Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

LH Pathe

well would you fancy that a cardinal error, by a cardinal so I guess its crack on, nothing to see here.

Biggins

As I have said elsewhere:

Why the piece of crap that is Cardinal Brady, has not been fired, never mind resigned by now is simply unreal! This man according to victims, not only made them swear not to tell about the abuse they got from a scumbag in the same org’ as Brady – but he also knew of many others that was being abused FOR YEARS with a list that was given to him – and he said and/or did nothing! This allowed the other scumbag to continue for another 13 – yes – 13 years to brutalise more kids!

…And what does the church in Rome say? “…he fulfilled his duty well” – Well if you ever needed a reason to see how bloody sick the Catholic Church of Rome is in stupidity and desired blindness when it suits them, there is yet another reason.

The promoter of justice of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the Vatican enforcers – added that he was sure Brady was still a fit person to lead the church in Ireland. Really? Are they for bloody real?

My God, Brady should not only have been fired – but by god and by law, his own ass should be hauled behind bars for letting a sick individual run rampage over more victims over many years! One excuse Brady gave was “The only people who had authority within the church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his abbot in the monastery in Kilnacrott and his religious superiors in the Norbertine Order.“
….Well why didn’t you go to the Garda or someone else you useless gobschite when you saw that your boss did nothing and a very sick individual was still wrecking lives!

The Church has since said that Cardinal Brady was merely a note-taker at the meeting (NOT true it appears) and Brady described himself as a “notary without powers”. What the BBC programme claimed – and it’s a devastating claim – is that Brady’s own handwritten notes at the time include the phrase “I was dispatched to investigate the complaint”, meaning the allegations made by Boland. If so, it wasn’t much of an investigation, since Smyth carried on abusing victims named by Boland, and also members of those victims’ families. For years. LINK.

My god, instead of making poor young scared kids shut-up and go away quietly in suffering for further years and decades (no further help given), Brady should have done a hell of a lot more to have exposed the scumbag that he helped instead (by his silence) to abuse many more over the following years because he said or did nothing – for over a possible decade and more!

…And he is a fit person to run the whole church in Ireland? You have got to be fcuking kidding me!

The man is not fit enough to lead a dog!

up for anything

He should have had the courage of his convictions (if he had any which he should have had as a supposed man of God) and if he thought that going to the Gardaí here was pointless and that they along with the upper echelons of the CC would sweep it under the rug, he could have gone to London and the papers and even if it didn't accomplish anything in Ireland it would have given Irish parents a chance to pause before handing over their children to the clergy in Ireland and given some children the courage to think that they might be believed and saved from further trauma if they came forward.

Yes it would have ruined his career, he might have been excommunicated or whatever punishment the CC thought necessary, but he would have the satisfaction of not having let more children suffer, of having stood up and been counted. It was a different world back then, everyone was in the combined stranglehold of the church and government but people did break free and voice their dissent from time to time.

padd b1975

Innocent until proven guilty according to the law of the land.

lividduck

padd b1975 wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty according to the law of the land.

Guilty!
He has already admitted that he swore the child victims of sexual abuse to an oath of secrecy, he has admitted that he knew Brendan Smyth was abusing children and he didnt inform the police.
He is guilty by his own admissions.

steddyeddy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Innocent until proven guilty according to the law of the land.

The same law of the land that allowed peados to walk around free for so long? Well sorry if this causes offence but the law of the land isnt worth sh1t now.

padd b1975

steddyeddy wrote: »

The same law of the land that allowed peados to walk around free for so long? Well sorry if this causes offence but the law of the land isnt worth sh1t now.

Yes indeed, the same law.

No offence taken.

padd b1975

lividduck wrote: »

Guilty!
He has already admitted that he swore the child victims of sexual abuse to an oath of secrecy, he has admitted that he knew Brendan Smyth was abusing children and he didnt inform the police.
He is guilty by his own admissions.

Was he standing in front of a judge when he made those admissions?

steddyeddy

Regarding Brady he took two victims and made them sign a oath of secrecy. Two children who were raped were made sign a form making them swear not to tell anyone about it. This isnt conjecture Brady admitted this.

He helped Brendan smyth to rape children. He might as well be a paedophile becuase kids got abused because of him. What makes me more annoyed though is the fact that when it came to abortion, divorce or condoms he had no problem speaking out against it. Yet when it came to kids being ruined for life by dirty old men he has the view that he didnt know it was wrong at the time.

Seriously I dont care if Brady retires I just want him to spend the rest of his life in jail.

lividduck

padd b1975 wrote: »

Was he standing in front of a judge when he made those admissions?

If you are guilty you are guilty, If I commit a crime and do not end up in court does that mean I'm not guilty? What a childish comment you made!

padd b1975

steddyeddy wrote: »

Regarding Brady he took two victims and made them sign a oath of secrecy. Two children who were raped were made sign a form making them swear not to tell anyone about it. This isnt conjecture Brady admitted this.

He helped Brendan smyth to rape children. He might as well be a paedophile becuase kids got abused because of him. What makes me more annoyed though is the fact that when it came to abortion, divorce or condoms he had no problem speaking out against it. Yet when it came to kids being ruined for life by dirty old men he has the view that he didnt know it was wrong at the time.

Seriously I dont care if Brady retires I just want him to spend the rest of his life in jail.

So no police investigation, gathering of evidence, involvement of the DPP??

Wow.

padd b1975

lividduck wrote: »

If you are guilty you are guilty, If I commit a crime and do not end up in court does that mean I'm not guilty? What a childish comment you made!

Yes you are innocent in the eyes of the law.

There is no need to resort to name calling.

philiporeilly

padd b1975 wrote: »

So no police investigation, gathering of evidence, involvement of the DPP??

Wow.

Whether or not it is proved he committed any criminal actions, he has lost any moral authority to lead the church in Ireland.

He is a lame duck leader and can only further damage the organization by remaining.

padd b1975

philiporeilly wrote: »

Whether or not it is proved he committed any criminal actions, he has lost any moral authority to lead the church in Ireland.

He is a lame duck leader and can only further damage the organization by remaining.

I agree.

lividduck

padd b1975 wrote: »

Yes you are innocent in the eyes of the law.

There is no need to resort to name calling.

i withdraw the "childish" but your post is facile, the scumbag is guilty of facilitating and covering up the rape and sexual assault of children, by his own public admissions he is guilty.
What is even more obscene is that he was sent to Armagh as co ajator bishop after it became apparent that the weasel Cathal Daly was up to his neck in the covering up of abuse, Brady was supposed to be a clean pair of hands.
He should be ran back to Rome, and so should those ,like yourself, who are so eager to defend the facilitation of child abuse.

Ellis Dee

philiporeilly wrote: »

---
He is a lame duck leader and can only further damage the organization by remaining.

Let's hope he hangs on for as long as possible so!:D


Seriously, though, contrast his behaviour with that of the RTE journalist Aoife Kavanagh, who has both resigned and apologised for one mistake she made.

Fair dues to her. The mistake she made was a bad one, but she has admitted it, apologised and left a job that a lot of people would be glad to have in this day and age. Unlike the 73-year-old Brady, who should have retired long ago anyway even if he hadn't done anything warranting condemnation, she is still young and has years of working life ahead of her. There are plenty of big wheels in the church, all the way up to the Protector of Paedophiles Everywhere himself, who have made much bigger mistakes and we are still waiting for an apology from them.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The injustice done to Fr. Reynolds was terrible, but at least he now has the consolation of knowing that his good name and innocence have been publicly acknowledged and confirmed, he has a nice little nest egg - which he thoroughly deserves IMO - and he will not - unlike the victims of clerical sex abuse and rape - bear the scars and memories of having had his body violated for the rest of his life.:cool:

For far too long the Catholic Church and its personnel got a totally free ride from the Irish media. They could do and say what they wanted, and anyone who tried to disagree with or criticise them was squashed flat. It was inevitable that over time the pendulum would swing a bit the other way and, especially against a background of such widespread sexual perversion, child abuse and covers up - one or more journalists would think "Oh, just another case!" and neglect to do the proper checks. I sincerely hope that this cock-up by RTE will not give the church back some of the moral high ground and weaken the determination of the media to expose its real crimes.:)


Fr. Reynolds is just as much a victim of his own church and its attitudes and cover-ups as he is of a journalist who got it wrong just once.:rolleyes:

padd b1975

lividduck wrote: »

i withdraw the "childish" but your post is facile, the scumbag is guilty of facilitating and covering up the rape and sexual assault of children, by his own public admissions he is guilty.
What is even more obscene is that he was sent to Armagh as co ajator bishop after it became apparent that the weasel Cathal Daly was up to his neck in the covering up of abuse, Brady was supposed to be a clean pair of hands.
He should be ran back to Rome, and so should those ,like yourself, who are so eager to defend the facilitation of child abuse.

I am just pointing out that despite Cardinal Brady failing to report to the police, the justice system has to operate within certain rules, ie. due process.

I would never condone or defend any facilitator of child abuse, ok.

Min

Zebra3 wrote: »

But it's based on how they deal with his crimes and those of other child rapists in their ranks.

It is the bishop who deals with the abuse not the priest, so to say Fr Brady at the time was the person with the responsibility would be wrong.

If the bishop of the time was alive or the abbot at the monastery, the now Cardinal Brady wouldn't be the person at the centre of this current controversy given these two people were the men responsible at the time.

Min

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Let's hope he hangs on for as long as possible so!:D


Seriously, though, contrast his behaviour with that of the RTE journalist Aoife Kavanagh, who has both resigned and apologised for one mistake she made.

Fair dues to her. The mistake she made was a bad one, but she has admitted it, apologised and left a job that a lot of people would be glad to have in this day and age. Unlike the 73-year-old Brady, who should have retired long ago anyway even if he hadn't done anything warranting condemnation, she is still young and has years of working life ahead of her. There are plenty of big wheels in the church, all the way up to the Protector of Paedophiles Everywhere himself, who have made much bigger mistakes and we are still waiting for an apology from them.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The injustice done to Fr. Reynolds was terrible, but at least he now has the consolation of knowing that his good name and innocence have been publicly acknowledged and confirmed, he has a nice little nest egg - which he thoroughly deserves IMO - and he will not - unlike the victims of clerical sex abuse and rape - bear the scars and memories of having had his body violated for the rest of his life.:cool:

For far too long the Catholic Church and its personnel got a totally free ride from the Irish media. They could do and say what they wanted, and anyone who tried to disagree with or criticise them was squashed flat. It was inevitable that over time the pendulum would swing a bit the other way and, especially against a background of such widespread sexual perversion, child abuse and covers up - one or more journalists would think "Oh, just another case!" and neglect to do the proper checks. I sincerely hope that this cock-up by RTE will not give the church back some of the moral high ground and weaken the determination of the media to expose its real crimes.:)


Fr. Reynolds is just as much a victim of his own church and its attitudes and cover-ups as he is of a journalist who got it wrong just once.:rolleyes:

Aoife Kavanagh is protesting over some of the findings by the BAI, she is a public figure in that it is the people of Ireland who pay her wages and she has cost the license fee payers at a minimum €1.2 million so far by her shoddy work.

It was not the duty of Fr Brady to do anything in regards to Brendan Smyth as it was the role of the bishop - this was confirmed in the murphy, Ferns and Cloyne reports - the bishop is the person responsible for the sex abusers and what is done with them.

The bishop at the time is the Aoife Kavanagh of that time as he didn't do enough.
Fr Brady was more like the camera man in the mission to prey program, not his responsibility for the work that is the responsibility of others.

padd b1975

Min wrote: »

Aoife Kavanagh is protesting over some of the findings by the BAI, she is a public figure in that it is the people of Ireland who pay her wages and she has cost the license fee payers at a minimum €1.2 million so far by her shoddy work.

It was not the duty of Fr Brady to do anything in regards to Brendan Smyth as it was the role of the bishop - this was confirmed in the murphy, Ferns and Cloyne reports - the bishop is the person responsible for the sex abusers and what is done with them.

The bishop at the time is the Aoife Kavanagh of that time as he didn't do enough.
Fr Brady was more like the camera man in the mission to prey program, not his responsibility for the work that is the responsibility of others.

Cardinal Brady could and should have done more.

Lets get real here.

Min

padd b1975 wrote: »

Cardinal Brady could and should have done more.

Lets get real here.

The thing is he wasn't Cardinal brady then, he wasn't Bishop Brady then, he trusted the bishop would do what was needed.

Does it say anywhere in the Ferns, Murphy or Cloyne reports that the responsibility lay with the priest?
Everything is referred to the bishop whose resposnbility it is to deal with the issues at hand.
It was the bishops who hold respnsbility for the abuse that continued as if moving around an abuser and away from one or more victims would solve the underlying problem.

It was the bishop who should have told the parents, as it was one of his priests that was abusing children, Fr Brady at the time held no responsbility or authority in the church to make the decisions, he would have believed the bishop would have done it.

It is quite handy that they people who did have the responsibility are now dead, when it comes to blaming someonewho is now in a most senior position which was not the case at the time of the abuse.

lividduck

Min wrote: »

It is the bishop who deals with the abuse not the priest, so to say Fr Brady at the time was the person with the responsibility would be wrong.

If the bishop of the time was alive or the abbot at the monastery, the now Cardinal Brady wouldn't be the person at the centre of this current controversy given these two people were the men responsible at the time.

Any person who knows that children are being abused and does not report it to the authorities is facilitating child abuse, he knew, he did nothing, he is as guilty as Smyth!

Show Time

Min wrote: »

The thing is he wasn't Cardinal brady then, he wasn't Bishop Brady then, he trusted the bishop would do what was needed.

Does it say anywhere in the Ferns, Murphy or Cloyne reports that the responsibility lay with the priest?
Everything is referred to the bishop whose resposnbility it is to deal with the issues at hand.
It was the bishops who hold respnsbility for the abuse that continued as if moving around an abuser and away from one or more victims would solve the underlying problem.

It was the bishop who should have told the parents, as it was one of his priests that was abusing children, Fr Brady at the time held no responsbility or authority in the church to make the decisions, he would have believed the bishop would have done it.

It is quite handy that they people who did have the responsibility are now dead, when it comes to blaming someonewho is now in a most senior position which was not the case at the time of the abuse.

Nazi death camp guards used the same defence in Nuremberg after WWII.

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

The thing is he wasn't Cardinal brady then, he wasn't Bishop Brady then, he trusted the bishop would do what was needed.

Does it say anywhere in the Ferns, Murphy or Cloyne reports that the responsibility lay with the priest?
Everything is referred to the bishop whose resposnbility it is to deal with the issues at hand.
It was the bishops who hold respnsbility for the abuse that continued as if moving around an abuser and away from one or more victims would solve the underlying problem.

It was the bishop who should have told the parents, as it was one of his priests that was abusing children, Fr Brady at the time held no responsbility or authority in the church to make the decisions, he would have believed the bishop would have done it.

It is quite handy that they people who did have the responsibility are now dead, when it comes to blaming someonewho is now in a most senior position which was not the case at the time of the abuse.

It doesnt really matter if he was Binman Brady. He was still a human being, an adult dealing with children and subject to the same laws of the land as every one else what ever the RCC may have assumed and fostered back then.
He some how thought it acceptable to bring damaged and petrified children into a room full of priests, to talk about abuse carried out by priests whilst insisting that the childrens parents be excluded and then swearing the children to secrecy rather than informing the police.

padd b1975

lividduck wrote: »

Any person who knows that children are being abused and does not report it to the authorities is facilitating child abuse, he knew, he did nothing, he is as guilty as Smyth!

Cardinal Brady is nothing like Brendan Smyth.

Biggins

padd b1975 wrote: »

Was he standing in front of a judge when he made those admissions?

He doesn't have to be before a judge.
Anyone's statement, private or public - his was public by his own efforts - can be used as evidence.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Cardinal Brady is nothing like Brendan Smyth.

He was his enabler by his silence for over a decade!
In the eyes of the law then and now, he was breaking state laws by doing nothing.

Min

Ghost Buster wrote: »

It doesnt really matter if he was Binman Brady. He was still a human being, an adult dealing with children and subject to the same laws of the land as every one else what ever the RCC may have assumed and fostered back then.
He some how thought it acceptable to bring damaged and petrified children into a room full of priests, to talk about abuse carried out by priests whilst insisting that the childrens parents be excluded and then swearing the children to secrecy rather than informing the police.

It was secrecy for the church inquiry, it didn't stop the parents telling the Gardai and we know from the reports done that the Gardai in some cases failed to act when told, that the health services failed to act when they had knowledge. It is also in some of the reports that the parents didn't believe their children that abuse was done by a priest.

People are applying 2012 standards to a different era, it is easy for people to be wise in hindsight.

St.Spodo

''Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.'' -Voltaire.

padd b1975

Biggins wrote: »

He doesn't have to be before a judge.
Anyone's statement, private or public - his was public by his own efforts - can be used as evidence.

Yes, evidence which in turn would be heard by the jury and their verdict one way or the other would be arrived at.

Min

St.Spodo wrote: »

''Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.'' -Voltaire.

Fr Brady took the notes that were to be used against Brendan Smyth.

Your statement is applicable to the bishop of that time.