Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Min

Biggins wrote: »

Please point out the EXACT sentence in that report that states they were implemented.

Not point out that they MIGHT be good (enough to beat the state) in the future IF they do so!

Cloyne has fully implemented the safeguarding procedures as laid down by the church.
The commission did not say they might be good, they said if fully implemented would offer proper protection to children.

http://www.cloynediocese.ie/2011/07/actions-taken-by-diocese-in-response-to-report/

The politicians giving out about the church are a joke given 115 children died in state care from unnatural causes between 2000 and 2010 or 200 deaths of children overall.
As the Irish Times points out "
No doubt, the usual detractors will say that I’m only mentioning the State failures to distract from the failures of the church. To which I can only say, people currently working as child safeguarding advocates in other settings would love a fraction of the public attention given to church catastrophes.
Nor can those same detractors deny that the State’s failures continue even when the church is not involved at all, as in the Roscommon case, or the death of Daniel McAnaspie. Geoffrey Shannon and Norah Gibbons are currently investigating nearly 200 deaths of young people in the care of the HSE from 2000- 2010."


A lot of wrong and evil has been done in the church by a minority of priests and handled wrongly by their superiors when they found out. A lot of wrong has been done to children in state care and they are not given the same level of concern. I am not saying lowering the lvel of concern over what happened in the church but the level of concern for the 115 children who died unnaturally in state careis not at the same high level of concern and the Cloyne report did say the state's own child protection measures are less precise and more difficult to implement."than the churches own safeguarding measures.


A lot of people want to stick their heads in the sand and believe the church has not done anything to protect children, Cloyne has fully implemented the child safeguarding standardswhich are superior to that of the state's own guidelines which some in state run institutions choose not to follow...they are doing a Bishop McGee on it...

vicwatson

The politicians giving out about the church are a joke given 115 children died in state care from unnatural causes between 2000 and 2010 or 200 deaths of children overall.

What is a joke is that we the taxpayer have to pay for about half the compensation cases and the Roman Catholic Church only half to pay around half - that's a joke, they should pay 100%. End of.

Min

vicwatson wrote: »

What is a joke is that we the taxpayer have to pay for about half the compensation cases and the Roman Catholic Church only half to pay around half - that's a joke, they should pay 100%. End of.

You can thank a politician for that.

The state though is responsible for the role of the gardai and the courts for putting children into industrial schools, the state inspected these places and gave them a clean bill of health when we know the abuse was happening.
This is what the state is paying for, it's role in the abuse of children. One can argue about about the percentage of compensation from both sides but the state played a role in the abuse.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

The commission did not say they might be good, they said if fully implemented would offer proper protection to children.

Say what?

You posted earlier:

...the state has been overtaken by the church when it comes to child protection policy according to the Cloyne commission if they fully implemented the policy.

But in the very next sentence you say...

Min wrote: »

The problem in Cloyne is the policy was not implemented unlike other dioceses.

Confusing!

Min wrote: »

...A lot of people want to stick their heads in the sand and believe the church has not done anything to protect children, Cloyne has fully implemented...

PLEASE back this up!

Its implemented - its not implemented - its implemented again!
Amazing stuff.

...And still not backed up.

---

If you want to change the topic and try moving away from the evil within Rome's org, please start a separate thread?
Me, I'm sticking with the way Brady - remember him? - has done bugger all and frankly could be very guilty of various crimes if the state and the Gardi had the balls to arrest him!

...Never mind the org itself outright lying not to one but two national police forces.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

Say what?

You posted earlier:


But in the very next sentence you say...



Confusing!

Min wrote: »

...A lot of people want to stick their heads in the sand and believe the church has not done anything to protect children, Cloyne has fully implemented...

PLEASE back this up!

It wasn't implemented, it is now, Cloyne has the child safeguards which the Cloyne reports said would offer proper protection.

The last comment was not at you, it was a general comment.
I apologise if you thought I was having a go at you.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

It wasn't implemented, it is now, Cloyne has the child safeguards which the Cloyne reports said would offer proper protection.

Fair enough.
Cloyne you say might have implemented further safeguards for the future, we will have to wait and see.

In the meanwhile, Brady still is (or should be) answerable utterly for his breaking of not one but two states laws in regards to not reporting various crimes that he was very aware of.

J Cheever Loophole

gimme5minutes wrote: »

I am sick of this nonsense of 'shopkeepers knew, teachers knew, .... but they did nothing'. The only ones with the power to do anything were the gardai. And the gardai were in the pocket of the church just like the politicians. If a guard caused trouble for the church a bishop would have a word with his superior and he could forget about having any kind of career and would be looking at a transfer to the other side of the country. There were decent guards back in the day who tryed to bring paedo priests to justice but had their careers and lives ruined for it. The church has had the run of this place for a long time and if you weren't a team player you would not rise up the ranks in politics/law enforcement.

In light of that culture, is it not reasonable to assume that Father Brady was similarly in a no win situation back in 1975 when he carried out his investigation and presented it to his superiors for action? The Church by their subsequent inaction, have in my opinion, let him down and he - an honourable and decent man - is having to take the flack for that today, which comes in the form of absolute hate filled bile.

Biggins

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

In light of that culture, is it not reasonable to assume that Father Brady was similarly in a no win situation back in 1975 when he carried out his investigation and presented it to his superiors for action? The Church by their subsequent inaction, have in my opinion, let him down and he - an honourable and decent man - is having to take the flack for that today, which comes in the form of absolute hate filled bile.

Where you see "absolute hate filled bile" - others including I, see stark fact.

Abuse is still abuse and at no stage did he report anything to the police/Garda.
..And by either state laws, he was supposed to - REGARDLESS of also the rules of his club and the fact he should have also informed the kids parents.

Those are the facts.
Sorry if you read them as "absolute hate filled bile."

Each to their own.

J Cheever Loophole

Biggins wrote: »

Where you see "absolute hate filled bile" - others including I, see stark fact.

Abuse is still abuse and at no stage did he report anything to the police/Garda.
..And by either state laws, he was supposed to - REGARDLESS of also the rules of his club and the fact he should have also informed the kids parents.

Those are the facts.
Sorry if you read them as "absolute hate filled bile."

Each to their own.

Each to their own indeed - when I see terms like 'scumbag' used for a man whom I know as thoroughly decent individual, and arguments elsewere on these boards for abolishing Catholicism on the island of Ireland, then I no longer see fact but rather the hate filled bile I referred to - hate that would do justice to the more extreme members of the loyalist community up here.

Cardinal Brady is held in very high regard in Armagh City, where one of his roles is that of Parish Priest. When he was under similar pressure a couple of years back, he received a spontaneous standing ovation from the St Patrick's Day congregation in St Patrick's Cathedral. I subsequently heard that congregation - of which I was a part - referred to as supporters of paedophelia. Maybe you'd like to point out the 'stark fact' in that to me? :mad:

As for reporting to the gardai back then, I wonder what abuse victim John O'Donnell would have had to say about going down that avenue?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/catholic-clergy-children-donegal-report?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Make no mistake - the Catholic Church has acted shamefully in the past and have compounded grievous outrages by attempts to cover these outrages up. That causes a lot of pain to practising Catholics like myself, and yes, where people have deliberately covered these acts up, I believe there should be criminal charges brought. I do not however see Cardinal Brady's role back in the 1970s as any part of that - he has been let down by those who were his superiors back then and is paying a terrible price for it.

Biggins

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Cardinal Brady is held in very high regard in Armagh City, where one of his roles is that of Parish Priest.

Sorry but so what?

Charley Haughty, Mr Ahern, etc (JUST as an example) were held in high regard too by people in their local area too.
That don't make any of them less culpable or answerable for their actions or in-actions.

When he was under similar pressure a couple of years back, he received a spontaneous standing ovation from the St Patrick's Day congregation in St Patrick's Cathedral.

So your saying his own org supported their own - well this comes as no shock!
Birds of a feather sticking together.
Are we supposed to think that seeing as he got a standing ovation from his very own people, that makes him out to be in the clear?
Please! Daftness!

As for reporting to the gardai back then, I wonder what abuse victim John O'Donnell would have had to say about going down that avenue?

Sorry, as much as you'd like some of us are not into changing the topic or twist the current debate away from Brady.
If you have a gripe about another person, I suggest you start a thread about them.

Make no mistake - the Catholic Church has acted shamefully in the past and have compounded grievous outrages by attempts to cover these outrages up. That causes a lot of pain to practising Catholics like myself, and yes, where people have deliberately covered these acts up, I believe there should be criminal charges brought.

Good to hear!
So when the Irish church lied to TWO state investigation units and said their inquiries didn't happen - you will agree then that they should be held accountable for those lies I presume!

I do not however see Cardinal Brady's role back in the 1970s as any part of that

Wow - seriously?
Holy crap!
Sad.

...he has been let down by those who were his superiors back then and is paying a terrible price for it.

1. He was a gown adult.
2. Priest or no priest, by that stage he should have had the mental capacity to tell right from wrong. The kids could apparently see and tell it!
3. When he saw his boss do nothing, its was his also responsibly to see that ALL proper authorities were involved and informed, to stop further crimes.
4. He should have told ALL the parents.
5. He broke the law in two states by non-action and frankly is possibly also answerable for breaking his then legal duty of care besides further possible negligence.
6. It no good to try 'passing the buck' to his bosses, he PERSONALLY knew of serious sickening abuse to kids in detail - and not just as a pen pusher on a notepad at the questionings, he investigated many cases and travelled around to do so - and what did he do?
He said nothing and he also personally by inaction, let a pervert continue to abuse for over a decade when at ANY minute by picking up phone and even ringing anonymously to a confidential line, he could have reported the sick individual - besides reporting the pervert openly as a priest too!

He does not deserve to lead anyone - never mind the whole Catholic people of Ireland.
He is a complete disgrace of a human being - not just of a priest - but of a person!

Rotating Egg

Biggins, do you count for anything in real life, or just here? Thought as much ...

Biggins

Rotating Egg wrote: »

Biggins, do you count for anything in real life, or just here? Thought as much ...

What?

Do me a favour - attack my posts - not just insult the poster.

Rotating Egg

Tell me where a 'confidential line' existed in 1970's Ireland.

And not just in the official sense, just generally that you didn't know someone was listening.

Biggins

Rotating Egg wrote: »

Tell me where a 'confidential line' existed in 1970's Ireland.

And not just in the official sense, just generally that you didn't know someone was listening.

Are you trying say that Brady could not in over a decade, have not have taken a walk at some stage and from a call box, rang a police/Garda station and reported the man?
Seriously?

Rotating Egg

You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

Biggins

Rotating Egg wrote: »

You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

Which by request to an operator, guess what... connects to a Garda station!
...And guess what also, if you have a direct number, they work too! Surprising that isn't it!

I'm sure an adult like Brady could read a a phone book in the 1970's.
They did have them then too you know!

Pushtrak

Rotating Egg wrote: »

You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

Explain the chasm that exists between a priest in that time and the gardai that would render it impossible for a priest to pass on information to the authorities.

While doing so, also point out what was the chasm that stopped Brady from having the decency to inform the parents.

Oh, one last thing. Be a decent person and lay off derisive commentary on other users. That'd be swell.

policarp

Rotating Egg wrote: »

Biggins, do you count for anything in real life, or just here? Thought as much ...

He is entitled to his opinion, same as you. . .

Rotating Egg

I'm firmly of the opinion that he's only a cUnt.

KeithM89_old

Rotating Egg wrote: »

I'm firmly of the opinion that he's only a cUnt.

Banned

policarp

Rotating Egg wrote: »

You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

Press Button B. . .
Get the money back. . .

J Cheever Loophole

To Biggins;

For someone with 29,000 odd posts on this Board, I have to say your style of debating leaves a lot to be desired. The reference to the story about Armagh Parish was in the context of what I described as the 'hate filled bile' that was being thrown around, and which you referred to as 'stark fact'. You wrote many words in reply, but essentially refused to address that.

Furthermore, the reference to John O'Donnell points clearly to what was a different Ireland back then - which is key to those like myself who are defending Cardinal Brady - whether or not you agree with that, you surely see its relevance in that context?

I would expect no less to be honest.

I quoted the writer Jude Collins elsewhere on this Board when he said;

"Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days."

and boy did he nail that one correctly.

I'd already promised myself that I would not come on here and argue over the course of dozens of posts on what has happened, as that would be a futile exercise - people have a good idea of the facts, and essentially it boils down to your view on these - I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that.

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

Cloyne has fully implemented the safeguarding procedures as laid down by the church.
The commission did not say they might be good, they said if fully implemented would offer proper protection to children.

http://www.cloynediocese.ie/2011/07/actions-taken-by-diocese-in-response-to-report/

The politicians giving out about the church are a joke given 115 children died in state care from unnatural causes between 2000 and 2010 or 200 deaths of children overall.
As the Irish Times points out "
No doubt, the usual detractors will say that I’m only mentioning the State failures to distract from the failures of the church. To which I can only say, people currently working as child safeguarding advocates in other settings would love a fraction of the public attention given to church catastrophes.
Nor can those same detractors deny that the State’s failures continue even when the church is not involved at all, as in the Roscommon case, or the death of Daniel McAnaspie. Geoffrey Shannon and Norah Gibbons are currently investigating nearly 200 deaths of young people in the care of the HSE from 2000- 2010."


A lot of wrong and evil has been done in the church by a minority of priests and handled wrongly by their superiors when they found out. A lot of wrong has been done to children in state care and they are not given the same level of concern. I am not saying lowering the lvel of concern over what happened in the church but the level of concern for the 115 children who died unnaturally in state careis not at the same high level of concern and the Cloyne report did say the state's own child protection measures are less precise and more difficult to implement."than the churches own safeguarding measures.


A lot of people want to stick their heads in the sand and believe the church has not done anything to protect children, Cloyne has fully implemented the child safeguarding standardswhich are superior to that of the state's own guidelines which some in state run institutions choose not to follow...they are doing a Bishop McGee on it...

But the state has departments whos task it is to care for children for various reasons so naturally there will be incidents involving children. Bringing this point up ad nauseum is a little like claiming that more puppies die under the care of vets as opposed to under the care of fire men

Ghost Buster

Rotating Egg wrote: »

You've never used a 1970s Irish phone box then, connected to the primative switchboard in the local PO?

But peoples feet were as capable of walking them into a Guarda station in the 70's as they are now.

Biggins

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

To Biggins;

For someone with 29,000 odd posts on this Board, I have to say your style of debating leaves a lot to be desired. The reference to the story about Armagh Parish was in the context of what I described as the 'hate filled bile' that was being thrown around, and which you referred to as 'stark fact'. You wrote many words in reply, but essentially refused to address that.

I would expect no less to be honest.

I quoted the writer Jude Collins elsewhere on this Board when he said;

"Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days."

and boy did he nail that one correctly.

I'd already promised myself that I would not come on here and argue over the course of dozens of posts on what has happened, as that would be a futile exercise - people have a good idea of the facts, and essentially it boils down to your view on these - I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that.

I'm not sure what the bulk of your last post is on about. It seems to wander loosly around something around debating skills - and I say that not to irritate you but maybe perhaps to expose some part of me that is stupid in not seeing what your on about.
I debate as close as I can to basic facts and the law as it stands.

As regards a latter part:

I'd be confident that neither side will move from their respective positions. Like you - I have stated my opinion on Cardinal Brady and stand over that

Thats absolutely fair enough and in fact I commend you for taking a stance and sticking to it.
Not an easy thing to do and you (and Min) whom I may disagree with, at least stick to your core principle ideas.
Although ye both differ in opinion from myself, ye both are to be commended to at least coming here also and voicing another possible side to a series of events or person.

Don't ever let a fool like me ever put you off from speaking up/out.

Ghost Buster

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Each to their own indeed - when I see terms like 'scumbag' used for a man whom I know as thoroughly decent individual, and arguments elsewere on these boards for abolishing Catholicism on the island of Ireland, then I no longer see fact but rather the hate filled bile I referred to - hate that would do justice to the more extreme members of the loyalist community up here.

Cardinal Brady is held in very high regard in Armagh City, where one of his roles is that of Parish Priest. When he was under similar pressure a couple of years back, he received a spontaneous standing ovation from the St Patrick's Day congregation in St Patrick's Cathedral. I subsequently heard that congregation - of which I was a part - referred to as supporters of paedophelia. Maybe you'd like to point out the 'stark fact' in that to me? :mad:

As for reporting to the gardai back then, I wonder what abuse victim John O'Donnell would have had to say about going down that avenue?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/29/catholic-clergy-children-donegal-report?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Make no mistake - the Catholic Church has acted shamefully in the past and have compounded grievous outrages by attempts to cover these outrages up. That causes a lot of pain to practising Catholics like myself, and yes, where people have deliberately covered these acts up, I believe there should be criminal charges brought. I do not however see Cardinal Brady's role back in the 1970s as any part of that - he has been let down by those who were his superiors back then and is paying a terrible price for it.

All that goes to show is that the grip the RCC had on the minds of Catholics in the time when the bulk of the abuse happened is still firmly in place today. To applaud a man who took an abused child into a room , without his parents, sit there whilst the child is asked if he came in his pants whilst being abused and did he enjoy it, swear the child to secrecy and then inform no one other than more of his church thus enabling the abuser to carry on for decades. Shocking.

Biggins

Ghost Buster wrote: »

...To applaud a man who took an abused child into a room , without his parents, sit there whilst the child is asked if he came in his pants whilst being abused and did he enjoy it, swear the child to secrecy and then inform no one other than more of his church thus enabling the abuser to carry on for decades. Shocking.

That about sums up the situation for me.

I talk to and read of many victims (a lot who are left seriously effected) thru a heavy site (http://shameofireland.co.uk/) and frankly I too am shocked in many ways.

The fact is that - as the saying goes - no man is an island. Each has the ability to stand up for themselves as adults normally and do the right thing ultimately.
Brady didn't. He hid behind his org and continues to do this.
Not only that but others now seem to think that this hiding behind the org as an excuse, seems to let Brady off from blame for what he didn't do - what he honestly should have done!
Anyone that espouses that its wasn't my fault and/or its was the orgs fault ("I was only following orders!" goes the cry), reminds me of previous very evil which existed that used that excuse also!
...And they though that excuse justified their getting off and not be held culpable.
They too were wrong!

Brady was a full grown adult.
He knew exactly what he was doing, what he forced kids to do (remain silent), he knew exactly what methods he was using to make them stay silent, he knew exactly what the org he was in was/is capable of, he knew what his boss eventually did or didn't do, he knew exacly that he wasn't telling the parents, he knew that he was NOT just a note taker, ...and do on...

..And after all that, what did he do to ACTUALLY easy suffering and stop an evil man?

Nothing.

His should be ashamed of himself and is a disgrace for the position he won't resign from.

Min

Ghost Buster wrote: »

But the state has departments whos task it is to care for children for various reasons so naturally there will be incidents involving children. Bringing this point up ad nauseum is a little like claiming that more puppies die under the care of vets as opposed to under the care of fire men

The thing is 115 children had unnatural things happen to them in state care from 2000 to 2010.
So while you said naturally, the point is the incidents were deemed unnatural, the total death toll is somewhere near 200 children died in state care in that period, over half from unnatural causes.

This is because the state has departments who do not follow child safeguarding procedures due to a 'lack of resources'.
Most of that period was during the Celtic tiger period when the state was giving tax cuts and tax breaks while it allowed children in it's care to die from unnatural causes.

awec

How anyone can hold Brady in high regard is beyond me.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

The thing is 115 children had unnatural things happen to them in state care from 2000 to 2010.
So while you said naturally, the point is the incidents were deemed unnatural, the total death toll is somewhere near 200 children died in state care in that period, over half from unnatural causes.

This is because the state has departments who do not follow child safeguarding procedures due to a 'lack of resources'.
Most of that period was during the Celtic tiger period when the state was giving tax cuts and tax breaks while it allowed children in it's care to die from unnatural causes.

Your determined to deflect this thread away from Brady aren't you?

Back on topic of Brady and his religious org, how many were effected by him and his inadequacy we shall probably never know.
I suspect that there is many out there that still is too ashamed/embarrassed to come forward.
Then there is the others that did a WHOLE lot of other abusing under the roof of Rome property and under their protection of their priest cloth.
I dread to think of the total numbers involved if we were to add it all up over many, many decades or in a half century and more!