The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Tigger

serious question as i was arguing this with a mate and he says there is no way people support his position but i honestly believe that many people can see his side.

prinz

No, he should go as soon as possible.

lucy2010

I feel that anyone who was in anyway involved either by practice or knowledge needs to go but also needs to face a criminal investigation. & if that means every priest in the nation so be it.

paperclip2

He needs to go. His credibility re child protection is gone and his moral authority is far too damaged. Anything he achieves in the future will always be overshadowed.

MrPudding

lucy2010 wrote: »

I feel that anyone who was in anyway involved either by practice or knowledge needs to go but also needs to face a criminal investigation. & if that means every priest in the nation so be it.

This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?

Presumably, if there was, there are a fairly large number of church officials guilty of this offence. Added to that, there are also like to be a number of government and ex-government officials who had the same knowledge. So, if such an offence does exist why are they not being prosecuted?

As a separate issue I would expect there should be charges also brought against the gardai that were aware of the abuse but chose to let the church deal with it. I would like to think that this is also illegal.

MrP

prinz

MrPudding wrote: »

This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?

AFAIK these laws are relatively modern and do not apply retrospectively.

delop

Why not leave him there and the rest of ye leave?

Im not being silly here, but why would anyone want anything to do with his church

prinz

delop wrote: »

Why not leave him there and the rest of ye leave?
Im not being silly here, but why would anyone want anything to do with his church

(a) The thread title refers to Catholics, are you Catholic..or even
Christian?

(b) If you don't have anything constructive to add there are plenty of threads on After Hours more suited to you.

(c) It's not "his church"

Manach

Yes: depending on the judgement of any civil/criminal court case pending against him.
My understanding is that in that vast majority of laws, these are non-retrospective unless expressly legislated as such.

delop

prinz wrote: »

(a) The thread title refers to Catholics, are you Catholic..or even
Christian?

(b) If you don't have anything constructive to add there are plenty of threads on After Hours more suited to you.

(c) It's not "his church"

I'm an Irish citizen, and if you read the preamble of our constitution you would know I don't have much choice

How is what i said not constructive?

Is he not the head of the church in Ireland? Im sure he feels responsible for it, far more than the children of Ireland or the law of the land it seems

Fanny Cradock

I hope people don't mind a non-Catholic view on this.

MrPudding wrote: »

This is an interesting point. In the UK I believe it is a criminal offence not to report child abuse you are aware of. The laws in Ireland are often very similar to those in the UK, I wonder if there is such an offence?

Nowadays, yes, it is. Back in the 70's I don't think it was.

I think somebody needs to erect a confession booth at the Papal cross. A symbol where the Church can enter on one side to confess its corporate sin to God who is waiting patiently with anger and forgiveness on the other. IMO, the RCC is not doing nearly enough and in defending past mistakes they are sewing the seeds of their own rapid demise.

prinz

delop wrote: »

I'm an Irish citizen, and if you read the preamble of our constitution you would know I don't have much choice..

There are Irish citizens who are non-Christians. If you knew the Constitution you would know that the Preamble is not on par with the rest of the document with regard to Constitutional law.

delop wrote: »

How is what i said not constructive?

Then thread is in relation to the position of the primate, not the position of ourselves or any other Catholics.

delop wrote: »

Is he not the head of the church in Ireland? Im sure he feels responsible for it, far more than the children of Ireland or the law of the land it seems

Yes, but the RCC goes beyond Ireland. Being a Catholic has little if anything to do with who the Cardinal in Ireland is.

Run_to_da_hills

prinz wrote: »

(a) The thread title refers to Catholics, are you Catholic..or even
Christian?

(b) If you don't have anything constructive to add there are plenty of threads on After Hours more suited to you.

(c) It's not "his church"

Every time you put money in the collection plate you are funding an institute that places itself one step above the law of the land.

I would not give them one penny until such time as these men step down off their high horses and face the music just like every other ciitizen of the country.

Our Lord hit the nail on the head when he described the institutionalised clerics of the past. Very little has changed with the clerics of today.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness". Matthew 23vs27

"Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." Matthew23vs28

prinz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would not give them one penny until such time as these men step down off their high horses and face the music just like every other ciitizen of the country.

Good for you, either would I.

Feownah

He should go go go, his attitude sickens me.

I see that Labour are calling for a Garda probe into the way he handled it all.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0315/breaking65.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cardinals-role-must-be-probed-by-gardai-say-labour-2100132.html

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/ireland/labour-calls-for-garda-probe-into-bradys-handling-of-smyth-affair-450110.html

Outrage

The Cardinal is not resigning. Get used to it. Go find another anti-Catholic hobby horse.

Stercus Accidit

Outrage wrote: »

The Cardinal is not resigning. Get used to it. Go find another anti-Catholic hobby horse.

The man should be prosecuted, let alone this bloody moral flim flaming.

--amadeus--

Manach wrote: »

Yes: depending on the judgement of any civil/criminal court case pending against him.
My understanding is that in that vast majority of laws, these are non-retrospective unless expressly legislated as such.

This I find interesting. The entire defence of this man has rested on the legality of his not going to teh civil authorities.

But what about teh morality of not going to the authorities? And how can you accept moral guidance from a man who (by inaction) facilitated a child rapist?

Outrage

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The man should be prosecuted, let alone this bloody moral flim flaming.

Why are you so enraged? You come across as someone who'd have no problem going on an angry mob march complete with torches.

The good Cardinal is not resigning. Like I said: get used to it.

lucy2010

From a legal point of view can he be charged with anything ?

Fanny Cradock

Outrage wrote: »

The good Cardinal is not resigning. Like I said: get used to it.

Only time will tell. Gormely is right - this is something that Brady must confront in moments of reflection.

Ultravid

I am not in a position to decide one way or the other. But I will say this: the man did what he thought was right at the time. He had no decision-making powers at that time. He passed the information to his bishop, who then assumed responsibility. That is what he says and I take him at his word.

It's very easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight. We all make mistakes. I am sure the Cardinal now looks back and wishes he had done things differently. I think all of us can look back and do that. None of us are perfect.

Some balanced and fair background reading here (concerning the Pope):

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=624

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope_benedict_transferred_paedophile/

The media is gunning for him, and the Pope. Their interest goes beyond any desire for 'justice' - they HATE the Catholic Church and everything we stand for. Christ Himself said this would be so ('If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.').

Unfortunately, the Church has given the world the stick it is now using.

If we allow ourselves to be bullied like this, it's a very slippery slope. The rabid anti-Christians will bay and hound for more blood until they destroy us, if that were possible.

krudler

The rabid anti-Christians will bay and hound for more blood until they destroy us, if that were possible.

The church is doing a pretty good job of that itself with all the scandals and coverups and lies and murder and raping

Ultravid

krudler wrote: »

The church is doing a pretty good job of that itself with all the scandals and coverups and lies and murder and raping

Some people are predicting that the Church is in for a rough time, and maybe it is. But the Church will survive because the Lord will make sure it survives. One of the greatest comeback lines in history was uttered two hundred years ago. As his armies were swallowing up the countries of Europe, French emperor Napoleon is reported to have said to Church officials, "Je détruirai votre église" ("I will destroy your Church")." When informed of the emperor's words, Ercole Cardinal Consalvi, one of the great statesmen of the papal court, replied,
"He will never succeed. We have not managed to do it ourselves!" If bad popes, immoral priests, and countless sinners in the Church hadn't succeeded in destroying the Church from within, Cardinal Consalvi was saying, how did Napoleon think he was going to do it from without?

A Crisis of Saints
http://www.catholic.com/library/A_Crisis_of_Saints.asp

mehfesto

The issue is morally disgusting. Just because he didn't HAVE TO, he didn't. This is child sexual abuse - there is nothing more serious. The lax attitude toward it will surely turn many away.

And to be honest, I don't blame anyone for leaving the church formally as a result. Yes, it happened in the past, but with a chance to make amends he refuses to step aside. He is turning his personal mistakes into he mistakes of the church.

Look at willy o dea, a man who made a stupid personal mistake, but knew that it could destroy the party had he not stepped down. This is a million times worse than claiming someone ran a brothel, it is an unforgivable act and people are trying to defend him, for whatever reason.

He has to go. If he church wants o save any face, if it wants to appear like it cares about children he has to go. For the sake of those who were abused by that piece of scum, he has to go. Imagie their frustration & hurt. Those that have not committed suicide.

If the church support him, they support child rape in he past and they do not care about their flock it's as simple as that.

What would Jesus say if he returned today?!?

goat2

Tigger wrote: »

serious question as i was arguing this with a mate and he says there is no way people support his position but i honestly believe that many people can see his side.

no way would i support him
he should be charged with accessory to all these crimes that were brought to his attention over the years
abusing children telling them to keep quiet about a crime comitted on them, how low can you go

StudentDad

I'm no longer a catholic. I left the RC church a long time ago when I was a teenager and couldn't stomach the hypocrisy, the lies and the greed displayed by the church.

What saddens me is that there are good people in the church but their voices are silenced by a church that is only interested in power, control and profit.

Nevermind resignations, there should be prosecutions by the DPP for the actions of clerics over the past god knows how many years.

However, with the current church/state relationship that will never happen in Ireland. The corruption is too endemic, too deeply engrained. So long as there are apologists for paedophiles and rapists nothing will be done to pursue those responsible.

SD

prinz

Stercus Accidit wrote: »

The man should be prosecuted, let alone this bloody moral flim flaming.

Unlikely he will be prosecuted for anything. He hasn't as far as I'm aware technically/legally committed a crime.(a crime against humanity is another issue)

--amadeus-- wrote: »

But what about teh morality of not going to the authorities? And how can you accept moral guidance from a man who (by inaction) facilitated a child rapist?

You can't, he's got to go.

lucy2010 wrote: »

From a legal point of view can he be charged with anything ?

Not so far.

mehfesto wrote: »

The issue is morally disgusting. Just because he didn't HAVE TO, he didn't. This is child sexual abuse - there is nothing more serious. The lax attitude toward it will surely turn many away.

It will turn many away from him, if it turns people away from God then he has a lot to answer for. For many people their faith is in crisis, and I hold people like the cardinal to blame.:mad:

mehfesto wrote: »

What would Jesus say if he returned today?!?

I have a fair idea that I wouldn't want to be around

the_dark_side

mehfesto wrote: »

What would Jesus say if he returned today?!?

how can I go about getting a website up

Outrage

The good Cardinal is not resigning. Get used to it. Pretty much everyone at Mass in Armagh cathedral this morning supports the man.

Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh.

wolfsbane

If I may comment (as a non-Catholic):
As far as I can see, Brady is one of the better clerics today, one who is trying to clean-up the RCC's act regards sexual abuse. But he did fail in the 70's, fail to give more concern for the then and future victims than he did for the Church's authority.

The dilemma for the RCC now is if they punish those who failed back then, who among the higher clergy would survive? Does anyone think any bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope did not encounter similar instances and themselves acted just as Brady did? That paedo-priests were/are a rare exception, to be encountered once or twice in a career? The evidence suggests they are/were in every diocese, and likely in every country. Every priest even would have had some suspicions about some of their colleagues. Every bishop would have had to deal with the details.

Brady is not an exception to one failing his moral duty. The mind-set he was in made him follow orders.

What each Catholic needs to consider is the fact that the Catholic Church is the problem - its institutional power gave depravity a safe breeding-ground. Only modern communications has revealed the institutional extent of the corruption and cover-up, otherwise it would have remained the 'sectarian propaganda' of the few who left the priesthood and orders, and the powerless victims.

Humanly speaking, the only hope the RCC has is in offering up a few notable scapegoats and getting the lid back on as soon as possible. If the full truth emerges, its claim to be the true Church will be seen for the con it is.

Outrage

wolfsbane wrote: »

Humanly speaking, the only hope the RCC has is in offering up a few notable scapegoats and getting the lid back on as soon as possible. If the full truth emerges, its claim to be the true Church will be seen for the con it is.

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.

philiporeilly

Outrage wrote: »

The Cardinal is not resigning. Get used to it. Go find another anti-Catholic hobby horse.

Typical! Just because people comment and criticise church leaders for reprehensible and disgusting actions/inaction they are anti-catholic?

As far as I am concerned personal ambition and protectionism of clerics are not what christianity is about. Unfortunately the church hierarchy still seems to be that way though.

Maybe you would prefer people to remain quiet on these issues? We've seen how that works out!

Ultravid

wolfsbane wrote: »

If I may comment (as a non-Catholic):
As far as I can see, Brady is one of the better clerics today, one who is trying to clean-up the RCC's act regards sexual abuse. But he did fail in the 70's, fail to give more concern for the then and future victims than he did for the Church's authority.

The dilemma for the RCC now is if they punish those who failed back then, who among the higher clergy would survive? Does anyone think any bishop, archbishop, cardinal or pope did not encounter similar instances and themselves acted just as Brady did? That paedo-priests were/are a rare exception, to be encountered once or twice in a career? The evidence suggests they are/were in every diocese, and likely in every country. Every priest even would have had some suspicions about some of their colleagues. Every bishop would have had to deal with the details.

Brady is not an exception to one failing his moral duty. The mind-set he was in made him follow orders.

What each Catholic needs to consider is the fact that the Catholic Church is the problem - its institutional power gave depravity a safe breeding-ground. Only modern communications has revealed the institutional extent of the corruption and cover-up, otherwise it would have remained the 'sectarian propaganda' of the few who left the priesthood and orders, and the powerless victims.

Humanly speaking, the only hope the RCC has is in offering up a few notable scapegoats and getting the lid back on as soon as possible. If the full truth emerges, its claim to be the true Church will be seen for the con it is.

A must read to understand how these things came about. This book is shocking but deserves to be read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448

This is good too:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020820_Keep_the_Faith_Change_the_Church.html

Ultravid

Outrage wrote: »

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.

I am not sure that is what they need. I'd say they should be given the best psychotherapy available. Sadly their trust in God and the Church will be shattered. There is evidence that giving abuse victims large sums of money leads to their further ruination. Money doesn't solve their problem, it doesn't heal them.

Outrage

Ultravid wrote: »

A must read to understand how these things came about. This book is shocking but deserves to be read.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Goodbye-Good-Men-Liberals-Corruption/dp/0895261448

This is good too:
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020820_Keep_the_Faith_Change_the_Church.html

A great book if I do say so myself.

Outrage

philiporeilly wrote: »

As far as I am concerned personal ambition and protectionism of clerics are not what christianity is about. Unfortunately the church hierarchy still seems to be that way though.

Can you please name one of the world's great institutions that doesn't have a hierarchy? Sure didn't Jesus himself appoint twelve apostles?

sarahlulu

Personally, I feel strongly that Brady should resign. I hope he at least had sleepless nights when the whole country was watching the news every evening in disgust when the animal Brendan Smith was being tried for his evil acts.

Outrage

sarahlulu wrote: »

Personally, I feel strongly that Brady should resign. I hope he at least had sleepless nights when the whole country was watching the news every evening in disgust when the animal Brendan Smith was being tried for his evil acts.

He's probably tucked up in his bed right now having had a few Trappist beers to celebrate a little lull in the Lenten monotomy on this, the day of our Patron Saint.

me_right_one

I dont believe he should step down. He didnt abuse anybody, nor could he un-abuse the children involved. He did indeed make a mistake, and has admitted it and apologised. For anybody who thinks he should go, what would be the point? He'd be stepping down from being a cardinal back to being a bishop. What would be the point?

philiporeilly

Outrage wrote: »

Can you please name one of the world's great institutions that doesn't have a hierarchy? Sure didn't Jesus himself appoint twelve apostles?

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

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

hinault

Tigger wrote: »

serious question as i was arguing this with a mate and he says there is no way people support his position but i honestly believe that many people can see his side.

I'm RC.
I have a lot of sympathy with the cardinal.
I'll qualify that.

In 1975 RCC wielded a lot of power even more than today.
brady interviewed the victims and sent his report to his Bishop.
Morally/ethically, should Brady have gone to the police.
Yes.
However, having reported the crime to his Bishop, his Bishop failed to report the matter to the police.
What is Brady supposed to do.
If his own Bishop would not do the correct thing morally/ethically, what was brady to do?

The Bishop should have reported the matter to the matter to the police.

I can empathise with the Cardinal and the situation that he finds himself in.

Should the cardinal pay the price in 2010, for what he and his Bishop did not do in 1975?
He probably will have to resign.

philiporeilly

me_right_one wrote: »

I dont believe he should step down. He didnt abuse anybody, nor could he un-abuse the children involved. He did indeed make a mistake, and has admitted it and apologised. For anybody who thinks he should go, what would be the point? He'd be stepping down from being a cardinal back to being a bishop. What would be the point?

It could have saved many children over a twenty year period from being raped and abused if he had the courage to do the right thing.

In a job where you say to serve god how can you continue when you are causing so many others pain by remaining to save pride.

sarahlulu

He said previously that he would step down if it transpired that he had caused harm to any child. Surely that is exactly what his lack of action did.

Outrage

philiporeilly wrote: »

It could have saved many children over a twenty year period from being raped and abused if he had the courage to do the right thing.

Could have. Would have. Should have.

Who's to say that the child/parents even wanted the matter to be referred to the local Garda station and the town/village at large? Maybe they didn't want to have to travel to Dublin to testify publicly against a perverted paedophile. Think of the publicity that a perverted priest and his victim would attract in Holy Catholic Ireland. In all honesty, would you want a double whammy as an abuse victim? Remember, it's only recently that victims of child abuse have been facilitated by anonymity in the court room. Anyway, we don't have the full facts. It's all speculation as to what may or may not have happened 35 years ago.

The Cardinal won't be resigning. His Bishop of the time is long dead. Even he is probably spending a short time in purgatory, in preparation for his ascension into heaven. That, I am confident of.

Outrage

sarahlulu wrote: »

He said previously that he would step down if it transpired that he had caused harm to any child. Surely that is exactly what his lack of action did.

The Cardinal won't be resigning. Get used to it.

sarahlulu

I wouldn't be so sure

me_right_one

philiporeilly wrote: »

It could have saved many children over a twenty year period from being raped and abused if he had the courage to do the right thing.

So by resigning, what exactly would be achieved?

philiporeilly wrote: »

In a job where you say to serve god how can you continue when you are causing so many others pain by remaining to save pride.

How is he causing any pain to anyone? What pride? The whole argument is like hunting down hitlers tea-boy and blaming him for the holucaust, then demanding he step down from whatever his present-day job is for some reason. Its ridiculous.

He should have gone to the guards, but he didnt. He fcuked up, chickened out. People do that. People wasting their time saying he should go would be doing more good if they were lobbying their TD's to change the laws to punish sexual criminals more appropriately. Will we have another thread like this in 20 years saying philliporeilly should resign from whatever his job is cos he didnt go to his TD and ask for life sentences to be imposed on paedofiles, and some got out of jail after 2 or 3 years and abused more kids in the meantime? Thats the arguement you're making!

Outrage

sarahlulu wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure

I'm looking forward to ROFL'ng at you in a year's time

allthedoyles

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

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

hinault

As a RC, I feel very let down by the institution and the leaders of that institution both here and in the Vatican.

Not only have the let down the victims and continue to crucify them with this covering up, the leaders of the RCC have sold out a lot of good/honest/decent clergy who have to suffer the
opprobrium of wider society.