But sure when the RCC ran out of diocese to sent these sick paedophile priests in Ireland we exported them overseas
God only knows what went on is some of the missions around the world at the hands of Irish paedophile priests. May God forgive us all.
You make it sound as if it would be so easy to simply "walk into a garda station" back at the time. Maybe the child's family didn't want the local Garda to know what happened. The point is that you don't know and I don't know, therefore it's all speculation. Cardinal Brady is not compromised. He is certainly humbled by all that has gone on, but not compromised. He is also evidently very deeply upset by all that has gone on, both as a Bishop and as a person. Cardinal Brady could have gotten all aggressive and defensive at the onslaught of criticism and anti-Church abuse thrown in his direction. But that is not in his nature - he is more of a lamb than an aggressive wolf. He is not afraid to apologise publicly to abuse victims, nor is he afraid to acknowledge wrong-doing that occurred in the Church before his time (as well as take responsibility for the short-comings that occur under his watch of the earthly institution full of human failings). I don't see what purpose forcing a great man such as Cardinal Brady into resignation would serve, apart from satisfying the insatiable appetite of the liberal media to see the Catholic Church ruined. He should stay. And God-willing, he will stay. I have every confidence in that.
Cardinal Brady is a role-model for any person in this country. He preaches the Gospel in such a soft-handed manner that is so effective. He is highly constrained in what he can and cannot do and is acutely aware of the sex abuse issue that he was tasked with addressing when he took office in 2007. Yet still, the message gets through. He is also not afraid to admit his mistakes publicly. The fact that he is such a popular man with so many admirers is no coincidence. The fact that he has risen to such a respected position in both the Church and society is no coincidence.
When I read the words of the Cardinal at St Patrick's Day Mass yesterday in the newspaper over lunch, I had shivers down my spine for over 5 seconds and almost started crying. Words almost never have that kind of effect on me.
Priests support Cardinal Brady
If we can't depend on the church to do what's right even when it's difficult then what are they for?
If he's not compromised then there is nothing to be gained from investigating the cover up because we've already decided that those who participated in it will face no repercussions. If he's not compromised then who is?
He's not afraid to apologise but he is afraid to face the consequences of his actions. What would be served by his resignation is the same thing that is served every time someone is punished, he will be facing the consequences of his actions. If someone commits a crime and is convicted do you think the judge should first decide if any purpose will be served by sending them to prison before sentencing or is it enough to say that they committed a crime and should be punished?
Cardinal Brady kept silent about sexual abuse for 18 years. He's a role model for no one
He may be a role model in your eyes but to many others he stood by and facilitated the rape and abuse of many children through his (and others) inaction and subsequent years of cover-up.
He did wrong and he now acknowledges that. If the church is to move on with child protect issues you can hardly expect him to lead it when all victim support groups state they have lost respect for him and are seeking his resignation.
He may have done 'his duty' as it was at the time but he failed to protect the most vulnerable in society and stood by in the decades afterwards while this was being covered up. Some role model for a 'man of god'!
Also from the same article....
''His credibility is in tatters. How will he stand before parents at Confirmation now. Thankfully, however, the number of faithful at Masses hasn't fallen because people can differentiate between 'priestianity' and their 'Christianity'.''
He is compromised. How can the public believe that his organisation should have any involvement with children or any involvement in a process of healing when he and his organisation vehemently keeps the public unaware of past actions.
As for his upset, is it as a result of guilt or is it purely because he doesn't like negative headlines? Could his pain be worse that that of the victims who should have been protected from monsters like Smith
An apology is worthless if it isn't sincere. Like all revelations about the RCC and child abuse, it wasn't given willingly by them but was extracted painfully by external people/agencies. This episode would not be in the public arena were it not for the fact that a victim has decided to sue him personally.
His organisation frustrated (this being a mild term) previous inquiries. Why? Sure if there was true sorrow and guilt then why hide the facts? Why did scum like Desmond Connell try and actively stop (through legal means) unsuccesfully the revelation of abuse documents?
The "liberal media" are doing their job. The only reason they are able to do it is because the Church didn't do theirs. The church made this mess not the public, the media or indeed the victims. Please don't try and twist this because you disagree with it or have a different agenda.
I pray that you are wrong! If anything, the Catholic Church in this country trust. At the moment he is in no position to offer this.
A role model?
Should I strive to be someone who allows someone who preys on the weakest in our society to remain free to continue their evil acts? Should I put the fear of God into children so that they do not tarnish the good name of my club?
As for his respected position in society - I have no respect for him. I have no respect for his boss over in Rome. I have every respect for God but don't believe that they represent him. How do you know how popular and respected he is - I don't recall any surveys being done.
As for his respected position within the Church, answer me this - would he have reached this level had he gone to the Gardai and reported Smith?
Which also doesn't fit with the idea that this person's parents told Brady not to go to the gardai
You seem to be spending a lot of time defending fr Brady.
What about defending Christ?
The priests' sins are worse because, they claim to represent Christ, and therefore they sin against the Holy Spirit.
And in other arguments, aren't Catholics saying that you have to practise righteousness to be saved? Well, how does the clergy (not all, just the guilty ones) fit into that?
Another thing, there is nothing wrong with judging people if you are a Catholic christian. There is such a thing as righteous judgement.
Even you, even thought you are trying to defend them now,
deep down, might question these people.
They are just men.
The following is another interesting article to take note of I thought.
I absolutely agree that everyone who participated in any cover up of child abuse should be punished but does the fact that not every criminal is targeted by the media mean that the ones who are shouldn't be punished?
He's clearly just having a laugh, dont be so earnest about everything.
Joking about child abuse is wrong.. DUHHHH!
Have I been a victim of Poe's law
"Poe's Law points out that it is hard to tell parodies of fundamentalism (or, more generally, any crackpot theory) from the real thing, since they both seem equally insane. Conversely, real fundamentalism can easily be mistaken for a parody of fundamentalism. For example, some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they argue he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes. "
I don't think so, I think the jokes are hilarious.
Of course, however I do believe that his eminence Cardinal Sean Brady commited a blunder that contained no malicious intent of cover up.
I forgive him for the blunder ( MAJOR BLUNDER ) made and I'm behind him for not resigning, however should he resign this will have to be due to his own conscience as to whether he thinks he should or not.
If the rule applies to him then it must apply to all who failed to act, but this does not seem to be the case at the moment.
But if he tries to argue that he should keep his job despite admitting to what you say is a major blunder then surely the position of the catholic church in Ireland is that the rules should apply to no one?