Vigil for mothers and unborn babies in Knock with alleged PAEDO protector Sean Brady

recedite

nowanathiest wrote: »

Remember that church hierarchy view themselves as only being subject to cannon law, not common law.

Exactly, and you can see it in Brady's quote;

I had absolutely no authority over Brendan Smyth. Even my Bishop had limited authority over him. The only people who had authority within the Church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his Abbot in the Monastery in Kilnacrott and his Religious Superiors in the Norbertine Order

It never even occurred to him to have a word with the Gardai, social workers, or even the parents of the victims. Morally bankrupt.

Sarky

I could murder a chocolate teapot right now.

coffee_cake

Sarky wrote: »

O could murder a chocolate teapot right now.

HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR LIFE

Bannasidhe

bluewolf wrote: »

HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR LIFE

Life- what is it good for?

coffee_cake

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Life- what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing!

nyow!

lazygal

bluewolf wrote: »

HAVE YOU NO RESPECT FOR LIFE

Sure we're alll going to die anyway.......down the mines, as I understand it.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Life- what is it good for?

I got to stop with these references.:o

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Sure we're alll going to die anyway.......down the mines, as I understand it.

I thought our fathers were going to die down the mines?

What an 80 year old retired baker would be doing down a mine is a bit of a mystery but there you go....

the culture of deference

recedite wrote: »

Exactly, and you can see it in Brady's quote;
It never even occurred to him to have a word with the Gardai, social workers, or even the parents of the victims. Morally bankrupt.

If you read the last part of my post that you part quoted

Brady said
"* Even according to the State guidelines in place in the Republic of Ireland today, the person who first receives and records the details of an allegation of child abuse in an organisation that works with children is not the person who has responsibility within that organisation for reporting the matter to the civil authorities. This responsibility belongs to the ‘Designated person’ appointed by the organisation"

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What an 80 year old retired baker would be doing down a mine is a bit of a mystery but there you go....

Doesn't caramel come from seams below the Burgess Shale?

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Doesn't caramel come from seams below the Burgess Shale?

Poor man is a diabetic so was unable to gain employment in the caramel (or indeed treacle) mines. There was a chance of an apprenticeship making Hovis in one of the big marmite collieries in Durham back during d'Emergency but instead his Dad got him in to Sir Henry O'Shea's bakery* icing fancy buns and putting the holes in doughnuts destined for the Bishop's Palace.
Wasn't he haunted! Shure didn't Thatcher decimate the marmite industry.





*Later the site of a popular Cork club where many a campaign against the 83 referendum was drunkenly planned.

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

icing fancy buns and putting the holes in doughnuts destined for the Bishop's Palace.

Best job ever!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbs64GvGgPU

Viper_JB

I don't understand the respect people have for this guy, as far as I'm concerned respect is earned, not to be given based on your education, vocation or position in society but by your actions, from his actions I cannot understand how anyone would even be associated with him let alone pay him respect or defend his position. But I guess I'd probably have to be here fighting for his position to understand.

I really hope the loud minority are ignored on this issue...

Brian Shanahan

ardmacha wrote: »

Not reporting a act is not the same as committing it and not reporting one act is not a guide to your standing on other acts. And one can logically be opposed to the killing of unborn children while still having failings in your conduct.

Shielding a criminal from justice is itself a criminal act. That is what Brady did.

Also you cannot kill what is not yet alive. By definition foetuses are not alive, and neither are they children.

coffee_cake

Eh well cells are alive anyway

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

I would also like to remind posters here that Mr Brady has not been convicted of anything. Allegations have been made that is all.

Actually it is more than that. Brady openly and publically admitted his criminal act in not shopping a rapist and forcing his victims to remain silent.

The authorities failed to carry out their legal duty to try him in a court of law. With a public confession it is an open and shut case.

Sarky

bluewolf wrote: »

Eh well cells are alive anyway

Yes, but you probably kill millions, if not billions of cells a day just by existing. Not exactly fair on poor Staphylococcus aureus and all his children for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but nobody will shed a tear.

endacl

electro222 wrote: »

Hindsight is a harsh mistress

FYP

Hindsight can be a bitch...

coffee_cake

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, but you probably kill millions, if not billions of cells a day just by existing. Not exactly fair on poor Staphylococcus aureus and all his children for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but nobody will shed a tear.

Yeah I know the argument and all, but it's just not true to say it's not technically alive in the first place, whatever about its personhood or lack thereof

Sarky

Technically, yes. Just goes to show that it's all really complicated and anyone with easy answers is lying or selling something.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Actually it is more than that. Brady openly and publically admitted his criminal act in not shopping a rapist and forcing his victims to remain silent.

The authorities failed to carry out their legal duty to try him in a court of law. With a public confession it is an open and shut case.

Whilst I don't want to go all ISAW on your ass, I do not believe he committed a criminal offence as such an offence did not exist at the time. That is not to say I believe he acted correctly, merely pointing out that he likely did not commit a criminal offence and therefore, he did not publicly admit to committing a criminal act.

MrP

kylith

Just been reading this article about Brady, and it contains this line "...Catholic Church about suing the State over abortion legislation..." I must have missed that bit of news, could anyone steer me toward some info on it? I'm very curious as to how the RCC would go about suing a state for enacting legislation.

MrPudding

kylith wrote: »

Just been reading this article about Brady, and it contains this line "...Catholic Church about suing the State over abortion legislation..." I must have missed that bit of news, could anyone steer me toward some info on it? I'm very curious as to how the RCC would go about suing a state for enacting legislation.

Perhaps they might be considering something like a judicial review. This would simply be the courts judging the quality of the law and whether or not the state was correct in implementing it and that the law itself is correct. I can't imagine it would be successful as the measure of the laws correctness would be that it is constitutional, and given that the law is required, in effect, by the constitution I can't see a judicial review getting them anywhere.

MrP

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

Just been reading this article about Brady, and it contains this line "...Catholic Church about suing the State over abortion legislation..." I must have missed that bit of news, could anyone steer me toward some info on it? I'm very curious as to how the RCC would go about suing a state for enacting legislation.

Cardinal Sean Brady, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All-Ireland, warned that Catholic hospitals may sue the State over their plans to force such institutions to provide abortions when necessary to save the life of a woman.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/catholic-hospitals-subject-to-law-on-abortion-230339.html

As I understand it, Brady was demanding that Catholic hospitals be allowed to claim conscientious objection and refuse to perform abortions in any circumstances. The response from gubbermint was that only an individual can claim to have a conscientious objection not an institution and as the legislation does allow individual medics to to do so there is no issue.

magicbastarder

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, but you probably kill millions, if not billions of cells a day just by existing.

2.4 million red blood cells are created (and a similar number destroyed) in your body every second.

kylith

Thanks for that, Banna.

eyescreamcone

The sooner we remove 'ethos' from hospitals and schools funded by the state the better.

It's disgraceful that the church can still influence public hospital appointments.
The school situation is just a joke (public schools discriminate against those who do not support the school's ethos - pupils and teachers).

This same ethos is morally indefensible:
- anti health (crazy contraception and abortion thinking)
- anti gay (no openly gay teachers allowed)
etc etc

The sooner we have a vigil ourselves and decide once and for all that Brady and his rapist/rapist supporters are of no value in our society the better.

I'll be glad to see the RCC in Ireland relegated to the status of a carnival attraction.

Any more mentions of stopping abortions in "their" hospitals we should pull the plug on their involvement in ANY public institutions - let's just do it anyway!!!

eyescreamcone

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As I understand it, Brady was demanding that Catholic hospitals be allowed to claim conscientious objection and refuse to perform abortions in any circumstances. The response from gubbermint was that only an individual can claim to have a conscientious objection not an institution and as the legislation does allow individual medics to to do so there is no issue.

I believe that the medics can not conscientiously object in cases of emergency. They can in the other cases - of ill-health or suicide.
Open to correction though?!

Bannasidhe

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I believe that the medics can not conscientiously object in cases of emergency. They can in the other cases - of ill-health or suicide.
Open to correction though?!

Not sure to be honest.

It would be farcical (well, more farcical than it already is) if a medic was allowed o refuse to perform a life-saving emergency procedure as they didn't agree with that particular procedure.

Would a Jehovah Witness be allowed to refuse to give a person a blood transfusion in an emergency?

eyescreamcone

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not sure to be honest.

It would be farcical (well, more farcical than it already is) if a medic was allowed o refuse to perform a life-saving emergency procedure as they didn't agree with that particular procedure.

Would a Jehovah Witness be allowed to refuse to give a person a blood transfusion in an emergency?

The can't opt out if it's an emergency case, but they can opt out if it's one of the other cases that go to a committee.