The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Seth Brundle

Blueboyd wrote: »

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.

Whilst a zero tolerance policy for any kind of attacker is preferable are you seriously suggesting that victims be forced to give evidence and relive their experience?
The victims needs should come first. Whilst this may be frustrating for the likes of the gardai, it is necessary. I would imagine that anyone close to the victim including any gardai would want the attacker to be punished and would also mention how if left free the attacker may keep attacking.
However, a vulnerable victim just may not want to pursue it regardless and that's their (legal) right.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

Based on that though, the gardai cannot investigate something if they are not told about it.

100 per cent correct!
And they can't even investigate it if they are not told about it by the victim (or theor representative in the case of a minor) since there is no "locus standi"

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.

YES "should the families proceed" and not "Should the person who took notes at the interview proceed"

From what has been reported this never happened.

Yes. From what has been reported. I don't know if Brady went back to Cavan and mentioned it to a local Garda or another Priest who would and could do nothing about it anyway.

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.

I don't know he didn't but yes anyone could. and anyone with the knowledge at the time would probably have said it wasn't his place to investigate the matter or to initiate a separate criminal prosecution in a neighboring jurisdiction.

The gardai could then have taken action should they believe the priest (which presumably they would have).

No they couldn't since they didn't have juristiction! the crime happened in Northern Ireland.

What if you are using mental reservation?

I think that idea is a nonsense!

I would accept a priest lying only say if he was say caught by atheistic communists who were enforcing state atheism and asking him if he was a priest with the intention of executing him.

ISAW

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>

I have pointed this out and it is something I happen to agree with you on. But the main point is that such crimes didnt exist then under law. If Brady could be charged with anything (and he couldn't since is was outside the state) the only suggestion so for was in administering a false oath which is a misdemeanour and not a crime. Even then the "false oath" law is about organisations trying to subvert the State such as the IRA.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

The victims needs should come first.

This the CENTRAL point!

The allegation made is that the need to protect the church or state hierarchy came first.
If Brady or anyone else inside or outside the Church did what they did for this reason they were wrong.

But Ill draw your attention to the fact that for some posters the need to destroy the church or the need to get a Bishop to resign is put before the need of the victim.

Blueboyd

kbannon wrote: »

Whilst a zero tolerance policy for any kind of attacker is preferable are you seriously suggesting that victims be forced to give evidence and relive their experience?
The victims needs should come first. Whilst this may be frustrating for the likes of the gardai, it is necessary. I would imagine that anyone close to the victim including any gardai would want the attacker to be punished and would also mention how if left free the attacker may keep attacking.
However, a vulnerable victim just may not want to pursue it regardless and that's their (legal) right.

Yes I seriously suggest that. However the situation should be made as "friendly" as possible where statments are gathered. The victim can have a shrink or anyone by her side. In court written testimonies are enough, have identity protected etc.

The point is in front of law all people should be equal. With equal rights and obligations.

And top of it all it would help a lot in domestic violence cases too because there are lots of cases were the victim goes to police but then withdraws her allegations in the mind set of - "He is such good man - he only beats me on Fridays you know. And I think he has changed now." And the beating goes on for years. It is well documented fact that victims also often (but not always) - tries to find justfication for the agressors actions. I think pros call it "the kidnapping syndrome" or something.

Like I said there should be zero tolerance for violence in society. The argessors should be dragged to court no matter if he is just man from the street or pope himself. No collar should protect any criminal. But sentences can by forced only by eveidence and fact.

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

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.

I don't follow - are you comparing the crime of fraud to that of abuse?

ISAW wrote: »

and it relates to Brady in 1978 in which way?

Not much but given your original question:

ISAW wrote:

Quote:
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.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

He was not in Ireland? Does that mean he could have done nothing? COuld he have made requests to any bishops or cardinals here? Could he have asked the then pope?
I personally don't accept that he could have done nothing.

ISAW wrote: »

In 1994 when he arrived in Ireland?

Twenty years after he first discovered Smyth's atrocoties. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

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.

I understand that no criminal record was filed. However, given that Brady has not said "well I passed the info that I was aware of onto the gardai" we can safely assume that he didn't. He could easily have do so (and therefore allowing the gardai to follow it up with a real investigation) but chose not to.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

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.

Ok then - whoever was processing the extradition paperwork on either side.
He could have approached them and said "I was part of a process that investigated similar claims of abuse in the early 70s. If I can be of any help, I will do so gladly". They may well have said "thanks but no thanks". We'll never know because he did not approach them.

ISAW wrote: »

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!

No its not.
Smith had information about a rampant paedophile who by then was on the run.
He did not have to be a bishop to have made requests to the norbertines to hand over Smyth.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

But as we are discovering it had no problem concealing details of this type of act against children?
I'm confused.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

What I am is irrelevant.
of the 3.7m people who ticked the box - do they meet the criteria for being a Catholic (as per the Church's idea)

ISAW wrote: »

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

Christianity <> Roman Catholicism
Anyway, I'm not sure what you want me to infer from that.

ISAW wrote: »

"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.

1. I didn't mention that Ratzinger alluded to be a nazi (correct me if I'm wrong but he was though) - I mentioned somewthing regarding the church (couldn't be bothered searching for it)
2. So what if Halloween isn't a Christian celebration. Is May day? Should we only celebrate Christian festivals? I suppose it would further his goal of stopping secularisation. Is the man demented enough to think that kids dressing up on Halloween are going to become satanists?

ISAW wrote: »

http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/Catholicism

Helpful but still does not define what one needs to do to be a Roman Catholic (in the eyes of the pope).
If I don't go to mass as I still a Roman Catholic? How frequently should I go to confession?* What happens if I give myself one off the wrist? I'd like to know how or when one goes from being a proper RC to not. Do you seriously think that the vast majority of the 3.7 million people who claim to be RC meet the standards?





* off topic but why should I be judged by a man when I can confess to God myself?

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

100 per cent correct!
And they can't even investigate it if they are not told about it by the victim (or theor representative in the case of a minor) since there is no "locus standi"
...<snip>

I just believe that (based on Brady's non admittance of any actions) that he did not approach anyone at all apart from his superiors about the matter. He would have been aware on whether or not Smyth was caught (as it would have been in every paper in the world in those times).
He didn't follow it up and Smyth went free. The gardai weren't given the opportunity to discuss the issue with the victim/victims families and this was due in part to Brady and anyone else within the RCC who knew of Smyths actions.

ISAW wrote: »

I have pointed this out and it is something I happen to agree with you on. But the main point is that such crimes didnt exist then under law. If Brady could be charged with anything (and he couldn't since is was outside the state) the only suggestion so for was in administering a false oath which is a misdemeanour and not a crime. Even then the "false oath" law is about organisations trying to subvert the State such as the IRA.

I don't recall suggesting that Brady should be charged. If there is something for him to be charged under then the gardai/DPP will presumably follow up on it.
My angle on this is that I personally don't believe that he has the credibility to remain as primate of Ireland which effectively controls most of our schools.

ISAW wrote: »

This the CENTRAL point!

The allegation made is that the need to protect the church or state hierarchy came first.
If Brady or anyone else inside or outside the Church did what they did for this reason they were wrong.

But Ill draw your attention to the fact that for some posters the need to destroy the church or the need to get a Bishop to resign is put before the need of the victim.

I'm not some
I don't want the church destroyed. I want resignations where appropriate, dismissals where appropriate and also promotions where appropriate.
It does certainly look like the organisation has and is actively concealing the truth.
What I would like is that the church came back down to basics, became an honourable institution that people could be proud of and not one that people expect to be drip fed details of scandal after scandal. This will take a lot of time but before any of that can happen, there has to be a clear-out.

Blueboyd wrote: »

Yes I seriously suggest that. However the situation should be made as "friendly" as possible where statments are gathered. The victim can have a shrink or anyone by her side. In court written testimonies are enough, have identity protected etc.

You have never met a rape victim then I take it.

Blueboyd wrote: »

The point is in front of law all people should be equal. With equal rights and obligations.

And top of it all it would help a lot in domestic violence cases too because there are lots of cases were the victim goes to police but then withdraws her allegations in the mind set of - "He is such good man - he only beats me on Fridays you know. And I think he has changed now." And the beating goes on for years. It is well documented fact that victims also often (but not always) - tries to find justfication for the agressors actions. I think pros call it "the kidnapping syndrome" or something.

Like I said there should be zero tolerance for violence in society. The argessors should be dragged to court no matter if he is just man from the street or pope himself. No collar should protect any criminal. But sentences can by forced only by eveidence and fact.

Nobody is suggesting that criminals should be protected. The law explicitly tries to show compassion towards the victim and if this ends up with the rapist going unpunished then the law feels that this is worth it for the sake of the victim.
If you were a passenger in speeding car would you report the driver? Should you be charged if you don't report it. I'm not trying to compare speeding to rape. I am trying to show that the laws have to be practical as well as showing governance.

Blueboyd

kbannon wrote: »

You have never met a rape victim then I take it.

Actually I just met one only few minutes ago.

kbannon wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that criminals should be protected. The law explicitly tries to show compassion towards the victim and if this ends up with the rapist going unpunished then the law feels that this is worth it for the sake of the victim.
If you were a passenger in speeding car would you report the driver? Should you be charged if you don't report it. I'm not trying to compare speeding to rape. I am trying to show that the laws have to be practical as well as showing governance.

Like I said this should apply only to severe crimes - crimes against humanity, rape, child abuse etc. not speeding. I can understand your sympathy for the victims but should the victim's momentary well being be more important than hundreds of others that could be saved.

goat2

prinz wrote: »

er yes that is the point of a Pastoral Letter.



There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.

point these changes out
i have not seen any
i doubt i will see any now
as i no longer go to mass
i do pray to God and will always beleive

prinz

goat2 wrote: »

point these changes out
i have not seen any
i doubt i will see any now

Please visit the diocesan websites, particularly Dublin, for the frequent Press Releases on Child Protection measures which are in place.

Ash.J.Williams

kbannon wrote: »

I just believe that (based on Brady's non admittance of any actions) that he did not approach anyone at all apart from his superiors about the matter. He would have been aware on whether or not Smyth was caught (as it would have been in every paper in the world in those times).
He didn't follow it up and Smyth went free. The gardai weren't given the opportunity to discuss the issue with the victim/victims families and this was due in part to Brady and anyone else within the RCC who knew of Smyths actions.
I don't recall suggesting that Brady should be charged. If there is something for him to be charged under then the gardai/DPP will presumably follow up on it.
My angle on this is that I personally don't believe that he has the credibility to remain as primate of Ireland which effectively controls most of our schools.
I'm not some
I don't want the church destroyed. I want resignations where appropriate, dismissals where appropriate and also promotions where appropriate.
It does certainly look like the organisation has and is actively concealing the truth.
What I would like is that the church came back down to basics, became an honourable institution that people could be proud of and not one that people expect to be drip fed details of scandal after scandal. This will take a lot of time but before any of that can happen, there has to be a clear-out.
You have never met a rape victim then I take it.
Nobody is suggesting that criminals should be protected. The law explicitly tries to show compassion towards the victim and if this ends up with the rapist going unpunished then the law feels that this is worth it for the sake of the victim.
If you were a passenger in speeding car would you report the driver? Should you be charged if you don't report it. I'm not trying to compare speeding to rape. I am trying to show that the laws have to be practical as well as showing governance.

If compasion to a victim means a rapist can go free, then the law is wrong and the victim is selfish. A rapist in Galway went free and an angel of a swiss student died a horrific death as a result.

Bduffman

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
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. ?

Irrelevant. Brady could have reported it & didn't. Thats on his conscience.

ISAW wrote: »

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

So why did you ask me if I believed in god? Surely thats not the point either.

ISAW wrote: »

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'm talking about abusers & their protectors in the RCC because that is the topic we are discussing. if you want to talk about the same in other organisations then bring it up in the relevant forum.
And how come the logic of your argument is not affected by your belief and yet the logic of my argument is affected by my 'anti-catholic bias'?

ISAW wrote: »

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?

I'm sure Brendan Smyth saw himself as a catholic & a christian. Did that make him one?

ISAW wrote: »

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

Dunno I wouldn't be arrogant to claim to know. I know where it didn't come from though. Do you think that if you didn't have the RCC to guide your morals that you would be raping & murdering without conscience?

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Yes but why be in a church at all - especially the RCC. If they can't change in 2000 years what makes you thin they will change in the future?

ISAW wrote: »

Oh you are a Unitarian then?

I thought that was something to do with not believing in the trinity? Thats like saying I don't believe in blue unicorns - oh and every other colour unicorn.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

No - not whether he is happy about child abusers. But whether he is happy about the organisation systematically covering up child abuse.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

No but maybe they just wanted a taste of the luxury that bishops, cardinals & successive popes have?

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Well they hardly need personal possessions when they have everything they could possibly need supplied to them. Just because its not in their name means nothing.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

TBH I don't really care - they can tear themselves apart for all I care.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

Just another thing for us to disagree on.

ISAW wrote: »

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.

I can't help the abused children in 1978 (or every other year for that matter), but I would like to see justice done.

ISAW wrote: »

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

I said - and I quote - "it looks like Lee will be next & surely its a matter of time before Brady goes as well".
How is that not to do with Brady - I even mentioned him???

ISAW wrote: »

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?

We'll wait & see. maybe they won't be able to pin anything on him personally. But I'm sure they will on many Bishops eventually &, who knows - maybe the pope as well;)

kelly1

VATICAN CITY, 25 MAR 2010 (VIS) - Given below is the complete text of the English-language declaration made yesterday, 24 March, by Holy See Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi S.J. to the New York Times:



"The tragic case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, a priest of the archdiocese of Milwaukee, involved particularly vulnerable victims who suffered terribly from what he did. By sexually abusing children who were hearing-impaired, Fr. Murphy violated the law and, more importantly, the sacred trust that his victims had placed in him.



"During the mid-1970s, some of Fr. Murphy's victims reported his abuse to civil authorities, who investigated him at that time; however, according to news reports, that investigation was dropped. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was not informed of the matter until some twenty years later.



"It has been suggested that a relationship exists between the application of 'Crimen sollicitationis' and the non-reporting of child abuse to civil authorities in this case. In fact, there is no such relationship. Indeed, contrary to some statements that have circulated in the press, neither 'Crimen' nor the Code of Canon Law ever prohibited the reporting of child abuse to law enforcement authorities.



"In the late 1990s, after over two decades had passed since the abuse had been reported to diocesan officials and the police, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented for the first time with the question of how to treat the Murphy case canonically. The Congregation was informed of the matter because it involved solicitation in the confessional, which is a violation of the Sacrament of Penance. It is important to note that the canonical question presented to the Congregation was unrelated to any potential civil or criminal proceedings against Fr. Murphy.



"In such cases, the Code of Canon Law does not envision automatic penalties, but recommends that a judgment be made not excluding even the greatest ecclesiastical penalty of dismissal from the clerical state. In light of the facts that Fr. Murphy was elderly and in very poor health, and that he was living in seclusion and no allegations of abuse had been reported in over 20 years, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested that the archbishop of Milwaukee give consideration to addressing the situation by, for example, restricting Fr. Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Fr. Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts. Fr. Murphy died approximately four months later, without further incident".



Also on 24 March, Bishop John Magee S.P.S. of Cloyne, Ireland, released the following English-language statement following the Holy Father's acceptance of his resignation from the pastoral care of his diocese:



"On 9 March 2010 I tendered my resignation as bishop of Cloyne to the Holy Father. I have been informed today that it has been accepted, and as I depart, I want to offer once again my sincere apologies to any person who has been abused by any priest of the diocese of Cloyne during my time as bishop or at any time. To those whom I have failed in any way, or through any omission of mine have made suffer, I beg forgiveness and pardon. As I said on Christmas Eve 2008 after the publication report of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland, I take full responsibility for the criticism of our management of issues contained in that report.



"On 7 March 2009 the Holy See appointed Fr. Dermot Clifford as apostolic administrator of the diocese of Cloyne. This was in response to a request I had made to be relieved of the burden of administering the diocese so that I could concentrate on co-operating with the Government Commission of Investigation into child protection procedures in the diocese in my capacity as bishop of Cloyne. I will of course continue to be available to the Commission of Investigation at any time.



"I also sincerely hope that the work and the findings of the Commission of Investigation will be of some help towards healing for those who have been abused.



"I welcome the fact that my offer of resignation has been accepted, and I thank the priests, religious and faithful of the diocese for their support during my time as bishop of Cloyne, and assure them of a place in my prayers always".

OP/MURPHY CASE MAGEE/LOMBARDI VIS 100325 (740)

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

I don't follow - are you comparing the crime of fraud to that of abuse?

A already mentioned rape of a male wasn't a crime in 1975. But i am outlining the the media and others want to latch onto stories of sleeze whether of Bishops or football players or golfers which have no criminal basis and are only about the sordid details of peoples private lives.

Not much but given your original question:

In relation to what specific point?

He was not in Ireland? Does that mean he could have done nothing?

Legally even if in Ireland he could not have pressed any charges. He might have been able to ask something be done internally but he was not a member of the hierarchy and in any case people are criticising him and anyone else in the church for going along church rather than state lines.

COuld he have made requests to any bishops or cardinals here?

Probably not . If by could you mean "had any authority to" or "would be listened to".

Could he have asked the then pope?

Unlikely. even Bishops get to meet the pope only once every four years and he wasn't a Bishop then.

I personally don't accept that he could have done nothing.

I think yo mean "done anything" but given the climate in Ireland even people outside the Church didn't do things. Were you around at the time?

Twenty years after he first discovered Smyth's atrocoties. :rolleyes:

Twenty two years later he came back and Smyth was at that time imprisoned in the North.

I understand that no criminal record was filed. However, given that Brady has not said "well I passed the info that I was aware of onto the gardai" we can safely assume that he didn't.

No he didn't it would seem. given that the offence was in Northern Ireland and the statements taken there it is unlikely the gardai would act.

He could easily have do so (and therefore allowing the gardai to follow it up with a real investigation) but chose not to.

I think you may mean the RUC but I think I have already dealt with that. Locus standi , local Ordinary etc.

Ok then - whoever was processing the extradition paperwork on either side.
He could have approached them and said "I was part of a process that investigated similar claims of abuse in the early 70s. If I can be of any help, I will do so gladly".

Yeah maybe and as I stated the gardai would have asked the DPP who would have said "no locus standi" and gone with the cases he felt would secure conviction for more serious crimes.

They may well have said "thanks but no thanks". We'll never know because he did not approach them.

He didn't approach the Swiss or Italian police either and we will never know if they would have done anything abut Smyth either. As they were also in the wrong country i don't expect they would.

No its not.
Smith

I think you mean "Brady"

had information about a rampant paedophile who by then was on the run.

He had non corroborated hearsay testimony of something from another jurisdiction which was a lesser crime than that Smyth was charged with and which was neither stated in a prioma faciae case or on the extradition warrant.

He did not have to be a bishop to have made requests to the norbertines to hand over Smyth.

he might have been aware that the local Bishop had acted in this case and thought he couldn't countermand that.

of the 3.7m people who ticked the box - do they meet the criteria for being a Catholic (as per the Church's idea)

Well why wouldn't they?

Christianity <> Roman Catholicism

Catholic = Universal= Christian

Anyway, I'm not sure what you want me to infer from that.
1. I didn't mention that Ratzinger alluded to be a nazi (correct me if I'm wrong but he was though) - I mentioned somewthing regarding the church (couldn't be bothered searching for it)

The use of the word "herr" as if it denotes a nazi is what I was referring to.
He joined the Hitler youth for ONE DAY and then left!
He was not a Nazi.

2. So what if Halloween isn't a Christian celebration.

Christians shouldn't emphasise it.

Is May day?

The Marian festival month?

Should we only celebrate Christian festivals?

If you are a christian celebrating for christian purposes?

I suppose it would further his goal of stopping secularisation. Is the man demented enough to think that kids dressing up on Halloween are going to become satanists?

i don't go in for that type of stuff no more than the serior vatican Prioest last week going on about excorcisms.

But do you believe in demonic possession? i happen to think claims of such might let people like Smyth off the hook . But might be true in his case.

Helpful but still does not define what one needs to do to be a Roman Catholic (in the eyes of the pope)

click on the link marked "Roman Catholic Church"

If I don't go to mass as I still a Roman Catholic? How frequently should I go to confession?* What happens if I give myself one off the wrist? I'd like to know how or when one goes from being a proper RC to not. Do you seriously think that the vast majority of the 3.7 million people who claim to be RC meet the standards?

If you sin that does not mean you stop being a Christian.

* off topic but why should I be judged by a man when I can confess to God myself?

all Christians confess to got himself not to any man.

the idea ironically is that a Priest hearing a confession might be able to prevent you doing the same thing again by offering advice and guidance.

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Irrelevant. Brady could have reported it & didn't. Thats on his conscience.

It is debatable what he could have reported to the Gardai or whether it would have any effect. I have already covered that.

So why did you ask me if I believed in god? Surely thats not the point either.

Because clearly people posting to a Christianity are expected to debate as someone actually interested in Christianity and not interested in doing Christianity or any belief in God down as militant atheists might. Tis possible to be an atheist and not anti Catholic however. Furthermore i didn't make an issue of whether I believe or don't.

I'm talking about abusers & their protectors in the RCC because that is the topic we are discussing.

Well people earlier kept telling me it was Brady's position as Primate but if you are broadening the net to include all hierarchy fair enough. why not broaden it further to include the other 99 per cent of non clerical offenders and the people who covered up for them?

if you want to talk about the same in other organisations then bring it up in the relevant forum.

Im just highlighting that some of the people so concerned about clerical abuse in the 1970s seem little concerned about the non clerical abuse.

And how come the logic of your argument is not affected by your belief and yet the logic of my argument is affected by my 'anti-catholic bias'?

Because I didn't make an issue of my personal belief or lack of it. Others have demonstrated anti Catholic bias.

I'm sure Brendan Smyth saw himself as a catholic & a christian. Did that make him one?

Not very Christian. I wonder sometimes whether people like that are evil or insane.

Dunno I wouldn't be arrogant to claim to know.

so you don't know if ther is a source to your morality? Have you told anyone else this?
If you don't know about right and wrong should you be informing some authority on it?

I know where it didn't come from though. Do you think that if you didn't have the RCC to guide your morals that you would be raping & murdering without conscience?

I didnt claim they do for me personally . But if you mean "would people be more lawless in a society without moral guidance" ? WEll christianity did a an influence on soceity and did make some mistakes but th influence was for the better. Atheistic communism for example killed about 100 million people in the twentieth century alone.

Yes but why be in a church at all - especially the RCC. If they can't change in 2000 years what makes you thin they will change in the future?

Can't change what? They have changed an in fact have different traditions and ways of doing things in every culture they are in. Christianity isn't the rigid thing you make it out to be. dogma however is another matter but that is only in a few instances

I thought that was something to do with not believing in the trinity? Thats like saying I don't believe in blue unicorns - oh and every other colour unicorn.

forgive my flippancy but one can posit it is more like exactly what you claimed - making up your own mind personally what Christianity is - including dogma.

No - not whether he is happy about child abusers. But whether he is happy about the organisation systematically covering up child abuse.

Christ isn't . Nor is Brady.

No but maybe they just wanted a taste of the luxury that bishops, cardinals & successive popes have?

have "in the past" . Few now join the priesthood for material reasons. although as yo suggest you have a job for life, house , pensions etc.

Well they hardly need personal possessions when they have everything they could possibly need supplied to them.

But the British royal family are some of the wealthiest people in the world. If the UK got rid of the monarchy and de coupled the Royal family from the State they would still have huge personal wealth. Likewisr government Ministers "hardly need" but still get hundreds of thousands in personal pensions and weekly pay cheques.

Just because its not in their name means nothing.

So inheritance law means nothing? Not actually having something in your name means nothing? You seem to have a "noughties " idea of life compard to older people who saved for their possessions. Someone in their forties or above thinks about paying a mortgage or a car payment and thinks "I wil own that car/flat in 5/30 years time" . someone in their thirties or below looks at at computer car flat and says "this is 10/20/100 a week" when the money goes the thing goes and they don't think actually owning makes any difference just having the use of it until someone stops paying.

TBH I don't really care - they can tear themselves apart for all I care.

Exactly you don't care about the Church and would be happy to see it gone!
so you comments on Brady are with that bias in mind.

Just another thing for us to disagree on.

No it is a matter of FACT not opinion! I posted some of the other possibilities.
You just don't believe I did. Im not lying.

I can't help the abused children in 1978 (or every other year for that matter), but I would like to see justice done.

Justice according to what ifs fair for all or justice according to someone who wants the church destroyed?

I said - and I quote - "it looks like Lee will be next & surely its a matter of time before Brady goes as well".
How is that not to do with Brady - I even mentioned him???

Because - as I pointed out- criminal charges associated with something in 2007 didn't exist in 1977. and Brady was not in the position of local ordinary when the events concerning him happened.

We'll wait & see. maybe they won't be able to pin anything on him personally. But I'm sure they will on many Bishops eventually &, who knows - maybe the pope as well;)

And I sure if you were in another group you would not accept people saying they are sure psychic powers will be proves one day. But you do seem to have faith in the destruction of the Church. Maybe it is something you pray for. But to whom i wonder?

ISAW

Blueboyd wrote: »

Yes I seriously suggest that. However the situation should be made as "friendly" as possible where statments are gathered. The victim can have a shrink or anyone by her side. In court written testimonies are enough, have identity protected etc.

The point is in front of law all people should be equal. With equal rights and obligations.

You have a problem with jurisprudence then because all people are NOT equal under law.

Foreigners don't have rights of residence. children don't have rights to vote or to have a bank account. company directors of a private company are not obliged to declare their investments or interests whereas those of a State company are. In some instances children have MORE rights such as the right to privacy.

And top of it all it would help a lot in domestic violence cases too because there are lots of cases were the victim goes to police but then withdraws her allegations in the mind set of - "He is such good man - he only beats me on Fridays you know. And I think he has changed now." And the beating goes on for years. It is well documented fact that victims also often (but not always) - tries to find justfication for the agressors actions. I think pros call it "the kidnapping syndrome" or something.

I think you might be referring to the Stockholm syndrome which is not the perfect analogy but does manifest in a power relationship when a subordinate becomes comfortable with the captor. usually this is because they are NOT mistreated and have sympathy for a "just cause" . that isn't the same.

Like I said there should be zero tolerance for violence in society. The argessors should be dragged to court no matter if he is just man from the street or pope himself.

Yeah beat the agressive people to the ground and drag them into court! How ironic. REsearch would however indicate "hard time" didn't solve the problem of violence o more than chopping of hands solves the problem of stealing. Also the gutter media focus in working class violent or sex crime and not on corporate or white collar crime. their job is to sensationalise and not to solve.

No collar should protect any criminal. But sentences can by forced only by eveidence and fact.

But if things are "equal" no lack of a collar should protect the other 99 per cent of offenders! what not devote say even fifty per cent of your time to discussing them?

ISAW

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

If compasion to a victim means a rapist can go free, then the law is wrong and the victim is selfish. A rapist in Galway went free and an angel of a swiss student died a horrific death as a result.

You have the jurisprudence wrong. The point of the criminal law isnt about punishing guilty people. It is more important that innocent people do not suffer. that is the principle behind "innocent until proven guilty" . It isn't about witchunting all the possible guilty people and making sure that ALL guilty are caught. If a guilty person has to go free in order not to risk the innocence of someone then that is what we have to do. Of course we could just lynch everyone suspected or accused of any crime but that would not be following the jurisprudence we have.

philiporeilly

It now appears according to Morning Ireland that the person who is currently suing Brady may be one of the two abuse victims he interviewed regarding Smyth in the 70s.

Brady has already apologised for his inaction and failings at the time but this all now seems to be just spin or lip service as recent documents lodged in the High Court show that Brady is doing everything possible to fight this case, even asking the victim to prove he was raped.

The victim also states that the church called an ecclesiastical court to deal with the allegations and he and his father were assured that Smyth would never be allowed to abuse children again.

So much for the arguments in this thread that this is what the victims wanted at the time!

This same victim states that years later his sister told him that Smyth was on TV for abusing many more children. He was shocked to find out that the church did nothing to stop Smyth and subsequently he became depressed and started drinking.

Brady says he is sorry for his inaction with this case in the 70s yet his very action today states otherwise.

He must go and now!

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

It now appears according to Morning Ireland that the person who is currently suing Brady may be one of the two abuse victims he interviewed regarding Smyth in the 70s.

REally that is interesting I didnt know that?
Please don't try to interfere witht the sub judice case then.

Brady has already apologised for his inaction and failings at the time but this all now seems to be just spin or lip service as recent documents lodged in the High Court show that Brady is doing everything possible to fight this case, even asking the victim to prove he was raped.

You have seen these documents have you?

The victim also states that the church called an ecclesiastical court to deal with the allegations and he and his father were assured that Smyth would never be allowed to abuse children again.

That is in the document you saw is it?

So much for the arguments in this thread that this is what the victims wanted at the time!

Which remains to be seen. But i am only going like you from reports saying their parents at the time didn't want it to come out.
Im quite happy for the church to reveal any of their own court doccuments and to show if they did indeed say Smyth would never be allowed abuse again . Maybe the court would make a decision if such a case can be made. But the case hasn't been heard so lets not try it here?

I'm out of this debate for a few weeks and await to see any court decisions.

Maybe moderators might consider freezing the thread

Seth Brundle

ISAW wrote: »

Maybe moderators might consider freezing the thread

+1

philiporeilly

ISAW wrote: »

REally that is interesting I didnt know that?
Please don't try to interfere witht the sub judice case then.

Still though, it shows Brady's apology as nothing more than lip service when he is using every legal avenue to challenge or refute abuse claims. Another reason for him to go.

ISAW wrote: »

You have seen these documents have you?

Those documents are on the record of the high court and have been reported in several reputable media sources. I'll post you my newspapers when finished if you want?

ISAW wrote: »

That is in the document you saw is it?

Same answer as above.

ISAW wrote: »

Which remains to be seen. But i am only going like you from reports saying their parents at the time didn't want it to come out.
Im quite happy for the church to reveal any of their own court doccuments and to show if they did indeed say Smyth would never be allowed abuse again . Maybe the court would make a decision if such a case can be made. But the case hasn't been heard so lets not try it here?

Still though it shows Brady as a man of poor character. Publicly apologise yet privately use every legal avenue to fight an abuse victim. He should go.

ISAW wrote: »

I'm out of this debate for a few weeks and await to see any court decisions.

Maybe moderators might consider freezing the thread

You are not the only person here on this debate who is on side for Brady to stay. Why should a thread be closed just because one person is unavailable? Never heard of that before!

Tigger

the question is on the opinion of catholics on this issue
the courts have nothing to do with it

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

S

You are not the only person here on this debate who is on side for Brady to stay.

I'm not on either side. Maybe he should go or maybe he shoudl stay. I just don't think many contributers are interested in that because they are more interested in a witch hunt or in anything that makes the church look bad.

Why should a thread be closed just because one person is unavailable? Never heard of that before!

No . It should be temporarily closed maybe because of current court proceedings. If the case in in court it isn't wise to discuss it in a public forum until it has concluded as an opinion might be expressed which could prejudice the case.

Ash.J.Williams

ISAW wrote: »

I'm not on either side. Maybe he should go or maybe he shoudl stay. I just don't think many contributers are interested in that because they are more interested in a witch hunt or in anything that makes the church look bad.



No . It should be temporarily closed maybe because of current court proceedings. If the case in in court it isn't wise to discuss it in a public forum until it has concluded as an opinion might be expressed which could prejudice the case.

Ah i don't think people are trying to make the church look bad, they have done great work on that over the years themselves. People are just sick of people getting away scott free.
There will be more controversy after the paedo situation is dealt with. There will be unidentified mass graves discovered near religious and former religious centres, dating back to the 60's and beyond.

ISAW

kbannon wrote: »

+1

what does plus 1 mean?

ISAW

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Ah i don't think people are trying to make the church look bad, they have done great work on that over the years themselves.

Really? As opposed to atheistic regimes who killed hundreds of millions of people?

People are just sick of people getting away scott free.

clerics have been put in prison. And if you include the brothers nuns etc. the amount of abusers comes to way less than one per cent. If people are so interested that then half percent or less of abusers who are monks/clergy and who are not behind bars why are they not interested in the other 99 per cent of non clerical non church abusers?

There will be more controversy after the paedo situation is dealt with. There will be unidentified mass graves discovered near religious and former religious centres, dating back to the 60's and beyond.

You are referring to Newgrange?

ISAW

philiporeilly wrote: »

Those documents are on the record of the high court and have been reported in several reputable media sources. I'll post you my newspapers when finished if you want?

None of the newspapers mention what case what date who is taking it etc.

Still though it shows Brady as a man of poor character. Publicly apologise yet privately use every legal avenue to fight an abuse victim.

so he shouldn't be entitled to legal defence against anyone accusing him?

ISAW

Tigger wrote: »

the question is on the opinion of catholics on this issue
the courts have nothing to do with it

that may well be the question but many posters are not catholic and are anti Catholic. some posters referred to a current case based on newspaper reports. But if there is a current case what they post may affect that case.

Ash.J.Williams

This reminds me of Religion in school! Goddamn catholics will just keep arguing!!

I quit, Catholics are great, the church is wonderful, Ireland is not a country messed up in the head from church control!!

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

what does plus 1 mean?

It means someone is agreeing with you. Enjoy the novelty of the experience.