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

recedite

Fortyniner wrote: »

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

"He was a good priest by the standard of the 1970s"

Its a kind of compliment :pac:

Galvasean

What would God resigning look like? Would he disintegrate himself or just take on a mortal form and go on a big ass vacation? As a human would he be in trouble for committing murder etc.? Would Christians have to believe that the Bible counts as evidence for said crimes? What colour skin would Go have? so amny questions...

tayto lover

Galvasean wrote: »

What would God resigning look like? Would he disintegrate himself or just take on a mortal form and go on a big ass vacation? As a human would he be in trouble for committing murder etc.? Would Christians have to believe that the Bible counts as evidence for said crimes? What colour skin would Go have? so amny questions...

Were you on the soup today Galv ?

Cossax

Galvasean wrote: »

What would God resigning look like? Would he disintegrate himself or just take on a mortal form and go on a big ass vacation? As a human would he be in trouble for committing murder etc.? Would Christians have to believe that the Bible counts as evidence for said crimes? What colour skin would Go have? so amny questions...

F12

Happy Monday wrote: »

An attack by you people again on a church with a membership of 1.2 billion people.

It's the wider church and the Holy Father you are looking to nail so to speak.

Don't suppose you think you're smarter than the Pope do you?

So, is it the "You people" versus "We, the righteous" outlook? Religion is based on emotional reactions to anything that might question the inherent doubts within the belief system itself. To question is to reason, and to assume that might of numbers is somehow right, as religions do, is a form of threat of harm being done to those who will not comply with the dictats of the dominator.
Why do you use agressive words like "attack", and "nail"? As a man I know regulary reminds me, "People judge themselves by the workings of their own minds".

As for being 'smarter than the pope', that all depends on the quality of his mind, or lack of it. Have you ever asked yourself for one minute, how wise can he be, wanting to own the world in the name of a three-headed unseen entity? I don't think I'm that kind of 'smart', but I'll muddle along for now :rolleyes:.

J Cheever Loophole

Fortyniner wrote: »

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!

Indeed - as the writer and broadcaster Jude Collins said when writing on the subject;

"Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days."

Michael Ahern - respect!

eyescreamcone

Happy Monday wrote: »

Sonics2k wrote: »

We'll respect his title when he shows respect for People, Families and Children.

No somehow I don't think you atheists will.
This Pope is doing a lot to correct the sins of the past.
But that will never be enough.
You want to see the Church destroyed.
I'd respect you people more were you just to concede this.

Hey we're just watching the show.
The church is destroying itself.

It has no relevance today - this is borne out by it's followers, who all are nearly 90.
10 years will wrap it up I'd say.
The average age of your few priests is 64!

Can't see anything changing this trend can you???

Dades

eyescreamcone wrote: »

The average age of your few priests is 64!

Can't see anything changing this trend can you???

Imported priests and believers, maybe?

CerebralCortex

Happy Monday wrote: »

You mean the Pope.
Show a little respect for the man's title.

Ah no.

Genghiz Cohen

J Cheever Loophole wrote: »

Indeed - as the writer and broadcaster Jude Collins said when writing on the subject;

"Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don’t follow the majority line, is to seem to think that child abuse is OK."

Michael Ahern - respect!

Fixed that there for you lad.

J Cheever Loophole

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Fixed that there for you lad.

Jude nailed it so.

robindch

"'You never got to like it?' The answer to that sinister, suspicious, insinuating, abusive question remains 'No'"

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colum-kenny/colum-kenny-you-never-got-to-like-it-the-answer-to-that-sinister-suspicious-insinuating-abusive-question-remains-no-3101324.html

Independent wrote:

'You never got to like it?" That was one of the remarkable questions put to Brendan Boland when he was interrogated by priests in 1975 after reporting to the Catholic Church his sexual abuse at the hands of Fr Brendan Smyth. "You never got to like it?" The question itself is abusive. It serves no obvious good purpose. I sought an explanation for it last week, but was told only that the entire exercise was intended "to gather evidence against the criminal priest".

A spokesperson for Cardinal Sean Brady, who was present as a priest at that investigation in 1975, told me that Brady "did not construct those questions or ask those questions". But he was there and he signed off on them (as plain "John" and not "Sean" Brady). "You never got to like it?" Being abused, that is. The answer that Boland gave to the three priests was an absolute "No".

It was a question that might do-in the head of any victim of repeated violence, never mind the head of a teenager at puberty. What possible implication could there have been if he had answered "Yes"? That he shared the blame for his own rape? The undercurrent to this question, with its hint of erotic humiliation, raises a question about the institution that framed it, and about the nature of dominance and power within the organisation itself.

The three priests who interviewed Brendan Boland knew full well that child sexual abuse was happening in Ireland. If others were not speaking about it because of fear or ignorance, what was the excuse of church authorities who knew of actual abuse? Were Brady and his colleagues not dismayed when, one month after their own interview with victims of abuse, the Irish bishops published a highly significant and lengthy pastoral letter entitled Human Life Is Sacred? For nowhere throughout its 72 pages is sexual abuse mentioned. Nowhere are the clergy, religious or faithful to whom it is addressed alerted to the blasphemy and danger of child sex abuse that bishops knew was damaging some children's lives.

Many other subjects were set out in that major pastoral, which some saw as a political intervention aimed against reform of the civil law. The bishops warned about abortion, "the contraceptive mentality" and sex outside marriage. They spoke earnestly of love, "certain kinds of sex education", the evils of drink in family life, celibacy, social justice and even euthanasia.

But the hierarchy made no specific reference in their 1975 pastoral to one phenomenon of which they, at least as much as anyone else, were aware. Child sexual abuse. Why? The pastoral letter of 1975 noted: "The church has centuries of experience in dealing with men in all cultures and in all conditions. All this wise experience lies behind her judgement on human beings." The archbishops and bishops, in their collective wisdom in 1975, also pronounced: "If circumstances do not promise to a newly conceived child the quality of life to which its human dignity entitles it, then society has a strict duty to change the circumstances." So was the "strict duty" of Fr John Brady, his civic and moral duty, not to change the circumstances of actual children whom he knew were at risk? He and his spokespeople last week seemed obsessed with legalities. He did his duty. He followed orders. Anything more was up to others.

Brady did not look back. He rose high. From all his public utterances, there is no evidence that it ever occurred to him to check in later years that the kids mentioned by Brendan Boland as being at risk were now safe. Or if it did occur to him, he never acted to protect them after signing off on their interrogation. His problem is not that he did not go to the police immediately. It is that he never followed up as he might have. But he did oblige teenager Boland, in the enforced absence of Boland's father, to swear oaths that the boy would tell nobody what he had said. The sacred nature of family life did not extend to priests having to tell parents that their children were allegedly being raped.

A spokesman for the hierarchy has defended the process as being aimed at ensuring that an accused person could not undermine the inquiry. If a witness went around talking about what had happened to him or her then the accused might afterwards claim that witnesses somehow colluded.

But there is no equivalent oath of secrecy for people who make complaints to gardai in ordinary criminal cases. And the priests were not so determined to protect the integrity of their process that they ensured Brendan Smyth was stopped in his tracks. In fact, he went on raping for years. Next month the Irish hierarchy will host a Eucharistic Congress, embarrassingly referred to in one widely distributed handout as "a Spiritual Olympics". This already looked like a top-down attempt to forge ahead as if no fundamental change is required in the Catholic Church.

But sex abuse is fundamentally about the abuse of power, and not just about sex. The exercise of power within their church remains a problem for Catholics. Already this year we have seen a Catholic headmistress closing her door in the face of a pregnant teenager and the Vatican censoring priests for their mildly dissenting views.

Last week's BBC documentary hit home partly because the reporter involved is the nephew of a priest, and most of those who appeared in it are ordinary Catholics or ex-Catholics living on both sides of the Border. If some media are engaged in a witch hunt, the BBC was not. Most media are merely reflecting the concern of the majority of Irish Catholics, who in theory are as much a part of the church as is any cardinal. Ordinary Catholics are dismayed by what has been wrought on their church by the hierarchy and by priests who did evil. They aspire to a compassionate and spiritual church, not "a Spiritual Olympics, a kind of Spring Show or a World Youth Day for Adults" as next month's congress in the RDS is described.

They do not agree with that minority of Catholics who defend their Christian church as a "club", and who ignore the theology and history of their own "catholic" (meaning universal) tradition. Most Irish Catholics disagree with Rome's silencing of priests. But it is the long silence of Sean Brady that now cries out. "You never got to like it?" was the sinister, suspicious, insinuating question that his team put to Brendan Boland. The answer is still 'No'.

robindch

Brady asks for public support from his priests. 130 out of the 150 priests invited were washing their hair:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/underfire-cardinal-suffers-snub-from-his-own-priests-3111528.html

Irish Independent wrote:

CARDINAL Sean Brady has suffered a new blow after the majority of priests in his diocese snubbed a meeting organised as a show of support for the embattled leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Just 20 of 150 priests in the Armagh Archdiocese invited to attend a prayer gathering in support of Dr Brady actually showed up -- with many privately voicing concerns about his leadership. The poor turn-out at the meeting is the most overt response by rank-and-file priests to new allegations surrounding Cardinal Brady's handling of abuse allegations made against notorious paedophile Fr Brendan Smyth.

It follows calls by a number of government ministers for the cardinal to consider his position. Catholic Church insiders said Dr Brady had been keeping a low profile for the past fortnight after the allegations emerged in a BBC 'This World' documentary.

Despite defending his position in the immediate aftermath of the programme, the cardinal has rarely been seen out in public since and has not been presiding at confirmation ceremonies. Dr Brady had claimed he received a lot of support from within the church to stay on in his role as Primate of All Ireland.

However, the revelation that so few priest attended the prayer meeting suggests that his analysis may not be the correct one. The BBC documentary revealed how in the mid-1970s the then Fr Brady had been informed by 14-year-old abuse victim Brendan Boland that other children were being abused by Smyth.

Mr Boland gave the names and addresses of other children in danger from Smyth. But despite being given this information, the then Fr Brady and his superiors did nothing to warn the parents of Smyth's victims. As well as disquiet over Dr Brady's role in the Smyth affair, other factors also played a part in the poor attendance, according to priests in the diocese.

Priests in Armagh who were contacted complained of low morale. One said he felt that the poor turnout "was a sign that priests of the diocese are very fed up. Many are just doing their own thing because they think it is rudderless at the top." A spokesman for Cardinal Brady claimed the poor attendance last Friday week was due to "short notice".

Sarky

I'm sure the Vatican will jump right in to quell those rebellious priests.

RichieO

None of this changes my faith or opinion of the church or religion...

I can only say this because I never had any faith and my opinion of religion is:

It is neither necessary or required for any reason, I put it where it belongs, along with Myths, fairy stories, legends and all that is unsupported by any credible evidence...

Thank God for atheism...

F12

robindch wrote: »

Brady asks for public support from his priests. 130 out of the 150 priests invited were washing their hair:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/underfire-cardinal-suffers-snub-from-his-own-priests-3111528.html

I think it will take a lot of "Wash, rinse, repeat" before this dander problem is cured. Looks like it is more than skin deep and causes intense irritation, especially for those with a hard neck, like Brady.