The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Stephentlig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But if he tries to argue that he should keep his job despite admitting to what you say is a major blunder then surely the position of the catholic church in Ireland is that the rules should apply to no one?

I'm sure the Catholic Church would be confident that the rule would apply to those who did it with malicious intent.

but thats not the case with Cardinal Sean Brady

the state should also consider making a law that anyone who fails to act in the future and did so with malicious intent should be made resign.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Bduffman

Outrage wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think? You should read the Cardinal's speech from yesterday: a very humbling and moving collection of words.

No, I don't believe they care about anything anyone outside what the church thinks. Which is fair enough. But being supported by a small minority of the population as some sort of justification for him staying a a cardinal (and indeed for him not being investigated by the authorities) frankly smacks of a desperate bunker mentality.

Glenster

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But if he tries to argue that he should keep his job despite admitting to what you say is a major blunder then surely the position of the catholic church in Ireland is that the rules should apply to no one?

The position of the catholic church is that everyone can find forgiveness. He's not some petty elected politician, he's different. A political party only cares about it's image, if there's even a whiff of a scandal and they can get away with it they'll jettison someone so fast....., one would hope the catholic church cares more about doing what is morally right.

If the Holy see thinks it's better that he steps down, you'd better believe that he'll step down. Maybe it would be better for the world if he atoned for his sins by cleaning up the Irish Church. Maybe not.

Then again, maybe we all just smell blood and want to see a hanging.

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm sure the Catholic Church would be confident that the rule would apply to those who did it with malicious intent.

but thats not the case with Cardinal Sean Brady

the state should also consider making a law that anyone who fails to act in the future and did so with malicious intent should be made resign.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. That's we already have a law against withholding information from the gardai about a crime, it's called perverting the course of justice.

Glenster

dunleakelleher wrote: »

I can only see one common denominator here. The Roman catholic church.

I've cracked it! Working off your investigation into common demoninators I've done some of my own research.

The one strand that keeps popping up in all instances of Child molestation,
in every corner of the earth,

in every situation,

involving girls and boys,

is,




Paedophiles.



Ban paedophiles and we can stop all child molestation. Simples.

Not that simple? What do you mean?

Sam Vimes

Glenster wrote: »

The position of the catholic church is that everyone can find forgiveness. He's not some petty elected politician, he's different. A political party only cares about it's image, if there's even a whiff of a scandal and they can get away with it they'll jettison someone so fast....., one would hope the catholic church cares more about doing what is morally right.

That's absolutely hilarious. The catholic church did everything they possibly could to obstruct these investigations, making people swear oaths of secrecy is just the tip of the iceberg. Even today we're still finding out what happened in dribs and drabs because they're still keeping their mouths shut. The hierarchy of the catholic church did not behave the way it did because it cares about what's morally right, it did what it did to protect its image at all costs. The most laughable thing I've heard in this whole fiasco is when they suggested that the tax payer should pick up the bill for the high priced lawyers that they employed to try to get out of admitting anything, followed closely by the suggestion that the people should pay the costs themselves. At least a normal rapist doesn't ask you to pay them afterwards.

Glenster wrote: »

If the Holy see thinks it's better that he steps down, you'd better believe that he'll step down. Maybe it would be better for the world if he atoned for his sins by cleaning up the Irish Church. Maybe not.

Then again, maybe we all just smell blood and want to see a hanging.

with the revelations that are now coming out in Germany, it looks to me like if the holy see came out and publicly said he should step down his own position would be at risk.

Stephentlig

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Agreed, but the man who never made a mistake never made anything.

That's we already have a law against withholding information from the gardai about a crime, it's called perverting the course of justice.

then why werent the gardai and Hse (whom the media unveiled) who failed to act in such cases in the past made resign? this is something we must look at also.

Cardinal Sean Brady assures us that he didnt do it with malicious intent and he doesnt see why he should resign. I'm in agreement with him there.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

Agreed, but the man who never made a mistake never made anything.

But a real man owns up to his mistakes and faces the consequences

Stephentlig wrote: »

then why werent the gardai and Hse (whom the media unveiled) who failed to act in such cases in the past made resign? this is something we must look at also.

I totally agree.

Stephentlig wrote: »

Cardinal Sean Brady assures us that he didnt do it with malicious intent and he doesnt see why he should resign. I'm in agreement with him there.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

If we decide that it's acceptable to see that children are being systematically raped and do nothing to stop it as long as you have good intentions, what's to stop this all happening again?

Stephentlig

But a real man owns up to his mistakes and faces the consequences

which Cardinal Sean Brady did, he owned up to his mistake, but seeing as it was a mistake and not something done with malicious intent I cant see why he should resign.

If we decide that it's acceptable to see that children are being systematically raped and do nothing to stop it as long as you have good intentions, what's to stop this all happening again?

Nobody said it was acceptable, Cardinal Sean Brady over the years has taken great measures to assure us it would never happen again.

Look at it this way, how would you like it if you were sentenced to prison for 11 years for failing to act in a situation were you did not act with malicious intent?

Pax Christi
Stephen

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

which Cardinal Sean Brady did, he owned up to his mistake, but seeing as it was a mistake and not something done with malicious intent I cant see why he should resign.

Do you think that a drink driver should escape punishment on the basis that they didn't intend to run someone over?

Stephentlig wrote: »

Nobody said it was acceptable, Cardinal Sean Brady over the years has taken great measures to assure us it would never happen again.

Look at it this way, how would you like it if you were sentenced to prison for 11 years for failing to act in a situation were you did not act with malicious intent?

Pax Christi
Stephen

That would depend on the circumstances. I'm sure you've heard of culpable negligence.

goat2

Stephentlig wrote: »

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/priests-support-cardinal-brady

Priests support Cardinal Brady
they would

Pax Christi
Stephen

listening to the popes speech last evening on sky news

he mentioned the word repent
who did he mean should repent
shurely not the people these deadly crimes were comitted against
what should they repent for

Seth Brundle

Stephentlig wrote: »

Look at it this way, how would you like it if you were sentenced to prison for 11 years for failing to act in a situation were you did not act with malicious intent?

I would not like to go to prison.
However, I would not swear children to an oath of silence whilst standing by (for 18 years) and watching a serial rapist continue unpunished!

Stephentlig

Do you think that a drink driver should escape punishment on the basis that they didn't intend to run someone over?

Yes of course, but there are enough warnings out there for him to realise that by drinking and driving and by getting behind that wheel he was already being malicious in his intent, and would of known that the end result would of been that he would run someone over.

That would depend on the circumstances. I'm sure you've heard of culpable negligence.

and it also depends on Cardinal Bradys circumstances of which we are not quite clear of including myself for that matter, and I'm only going on what I have.

you've certainly given me food for thought as to whether the Cardinal should resign or not, there are many Priests within the diocese that are split on the idea of whether he should or not.

I'm turning to God at the moment with prayer for justice to be done, I also probably think its too early for anyone to make any judgments as of yet until we hear more and things get sifted out.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Stephentlig

goat2 wrote: »

listening to the popes speech last evening on sky news

he mentioned the word repent
who did he mean should repent
shurely not the people these deadly crimes were comitted against
what should they repent for

by your post I assume your not Catholic because the lack of knowledge about the churches teaching on why everyone needs to repent often is evident in your post.

Here is a Cathechism, knock yourself out
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

Of course, however I do believe that his eminence Cardinal Sean Brady commited a blunder that contained no malicious intent of cover up.

I forgive him for the blunder ( MAJOR BLUNDER ) made and I'm behind him for not resigning, however should he resign this will have to be due to his own conscience as to whether he thinks he should or not.

Committing "major blunders" (and getting found out for having done so) is a pretty commonly applied reason for your resignation from responsible position being demanded of you.

Committing "major blunders" is a central way in which inability to shoulder the responsibilities of your office is established (after the fact of your being, persumably mistakening, assigned there).

Forgiving the major blunder is one thing. Being behind him remaining in office is another and requires a rationalisation.

What would that rationalisation be?

Sam Vimes

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes of course, but there are enough warnings out there for him to realise that by drinking and driving and by getting behind that wheel he was already being malicious in his intent, and would of known that the end result would of been that he would run someone over.

As far as I'm concerned the cardinal being told by two victims that they were sexually abused by this man counts as "enough warning" and since he's not an idiot I can only assume he realised that the end result of him not reporting this was going to be many more victims, if not immediately then at some point over the next 18 years that he kept his mouth shut and further 16 years that he failed to mention that this meeting took place despite an investigation meant to uncover things exactly like this.

Stephentlig wrote: »

and it also depends on Cardinal Bradys circumstances of which we are not quite clear of including myself for that matter, and I'm only going on what I have.

you've certainly given me food for thought as to whether the Cardinal should resign or not, there are many Priests within the diocese that are split on the idea of whether he should or not.

I'm turning to God at the moment with prayer for justice to be done, I also probably think its too early for anyone to make any judgments as of yet until we hear more and things get sifted out.

Pax Christi
Stephen

He's asked for two months to consider his position which I don't begrudge him but if after that time he can't come up with anything better than:

1) he didn't have the authority to do the only thing that the law allowed him to do - report the crime
2) he knew no better because that was what society was like at the time. the whole point of religion is that things are either right or wrong and priests are supposed to be able to tell the difference
3) no purpose is served by his resignation. the purpose is that he will be owning up for his culpable negligence.

then he should go

dunleakelleher

Stephentlig wrote: »

I'm turning to God at the moment with prayer for justice to be done,

Pax Christi
Stephen

Looks like your prayers may be answered. TV3 News hve just reported that senour garda do expect a criminal invegestation and a charge of Perverting the course of justice to be issued on Cardinal Sean Brady.
Thank god we have laws for when a mans morlas and deacenty lets him down.

hinault

Stephentlig wrote: »

Of course, however I do believe that his eminence Cardinal Sean Brady commited a blunder that contained no malicious intent of cover up.

I forgive him for the blunder ( MAJOR BLUNDER ) made and I'm behind him for not resigning, however should he resign this will have to be due to his own conscience as to whether he thinks he should or not.

If the rule applies to him then it must apply to all who failed to act, but this does not seem to be the case at the moment.

Pax Christi
Stephen

I agree.

I do not believe that what Sean Brady did in 1975 was a deliberate attempt to coverup.
Bishop McKiernan should have taken the appropriate action.
Smyth should have been reported to the police, tried, found guilty and then jailed.
The RCC should have defrocked him and all the other criminal perverts.

Lets put the systems and protocols in place where there can be no chance of a coverup, either by commission or ommission.

Actions speak louder than words at this point.

goat2

dunleakelleher wrote: »

Looks like your prayers may be answered. TV3 News hve just reported that senour garda do expect a criminal invegestation and a charge of Perverting the course of justice to be issued on Cardinal Sean Brady.
Thank god we have laws for when a mans morlas and deacenty lets him down.

i have already lit candles in the church, asking the lord to have these vile creatures that claim to represent him put under lock and key

Ultravid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the cardinal being told by two victims that they were sexually abused by this man counts as "enough warning" and since he's not an idiot I can only assume he realised that the end result of him not reporting this was going to be many more victims

then he should go

Why did the parents not report it to police? They were not silenced. Why did they not report it? Did they report it? Does anyone care if they reported it?

mehfesto

Brady is human. How anybody with a conscience could feel they had done enough when they knew they were keeping children in danger is beyond me. Even back then he understood how disgusting what he was doing, surely.

Wheter or not he gets judged, I hope his conscience devours him.

If he stays the church will suffer a crisis of confidence within it's parishoners. If that's what they want, so be it. The church shouldn't need to be put under pressur. It should acknowledge it's wrongdoings in the past an try to move forward with apologies and a renewed hope for it's followers, but instead it is burdening then with the guilt of it's stubborn law breakers.

Joey the lips

Solid catholic here. Try to live by all the rules however I think the bishops should be charged. Its behaviour that cannot be forgiven.

Stephentlig

Joey the lips wrote: »

Solid catholic here. Try to live by all the rules however I think the bishops should be charged. Its behaviour that cannot be forgiven.

Joey, solid Catholics forgive one another, I feel that what you mean to say is that its behaviour that they should be jailed for just like everyone else.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Sam Vimes

Ultravid wrote: »

Why did the parents not report it to police? They were not silenced. Why did they not report it? Did they report it? Does anyone care if they reported it?

Firstly, in Ireland in the 70's you did not question the church, secondly they did not know when they reported it to the church that they were going to do nothing about it and finally, if the parents were the head of an organisation that is charged with the care of children I'd be demanding their resignation too

Joey the lips

Stephentlig wrote: »

Joey, solid Catholics forgive one another, I feel that what you mean to say is that its behaviour that they should be jailed for just like everyone else.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Thats why I said I try to live by all the rules

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly, in Ireland in the 70's you did not question the church, secondly they did not know when they reported it to the church that they were going to do nothing about it and finally, if the parents were the head of an organisation that is chqrged with the care of children i'd be demanding their resignation too

Sam with due respect your an athiest. Am i wrong.

james finn

dont know what makes him think he should stay, i have worked in homes of priests and they make me sick the way they treat people and so sly about it, and they have the local fools call around licking up saying father your looking great and so on, it makes me sick the way they lick up to these frauds, who send their local fools to me to ask the price of the job and try get me to reduce it for the father and if i could take away the rubbish free and a skip would not be nice for the father to see. like i care

Sam Vimes

Joey the lips wrote: »

Sam with due respect your an athiest. Am i wrong.

Yes I am, what's your point?

edit: I'm not sure I'm following. Are you asking if you're wrong about me being an atheist or about saying the bishops should be charged....?

Joey the lips

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes I am, what's your point?

edit: I'm not sure I'm following. Are you asking if you're wrong about me being an atheist or about saying the bishops should be charged....?

Title of the thread....

Ultravid

Sam Vimes wrote: »

But if he tries to argue that he should keep his job despite admitting to what you say is a major blunder then surely the position of the catholic church in Ireland is that the rules should apply to no one?

Saints Peter and Paul made blunders. They repented and then carried on with the Lord's work. A blunder, no matter how big, is not an instant dismissal from the Church as far as the Lord is concerned. The media are not the ones who should be calling the shots. Nor are anti-Catholics of any kind. These decisions will be taken by the Church for the good of the Church. Whatever decision is taken it will be for the good of the Church and its mission, learning from the mistakes of the past. This is what we must pray for.

Sam Vimes

Joey the lips wrote: »

Title of the thread....

Oh right I didn't realise that I wasn't allowed to respond to anything said by anyone on the thread if the OP didn't specifically ask what people other than catholics thought. I'll just go so.