[mehfesto]

Originally Posted by Outrage

Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.

Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?

[philiporeilly]

Originally Posted by Outrage

Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.

"Protection of an oath of silence" seems to only protect the church. A heinous crime was committed by a few priests and the church authorities had no moral or legal right to cover this up over the last few decades.

Ever consider the hundreds of children and families that were subject to decades of abuse because he or others knowing didn't have the courage to report it.

Outrage it's funny that you seem to think it was in the victims interests to keep it silent back then but when all victims groups now publicly call for Brady's resignation you dismiss their views.

[prinz]

Originally Posted by mehfesto

Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?

Many reasons in the day. If you read the Ryan Report and the Murphy Report in particular you will find many instances where parents/family were made aware of abuse and chose not to take any action.

[Manach]

[QUOTE=philiporeilly;64962453]the church authorities had no moral or legal right to cover this up over the last few decades.
QUOTE]

I do agree with you about the moral part. However based on a thread on the legal discussion forum
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2055856201
, there was no legal onus to report to the police in certain catagories of abuse?
As well, it was only 4 years prior to this that people where allowed to take a tort action against the State. Thus there was very much a paternalistic attitude at that time.

[kbannon]

Originally Posted by mehfesto

Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?

Fear of the Church and excommunication? The RCC pretty much ran the country around then (although signs were that their grasp was beginning to loosen then).

I wonder did the families go to the gardai then. I do know of a case in 1973 where a friend of my parents told my ma that a neighbour had raped their daughter (coincidentally the rapist was married to the woman who ran the local playgroup!). Anyhow they wento to the gardai who were very good to the family. The gardai explained that they could arrange court proceedings, etc. but that (given the judicial system of the time) the victim would be forced to take the stand (and effectively be treated as an adult). To my knowledge, the family decided that this was not in the child's interest.

However, in an alternative tale, my grandfather was a juror in a trial in the late 40s or early 50s where a father was accused of raping his child. AFAIK the man was found guilty and jailed.

The precedent for abusers to face trial and if required be convicted was around when Sean Brady was watching the children sign the contract. The only reason that it was never followed by the RCC was (is?) because there is a firm belief that Canon Law actually means something in the real world. However, I suspect that because of the grip the RCC had over this island up until recently, that it was simple fear that stopped families reporting cases to the civil authorities and instead going to the local bishop in the belief that they actually cared.

When you had a society that had priests going on about fire and brimstone for pre-marital sex, could you really imagine the church would willingly declare that some of their staff were raping children. Even now they won't come clean about the acts and any information has to be prised forcefully from them although this looks more to be to protect the organisation financially.

In my view the whole cover up is down to the likes of Crimen Sollicitationis and Herr Ratzinger's follow up letter. This culture led to people being raped and abused by clergy who should have otherwise been in jail. This culture has destroyed the lives of every victim. This culture has led to some victims taking their own lives*. This culture of cover up was decided by Rome and for this reason, it is not sufficient enough for Sean Brady (who would also have been sworn to secrecy) to resign. Ratzinger must resign also!

Anyhow, I await Ratzinger's letter to the Irish victims (this weekend?) with anticipation!



* I'd be curious to know the RCC's view on suicide in this scenario!

[hinault]

Originally Posted by kbannon

* I'd be curious to know the RCC's view on suicide in this scenario!

Indeed.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by Outrage

I don't agree with this. I believe that the Church in Ireland will suffer for at least the next 20 to 30 years. The Eucharistic Congress in 2012 will be snubbed by the Pope and all high-ranking Cardinals for all that has gone on. We'll probably get one token high-ranking Cardinal in attendence (if we're lucky). We're going to see a big reduction in the number of bishops too. The task for new priests coming on-stream and those being sent to Ireland will be one of 21st century re-evangelisation: a hugely difficult task considering what they must compete against in this age of television and internet. That said, evangelisation has never been an easy task: we must look to the great historical figures and the saints for guidance.

The most pressing task at the moment is to generously compensate all the abuse victims, offer them sincere apologies and beg for their forgiveness (which I think the current incumbents are attempting to do in the most sensitive manner possible). I have no problem dipping deep into my pockets and offering prayers to help comfort these victims. Unfortunately, some of them have passed away; some even have committed suicide: a tragic reality that also needs to be addressed. The faithful must also pray for the living victims and the dead victims and pray that this great cleansing of the Irish Church leads us to a purer Christian way of life.

Do you think the RCC's institutional paedophilia is confined to Ireland? Or to Irish America?

[Bduffman]

Originally Posted by Outrage

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

You're unreal. First you state that no child would want to report a priest for child abuse in Ireland in the 60s. Then you say that no one was denied free speech?
Who do you think was instrumental in creating the atmosphere of fear in the first place. Don't try to tell us that was freedom of speech.

[Bduffman]

Originally Posted by Outrage

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).

Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?

[Outrage]

Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Do you think the RCC's institutional paedophilia is confined to Ireland? Or to Irish America?

You talk as if paedophilia was a distinctly Catholic phenomenon. It's not. Am I led to believe by you that because 90% of the population was Catholic, the sins of the population are all the Church's fault? The society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards also allows paedophilia to fester. The judge Curtin affair wasn't all that long ago. Your beloved State also sits by while children get abused and eventually kill themselves (there was a case a month ago where the HSE didn't even know the name of a deceased girl who'd been in and out of care for several years).

[dunleakelleher]

Originally Posted by Bduffman

Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?

And I'm sure the victims of child rape at the hands of catholic priests and covered up by their bishops don't go to mass either.

That statement is like saying. "Klan Leaders receive 100% support to reintroduce slavery at the annual Ku Klux Klan meeting."
It means nothing and is a silly argument.

[Outrage]

Originally Posted by Bduffman

Are you referring to the minority of catholics who actually go to mass as 'proof' of support for the cardinal?

Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think? You should read the Cardinal's speech from yesterday: a very humbling and moving collection of words.

You'd never see a liberal journo standing up publicly to acknowledge his failings and ask for forgiveness. They're a defiant bunch, a caste unto themselves.

[Outrage]

Originally Posted by dunleakelleher

And I'm sure the victims of child rape at the hands of catholic priests and covered up by their bishops don't go to mass either.

Actually you're wrong. Many abuse victims continue to go to Mass. But the Church does not make a song and dance about this reality (nor will I - I will not comment any further on Mass-going abuse victims after this post). They are silent witnesses to the faith and are treated with the greatest of respect by those aware of their troubled past.

[wolfsbane]

Originally Posted by Outrage

You talk as if paedophilia was a distinctly Catholic phenomenon. It's not. Am I led to believe by you that because 90% of the population was Catholic, the sins of the population are all the Church's fault? The society that you subscribe to and pay taxes towards also allows paedophilia to fester. The judge Curtin affair wasn't all that long ago. Your beloved State also sits by while children get abused and eventually kill themselves (there was a case a month ago where the HSE didn't even know the name of a deceased girl who'd been in and out of care for several years).

No, the sins of the population are their sins. But as far as I'm aware, most Catholics in Ireland do not pass paedophiles from place to place and swear their victims to silence. It is the RCC that does it.

I'm not sure what your reference to my State, judge Curtain and the HSE mean. I'm a citizen of the U.K., not Ireland. But if you are pointing out that the Irish State was also guilty of cover-up of abusers, I agree.

I am not saying the RCC is the only institution that tolerates abusers. All power-hungry institutions are liable to do the same - but not all have the same fear-factor built-in to make them so effective at concealment.

So what about my comments on the RCC world-wide? Any thoughts on the geographical extent of this abuse?

[Sam Vimes]

Originally Posted by Outrage

Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think? You should read the Cardinal's speech from yesterday: a very humbling and moving collection of words.

You'd never see a liberal journo standing up publicly to acknowledge his failings and ask for forgiveness. They're a defiant bunch, a caste unto themselves.

Brady himself said not four months ago: "Child sex abuse is a very serious crime and very grave and if I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant that other children were abused, well then, I think I would resign"


He has now found himself in exactly that situation. He has acknowledged it and declared himself to be ashamed. At this point anything other than a resignation makes him a hypocrite and by keeping him in charge the church is being presided over by someone who thinks that the fact that it happened a long time ago and the fact that he apparently didn't have the authority to walk into a garda station to report a crime are excuses that should allow him to get off scot free, despite the fact that he kept his mouth shut for a further 18 years after the point when he supposedly had no authority. Someone like that is compromised, there is no way he can demand the resignation of anyone who was involved in the cover up because he has admitted being involved in it himself