Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Min · 05-05-2012 11:24am

Biggins wrote: »

1. As others have stated, a small child, terrified many times into submission to do sexual acts - then later submitted by fierce pressure once more from men behind closed doors, was the very reason they kept their mouth shut.

2. Here is bullschite, pass the buck excuse again.
It was and is the duty of every person to report such matters to the proper authorities.
Thats was THEN and NOW enshrined in the law of North and South states.
What any bloody organisation after that does is further sickening non-action, is between them - but the law is the law - he should have reported the crimes. He should have reported them if not afterwards of his investigation - then afterwards when he saw his boss do nothing.

In the eyes of the law everything on this island, he is guilty of breaking the law.
Stop with these piss-poor miserable excuses.

He was his own man. He has his own set of balls.
He just didn't have the balls then to do anything.

He was a coward and a law breaker to boot!

So why were their parents there when the child was giving their evidence as in the room next to them.
Did they not ask what their child was doing when it came to taking them into a room?

He was not his own man, he was merely a priest who served the bishop as every priest does. He was gravely letdown by his bishop of that time who didn't do the right thing and who is getting away lightly in all of this.

Biggins · 05-05-2012 11:24am

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I doubt it was even that, he probably just assumed it would all be covered up and his inaction would never be discovered.

...Which is just as sickening if he thought that.

As it is, he previously in media statements given, tried to pass himself off as just a simple note-taker.
We know he wasn't - yet he continued still with this farce of an excuse hoping I suspect that the matter would go away ro head in another direction to others.

It didn't and he is still answerable for his breaking of the law!

I would like to see the man in court, charged with not reporting the sex crimes to kids as required to do by the law then and now.

tayto lover · 05-05-2012 11:25am

philiporeilly wrote: »

Whether or not it is proved he committed any criminal actions, he has lost any moral authority to lead the church in Ireland.

He is a lame duck leader and can only further damage the organization by remaining.

He went to a school in Cavan and took a little abuse victim out of his classroom to a private room to interview him in secret and never even told his parents about it. What must have been going through that little boys head as he was led out of class by another priest to a private room ?

If a Garda or Social Worker behaved like that there would be serious repercussions for them.

Biggins · 05-05-2012 11:29am

Min wrote: »

So why were their parents there when the child was giving their evidence as in the room next to them.
Did they not ask what their child was doing when it came to taking them into a room?

I'm sure the priests came up with some very good excuses as to why they need to question young boys and girls.
They were and it appears still are good at making sickening excuses - as it it appears so are some of their still blind followers today!

Min wrote: »

He was not his own man, he was merely a priest who served the bishop as every priest does. He was gravely letdown by his bishop of that time who didn't do the right thing and who is getting away lightly in all of this.

Please stop with this miserable crap.
Your doing your own character no favours by peddling this schite.

He was an adult male for crying out loud! Not a bloody child just sworn to secrecy!
He might have been let down - but then he could have made a difference - did he? No, he decided to do absolutely nothing and he broke state law in doing nothing.

tayto lover · 05-05-2012 11:31am

Min wrote: »

It is the bishop who deals with the abuse not the priest, so to say Fr Brady at the time was the person with the responsibility would be wrong.

If the bishop of the time was alive or the abbot at the monastery, the now Cardinal Brady wouldn't be the person at the centre of this current controversy given these two people were the men responsible at the time.

I think it was his method of investigation that is in question. Taking a child out of his classroom to interview him in secret without notifying his parents, making young boys swear secrecy, not informing parents that family members were still at risk as Smyth was on the loose still. Cardinal Brady was a priest then but it seems to me that his investigation (and it was an investigation) was more to do with keeping the good name of the church right than protecting children. Many young boys and girls suffered for years afterwards because Brady lacked moral decency.

mongdesade · 05-05-2012 11:32am

Min wrote: »

The church is not based on what Brendan Smyth did.

Apparently it's based on lies, deceit & protecting paedophiles within it's own organisation...

Luke 18:16King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"

Pedant · 05-05-2012 11:34am

Min wrote: »

The landlord would be informed but the landlord is not the person who holds a position above me with the responsibility for this area as I don't work for the landlord.
Therefore the Gardai would be told as there are no others above me who hold the position of duty and whose job it is.

Here's the issue, this is a CRIMINAL ACTION, it is not just a matter of a private organisation's protocol. The STATE and the LAW OF THE LAND supersede the private protocol of any organisation in the country. It is not up to a private organisation to administer responsibility (or non-responsibility) to any individual within the organisation as to who should report CRIMINAL MATTERS, as the organisation does not have the authority to administer such responsibility. It is the duty of the individual who discovered the abuse to report it directly to the PROPER AUTHORITIES WHO ENFORCE THE LAW, not to the authorities within the private organisation. The case is between the abuser and the abused, there should be no third party involved other than the courts and the Gardaí. The private organisation, or any other individual, should only be considered in the case if they aided the abuser in some way or witnessed it.

Imagine if the a person within the church, who's responsibility it was to report abuse allegations to the authorities, was reported for abusing children himself, who would report him? If I were to strictly adhere to your logic, then perhaps the abuse would never be reported at all.

Min · 05-05-2012 11:40am

Biggins wrote: »

I'm sure the priests came up with some very good excuses as to why they need to question young boys and girls.
They were and it appears still are good at making sickening excuses - as it it appears so are some of their still blind followers today!

Please stop with this miserable crap.
Your doing your own character no favours by peddling this schite.

He was an adult male for crying out loud! Not a bloody child just sworn to secrecy!
He might have been let down - but then he could have made a difference - did he? No, he decided to do absolutely nothing and he broke state law in doing nothing.

You talk about excuses while making presumptions.

The fact remains that the bishop and his child protection team to this day deals with sexual abuse allegations, and this is what the Cloyne report said about church standards in this area -

The Commission acknowledges that the standards which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children. The standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement.

StudentDad · 05-05-2012 11:43am

Pedant wrote: »

Here's the issue, this is a CRIMINAL ACTION, it is not just a matter of a private organisation's protocol. The STATE and the LAW OF THE LAND supersede the private protocol of any organisation in the country. It is not up to a private organisation to administer responsibility (or non-responsibility) to any individual within the organisation as to who should report CRIMINAL MATTERS, as the organisation does not have the authority to administer such responsibility. It is the duty of the individual who discovered the abuse to report it directly to the PROPER AUTHORITIES WHO ENFORCE THE LAW, not to the authorities within the private organisation.

Imagine if the a person within the church, who's responsibility it was to report abuse allegations to the authorities, was reported for abusing children himself, who would report him? If I were to strictly adhere to your logic, then perhaps the abuse would never be reported at all.

I'd go further than that. If an individual knew that a crime was being committed or that a crime would be committed. In cases of child abuse the individual who failed to report these crimes to the police should be charged as an accessory to the crimes as if they participated in them themselves.

SD

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 11:46am

Min wrote: »

So why didn't the other person not take responsibility in your example, why did it become your responsibility and not the other's?

And if they did take responsibility and i didnt they could say exactly the same about me. It is the responsibility of everyone who hears about child abuse. FFS!!!!!

Pedant · 05-05-2012 11:47am

StudentDad wrote: »

I'd go further than that. If an individual knew that a crime was being committed or that a crime would be committed. In cases of child abuse the individual who failed to report these crimes to the police should be charged as an accessory to the crimes as if they participated in them themselves.

SD

+1

Min · 05-05-2012 11:48am

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And if they did take responsibility and i didnt they could say exactly the same about me. It is the responsibility of everyone who hears about child abuse. FFS!!!!!

Were you in a position above this hypothetical other person? you didn't say.

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 11:50am

Min wrote: »

This was explained that in an internal church inquiry that everyone is sworn to secrecy so the church can investigate a claim without information from one party reaching the other party and the story changing to suit the wrongdoer, if there is wrongdoing. It is also to stop and in this case Brendan Smyth finding out who was making the accusations against him.

The church still has internal inquiries but that doesn't mean the civil authorities are excluded.

And yet I read the comments of one of Smyths abuse victims in the paper the other day who said that less than a week after giving his secret statement to Brady, Smyth drove past him on the street, waved out the window to him putting his finger to his lips to say 'shussssh'.

Biggins · 05-05-2012 11:51am

Min wrote: »

You talk about excuses while making presumptions.

The fact remains that the bishop and his child protection team to this day deals with sexual abuse allegations, and this is what the Cloyne report said about church standards in this area -

The Commission acknowledges that the standards which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children. The standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement.

It does not matter one jot if something was difficult to implement by the state.
That WAS NOT Bradys decision to adjudicate upon - are you now espousing that too is part of the miserable excuse why he was a coward and didn't do anything?

As for the the later Commission - the Church's standards were NOT implemented at the time. What piss-poor ones they even had!

The fact is:

1. Brady knew the law was been broken severely - for a long time - and still did nothing even as he rose in rank HIGHER!
2. He did nothing prior to waiting for his then boss to do something.
3. He did nothing after his boss decided to do nothing.
4, He broke state laws on both sides of the border. SERIOUS state laws.

The above is neither presumptions or excuse. Its fact.

The man is a disgrace to the nation and anyone that continues to make sickening, stupid excuses for this lying, deciving coward, is blind and sad too!

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 11:51am

Min wrote: »

Were you in a position above this hypothetical other person? you didn't say.

Work place and status is not relevant. Dont you get that?

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 11:54am

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Let's hope he hangs on for as long as possible so!

Nasty, and not funny. No, lets hope he resigns.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Seriously, though, contrast his behaviour with that of the RTE journalist Aoife Kavanagh, who has both resigned and apologised for one mistake she made.

There were far more people involved at a higher level than just the middle ranking Aoife Kavanagh, she is the convienient scape goat for RTÉ's wealthy fat cats. RTÉ management are now involved in their own sordid cover up and blame game.

K-9 · 05-05-2012 11:57am

Biggins wrote: »

As I have said elsewhere:

Why the piece of crap that is Cardinal Brady, has not been fired, never mind resigned by now is simply unreal! This man according to victims, not only made them swear not to tell about the abuse they got from a scumbag in the same org’ as Brady – but he also knew of many others that was being abused FOR YEARS with a list that was given to him – and he said and/or did nothing! This allowed the other scumbag to continue for another 13 – yes – 13 years to brutalise more kids!

…And what does the church in Rome say? “…he fulfilled his duty well” – Well if you ever needed a reason to see how bloody sick the Catholic Church of Rome is in stupidity and desired blindness when it suits them, there is yet another reason.

The promoter of justice of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican enforcers – added that he was sure Brady was still a fit person to lead the church in Ireland. Really? Are they for bloody real?

Watched the Daly Show and Paddy Agnew of the Times, the Vatican correspondent basically said it's endemic there. They just don't get it.

My God, Brady should not only have been fired – but by god and by law, his own ass should be hauled behind bars for letting a sick individual run rampage over more victims over many years! One excuse Brady gave was “The only people who had authority within the church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his abbot in the monastery in Kilnacrott and his religious superiors in the Norbertine Order.“
….Well why didn’t you go to the Garda or someone else you useless gobschite when you saw that your boss did nothing and a very sick individual was still wrecking lives!

My god, instead of making poor young scared kids shut-up and go away quietly in suffering for further years and decades (no further help given), Brady should have done a hell of a lot more to have exposed the scumbag that he helped instead (by his silence) to abuse many more over the following years because he said or did nothing – for over a possible decade and more!

…And he is a fit person to run the whole church in Ireland? You have got to be fcuking kidding me!

The man is not fit enough to lead a dog!

While Smyth and others did the physical abuse, the Church mentally abused that child, and are still doing it to victims to this day. These are our moral leaders!

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 11:58am

Min wrote: »

You talk about excuses while making presumptions.

The fact remains that the bishop and his child protection team to this day deals with sexual abuse allegations, and this is what the Cloyne report said about church standards in this area -

The Commission acknowledges that the standards which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children. The standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement.

Brady has to go, the very very least he could have done was qietly warned the parents of the other boys he interviewed and gathered evidence from. He did not, and they went on to be further abused. Just because no state law from the 1970's covers such a moral failure does not mean that brady did nothing wrong. He has to go, I for one do not want to see such a man leading the Catholic Church in Ireland. It's time all Catholics marched on Armagh and demanded he leave.

StudentDad · 05-05-2012 12:01pm

FergusODowd wrote: »

Brady has to go, the very very least he could have done was qietly warned the parents of the other boys he interviewed and gathered evidence from. He did not, and they went on to be further abused. Just because no state law from the 1970's covers such a moral failure does not mean that brady did nothing wrong. He has to go, I for one do not want to see such a man leading the Catholic Church in Ireland. It's time all Catholics marched on Armagh and demanded he leave.

If there is evidence that he failed to inform the police when he should have, he should be prosecuted as Mr. Brady, not as bishop or cardinal or whatever else Brady for obstruction of justice if nothing else.

The fact that he is a Cardinal is irrelevant.

SD

DonQuay1 · 05-05-2012 12:07pm

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

can't we bash a different religion today? Bashing catholics has gotten soooooo boring now.

Not allowed! Catholicism is still the main religion in this country. The majority one. You're allowed to bash it all you want. The minorities of anything have to be left alone in this PC World. (They sell computers!!).
Imagine saying bad things (telling some hometruths) about Islam, maoism, travellers, unmarried mothers, smokers, cabbage or even public servants.

You're only allowed to have an opinion on a majority - in 21st century PC Eire.

Show Time · 05-05-2012 12:09pm

FergusODowd wrote: »

Brady has to go, the very very least he could have done was qietly warned the parents of the other boys he interviewed and gathered evidence from. He did not, and they went on to be further abused. Just because no state law from the 1970's covers such a moral failure does not mean that brady did nothing wrong. He has to go, I for one do not want to see such a man leading the Catholic Church in Ireland. It's time all Catholics marched on Armagh and demanded he leave.

Only the ex Hitler youth chap in charge in Rome can get rid of him and even than he has to speak to his "boss" upstairs to ok it.

steddyeddy · 05-05-2012 12:27pm

padd b1975 wrote: »

Cardinal Brady is nothing like Brendan Smyth.

Both are responsible for the abuse of kids so in that aspect their very much alike. Also both it seems were unaware that child abuse is wrong.

CageWager · 05-05-2012 12:28pm

DonQuay1 wrote: »

Not allowed! Catholicism is still the main religion in this country. The majority one. You're allowed to bash it all you want. The minorities of anything have to be left alone in this PC World. (They sell computers!!).
Imagine saying bad things (telling some hometruths) about Islam, maoism, travellers, unmarried mothers, smokers, cabbage or even public servants.

You're only allowed to have an opinion on a majority - in 21st century PC Eire.

Rest assured if any of the groups mentioned above were raping children in my country I would bash them with equal fervour

Biggins · 05-05-2012 1:00pm

Nicely summed up by one commentator: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/advisers-backed-resignation-of-brady-to-save-churchs-image-3101001.html

""He (Brady) didn't fulfil the function of a human being, a man in the secular world or follow secular law. And he can't see that."

And by their backing of Brady this week, it is now also evident that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the entire Vatican hierarchy as evidenced by the absence of condemnation, also can't see it.

By stating this week that Brady has no case to answer for in the Church, the Vatican and it's spokesman monsignor Scicluna indicated that not to inform parents when there is corroborating evidence that their children are being sexually abused is correct behavior, because to do so would supercede church policy.

Why such awful immoral absurdities from the Church, when inherently any of us would know now or would have known then that the right thing to do was inform the parents so they could protect their children?
Because secrecy, self-preservation, and the image of divine authority on goodness and truth is the basis of power for the entire institution. And the sexual abuse and the cover up has now brought the real core of this institution into the open and in direct contrast to the true values of most ordinary decent people.

It should now be obvious that morals, ethics, spirituality or how to live a good life alongside others is more readily found in our own hearts and minds, and not from the dictates of a religious institution; particularly one operating on OMERTA!

My name is URL · 05-05-2012 1:11pm

Maybe this has been asked and answered already, but what's to stop the Gardai from investigating this whole thing retrospectively and bringing charges against Brady for withholding information / perverting the course of justice?

steddyeddy · 05-05-2012 1:12pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe this has been asked and answered already, but what's to stop the Gardai from investigating this whole thing retrospectively and bringing charges against Brady for withholding information / perverting the course of justice?

Nothing. Which worries me.

Biggins · 05-05-2012 1:24pm

My name is URL wrote: »

Maybe this has been asked and answered already, but what's to stop the Gardai from investigating this whole thing retrospectively and bringing charges against Brady for withholding information / perverting the course of justice?

The Northern Ireland police are looking into the matter - so they say!

...But lets be real, the law North and South will let the slimy sod slip away!

If so, proving that its one rule for most and another rule for those they fear to take on!

Galwayguy35 · 05-05-2012 1:33pm

To be honest I don't know how he was able to sleep at night knowing what he did. He needs to go but he won't. The sad thing is that the level of abuse that went on was probably 10 times worse than what has come into the public domain so far.

My name is URL · 05-05-2012 1:40pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Nothing. Which worries me.

It's mad. I think that rather than demanding that he resign, which let's face it; will change absolutely nothing, people should be demanding that the Gardai pull their fingers out and actually do something about it. The clergy still seem to be untouchable despite all the bluster from politicians about how our laws supersede that of canon law.

Bunch of useless cnuts :mad: The finger needs to be pointed at a whole lot more than Brady in all of this.

Min · 05-05-2012 2:08pm

lividduck quote deleted

You cannot make such an accusation unless you can stand over it...this is what got RTE into trouble and cost them over €1.2 million.

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 2:14pm

Min wrote: »

You cannot make such an accusation unless you can stand over it...this is what got RTE into trouble and cost them over €1.2 million.

If we were to go by what you posted, one could say lividduck is probably an abuser.
To accuse someone without evidence makes the accuser an abuser if not true, in RTE the ones who had a mission to prey not the innocent priest who was falsely accused.

Which accusation?
That he is a scuzzball canon lawer who swore children to secrecy and enable Smyth to carry on abusing for decades?
Or are you ok with that one?

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:15pm

Biggins wrote: »

...But lets be real, the law North and South will let the slimy sod slip away!

Why should they ?

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

Min · 05-05-2012 2:19pm

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Which accusation?
That he is a scuzzball canon lawer who swore children to secrecy and enable Smyth to carry on abusing for decades?
Or are you ok with that one?

I am not ok with the bishop not doing his duty to the children and their families.

celticcrash · 05-05-2012 2:20pm

Brady is a cold hearted monster. He is as guilty as the rest of the abusers.
He made sure the others monsters got their way with raping little kids.
He has no shame and no empithy with people who have suffered.
He is the perfect repersentation of the church.

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 2:21pm

Min wrote: »

I am not ok with the bishop not doing his duty to the children and their families.

That we have in common.
Im not ok with any professional or adults failinjg to report child abuse to the cops. When that individual belongs to and is head of a group who claim to be the moral guardians of the nation with a direct line to jesus:rolleyes:

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:23pm

Min wrote: »

Fr Brady took the notes that were to be used against Brendan Smyth.

Your statement is applicable to the bishop of that time.

The same Fr Brady was able to go off, track down, and interview other boys that were associated with Smyth, yet did not even ask their parents for permission, never mind warning them to be careful, never mind quietly telling the parents that their children may have been at risk. These lads were then subsequently abused, while Brady got promoted for being a prideful sneaky servant of the incompetent prideful Bishop. You cannot defend the indefensible, please have some self respect and open your eyes.

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:25pm

celticcrash wrote: »

Brady is a cold hearted monster. He is as guilty as the rest of the abusers.
He made sure the others monsters got their way with raping little kids.
He has no shame and no empithy with people who have suffered.
He is the perfect repersentation of the church.

Brady has to go, but this is pure hate mongering rubbish, totally setting back the real case for fair and equal justice. This type of rubbish is part of the problem, not part of the solution. I wish to entirely disassociate myself from any such incitement to hatred. Those remarks are a disgrace.

celticcrash · 05-05-2012 2:36pm

FergusODowd wrote: »

Brady has to go, but this is pure hate mongering rubbish, totally setting back the real case for fair and even justice. This type of rubbish is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

If you ask me the whole church has to go. For centuries the church has gone around murdering and raping people.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want but the c church is one of the most vile evil institutions around.
Read the history of the Roman Catholic Church it makes hitler look an alter boy.

Min · 05-05-2012 2:38pm

FergusODowd wrote: »

The same Fr Brady was able to go off, track down, and interview other boys that were associated with Smyth, yet did not even ask their parents for permission, never mind warning them to be careful, never mind quietly telling the parents that their children may have been at risk. These lads were then subsequently abused, while Brady got promoted for being a prideful sneaky servant of the incompetent prideful Bishop. You cannot defend the indefensible, please have some self respect and open your eyes.

They would have not been abused if the bishop had fulfilled his duties, the person who gathers the evidence is very often not the same person who meets out the punishment.
Fr Brady took notes and gathered the evidence for the bishop, the problem really is Fr Brady put too much trust in the bishop to do the right thing. I think anyone would expect with this happening something was going to be done to stop what was happening, I believe the Cardinal when he says he was horrified to find that abuse happened after his role in taking notes and gaining evidence against Brendan Smyth.
One would have expected the evidence was used by the bishop to take the case against Smyth further and for the abuse to have stopped.
My problem wuith Cardinal Brady is he said the depth of the damage done by abuse was not fully understood.

Min · 05-05-2012 2:39pm

celticcrash wrote: »

If you ask me the whole church has to go. For centuries the church has gone around murdering and raping people.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want but the c church is one of the most vile evil institutions around.
Read the history of the Roman Catholic Church it makes hitler look an alter boy.

You must have gotten a poor education in history.

4zn76tysfajdxp · 05-05-2012 2:43pm

Min wrote: »

You must have gotten a poor education in history.

Perhaps he went to a catholic school.

El Weirdo · 05-05-2012 2:43pm

mod

lividduck, please don't post in this thread again. I've had to delete your post from earlier due the unsubstantiated accusation that you made.

/mod

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:45pm

celticcrash wrote: »

If you ask me the whole church has to go. For centuries the church has gone around murdering and raping people.
You can bury your head in the sand all you want but the c church is one of the most vile evil institutions around.
Read the history of the Roman Catholic Church it makes hitler look an alter boy.

The Catholic church consists of 1 billion people, I'm tired of the all the anti jews / blacks / atheists / english / irish / catholic * predjuce rants from hate mongering bandwagon jumping loons.

*insert preffered bigoted prejudice here.

As I said, such hate inciting remarks are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

celticcrash · 05-05-2012 2:49pm

Min wrote: »

You must have gotten a poor education in history.

It matters what one has read. I recommend "The Dark Side of The Papacy" by
By Peter de Rosa.
Makes Vlad the inpaler look like a nice guy.
Vlad got his ideas form the Roman Catholic church.
Its a hard read, by the end of the first chapter one would feel physical sick.

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:49pm

Min wrote: »

They would have not been abused if the bishop had fulfilled his duties, the person who gathers the evidence is very often not the same person who meets out the punishment.

No one is claiming Brady should have dealt out punishment.
There is no getting away from the fact that Brady was able to track down the other boys and interview them, and yet never bothered to ask permission from their parents, or to at least warn them to be careful. He deliberatively did not. No decent human being would do this, he could have at least given them a quiet warning to be careful, instead these kids went on to suffer abuse, while brady chose to skip up the ladder for being a good little sneaky side kick to his pathetic excuse of a bishop. Whatever about him being wrong at the time, he could at least admit 35 years later that he was wrong. How can you say this man is fit to be your leader ?

padd b1975 · 05-05-2012 2:49pm

FergusODowd wrote: »

The Catholic church consists of 1 billion people, I'm tired of the all the anti jews / blacks / atheists / english / irish / catholic * predjuce rants from hate mongering bandwagon jumping loons.

*insert preffered bigoted prejudice here.

As I said, such hate inciting remarks are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Welcome to a thread about religion on After Hours ;-)

Min · 05-05-2012 2:49pm

El Weirdo wrote: »

mod

lividduck, please don't post in this thread again. I've had to delete your post from earlier due the unsubstantiated accusation that you made.

/mod

I edited my reply to that accusation given I don't want boards.ie sued.

Ghost Buster · 05-05-2012 2:53pm

Min wrote: »

They would have not been abused if the bishop had fulfilled his duties, the person who gathers the evidence is very often not the same person who meets out the punishment.
Fr Brady took notes and gathered the evidence for the bishop, the problem really is Fr Brady put too much trust in the bishop to do the right thing. I think anyone would expect with this happening something was going to be done to stop what was happening, I believe the Cardinal when he says he was horrified to find that abuse happened after his role in taking notes and gaining evidence against Brendan Smyth.
One would have expected the evidence was used by the bishop to take the case against Smyth further and for the abuse to have stopped.
My problem wuith Cardinal Brady is he said the depth of the damage done by abuse was not fully understood.

It is spectacular how you keep not getting it. The only people with any authority to meet out punishment are the police force of the state who Brady and every other person in the room with terrified damaged kids had an obligation to inform.

FergusODowd · 05-05-2012 2:55pm

Brianna Unimportant Jelly wrote: »

Perhaps he went to a catholic school.

So what if he did ?

celticcrash · 05-05-2012 2:56pm

Fergus you know in your heart and mind that that justice wont be served here.
So why call for it. Its just another smoke screen to keep him where he is.
Call a spade a spade, he is as guilty as that monster for raping kids.

Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Comments