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
12357…131

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Outrage wrote: »
    I live in the suburbs of Dublin in 2010 in a society where the phenomenon of child rape is known about. I'd go to the police if a family member were abused. I honestly don't know what I'd do if I lived in 1960 in a small town in Ireland where gossip was rife, even pornography was unheard of and everyone knew everyone else (and everyone knew the local Garda).

    What a difference 50 years makes! But the thing is we aren't talking about 50 years, this scandal was 35 years ago. While I can see the psychology behind a subordinate-superior relationship - where the subordinate often assumes that things will get done simply because the superior is the superior - being some sort of defence for Brady. One imagines that the Cardinal was aware that Smyth was still a free man years after he conducted these interviews.

    I realise that in their own shamefully inadequate way the Church did try to do something about Smyth - he was on a number of occasions sent for intensive counselling - but the fact is that this man should have been locked up in a padded cell, not passed around like a hot potato. And I believe that there are still some in the Church that just... don't... get... it...

    I don't think Brady is a bad man - quite the contrary - but he didn't do the right thing - either at the time (possibly somewhat understandable) or later. The RCC is foundering on scandals of their own making. Unless the Church can be seen to be willing to be accountable for its sins and not come up with excuses or write pastoral letters, then I believe it has a long way to fall yet. It might simply be best for all involved if he stepped down.


  • Options
    #123
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Good. Because you'll have a job on your hands trying to nail Cardinal Brady to a cross.

    You need to redirect your attention to the real victims in all of this.
    Understood?


    Take a good look at this video and then tell me who's the victim in all of this.
    Instead of wasting our collective time.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jHqndf9Kx4


  • Options
    #124
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    What is the crime that the then Father Brady "allegedly" committed please? Please quote the law you refer to.

    Where did I say that Brady committed a crime?


    I have said repeatedly that Brady's decision making is what is being called in to question.


    You're becoming tedious at this point.


  • Options
    #125
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    hinault wrote: »

    You're becoming tedious at this point.


    In all fairness, given that your spat now spans two threads, both of you are becoming tedious. How about calling a truce?


  • Options
    #126
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    Where did I say that Brady committed a crime?

    I'm glad you've essentially clarified that you are not alleging that Fr Brady committed a crime. We're making progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'm glad you've essentially clarified that you are not alleging that Fr Brady committed a crime. We're making progress.

    The only allegation I made concerned Sean Brady's decision making ability.


  • Options
    #128
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    The only allegation I made concerned Sean Brady's decision making ability.

    How can you "allege" something and at the same time admit that he has committed no crime? lol Specifically, what are you "alleging"? What ability (or lack thereof) and what decision do you refer to? I assume you have access to the full facts?


  • Options
    #129
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    How can you "alledge" something and at the same time admit that he has committed no crime? lol Specifically, what are you "alledging"?

    What am I "alledging"?

    I am alleging that Sean Brady's decision making ability is being questioned.


  • Options
    #130
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    I am alleging that Sean Brady's decision making ability is being questioned.

    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.


  • Options
    #131
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    hinault wrote: »
    What am I "alledging"?

    Edited at 1:41


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    casey junior
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭casey junior


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    As is yours


  • Options
    #133
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    casey junior wrote: »
    As is yours

    The difference is, I am on the side of those with opinions that matter. The Church-haters crib and moan from the sidelines and have no power, money or influence worth talking about: they're a disorganised mess of chip-on-the-shoulder types who are prone to in-fighting and transfixed by their meagre earthly posessions.


  • Options
    #134
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Outrage wrote: »
    Edited at 1:41


    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D


  • Options
    #135
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Outrage wrote: »
    Great. Your anonymous opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

    Outrage, either calm down or you will be taking a break from the forum.

    You don't have to live up to your screen name with every post.


  • Options
    #136
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Ultravid wrote: »
    I am not in a position to decide one way or the other. But I will say this: the man did what he thought was right at the time.

    So he is saying that he believes child rape was acceptable then.

    Could any body here tell me when he might have changed his mind and decided that child abuse was wrong.


  • Options
    #137
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    So he is saying that he believes child rape was acceptable then.

    Could any body here tell me when he might have changed his mind and decided that child abuse was wrong.

    For better or worse that was the nature of Irish society at the time, things where to be covered up.

    It doesn't excuse his actions, but it does provide a context in which you can understand why what happened happened.

    This wasn't limited to the catholic church but was a symptom of Irish society at the time, the Irish church merely reflected Irish cultural norms for the time.


  • Options
    #138
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    http://www.mcguirk.eu/?p=863


  • Options
    #139
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Outrage wrote: »
    Cardinal Brady has committed no crime and is entitled to his good name until he is charged and convicted in a a court of law. His impeccable career is testimoney to his unerring character.

    That is only your opinion.

    I believe that he has committed a crime. Morality a crime against humanity.

    Anybody that believes its OK not to report child abuse to the proper authorities is very much misguided.
    (and the proper authorities are not members of the institution that is carrying out the abuse)

    A person knowing about child rape and not reporting it(again to the proper authorities) is as guilty as the abuser themselfs.


  • Options
    #140
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    That is only your opinion.
    He has led an impeccable career. That is not an opinion. It's a fact.
    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    I believe that he has committed a crime.
    Fair play to you. You should go down to your local Garda station and make a statement. I mean any person "knowing about child rape and not reporting it... [blah, blah]".
    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    A person knowing about child rape and not reporting it(again to the proper authorities) is as guilty as the abuser themselfs.
    The child or the child's family came to the Church; not the guards. How do you know the child or the child's family even wanted the local Garda to know about the scandal? That they even wanted to stand in a public court? There was no anonymous protection back then like there is today. The point I am making is this: you don't have the full facts. Therefore, your foaming-at-the-mouth screaming "child abuser" is the stuff of Koo Klux Klan marches.


  • Options
    #141
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    Rev Hellfire wrote: »
    For better or worse that was the nature of Irish society at the time, things where to be covered up.

    It doesn't excuse his actions, but it does provide a context in which you can understand why what happened happened.

    This wasn't limited to the catholic church but was a symptom of Irish society at the time, the Irish church merely reflected Irish cultural norms for the time.

    A society that was very heavily influenced and in some cases almost policed by the Catholic Church. Sad but true.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    Rev Hellfire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    A society that was very heavily influenced and in some cases almost policed by the Catholic Church. Sad but true.
    That was a two way door, just as the society reflected the attitudes of the Irish church so too was the Irish church influenced by the Irish people who guided it and attended to it. It’s a bit disingenuous for the Irish to throw their hands up and say we had nothing to do with it, t’was that nasty church.

    They may have the Llions share of the blame, but the Irish in general aren’t coming off spotless either.

    imho etc etc.


  • Options
    #143
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    I suppose it could be said that he is responsible for every child that has been abused by a priest since 1975?
    Say for example the child in question reported the crime to somebody like an irish erin brockovich, it would have been made public and kickstarted the whole process of weeding out these criminals in 1975. That would have prevented 1000's of lives being ruined. Instead the cardinal made the poor kid keep the little "secret".


  • Options
    #144
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Ultravid wrote: »
    Any priest who harms a child or young person (or anyone else, especially sexually) should be subject to severe punishment and be sent to spend his days in penance in a spartan monastery. I believe this was the case before Vatican II. Before humanistic psychology ran riot through the Church.
    Outrage wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth was a serial paedophile who accounted for a huge proportion of the abuse. He should have been sent to an enclosed monastery where speaking was not allowed (as he probably was). I can speculate that not only was he a pervert, but he was also a defiant, disobedient ****er who took orders from nobody until he was dragged away in chains by the civil authorities. I fear he is currently burning in hell. I can only hope that he begged for God's forgiveness while in prison.
    These church inflicted punishments would, I presume, be after they had served the appropriate sentences laid down by the courts if they found guilty?

    MrP


  • Options
    #145
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    I suppose it could be said that he is responsible for every child that has been abused by a priest since 1975?

    Sigh. Would you apply that logic to Mary McAleese, Mary Robinson, Patrick Hillery and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh?

    (* you do realise that Cardinal Brady has been Primate of All Ireland since 2007 and not 1975, dont you?)


  • Options
    #146
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users Posts: 205 ✭✭dunleakelleher


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

    Yes Cardinal Brady is guilty of misprision of felony. It was a civil law at the time and he can (but wont) be charged.

    So all those poor misguided posters who say he didn't commit any crime are wrong. He did and by his own admission is guilty.


  • Options
    #147
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    dunleakelleher wrote: »
    misprision of felony

    Lol. I'm sure the DPP is very interested.

    Also, where is that law that you refer to on the statute books please? :lol:


  • Options
    #148
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Outrage wrote: »
    Sigh. Would you apply that logic to Mary McAleese, Mary Robinson, Patrick Hillery and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh?

    (* you do realise that Cardinal Brady has been Primate of All Ireland since 2007 and not 1975, dont you?)

    His position has nothing to do do with what i said. He was told something very serious in 1975 and the child was silenced.


  • Options
    #149
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    His position has nothing to do do with what i said. He was told something very serious in 1975 and the child was silenced.

    Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

    Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.


  • Options
    #150
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    the_dark_side wrote: »
    I posted the above yesterday.....
    today's headlines
    http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0318/abuse.html


    Flood gates appearing to opening, DS.

    As an RC, I welcome the exposure of the crimes committed.

    Because left to the institutional RCC nothing would ever be exposed or admitted to, by the criminals or the hierarchy who aided and abetted those criminal perverts.

    All RC's should welcome the exposure and criminal prosecution of these criminal clerical perverts.

    I am truly sorry to the victims of abuse, that these criminal acts were committed by the clerical perverts in the first place.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    mehfesto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,277 ✭✭✭mehfesto


    Outrage wrote: »
    Oh so you have the full facts now do you?

    Ever considered that the child's family may also have wanted the protection of an oath of silence? I doubt you have, because you are quite evidently blinded by feigned outrage.

    Can I ask why a family would have wanted the Oath of silence maintained?


Advertisement