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
Comments
-
Ash.J.Williams wrote: »They are still prosecuting Nazi's today,
Nonsense! they prosecuted a and executed few hundred and protected the rest. There were thousands of senior Nazis and the Russians and Americans used them in their Space programmes, their CIA KGB etc. Very few were prosecuted afterh that. some Zionists tracked down Nazis and prosecuted a few of them in Israel again for political reasons.
Very few were prosecuted after the Nuremberg trials.the usual defence is " i was following orders".
Really? is it? and that claim is based on? given the Nuremberg trials put a dozen or so on trial and not all of them made this defence and the trials found it isn't a valid defence anyway I would think you are not quite correct.However they should have disobeyed those orders, and risked death to change Germany for the common good.
They did! And they ended up in concentration camps for it! some however did survive in spite of Nazi oppression. for example A Priest in the Vatican who saved thousands of Jews and indeed after the war saved the families of senior Nazis.I guess this is a similar situation.
I guess it certainly isn't! the catholic church was in NO WAY like the Nazis. it had no "final solution" to the "orphan child problem" like the Nazis had to the Jews or gypsies. The comparison iS ludicrously invaLID!Priests were breaking the law,
WHICH LAW? Not of rape since it only applied to girls! and for every priest breaking the law 99 non priests were doing the same!however at the time they were above the law.
Which law? Indecent assault did it exist then? I really don't know if i was a Garda in 1977 what i would charge someone with or if they could claim to be psychoanalytically disabled and get admitted to a hospital? Im sure if i was a garda then I might well believe they were sick in the head and not criminals.All it would have took to make a difference was one person to blow the whistle.
I disagree. many schools had particularly violent lay teachers for example. Parents knew of them. But they continued to behave in the way they did in spite of people knowing. None were charged with assault. Even today how many health workers, teachers or civil servants are sacked? Yet people are aware of neglect.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.
Take a contemporary case from 1969
Captain Kelly was apparently a whistle blower on the Arms trial. It ruined his career.
He was unable to prove this until, under the thirty-year rule, some documents were released by the National Archives in 2001. In a file he found the two statements of Colonel Hefferon—the original one and the doctored one, with handwritten amendments, now known to have been made by Peter Berry, then the Secretary of the Department of Justice. On the front of this document was a stamp, which said "seen by Minister 1/6".
http://www.captainkelly.org/bio.htm
It is all well and good to ask someone else to man the barricade but in practice many people begin to think about losing their house pension reputation etc.0 -
I appreciate the point you're trying to make but I can't understand how homosexuality is remotely linked to paedophilia. They only thing they have in common is they are both minority sexual orientations.
Paedophile= sexual attraction to children.(Of any gender.)
Gay=Sexual attraction to adults of the same gender.0 -
But these measures, whilst welcome, should have been in place already.
some are. Parishes are introducing child protection policies. the state is laging. ti took them decades to reform the laws and as for the administration - well look at the HSE!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 wouldn't but it might take two months for it to go out of everyday news and for him to contact a wide variety of people and to ask them if they think he should resign.
If it isn't listed in some report why don't you ask him?I wonder did he even make any enquiries over the 18 year period (or hear anything on the grapevine) about Smith.He was following Canon Law which instructed a cover up!
WHICH canon law says "cover this case up"?The man had a degree in Canon Law so cannot plead ignorance on its effects!
No he can't bt apparently you can! Which law say "cover this up"?
Did he? When? any References? Or do yuo always rely on hearsay?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:
As was St Peter. You know the one that ran away when jesus was arrested? But he turned up at the crucifixion when he was sorry.Agreed.
smith WAS reported tried and sentenced!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!
the systems are being put in place but the state is lagging the church! how wuyld firing and and all teachers health workers gardai judges social workers etc. who were involved in sex abuse cases assist this?
Likewise how would removing all clergy (who were clergy in the 1980s and who had heard of abuse cases ) from ony office they hold today assist in increasing faith in the systems? In fact Christian people have faith in God and not in "systems" . managerialists atheists communists and the like have faith in systems.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.
so the justice system was not developed and still lags the church in dealing with the issue?
Maybe priests reported it and the Gardai said to them it was a matter for the church to deal with?Firstly, (as far as we are aware) Saints Peter and Paul did not rape children nor did they actively protect rapists from due process.
Dont be silly! roman law was corrupt and "due process" was a joke to a non citizen!
PaUL APPARENTLY DID WORSE THAN RAPED.
Galatians 1:13-14 Galatians 1:13-14 Acts 8:1-3
SO MUCH FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW!
A Pharisee son of A Pharisee!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.
how would having all current Bishops, hospital administrators, mothers superiour, Priors, Gardai sargents inspectors superentendents commissioners, staff nurses, matrons, head teachers, scjool inspectors, state solicitors etc. who were involved in child abuse cases removed from office make ireland a better place?As for these decisions being taken by the Church - well we've seen how wise their decisions to date have been!
Yep their opposition to Naziism and state communism! their opposition to slavery. christian social teaching. their preservation of classical culture. Their decision to promore rationality with faith . etc.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!
come to the top of the class! the church IS THE PEOPLE. That's why i didn't mention the Reformation and their unwise decisions to evoke hierarchical elitism!There are a lot of fine priests (and nuns) out there!
Indeed - and monks!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.
I agree 100 per cent! Or part of a society that does it 100 times worse than the church.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!
Being sorry didn't take him any time at all. admitting it publicaly did because no doubty he had to weigh up whether it was any use in a public admission. But what takes time is for to get feedback as to what people think about what he should do.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?
it was not Bradys decision to make at the time whether Smith go free or not and you have no idea that he intentionally scared the crap out of Smiths victims.0 -
Telling something in confession is not the same as a victim approaching a bishop with a view to have a rapist punished.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?0 -
Telling something in confession is not the same as a victim approaching a bishop with a view to have a rapist punished.
Certainly not. The law of the land stands and should be adhered to: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. These men should have had been confined to a cell.0 -
Advertisement
-
Some? The whole bloody lot should be.some are. Parishes are introducing child protection policies. the state is laging. ti took them decades to reform the laws and as for the administration - well look at the HSE!
I am aware of the massive failures of the HSE and feel much the same but this thread is not about the HSE!
Why should he base it on other peoples views? Has he no idea of accountability himself? Has he no idea of right and wrong? Seems a bit strange for a bishop!I wouldn't but it might take two months for it to go out of everyday news and for him to contact a wide variety of people and to ask them if they think he should resign.
Do you have his contact details?If it isn't listed in some report why don't you ask him?
Quoniam vero quod in hisce causis tractandis maiorem in modum curari et observari debet illud est ut eaedem secretissime peragantur et, postquam fuerint definitae et executioni iam traditae, perpetuo silentio premantur (Instr. Sancti Officii, 20 febr. 1867, n. 14); omnes et singuli ad tribunal quomodocumque pertinentes vel propter eorum officium ad rerum notitiam admissi arctissimum secretum, quod secretum Sancti Officii communiter audit, in omnibus et cum omnibus, sub poena excommunicationis latae sententiae, ipso facto et absque alia declaratione incurrendae atque uni personae Summi Pontificis, ad exclusionem etiam Sacrae Poenitentiariae, reservatae, inviolabiliter servare tenentur.WHICH canon law says "cover this case up"?
No he can't bt apparently you can! Which law say "cover this up"?
or
As, assuredly, what must be mainly taken care of and complied with in handling these trials is that they be managed with maximum confidentiality and after the verdict is declared and put into effect never be mentioned again (20 February 1867 Instruction of the Holy Office, 14), each and every person, who in any way belongs to the tribunal or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called "the secrecy of the Holy Office") in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication, incurred ipso facto without need of any declaration other than the present one, and reserved to the Supreme Pontiff in person alone, excluding even the Apostolic Penitentiary.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis_%28document%29
Am I misinterpreting it? Is wikipedia wrong in this case?
He did.Did he? When? any References? Or do yuo always rely on hearsay?
The main reason that I remember is due to family connections.
Unfortunately no references as RTE don't show stuff going back that far.
Doubt me if you wish!
Yes but the point was that Sean Brady's comments were knowingly untrue unless he somehow forgot all about the childrenAs was St Peter. You know the one that ran away when jesus was arrested? But he turned up at the crucifixion when he was sorry.
Not when he was first found out. Why was that?smith WAS reported tried and sentenced!
I want faith in what is supposed to be my church.the systems are being put in place but the state is lagging the church! how wuyld firing and and all teachers health workers gardai judges social workers etc. who were involved in sex abuse cases assist this?
Likewise how would removing all clergy (who were clergy in the 1980s and who had heard of abuse cases ) from ony office they hold today assist in increasing faith in the systems? In fact Christian people have faith in God and not in "systems" . managerialists atheists communists and the like have faith in systems.
Well why don't they say that this is the case (they did in some of the Murphy cases and again I feel that thats wrong).so the justice system was not developed and still lags the church in dealing with the issue?
Maybe priests reported it and the Gardai said to them it was a matter for the church to deal with?
However, cases did go to trial. It seems that the Church did not want any of their fellows to be put in this position though.
The case I referred to was in the early 70s and although fairly crap, the states protection was far better than that of the RCC. It probably still is but needs to go a long way yet.
Well I was unaware of that. Thanks.Dont be silly! roman law was corrupt and "due process" was a joke to a non citizen!
PaUL APPARENTLY DID WORSE THAN RAPED.
Galatians 1:13-14 Galatians 1:13-14 Acts 8:1-3
SO MUCH FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW!
A Pharisee son of A Pharisee!
It has nothing to do with making it a better place. It has to do with credibility, trust, faith, etc. in the organisation that is supposed to be a moral leader!how would having all current Bishops, hospital administrators, mothers superiour, Priors, Gardai sargents inspectors superentendents commissioners, staff nurses, matrons, head teachers, scjool inspectors, state solicitors etc. who were involved in child abuse cases removed from office make ireland a better place?
Anyone who was involved in child abuse should not have a position that controls policy for the action. Where appropriate, anyone involved should be prosecuted.
Am I supposed to list off all the bad decisions now?Yep their opposition to Naziism and state communism! their opposition to slavery. christian social teaching. their preservation of classical culture. Their decision to promore rationality with faith . etc.
(they did support nazis BTW!)
If the church is the people, do we get a proper say in policy? Do we get a say in who becomes a bishop, a cardinal or ever pope?come to the top of the class! the church IS THE PEOPLE. That's why i didn't mention the Reformation and their unwise decisions to evoke hierarchical elitism!
Don't kid yourself - the people don't count and that's why we are where we are now!
Did society actively protect rapists and murderers?I agree 100 per cent! Or part of a society that does it 100 times worse than the church.
Nonsense. Sean Brady is a very intelligent man and should not require much time to decide what is right and what is wrong!Being sorry didn't take him any time at all. admitting it publicaly did because no doubty he had to weigh up whether it was any use in a public admission. But what takes time is for to get feedback as to what people think about what he should do.
Brady had he wanted to could have gone to the gardai at any point in the 18 years that Smith was allowed walk free. He did not.it was not Bradys decision to make at the time whether Smith go free or not and you have no idea that he intentionally scared the crap out of Smiths victims.
It is taking a civil action against him personally (and as primate) and others to get the truth out.
As for the victims being scared - do you not think that they would be scared knowing that an evil predator remains out there? Have you ever met someone who was a victim of a sexual assault? Were they happy knowing that the offender was allowed to remain free?0 -
I was trying to keep both seperate, however in past years due to the uneducated nature of many people in Ireland due to the poor education system, anyone who had any sexual tendancy other than that of hetrosexual was seen as "having something wrong with them."
Thankfully the attitudes have changed in tandem with increased education and the gay community can hold their heads high and anyone who is gay should have no issue with the vast majority of people in society.0 -
( dont ask me why the writing is in Bold) but here is another interesting article from the Irish Catholic newspaper.
Pax Christi
Stephen
<H2> <H2 id=h2title><H2>
</H2></H2><H2 id=h2title><H2>Stop this drip drip now!
</H2>Date:
18 Mar 2010
You couldn't make this stuff up, the sheer incompetence of our leadership in the Irish Church. I have to say I told them so, I saw this latest bishops' crisis coming! It's not rocket science really.
At the Irish bishops' press conference in Vatican Radio after they finished their talks with the Pope and top Vatican officials, I specifically asked Cardinal Brady, flanked by three other bishops, if the bishops used their five minutes with the Pope to assure him that they and their dioceses had clean bills of health? No, they didn't, came the response.
I then followed up the question by saying if we don't get those assurances from each bishop, we are doomed to be re-opening this abuse wound every time there is a revelation about some bishop's latest faux-pas. All the heads nodded in agreement. Cardinal Brady's reply was that the HSE investigation would do that.
Why do the bishops want to wait for an investigation into what they clearly could come clean about themselves - is there no honour in these men? So here we are, condemned to the drip drip of revelations of ecclesiastical incompetence while we are asked to wait on the HSE, who oversaw the deaths of over 20 children in its care, to tell us about the state of health of each diocese and the bishop that leads it.
Why can't every bishop, grown men, intelligent men, men of the Gospel not come out and publicly sign a declaration that they have handled all abuse cases correctly and have reported all cases to the Garda? If they can't do this because they have skeletons in their cupboards, then the only course of action is to resign. The truth will set you free!
Similarities
Should the cardinal resign? When you compare Fr Brady's role in 1975 with that of Msgr Stenson's role as Chancellor in the Dublin archdiocese there are lots of similarities. They met the victims, they took notes, made reports and passed those reports up the line to a higher management level and action was taken/not taken. In Fr Brady's case action was taken by his bishop. When you compare Fr Brady's actions with Msgr Alex Stenson, with whom the Murphy Report found little fault, Fr Brady is without fault.
However, the bar was raised for the Auxiliary bishops, even though they were not found to have committed particular wrongs, except for Bishop Murray whom the Report found had behaved inexcusably. Bishop Murray's mistake was 20 years ago and Cardinal Brady and Archbishop Martin raised the bar for all the bishops by encouraging Bishop Murray to resign. That is the standard by which the cardinal now is being measured.
Was his failure to go to the gardaí 35 years ago inexcusable? Was his failure to disclose this information 35 years ago inexcusable? Was his failure to tell his brother bishops that he might be compromised by his involvement in the Brendan Smyth case inexcusable? And finally, is it inexcusable that he now has dropped the Church into another round of crisis?
Failure
Then there is the Moriarty principle: Bishop Jim Moriarty raised the bar for all the bishops also by resigning not for any failures in the case he was involved in (he denied he made any failures), but for his failure to challenge the culture of cover-up that existed in the Church. This is the level of accountability demanded by Archbishop Martin and it is the level of accountability demanded by Cardinal Brady of himself in that interview with Tommy Gorman on RTÉ. What we really need is a standard across all agencies such as the Garda, the HSE, the Government, psychologists; otherwise we will be condemned never to draw a line under the failures of the past.
What is clear is the utter tiredness of ordinary Catholics as we are forced to stand idly by as 24 men as a collective ecclesiastical politburo undermine OUR CHURCH. It is time for the grey old heads, bereft of any new ideas, bereft of any sense that the whole system in which they were trained and built their careers in is utterly lacking in any credibility, to hang up their bishops hats, exit the stage, retire and enjoy their retirement, and allow much younger men to come in and try and rescue this car crash of a church from the breakers yard, because that is where it is heading.
And if you think I'm wrong, try talking to the next generation. I like many Catholics am angry; and I'm sick and tired of the incompetence, cover-up, mental reservation and clericalism.
We need a national synod as well as diocesan synods to precede it. But first, we need the Berlin Wall of old guard ecclesiastical incompetence to totter and fall. We need a velvet reformation.
Let priests with courage speak up now or forever hold their peace.
</H2></H2>0 -
If I could offer my opinion as an x - Catholic.
Most crimes have an instinctive explanation. If you don't pay your tv license, rob a bank or break the speed limit it can explained as something you wanted to do for immediate benefit or enjoyment i.e. instinctive nature. However, a bit of rational thought would deduce that such actions by everyone would mean we wouldn't have a cohesive society.
So, something is a labelled a crime when:
1. There is a dichotomy of outcomes between instinctive thought and
rational thought.
2. When we expect someone to overcome instinctive urges and they don't.
However for child abuse, there is absolutely no instinctive explanation. Thererfore the way the Church are carrying on as if it is just another crime or sin, one among many, it just isn't plausable - it's alienating people further.
When there is no instinctive explanation what is needed is an acknowledgment of a clear distinction between the act of child abuse and every other crime. And because there is no instinctive explanation, child abuse must be considered a pyschiatric problem.
The Cardinal doesn't need to resign, he needs to be admit he needs to admit medical health assistance.0 -
Some? The whole bloody lot should be.
All parishes ARE but I don't keep track of thousands of parishes. i can't say all have then 100 percent published and in place.I am aware of the massive failures of the HSE and feel much the same but this thread is not about the HSE!
It is insofar as it is about the position of the Catholic Primate. If he is at foult to the level hs should resign then the 99 times and many non church organisations are equally at fault. The HSE is a major one of these. how can you claim a principle applies to the organisation of one percent of abusers and not apply it to the 99 other percent?Why should he base it on other peoples views?
Well i thought people were criticising Bishops for making up their mind without talking to the people and now here you are saying they should have the authority to make all the decisions for themselves again!Has he no idea of accountability himself?
Im sure he does. Ever heard of "final judgement"? Im sure he has.Has he no idea of right and wrong?
You are conflating two issues. Morality and activity. He may be aware that organisational wrong was done and personal wrong was done and be personally sorry. The question is whether accepting he has repented that actually leaving office is for the good of the victims the church and his own soul. Having made a case that no Bishop is an Island and that he should not make pronouncements ex cathedra for all the church do you now think he should do so and make such decisions without any discussion?Seems a bit strange for a bishop!
Do you have his contact details?
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/darma.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis_%28document%29
Am I misinterpreting it? Is wikipedia wrong in this case?
[/quote]
Nope you are just not quoting in context!
the above canon applies to CONFESSION. fr Brady was not hearing a confession of the 14 and 15 year old boys as far as i know. If he was then according to the above canon he should not have recorded anything!
Also neither canon 904 or 2368 mention anything which might be akin to "covering up"
The document above dealt exclusively with the procedure to be followed in connection with a denunciation to the ecclesiastical authority of a priest guilty of solicitation in Confession or of similar acts. It imposed secrecy about the conduct of the ecclesiastical trial, not allowing, for instance, statements made during the trial by witnesses or by the accused to be published. But it did not in any way impose silence on those who were victims of the priest's conduct or who had learned of it in ways unconnected with the ecclesiastical trial.
"These matters are confidential only to the procedures within the Church, but do not preclude in any way for these matters to be brought to civil authorities for proper legal adjudication. The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People of June, 2002, approved by the Vatican, requires that credible allegations of sexual abuse of children be reported to legal authorities.
Finally i have no idea isf this is the actual procedure Brady was following.He did.
The main reason that I remember is due to family ties.
Unfortunately no references as RTE don't show stuff going back that far.
Doubt me if you wish!
i do doubt you. "Family ties" are hearsay! i have no evidence that Brady said canon law was to be preferred to law of the land so i can only assume he didn't say it.Yes but the point was that Sean Brady's comments were knowingly untrue unless he somehow forgot all about the children
So Peter could not be referred to as "devoted to Christ and his flock" unles they also mentioned in the same commemoration that peter denied christ?Not when he was first found out. Why was that?
i don't know i didn't follow the case. But we are discussing where it related to Brady. actually now realise I should have referred to the RUC and not Gardai. Im also not aware of British legislation on the issue.I want faith in what is supposed to be my church.
I'm sorry that is something I can't give you.
However, cases did go to trial. It seems that the Church did not want any of their fellows to be put in this position though.
neither would i . But if faced with doing something I don't want and doing the right thing
or something which my conscience tell me is right then Ill do what is uncomfortable. On very senior levels in organisations i have done this and if I had shut up I would not have suffered all the pain which i did for speaking out.The case I referred to was in the early 70s and although fairly crap, the states protection was far better than that of the RCC. It probably still is but needs to go a long way yet.Anyone who was involved in child abuse should not have a position that controls policy for the action. Where appropriate, anyone involved should be prosecuted.
But Brady wasn't involved in investigating it other then taking two statements and asking the victims not to mention it to anyone else. He wasn't involved in decisions of any kind in that particular case as far as i know.Am I supposed to list off all the bad decisions now?
(they did support nazis BTW!)
They most certainly did not! Of the 30 or so papal encyclicals in the 1930 all but one condemn naziism. Fr Flaherty saved more Jews then Oscar Schlindler. Germans catholics did not vote for the Nazi party!If the church is the people, do we get a proper say in policy?
Yes. vox populi is one example.Do we get a say in who becomes a bishop, a cardinal or ever pope?
Yes in the same way you determine taoiseach the pope is indirectly elected. If the irish people demans Brady to go he will go and if they demanded Bishop x replace him (or a proest it had happened recently or even a lay person (it hasent happened for centuries ) a cardinal does not have to have holy orders) Im sure it might be considered
that cardinal would then elect the next pope.
The priests oddly DO get a say in who they think should be Bishop. they are sounded out and the final candidates get there not because of the pope but because of local influence.
But if you look at say a political party or the GAA it isnt so much about the leaders as about who does what locally.Don't kid yourself - the people don't count and that's why we are where we are now!
I disagree. The chuch is changing. clergy are getting out of school and parish management and sticking with the sacraments. If more non clergy did degrees in theology then they would actually have administrative positions. That is why people from Opus Dei for example have senior administrative posts. I do however agree that a holy person is better than a well qualifies one but you try getting a new parish centre built by a load of holy people with no project management or building experience.Did society actively protect rapists and murderers?
In atheistic China Russia and Cambodia etc.? the point was about being in a faith community!Brady had he wanted to could have gone to the gardai at any point in the 18 years that Smith was allowed walk free. He did not.
To the RUC you mean? Ever heard of "locus standi"? If you assault me my brother cant take the case against you. the person harmed has to come forward. If brady went tot the police he had no standing and they would not have to act. also according to the canon you quoted it was allowed for the victims to go to the police but not for the clergy who took their statement. Maybe at best he could have gone back to the victims and suggested they go to the police.As for the victims being scared - do you not think that they would be scared knowing that an evil predator remains out there? Have you ever met someone who was a victim of a sexual assault? Were they happy knowing that the offender was allowed to remain free?
No no no! The point you made was about BRADY personally taking statements and swearing them to secrecy and scaring them out of ever saying anything about it while at the same time deciding to allow Smith go free remember?
He didnt scare them or allow smith free.That in some situations its fine to allow rapists go free whilst scaring the crap out of his child victims0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes - you are right - I did. And I think that is a reasonable stance based on the condict of the church on all matters regarding child abuse.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.
Yes thats what I said - prove me wrong.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.
Well, I think it is. However, I did state just after that statement that I would not pursue that argument for lack of solid evidence. But you chose to ignore that I notice.It isn't reasonable at all to base your belief on anecdotal evidence! Is it now?
ALL catholics I have spoken to are opposed to his stance of not reporting the abuse to the correct authorities - of not coming public with this for decades. And no I'm sure they are not experts in "sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions". But then neither are most people so are you dismissing the majority opinion??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 ?
I stated quite clearly that my opinion WAS based on anecdotal evidence AND that I would therefore not pursue it any further. YOU are the one dragging it up. (And by the way I don't read tabloids).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.
As stated already - for the disgraceful way they have conducted themselves throughout this affair.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?.
I was replying to outrages assertion that he has the support of the majority of catholics based on wellwishers on a specific mass. Until all catholics are ballotted that is simply speculation.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.
So how many of these 'catholics' actually practise? Exactly - you can hardly call them catholic can you?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!
the census legal document circulated and signed in the home! over 90 per cent are Christian!
He was present when children signed an effective gagging order never to talk about their abuse. That, my friend, is blocking an investigation which could never even get started due to the cover-up.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.
So when, after a reasonable length of time, no one else at that meeting reported the abuse, why did he not then report it? When Smyth abused again, & again, & no one else came forward, why did he not report it? Did he not have a conscience? Just because no one else did it doesn't let him off the hook. Isn't he supposed to be the moral authority in all of this?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?
They are all to blame - just as much as Brady. But shared blame is still blame.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?0 -
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.
From what I've read, I don't think a priest is more likely to be a paedophile than any other member of the population (maybe even less likely!). So for that reason, it doesn't matter what happened in the 50's to 70's.
I think the problem with the Catholic Church is the failure of the hierarchy to report the paedophile priests to the civil authorities. Instead they moved them from one parish to the next, knowing they had abused.0 -
Im about to go home so I'm not going to address all of the your comments however, I had been referring to Bishop McKiernan and not Brady here.i do doubt you. "Family ties" are hearsay! i have no evidence that Brady said canon law was to be preferred to law of the land so i can only assume he didn't say it.0 -
It would be nicer if you acknowledged that the innocent victims were and continue to be members of the Church.
Easiest point first...
They may have been members of the church at teh time they were abused and molested. I would be amazed if more than a handful still are, so while it might be "nicer" for me to acknowledge that they "continue to be members of teh Church" it would also be a lie, spin and a falsehood. Sadly all to much in keeping with the RCC attitude to this entire affair.Or you are presenting a false dichotomy which is a "fallacy of the excluded middle"?
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!
And please don't let your lack of formal logical training prevent your ad hominem attack on me, my education and intelligence. In fact I highlighted teh "excluded middle" when I specifically said that there may be a third option I had missed, what is it? I hope that anyone reading teh thread saw through your attempt at rubbishing my points by attacking thier author and saw instead a nifty two footed side shuffle past them.
So, I will ask again a very simple and very direct question. To you. And to anyone else who feels this man should retain his position.
Did he:
(A) not see the immorality of covering up and hiding the rape of children
or
(B) see the immorality but considered protecting children from rape and bringing the abuser to justice was a lower priority than protecting teh name of teh church
or
(C) some other (non legal jargon and simple moral) explanation
~~~
Frankly if it is either A or B he is morally unfit to act as teh leader of a religious organisation preaching on right and wrong. And all this talk of laws and societal standards and media is a 21st century variation of angels on teh head of a pin. Defend him if you must, but do us the curtesy of being honest about what he really did wrong0 -
That just isn't true! It is a sweeping generalisation!
Is that right. well let me be a bit more specific.
Pope Benedict XVI's former diocese in Germany is facing daily allegations of physical and sexual abuse, the head of its new sex-abuse task force says. "It is like a tsunami,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577252.stm
Catholic Church sex abuse scandals around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8576268.stm0 -
dunleakelleher wrote: »Is that right. well let me be a bit more specific.
Pope Benedict XVI's former diocese in Germany is facing daily allegations of physical and sexual abuse, the head of its new sex-abuse task force says. "It is like a tsunami,"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8577252.stm
Catholic Church sex abuse scandals around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8576268.stm
Yawn.
Read this: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100030155/lord-rees-mogg-are-you-proud-of-the-way-the-times-is-vilifying-the-leader-of-your-church/0 -
Thankfully the attitudes have changed in tandem with increased education and the gay community can hold their heads high and anyone who is gay should have no issue with the vast majority of people in society.
Attitudes towards homosexual behaviour are the same as ever: anal sex is wrong. It doesn't matter how many liberal articles in the popular press are written by the homosexual lobby. The vast majority of people in society are Catholic, not homosexual behaviour advocates.0 -
Attitudes towards homosexual behaviour are the same as ever: anal sex is wrong. It doesn't matter how many liberal articles in the popular press are written by the homosexual lobby. The vast majority of people in society are Catholic, not homosexual behaviour advocates.
Facts tend to generate more light than heat. Baldly stating your opinion as a fact on the other hand tends to generate more heat than light.
So I will simply politley point out that - as far back as 1996 - 80% of people not only didn't think that "anal sex is wrong" (I assume that you are happy enough with lesbian couples?) but they supported the idea of giving same sex couples legal recognition (albeit something short of full marriage). This is a link to the Irish Times report of teh survey, I'm sure Google has many more of teh same ilk. Since in teh recent census ~80%+ of teh population tagged themselves as RC I assume that being catholic and being comfortable with teh idea of homosexuality (or even being a gay catholic) is extremly common.0 -
-
It may be but it is also a contradiction sine you claim that yu didnt say this!Yes - you are right - I did. And I think that is a reasonable stance based on the condict of the church on all matters regarding child abuse.
in http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64977395&postcount=238
wher you saidNot true.Yes that's what I said - prove me wrong.
You already said yourself this was not true! im just trying to clarify.Well, I think it is. However, I did state just after that statement that I would not pursue that argument for lack of solid evidence. But you chose to ignore that I notice.
And I will also draw attention to any statements like "people may say he is a fraudster but i don't believe any of the stories I heard about the five million he embessled from the church". I also note you CLAIM to ignore it but you re enter it later on!ALL catholics I have spoken to are opposed to his stance of not reporting the abuse to the correct authorities - of not coming public with this for decades. And no I'm sure they are not experts in "sociology canon law Irish constititutional law and psychological conditions". But then neither are most people so are you dismissing the majority opinion??
Having just claimed you are not pursuing anecdotal evidence as a line of debate and having rebuked me for not ignoring your hearsay you immediately set of on a line of anecdotal evidence!I stated quite clearly that my opinion WAS based on anecdotal evidence AND that I would therefore not pursue it any further. YOU are the one dragging it up. (And by the way I don't read tabloids).
No YOU are the one referring to "people i have spoken to" as evidence! then after you claim you will not refer to that again you refer to it again. You also referred to something as "not true" and when I kept on about that you claimed it is true and asked me to prove it wrong! I suggest you look up "proving a negative"As stated already - for the disgraceful way they have conducted themselves throughout this affair.
What disgracefull way and how does it prove "the church does not care about people outside the church?"
the people abused were people IN the church! There are many many people nothing to do with sexual abuse outside the Church which the Church does care for. to claim the church does not care about all of them is ludicrous!I was replying to outrages assertion that he has the support of the majority of catholics based on wellwishers on a specific mass. Until all catholics are ballotted that is simply speculation.
It isn't. If most catholics opposed him in Ireland (or even if a significant number did) he would leave his office.So how many of these 'catholics' actually practise? Exactly - you can hardly call them catholic can you?
I assume you mean roman Catholic? going to mass on a sunday does not make one a Catholic - you should know that!He was present when children signed an effective gagging order never to talk about their abuse. That, my friend, is blocking an investigation which could never even get started due to the cover-up.
No read the reference given. It is a gagging order on the PROCEEDINGS and the clergy not on the victims. But I will accept in paractice the victims may have viewed it as such. their family it seems certainly didnt want the abuse made public.So when, after a reasonable length of time, no one else at that meeting reported the abuse, why did he not then report it?
He being Brady? well i dont know. Maybe he thought he had no locus standi and it was for the family or the victims to do so? maybe ther was no law of rape of a male teenager? Maybe he felt bound by vows? maybe something else? you would have to ask him.When Smyth abused again, & again, & no one else came forward, why did he not report it?
Im nmot aware of the Smith case. Maybe smith was in another juristiction ? I think he was extradited eventually was he not? maybe all the other reasons aboive?Did he not have a conscience? Just because no one else did it doesn't let him off the hook. Isn't he supposed to be the moral authority in all of this?
when he became bishop of Armagh yes. Which was ? - 1996
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/darma.html
so we should fire all RUC Gardai nurses or anyone else?They are all to blame - just as much as Brady. But shared blame is still blame.0 -
Advertisement
-
--amadeus-- wrote: »Easiest point first...
They may have been members of the church at teh time they were abused and molested. I would be amazed if more than a handful still are, so while it might be "nicer" for me to acknowledge that they "continue to be members of teh Church" it would also be a lie, spin and a falsehood. Sadly all to much in keeping with the RCC attitude to this entire affair.
I heard a man on the radio the other day. I think he was on the Late Late show in the audience and he is a former Fianna fail mayor of a town. He is a victim and he said he is still in the church but doesn't go to Mass.
Michael O’Brien from Clonmel, I think is the man. i do not see him as someone heavily influenced by spin!In fact I highlighted teh "excluded middle" when I specifically said that there may be a third option I had missed, what is it?
By claiming it didn't exist!I hope that anyone reading teh thread saw through your attempt at rubbishing my points by attacking thier author and saw instead a nifty two footed side shuffle past them.
I resent that. I made no personal attack on you! In fact if anything I pointed out you chad contributed mre to the issue than anyone yet (including myself) ! I pointed out yout present a falxe dichotomy and in pointing it pout I pointed out that there is possiobly many other explainations and your oresentation of two alternatives might give the impression that it was only a choice between one or the other.
If you think i was personally attacking you you are sorely mistaken. You presented two equally distasteful alternatives as if they were the only options.
alluding to another possibility isn't offering the excluded middle as the most probable!So, I will ask again a very simple and very direct question. To you. And to anyone else who feels this man should retain his position.
Did he:
(A) not see the immorality of covering up and hiding the rape of children
Yes he saw the act as wrong (assuming he believed it happened)
Apparently judging by the times it was the normal thing to do to file a report and let the bishop and family decide and not interfere with the family wishes.
Rape was not committed as there was not law of raping boys!
Brady himself didnt "cover up" anything other than asking the people making a statement not to talk about it. famiuly courts do this all the time as far as i know.(B) see the immorality but considered protecting children from rape and bringing the abuser to justice was a lower priority than protecting teh name of teh church
I would say No to this and I think Brady would and if he sees it that way then he should not alone go bt not be appointed in teh first place.
or(C) some other (non legal jargon and simple moral) explanation
yes most probably thisFrankly if it is either A or B he is morally unfit to act as teh leader of a religious organisation preaching on right and wrong.
It isnt B It might be A under the consideration of the times. and i disagree that your conclusion that someone acting in a moinor role taking a statement at the time warrents your conclusion as "morally unfit" and even if he were marally unfit people or the organisation could change in the meantime.And all this talk of laws and societal standards and media is a 21st century variation of angels on teh head of a pin. Defend him if you must, but do us the curtesy of being honest about what he really did wrong
Would you mind listing what you consider you think Im lying about?
I havent' been dishonest or lied about anything as far as I know which means i must therefore be honest!0 -
ISAW. Can I ask you for your personal view to a very simple question?
Do you think it is acceptable or not acceptable for a person not to report a child abuser to the police?0 -
1. Dear Brothers and Sisters of the Church in Ireland, it is with great concern that I write to you as Pastor of the universal Church. Like yourselves, I have been deeply disturbed by the information which has come to light regarding the abuse of children and vulnerable young people by members of the Church in Ireland, particularly by priests and religious. I can only share in the dismay and the sense of betrayal that so many of you have experienced on learning of these sinful and criminal acts and the way Church authorities in Ireland dealt with them...
6. To the victims of abuse and their families
You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry. I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity has been violated. Many of you found that, when you were courageous enough to speak of what happened to you, no one would listen. Those of you who were abused in residential institutions must have felt that there was no escape from your sufferings. It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the Church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel...
7. To priests and religious who have abused children
You betrayed the trust that was placed in you by innocent young people and their parents, and you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals. You have forfeited the esteem of the people of Ireland and brought shame and dishonour upon your confreres...
Source: http://sufferingworld.blogspot.com/2010/03/popes-letter-to-irish-church.html
In certain respects, I am quite please that the Pope has gone so far. It is, of course, too little too late. But perhaps some wounds can begin to heal.0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »In certain respects, I am quite please that the Pope has gone so far. It is, of course, too little too late. But perhaps some wounds can begin to heal.
Gone so far. He wrote a letter. He has taken no action. Called nobody to account. Disciplined nobody just wrote a bloody letter.:mad:
Well done you Pope you really restored my faith in the RCC.0 -
dunleakelleher wrote: »Gone so far. He wrote a letter.
er yes that is the point of a Pastoral Letter.dunleakelleher wrote: »He has taken no action. Called nobody to account. Disciplined nobody just wrote a bloody letter.:mad:
Well done you Pope you really restored my faith in the RCC.
There have been massive changes within the Church, that those of us outside of it are not privy to.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
-
Perhaps the Church might one day realise that transparency is vital, especially when the trust of thousands was abused so systematically.
Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.0 -
you must answer for it before Almighty God and before properly constituted tribunals.
But what about answering before the law or, as seems apparent, is the Church outside the reach of state law?0 -
Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.
What are they? They don't have to take out an add just make the information available.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 6185
Er..you just said that we are not "privy" to them... Either they are made public or they are not. They're not Amish - they can use the internet if they want to broadcast the changes widely.Indeed, and the changes are transparent. Just go and talk to your local RCC priest about it. What they don't do is take out a full page ad in the papers for every procedural change, ever guideline etc. Simply because no one would pay a blind bit of notice either way.
And you wouldn't tell a survivor of abuse to wander down to their local RCC priest for a chat about this.0
Advertisement