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

Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

1234568

Comments

  • #352
    policarp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,664 ✭✭✭policarp


    Rotating Egg wrote: »
    You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

    Press Button B. . .
    Get the money back. . .


  • #353
    J Cheever Loophole
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 975 ✭✭✭J Cheever Loophole


    To Biggins;

    For someone with 29,000 odd posts on this Board, I have to say your style of debating leaves a lot to be desired. The reference to the story about Armagh Parish was in the context of what I described as the 'hate filled bile' that was being thrown around, and which you referred to as 'stark fact'. You wrote many words in reply, but essentially refused to address that.

    Furthermore, the reference to John O'Donnell points clearly to what was a different Ireland back then - which is key to those like myself who are defending Cardinal Brady - whether or not you agree with that, you surely see its relevance in that context?

    I would expect no less to be honest.

    I quoted the writer Jude Collins elsewhere on this Board when he said;

    "Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days."

    and boy did he nail that one correctly.

    I'd already promised myself that I would not come on here and argue over the course of dozens of posts on what has happened, as that would be a futile exercise - people have a good idea of the facts, and essentially it boils down to your view on these - I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that.


  • #354
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Min wrote: »
    Cloyne has fully implemented the safeguarding procedures as laid down by the church.
    The commission did not say they might be good, they said if fully implemented would offer proper protection to children.

    http://www.cloynediocese.ie/2011/07/actions-taken-by-diocese-in-response-to-report/

    The politicians giving out about the church are a joke given 115 children died in state care from unnatural causes between 2000 and 2010 or 200 deaths of children overall.
    As the Irish Times points out "
    No doubt, the usual detractors will say that I’m only mentioning the State failures to distract from the failures of the church. To which I can only say, people currently working as child safeguarding advocates in other settings would love a fraction of the public attention given to church catastrophes.
    Nor can those same detractors deny that the State’s failures continue even when the church is not involved at all, as in the Roscommon case, or the death of Daniel McAnaspie. Geoffrey Shannon and Norah Gibbons are currently investigating nearly 200 deaths of young people in the care of the HSE from 2000- 2010."


    A lot of wrong and evil has been done in the church by a minority of priests and handled wrongly by their superiors when they found out. A lot of wrong has been done to children in state care and they are not given the same level of concern. I am not saying lowering the lvel of concern over what happened in the church but the level of concern for the 115 children who died unnaturally in state careis not at the same high level of concern and the Cloyne report did say the state's own child protection measures are less precise and more difficult to implement."than the churches own safeguarding measures.


    A lot of people want to stick their heads in the sand and believe the church has not done anything to protect children, Cloyne has fully implemented the child safeguarding standardswhich are superior to that of the state's own guidelines which some in state run institutions choose not to follow...they are doing a Bishop McGee on it...

    But the state has departments whos task it is to care for children for various reasons so naturally there will be incidents involving children. Bringing this point up ad nauseum is a little like claiming that more puppies die under the care of vets as opposed to under the care of fire men


  • #355
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Rotating Egg wrote: »
    You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

    But peoples feet were as capable of walking them into a Guarda station in the 70's as they are now.


  • #356
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    J Cheever Loophole wrote: »
    To Biggins;

    For someone with 29,000 odd posts on this Board, I have to say your style of debating leaves a lot to be desired. The reference to the story about Armagh Parish was in the context of what I described as the 'hate filled bile' that was being thrown around, and which you referred to as 'stark fact'. You wrote many words in reply, but essentially refused to address that.

    I would expect no less to be honest.

    I quoted the writer Jude Collins elsewhere on this Board when he said;

    "Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days."

    and boy did he nail that one correctly.

    I'd already promised myself that I would not come on here and argue over the course of dozens of posts on what has happened, as that would be a futile exercise - people have a good idea of the facts, and essentially it boils down to your view on these - I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that.


    I'm not sure what the bulk of your last post is on about. It seems to wander loosly around something around debating skills - and I say that not to irritate you but maybe perhaps to expose some part of me that is stupid in not seeing what your on about.
    I debate as close as I can to basic facts and the law as it stands.

    As regards a latter part:
    I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that

    Thats absolutely fair enough and in fact I commend you for taking a stance and sticking to it.
    Not an easy thing to do and you (and Min) whom I may disagree with, at least stick to your core principle ideas.
    Although ye both differ in opinion from myself, ye both are to be commended to at least coming here also and voicing another possible side to a series of events or person.

    Don't ever let a fool like me ever put you off from speaking up/out.


  • #357
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    J Cheever Loophole wrote: »
    Each to their own indeed - when I see terms like 'scumbag' used for a man whom I know as thoroughly decent individual, and arguments elsewere on these boards for abolishing Catholicism on the island of Ireland, then I no longer see fact but rather the hate filled bile I referred to - hate that would do justice to the more extreme members of the loyalist community up here.

    Cardinal Brady is held in very high regard in Armagh City, where one of his roles is that of Parish Priest. When he was under similar pressure a couple of years back, he received a spontaneous standing ovation from the St Patrick's Day congregation in St Patrick's Cathedral. I subsequently heard that congregation - of which I was a part - referred to as supporters of paedophelia. Maybe you'd like to point out the 'stark fact' in that to me? :mad:

    As for reporting to the gardai back then, I wonder what abuse victim John O'Donnell would have had to say about going down that avenue?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/catholic-clergy-children-donegal-report?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Make no mistake - the Catholic Church has acted shamefully in the past and have compounded grievous outrages by attempts to cover these outrages up. That causes a lot of pain to practising Catholics like myself, and yes, where people have deliberately covered these acts up, I believe there should be criminal charges brought. I do not however see Cardinal Brady's role back in the 1970s as any part of that - he has been let down by those who were his superiors back then and is paying a terrible price for it.
    All that goes to show is that the grip the RCC had on the minds of Catholics in the time when the bulk of the abuse happened is still firmly in place today. To applaud a man who took an abused child into a room , without his parents, sit there whilst the child is asked if he came in his pants whilst being abused and did he enjoy it, swear the child to secrecy and then inform no one other than more of his church thus enabling the abuser to carry on for decades. Shocking.


  • #358
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    ...To applaud a man who took an abused child into a room , without his parents, sit there whilst the child is asked if he came in his pants whilst being abused and did he enjoy it, swear the child to secrecy and then inform no one other than more of his church thus enabling the abuser to carry on for decades. Shocking.

    That about sums up the situation for me.

    I talk to and read of many victims (a lot who are left seriously effected) thru a heavy site (http://shameofireland.co.uk/) and frankly I too am shocked in many ways.

    The fact is that - as the saying goes - no man is an island. Each has the ability to stand up for themselves as adults normally and do the right thing ultimately.
    Brady didn't. He hid behind his org and continues to do this.
    Not only that but others now seem to think that this hiding behind the org as an excuse, seems to let Brady off from blame for what he didn't do - what he honestly should have done!
    Anyone that espouses that its wasn't my fault and/or its was the orgs fault ("I was only following orders!" goes the cry), reminds me of previous very evil which existed that used that excuse also!
    ...And they though that excuse justified their getting off and not be held culpable.
    They too were wrong!

    Brady was a full grown adult.
    He knew exactly what he was doing, what he forced kids to do (remain silent), he knew exactly what methods he was using to make them stay silent, he knew exactly what the org he was in was/is capable of, he knew what his boss eventually did or didn't do, he knew exacly that he wasn't telling the parents, he knew that he was NOT just a note taker, ...and do on...

    ..And after all that, what did he do to ACTUALLY easy suffering and stop an evil man?

    Nothing.

    His should be ashamed of himself and is a disgrace for the position he won't resign from.


  • #359
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    But the state has departments whos task it is to care for children for various reasons so naturally there will be incidents involving children. Bringing this point up ad nauseum is a little like claiming that more puppies die under the care of vets as opposed to under the care of fire men


    The thing is 115 children had unnatural things happen to them in state care from 2000 to 2010.
    So while you said naturally, the point is the incidents were deemed unnatural, the total death toll is somewhere near 200 children died in state care in that period, over half from unnatural causes.

    This is because the state has departments who do not follow child safeguarding procedures due to a 'lack of resources'.
    Most of that period was during the Celtic tiger period when the state was giving tax cuts and tax breaks while it allowed children in it's care to die from unnatural causes.


  • #360
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 54,091 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    How anyone can hold Brady in high regard is beyond me.


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    The thing is 115 children had unnatural things happen to them in state care from 2000 to 2010.
    So while you said naturally, the point is the incidents were deemed unnatural, the total death toll is somewhere near 200 children died in state care in that period, over half from unnatural causes.

    This is because the state has departments who do not follow child safeguarding procedures due to a 'lack of resources'.
    Most of that period was during the Celtic tiger period when the state was giving tax cuts and tax breaks while it allowed children in it's care to die from unnatural causes.

    Your determined to deflect this thread away from Brady aren't you?

    Back on topic of Brady and his religious org, how many were effected by him and his inadequacy we shall probably never know.
    I suspect that there is many out there that still is too ashamed/embarrassed to come forward.
    Then there is the others that did a WHOLE lot of other abusing under the roof of Rome property and under their protection of their priest cloth.
    I dread to think of the total numbers involved if we were to add it all up over many, many decades or in a half century and more!


  • #362
    Pace2008
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Pace2008


    Rotating Egg wrote: »
    You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?
    I have seen this particularly bizarre line of apologetics used over on the Christianity forum as well, and it is utterly baffling. The notion that a poor telecommunications system was an impassable barrier to relaying an important message to someone living on the same tiny island is absurd and frankly insulting.


  • #363
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    Your determined to deflect this thread away from Brady aren't you?

    Am I not allowed to reply to a specific reply?


  • #364
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    The thing is 115 children had unnatural things happen to them in state care from 2000 to 2010.
    So while you said naturally, the point is the incidents were deemed unnatural, the total death toll is somewhere near 200 children died in state care in that period, over half from unnatural causes.

    This is because the state has departments who do not follow child safeguarding procedures due to a 'lack of resources'.
    Most of that period was during the Celtic tiger period when the state was giving tax cuts and tax breaks while it allowed children in it's care to die from unnatural causes.


    ....a good deal of which was highlighted by opposition spokesman Alan Shatter, now minister for Justice. Thankfully the parties involved are no longer in power - a stark contrast to Sean Brady and his situation. Ordinary members of the church have no say in his future, nor do the clergy for the most part.


  • #365
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....a good deal of which was highlighted by opposition spokesman Alan Shatter, now minister for Justice. Thankfully the parties involved are no longer in power - a stark contrast to Sean Brady and his situation. Ordinary members of the church have no say in his future, nor do the clergy for the most part.


    So what were all these parties doing back in the 1990's?

    Whether church abuse or state abuse - all of these parties were in power at various stages in the 1990's - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, progressive democrats, democratic left.

    Alan Shatter is only wise after the events, he or his party didn't do anything in the 1990's when the rainbow government were in power to address child abuse in either the church or state and we knew about Brendan Smyth in 1993.

    Enda Kenny now leader of the country has been in the Dáil since 1975, one could say he is like Cardinal Brady, late in the day he is addressing child abuse.
    Back in the 1990s nothing really meaningful was done by the state to deal with child abuse which allowed many children to die and to continue to die in state care.

    At least Cardinal Brady can stand over the churches own child safeguarding measures knowing an independent commission says they offer proper protection, the leader of this country cannot say after his 37 years in the Dáil that the state has proper child safeguarding measures.

    So FF, FG, Labour, PDs and DL were in power and all are responsible for the state's lack of child safeguards which allowed hundreds of children to die in state care.
    Enda kenny was elected to the Dáil in 1975 and in the government party of the time, he was in the government of the 1980's, the government of the mid 1990's and again now.
    Tell me what he and his government were doing all this time when it came to child protection measures.
    It actually mirrors the churches own child abuse scandals.
    Now we have Enda Kenny and Cardinal Brady both as leaders of their respective areas in this country.


  • #366
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    Am I not allowed to reply to a specific reply?

    You are but there was me thinking it was you that brought up this topic in post 332 for your own purposes, when in fact that matter is not related to the Brady.


  • Advertisement
  • #367
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/kilmore-diocese-allowed-brendan-smyth-back-to-full-ministry-1-3825337
    CARDINAL Sean Brady is understood to be “reflecting seriously on his future” amid new allegations of cover-ups by the Catholic Church – particularly the Kilmore Diocese in the Brendan Smyth child abuse scandal.

    The fallout continues from a BBC documentary ‘The Shame of the Catholic Church’ which last week revealed that Cardinal Brady had a list of children’s names who were being abused but failed to inform gardai and their parents in 1975. The cardinal said as a “note taker” he gave the information to his superior, Bishop Francis Mac Kiernan a native of Aughawillan Co Leitrim, but no action was taken against Smyth and he was able to continue abusing children for a further 20 years.

    According to a statement issued by current Bishop of Kilmore, Dr Leo O’Reilly, in 1984 Smyth asked the then Bishop, the late Dr Francis MacKiernan, to lift the ban put in place in 1975.

    Following consultations with the then Abbott of Smyth’s monastery, Bishop MacKiernan acceded to Smyth’s request. The statement adds that, at first, permission to return to hearing confessions and celebrating Mass publicly in the diocese was given for periods of six months at a time. Three years later, the period was extended to 12 months.

    Permission was renewed each subsequent year until 1993 when Bishop MacKiernan learned that the DPP in Northern Ireland was bringing a criminal prosecution against Smyth. Cardinal Brady had ceased to be Bishop MacKiernan’s Secretary five years before the decision to allow Smyth to return to full public ministry.

    Over the weekend a former pupil at St Patrick’s College in Cavan, has alleged that he was abused after 1975 at the college when Smyth visited there. The cardinal was a teacher at the same school at the same time. Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has called for a full investigation into Smyth and the handling of accusations against him by both the church and the State north and South. Cardinal Brady did not appear at masses in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Armagh last Sunday as the fallout continues.


  • #368
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    You are but there was me thinking it was you that brought up this topic in post 332 for your own purposes, when in fact that matter is not related to the Brady.

    Yes, but when someone replied to to it, then I should have the opportunity to reply.
    It is relevant to Cardinal Brady as politicians are responsible for child safeguarding measures in the state and they have allowed a lot of children to die in state care. The same politicians who call for Cardinal Brady to resign over his role in child protection did not bring in legislation to safeguard children.
    We have Martin McGuinness saying Cardinal Brady should go and he belonged to a criminal group who abused children by murdering and injuring fathers, mothers, brother and sisters of children.

    Politicians have failed children and allowed their abuse for generations by measures that did not safeguard children. The same politicians who were in government in the past and who did nothing until every bird around came home to roost, similar to the church when the tidal wave of abuse came home to roost by the lack of proper child safeguards.


  • #369
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/kilmore-diocese-allowed-brendan-smyth-back-to-full-ministry-1-3825337

    More victims? Good luck to them trying to gain compensation - the Rome is not paying despite they having many billions in assets.


  • #370
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    So what were all these parties doing back in the 1990's?
    ............

    Yet more whatabouttery.

    The fact is that Brady was intimately involved in an incident.

    Now, you may have no problem with somebody who thought it was ok to ask a child victim if they'd ever enjoyed being molested in charge of the organisation that runs the vast majority of our schools, but its safe to say you're in a minority.

    Why do feel the need to 'run interference' for Brady?


  • #371
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    More victims? Good luck to them trying to gain compensation - the Rome is not paying despite they having many billions many assess.

    Why would Rome pay?

    The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.


  • Advertisement
  • #372
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet more whatabouttery.

    The fact is that Brady was intimately involved in an incident.

    Now, you may have no problem with somebody who thought it was ok to ask a child victim if they'd ever enjoyed being molested in charge of the organisation that runs the vast majority of our schools, but its safe to say you're in a minority.

    Why do feel the need to 'run interference' for Brady?

    Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.


  • #373
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    Why would Rome pay?

    The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.


    ...yet if a Bishop acts out of line with the Church (as the Church sees it), Rome will reel him in. Wanting all of the control, not wanting any of the responsibility or liability.


  • #374
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.

    Again - Why are you 'running interference' for Sean Brady?


  • #375
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    ...Politicians have failed children and allowed their abuse for generations by measures that did not safeguard children. The same politicians who were in government in the past and who did nothing until every bird around came home to roost, similar to the church when the tidal wave of abuse came home to roost by the lack of proper child safeguards.

    Do you want us to concentrate now and compare any few politicians that MIGHT have known about abuses against the many in the Rome Org for decades, maybe longer - and did nothing.
    I suspect the numbers will vastly differ - in the meanwhile the Brady tries to hide behind his cloth, someone else, espousing that he's been treated unfairly?
    Well how about he saying how he treated the victims of one sick pervert even worse in return, many times to many different young boys and girls over even longer periods of internal investigation (you know, the ones even they denied existed to two police forces!)!


  • #376
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Min wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.

    Indeed, because of a file not acted on IIRC.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #377
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    Why would Rome pay?
    The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

    They run their religious club - and as such because they failed terribly, very terribly, by law such all operations are liable for action or in-actions which lead to futher pain and suffering.

    That's the law. I con't believe that you cannot understand that simple legal basis!

    Brady is accountable and IF he wants to pass the blame/buck upwards - when it suits him or others of course - that means that they too are accountable in some way to allotting compensation to their victims of inaction, as in this case.

    Its not as if they don't have the money!
    They just don't want to part with it!


  • #378
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...yet if a Bishop acts out of line with the Church (as the Church sees it), Rome will reel him in. Wanting all of the control, not wanting any of the responsibility or liability.

    The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
    The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?

    So if a bishop acts of line, then it goes back to Rome to be dealt with, but what is in the power of the bishop, is in power of the bishop. It was the bishops who failed the chilldren abused if they did not act correctly.


  • #379
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    K-9 wrote: »
    Indeed, because of a file not acted on IIRC.

    By the state.


  • #380
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    Again - Why are you 'running interference' for Sean Brady?

    I think some are blind and only see what they want to see.

    The point is Brendan Smyth has been a thorn in both the sides of the church and state, and failures on all sides.


  • #381
    Otacon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Min wrote: »
    By the state.

    Ah, I must have missed that. When did the state get this file from Brady or the church?


  • Advertisement
  • #382
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    I think some are blind and only see what they want to see.

    The point is Brendan Smyth has been a thorn in both the sides of the church and state, and failures on all sides.

    .....not really an answer.

    Why are you trying to deflect and turn the argument away from S Brady?

    Do you believe that he should stay?


  • #383
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
    The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?.

    Why? Because the attitude responsible for the failure was/is shared in Rome, because they are in charge of the Bishops, Priests and the rest.
    Min wrote: »
    So if a bishop acts of line, then it goes back to Rome to be dealt with, but what is in the power of the bishop, is in power of the bishop. It was the bishops who failed the chilldren abused if they did not act correctly.

    ...but Bishop, Priest and Nun are all in the power of Rome.


  • #384
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    Why would Rome pay?
    The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

    Totally and utterly wrong.
    Min wrote: »
    The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
    The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?

    Please note exactly what you have stated.
    You have stated EXACTLY why Rome is liable without a shadow of a doubt.

    Before you go further off track in not understanding the legalities of this matter - but I will walk you though them if you wish to be educated - as you say...
    "The Pope appoints..."

    In legal terms, he is deferring power and abilities to another person who in an awarded capacity, is acting as "a legal agent" (look it up!) for those above them - and NO MATTER how many time alone this ability is further passed down from a top level, in legal terms alone and subsequent application, the top man and as such the organisation he is in, is totally liable to be sued for damages done under tort law alone!

    Because Rome utterly failed by their appointed agents, to do the right thing by any form of moral decency and to the victims and their parents they are TOTALLY liable for the crimes that was carried out.

    If you want to go down that legal route and argue with me that Rome is not liable, I'll bloody go there. This is stuff I SERIOUSLY know.


  • #385
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    I am a Catholic/Christian but have chosen to follow my faith privately, as in forget about the catholic church and it's poisonous ways. This is my stance towards the extinction of it.


  • #386
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Born to Die wrote: »
    I am a Catholic/Christian because I have chosen to follow my faith privately, as in forget about the catholic church and it's poisonous ways. This is my stance towards the extinction of it.

    FYP


  • #387
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Min wrote: »
    By the state.

    Indeed and a Government fell so Brady should go?

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #388
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    Totally and utterly wrong.



    Please note exactly what you have stated.
    You have stated EXACTLY why Rome is liable without a shadow of a doubt.

    Before you go further off track in not understanding the legalities of this matter - but I will walk you though them if you wish to be educated - as you say...


    In legal terms, he is deferring power and abilities to another person who in an awarded capacity, is acting as "a legal agent" (look it up!) for those above them - and NO MATTER how many time alone this ability is further passed down from a top level, in legal terms alone and subsequent application, the top man and as such the organisation he is in, is totally liable to be sued for damages done under tort law alone!

    Because Rome utterly failed by their appointed agents, to do the right thing by any form of moral decency and to the victims and their parents they are TOTALLY liable for the crimes that was carried out.

    If you want to go down that legal route and argue with me that Rome is not liable, I'll bloody go there. This is stuff I SERIOUSLY know.

    The Bishop is the administrator of a diocese, not the Pope.

    The pope only appoints after the papal nuncio and maybe the retiring bishop decide on who the candidates should be for the role of bishop, usually about three candidates are chosen, this goes to the congregation of bishops and the pope is then advised on whom he should appoint.
    The whole appointment role of the bishop starts in the country of where the bishop will serve, not in the Vatican.
    The Pope is a bishop too as a bishop is the person who is the administrator for his diocese, this is why the Pope is also awarded a diocese as in the Bishop of Rome.
    In this aspect the Pope is no higher than the local bishop. So in legal terms one would be suing the wrong person if the abuse was say in Dublin.
    Power is not deferred from the Vatican in that the bishop is a seen as being the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of the church and their area of control. St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, St James the bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew the bishop of Byzantium and so on. They are similar to a monarch in terms of their role in their diocese.
    The Vatican or the Holy See is there for the worldwide church, but the local church is ruled and administered to by the bishop, the bishop is responsible for how the church is run in his diocese, therefore in the child abuse scandals it is the local bishop who is responsible for this.

    It was the Irish bishops who put in place the child safeguards that the Cloyne Commission said would offer proper protection to children, it was not the Vatican as it is the local bishops who have the authority for their local area. The Vatican simply approved them.
    The Church over in England and Wales had proper child protection measures put in way ahead of when they were implemented here.

    The Pope as a bishop has the same authority as my local bishop, but as Pope he is is the head of the worldwide church but it is the bishops who administer it as has been the case from when the apostles went out and set up various churches which later became diocese.

    The Pope won't be sued successfully for various reasons, including the fact it is the bishop who has the ultimate responsibility for his diocese, not the Pope. It is not delegated or deferred power and control of a region/diocese. Since the church was founded with the apostles, it has been the local apostle or bishop that lead the local church. No power was ever deferred from anywhere else.


  • #389
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    The Bishop is the (.......) anywhere else.

    You still haven't explained why you're here deflecting for S Brady.


  • #390
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    The Bishop is the administrator of a diocese, not the Pope.

    The pope only appoints after the papal nuncio and maybe the retiring bishop decide on who the candidates should be for the role of bishop, usually about three candidates are chosen, this goes to the congregation of bishops and the pope is then advised on whom he should appoint.
    The whole appointment role of the bishop starts in the country of where the bishop will serve, not in the Vatican.
    The Pope is a bishop too as a bishop is the person who is the administrator for his diocese, this is why the Pope is also awarded a diocese as in the Bishop of Rome.
    In this aspect the Pope is no higher than the local bishop. So in legal terms one would be suing the wrong person if the abuse was say in Dublin.
    Power is not deferred from the Vatican in that the bishop is a seen as being the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of the church and their area of control. St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, St James the bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew the bishop of Byzantium and so on. They are similar to a monarch in terms of their role in their diocese.
    The Vatican or the Holy See is there for the worldwide church, but the local church is ruled and administered to by the bishop, the bishop is responsible for how the church is run in his diocese, therefore in the child abuse scandals it is the local bishop who is responsible for this.

    It was the Irish bishops who put in place the child safeguards that the Cloyne Commission said would offer proper protection to children, it was not the Vatican as it is the local bishops who have the authority for their local area. The Vatican simply approved them.
    The Church over in England and Wales had proper child protection measures put in way ahead of when they were implemented here.

    The Pope as a bishop has the same authority as my local bishop, but as Pope he is is the head of the worldwide church but it is the bishops who administer it as has been the case from when the apostles went out and set up various churches which later became diocese.

    The Pope won't be sued successfully for various reasons, including the fact it is the bishop who has the ultimate responsibility for his diocese, not the Pope. It is not delegated or deferred power and control of a region/diocese. Since the church was founded with the apostles, it has been the local apostle or bishop that lead the local church. No power was ever deferred from anywhere else.

    ...In other words you do NOT know the law after all that useless waffle and further opinion.

    Go pick up a copy of The Principles Of Irish Law by Brian Doolan - and read in the tort section how completely so wrong you are that its stupidly unreal that you won't accept fact - Legal Tort, Principle and Agent Relationship Law and state constitutional fact.
    In particular also look up "Nature of Tortuous Liability" - Legal Injury and Damage - Causation - Remoteness of Damage - Remedies for Tortuous Behaviour and a lot more I could bore you with.

    Go get an education in state law and stop spewing this rubbish your coming out with!
    You haven't a clue what your talking about!
    Seriously, try that rubbish in an Irish court and you will be laughed out of it.

    P.S. As the Vatican is legal entity and state, it thus also become a viable entity which exists in state law and under international law also become applicable to other laws beyond its principle borders!
    What the moronic club in Rome comes up with as regards their own inner club laws, doesn't NOT change state laws which SUPERSEDE it in every international country around the world!


  • Advertisement
  • #391
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    The Bishop is the ....... anywhere else.


    While individual managers may be to blame, the company has to pay. Thats normally how it works and I fail to see why your shower should be any different.


  • #392
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    ...In other words you do NOT know the law after all that useless waffle and further opinion.

    Go pick up a copy of The Principles Of Irish Law by Brian Doolan - and read in the tort section how completely so wrong you are that its stupidly unreal that you won't accept fact - Legal Tort, Principle and Agent Relationship Law and state constitutional fact.
    In particular also look up "Nature of Tortuous Liability" - Legal Injury and Damage - Causation - Remoteness of Damage - Remedies for Tortuous Behaviour and a lot more I could bore you with.

    Go get an education in state law and stop spewing this rubbish your coming out with!
    You haven't a clue what your talking about!
    Seriously, try that rubbish in an Irish court and you will be laughed out of it.

    P.S. As the Vatican is legal entity and state, it thus also become a viable entity which exists in state law and under international law also become applicable to other laws beyond its principle borders!
    What the moronic club in Rome comes up with as regards their own inner club laws, doesn't NOT change state laws which SUPERSEDE it in every international country around the world!

    The state law doesn't govern who has the responsibility for the diocese in the church.
    This is why the commissions that investigated Dublin, Ferns and Cloyne refer to bishops.
    This is why bishop Comiskey is gone, this is why bishop McGee no longer rules over Cloyne. They are the ones the state laws apply to and where the guilt lies.

    State law has no relevance when it comes to areas outside of it's jurisdiction.
    The bishops ruled the diocese that are in the jurisdiction and they are the one that can be sued, this is why it is diocese that pay compensation.
    Look at Cloyne and see where the compensation is coming from. If anyone is sued it would be the diocese and the bishop who are in this jurisdiction if they allowed wrong to be done.


  • #393
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    FYP

    Don't ever fix one of my posts again. Ever!!

    Even if it is to make it better.

    Ever!!

    Do you hear me?


  • #394
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Born to Die wrote: »
    Don't ever fix one of my posts again. Ever!!

    Even if it is to make it better.

    Ever!!

    Do you hear read me?
    FYP.


  • #395
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Pushtrak wrote: »
    FYP.

    Don't ever fix one of my posts again. Ever!!

    Even if it is to make it better.

    Ever!!

    Do you read me?


  • #396
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Born to Die wrote: »
    Don't ever fix one of my posts again. Ever!!

    Even if it is to make it better.

    Ever!!

    Do you read me?

    Forgive me;)


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Born to Die
    Closed Accounts Posts: 830 ✭✭✭Born to Die


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Forgive me;)

    Go in peace.


  • #398
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    Min wrote: »
    The state law doesn't govern who has the responsibility for the diocese in the church.
    This is why the commissions that investigated Dublin, Ferns and Cloyne refer to bishops.
    This is why bishop Comiskey is gone, this is why bishop McGee no longer rules over Cloyne. They are the ones the state laws apply to and where the guilt lies.

    State law has no relevance when it comes to areas outside of it's jurisdiction.
    The bishops ruled the diocese that are in the jurisdiction and they are the one that can be sued, this is why it is diocese that pay compensation.
    Look at Cloyne and see where the compensation is coming from. If anyone is sued it would be the diocese and the bishop who are in this jurisdiction if they allowed wrong to be done.

    State law and Tort liability law exactly spells out how a chain of command and the legal seen agents of those involved by chain of command, are all liable at any stage for the matters relating to events such as what has happened in Ireland.

    Will you PLEASE get it into your head that the laws exist to hold all accountable!
    If you refuse to still understand this WELL known established fact (in Tort Law and Common Law alone), you are clearly living in a land of ignorant bliss and perhaps wish to remain there.

    The commissions that investigated refer to bishops because they were the top people in Ireland at the time.
    That does NOT ex-solve the legal liabilities of those that command them - and this is again for you seem to can't see it or accept established fact - that such person and related organisations are fully accountable for the action of those they command and take under their wing.

    For gods sake man - pick up some law books and study them, and stop trying to espouse stuff that you generally think you know - but in fact is far wide of actual truth in established law.


  • #399
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    The state law doesn't govern who has the responsibility for the diocese in the church.
    This is why the commissions that ............ be done.

    Why are you here running intereference for S Brady?


  • #400
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Biggins wrote: »
    State law and Tort liability law exactly spells out how a chain of command and the legal seen agents of those involved by chain of command, are all liable at any stage for the matters relating to events such as what has happened in Ireland.

    Will you PLEASE get it into your head that the laws exist to hold all accountable!
    If you refuse to still understand this WELL known established fact (in Tort Law and Common Law alone), you are clearly living in a land of ignorant bliss and perhaps wish to remain there.

    The commissions that investigated refer to bishops because they were the top people in Ireland at the time.
    That does NOT ex-solve the legal liabilities of those that command them - and this is again for you seem to can't see it or accept established fact - that such person and related organisations are fully accountable for the action of those they command and take under their wing.

    For gods sake man - pick up some law books and study them, and stop trying to espouse stuff that you generally think you know - but in fact is far wide of actual truth in established law.

    The chain of command stops at the bishop as each diocese is autonomous in the church.


  • #401
    Pushtrak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Min wrote: »
    The chain of command stops at the bishop as each diocese is autonomous in the church.
    Take a business, a franchise. If one, say store, restaurant or whatever does something which causes litigation to be pressed upon it, the head office is inherently going to be brought in to it. Legally, I don't believe they are looked upon as separate entities like you propose. If the church is actually looked upon in this way then that is a glaring flaw in the system. But before we get to that point, care to prove its veracity?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement