Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Biggins

Min wrote: »

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.

1. How could have some parents have told the police when they were not told themselves?

2. The law then in the North and in the South - as well as now - stated that anyone knowing of such crimes, was guilty of an offence (prison time of up to ten years) by withholding such information from the state authorities.

He did NOTHING.

This bullschite excuse is constantly peddled by the church and those that mare making sad excuses for him.
...And that is just as sickening. Bloody disgusting.
They give this useless schite more sympathy than they seem to give to the victims seeking justice!

Biggins

padd b1975 wrote: »

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

..So lets gets his ass into court!

Pedant

Those were the days...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMP72Q-TW_w

... everyone's too liberal nowadays though.

St.Spodo

Min wrote: »

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

Your statement is applicable to the bishop of that time.

He didn't tell parents their children were abused. His failure to act like any decent man would is his ultimate failure.

WoollyRedHat

He colluded in a cover up. With no parents present. Yet he believed the bishop would reveal the truth? The expectation was exactly how it was dealt with, with no priest guilty of crimes considered to be reported to the Guardai.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

1. How could have some parents have told the police when they were not told themselves?

2. The law then in the North and in the South - as well as now - stated that anyone knowing of such crimes, was guilty of an offence (prison time of up to ten years) by withholding such information from the state authorities.

He did NOTHING.

This bullschite excuse is constantly peddled by the church and those that mare making sad excuses for him.
...And that is just as sickening. Bloody disgusting.
They give this useless schite more sympathy than they seem to give to the victims seeking justice!

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

St.Spodo

Min wrote: »

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

How do you explain away Brady swearing children to secrecy?

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

As an irish citizen bound by the law of the land he had a responsibility to tell the Gardai. Telling the Bishop was only part of his job and hokey horse sh!t canon law
Answer me this:
If I was told that someone in my work place was abusing children is it acceptable for me to just tell my boss and consider my responsibilities done with?

Min

St.Spodo wrote: »

How do you explain away Brady swearing children to secrecy?

This was explained that in an internal church inquiry that everyone is sworn to secrecy so the church can investigate a claim without information from one party reaching the other party and the story changing to suit the wrongdoer, if there is wrongdoing. It is also to stop and in this case Brendan Smyth finding out who was making the accusations against him.

The church still has internal inquiries but that doesn't mean the civil authorities are excluded.

fran17

there has got to be a significant number of individuals in high places today who because of there silence back then helped gain these positions.it only takes a few good men to do nothing for evil,and in this case the worst evil of all,to prosper.

mickydoomsux

Ghost Buster wrote: »

If I was told that someone in my work place was abusing children is it acceptable for me to just tell my boss and consider my responsibilities done with?

Do you work for a multinational mentally-ill paedophile ring?

theg81der

I think the people of the time carry a little more blame than people are admitting. Its a bit like the current crisis - everyone is to blame bar the general masses who took out loans and morgages they couldn`t afford. If something was a societal norm now people would accept and support it just the same, to varying degrees, with the few who come out against it austercised.

Min

Ghost Buster wrote: »

As an irish citizen bound by the law of the land he had a responsibility to tell the Gardai. Telling the Bishop was only part of his job and hokey horse sh!t canon law
Answer me this:
If I was told that someone in my work place was abusing children is it acceptable for me to just tell my boss and consider my responsibilities done with?

So why didn't the other person not take responsibility in your example, why did it become your responsibility and not the other's?

Pedant

Min wrote: »

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

Say you rented a room in a house where there was a few other people renting rooms. Say one of the other tenants in the house had a child. If you found out that that tenant was abusing his/her child, which of the following would you deem as the appropriated course of action (or inaction):

(a) Go to the landlord/landlady, as you think it is there responsibility to tell the Gardaí

(b) Go directly to the Gardaí to report the abuse yourself

(c) Don't tell anyone because you feel it isn't your business.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

1. As others have stated, a small child, terrified many times into submission to do sexual acts - then later submitted by fierce pressure once more from men behind closed doors, was the very reason they kept their mouth shut.

2. Here is the bullschite, pass the buck excuse again.
It was and is the duty of every person to report such matters to the proper authorities.
Thats was THEN and NOW enshrined in the law of North and South states.
What any bloody organisation after that does in further sickening non-action, is between them - but the law is the law - he should have reported the crimes. He should have reported them if not afterwards of his investigation - then afterwards when he saw his boss do nothing.

In the eyes of the law everything on this island, he is guilty of breaking the law.
Stop with these piss-poor miserable excuses.

He was his own man. He has his own set of balls.
He just didn't have the balls then to do anything.

He was a coward and a law breaker to boot!

padd b1975

Biggins wrote: »

..So lets gets his ass into court!

EXACTLY!!

Min

Pedant wrote: »

Say you rented a room in a house where there was a few other people renting rooms. Say one of the other tenants in the house had a child. If you found out that that tenant was abusing his/her child, what would you deem appropriate:

(a) Go to the landlord/landlady, as you think it is there responsibility to tell the Gardaí?

Or, (b) would you go directly to the Gardaí to report the abuse yourself?

The landlord would be informed but the landlord is not the person who holds a position above me with the responsibility for this area as I don't work for the landlord.
Therefore the Gardai would be told as there are no others above me who hold the position of duty and whose job it is.

Cabaal

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Answer me this:
If I was told that someone in my work place was abusing children is it acceptable for me to just tell my boss and consider my responsibilities done with?

In the church's view, Canon law is their excuse because in their view it it is above any state law in any country they operate in.

Of course any sane human knows that sexual abusing kids is wrong and just telling your boss and ignoring it forever more is not enough, but we are talking about brain washed people here that know if they say nothing they'll go up through the positions and will succeed

mickydoomsux

Biggins wrote: »

He was his own man. He has his own set of balls.
He just didn't have the balls then to do anything.

He was a coward and a law breaker to boot!

I doubt it was even that, he probably just assumed it would all be covered up and his inaction would never be discovered.

WhatNowForUs?

Min wrote: »

1. why didn't they tell their parents?

2. Then the bishop who is dead is the person responsible for telling the authorities, the Cloyne report said the Church has put in child protection policies that if fully implemented (unlike by Bishop McGee) were of a higher standard than the state's own child protection measures. This despite it still not being the responsbility of the priest to tell the Gardai - it lies with the bishop and the child protection team to tell the authorities, not the priest who finds out a child is abused and tells the bishop.

This is quite unbelievable. It is the responsibility for every person who is in receipt of knowledge of child abuse to make sure it is reported to the rightfull authorities (Gardai) and to follow up on it. This is CHILD ABUSE we are talking about.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

1. As others have stated, a small child, terrified many times into submission to do sexual acts - then later submitted by fierce pressure once more from men behind closed doors, was the very reason they kept their mouth shut.

2. Here is bullschite, pass the buck excuse again.
It was and is the duty of every person to report such matters to the proper authorities.
Thats was THEN and NOW enshrined in the law of North and South states.
What any bloody organisation after that does is further sickening non-action, is between them - but the law is the law - he should have reported the crimes. He should have reported them if not afterwards of his investigation - then afterwards when he saw his boss do nothing.

In the eyes of the law everything on this island, he is guilty of breaking the law.
Stop with these piss-poor miserable excuses.

He was his own man. He has his own set of balls.
He just didn't have the balls then to do anything.

He was a coward and a law breaker to boot!

So why were their parents there when the child was giving their evidence as in the room next to them.
Did they not ask what their child was doing when it came to taking them into a room?

He was not his own man, he was merely a priest who served the bishop as every priest does. He was gravely letdown by his bishop of that time who didn't do the right thing and who is getting away lightly in all of this.

Biggins

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I doubt it was even that, he probably just assumed it would all be covered up and his inaction would never be discovered.

...Which is just as sickening if he thought that.

As it is, he previously in media statements given, tried to pass himself off as just a simple note-taker.
We know he wasn't - yet he continued still with this farce of an excuse hoping I suspect that the matter would go away ro head in another direction to others.

It didn't and he is still answerable for his breaking of the law!

I would like to see the man in court, charged with not reporting the sex crimes to kids as required to do by the law then and now.

tayto lover

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.

He went to a school in Cavan and took a little abuse victim out of his classroom to a private room to interview him in secret and never even told his parents about it. What must have been going through that little boys head as he was led out of class by another priest to a private room ?

If a Garda or Social Worker behaved like that there would be serious repercussions for them.

Biggins

Min wrote: »

So why were their parents there when the child was giving their evidence as in the room next to them.
Did they not ask what their child was doing when it came to taking them into a room?

I'm sure the priests came up with some very good excuses as to why they need to question young boys and girls.
They were and it appears still are good at making sickening excuses - as it it appears so are some of their still blind followers today!

Min wrote: »

He was not his own man, he was merely a priest who served the bishop as every priest does. He was gravely letdown by his bishop of that time who didn't do the right thing and who is getting away lightly in all of this.

Please stop with this miserable crap.
Your doing your own character no favours by peddling this schite.

He was an adult male for crying out loud! Not a bloody child just sworn to secrecy!
He might have been let down - but then he could have made a difference - did he? No, he decided to do absolutely nothing and he broke state law in doing nothing.

tayto lover

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.

I think it was his method of investigation that is in question. Taking a child out of his classroom to interview him in secret without notifying his parents, making young boys swear secrecy, not informing parents that family members were still at risk as Smyth was on the loose still. Cardinal Brady was a priest then but it seems to me that his investigation (and it was an investigation) was more to do with keeping the good name of the church right than protecting children. Many young boys and girls suffered for years afterwards because Brady lacked moral decency.

mongdesade

Min wrote: »

The church is not based on what Brendan Smyth did.

Apparently it's based on lies, deceit & protecting paedophiles within it's own organisation...

Luke 18:16King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)

"But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God"

Pedant

Min wrote: »

The landlord would be informed but the landlord is not the person who holds a position above me with the responsibility for this area as I don't work for the landlord.
Therefore the Gardai would be told as there are no others above me who hold the position of duty and whose job it is.

Here's the issue, this is a CRIMINAL ACTION, it is not just a matter of a private organisation's protocol. The STATE and the LAW OF THE LAND supersede the private protocol of any organisation in the country. It is not up to a private organisation to administer responsibility (or non-responsibility) to any individual within the organisation as to who should report CRIMINAL MATTERS, as the organisation does not have the authority to administer such responsibility. It is the duty of the individual who discovered the abuse to report it directly to the PROPER AUTHORITIES WHO ENFORCE THE LAW, not to the authorities within the private organisation. The case is between the abuser and the abused, there should be no third party involved other than the courts and the Gardaí. The private organisation, or any other individual, should only be considered in the case if they aided the abuser in some way or witnessed it.

Imagine if the a person within the church, who's responsibility it was to report abuse allegations to the authorities, was reported for abusing children himself, who would report him? If I were to strictly adhere to your logic, then perhaps the abuse would never be reported at all.

Min

Biggins wrote: »

I'm sure the priests came up with some very good excuses as to why they need to question young boys and girls.
They were and it appears still are good at making sickening excuses - as it it appears so are some of their still blind followers today!


Please stop with this miserable crap.
Your doing your own character no favours by peddling this schite.

He was an adult male for crying out loud! Not a bloody child just sworn to secrecy!
He might have been let down - but then he could have made a difference - did he? No, he decided to do absolutely nothing and he broke state law in doing nothing.

You talk about excuses while making presumptions.

The fact remains that the bishop and his child protection team to this day deals with sexual abuse allegations, and this is what the Cloyne report said about church standards in this area -

The Commission acknowledges that the standards which were adopted by the Church are high standards which, if fully implemented, would afford proper protection to children. The standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement.

StudentDad

Pedant wrote: »

Here's the issue, this is a CRIMINAL ACTION, it is not just a matter of a private organisation's protocol. The STATE and the LAW OF THE LAND supersede the private protocol of any organisation in the country. It is not up to a private organisation to administer responsibility (or non-responsibility) to any individual within the organisation as to who should report CRIMINAL MATTERS, as the organisation does not have the authority to administer such responsibility. It is the duty of the individual who discovered the abuse to report it directly to the PROPER AUTHORITIES WHO ENFORCE THE LAW, not to the authorities within the private organisation.

Imagine if the a person within the church, who's responsibility it was to report abuse allegations to the authorities, was reported for abusing children himself, who would report him? If I were to strictly adhere to your logic, then perhaps the abuse would never be reported at all.

I'd go further than that. If an individual knew that a crime was being committed or that a crime would be committed. In cases of child abuse the individual who failed to report these crimes to the police should be charged as an accessory to the crimes as if they participated in them themselves.

SD

Ghost Buster

Min wrote: »

So why didn't the other person not take responsibility in your example, why did it become your responsibility and not the other's?

And if they did take responsibility and i didnt they could say exactly the same about me. It is the responsibility of everyone who hears about child abuse. FFS!!!!!