting to snide comments. Why?


  • #96
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.

    I dont. What has the job one does have to do with anything, or the "rank" you hold in that given job? And he did report it, directly to the person dealing with the matter. Its THAT person who should have gone to the guards.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    In fact, it would appear that the IRCC at various levels attempted to subvert the testimony of the people making the allegations of abuse.

    :lol:


  • #98
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    WesternNight wrote: »
    What exactly is your problem? You seem to have some kind of beef with people in this thread and you seem unwilling to be an adult about it instead resorting to snide comments. Why?

    Let's get back on topic: the good Cardinal won't be resigning. Get over it.

    He had a cathedral full of supporters today (despite what you read about in the liberal press).


  • #99
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


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

    I'd argue that each family's generational experience differs. My own had a positive interaction with the Church, and had always spoke with admiration of that body.


  • #100
    allthedoyles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,893 ✭✭✭allthedoyles


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

    Agreed from first hand experience of the Christian Brothers


  • #101
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


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


  • Advertisement
Advertisement