Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
13567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    ironingbored
    Registered Users Posts: 2,073 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Not because of a lack of faith.
    Because of the conservative nature of senior extremist Catholics in the force.
    The Church believed that Brendan Smyth could be reformed within the church.
    He didn't have the power to go to the Gardai at that time.

    I didn't know Brady was paralysed. :confused:

    This wouldn't be happening to him if he had:

    1) Informed the parents (maybe off the record) of the kids being abused or in danger of being abused.

    2) Subsequently enquired as to the progress on the case say 6 months down the line (and on discovering nothing was done going to the Gardai/RUC/Parents).

    3) Informed the RUC/Gardai (again in a private capacity even).


  • Options
    #63
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Happy Monday wrote: »

    .......

    Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

    whats the relevance?


  • Options
    #64
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Why didn't that kid's father take some legal action?

    Wasn't the Attorney General a member of the Knights of St Columbanus?


  • Options
    #65
    ironingbored
    Registered Users Posts: 2,073 ✭✭✭ironingbored


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    :D

    Your language is disgusting.

    Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

    I presume Brendan Boland's father only knew of his son's abuse as Brendan was sworn to secrecy by Brady during the investigation.


  • Options
    #66
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    ironingbored wrote: »
    I didn't know Brady was paralysed. :confused:

    This wouldn't be happening to him if he had:

    1) Informed the parents (maybe off the record) of the kids being abused or in danger of being abused.

    2) Subsequently enquired as to the progress on the case say 6 months down the line (and on discovering nothing was done going to the Gardai/RUC/Parents).

    3) Informed the RUC/Gardai (again in a private capacity even).

    Religious orders are just that - orders.
    You don't have the independence to go on solo runs.
    The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.
    The hierarchy rules the roost.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    ironingbored wrote: »
    I presume Brendan Boland's father only knew of his son's abuse as Brendan was sworn to secrecy by Brady during the investigation.

    You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
    But came on here to contribute!
    His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
    Sean Brady did what he could at that time.


  • Options
    #68
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,963 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nodin wrote: »
    I was a teenager in the 1980's. The Church - as some have noted over the years - was a tad on the sex obsessed side then

    So what's changed? Sex is still duurty, unless you got married in a Catholic church before doing it of course. Sometimes I wish I'd stayed in touch (hehe) with the local priests just so I could ask them hard questions like, if you got married under the rites of the RCC is anâl allowed? Where in the bible does it say it isn't?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #69
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,963 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.

    No it's not. Morality is not the prerogative of the 'hierarchy'. Every christian is supposed to know what is right and what is wrong, aren't they? Actually even we godless atheists know what is right and wrong. I'd bet that our sense of right and wrong is functioning rather better than theirs.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #70
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,963 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

    Because the god botherers told him not to?
    Because these people had told him, ever since he was knee high, that they alone knew the path to righteousness and salvation, and questioning their authority was greviously wrong?
    Stuff like that. When the commies did it it was called brainwashing.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #71
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    ninja900 wrote: »
    So what's changed? ......

    O they're in no way as "in your face" as they were then, nor are they consulted for their opinion as much.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
    But came on here to contribute!
    His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
    Sean Brady did what he could at that time.


    ....other than make bold assertions on an ongoing basis, without backing them up, why don't you get back to me on a few you made earlier.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78491759&postcount=57


  • Options
    #73
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Sean Brady did what he could at that time.
    Sean Brady did not do "what he could" at the time. He did what he felt was best for the RCC. There is quite a significant difference.
    His actions and inaction were not completed on behalf of ensuring protection or compassion for victims but for the self preservation of his church.
    His lack of clarity on this matter over the years (by his lack of forthcoming with the facts) is evident of his lack of concern over the victims.


  • Options
    #74
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,963 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    I was a teenager in the 80s in Catholic school, too.. their official line hasn't changed a bit, but maybe they've modified their tactics? I imagine that they'd get openly laughed out of it today with the stuff that we quietly sniggered about.

    Life ain't always empty.



  • Options
    #75
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Religious orders are just that - orders.
    You don't have the independence to go on solo runs.
    The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.
    The hierarchy rules the roost.
    He wasn't a lowly priest. He was an expert in canon law and the most senior of the three "investigators" there.
    He was also secretary to the bishop so could have easily had the inside knowledge of whether proper action against smyth had been taken or not.

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0503/1224315510225.html


  • Options
    #76
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Because the god botherers told him not to?
    Because these people had told him, ever since he was knee high, that they alone knew the path to righteousness and salvation, and questioning their authority was greviously wrong?
    Stuff like that. When the commies did it it was called brainwashing.

    Because he felt that the Bishop would act on Sean Brady's damning report on Smyth.

    He and the Cardinal were both let down by the Church.

    It beggars belief that politicians who were elected on a pack of lies 12 months ago like Kenny and Gilmore talk today of moral bankruptcy.

    As for Sinn Fein think of the child killings of Bloody Friday and Jean McConville.


  • Options
    #77
    Sonics2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,239 ✭✭✭Sonics2k


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
    But came on here to contribute!
    His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
    Sean Brady did what he could at that time.

    Sean Brady only did things for himself and the Church, no-one else.

    He had nearly 40 years to come forward and do what was right, instead he cowered in the background giving speeches on morality and doing what Jesus wants.

    I'm sure Jesus would be proud of such a man :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #78
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Because he felt that the Bishop would act on Sean Brady's damning report on Smyth.
    How do you know the report was damning on smyth? It's likely it may not have been given the lack of action on the affair. We haven't been shown his report so you are just presuming that it was damning.
    Happy Monday wrote: »
    He and the Cardinal were both let down by the Church.
    Do you really believe this?
    Happy Monday wrote: »
    It beggars belief that politicians who were elected on a pack of lies 12 months ago like Kenny and Gilmore talk today of moral bankruptcy.
    How many of our politicians were involved in covering up child abuse? How many of our politicians were involved in investigations where rape victims were subjected to vile questions about how they may have in fact enjoyed the experience?
    I think lowry, bertie, haughey, scum as I believe them to be, are still far more morally superior compared to the rcc.

    Happy Monday wrote: »
    As for Sinn Fein think of the child killings of Bloody Friday and Jean McConville.
    I have not forgotten about this and for this reason would not vote for SF. However, what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?


  • Options
    #79
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    I've spent quite a bit of time around priests and bishops in my time. Like any club they are constantly asking and cross referencing other members (priests) that they know. Making remarks on their characthers etc.
    All Sean Brady had to do was to ask, 'What ever became of that busness with Brendan Smyth?' as he sliced into his rack of lamb with the Bishop. His testimony is bull**** anybody with an ounce of curiousity not to mention concern would want to know.
    Lies upon corruption and evil, self and church protection.


  • Options
    #80
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    kbannon wrote: »
    How do you know the report was damning on smyth? It's likely it may not have been given the lack of action on the affair. We haven't been shown his report so you are just presuming that it was damning.

    Do you really believe this?

    How many of our politicians were involved in covering up child abuse? How many of our politicians were involved in investigations where rape victims were subjected to vile questions about how they may have in fact enjoyed the experience?
    I think lowry, bertie, haughey, scum as I believe them to be, are still far more morally superior compared to the rcc.


    I have not forgotten about this and for this reason would not vote for SF. However, what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?


    Sinn Fein first - McGuinness today called for the Cardinal's resignation.
    That is laughable given their open support for child killings.

    When I talk of immoral politicians it's the current crew I have in mind.
    Lies to get elected then bankrupt the country for a generation to pay bond holders. Did they stand on any moral high ground when they met the Chinese dictator recently responsible for the brutal treatment of students and Tibetan monks?

    The Cardinal did all he could have done at that time to help the victims involved.


  • Options
    #81
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    kbannon wrote: »
    what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?

    It's distractory whataboutery. Don't fall for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    The Cardinal did all he could have done at that time to help the victims involved.
    There is that line again. No he did not.
    He could have allowed the boys father into the room.
    He could have contacted the gardai.
    He could have been more compassionate towards the victim.
    He could have contacted the media.
    He could have contacted the health board.
    He could have contacted the IRA.
    He could have contacted a politician to intervene.
    He could have contacted the family afterwards to make sure that everything had been done.
    He could have followed up with his bishop (for whom he was secretary to) to see that punishment had been made.
    He could have followed up with the abbott for the same reason.
    He could have done may different things but didn't bother his arse because he had followed the church line which didn't involve being concerned about a filthy disgusting rape victim (who probably enjoyed it anyhow and sure wasn't it gay sex which means the victim will go to hell).


  • Options
    #83
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Galvasean wrote: »
    It's distractory whataboutery. Don't fall for it.
    I'm use to reading it from the apologists over the last few years!


  • Options
    #84
    WhatNowForUs?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 687 ✭✭✭WhatNowForUs?


    Stepping down should be taken as given.

    What this debate should concentrate on is if he and his like can be jailed.


  • Options
    #85
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    kbannon wrote: »
    There is that line again. No he did not.
    He could have allowed the boys father into the room.
    He could have contacted the gardai.
    He could have been more compassionate towards the victim.
    He could have contacted the media.
    He could have contacted the health board.
    He could have contacted the IRA.
    He could have contacted a politician to intervene.
    He could have contacted the family afterwards to make sure that everything had been done.
    He could have followed up with his bishop (for whom he was secretary to) to see that punishment had been made.
    He could have followed up with the abbott for the same reason.
    He could have done may different things but didn't bother his arse because he had followed the church line which didn't involve being concerned about a filthy disgusting rape victim (who probably enjoyed it anyhow and sure wasn't it gay sex which means the victim will go to hell).

    When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

    Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

    As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

    He should be supported not condemned.


  • Options
    #86
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

    Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

    As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

    He should be supported not condemned.

    So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying that if the company you're working for was involved in fraud the type of fraud that would bankrupt a country you'd just keep your mouth shut? If you had a suspicion a co-worker was abusing a child you wouldn't report it?


    No, my dear sir/madam, Cardinal Brady most certainly should not be supported and your opinion most certainly should be condemned.


  • Options
    #87
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,913 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

    Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

    As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

    He should be supported not condemned.
    What? You are trolling now.
    I prepare a tasklist for each day the night before.
    Thankfully I work in IT and not in moralising over the use of rubber johnnies. However, I think I would have made sure to remember to follow up on the rape case were I involved.

    As for being supported, I would think otherwise!


  • Options
    #88
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

    Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

    As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

    He should be supported not condemned.

    Why did this good man not own up to this himself, why did he force the victim to go public? He had ample oppurtunity and had to be aware that people where requesting and investigating the records. The BBC must have been contacting him for a long time about the affair.


  • Options
    #89
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Why did this good man not own up to this himself, why did he force the victim to go public? He had ample oppurtunity and had to be aware that people where requesting and investigating the records. The BBC must have been contacting him for a long time about the affair.

    Own up to what?


  • Options
    #90
    Happy Monday
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Happy Monday


    Jernal wrote: »
    So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying that if the company you're working for was involved in fraud the type of fraud that would bankrupt a country you'd just keep your mouth shut? If you had a suspicion a co-worker was abusing a child you wouldn't report it?


    No, my dear sir/madam, Cardinal Brady most certainly should not be supported and your opinion most certainly should be condemned.

    My good man he did report it!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Happy Monday wrote: »
    Own up to what?

    To his involvement. Why is he only blowing the whistle on the abbot (at who's door he is landing the crime) now? Why wasn't he hammering the pulpit long ago on this, WHEN HE HAD NO MORE SUPERIORS TO WORRY ABOUT IN IRELAND.


Advertisement