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

FergusODowd

Ghost Buster wrote: »

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

Of course it would count, but unfortunatley at present, that's just another dan brown style consipacy theory with no proof. In fact Ratzinger has been tougher than most in the Vatican, pursuing Marcial Maciel when most others wanted it dropped. After Ratzinger became pope he began proceedings against Maciel and the Legion of Christ that forced Maciel out of active service in the church.

Ratzinger in the following years "acquired a familiarity with the contours of the problem that virtually no other figure in the Catholic church can claim" and "driven by that encounter with what he would later refer to as 'filth' in the church, Ratzinger seems to have undergone something of a 'conversion experience' throughout 2003–04. From that point forward, he and his staff seemed driven by a convert's zeal to clean up the mess" http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present

And before you complain about the source, the vatican has oftern complained about the reporting of the NCR.

crucamim

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?

I would never have regared Nodin as a Republican. I have long regarded him/her as an enemy of the oppressed Catholic people of Northern Ireland.

Ghost Buster

crucamim wrote: »

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

OH here we go.
I wonder will you use the usual "Who will protect the little Catholic children" in a thread actually about that very topic?

tayto lover

A very interesting link to Child Protection or lack of it in Ireland. Just scroll across the bottom of the page for the history.

http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/timeline.html

Fortyniner

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 ...

1. I guess the majority of the public and the media do not agree with your view that these events constitute 'flimsy and prejudiced grounds'.

2. The reason this board is not filled with outrage about '200+ children who have died under the care of the HSE' is because this is the A&A board. Feel free to start a thread on the appropriate board yourself, and let us know about it.

3. I share your view about championing individual cases. We don't know who most of the abused kids were, and they certainly do need championing.

Finally I think you don't help yourself by exonerating Brady or his superiors on the grounds that he was following procedures and protocols. The victims and their families would certainly not accept that argument, and they're the ones that really matter. I'm not amongst them, and I'm bloody outraged.

FergusODowd

joseph brand wrote: »

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

I find people agreeing with me makes for a very boring discussion. ,

and fair play most folks here, to their credit, are able to have a civil discussion about it, without resorting to the personal / childish abuse you sometimes see.

Ghost Buster

Ghost Buster wrote: »

OH here we go.
I wonder will you use the usual "Who will protect the little Catholic children" in a thread actually about that very topic?

crucamim wrote: »

I would never have regared Nodin as a Republican. I have long regarded him/her as an enemy of the oppressed Catholic people of Northern Ireland.

Ah but the oppressed Northern Catholic line took just two posts. One could set a clock by you.

paudgenator

crucamim wrote: »

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.

Re. Tayto lovers post...has everyone who is commenting actually seen the BBC programme?

It refers to the boy from Belfast, Brendan Bolands friend.

Who was distraught to find out that Brendan had tried to save him and subsequently his sisters and 4 cousins.

FergusODowd

tayto lover wrote: »

A very interesting link to Child Protection or lack of it in Ireland. Just scroll across the bottom of the page for the history.

http://www.campaignforchildren.ie/theissues/timeline.html

There's still a massive problem with Child protection in Ireland today, and a long way to go.

Among other things, 115 children have died in state care in the last 10 years.

tayto lover

FergusODowd wrote: »

There's still a massive problem with Child protection in Ireland today, and a long way to go.

Among other things, 115 children have died in state care in the last 10 years.

Many of the young people in State care are there because their parents are addicts. Some are addicts themselves, have mental problems or are out of control. Many refuse to go to school while in State Custody and there are numerous assaults on their carers. Usually the damage is done before they reach State care at all.
Of the deaths, there are many suicides, drug overdoses and accidents which account for those numbers. It is an impossible task for any organisation to deal with in fairness. Loads of money is being pumped into it but unless they are strapped to their beds there will continue to be deaths. It is an impossible problem to deal with in my opinion. I know lots of people who work in that area and the amount of times they have been assaulted by these young and out of control people is unbelievable. Many of these youngsters end up in prison too unfortunately. They are a product of our alcohol/drug culture by and large.

MrPudding

joseph brand wrote: »

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

Hmmm...

FergusODowd wrote: »

I find people agreeing with me makes for a very boring discussion. ,

and fair play most folks here, to their credit, are able to have a civil discussion about it, without resorting to the personal / childish abuse you sometimes see.

Nothing to do with you being permabanned from that forum for being a rereg...?

FergusODowd

tayto lover wrote: »

Many of the young people in State care are there because their parents are addicts. Some are addicts themselves, have mental problems or are out of control. Many refuse to go to school while in State Custody and there are numerous assaults on their carers. Usually the damage is done before they reach State care at all.
Of the deaths, there are many suicides, drug overdoses and accidents which account for those numbers. It is an impossible task for any organisation to deal with in fairness. Loads of money is being pumped into it but unless they are strapped to their beds there will continue to be deaths. It is an impossible problem to deal with in my opinion. I know lots of people who work in that area and the amount of times they have been assaulted by these young and out of control people is unbelievable. Many of these youngsters end up in prison too unfortunately. They are a product of our alcohol/drug problems by and large.

Declaring children as lost causes doesn't really cut it with me, and it not a good enough excuse for the state in my opinion. Also child sexual abuse within famalies in still rampant in Ireland, and drugs and alcohol are often used as the facilitators / excuse for the abuse. The problem cannot just be written off.

FergusODowd

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm...

Nothing to do with you being permabanned from that forum for being a rereg...?

Not really, one particular mod got it into his head I was someone else, and then stopped answering my pm's when it was pointed out I was not. I'm still waiting on the mods to sort it out. Is it ok to discuss that here further ?, i'd be very happy to actually.

MrPudding

FergusODowd wrote: »

Is it ok to discuss that here further ?, i'd be very happy to actually.

I doubt it...

MrP

tayto lover

FergusODowd wrote: »

Declaring children as lost causes doesn't really cut it with me, and it not a good enough excuse for the state in my opinion. Also child sexual abuse within famalies in still rampant in Ireland, and drugs and alcohol are often used as the facilitators / excuse for the abuse. The problem cannot just be written off.

Not lost causes at all but refusing to come under any control. How would you deal with it ?
Go into any large town at night and see for yourself. I used to do voluntary work with some of them but they nearly wrecked my health. All sorts of threats and abuse.

FergusODowd

MrPudding wrote: »

I doubt it...

MrP

Just out of interest, why were you banned from the Christianity forum yourself ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64868038&postcount=156

Delirium

Cardinal Seán Brady apologises to abuse victim Brendan Boland

Dr Brady said he now realised that the parents of children who were being abused by Brendan Smyth should have been informed about the allegations of abuse being made against him.

"Definitely the parents should have been informed. That's quite clear,” he said.

Dr Brady said he apologised without hesitation to Brendan Boland, and to all survivors of abuse.

He said he would also like to personally apologise to Mr Boland, and hoped to do so in the future.

Sarky

Interesting for someone who was screaming "I did nothing wrong/everything I could!" Up until now.

Hang on: "apologised without hesitation?" He's hesitated since the 70's ffs

robindch

koth wrote: »

Cardinal Seán Brady apologises to abuse victim Brendan Boland

"The cardinal said there was absolutely no indication from the Holy See that it wanted him to resign." -- Brady thinks that this, and the appointment of a "helper" bishop, is a vote of confidence???

FergusODowd

He said there had also been "many many calls from people who want me to stay on."

I'd like to see him substatiate this one in particular. I have not across a single commentator in the media saying so.

MrPudding

Meh. Which time?

MrP

Pushtrak

FergusODowd wrote: »

I'd like to see him substatiate this one in particular. I have not across a single commentator in the media saying so.

I posted this in AH. There are people who hold this view. Sadly.

Galvasean

The phrase "only sorry you got caught" springs to mind. He's had several decades to say sorry, but only does so now because the media have hounded it out of him.

Callan57

robindch wrote: »

"The cardinal said there was absolutely no indication from the Holy See that it wanted him to resign." -- Brady thinks that this, and the appointment of a "helper" bishop, is a vote of confidence???

It's incredibly sad, once again the Catholic Church puts it's own institutional interests before that of children ... absolutely nothing has changed despite all the talk & that is all it is talk there is neither willingness or intention to change anything all they are doing is playing for time & hoping to bluff it out.

They don't want to loose face so in the unlikely event that Brady was man enough to offer his resignation it wouldn't be accepted .... just in case it might appear that they responded to public opinion. Monarchy is not influenced by public opinion & that is what the Vatican sees itself as ..... a middleages Monarchy still convinced of it's divine right!

Dades

FergusODowd wrote: »

Not really, one particular mod got it into his head I was someone else, and then stopped answering my pm's when it was pointed out I was not. I'm still waiting on the mods to sort it out. Is it ok to discuss that here further ?, i'd be very happy to actually.

No it's not okay to talk about it. Why would it? That's a moderation issue from another forum - and moderation on other forums is specifically disallowed in our charter. No more on this, people.

crucamim wrote: »

I would never have regared Nodin as a Republican. I have long regarded him/her as an enemy of the oppressed Catholic people of Northern Ireland.

How you personally regard Nodin is of no interest or relevance here. I've already asked that people stop making off-topic generalisations about people's political stances - and I won't ask again.

recedite

On whether Brady interviewing the child alone about an alleged sexual assault is in itself a form of child abuse;

FergusODowd wrote: »

No, that in itself is not child abuse, its just unusual and unwise by todays standards, not 1970's standards

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.

I notice you flipped there, from saying it was not abuse by today's standards, to only saying it was not abuse by 70's standards.
You can't get away with that here without being noticed (this ain't the other forum)

Bigpicture

Fortyniner wrote: »

1. I guess the majority of the public and the media do not agree with your view that these events constitute 'flimsy and prejudiced grounds'.

3. I share your view about championing individual cases. We don't know who most of the abused kids were, and they certainly do need championing.

Finally I think you don't help yourself by exonerating Brady or his superiors on the grounds that he was following procedures and protocols. The victims and their families would certainly not accept that argument, and they're the ones that really matter. I'm not amongst them, and I'm bloody outraged.

1. Sure ... but public opinion mostly follows the predominant media view. When it comes to attacking the Church, there is no shortage of media interest. It is important to challenge the status quo from time to time.

3. No harm in this but I intended individual causes of any nature. How many of us are active in causes like SvP or Meals on Wheels etc?

The defense was intended for Cardinal Brady alone rather than his superiors. Based on the information in the public domain I think it is grossly unfair to accuse Cardinal Brady. It is important to watch out for 'group mentality' ... Lord of the Flies comes to mind!

FergusODowd

recedite wrote: »

On whether Brady interviewing the child alone about an alleged sexual assault is in itself a form of child abuse;

I notice you flipped there, from saying it was not abuse by today's standards, to only saying it was not abuse by 70's standards.
You can't get away with that here without being noticed (this ain't the other forum)

As the piece of string that walked into the bar said "I'm a frayed knot"
I'm afraid that's a strawman / false dichotomy. That in itself not abuse by any standards, it would be against proper procedure today, but not in the 70's, and to cry wolf on it takes the spotlight off the real abuse. Good luck with trying to condemn and force the resignation of every single teacher and official that did that in the 70's 80's and even 90's, with that one, its going no where. This does not lessen Brady's failure to inform the parents, that was whole different level of negligence and the real issue why Brady needs to go.

Turtwig

FergusODowd wrote: »

As the piece of string that walked into the bar said "I'm a frayed knot"
I'm afraid that's a strawman / false dichotomy. That in itself not abuse by any standards, it would be against proper procedure today, but not in the 70's, and to cry wolf on it takes the spotlight off the real abuse. Good luck with trying to condemn and force the resignation of every single teacher and official that did that in the 70's 80's and even 90's, with that one, its going no where. This does not lessen Brady's failure to inform the parents, that was whole different level of negligence and the real issue why Brady needs to go.

Well seeing as this thread has already been Godwinned.

Good luck trying to catch up with all the people who had a direct hand in exterminating the Jews. We do however have one definite person who's responsible but I think we ought to admit that this person doesn't bear the responsibility because we can't prosecute 100% of the people responsible for the massacres.

Fortyniner

Someone's swimming against the tide: Cllr Michael Ahern, Cork City

http://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/letters/backing-cardinal-193154.html

Astonishing. I think he's serious!