Cardinal Brady - holed and sunk, but does he know it?

magicbastarder

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - that wasn't his role at that time.
He informed the Bishop.

it was his 'role' to report knowledge of a serious crime to the gardai.
unless you're arguing that church law trumps the law of the land.

he was aware of a serious crime being committed, and he was aware that the information was not being supplied to gardai. that makes him complicit.

ShooterSF

Happy Monday wrote: »

Again no comment from you yet on the charred bodies from Bloody Friday that your SF buddies committed.

Again, I'm not a member or supporter of Sinn Fein or the IRA. If someone came to me and told me one of my co-workers was murdering children I'd report them to the guards; But then again, I'd do the same if they were "just" raping them too.

Seth Brundle

qrrgprgua wrote: »

What recent revelations... It was already public knowledge.

I don't want to cheapen the hurt of the victims.. I do think Card. Brady should resign. But everything the media has presented in the last week was already public knowledge.

No it wasn't actually. Show me where it had previously been reported that one of the victims had told brady the names and addresses of other victims? Show me where it had been reported that smith continued to abuse one of those along with his sister and cousins for several years after the sham investigation?
Show me where it was previously disclosed that brady et al did not even have the morals to tell victims parents of the abuse?

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - that wasn't his role at that time.
He informed the Bishop..

You stated

My view is that Sean Brady did all he could have done at that time.

...nothing about "role" or 'job' there. So why didn't Brady inform the police? Or are you saying that he was incapable of doing so.

Happy Monday wrote: »

Now Nodin you are a well known Republican on these boards.

I am?

Happy Monday wrote: »

Perhaps you would care to comment on Bloody Friday?

That would be off-topic. Start a thread in the relevant fora and pm me the link.

Happy Monday

Nodin wrote: »

You stated



...nothing about "role" or 'job' there. So why didn't Brady inform the police? Or are you saying that he was incapable of doing so.



I am?



That would be off-topic. Start a thread in the relevant fora and pm me the link.

You mean the Gardai Siochana.
Outside his remit.
Unheard of that a priest would liaise with the external authorities.
The Church is run like many organisations on strictly hierarchical grounds.
I would hold him responsible had he been a Bishop then.
I do hold that Bishop responsible.

Can I ask why either the boys father or the priest first informed by young Brendan did not inform the Gardai?

Gbear

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - that wasn't his role at that time.

So the role of a member of the clergy doesn't include acting with basic human decency then? Okeydokey.

If that's the case then the RCC has no place in our or anybody else's society.

MrPudding

Happy Monday wrote: »

Outside his remit.

Do you actually believe this? Really? Because anyone that believes a person, irrespective of whatever position they hold, requires a special remit to report knowledge of actual or even alleged child rape would only barely fulfil my requirements to be classed a a human being, and would certainly fall well short of being classed a a decent one.

I think perhaps you have been reading too many ISAW posts, with his bulsh1t excuse that Brady lacked the locus standi to report the crimes. Obviously bullsh1t. No special remit or locus standi is need to report a crime.

By all means, believe what you want. By all means continue to believe in your despicable and morally bankrupt church. But don't dare try to use the excuse that a person, supposedly a moral leader in the community and someone working for god, lacked the remit to try to stop children being raped.

Not meaning to Godwin the thread but your arguments are the same as what I would imagine nazi sympathisers and apologists would have used during the Nuremberg trials. Ordinary decent people back then, as ordinary people do now, see them for what they are.

MrP

Happy Monday

MrPudding wrote: »

Do you actually believe this? Really? Because anyone that believes a person, irrespective of whatever position they hold, requires a special remit to report knowledge of actual or even alleged child rape would only barely fulfil my requirements to be classed a a human being, and would certainly fall well short of being classed a a decent one.

I think perhaps you have been reading too many ISAW posts, with his bulsh1t excuse that Brady lacked the locus standi to report the crimes. Obviously bullsh1t. No special remit or locus standi is need to report a crime.

By all means, believe what you want. By all means continue to believe in your despicable and morally bankrupt church. But don't dare try to use the excuse that a person, supposedly a moral leader in the community and someone working for god, lacked the remit to try to stop children being raped.

Not meaning to Godwin the thread but your arguments are the same as what I would imagine nazi sympathisers and apologists would have used during the Nuremberg trials. Ordinary decent people back then, as ordinary people do now, see them for what they are.

MrP

MrP

Had he ignored the boy or refused to report the crime then yes he would have been responsible in my view.

The Gardai and courts would have not convicted Smyth during those times anyway - that argument holds no water.

The real fault lies with the Bishop and hierarchy for failing to put Smyth permanently in a darkened room.

tayto lover

Happy Monday wrote: »

MrP

Had he ignored the boy or refused to report the crime then yes he would have been responsible in my view.

The Gardai and courts would have not convicted Smyth during those times anyway - that argument holds no water.

The real fault lies with the Bishop and hierarchy for failing to put Smyth permanently in a darkened room.

How do you know that the Courts would not have convicted Smyth ? Big jump there.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Happy Monday wrote: »

MrP

Had he ignored the boy or refused to report the crime then yes he would have been responsible in my view.

The Gardai and courts would have not convicted Smyth during those times anyway - that argument holds no water.

The real fault lies with the Bishop and hierarchy for failing to put Smyth permanently in a darkened room.

If you're trolling, I applaud you.

I don't think you are though, and the thought that you (and others like you) believe that Brady acted appropriately is genuinely scary. I dread to think of a world with people in charge so blind to responsibility and reality.

celticcrash

Just imagine the terror that boy went through when 3 adult men dressed in black questioned him without a parent there. Did he get an erection, did he seed himself, did he enjoy been raped. Sign an oath of secrecy.
That in it self is child abuse.

Ghost Buster

Happy Monday wrote: »

It says a lot of things.

That the organisation matters to a lot of people out there.

That there will always be some bad eggs.

Are you talking about smokers which out number Catholics??? Should we bring back smoking in hospitals?
Weight in numbers eh. Like the old saying "If one person hears voices they are insane, if 1.2 billion hear voices its a religion"

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

You mean the Gardai Siochana.
Outside his remit.
Unheard of that a priest would liaise with the external authorities.
The Church is run like many organisations on strictly hierarchical grounds.

So he didn't do everything he could, as you stated. He just did what his thought his job parameters entailed and required. Therefore what you said -

My view is that Sean Brady did all he could have done at that time.

- was incorrect, as I pointed out.

Happy Monday wrote:

The Gardai and courts would have not convicted Smyth during those times anyway

Speculation, of the wild and wooly variety.

joseph brand

Happy Monday wrote: »

No - that wasn't his role at that time.
He informed the Bishop.
Now Nodin you are a well known Republican on these boards.
Perhaps you would care to comment on Bloody Friday?

If I witness any crime, I'll just inform my bishop. Crime-fighting bishops. Who needs the Gardai when we have bishops.

I'm sure that asking you a question would be a futile exercise here but I'll ask anyway. What the hell has Bloody Friday got to do with Cardinal Brady and his paedo buddies?

Seth Brundle

joseph brand wrote: »

If I witness any crime, I'll just inform my bishop. Crime-fighting bishops. Who needs the Gardai when we have bishops.

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Bigpicture

Even by today's standards Cardinal Brady would have fulfilled his obligations in terms of reporting. There were procedures and protocols and it is reasonable to assume these would have been followed through up the chain of command.

Only a decade or 2 ago there was a movement in society to legalize pedophilia. This got plenty of favourable air-play in the media. That same media has no moral ground to now witch hunt the likes of Cardinal Brady on such flimsy and in my opinion, prejudiced grounds.

So much time given for a cheap shot at the Church yet why isn't this board filled with outrage for the 200+ children who have died under the care of the HSE in the last 10 years alone? How many people even know this?

There are so many people around us in need today ... but how active are we about championing even one person's genuine cause? I put that same question to myself. It's easier and more comfortable to take long shots at the Church ...

tayto lover

Bigpicture wrote: »

Even by today's standards Cardinal Brady would have fulfilled his obligations in terms of reporting. There were procedures and protocols and it is reasonable to assume these would have been followed through up the chain of command.

Only a decade or 2 ago there was a movement in society to legalize pedophilia. This got plenty of favourable air-play in the media. That same media has no moral ground to now witch hunt the likes of Cardinal Brady on such flimsy and in my opinion, prejudiced grounds.

So much time given for a cheap shot at the Church yet why isn't this board filled with outrage for the 200+ children who have died under the care of the HSE in the last 10 years alone? How many people even know this?

There are so many people around us in need today ... but how active are we about championing even one person's genuine cause? I put that same question to myself. It's easier and more comfortable to take long shots at the Church ...

He took a child out of his classroom and questioned him without informing his parents. By today's standards that in itself is child abuse. If it transpires that he made him swear a secrecy agreement without having his parents there then it is even more serious.

FergusODowd

tayto lover wrote: »

He took a child out of his classroom and questioned him without informing his parents. By today's standards that in itself is child abuse.

No, that in itself is not child abuse, its just unusual and unwise by todays standards, not 1970's standards, and by making such hysterical statements you're actually weakening the charges against brady and the others, and then they get to claim, it's just another hysterical conspiracy theory and witch hunt, and they'll get off the hook again. What Brady failed to do was at the very least warn the parents and anyone else that could come into contact with Smyth, that there could be a problem with Smyth, and therefore he could a have prevented or at least reduced the likelyhood of future child abuse. For this reason Brady should resign, and this is the clear and factual failure, 1970's or not, that can be pinned on him fair and square.

FergusODowd

ShooterSF wrote: »

Members of church do good things = church does good things

Members of church do bad things = couple of bad eggs. Can't hold church responsible.


Got ya.

And yet we also seen the following rubbish spouted as factual all the time :

Members of church do bad things = church does bad things

Members of church do good things = couple of good eggs. Can't hold church responsible.

tayto lover

FergusODowd wrote: »

No, that in itself is not child abuse, its just unusual and unwise by todays standards, not 1970's standards, and by making such hysterical statements you're actually weakening the charges against brady and the others, and then they get to claim, it's just another hysterical conspiracy theory and witch hunt, and they'll get off the hook again. What Brady failed to do was at the very least warn the parents and anyone else that could come into contact with Smyth, that there could be a problem with Smyth, and therefore he could a have prevented or at least reduced the likelyhood of future child abuse. For this reason Brady should resign, and this is the clear and factual failure, 1970's or not, that can be pinned on him fair and square.

A Social Worker or a Garda cannot interview a child without the presence and permission of the parent.
Child Abuse takes 4 forms, Physical, Sexual, Emotional and Neglect. What Brady did was Emotional Abuse in my estimation by putting a child through such a questioning/examination without permission.
Brady will resign shortly I believe.

Ghost Buster

FergusODowd wrote: »

And yet we also seen the following rubbish spouted as factual all the time :

Members of church do bad things = church does bad things

Members of church do good things = couple of good eggs. Can't hold church responsible.

Nice try but what actually gets said 99% of the time is:

Members of the church do bad things, Church carries out systemic cover up of bad thing = Church does bad things.

And this constantly get interpreted by those with a persecution complex in the way you have described.

FergusODowd

tayto lover wrote: »

A Social Worker or a Garda cannot interview a child without the presence and permission of the parent.
Child Abuse takes 4 forms, Physical, Sexual, Emotional and Neglect. What Brady did was Emotional Abuse in my estimation by putting a child through such a questioning/examination without permission.
Brady will resign shortly I believe.

Then half the county and the state's employee's were also guilty of that in the 70's. It would not have been an unsual thing to do for a teacher in the 70's. What Brady can be got on, is his failure to at least warn the parents and anyone else coming into contact with smyth that they should at least be very careful.

tayto lover

FergusODowd wrote: »

Then half the county and the state's employee's were also guilty of that in the 70's. It would not have been an unsual thing to do for a teacher in the 70's. What Brady can be got on, is his failure to at least warn the parents and anyone else coming into contact with smyth that they should at least be very careful.

Not true. When a child is in school the teacher becomes the parent but cannot give permission for anyone else to interview that child as far as I am aware. I agree that Brady should have warned the other parents regardless of whose function it was.

FergusODowd

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Church carries out systemic cover up of bad thing = Church does bad things.

See there's the problem, it's not that simple, some Cardinals and Bishops did try to cover up clerical abuse, some did not.

Ellis Dee

tayto lover wrote: »

A Social Worker or a Garda cannot interview a child without the presence and permission of the parent.
Child Abuse takes 4 forms, Physical, Sexual, Emotional and Neglect. What Brady did was Emotional Abuse in my estimation by putting a child through such a questioning/examination without permission.
---

Now ain't that the truth! I almost feel physically sick at the thought of how that young boy felt when he was asked questions like that by several grown men in black, an intimidating group even if they said nothing. Did he get an erection, did he spill seed, did he --- :mad::mad:

It's beyond sick!:eek:

Look at the indignation now being spouted by the defenders of the kiddy-fiddler church in the wake of the major RTE cock-up and their unjust treatment of Father Reynolds. As bad as it was, and as innocent as he undeniably is, you'd think the injustice perpetrated on him outweighed all the tens of thousands of injustices done to thousands of Irish children over the decades.:rolleyes:

Just imagine the squeals of indignation we'll hear if Brady and the others who were there ever appear before a tribunal and are asked if they got erections and oozed pre-cum when they were asking those questions of that boy.:eek:

And their answers would be interesting as well, especially if they lower the "mental reservation" shield for a while.:)

Ghost Buster

FergusODowd wrote: »

See there's the problem, it's not that simple, some Cardinals and Bishops did try to cover up clerical abuse, some did not.

So the Pope, head honcho, instructing a cover up doesnt count?

FergusODowd

tayto lover wrote: »

Not true. When a child is in school the teacher becomes the parent but cannot give permission for anyone else to interview that child as far as I am aware.

That might be todays standards, but there was no such precautionary standards in 70's, and Brady was a teacher in the 70's. e.g. I often seen teachers or others, who were not the childs direct teacher, interview kids in schools on their own for a multitude of things right up untill the 90's without parental involvement. Totally unwise and against today's child protection precautionary procedures, but it was nothing unsual about it in the 70's. What Brady can be got on, is his failure to warn the parents and anyone else that would be coming into contact with Smyth. That's the crux of the matter.

crucamim

tayto lover wrote: »

He took a child out of his classroom and questioned him without informing his parents. By today's standards that in itself is child abuse. If it transpires that he made him swear a secrecy agreement without having his parents there then it is even more serious.

Is that statement true? I have been led to believe that, in the presence of two other adults, he interviewed the child - while the child's father waited outside. Perhaps, I have been misinformed.

crucamim

tayto lover wrote: »

A Social Worker or a Garda cannot interview a child without the presence and permission of the parent.
Child Abuse takes 4 forms, Physical, Sexual, Emotional and Neglect. What Brady did was Emotional Abuse in my estimation by putting a child through such a questioning/examination without permission.
Brady will resign shortly I believe.

I find your information interesting, very interesting. How long has this rule applied? Does it also appy in Northern Ireland?

joseph brand

FergusODowd wrote: »

That might be todays standards, but there was no such precautionary standards in 70's, and Brady was a teacher in the 70's. e.g. I often seen teachers or others, who were not the childs direct teacher, interview kids in schools on their own for a multitude of things right up untill the 90's without parental involvement. Totally unwise and against today's child protection precautionary procedures, but it was nothing unsual about it in the 70's. What Brady can be got on, is his failure to warn the parents and anyone else that would be coming into contact with Smyth. That's the crux of the matter.

Would you not enjoy the 'other' forum better? Just wondering. :P