Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Pace2008

Rotating Egg wrote: »

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

I have seen this particularly bizarre line of apologetics used over on the Christianity forum as well, and it is utterly baffling. The notion that a poor telecommunications system was an impassable barrier to relaying an important message to someone living on the same tiny island is absurd and frankly insulting.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

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

Am I not allowed to reply to a specific reply?

Nodin

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.

....a good deal of which was highlighted by opposition spokesman Alan Shatter, now minister for Justice. Thankfully the parties involved are no longer in power - a stark contrast to Sean Brady and his situation. Ordinary members of the church have no say in his future, nor do the clergy for the most part.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

....a good deal of which was highlighted by opposition spokesman Alan Shatter, now minister for Justice. Thankfully the parties involved are no longer in power - a stark contrast to Sean Brady and his situation. Ordinary members of the church have no say in his future, nor do the clergy for the most part.

So what were all these parties doing back in the 1990's?

Whether church abuse or state abuse - all of these parties were in power at various stages in the 1990's - Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour, progressive democrats, democratic left.

Alan Shatter is only wise after the events, he or his party didn't do anything in the 1990's when the rainbow government were in power to address child abuse in either the church or state and we knew about Brendan Smyth in 1993.

Enda Kenny now leader of the country has been in the Dáil since 1975, one could say he is like Cardinal Brady, late in the day he is addressing child abuse.
Back in the 1990s nothing really meaningful was done by the state to deal with child abuse which allowed many children to die and to continue to die in state care.

At least Cardinal Brady can stand over the churches own child safeguarding measures knowing an independent commission says they offer proper protection, the leader of this country cannot say after his 37 years in the Dáil that the state has proper child safeguarding measures.

So FF, FG, Labour, PDs and DL were in power and all are responsible for the state's lack of child safeguards which allowed hundreds of children to die in state care.
Enda kenny was elected to the Dáil in 1975 and in the government party of the time, he was in the government of the 1980's, the government of the mid 1990's and again now.
Tell me what he and his government were doing all this time when it came to child protection measures.
It actually mirrors the churches own child abuse scandals.
Now we have Enda Kenny and Cardinal Brady both as leaders of their respective areas in this country.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

Am I not allowed to reply to a specific reply?

You are but there was me thinking it was you that brought up this topic in post 332 for your own purposes, when in fact that matter is not related to the Brady.

Pushtrak

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/kilmore-diocese-allowed-brendan-smyth-back-to-full-ministry-1-3825337

CARDINAL Sean Brady is understood to be “reflecting seriously on his future” amid new allegations of cover-ups by the Catholic Church – particularly the Kilmore Diocese in the Brendan Smyth child abuse scandal.

The fallout continues from a BBC documentary ‘The Shame of the Catholic Church’ which last week revealed that Cardinal Brady had a list of children’s names who were being abused but failed to inform gardai and their parents in 1975. The cardinal said as a “note taker” he gave the information to his superior, Bishop Francis Mac Kiernan a native of Aughawillan Co Leitrim, but no action was taken against Smyth and he was able to continue abusing children for a further 20 years.

According to a statement issued by current Bishop of Kilmore, Dr Leo O’Reilly, in 1984 Smyth asked the then Bishop, the late Dr Francis MacKiernan, to lift the ban put in place in 1975.

Following consultations with the then Abbott of Smyth’s monastery, Bishop MacKiernan acceded to Smyth’s request. The statement adds that, at first, permission to return to hearing confessions and celebrating Mass publicly in the diocese was given for periods of six months at a time. Three years later, the period was extended to 12 months.

Permission was renewed each subsequent year until 1993 when Bishop MacKiernan learned that the DPP in Northern Ireland was bringing a criminal prosecution against Smyth. Cardinal Brady had ceased to be Bishop MacKiernan’s Secretary five years before the decision to allow Smyth to return to full public ministry.

Over the weekend a former pupil at St Patrick’s College in Cavan, has alleged that he was abused after 1975 at the college when Smyth visited there. The cardinal was a teacher at the same school at the same time. Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin has called for a full investigation into Smyth and the handling of accusations against him by both the church and the State north and South. Cardinal Brady did not appear at masses in St Patrick’s Cathedral in Armagh last Sunday as the fallout continues.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

You are but there was me thinking it was you that brought up this topic in post 332 for your own purposes, when in fact that matter is not related to the Brady.

Yes, but when someone replied to to it, then I should have the opportunity to reply.
It is relevant to Cardinal Brady as politicians are responsible for child safeguarding measures in the state and they have allowed a lot of children to die in state care. The same politicians who call for Cardinal Brady to resign over his role in child protection did not bring in legislation to safeguard children.
We have Martin McGuinness saying Cardinal Brady should go and he belonged to a criminal group who abused children by murdering and injuring fathers, mothers, brother and sisters of children.

Politicians have failed children and allowed their abuse for generations by measures that did not safeguard children. The same politicians who were in government in the past and who did nothing until every bird around came home to roost, similar to the church when the tidal wave of abuse came home to roost by the lack of proper child safeguards.

Biggins

Pushtrak wrote: »

http://www.leitrimobserver.ie/news/local/kilmore-diocese-allowed-brendan-smyth-back-to-full-ministry-1-3825337

More victims? Good luck to them trying to gain compensation - the Rome is not paying despite they having many billions in assets.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

So what were all these parties doing back in the 1990's?
............

Yet more whatabouttery.

The fact is that Brady was intimately involved in an incident.

Now, you may have no problem with somebody who thought it was ok to ask a child victim if they'd ever enjoyed being molested in charge of the organisation that runs the vast majority of our schools, but its safe to say you're in a minority.

Why do feel the need to 'run interference' for Brady?

Min

Biggins wrote: »

More victims? Good luck to them trying to gain compensation - the Rome is not paying despite they having many billions many assess.

Why would Rome pay?

The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

Yet more whatabouttery.

The fact is that Brady was intimately involved in an incident.

Now, you may have no problem with somebody who thought it was ok to ask a child victim if they'd ever enjoyed being molested in charge of the organisation that runs the vast majority of our schools, but its safe to say you're in a minority.

Why do feel the need to 'run interference' for Brady?

Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

Why would Rome pay?

The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

...yet if a Bishop acts out of line with the Church (as the Church sees it), Rome will reel him in. Wanting all of the control, not wanting any of the responsibility or liability.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.

Again - Why are you 'running interference' for Sean Brady?

Biggins

Min wrote: »

...Politicians have failed children and allowed their abuse for generations by measures that did not safeguard children. The same politicians who were in government in the past and who did nothing until every bird around came home to roost, similar to the church when the tidal wave of abuse came home to roost by the lack of proper child safeguards.

Do you want us to concentrate now and compare any few politicians that MIGHT have known about abuses against the many in the Rome Org for decades, maybe longer - and did nothing.
I suspect the numbers will vastly differ - in the meanwhile the Brady tries to hide behind his cloth, someone else, espousing that he's been treated unfairly?
Well how about he saying how he treated the victims of one sick pervert even worse in return, many times to many different young boys and girls over even longer periods of internal investigation (you know, the ones even they denied existed to two police forces!)!

K-9

Min wrote: »

Brendan Smyth also brought down a government.

Indeed, because of a file not acted on IIRC.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

Why would Rome pay?
The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

They run their religious club - and as such because they failed terribly, very terribly, by law such all operations are liable for action or in-actions which lead to futher pain and suffering.

That's the law. I con't believe that you cannot understand that simple legal basis!

Brady is accountable and IF he wants to pass the blame/buck upwards - when it suits him or others of course - that means that they too are accountable in some way to allotting compensation to their victims of inaction, as in this case.

Its not as if they don't have the money!
They just don't want to part with it!

Min

Nodin wrote: »

...yet if a Bishop acts out of line with the Church (as the Church sees it), Rome will reel him in. Wanting all of the control, not wanting any of the responsibility or liability.

The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?

So if a bishop acts of line, then it goes back to Rome to be dealt with, but what is in the power of the bishop, is in power of the bishop. It was the bishops who failed the chilldren abused if they did not act correctly.

Min

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, because of a file not acted on IIRC.

By the state.

Min

Nodin wrote: »

Again - Why are you 'running interference' for Sean Brady?

I think some are blind and only see what they want to see.

The point is Brendan Smyth has been a thorn in both the sides of the church and state, and failures on all sides.

Otacon

Min wrote: »

By the state.

Ah, I must have missed that. When did the state get this file from Brady or the church?

Nodin

Min wrote: »

I think some are blind and only see what they want to see.

The point is Brendan Smyth has been a thorn in both the sides of the church and state, and failures on all sides.

.....not really an answer.

Why are you trying to deflect and turn the argument away from S Brady?

Do you believe that he should stay?

Nodin

Min wrote: »

The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?.

Why? Because the attitude responsible for the failure was/is shared in Rome, because they are in charge of the Bishops, Priests and the rest.

Min wrote: »

So if a bishop acts of line, then it goes back to Rome to be dealt with, but what is in the power of the bishop, is in power of the bishop. It was the bishops who failed the chilldren abused if they did not act correctly.

...but Bishop, Priest and Nun are all in the power of Rome.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

Why would Rome pay?
The diocese pays as the Bishop is the person responsible for running the diocese, not Rome.

Totally and utterly wrong.

Min wrote: »

The Pope appoints the bishop to run a diocese, the bishop has autonomy over his diocese.
The Bishop is given the responsibility to run his diocese, so why should Rome take responsibility when the responsibilty lies with the bishop?

Please note exactly what you have stated.
You have stated EXACTLY why Rome is liable without a shadow of a doubt.

Before you go further off track in not understanding the legalities of this matter - but I will walk you though them if you wish to be educated - as you say...

"The Pope appoints..."

In legal terms, he is deferring power and abilities to another person who in an awarded capacity, is acting as "a legal agent" (look it up!) for those above them - and NO MATTER how many time alone this ability is further passed down from a top level, in legal terms alone and subsequent application, the top man and as such the organisation he is in, is totally liable to be sued for damages done under tort law alone!

Because Rome utterly failed by their appointed agents, to do the right thing by any form of moral decency and to the victims and their parents they are TOTALLY liable for the crimes that was carried out.

If you want to go down that legal route and argue with me that Rome is not liable, I'll bloody go there. This is stuff I SERIOUSLY know.

Born to Die

I am a Catholic/Christian but have chosen to follow my faith privately, as in forget about the catholic church and it's poisonous ways. This is my stance towards the extinction of it.

Ghost Buster

Born to Die wrote: »

I am a Catholic/Christian because I have chosen to follow my faith privately, as in forget about the catholic church and it's poisonous ways. This is my stance towards the extinction of it.

FYP

K-9

Min wrote: »

By the state.

Indeed and a Government fell so Brady should go?

Min

Biggins wrote: »

Totally and utterly wrong.



Please note exactly what you have stated.
You have stated EXACTLY why Rome is liable without a shadow of a doubt.

Before you go further off track in not understanding the legalities of this matter - but I will walk you though them if you wish to be educated - as you say...


In legal terms, he is deferring power and abilities to another person who in an awarded capacity, is acting as "a legal agent" (look it up!) for those above them - and NO MATTER how many time alone this ability is further passed down from a top level, in legal terms alone and subsequent application, the top man and as such the organisation he is in, is totally liable to be sued for damages done under tort law alone!

Because Rome utterly failed by their appointed agents, to do the right thing by any form of moral decency and to the victims and their parents they are TOTALLY liable for the crimes that was carried out.

If you want to go down that legal route and argue with me that Rome is not liable, I'll bloody go there. This is stuff I SERIOUSLY know.

The Bishop is the administrator of a diocese, not the Pope.

The pope only appoints after the papal nuncio and maybe the retiring bishop decide on who the candidates should be for the role of bishop, usually about three candidates are chosen, this goes to the congregation of bishops and the pope is then advised on whom he should appoint.
The whole appointment role of the bishop starts in the country of where the bishop will serve, not in the Vatican.
The Pope is a bishop too as a bishop is the person who is the administrator for his diocese, this is why the Pope is also awarded a diocese as in the Bishop of Rome.
In this aspect the Pope is no higher than the local bishop. So in legal terms one would be suing the wrong person if the abuse was say in Dublin.
Power is not deferred from the Vatican in that the bishop is a seen as being the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of the church and their area of control. St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, St James the bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew the bishop of Byzantium and so on. They are similar to a monarch in terms of their role in their diocese.
The Vatican or the Holy See is there for the worldwide church, but the local church is ruled and administered to by the bishop, the bishop is responsible for how the church is run in his diocese, therefore in the child abuse scandals it is the local bishop who is responsible for this.

It was the Irish bishops who put in place the child safeguards that the Cloyne Commission said would offer proper protection to children, it was not the Vatican as it is the local bishops who have the authority for their local area. The Vatican simply approved them.
The Church over in England and Wales had proper child protection measures put in way ahead of when they were implemented here.

The Pope as a bishop has the same authority as my local bishop, but as Pope he is is the head of the worldwide church but it is the bishops who administer it as has been the case from when the apostles went out and set up various churches which later became diocese.

The Pope won't be sued successfully for various reasons, including the fact it is the bishop who has the ultimate responsibility for his diocese, not the Pope. It is not delegated or deferred power and control of a region/diocese. Since the church was founded with the apostles, it has been the local apostle or bishop that lead the local church. No power was ever deferred from anywhere else.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

The Bishop is the (.......) anywhere else.

You still haven't explained why you're here deflecting for S Brady.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

The Bishop is the administrator of a diocese, not the Pope.

The pope only appoints after the papal nuncio and maybe the retiring bishop decide on who the candidates should be for the role of bishop, usually about three candidates are chosen, this goes to the congregation of bishops and the pope is then advised on whom he should appoint.
The whole appointment role of the bishop starts in the country of where the bishop will serve, not in the Vatican.
The Pope is a bishop too as a bishop is the person who is the administrator for his diocese, this is why the Pope is also awarded a diocese as in the Bishop of Rome.
In this aspect the Pope is no higher than the local bishop. So in legal terms one would be suing the wrong person if the abuse was say in Dublin.
Power is not deferred from the Vatican in that the bishop is a seen as being the same as one of the twelve apostles in terms of the church and their area of control. St Peter was the first bishop of Rome, St James the bishop of Jerusalem, St Andrew the bishop of Byzantium and so on. They are similar to a monarch in terms of their role in their diocese.
The Vatican or the Holy See is there for the worldwide church, but the local church is ruled and administered to by the bishop, the bishop is responsible for how the church is run in his diocese, therefore in the child abuse scandals it is the local bishop who is responsible for this.

It was the Irish bishops who put in place the child safeguards that the Cloyne Commission said would offer proper protection to children, it was not the Vatican as it is the local bishops who have the authority for their local area. The Vatican simply approved them.
The Church over in England and Wales had proper child protection measures put in way ahead of when they were implemented here.

The Pope as a bishop has the same authority as my local bishop, but as Pope he is is the head of the worldwide church but it is the bishops who administer it as has been the case from when the apostles went out and set up various churches which later became diocese.

The Pope won't be sued successfully for various reasons, including the fact it is the bishop who has the ultimate responsibility for his diocese, not the Pope. It is not delegated or deferred power and control of a region/diocese. Since the church was founded with the apostles, it has been the local apostle or bishop that lead the local church. No power was ever deferred from anywhere else.

...In other words you do NOT know the law after all that useless waffle and further opinion.

Go pick up a copy of The Principles Of Irish Law by Brian Doolan - and read in the tort section how completely so wrong you are that its stupidly unreal that you won't accept fact - Legal Tort, Principle and Agent Relationship Law and state constitutional fact.
In particular also look up "Nature of Tortuous Liability" - Legal Injury and Damage - Causation - Remoteness of Damage - Remedies for Tortuous Behaviour and a lot more I could bore you with.

Go get an education in state law and stop spewing this rubbish your coming out with!
You haven't a clue what your talking about!
Seriously, try that rubbish in an Irish court and you will be laughed out of it.

P.S. As the Vatican is legal entity and state, it thus also become a viable entity which exists in state law and under international law also become applicable to other laws beyond its principle borders!
What the moronic club in Rome comes up with as regards their own inner club laws, doesn't NOT change state laws which SUPERSEDE it in every international country around the world!

Nodin

Min wrote: »

The Bishop is the ....... anywhere else.

While individual managers may be to blame, the company has to pay. Thats normally how it works and I fail to see why your shower should be any different.