Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Options
13567…131

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    sarahlulu wrote: »
    I would want it to be my decision.

    And the victims / parents had no powers of decision of their own?


  • Options
    #63
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    How is he causing any pain to anyone? ............

    Saves me typing....

    me_right_one wrote: »
    .....He should have gone to the guards, but he didnt. He fcuked up, chickened out. .........

    The sexual/physical abuse caused by a few priests is terrible but the institution denying / scorning abuse victims and covering up has caused far more damage and pain. That's why he should go.


  • Options
    #64
    WesternNight
    Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Outrage wrote: »
    The Cardinal won't be resigning. Get used to it.

    You're closely connected, are you?

    The original question posed will be answered more than once by more than one person. Get used to it.


  • Options
    #65
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Where is the line drawn?

    Should priests that abuse/rape children be listened to as long as they teach the faith? Are they worthy of being listened to?

    No they are not worthy of being listened to. But Sean Brady never abused/raped anyone.


  • Options
    #66
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Sean Brady.:)

    Great contribution there.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great contribution there.

    reference was made to Sean Ryan.


  • Options
    #68
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    WesternNight wrote: »
    You're closely connected, are you?

    The original question posed will be answered more than once by more than one person. Get used to it.

    Actually, you're wrong (yet again). I'm a Mass-going layperson. A sinner who prays regularly and strives to live like Jesus. I have every faith in the Church and her mission on this earth. Where do you get your moral guidance from? The State? The latest fad of public opinion? From inside your own mind and what little knowledge you've acquired up to now?


  • Options
    #69
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    reference was made to Sean Ryan.

    Do you think I can't read? Have you had too many cheap beers on this, our national holiday?


  • Options
    #70
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Do you think I can't read? Have you had too many cheap beers on this, our national holiday?

    What's your problem, mate?

    It's obvious you can't read because you failed to notice that incorrect name reference to the cardinal.

    And no, the only drink I had today was Earl Gray tea.


  • Options
    #71
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    The sexual/physical abuse caused by a few priests is terrible but the institution denying / scorning abuse victims and covering up has caused far more damage and pain. That's why he should go.

    How do you know that the child/family that suffered abuse at the hands of a perverted priest didn't want anonymity? That they didn't want the protection of an oath of secrecy with the penalty of excommunication? In this ooh so liberal society, it's very hard for people to be scandalised. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1960's abuse victim and tell me that you'd want the whole town to know that you were abused at the hands of a perverted priest.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    What's your problem, mate?

    It's obvious you can't read because you failed to notice that incorrect name reference to the cardinal.

    And no, the only drink I had today was Earl Gray tea.

    Oh deary, deary me... I think it's time you went to bed.

    Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Duit.


  • Options
    #73
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    No they are not worthy of being listened to. But Sean Brady never abused/raped anyone.

    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.


  • Options
    #74
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.

    I note that you can't answer some direct questions. Do you have a good explanation for this?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64957797&postcount=58


  • Options
    #75
    testicle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,430 ✭✭✭testicle


    This is the only primate who's position I support...

    763px-Olive_baboon.jpg


  • Options
    #76
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    How do you know that the child/family that suffered abuse at the hands of a perverted priest didn't want anonymity? That they didn't want the protection of an oath of secrecy with the penalty of excommunication? In this ooh so liberal society, it's very hard for people to be scandalised. Put yourself in the shoes of a 1960's abuse victim and tell me that you'd want the whole town to know that you were abused at the hands of a perverted priest.

    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

    Today, yesterday, a thousand years ago..... its wrong to knowingly allow anyone the risk of being abused through inaction or deception.


  • Options
    #77
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    No he didnt but he kept quiet for 20yrs
    <<<relevant

    philiporeilly wrote: »
    and rose through the ranks while a known child rapist had free reign.

    It's possible that the institution that did everything to stop these acts from becoming public knowledge saw something in him by promoting him again and again over those years.
    <<<irrelevant

    Saves me typing;)


  • Options
    #78
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note that you can't answer some direct questions. Do you have a good explanation for this?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64957797&postcount=58

    So many posts missed that one but I believe my previous posts answer your question.

    It's not up to anyone in the church to decide whether abuse should be reported or not. It should be reported in every case to protect the victim(s) and to save others.


  • Options
    #79
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

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

    Also what are these "1960s ideals" that you speak of?

    I note you still are having difficulty answering direct questions.


  • Options
    #80
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    me_right_one wrote: »
    <<<irrelevant

    Saves me typing;)

    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.


  • Options
    #81
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.

    I'll ask you again: who was Fr Brady's Bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time? Do you even know the answer to this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    WesternNight
    Registered Users Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    Outrage wrote: »
    You're not an abuse victim.

    What kind of thing is that to assume? How do you know who is and who isn't? You seem to think you know people here personally. You have no idea whether people who've posted here are abuse victims, relatives of abuse victims, or just bystanders.


  • Options
    #83
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still are having difficulty answering direct questions.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    It's not up to anyone in the church to decide whether abuse should be reported or not. It should be reported in every case to protect the victim(s) and to save others.

    thought i said the above a few times.

    He failed, his superiors failed, and he has no credibility left for repairing the damage caused by these scandals.


  • Options
    #84
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    thought i said the above a few times.

    He failed, his superiors failed, and he has no credibility left for repairing the damage caused by these scandals.

    Who were Fr Brady's superiors? Do you even know what you are talking about?


  • Options
    #85
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    WesternNight wrote: »
    What kind of thing is that to assume? How do you know who is and who isn't? You seem to think you know people here personally. You have no idea whether people who've posted here are abuse victims, relatives of abuse victims, or just bystanders.


    Exactly.


  • Options
    #86
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I doubt the hundreds of abuse victims would see it as irrelevant that someone who rose through the ranks of the church did nothing to report this over those years.

    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?


  • Options
    #87
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Who were Fr Brady's superiors? Do you even know what you are talking about?

    The Bishop (McKiernan) to whom Brady reported the abuse, failed to report the matter to the police.

    Throughout the entire spectrum of abuse cases highlighted in the industrial schools, the abuse highlighted in the parishes and individual cases of abuse by the likes of Brendan Smyth, Ivan Payne and other criminals,those cases were not reported to the police by the IRCC at the time.
    In fact, it would appear that the IRCC at various levels attempted to subvert the testimony of the people making the allegations of abuse.

    The failure to report those crimes is no defence.

    The crimes should have been reported.


  • Options
    #88
    me_right_one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,043 ✭✭✭me_right_one


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Those 1960s ideals were professed and beaten into people by the same church that continues to coverup.

    Ah I see, we're talking about two different churches. You must be on about scientology or something, cos my church, the Roman Catholic Church as its known, the direct church Jesus set up in 0000 never beat year-based ideals into anyone, and they certainly aren't continuing to cover up any past wrongs some paedophiles-disguised-as-priests committed. Note I used the word continuing, the same word you used. I for one cant turn on the tele without apologies and resignations and inquires filling my sitting room. You're on a loser there with that scientology.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Today, yesterday, a thousand years ago..... its wrong to knowingly allow anyone the risk of being abused through inaction or deception.

    100% correct. Its a far less wrong than actually abusing someone, but a wrong nonetheless. It definately warrants an apology.
    When Brady found out that brendan smith had abused children, it was during the course of an investigation. This meant it WAS being dealt with. How was Brady to know his boss wouldnt tell the guards? How was Brady to know brendan smith would do it again? How was he to know whether or not smith ever did it again? Being a priest doesnt make you psychic. If anyone should be criticised it should be Brady's boss, but he's dead now. He is well-and-truly paying for any crimes he committed now.


  • Options
    #89
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?

    Bishop McKiernan.


    Cardinal Conway.


  • Options
    #90
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Outrage wrote: »
    I note you still can't present even basic facts: who was Fr Brady's bishop and who was the Primate of All Ireland at the time?

    Wan't even born at the time but websites like this help http://tinyurl.com/ycl9hd2

    As I said earlier he was wrong, his superiors were wrong by not protecting victims of decades of abuse


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    me_right_one wrote: »
    Its a far less wrong than actually abusing someone, but a wrong nonetheless. It definately warrants an apology.
    When Brady found out that brendan smith had abused children, it was during the course of an investigation. This meant it WAS being dealt with. How was Brady to know his boss wouldnt tell the guards? How was Brady to know brendan smith would do it again? How was he to know whether or not smith ever did it again? Being a priest doesnt make you psychic. If anyone should be criticised it should be Brady's boss, but he's dead now. He is well-and-truly paying for any crimes he committed now.

    But Brendan Smyth had been a known abuser since 1950's.

    The IRCC institution knew he was an abuser : his abuses had been documented by various agencies.

    Smyth should have been reported/charged/tried.


Advertisement