The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

james finn

I think it takes a strange guy to become a priest, as in no normal person would become a priest, im sorry but thats the problem.

Fanny Cradock

A fascinating insight, james. Now off you go and read the charter.

james finn

A fascinating insight, james. Now off you go and read the charter

---

WHATS THE PROB, BEING A PRIEST OR THE PEOPLE WHO BECOME THEM.

--amadeus--

On the whole media witch-hunt thing...

The media in a free society have a duty to monitor teh powerful. It is the responsability of a free press to expose corruption and wrong doing. It's why totalitarian regimes censor and control teh press so rigorously.

Now you can call it anti-catholic bias but look at the dogged manner the press went after Bertie over his money, look at teh howls of outrage over Johnny Ronans private jet (and he's hardly a public figure) and so on. Difficult questions are being asked of one of teh most influential people in this country and neither he or his spokespeople are giving anything close to clean or clear answers. Unless and until those difficult questions are answered they will continue to be asked. And rightly so.

Secondly (and despite the TV news saying that criminal charges are "likely") the actual law is not actually that relevant to his position.

There seem to be limited options.

He either sat in that room and realised that there was no way that it was morally acceptable to gag the children and shield the rapists from justice but decided that the needs of teh church were greater than the needs of the victims and so stayed silent. In that case he is undeserving of holding a senior position because he clearly sacrificed the weakest members of his congregation to preserve the reputation of his church and that is unforgivable.

Or he sat in that room and saw no moral issue with what happened. In which case his moral code is so far out of sync with what any normal person would feel that he can hold no moral authority. And is undeserving of his position.

Don't let the distraction tactics of cries of a witch hunt and media feeding frenzy and shifting legislation muddy teh waters around the issues. They are actually very, very simple. And if they are not and there is a third option I haven't covered it would be nice to hear it.

--amadeus--

Ultravid wrote: »

These decisions will be taken by the Church for the good of the Church.

It would be nice if some decsions were made for the good of the innocent victims since decisions taken for teh good of teh church seem to be at the root of all of these problems.

lmaopml

Hi Tigger,

I find it difficult to see his side on a 'moral' front. I don't think the guy is evil by a long shot, and I don't think he thought he was doing absolute wrong. He has apologised - I believe this was publicised over a decade ago and he apologised then too...I don't think it will be accepted though, and will follow him around now...

It's a difficult position he finds himself in......I know people are baying for blood these days. Interestingly, I listened to a radio show earlier with the man who was on The Frontline??...the man who was abused, and he was fairly adamant that all he wanted was justice, not to topple the faith...He said he wishes to remain Catholic - and I nearly cried! because I think every Catholic in Ireland at the moment is torn apart...

...of course, I don't want to see the faith toppled, afterall I'm Catholic myself, and Christian, and I can see the exersise in the media at the moment and try to be objective and try to be fair too....

I think the man will have to make his mind up; whatever he decides I'm sure will be a decision from the heart at this stage......he has a lot of people weighing on him, both of the faith and the struggles he has within...

It's been a tough tough lesson for us all...I just hope we learn.

Joey the lips

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

sam you and tigger just prove you cannot trust boards for a genuine discussion. Its specific in its question

You can respond how you wish. I am a socialist after all. However by you responding it voids the question.

james finn

maybe the devil has a part to play in all this, are these priests put in place by the devil.

just a thought

Sam Vimes

Joey the lips wrote: »

sam you and tigger just prove you cannot trust boards for a genuine discussion. Its specific in its question

You can respond how you wish. I am a socialist after all. However by you responding it voids the question.

If genuine discussion = one group gives their opinion and no one else is allowed talk then you're absolutely right. However I like discussion to take place on a discussion board where a wide variety of opinions from different people are welcome. That's what I call a genuine discussion

Ultravid

lmaopml wrote: »

It's a difficult position he finds himself in......I know people are baying for blood these days. Interestingly, I listened to a radio show earlier with the man who was on The Frontline??...the man who was abused, and he was fairly adamant that all he wanted was justice, not to topple the faith...He said he wishes to remain Catholic - and I nearly cried! because I think every Catholic in Ireland at the moment is torn apart...

...of course, I don't want to see the faith toppled, afterall I'm Catholic myself, and Christian, and I can see the exersise in the media at the moment and try to be objective and try to be fair too....

I think the man will have to make his mind up; whatever he decides I'm sure will be a decision from the heart at this stage......he has a lot of people weighing on him, both of the faith and the struggles he has within...

It's been a tough tough lesson for us all...I just hope we learn.

I nearly cried at Mass on St Patrick's day.

I feel very sorry for the victims. Their healing will only come about through the extraordinary Grace of God - not impossible, just a very difficult, lifelong process. I also feel pain at how the Church is and will continue to be scourged. However, this must happen, and God, in His providence, will permit it.

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It would be nice if some decsions were made for the good of the innocent victims since decisions taken for teh good of teh church seem to be at the root of all of these problems.

The good of the Church means just that: not 'RCC Brand Inc.', but the Catholic Church - that is, the Body of Christ, composed of its individual members - laity and clergy, with the Pope as earthly leader, and Christ the Sovereign Head.

Joey the lips

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If genuine discussion = one group gives their opinion and no one else is allowed talk then you're absolutely right. However I like discussion to take place on a discussion board where a wide variety of opinions from different people are welcome. That's what I call a genuine discussion

Again the title of the thread is specific..." Any catholics " you are entitled to a general discussion but you like many have made the thread void...

Let me make it simple.... " Is there any gay men here who always thought they were gay but were afraid to express it"

I cannot possibly answer this question as I am not gay. I can give my opinion and my opinion may be valid but my answering the question is incorrect.

This is why thank god boards cannot be trusted.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I absolutely agree that everyone who participated in any cover up of child abuse should be punished but does the fact that not every criminal is targeted by the media mean that the ones who are shouldn't be punished?

Sam,

would you mind posting what actual CRIME you allege Cardinal Brady committed?

Are you aware that the Gardaí must charge someone if they committed a crime?

So given the Gardaí haven't charged him with a crime might you be willing to admit he didn't commit a criminal offence?

It would however seem that instead of saying no criminal law was broken by the cardinal you allege that he did indeed break the law and just got away with it. You compare him to undetected criminals who got away with breaking the law but who were never know about. In doing this you yourself break a cardinal rule of justice in that you assume the cardinal guilty of committing a crime in advance of evidence and in advance of any trial.

ISAW

dunleakelleher wrote: »

I disagree. True paedophilia happened all over the world since time began but the systematic cover up, protection and facilitation of paedophiles members of and organisation by the superiors of that organisation seems only to be the realm of Roman Catholics all over the world

That just isn't true! It is a sweeping generalisation!
Kincora boys Home is a recent counter example for example.

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

Indeed. Your bias is showing in advance of having any actual facts or evidence. I submit if this were a jury selection you admission of bias in advance would have you scratched from any jury. As such you opinion in now known to be buiased against the Catholic Church in advance of having any evidence.

moonpurple

in reply to OP?

which type of catholic?

When Mary Robinson married Nick Robinson (Church of Ireland)

a roman catholic married a catholic

at dublin airport church as her people were unhappy about it

but there is a lesson there

now allow me hand you over to wiki

The word Catholic is derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal".[1][2] In the context of Christian ecclesiology, it has a rich history and several usages.
The term "Catholic Church" typically refers to the Roman Catholic Church: in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, made up of the Latin Rite and the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches; this is the common usage in most countries.
Many Protestants sometimes use the term "catholic church" to refer broadly to the Christian Church and all believers in Jesus Christ across the world and the ages, regardless of denominational affiliation.[3] [4]

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

No, I don't believe they care about anything anyone outside what the church thinks. Which is fair enough.

And which is also NOT what the original poster stated!
You took one element - a subgroup of "high minded" Irish Times readers-
and applied that to all people who were not members of the Roman Catholic Church.

That is not true on several counts!

All people outside the church do not think he should resign
The church DOES care for people outside the church.

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.

Actually again you are WRONG on several counts.

1. He is not supported by "a small minority" .

2. The Roman Catholic church in Ireland has the highest percentage of membership per population int he world. it is of the order of 90 per cent plus of the population.

3. The vast majority of the chruch have not asked him to resign.
In fact there is historical precedent to this. It is called "vox populi". Ordinarily a bishop is invested with three other Bishops present and the pope gives the approval in advance. But people can and have elected a Bishop through popular demand. the opposite is also true. If most Catholics protested and asked him to resign he would have no alternative but to do so. Such a groundswell of opinion has not happened.

4. Your idea that there is a small minority of people blocking a state investigation is unfounded and absurd.

ISAW

antiskeptic wrote: »

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?

St Paul apparently crusified and persecuted Christians - a major blunder?
The church itself allowed corruption in the past to cause the reformation - a major Blunder?
In fact Martin Luther should probably be recognised as a saint in the Roman church by today's standards.

I recall the Tom Crean story awhen he recounts that one day he heard from a naval officer something he never heard before or since "Lads, I made a mistake" I don't think they cashiered the officer.

Sam Vimes

Joey the lips wrote: »

Again the title of the thread is specific..." Any catholics " you are entitled to a general discussion but you like many have made the thread void...

Let me make it simple.... " Is there any gay men here who always thought they were gay but were afraid to express it"

I cannot possibly answer this question as I am not gay. I can give my opinion and my opinion may be valid but my answering the question is incorrect.

This is why thank god boards cannot be trusted.

Well it's a good thing that I wasn't responding directly to the OP's question and was in fact talking to someone else then isn't it?

Sam Vimes

Joey, ISAW has asked me a question. Do I have your permission to respond to it?

ISAW

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"

But not as far as psychologists were concerned at that time? and not just for the church! Psychologists advising the Health boards Gardaí etc. (and don't forget for ever one clergy ther were 99 other non clerical abusers so the State actually oversaw most of them) apparently did advise that such behaviour could be treated and was more like a mental illness than a crime. Frankly i would have some sympathy for this view. i believe many of this type of sexual offence are emotionally arrested individuals.

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,

again that was not the "expert opinion" at the time and for every priest to which it applied it applied to 99 non clergy and the State operated the same standard.

if not immediately then at some point over the next 18 years that he kept his mouth shut

Yes and cases went into the family courts every day and those present in camera (meaning in a secret state court with no public or journalists) still have to keep theior mouth shut by law. It isn't just the Church that continue to operate such standards. There are reasons for those procedures by the way.

and further 16 years that he failed to mention that this meeting took place despite an investigation meant to uncover things exactly like this.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I havent read any newspapers or files on the case and my mind is open.

You seem to be saying Cardinal Brady was called by a legal an/or church investigation into child abuse and asked if he ever met with people and asked them not to mention their child abuse by clergy again and he either forgot he had met them or lied and said he had never had such a meeting. I am not aware of any such investigation asking him about this. To which one do you refer?

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

What crime? at the time what crime should he have reported ?
to my knowledge only girls could be raped according to the 1935 Act.
No. 6/1935: CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1935
Subsequent legislation changed this.


Section 6 of the same act also mentions: Offences against the Person Act, 1861, as amended by section 19 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885,

Which amount to two years a s a punishment but also refer to GIRLS.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

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

Yes but the LAW of the land isn't about right and wrong it is about following the law. Look above - if abusing a BOY was wrong and was what happened there was no rape law the abuser was breaking.

As for moral law yes he could say the abuser was doing wrong - but he wasn't the confessor - he was someone recording the events. Also while he can morally judge he isn't the civil authority he coud tell if something was wrong but what happens then is the question . it appears that such a question was answered also for the other 99 abusers who were not clergy by the state in the same way. It doesn't make it right but uit does say that the church people were doing what the thought was "best practice" as practiced by the state for all the non church offenders which were a hundred times those of clergy,.

3) no purpose is served by his resignation. the purpose is that he will be owning up for his culpable negligence.

This is a good point. Let us say ALL the bishops in Ireland resign and all the local prioests come together and elect new bishops. Right . Now how is the Church better off after such an exercise?

then he should go

I won't judge him but I can't see how you are showing it is better for the church to remove such a person.

ISAW

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 charged with the care of children I'd be demanding their resignation too

Sam you can't have it both ways!

You can't say a priest at the time (not the Bishop but a Priest doing what the Bishop told him to do) should have done something like reporting it and also say that if parents reported something then nothing would be done about it and that that justifies the parents not reporting it.

And to take you up on the "if the parents" line...

We know from statistics that of 1000 abusers about 1 per cent were clergy.

that means that in the other 99 cases there weer people who know about abuse in 1980 say. some one those people are as you pointed out Bishops today. Now I don't know how much child care directly comes under Brady's direct instructions but Ill give you he does have some authority over Church issues with children. But what about the other 99 per cent of people who are now in Childline, one in four and all the other agencies? are you going to ask for an enquiry into all the staff of those organisations who were ever involved in knowing about child abuse and didn't bring iot to the Gardaí? ~What about Cherish the "unmarried mothers" organisation who arranged for mothers to have babies adopted in the US for example - top avoid public shame? It is something that would just not be done
today. should all the lay workers and clergy from Cherish be arrested? If a Bishop is the President of such an organisation should he also be arrested?

If the parental of a child allowed abuse to continue and then later realised this was wrong and gotr involved in charity work should they then be "outed" and ostracised?

ISAW

james finn wrote: »

I think it takes a strange guy to become a priest, as in no normal person would become a priest, im sorry but thats the problem.

Indeed finn I suspect you are right!

"Normal" being what the average person does.

If you look at the census you would note people "normally2 get married and have children.

some people don't they are a minority. They are not evil or wierd they just dont get married.
some of them become monks or nuns - again not normal but not evil.

a small minority of them - less than one per cent of the population become priests.

You seem to think that because it is not normal it is something to be despised.

Being a CEO of an multinational is not normal.
Being a lotto winner is not normal.
Being gay is not normal.

What is your point?

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

On the whole media witch-hunt thing...
He either sat in that room and realised that there was no way that it was morally acceptable to gag the children and shield the rapists from justice but decided that the needs of teh church were greater than the needs of the victims and so stayed silent. In that case he is undeserving of holding a senior position because he clearly sacrificed the weakest members of his congregation to preserve the reputation of his church and that is unforgivable.

Or he sat in that room and saw no moral issue with what happened. In which case his moral code is so far out of sync with what any normal person would feel that he can hold no moral authority. And is undeserving of his position.

Or you are presenting a false dichotomy which is a "fallacy of the excluded middle"?

Don't let the distraction tactics of cries of a witch hunt and media feeding frenzy and shifting legislation muddy teh waters around the issues. They are actually very, very simple. And if they are not and there is a third option I haven't covered it would be nice to hear it.

You just did! Don't let lack of formal logical training prevent you looking up "fallacy " and "excluded middle" and "false dichotomy"

By the way dont let my response put you off. while it is fallacious your post does more than anything up to that point (in my opinion) to address the actual definition of the problem than skirt around the issue - anjd I include my own posts in that!

ISAW

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It would be nice if some decsions were made for the good of the innocent victims since decisions taken for teh good of teh church seem to be at the root of all of these problems.

It would be nicer if you acknowledged that the innocent victims were and continue to be members of the Church.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If genuine discussion = one group gives their opinion and no one else is allowed talk then you're absolutely right. However I like discussion to take place on a discussion board where a wide variety of opinions from different people are welcome. That's what I call a genuine discussion

Well you have it WRONG then! Again! If atheists are asked what other atheists think about creationism and someone comes in quoting the Bible all the time and saying they will burn in hello if they don't obey the bible they would not consider the Bible quoter as part of a "genuine" discussion would they?

If Christians want to discuss Nazism and a Nazi comes in spouting racist and antisemitic rhetoric as a "wide variety of opinion" then that isn't genuine either. Of course at the same a christian can take part in a atheistic discussion and a Nazi take part in a racism discussion but the argument of "equal value" to their opinion or "balance" is nonsense in such a discussion!

Sam Vimes

Bye now

Seth Brundle

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.

But these measures, whilst welcome, should have been in place already.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He's asked for two months to consider his position which I don't begrudge him

Why would it take two months to realise that he could have and should have done something - maybe not right away but he still had 18 years to stop Smith in his tracks.
I wonder did he even make any enquiries over the 18 year period (or hear anything on the grapevine) about Smith.

hinault wrote: »

I do not believe that what Sean Brady did in 1975 was a deliberate attempt to coverup.

He was following Canon Law which instructed a cover up! The man had a degree in Canon Law so cannot plead ignorance on its effects!

hinault wrote: »

Bishop McKiernan should have taken the appropriate action.

He went on TV years ago stating something to the effect of how Canon Law was above criminal law.
Also when he died, Sean Brady said:
"Dr McKiernan was a man of great kindness, humanity and deep Christian faith who devoted himself entirely to the service of his people"
:rolleyes:

hinault wrote: »

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.

Agreed.

hinault wrote: »

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.

Agreed but in order for the public to have any sort of faith in these systems and protocols, anyone who was involved in any form of cover up whether intentional or not (including Brady, Ratzinger et al) has to stand down!

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?

Maybe they did. I previously mentioned a (non clerical) case in the early 70s where the parents reported it to the gardai and whilst the gardai did everything they could, the simple fact was that the justice system would have simply added to the pain of the victim. Very few people went to court because of this.

Ultravid wrote: »

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.

Firstly, (as far as we are aware) Saints Peter and Paul did not rape children nor did they actively protect rapists from due process.
Secondly, I don't recall any suggesting of having the likes of Brady dismissed from the Church - only dismissed from his position within the organisation.
As for these decisions being taken by the Church - well we've seen how wise their decisions to date have been!
As for any decision being for the good of the church - thats been the problem - the church made decisions for the benefit of the organisation or rather the clergy and not for the good of the people which is what the church is meant to be about!

james finn wrote: »

I think it takes a strange guy to become a priest, as in no normal person would become a priest, im sorry but thats the problem.

There are a lot of fine priests (and nuns) out there!

lmaopml wrote: »

...of course, I don't want to see the faith toppled, afterall I'm Catholic myself, and Christian, and I can see the exersise in the media at the moment and try to be objective and try to be fair too....

Same here. But I want to be part of Church that I can have faith in and where people are welcomed to ask questions and receive honest answers. I don't want to be part of a church that is based on lies, secrecy, hurt, torture, betrayal, abuse, rape, murder and so on.
From what I learnt in school and church, this wasn't quite the message that Jesus gave us!

lmaopml wrote: »

I think the man will have to make his mind up; whatever he decides I'm sure will be a decision from the heart at this stage......he has a lot of people weighing on him, both of the faith and the struggles he has within...

A decision made by the heart usually occurs quickly. Its one that's carefully planned out that takes time. Brady's decision should not require any thinking as its quite obvious what he should do!

lmaopml wrote: »

It's been a tough tough lesson for us all...I just hope we learn.

Excuse me? What lesson am I supposed to learn? That in some situations its fine to allow rapists go free whilst scaring the crap out of his child victims?

Bduffman

ISAW wrote: »

You took one element - a subgroup of "high minded" Irish Times readers-
and applied that to all people who were not members of the Roman Catholic Church.

Not true. I did not state that ALL those who are not members of the RCC are against Brady. However, it is reasonable to state my belief based on anecdotal evidence that it is possible that MOST are against him on this matter (at least no catholic I have spoken to directly are supporting him). However, as I cannot prove that, I will take it no further

ISAW wrote: »

The church DOES care for people outside the church.

If this is true they have a funny way of showing it.

ISAW wrote: »

1. He is not supported by "a small minority" .

Outrage made the point that Brady was supported by 'all' of those who went to his mass. Apart from the fact that he cannot possibly know this unless he spoke to every person there, he was using the support shown in one church as if it was typical of the support across all catholics. Unfortunately it proves nothing.

ISAW wrote: »

2. The Roman Catholic church in Ireland has the highest percentage of membership per population int he world. it is of the order of 90 per cent plus of the population.

Nonsense. Are you basing this on what box is ticked in tha last census? Or should it not be based on the percentage of mass-goers every sunday? In which case you are sadly in the minority.

ISAW wrote: »

3. The vast majority of the chruch have not asked him to resign.
In fact there is historical precedent to this. It is called "vox populi". Ordinarily a bishop is invested with three other Bishops present and the pope gives the approval in advance. But people can and have elected a Bishop through popular demand. the opposite is also true. If most Catholics protested and asked him to resign he would have no alternative but to do so. Such a groundswell of opinion has not happened.

Was there a vote taken amongst catholics to determine this? No, I didn't think so. So that is pure speculation.

ISAW wrote: »

4. Your idea that there is a small minority of people blocking a state investigation is unfounded and absurd.

Isn't that exactly what Brady did in the 70s by not reporting child abuse allegations? It is pretty obvious that senior church officials would still be silent on the matter if their hand wasn't forced.

Ash.J.Williams

They are still prosecuting Nazi's today, the usual defence is " i was following orders". However they should have disobeyed those orders, and risked death to change Germany for the common good.
I guess this is a similar situation. Priests were breaking the law, however at the time they were above the law. All it would have took to make a difference was one person to blow the whistle. They would have risked their job, and their social standing, but that would have been a small sacrifice, as it would have saved many lives. Mr. Brady could have been that whisltle blower.

91011

This not a rant & I am not religious in any way but have the utmost respect for the good that religion can bring to many lives.


There seems to be a huge emphasis on the catholic hieracrchy and their reaction / non reaction to the current crisis. For most people the blame seems to rest soley at the door of bishops / cardinals / pope.

But have a look at the church and its current memebers.

What age are those that have brought shame to the church. How many priests under the age of 50 are involved in any scandals?

Then look at Irish society from the 50's though to the 70's. Traditionally families targeted to have one son as a guard & one son as a priest - many did not become priest voluntarily.

If a parent noticed that their son had strange sexual tendencies or even if they thought he was gay, then the only option was to place him into the priesthood as then, rather than bring shame onto the family, he becomes a credit to the family.


In the eighties, communiction was better, the people with paedophile tendencies could meet like minded people elsewhere - thus the emergence of paedophile cells around europe. Being gay was accepted by most in society as normality and as such for most parents there was no longer any shame in a son / daughter being gay (unfortunately there are still a few homopobhic eejits out there), so finally by the eighties, only those who really had a vocation joined the catholic church and as such priests who joined since then have not been accused of any wrongs.

So maybe there needs to be a study on all the priests who have abused children. Find out the real reason the joined the church, find out their family background and see if irish society itself back in the 50's to 70's played a part in the creation of these monsters.

ISAW

Bduffman wrote: »

Not true.

Yes it is true!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64966213&postcount=183

outrage stated:
Do you honestly believe that the Church cares what a bunch of holier-than-thou Irish Times readers think?

and you replied:

No, I don't believe they care about anything anyone outside what the church thinks.

in other words you extrapolated what the church thinks about some Irish times readers and generalised it to all people outside the church.

I did not state that ALL those who are not members of the RCC are against Brady.

You said you believe the church do not care about ANYONE people outside it when the original poster suggested that they shouldn't care about what some Irish times readers say.

However, it is reasonable to state my belief based on anecdotal evidence

It isn't reasonable at all to base your belief on anecdotal evidence! Is it now?

that it is possible that MOST are against him on this matter (at least no catholic I have spoken to directly are supporting him).

Most what? Most Catholics are opposed to Brady? Opposed to him about what?
And your view of the entire church is based on Catholics you have spoken to? they know all about all the church teachings and are experts in sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions are they? Why didnt they advise the Bishops then ?

However, as I cannot prove that, I will take it no further

You are quite entitled to an unsupported personal opinion based on newspaper gossip. Just declare it as so and not dress it up as some sort of morally guided authority supported by objective evidence and research.

If this is true they have a funny way of showing it.

so you think the church does not care about people outside the church? And your evidence is? Their "funny way" of showing the church cares is?

Outrage made the point that Brady was supported by 'all' of those who went to his mass.
Apart from the fact that he cannot possibly know this unless he spoke to every person there, he was using the support shown in one church as if it was typical of the support across all catholics. Unfortunately it proves nothing.

It proves that YOU based on the above concluded that Brady only has the support of "a small minority"! Your conclusion was wrong! Just because a small minoroity expressed support (or for that matter expressed opposition and asked him to resign although even a small minority of say 50 in his parish doing so - parishes contain typically several thousand - might be significant)
does not mean that most Catholics want him to resign. they have to think about it and he has to try to find out what they think.

Nonsense. Are you basing this on what box is ticked in tha last census? Or should it not be based on the percentage of mass-goers every sunday? In which case you are sadly in the minority.

the Church do indeed have a census sunday but

http://beyond2020.cso.ie/Census/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=74640
2006 census
Population of Ireland 4.2 million
Roman Catholic - 3.7 million ( the protestants have an additional 160,000 or so)

But just leaving it a t 37/42 = 88 per cent which is ABOUT 90 percent as i stated!

Was there a vote taken amongst catholics to determine this? No, I didn't think so. So that is pure speculation.

the census legal document circulated and signed in the home! over 90 per cent are Christian!

As regards Vox populi the fact that the people have not removed him proves it hasn't happened!If they do it wont be speculative!

Isn't that exactly what Brady did in the 70s by not reporting child abuse allegations?

No it isn't! how did Brady block a state investigation in the 1970s? He was a priest then not a bishop. how did he personally block anything? Apparently what is suggested is that he asked people not to talk about it again.

Here is apparently their position:http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0316/breaking41.html
On 29 March 1975, Fr Brady and two other priests interviewed a boy (14) in Dundalk. Fr Brady’s role was to take notes. On 4 April 1975, Fr Brady interviewed a second boy (15) in the Parochial House in Ballyjamesduff. On this occasion Fr Brady conducted the inquiry by himself and took notes.
At the end of both interviews, the boys were asked to confirm by oath the truthfulness of their statements and that they would preserve the confidentiality of the interview process.

Now you are suggesting that he should not have filed a report to his bishop as instructed and immediatleely gone to the Gardaí and reported it. But surely the parents or teachers or someone else should have done that? How was it up to the person recording the minutes at a meeting to report it to the Gardaí and how is it only him that should be responsibloe and what law did he break?

It is pretty obvious that senior church officials would still be silent on the matter if their hand wasn't forced.

It is? How is it pretty obvious? Lets take a hypothetical case. If you came to me in confession and told me you raped someone or if you were a drug addict and told me in confidence and then twenty years later you said you had told me and I hadn't told anyone else then am I supposed to be at fault? How about all the other people who surrounded you all the drugs workers or the poor victims who didn't come forward? what if the person you raped came to me? I prevented them from coming forward by not outing them or outing you did I?