The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

If you committed adultery what has that got to do with banking?

exactly my point. If a Bishop committed alultery years ago what has that to do with his authority over Diocesan funds?

If you were a banker that made decisions to make the banking crisis or through inaction / coverup I'd hardly expect people to have faith in you to fix the economy.

Then why did they re appoint all the members of Bank boards to the same boards?

Likewise, if through decades of deceit, inaction or coverup you were part of a system that caused suffering and abuse to many innocent people, I'd hardly have faith in you to rebuild confidence in the church or healing with survivors.

So you would just like to dismiss every member of the clergy? and replace them with whom?

I said it was an interesting coincidence.

You CLAIMED ther were a whole load of them but you failed to provide then when asked.

Can't mention any senior cleric that spoke out against abuse allegations in the 70s or 80s

And based on that you claim it is evidence for a coverup. that is specious reasoning.

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

but many did criticise, refute or condemn those who made allegations when this was first disclosed. Also the church fought up until recently to coverup the truth in reports.

The families of the victims also fought to prevent scandals ruining society as they saw it. How do you know Brady didn't believe as they did?

I see you like to satisfy your own vanity by questioning people's academic qualifications

I see you havent been paying attention to the post I made about not questioning an MSc. from Tralee.

or faith in comparison to yours. Must we post you a CV before posting a comment?

You came into this thread. If hte posters coming are interested in improving the Church then fair enough. If they have done anything for their local faith community in the past let them say so. If on the other hand they have no such record and intend to do nothing in the future for their local community then they really dont have any credability in conducting a witchhunt against someone who has that record!

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

Wasn't that the system that operated in Ireland while thousands of innocent people were being physically or sexually abused?

SYSTEMS have nothing to do with morality! If something is wrong it is wrong no matter what system or whether or not there is a law against it.

the system in the church was rotten at several times in the past. But the clergy knew what was moral and immoral and it was their job to teach people and distribute the sacraments. It isn't for the laity to do this. Well only in very rare instances wher the laity are knowledgable in theology in which case they are cathecists or similar roto clergy. THe laity however can be much holier then the clergy and teach them in the way they carry out their life. But it isnt for them to lecture qualified people on what the gospel means and whether transubstantiation or the Trinity is true. That is vested in the clergy.

If anyone in society believes that something immoral is happening it is their duty to report or fight it.

If something immoral is happening what informs you that it is immoral? What informs you conscience? Is it the law? IF slavery was legal would it be moral?

You cannot allow the innocent to suffer for the sake of image.

Indeed, nobody should. So what? I never suggested they should. I just suggested it isn't for the unqualified laity to teach theology.

If it wasn't for the laity questioning abuse and the subsequent coverups we would hardly have the pope apologising for the church today.

I disagree with that. The causes of abuse are not so simple as saying that it is all about the church covering things up. 99 per cent of Abusers were not clergy!
How can you say the church are responsible for covering most of the one per cent of abuser that were clergy and the rest of society are not responsible at all for the other 99 percent of non clerical abusers?

A good friend of mine is a priest and I regularly have discussions with him over issues such as morality.

The church cannot go back to the days where people are afraid to question the judgement of those in charge of the church. People need transparency and faith that those in power will do the right thing and not allow innocence suffer to save image.

No no . I dodnt say they shouldn't question their judgement or have control over material aspect sor of the system of administration. all these are temporal things. I said that the idea of informing the conscience and the doctrine is the job of the clergy. The laity can point out when clergy are not following what they themselves preach but it is the job of the clergy to inform to fir folck. If they are hippocrits then fair enough expose that but the subject about which they are being hippocrits is not determined by public opinion.

And it isn't as simple as the clergy saying "child molestation is allowed" . Or maybe in fact it is as simple as that. the clergy would never say such a thing and if they did they are not just hippocrits but preaching false doctrine. The point is the doctrine ALWAYS was that abusing children was wrong!

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Indeed, sacking the entire Gardai or all teachers etc would not be practical as the country would come to a standstill.
But sacking the RCC? What disruption would that cause? Not much - so lets do it.

Well you bias is quite clear there. You are obviously anti catholic. You are ion favour of disolving the Church and as a n excuse use the one percent of offenders but you are quite happy to forget about the other 99 per cent of offendres. What moral principle do you therefore operate under? clearly your motive as admitted above is not to do anything which help the 100 percent of victims of abuse but only to attack and destroy the church.

He did nothing after that 'report' for several decades

Brady was a teacher in a college at the time with qualifications in canon law. He remained in that position. towo years later he moved out of Irelans and remained out of Ireland until he held the position of a parish priest in cavan in 1993. In 1995 he became bishop and in 1996 bishop of Armagh. He was made a Cardinal in 2007. In the time since he became bishop he has been responsible for bringing in various child protection policies. Since he became Cardinal he oversaw the same with respect to the whole country in bringing in policies which work in tandem with State laws.

- therefore after the inaction of his bosses he was fully entitled to take it further. He chose to sit on it - thats a cover up.

No. The stare convicted a murderer Malcolm Edward MacArthur of killing a nurse. They knew of a second killing with a shotgun he had bought. he was already convicted. They never brought charges but there was no cover up. If Brady became Bishop after Smith was already gaoled then charging him with a lesser offence from that which he already was convicted of and serving in a different state would not serve much purpose would it? and it might not even stick. why bother putting the family through that? Of course those who want only to do down the church really don't care about the victims or their families so those people would be happy to re open the case. AS it happens the perpetrator is now dead so it would be impossible to charge him anyway.

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Pointless or not - reporting child abuse is still the right thing to do.

And it was reported! It just wasn't reported t the police in this case.

But I believe that reporting to the gardai would have damaged the church and this was the over-riding concern for senior church officials.

But in this case Brady wasn't a senior church official!
Also while it may be true it also may be true that people saw it as pointless, thought a conviction would not hold, didn't want to upset the family etc.

If Brady was in any way morally guided individual he would still do what was right.

as opposed to what you consider wriong i.e. being a senior churchman covering things up. But Brady WASN'T a senior church official then!

But sure, what would a good person be doing staying in an evil & corrupt organisation like the RCC.

Well obviously you already believe all clergy are members of an evil an corrupt organisation. With such bias it isn't any wonder you are only interested in witchhunts and not in the concern of the victims and their families.

So he reported it. Then nothing was done for decades & Smyth abused again. So he went no further. Thats for his conscience.

Indeed it was and he felt he was wrong and admitted that!

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Yes this is about why Brady didn't report this to the Gardai - not about what other individual Gardai did or didn't do in other cases. In the Smyth case it was not reported to the Gardai so therefore they didn't even know about it. Again if you want to discuss the actions or inaction of the Gardai or the weaknesses of Irish law at that time then open another thread.

But the main accusation being made is why didn't Brady at the time report in 1978 Smyth TO THE POLICE!

J C

I now have some of these Alive-O Books to hand. These apparently are the current RE textbooks being used to teach 4-12 year olds in Roman Catholic Primary Schools.

As a Saved Christian I am 'gobsmacked' at what I am seeing.

I will describe a few of the things that have particularly 'caught my eye' from a casual scan of some of these textbooks:-

Page 14 and 15 of Alive-O 3 is entitled 'The Bread Song' and states that Jesus was a 'Sharer of Bread' ... presumably an allusion to The Lord's Supper ... which is is a very solemn and important commemoration of Jesus Christ's Last Meal on Earth and a key part of the religious observance of all Christian Churches.
http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/text/lastsupp.htm
The 'Bread Song' pages are illustrated by a coloured drawing of a witch baking bread in an oven with the bread flowing out onto the ground. Various people and animals are sitting and jumping on the bread and mice are shown eating it.
What does this illustrate about current Roman Catholic beliefs in relation to Holy Communion and the Lord's Supper?

Page 13 of Alive-O 3 shows a woman with a clown's hat sowing seed with the sub-heading of 'Jesus - Story Teller' and an extract from the 'parable of the sower' in Mt 13:3-8.
What is this supposed to be illustrating about Jesus and His Word in the Holy Bible?

Page 3 of Alive-O 8 shows a number of planets, including the Earth being juggled by a clown. The text accompanying the illustration says "... our Planet earth is no more than a smowflake floating in the air. Because of all this new (scientific) awareness of the nature of the Universe, some people find it hard to believe in God the Creator. But the story of Creation as told in the Book of Genesis is a faith account, explaining the belief of the people of the time about Creation"
Sounds like something that the Evolutionists, that I regularly debate with, would say!!!
Why would anybody tell little children that "some people find it hard to believe in God the Creator" ... when it is obvious from the things that God Created that He exists?


On page 4 of Alive-O 8 the following account is provided "For billions of years the earth was a ball spinning with its sunrise and sunset, its mountains and seas, but there was nothing alive to see it. Than at last, 300,000 years ago, Human life emerged. The writers of the Creation story in the book of Genesis were spot on when they pictured God forming the first human beings from 'the dust of the ground', for every atom of carbon in our bodies and every atom of iron in our blood was there originally in the stars which came from the 'Big Bang'.... Sounds like God wasn't really needed at all ... if this invalid Evolutionist account is correct!!!!

Page 87 of Alive-O 8 introduces the 'Earth Commandments' which are a neo-modernist imitation of the Decalogue of the Bible.

Page 11 of Alive-O 2 is about Halloween and has an illustration of woman on a hill with a flame coming out of her head and around which a circle of people dance.
The following caption is underneath "Her light shines for all to see".
It is accompanied by the following text:-
"The waxicles were lost without little Nite-Lite to shine on them.
With the children we thank God for light.
Why did Little Nite-Lite go away?
What happened to the Waxicles then?
What happened when she came back?"
What aspect of Roman Catholicism is being illustrated here?
Does any Roman Catholic on this thread know the answers to these questions?

philiporeilly

ISAW wrote: »

exactly my point. If a Bishop committed alultery years ago what has that to do with his authority over Diocesan funds?

If a banker commits adultery he is not breaking his contract of employment. If a Bishop commits adultery, well you know what the answer to that one. The more important thing though is that if through inaction, coverup or deceit you facilitated the sexual abuse of innocent people you do not deserve to remain in position.

ISAW wrote: »

Then why did they re appoint all the members of Bank boards to the same boards?

Not all are still on the boards of banks. Many have been replaced but those remaining that facilitated our banking crisis should also leave. Either way one wrong does not justify another.

ISAW wrote: »

So you would just like to dismiss every member of the clergy? and replace them with whom?

Never said that. I said that those who through inaction, coverup or deceit facilitated the sexual abuse of innocent people do not deserve to remain in position.

ISAW wrote: »

You CLAIMED ther were a whole load of them but you failed to provide then when asked.

There were many legal challenges by bishops to stop the release of the truth. All of which were reported in the press.

ISAW wrote: »

And based on that you claim it is evidence for a coverup. that is specious reasoning.

Homer: Well, there's not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is sure doing its job.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, sweetie.
Lisa: Dad, what if I were to tell you that this rock keeps away tigers.
Homer: Uh-huh, and how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: I see.
Lisa: But you don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I'd like to buy your rock.

Funny love the Simpsons and thought of this thread tonight after listening to Ned Flanders say:

Please Lord grant me the power to physiologically torture them into loving you!

ISAW wrote: »

The families of the victims also fought to prevent scandals ruining society as they saw it. How do you know Brady didn't believe as they did?

These scandals has not ruined society. The acts committed by the abusers is beyond contempt but if the church did the right thing at the time and didn't try to deceive the people it wouldnt have been such a scandal. If they were seen to protect and act on these issues many other abusers may not have had the freedom to commit these sick acts.

Many victims have stated that they were pressured into keeping their silence but even those who wanted to make it public were condemned or challenged in court. Hardly worth defending!


Moving on it's clear that after 27 pages of debate we will never agree. People make mistakes and even the Pope acknowledges those in charge of the Irish church did wrong over the past decades. So to answer the original question, I do not support the primate's position.

This is not about one mistake but his continued inaction and coverup in subsequent years. Even until recently the church of which he is primate did every legally possible to hide the truth by challenging reports.

Transparency and confidence in our leadership is what is needed for faith be be rebuilt in the RCC.

--amadeus--

Or put the entire debate the other way round.

Why should he stay? What reasons are there for him to stay? What is preventing him resigning?

He may well be a top notch cardinal but his public reputation is shot to pieces. Signifigant numbers of people - crucially including victims groups - feel that he should go. A great many people feel that there can be no healing, no reconciliation with him there. It's impossible for people to put these things behind them while he is in situ. Appropriate or not he is now a figurehead, focal point and representative of teh "old" church, the church of teh cover up and abuser. And he could continue his career in the Vatican or wherever if he feels he has something to offer.

So with so many negatives what is stopping him?

A belief that he did teh right thing, no matter what everyone else says? A belief that he is the only man / the right man to lead the Irish church? A stuborness that he will decide when and if he goes, not the public or teh media?

Because all of that is just pride.

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Or put the entire debate the other way round.

Why should he stay? What reasons are there for him to stay? What is preventing him resigning?

He is doing his job well which includes bringing in child protection policies.
If he want's to resign that is up to him so nothing is preventing him doing so.
If you mean does he want to resign well it would seem maybe he is aware that he is doing a good job so he would feel that resigning won't improve things.

He may well be a top notch cardinal but his public reputation is shot to pieces.

So what? "It isn't about public image" is one of the main arguments the opposition to him claim. then when it suits them he should resign because of image. Jesus hs such a bad public image at one time they crucified him.

Signifigant numbers of people - crucially including victims groups - feel that he should go.

Same argument - it isnt about image.
How many is "significant" ? If even in his own parish/diocese say 100 parioshiners gathered and cpmplained (they dont have to take to the streets) that might be significant. But no such "significant" group of people within the church has emerged.

A great many people feel that there can be no healing, no reconciliation with him there.

SAme argument. The church isn't run on what a great many people feel. People also feel the church should be destroyed by the way.

It's impossible for people to put these things behind them while he is in situ.

And before 2007 when he wasn't in situ as Cardinal and wasn't even in Ireland they could?

Appropriate or not he is now a figurehead, focal point and representative of teh "old" church, the church of teh cover up and abuser. And he could continue his career in the Vatican or wherever if he feels he has something to offer.

He feels he has something to offer Ireland. so do his priests and so does the Pope.

So with so many negatives what is stopping him?

The feeling that anti catholic opinions and whims should not make him resign?

A belief that he did teh right thing, no matter what everyone else says?

A belief that right and wrong are not a social construct and made by public opinion? that slavery was not right even when it was legal?

A belief that he is the only man / the right man to lead the Irish church?

Based on the opinion of other Bishops and priests and others who support him as such.

A stuborness that he will decide when and if he goes, not the public or teh media?

This is the main issue here. Public image and media statements should not decide who ios Pope or Cardinal. When it suits people they say "it isn't about what society thinks it is about right and wrong" and then later they contradict themselves and say that someone should do what society thinks even f they believe it is the wrong thing to do

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

Well you bias is quite clear there. You are obviously anti catholic. You are ion favour of disolving the Church and as a n excuse use the one percent of offenders but you are quite happy to forget about the other 99 per cent of offendres. What moral principle do you therefore operate under? clearly your motive as admitted above is not to do anything which help the 100 percent of victims of abuse but only to attack and destroy the church.

Dissolving the church? Where did I say that? I just want the RCC & every other church to be removed from any aspect of how the state is run. Believers can go off & believe in whatever they want & worship whoever they want without having any influence on the rest of us.
And this is not about the supposed 99% of 'innocents'. It is about a morally corrupt organisation that these people insist on remaining members of. Would you remain a member of any non-religious organisation that systematically covered up abuse at the scale the RCC did?

ISAW wrote: »

Brady was a teacher in a college at the time with qualifications in canon law. He remained in that position. towo years later he moved out of Irelans and remained out of Ireland until he held the position of a parish priest in cavan in 1993. In 1995 he became bishop and in 1996 bishop of Armagh. He was made a Cardinal in 2007. In the time since he became bishop he has been responsible for bringing in various child protection policies. Since he became Cardinal he oversaw the same with respect to the whole country in bringing in policies which work in tandem with State laws.

What about the McCloskey brothers who were persuaded to sign a confidentiality agreement as recently as 2006? Then one of them committed suicide just 2 days after that meeting? When the surviving brother asked for them to drop thye agreement, they refused - and still refuse. And this only 4 years ago? And under the leadership of the good cardinal. Don't fool yourself into believing they have changed.

ISAW wrote: »

No. The stare convicted a murderer Malcolm Edward MacArthur of killing a nurse. They knew of a second killing with a shotgun he had bought. he was already convicted. They never brought charges but there was no cover up. If Brady became Bishop after Smith was already gaoled then charging him with a lesser offence from that which he already was convicted of and serving in a different state would not serve much purpose would it? and it might not even stick. why bother putting the family through that? Of course those who want only to do down the church really don't care about the victims or their families so those people would be happy to re open the case. AS it happens the perpetrator is now dead so it would be impossible to charge him anyway.

Smyth offended several times after that meeting in the 70s. I don't care if Brady was a priest, a cardinal or the pope - HE COULD HAVE REPORTED IT. Are you so blinded by your church that you have forgotten what is right & what is wrong?

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

And it was reported! It just wasn't reported t the police in this case.

If you saw abuse in your workplace & reported it to your boss. Then nothing is done. Would you take it further?

ISAW wrote: »

But in this case Brady wasn't a senior church official!
Also while it may be true it also may be true that people saw it as pointless, thought a conviction would not hold, didn't want to upset the family etc.
as opposed to what you consider wriong i.e. being a senior churchman covering things up. But Brady WASN'T a senior church official then!

He is now - see the McCloskey case I referred to in my previous post

ISAW wrote: »

Well obviously you already believe all clergy are members of an evil an corrupt organisation. With such bias it isn't any wonder you are only interested in witchhunts and not in the concern of the victims and their families.

I find it hard to understand how any normal human being can describe the RCC as anything other than a morally corrupt organisation. I don't care how many 'good' people remain in it - it is the ORGANISATION that is corrupt. You don't have to be a part of it. You can still follow your beliefs without them. And maybe we'd all be better off if thats what catholics chose to do.

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed it was and he felt he was wrong and admitted that!

Yeah - after 4 decades. Good man Sean.

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

If a banker commits adultery he is not breaking his contract of employment.

Exactly! His conditions of his office are related to the actual job he is doing and not whether he did something wrong or failed to act in a personal capacity in a separate incident over which another office had jurisdiction 30 years earlier!

If a Bishop commits adultery, well you know what the answer to that one.

do I? I'm not aware of any adulterous Bishops. Bishops don't marry and if they have sex with an unmarried woman it isn't adultery. In the past they didn't resign when they did this. And in the case of the one Bishop I am aware of his sexual relationship decades before was not the cause of his resignation. His movements of monies which he was legally entitled to do was.

The more important thing though is that if through inaction, coverup or deceit you facilitated the sexual abuse of innocent people you do not deserve to remain in position.

If you did something years ago nothing to do with your current contract and had reconciled your soul with God then yes why would you not deserve to stay?

Not all are still on the boards of banks. Many have been replaced but those remaining that facilitated our banking crisis should also leave.

But haven't! In fact have got fat bonuses for "downsizing"! You are making exceptions now.
How come you and the media aren't conducting a campaign of "who knew about the bad debts" and naming and shaming them?

Either way one wrong does not justify another.

Of course it doesn't but I am not trying to justify what Brady did or what bankers did. I am just saying that one should be even handed in pointing out what is wrong and how prevalent it was given the circumstances. it is a bit like singling out a retired bank manager who is now in NAMA for passing a bad cheque in ithe 1970s when he suspected that the cheque might be bad, but decided to allow the bearer the benefit of the doubt, and later found out the guy who he cashed the cheque was found guilty of millions in fraud. Instead of going after the billions in fraud by the offenders and refunding the victims of the fraud they concentrate on the bad cheque and how such a person should not be in NAMA. We are all (well most of us or a massive amount of the people ) partly to blame but we only want sinless people to be in charge. And no German voted for the Nazi party and they all drove ambulances during the war and opposed Hitler.

Never said that. I said that those who through inaction, coverup or deceit facilitated the sexual abuse of innocent people do not deserve to remain in position.

Fair enough. And most of them are dead ore retired now because the senior clergy wher in their fifties or more then and it was 40 years ago. Even the abusers from the 1970 who were in their 20s or 30s are 70 by now and probably retired. But they should have been retired and jailed then Ill give you that. the problem as I see it is LATER when the law and society changed in say post 1990 Ireland. People who are now senior clergy were senior clergy then and if they covered up things to protect the church and neglected vioctims AFTER the social context had changed and the rest of society the Gardai etc. had no resistance to investigating things then yes I agree the context applies then.

Brady isn't one of these people.

There were many legal challenges by bishops to stop the release of the truth. All of which were reported in the press.

Sweeping statement.
Care to list five challenges post 1990 and we can go into each one and possibly come up with names we think should resign. But I suspect that if we do come up with a name where it is clearly a churchman covering it up then they person has in fact resigned or retired by now.

You have to consider that I accept you are being contrite in all of this and want the best for the Church and the victims but others here think the Church is an evil on society and want to destroy the Church. That is their main goal and not the victims or improving the church. One cant inmprove democracy by destroying it in the process and the same goes for the Church.

Please Lord grant me the power to physiologically torture them into loving you!

These scandals has not ruined society. The acts committed by the abusers is beyond contempt but if the church did the right thing at the time and didn't try to deceive the people it wouldnt have been such a scandal.

Well it would! But so what? And it wasnt only the church. The other 99 percent of abusers were not clergy but society didnt want them mentioned either. Because of scandal.

If they were seen to protect and act on these issues many other abusers may not have had the freedom to commit these sick acts.

Quite probably true. and if the people of Germany had forseen what Hitler would do they should have done something to prevent him coming to power. they erred. They were wrong. But hat happened happened. That does not mean that the Holocaust was justified or that or "anti Nazi" Stalinist show trials were right either. The abuse can be wrong and the witchhunt wrong as well.

Many victims have stated that they were pressured into keeping their silence but even those who wanted to make it public were condemned or challenged in court. Hardly worth defending!

But it is a different point! The point as people keep reminding me is about Brady's behaviour in the case of two teenage boys abused by Smyth and not about the 99 percent of non clerical trials. I am not trying to defend the families of victims who covered anything up Or any church leaders that did.

Moving on it's clear that after 27 pages of debate we will never agree.

About what? about those who are responsible in positions of authority resigning? i agree with that. I just dont think Brady was such a person and I think anti catholic elements are happy to latch on to the media hype in any attempt to damage the church whether or not it is for the good of society. Of course their belief is that anything that damags the Church is for the good of society. But this is a hidden agenda which is dressed up as concern for improving the Church.

People make mistakes and even the Pope acknowledges those in charge of the Irish church did wrong over the past decades. So to answer the original question, I do not support the primate's position.

What position? Or do you mean you do not support him having the office of Cardinal over the Irish church? Based on something he was not responsible for over 30 years ago?

This is not about one mistake but his continued inaction and coverup in subsequent years.

By Brady? What continued coverup did he do?

Even until recently the church of which he is primate did every legally possible to hide the truth by challenging reports.

I would not accept that interpretation but so what? By "until recently" do you mean BEFORE he was Primate? If so then surely you are contradicting yourself and he actually effected the truth coming out?

Transparency and confidence in our leadership is what is needed for faith be be rebuilt in the RCC.

But if transparency increased AFTER he took up office then surely that is something in which to be confident?

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Dissolving the church? Where did I say that?

Where you stated:" But sacking the RCC? What disruption would that cause? Not much - so lets do it."

I just want the RCC & every other church to be removed from any aspect of how the state is run.

And how are they so attached? the constitutional "special place" was removed decades ago. But the constitution respects that the vast majority of Irish are Christian. Most people in Ireland want a place for God. You however don't want that do you? You don't want what most people want. You want a godless society. Would yuou like this enforced in the constitution? Would you like state atheism? The record of atheistic states is far far worse than any abuse scandals in Ireland or anywhere else.

You agenda seems quite clear. The state should be atheistic. If witchhunting Brady works towards this then you are happy to do this. Your interest in Brady is in now way an interest concerned with improving the Church.

Believers can go off & believe in whatever they want & worship whoever they want without having any influence on the rest of us.

the rest of us being a tiny minority! But irinically you have to come to a believers forum and tell them about the evils of the church being involved in anything to do with the state!
that is your agenda! It is the "evil" of belief and nothing to do with improving any religion.

And this is not about the supposed 99% of 'innocents'.

I referred to the 99 per cent of non clerical abusers NOT IN THE CHURCH! I never said they were innocent. The most abuse in history was by atheistic regimes who killed more than anyone but im not going into that either.

It is about a morally corrupt organisation that these people insist on remaining members of.

Yes - what people?- most people in Ireland! Over four million of them! But you of course know better than them and your "State atheism" will soon sort them out. The cheek of them for believing in any God.

Would you remain a member of any non-religious organisation that systematically covered up abuse at the scale the RCC did?

Well the question is leading and I dont agree with the premise but I think people remained in the Republican party after Watergate.

What about the McCloskey brothers who were persuaded to sign a confidentiality agreement as recently as 2006?

I don't know?
What about them? what have they to do with Brady in the Smyth case? are you going into a list of unrelated cases ? Should i delve into my list of atheistic Nazis and Atheistic Stalinist show trials?

Then one of them committed suicide just 2 days after that meeting? When the surviving brother asked for them to drop the agreement, they refused - and still refuse. And this only 4 years ago? And under the leadership of the good cardinal. Don't fool yourself into believing they have changed.

Could you post some evidence of Brady's role in this case?
Here are some facts . Brady became Cardinal in 2007
Peter Mc Closky died in 2006
The local Ordinary was Bishop Murray and not Bishop Brady. I dont know who was Bishop at the time of the Abuse in Limerick in the 1970s.

Peter McCloskey’s wife Cathy, from whom he was separated for six years before he died, said she felt his death was being used to get Bishop Murray’s “head on a plate”.

Smyth offended several times after that meeting in the 70s.

and where was Bradey at that time and what office did he hold?

I don't care if Brady was a priest, a cardinal or the pope - HE COULD HAVE REPORTED IT.

Not to the gardai he couldnt if he wasnt in Ireland. He couldnt report any other case and he was not a witness to the Smyth abuse of the two boys so that would be hearsay as well. the only people who could report it to the Gardai in law would be the victims or their guardians.

Are you so blinded by your church that you have forgotten what is right & what is wrong?

What Smyth did was wrong but you can't blame Brady alone for that. Nor can ytou say it is the Church or clergy only that is at fault. the other 99 per cent of abusers were not clergy!

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

If you saw abuse in your workplace & reported it to your boss. Then nothing is done. Would you take it further?

Whether or not I would ( due to other societal pressures for example if I was raped I might not report it) - I should because it is the right thing to do.

this of course is assuming I SAW it happenening.Brady DIDNT see it ! His evidence is hearsay!
Suppose you saw a rape happening and your work colleague said "don't tell anyone" and the person who did it left the job. Say you report it to the Gardaiu and the gardai call to the place of work and interview the woman and she is informed you reported it. she ethen denies the whole thing and the guy who did it is overseas and she tell you she never wants to speak to you again and you may have caused a scandal and if this ever comes to court she will blame you and kill herself?

He is now - see the McCloskey case I referred to in my previous post

See my reply. He wasn't then either! Mc closkey died BEFORE Bradey became cardinal and I am not aware of ANY representations made to the Cardinal by his family. In fact they are trying to bring the case to the public courts as i understand it so Ill refer to it no more if it turns out it is sub judice. so that evidence for that line of argument can be abandoned.

I find it hard to understand how any normal human being can describe the RCC as anything other than a morally corrupt organisation.

Im not surprised. Let us ask you a few questions and see if you havce an honest answer.

do you believe in God?
do you believe either faith in God or religion is a positive thing for society?
Do you think the church is a negative influence on society?
do you think more than 4 million Irish Catholics do not represent what is "normal" and in fact that a tiny minority of atheists are "normal" ?

I don't care how many 'good' people remain in it - it is the ORGANISATION that is corrupt. You don't have to be a part of it. You can still follow your beliefs without them. And maybe we'd all be better off if thats what catholics chose to do.

they wouldn't be Roman Catholics then! I wont rehearse the Reformation and Counter Reformation. I suspect you are not interested in Echumanism or interdenominational relations in Christianity either because I suspect you think all Christianity is not for the good of siociety so your argument of attacking one element of it is pointless.

Yeah - after 4 decades. Good man Sean.

just because an offical announcement was made does not mean the church hasnt changed in the meantime. Im sure you have heard of "The Gallileo Affair"?

lmaopml

The Pope has accepted the resignation of the Bishop of Cloyne...

Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of Bishop of Cloyne John Magee.
The Vatican made the announcement at 11am.
Bishop Magee stood aside last March over his mishandling of abuse allegations in his diocese.

From RTE.ie


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0324/abuse.html

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

Where you stated:" But sacking the RCC? What disruption would that cause? Not much - so lets do it."

Sacking church leaders is what I mean (but I think you knew that).

ISAW wrote: »

And how are they so attached? the constitutional "special place" was removed decades ago. But the constitution respects that the vast majority of Irish are Christian. Most people in Ireland want a place for God. You however don't want that do you? You don't want what most people want. You want a godless society. Would yuou like this enforced in the constitution? Would you like state atheism? The record of atheistic states is far far worse than any abuse scandals in Ireland or anywhere else.

What colour is the sky in your world? 'most people want a place for god?' Prove it - and again ticking a box on a census form doesn't prove anything. I could just as easily say that most people coudn't give two s**** about their religion & you couldn't prove otherwise no matter what you like to believe.

ISAW wrote: »

You agenda seems quite clear. The state should be atheistic. If witchhunting Brady works towards this then you are happy to do this. Your interest in Brady is in now way an interest concerned with improving the Church.

My 'agenda' is for a truly secular state that recognises the right of people to believe or not believe in anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. That includes the removal of the control of education from all religions.

ISAW wrote: »

the rest of us being a tiny minority! But irinically you have to come to a believers forum and tell them about the evils of the church being involved in anything to do with the state!
that is your agenda! It is the "evil" of belief and nothing to do with improving any religion.

Not as 'tiny' as you think. And yes - I have no interest in 'improving religion'. I'd prefer if it had no influence on this society at all. Why did you think I thought any differently?

ISAW wrote: »

I referred to the 99 per cent of non clerical abusers NOT IN THE CHURCH! I never said they were innocent. The most abuse in history was by atheistic regimes who killed more than anyone but im not going into that either.

Uhm - I think you just did 'go into it'

ISAW wrote: »

Yes - what people?- most people in Ireland! Over four million of them! But you of course know better than them and your "State atheism" will soon sort them out. The cheek of them for believing in any God. .

No problem with anyone believing in god - they are entitled to their own opinion. But you can still believe in god & have nothing to do with the RCC. Give it a try - you never know you might be a better christian for it.;)

ISAW wrote: »

Well the question is leading and I dont agree with the premise but I think people remained in the Republican party after Watergate.

And a lot of people left it.

ISAW wrote: »

I don't know?
What about them? what have they to do with Brady in the Smyth case? are you going into a list of unrelated cases ? Should i delve into my list of atheistic Nazis and Atheistic Stalinist show trials?

I brought this up because you defended Brady by saying that he was not part of the church authority at the time of the Smyth case. But he was by the time of the McCloskey case which is extremely similar in terms of gagging orders & private meetings. So you see - it is very relevant when it comed s to Brady.

ISAW wrote: »

Could you post some evidence of Brady's role in this case?
Here are some facts . Brady became Cardinal in 2007
Peter Mc Closky died in 2006
The local Ordinary was Bishop Murray and not Bishop Brady. I dont know who was Bishop at the time of the Abuse in Limerick in the 1970s.

But you absolved Brady of the Brady case because he wasn't part of the church authority. In the McCloskey case he was part of the church authority. And yet in the intervening 30 years nothing changed! Can yo unot see that???

ISAW wrote: »

and where was Bradey at that time and what office did he hold?

Irrelevent if he knew about Smyths subsequent abuse. What? - did he think Smyth would suddenly stop & become a good priest?

ISAW wrote: »

Not to the gardai he couldnt if he wasnt in Ireland. He couldnt report any other case and he was not a witness to the Smyth abuse of the two boys so that would be hearsay as well. the only people who could report it to the Gardai in law would be the victims or their guardians.

I'm not sure if you are serious or what.

ISAW wrote: »

What Smyth did was wrong but you can't blame Brady alone for that. Nor can ytou say it is the Church or clergy only that is at fault. the other 99 per cent of abusers were not clergy!

The church as an organisation covered up abuse again & again. In the words of the man himself - take the plank out of you own eye..........

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

Whether or not I would ( due to other societal pressures for example if I was raped I might not report it) - I should because it is the right thing to do.

this of course is assuming I SAW it happenening.Brady DIDNT see it ! His evidence is hearsay!

Written testimony from the victims is hardly heresay.

ISAW wrote: »

Suppose you saw a rape happening and your work colleague said "don't tell anyone" and the person who did it left the job. Say you report it to the Gardaiu and the gardai call to the place of work and interview the woman and she is informed you reported it. she ethen denies the whole thing and the guy who did it is overseas and she tell you she never wants to speak to you again and you may have caused a scandal and if this ever comes to court she will blame you and kill herself?

Sometimes doing the right thing is hard. Surely as a christian you should know that?

ISAW wrote: »

Im not surprised. Let us ask you a few questions and see if you havce an honest answer.

do you believe in God?
do you believe either faith in God or religion is a positive thing for society?
Do you think the church is a negative influence on society?
do you think more than 4 million Irish Catholics do not represent what is "normal" and in fact that a tiny minority of atheists are "normal" ?

1. No - I would have thought that was obvious by now.
2. Mostly no. They built some nice buildings though.
3. Yes - generally
4. I don't think there are 4 million catholics in Ireland.
The fact is, I live my life in as good a way as anyone else I know or know of. Being an atheist hasn't made me any less moral than any christian. But theres no point in saying any more about that as I can't prove it on an internet forum.

ISAW wrote: »

they wouldn't be Roman Catholics then! I wont rehearse the Reformation and Counter Reformation. I suspect you are not interested in Echumanism or interdenominational relations in Christianity either because I suspect you think all Christianity is not for the good of siociety so your argument of attacking one element of it is pointless.

So what if they're not catholics? They'd still be christians. And who said they'd have to have a reformation? Why start another religion. Why no just believe & worship in your own way. Why be a sheep?

ISAW wrote: »

just because an offical announcement was made does not mean the church hasnt changed in the meantime. Im sure you have heard of "The Gallileo Affair"?

But can you give me a reason why it took Brady nearly 4 decades to own up?

old hippy

Perhaps he was consumed with guilt or someone was about to dish the dirt? Allegedly.

goat2

underclass wrote: »

What institution and what's your name? Anonymous MSc's have no standing. To compare your half-hearted MSc to a Papal Letter is laughable.


The Church's mission is to save souls.

who,s souls
shurley not ours
saving their profit making organisation, more like

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Written testimony from the victims is hardly heresay.

It is. the statement isn't taken by a legal officer. He couldn't bring it into a court it would be thrown out as heresay. the Original victims would ahve to make the complaint and would have to have a legal officver validate the testimony and would have to be prepared to come into court.

Sometimes doing the right thing is hard. Surely as a christian you should know that?

Who said i was a Christian? Did I?
But the point is about not making hard decisions in the above case. doe sit warrant dismissal in a differnet job decades later. It is a bit like the policeman pursuing Jean valjean in "Les Miserables"

The Church is about the law of love not the love of law.

1. No - I would have thought that was obvious by now.
2. Mostly no. They built some nice buildings though.
3. Yes - generally

so that proves your anti catholic bias

4. I don't think there are 4 million catholics in Ireland.

You have been shown the 2006 census in the republic which shows 3.7 million!
the Diocese of Armagh (remember we are talking about the Bishop there) is mostly not in the Republic.

Do you really think that Northern Ireland which is about 50 per cent catholic has less than 600,000 population?

The fact is, I live my life in as good a way as anyone else I know or know of. Being an atheist hasn't made me any less moral than any christian. But theres no point in saying any more about that as I can't prove it on an internet forum.

so you are the judge of what is right and wrong? but you are argueing this shoul dnot be because you believe in laws to prevent people who say child abuse is right for them! therefore you believe the law is right! but what about when the law allows slavery or child abuse? so therefore there is a moral law which is overarching. From where does this moral law come?

So what if they're not catholics? They'd still be christians. And who said they'd have to have a reformation? Why start another religion. Why no just believe & worship in your own way. Why be a sheep?

Which is exactly the point I made. If they did that they would be starting another reformation.

But can you give me a reason why it took Brady nearly 4 decades to own up?

I can and I have but you would not know if it is the true one as it is just my opinion.

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

It is. the statement isn't taken by a legal officer. He couldn't bring it into a court it would be thrown out as heresay. the Original victims would ahve to make the complaint and would have to have a legal officver validate the testimony and would have to be prepared to come into court.

If it was reported to Gardai it would be up to them to investigate & take testimony. An opportunity they were denied

ISAW wrote: »

Who said i was a Christian? Did I?

You mean you're not? :eek:

ISAW wrote: »

so that proves your anti catholic bias

Correction - anti-organised religion bias. Just like you have pro-religion bias. Hence our inability to agree on many related subjects

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown the 2006 census in the republic which shows 3.7 million!
the Diocese of Armagh (remember we are talking about the Bishop there) is mostly not in the Republic.

Do you really think that Northern Ireland which is about 50 per cent catholic has less than 600,000 population?

I've been through this & made my point - I'm not sure if you are being awkward or if you just don't understand. TICKING A BOX ON A CENSUS FORM DOES NOT MAKE ONE A CATHOLIC. I'm not going to say that again.

ISAW wrote: »

so you are the judge of what is right and wrong? but you are argueing this shoul dnot be because you believe in laws to prevent people who say child abuse is right for them! therefore you believe the law is right! but what about when the law allows slavery or child abuse? so therefore there is a moral law which is overarching. From where does this moral law come?

Certainly not from the RCC thats for sure.

ISAW wrote: »

Which is exactly the point I made. If they did that they would be starting another reformation.

No they wouldn't. The reformation started numerous new churches all over the world. I'm talking about individuals deciding what they believe in themselves & living their lives by Jesus' teachings. Ask yourself this. Do you honestly think Jesus would be happy with his church? This was a guy who eschewed all luxuries, walked the land in sandals (apparently). He didn't say anything about his followers living in luxury, having their rings kissed & generally being treated like kings. I don't think he even advocated influencing state policies for their own ends. Just that they live their life in a certain way. So why don't people do that & shun that shower who are supposedlt representing god on earth?

ISAW wrote: »

I can and I have but you would not know if it is the true one as it is just my opinion.

I really don't think you have but I'm not going to ask you to repeat it as I really couldn't take any more. Suffice to say that McGee is gone, it looks like Lee will be next & surely its a matter of time before Brady goes as well. Although personally I won't be happy till there are criminal charges brought against anyone who actively covered up abuse.

--amadeus--

Why would Brady resign?

The Pope has done worse, and more recently (link)

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

If it was reported to Gardai it would be up to them to investigate & take testimony. An opportunity they were denied

Gardai cant investigate based in hearsay. If i say you were burgled and the gardai go to you and you say you weren't then the Gardai can't investigate my hearsay. It would seem the parents didn't want the truth to come out so it would be the guardians who had the legal standing to take press charges not Brady. If they were denied due process under law
it is because the parents didn't take it. It is true that Brady or some other churchman may have in turn influenced this but you are specifically dealing here with the point of who could or should have gone to the police. If you heard about e being raped and go to the Gardai and I deny the rape happened that is that. It is up to the witness actually there to report it. The Gardai cant act on your hearsay. They could not take a case even if you were an actual witness if I didn't want charges pressed. This has happened again and again in cases of wife beating for example.

You mean you're not? :eek:

I mean deal with the issue. what I am or am not isn't the point!

Correction - anti-organised religion bias. Just like you have pro-religion bias. Hence our inability to agree on many related subjects

I reject that notion! Which is partly why I point out that my religion or lack of it has nothing to do with the logic of my argument! And there are Christian anarchists.
It would appear one of your problems is with people who belief in Christ and not the Hierarchy concerned with some Christians. Because if you were opposed to non christian abusers to the same extent that you are to clerical abuse then you would be complaining about the OTHER 99 per cent of abusers. Why aren't you? i submit it is because you believe that believers in Christ naturally try to protect other believers in Christ from punishment. This isn't true!If people wanted to preserve an organisation (whether a Church one or a State one) it was not BECAUSE they were Christians! It was in SPITE OF being Christian!

I've been through this & made my point - I'm not sure if you are being awkward or if you just don't understand. TICKING A BOX ON A CENSUS FORM DOES NOT MAKE ONE A CATHOLIC. I'm not going to say that again.

It is a legal requirement to be honest. If people see themselves as Catholics then somehow you who are not even a Christian know better than them?

Certainly not from the RCC thats for sure.

I didn't ask from where it didn't come.
From where does your moral code come? what is it's source?

No they wouldn't. The reformation started numerous new churches all over the world.

No it didn't! You hae a mis conception. It started reformation within Christianity. the is only ONE Christian church. By far the vast majority of Christians accept that and I am not referring to only Roman Catholics. Anglicans , Orthodox, Syriac etc. ALL accept a CATHOLIC i.e. "Universal" Church.

I'm talking about individuals deciding what they believe in themselves & living their lives by Jesus' teachings.

Oh you are a Unitarian then?

Ask yourself this. Do you honestly think Jesus would be happy with his church?

do you mean would he be happy with child abuse by clergy in Ireland in the 1970s? No of course the wouldn't. He is also unhappy too about the other 99 percent of abusers who were not clergy. And he is unhappy about the reaction of authorities to it. Both Church and non church. the point is this is neither the fault of the Church alone and it certainly isn't the fault of Jesus.

This was a guy who eschewed all luxuries, walked the land in sandals (apparently). He didn't say anything about his followers living in luxury, having their rings kissed & generally being treated like kings.

People did treat Jesus like a king and kiss his feet at times. But you are on to a DIFFERENT topic. The worship of the material. It isn't the church who told irish people that they should buy property as highly inflated prices. the church didn't ask English high street stores in to Dublin. the church didn't say go out and by a 4 by 4 jeep. In gfact if yu wnt into a church at any time over the celtic Tiger era you would have heard about the problems with embracing the material.

Various christians in the past have highlighted this e.g. Francis of Assisi. The Pope and Bishops have little personal wealth or possessions and the church does not assist them in increasing it. Government ministers amass big pensions far and away above what the Pope will personally leave.

I don't think he even advocated influencing state policies for their own ends. Just that they live their life in a certain way. So why don't people do that & shun that shower who are supposedlt representing god on earth?

they do! that's why the reformation and counter reformation came about. The thing is what you mean by a "certain way" . If left to yourself your "certain way2 could be wrong.

I really don't think you have but I'm not going to ask you to repeat it as I really couldn't take any more.

i have! If you think i am lying Ill supply evidence and you can apologise for being wrong in your thinking. I posted in several posts "maybe" this or "maybe" that.

Suffice to say that McGee is gone,

i note his wiokipedia entry is already updated.
He was secretary to three Popes the only person in history to do so! But he was a Bishop in Ireland since 1987 and legal remifications include possibilities since the Criminal justuce Act of 2006. totally different to Brady in 1978 and for a different thread.

But what it does do is highlight that you r interest isn't in addresing the children abused in 1978 but in getting a Bishop to resign in 2010. Suffice iot to say that any bishop will do for you and the minutae of the Brady case don't seem to matter now.

it looks like Lee will be next & surely its a matter of time before Brady goes as well.

There you go again! Can't you stick to the issue? that of Brady.

Although personally I won't be happy till there are criminal charges brought against anyone who actively covered up abuse.

Reckless endangerment didn't exist in 1978! Nor did male rape. Brady was not the local ordinary. What crime do you suggest Brady should be charged with?

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Why would Brady resign?

The Pope has done worse, and more recently (link)

[/quote]

Which you say "in my opinion" and "seemingly"? Not very conclusive is it?

and in which you say of people on this thread

"We have had 28 or so pages with apologists defending Brady's refusal to consider resignation."

I certainly didn't do that. I think he should consider resignation but he should not be badgered into it by atheists and anticatholics who have no interest in the future of the church and think the church is a blight on society.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

Of course it doesn't but I am not trying to justify what Brady did or what bankers did. I am just saying that one should be even handed in pointing out what is wrong and how prevalent it was given the circumstances. it is a bit like singling out a retired bank manager who is now in NAMA for passing a bad cheque in ithe 1970s when he suspected that the cheque might be bad, but decided to allow the bearer the benefit of the doubt, and later found out the guy who he cashed the cheque was found guilty of millions in fraud. Instead of going after the billions in fraud by the offenders and refunding the victims of the fraud they concentrate on the bad cheque and how such a person should not be in NAMA.

I'm presuming that you are not making the mistake of comparing fraud (regardless of the amount) with child rape

ISAW wrote: »

Sweeping statement.
Care to list five challenges post 1990 and we can go into each one and possibly come up with names we think should resign. But I suspect that if we do come up with a name where it is clearly a churchman covering it up then they person has in fact resigned or retired by now.

Well, lets start with Dessie Connell's high court challenge. Explain that please.

ISAW wrote: »

But it is a different point! The point as people keep reminding me is about Brady's behaviour in the case of two teenage boys abused by Smyth and not about the 99 percent of non clerical trials. I am not trying to defend the families of victims who covered anything up Or any church leaders that did.

OK then. I accept that there may be a possibility (subject to any garda and DPP assessments) that he may not legally have been able to press for charges.
However:
* in the 18 years did/could he do anything to ensure that Smyth was not allowed near children?
* did he ever check up on Smyth to see if there had been any additional reports on his actions?
* when he discovered that there would not be a criminal side to Smyth (following his interviews with the victims) did he discuss the matter with gardai to see if anything could be done?
* did Brady present himself as a witness to the Attorney General's office offering information about Smyth's previous actions?
* did Brady present himself as a witness to the RUC when Smyth was finally extradited?
* did Brady actually do anything to persuade the Norbertines to hand Smyth over to the authorities when he hid in Kilnacrot for several years whilst on the run?

ISAW wrote: »

The Church is about the law of love not the love of law.

Unless you love someone of the same sex!

ISAW wrote: »

You have been shown the 2006 census in the republic which shows 3.7 million!

The census shows that effectively 3.7 million people ticked that box. I'd be confident in saying that a lot of these do not go to mass more than once a month and that they do not pray that frequently either. I'm sure many of them break rules (stupid rules IMO) laid down by the church (contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, divorce for example). Under Herr Ratzinger's ambition for the church, surely they are not Catholic? (He even wanted us to stop children getting dressed up on Halloween FFS)
What, to you, defines a Catholic and do many of the 3.7 million meet these criteria?

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Why would Brady resign?

The Pope has done worse, and more recently (link)

Hands up who didn't see that coming?

Blueboyd

"Give the Vatican what belongs to the Vatican, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine."

I think this criticism of the Vatican is understandable and people have every right to question its policies.

But I wish more pressure would be put on the Gardai and the politicians.

I think asking RCC to confess their sins is like asking the Nazis if they admitted they did wrong - and if I remember correctly it was only Albert Speer who had any remorse at the Nuremberg trial or after.

To focus more on Gardai and the politicians. That could bring real change. Not to report a severe crime should be a crime itself. And crimes like rape and child abuse should be able to be prosecuted without the consent of the victim or the agressor by the public prosecutor. Also can't understand that government made a deal with the church not to prosecute these findings of the Murphy report. That is disgusting. And top of it all - the status of the Vatican as a state and its diplomatic immunity should be questioned and governments that disagree should be put pressure on.


What it comes to Brady he didn't hide the thing just back in the days - he hid it also in 2009 2008 2007 etc.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

Gardai cant investigate based in hearsay. If i say you were burgled and the gardai go to you and you say you weren't then the Gardai can't investigate my hearsay. It would seem the parents didn't want the truth to come out so it would be the guardians who had the legal standing to take press charges not Brady. If they were denied due process under law

Based on that though, the gardai cannot investigate something if they are not told about it. Whilst the family for whatever reason did not go to the gardai, the church were in a position to inform the gardai who could have followed up on it, and should the victims and their families decide to proceed with criminal actions then Smyth presumably would have ended up in court. From what has been reported this never happened.

ISAW wrote: »

it is because the parents didn't take it. It is true that Brady or some other churchman may have in turn influenced this but you are specifically dealing here with the point of who could or should have gone to the police. If you heard about e being raped and go to the Gardai and I deny the rape happened that is that. It is up to the witness actually there to report it. The Gardai cant act on your hearsay. They could not take a case even if you were an actual witness if I didn't want charges pressed. This has happened again and again in cases of wife beating for example.

Anyone, especially someone as respoected as a priest with two degrees (one being in canon law) could have gone to the gardai and gotten advice. The gardai could then have taken action should they believe the priest (which presumably they would have).

ISAW wrote: »

It is a legal requirement to be honest.

What if you are using mental reservation?

Seth Brundle

<offtopic>

Blueboyd wrote: »

And crimes like rape and child abuse should be able to be prosecuted without the consent of the victim or the agressor by the public prosecutor.

And force a victim into another situation that they don't want to be in. It takes a huge amount of courage for a victim to be able to stand up and face their attacker. You cannot force someone to be courageous.
It's only in recent years that the victim is getting rights. Lets not take them away again.</offtopic>

Blueboyd

kbannon wrote: »

<offtopic>And force a victim into another situation that they don't want to be in. It takes a huge amount of courage for a victim to be able to stand up and face their attacker. You cannot force someone to be courageous.
It's only in recent years that the victim is getting rights. Lets not take them away again.</offtopic>

Being part of the society gives you rights but also responsibilities towards others. It can be arranged that the victim and the agressor are never face to face. The trial can be behind closed doors also.

But consider this if Brady hid this thing for years and because of that more children were abused so did also the victim hide it. The victim should have as much responsibility to report the crime cos that would save hundreds of others. There should be zero tolerance for child abuse.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

I'm presuming that you are not making the mistake of comparing fraud (regardless of the amount) with child rape

Years ago rape was the criminals crime and all over the tabloids. Now it is child rape. What I am comparing is a crime committed in 1978 with today.
But you remind me of a scene i think from "Bowling for columbine2 wher Moore goes to "make a pitch" for a new TV series to a TV executive. At the time "COPS" was a big series and he was saying that he is always seeing a black guy from the projects whith his shirt off being held on the ground by a police officer kneeling on his back and cuffing him from behind to the tune of "bad Boyz". his idea was "corporate cops" wher they go into finance houses and cuff dodgy finance executives.

Yeas the guy who slaps his wife around is a nasty piece of work but just take Anglo Irish Bank who are now claiming theyat they need another 14 billion after a 40 BILLION baleout!
And they need to pay themselves an extra half million in bonuses for telling us this. But don't compare them to a man who slaps his wife around because they would never do that.

it is very convenient for the media to distract people with the gutter press stories while the serious business gets done. Ninety per cent of media stories are titillarion and entertainment. Chomsky has a lot to say on this. did I write "say" sorry i meant to suggest you read him as he is quite bad in interview.

Well, lets start with Dessie Connell's high court challenge. Explain that please.

and it relates to Brady in 1978 in which way?

OK then. I accept that there may be a possibility (subject to any garda and DPP assessments) that he may not legally have been able to press for charges.
However:
* in the 18 years did/could he do anything to ensure that Smyth was not allowed near children?

Asked and answered. He is cardinal since 2007 and you were shown what he did since then. He was not in Ireland and became a Bishop in Armagh in 1994. the abuse was in 1975, Smyth was arrested in 1991 and extradited in 1994.

* did he ever check up on Smyth to see if there had been any additional reports on his actions?

In 1994 when he arrived in Ireland?

* when he discovered that there would not be a criminal side to Smyth (following his interviews with the victims) did he discuss the matter with gardai to see if anything could be done?

Not to my knowledge. He may have unofficially but no official criminal report could be or was filed. Brady was working in the Republic at the time. reporting it wo the Gardai would do nothing since extradition didn't exist. Gardai didnt relate to RCU that much. His Biushop was in the separate juristiction Northern Ireland and Brady reported the abuse to the Bishop and the Bishop blocked Smyth as a prioest in the Diocese and returned him to his order and gave them the report.

* did Brady present himself as a witness to the Attorney General's office offering information about Smyth's previous actions once

His only role was in recording notes at an interview in relation to two boys OUTSIDE THE STATE in Northern Ireland. I think the Attourney General didn't have this case as it would nbe for his Northern Ireland counterpart the DPP in N Ireland to assess. But I would think if he was called from Switzerland at the time by the AG ot NIDPP he might have come and given a statement. It is unlikely such an unprossable case would however be called . Thety already had a hundred other cases with adequate evidence.

* did Brady present himself as a witness to the RUC when Smyth was finally extradited?

Extradited with what Prima Faciae evidence? If there was any relating to Brady in 1975 then Brady should have corroborated this but as i stated that didn't exist in the charges. Adding lesser charges unlikely to secure a conviction wasn't necessary.

* did Brady actually do anything to persuade the Norbertines to hand Smyth over to the authorities when he was held/hid there for several years whilst on the run?

This period ended before Brady became the local Ordinary. it is a biot like saying you become the DPP in 2015 and I ask you why in 2010 you didnt instruct the gardai to prosecute a case. You weren't in the job at the time!

Unless you love someone of the same sex!

the church isn't opposed to love of the same sex or even homosexuality. It is against acts heterosexual acts under many circumstances or homosexual acts.

The census shows that effectively 3.7 million people ticked that box. I'd be confident in saying that a lot of these do not go to mass more than once a month and that they do not pray that frequently either.

You would be the authority to judge that? Do you have any parish involment? do you go to church? do you pray? do you even believe in God? Are your friends like you? so how then do you think you know so much about people not like you?
I already told you the church do their own census. Mass attendance is high and rising.
If there is a problem it is confession. You don't know what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country#Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion

I'm sure many of them break rules

People do sin. that does not mean the sinner shouldn't or the sin doesn't exist.

Under Herr Ratzinger's ambition for the church, surely they are not Catholic? (He even wanted us to stop children getting dressed up on Halloween FFS

"Herr" Ratzinger? alluding to naziism? And Halloween isn't a Christian celebration.
Christmas (originally also a pagan feast) is also being lost in over consumption.

What, to you, defines a Catholic and do many of the 3.7 million meet these criteria?
Hands up who didn't see that coming?

http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Catholicism