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

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

1…3839414344…79

Comments

  • #1202
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    It was not totally ignored by the Irish media but it was mostly was ignored. Even the Irish Times headline was biased b failing to mention charges being dropped. The main text makes a simple stealth mention of charges being dropped but nothing more. Pell is a huge name and when the charges were made it was in all the outlets but if charges are being dropped then it is a non-story. Pure manipulation.

    The silence on it is not about it being a non story, no one knows what charges have been dropped. It was held in camera to protect the witnesses, making it difficult to report on, as explained in the report if you would like to read your own link.


  • #1203
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,053 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    CC on sex,

    Sex outside marriage is sin
    Sex between two men is a sin
    Sex before marriage is a sin
    Sex is only for procreation
    Masturbation is a sin
    Condoms are evil and not to be used

    Yeah the CC, sex never even entered their heads!


  • #1204
    murpho999
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,767 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    CC on sex,

    Sex outside marriage is sin
    Sex between two men is a sin
    Sex before marriage is a sin
    Sex is only for procreation
    Masturbation is a sin
    Condoms are evil and not to be used

    Yeah the CC, sex never even entered their heads!

    I'm shocked.

    I never knew the County Council had policies like this.


  • #1205
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,053 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    murpho999 wrote: »
    I'm shocked.

    I never knew the County Council had policies like this.

    Yeah, but the city councils are a free for all!


  • #1206
    Hannibal_Smith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    I was only joking about being too hungover to go - it used be the case when I was late teens and early twenties but at this stage it’s just that I’ve gotten out of the habit and that’s all.

    I’ve already explained why I’m going - I’m not going to keep justifying it.

    Again, i never asked you to justify it. I don't know you, why would you have to justify yourself to me? I've read your reasons for going on Sunday, they're your reasons, personal to you. You're going to support the good people/priests of the church:-

    I support the good innocent men and women of the church who are being unfairly maligned in all this.

    It's just a strange one given the good innocent men and women who were abused by the church.


  • Advertisement
  • #1207
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    Again, i never asked you to justify it. I don't know you, why would you have to justify yourself to me? I've read your reasons for going on Sunday, they're your reasons, personal to you. You're going to support the good people/priests of the church:-

    I support the good innocent men and women of the church who are being unfairly maligned in all this.

    It's just a strange one given the good innocent men and women who were abused by the church.


    Abused and maligned thereafter. The CC were always fond of briefing against their opponents.


  • #1208
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,016 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    The cognitive dissonance of the "pilgrims" attending these events is startling, at least in '79 they were completely oblivious to the attrocoties commited by the Catholic Church. How people can still pay homage to such a morally bankrupt institution is depressing.


  • #1209
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    The cognitive dissonance of the "pilgrims" attending these events is startling, at least in '79 they were completely oblivious to the attrocoties commited by the Catholic Church. How people can still pay homage to such a morally bankrupt institution is depressing.


    They probably find Pope Frank appealling as an individual. Of course the church will try and conflate that with some sort of "revival", but I think only the most deluded amongst them don't see the writing on the all at this stage.


  • #1210
    tylercheribini
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,016 ✭✭✭tylercheribini


    Odhinn wrote: »
    They probably find Pope Frank appealling as an individual. Of course the church will try and conflate that with some sort of "revival", but I think only the most deluded amongst them don't see the writing on the all at this stage.

    The Vatican spin dept still in overdrive on tv, all the priests repeating the company line of "we are not allowed the same crowds as '79 due to health and safety/security restrictions."


  • #1211
    Odhinn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    tylercheribini wrote: »
    The Vatican spin dept still in overdrive on tv, all the priests repeating the company line of "we are not allowed the same crowds as '79 due to health and safety/security restrictions."


    Bollocks pure and simple. I remember what it was like in 1979 and it was a very different vibe to now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1212
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,694 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Odhinn wrote: »
    Bollocks pure and simple. I remember what it was like in 1979 and it was a very different vibe to now.

    Indeed. The past really is a different country in that respect isn't it?

    And perhaps the most astonishing thing is that the massive damage done to the Catholic Church the intervening years has been entirely self inflicted.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #1213
    Atoms for Peace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Atoms for Peace


    Mary mcaleese for president.....Oh wait.


  • #1214
    Atoms for Peace
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,888 ✭✭✭Atoms for Peace


    The world Congress of families is totally ridiculous when you think about it. A bunch of supposedly celibate old farts pontificating on family matters.


  • #1215
    Leroy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,053 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Atoms for Peace wrote: »
    The world Congress of families is totally ridiculous when you think about it. A bunch of supposedly celibate old farts pontificating on family matters.

    And all based on a man that didn't leave home till he was 30, and then the remaining years of his life with a group of 12 other men!


  • #1216
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,837 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Atoms, I think if they wanted to, they would find plenty priests who could tell them about families.
    I know in one area, the priest tasked with dealing with these abusers was living with a woman. I think the Bishop considered him, a safe pair of hands, in the circumstances.


  • #1217
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    Why is justice not being done by the Irish authorities ???

    It's not as if there is anyone in government pro Catholic Church anymore . . . quite the opposite.

    So what I cannot understand is where there is sufficient evidence of covering up a crime (and where there is not a warrant can be obtained to search for evidence), why are the people suspected of covering up said crimes, not being arrested, charged and put on trial ?

    It they are guilty they can be sentenced, if they are not guilty they can be cleared, and justice is served. The Irish authorities will give them a fair trial.

    So what is going on ?


  • #1218
    Allinall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,294 ✭✭✭Allinall


    Irish Kings wrote: »
    Why is justice not being done by the Irish authorities ???

    It's not as if there is anyone in government pro Catholic Church anymore . . . quite the opposite.

    So what I cannot understand is where there is sufficient evidence of covering up a crime (and where there is not a warrant can be obtained to search for evidence), why are the people suspected of covering up said crimes, not being arrested, charged and put on trial ?

    It they are guilty they can be sentenced, if they are not guilty they can be cleared, and justice is served. The Irish authorities will give them a fair trial.

    So what is going on ?

    Why are you blaming the government ?

    They don’t administer justice.


  • #1219
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    Allinall wrote: »
    Why are you blaming the government ?

    They don’t administer justice.

    I'm not blaming any particular government, I don't care what party is in power.

    If politicians are not ultimately responsible for overseeing the authorities and the administration of justice who is ? and why is no one being arrested and put on trial for covering up these crimes ?


  • #1220
    Sycamore Tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Sycamore Tree


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Actually there is no evidence that he knew that Symth. He was navie not to follow it up but it is false to state he knew. The scandal was not that he was still a priest but that no effort was made to isolate him from children. Being made a non priest is pretty minor in the scheme of things.

    You couldn't even finish the sentence. Telling.

    Brady said he believed the abused children when he interviewed them (without the consent of the parents). He also cowardly said that he was simply a notary and his work-to-rule excuse (since challenged) was that he had no powers to reprimand Smyth. He proceeded to turn a blind eye to Smyth while he went on abusing children for 20 years in Ireland and abroad. He climbed the ranks of the Roman organisation but never thought to put a stop to Smyth.

    One of the kids was 14 years old when he told Daly that Smyth was abusing him since he was 11 years old. He was immediately sworn to secrecy by Brady. Do you think the oath of secrecy he forced the abused children to sign was for their own good?


  • #1221
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Hannibal_Smith wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    It was not totally ignored by the Irish media but it was mostly was ignored. Even the Irish Times headline was biased b failing to mention charges being dropped. The main text makes a simple stealth mention of charges being dropped but nothing more. Pell is a huge name and when the charges were made it was in all the outlets but if charges are being dropped then it is a non-story. Pure manipulation.

    The silence on it is not about it being a non story, no one knows what charges have been dropped.  It was held in camera to protect the witnesses, making it difficult to report on, as explained in the report if you would like to read your own link.
    Odhinn wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Well if sex was rarely discussed and preached about it deeply undermines the idea of celibate sex obsessed priests.


    Stop being obtuse.  It was preached about, and notoriously so.
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/1916/rising-perspectives/how-the-church-made-ireland-a-society-rife-with-hypocrisy-and-sexual-guilt-34138667.html
    But is it obtuse? Look, I do agree there was sex-obsessed clerics. Mc Quaid, for example, who shared little of my liberalism. There is a serious question on the extent that was the norm and I suspect it wasn't as common as often implied. There was backwardness in teachings on sex though but not in the most commonly interpreted way.


  • Advertisement
  • #1222
    An_Toirpin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 424 ✭✭An_Toirpin


    Sycamore Tree wrote: »
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Actually there is no evidence that he knew that Symth. He was navie not to follow it up but it is false to state he knew. The scandal was not that he was still a priest but that no effort was made to isolate him from children. Being made a non priest is pretty minor in the scheme of things.

    You couldn't even finish the sentence. Telling.

    Daly said he believed the abused children when he interviewed them (without the consent of the parents). He also cowardly said that he was simply a notary and his work-to-rule excuse (since challenged) was that he had no powers to reprimand Smyth. He proceeded to turn a blind eye to Smyth while he went on abusing children for 20 years in Ireland and abroad. He climbed the ranks of the Roman organisation but never thought to put a stop to Smyth.

    One of the kids was 14 years old when he told Daly that Smyth was abusing him since he was 11 years old. He was immediately sworn to secrecy by Daly. Do you think the oath of secrecy he forced the abused children to sign was for their own good?
    Telling of what? It is true he had no structural power to remind Smyth, but it is my view he should have made some effort to keep an eye out for Symth to ensure that he was no longer able to access vulnerable people. The oath he swore was not in their interest. I dont know what effect it had on letting Brendan Symth continue to abuse but I do think there was a belief it protected victims. It didn't in reality, but there was a belief that it did.


  • #1223
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭batgoat


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    But is it obtuse? Look, I do agree there was sex-obsessed clerics. Mc Quaid, for example, who shared little of my liberalism. There is a serious question on the extent that was the norm and I suspect it wasn't as common as often implied. There was backwardness in teachings on sex though but not in the most commonly interpreted way.
    This is some unique revisionism that isn't backed up by anyone from the period. Historians or anecdotal don't support your claim that the church was not obsessed with sex. The treatment would be particularly bad if you became pregnant, where do you think the term "fallen women" comes from, it wasn't a coincidence...
    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Telling of what? It is true he had no structural power to remind Smyth, but it is my view he should have made some effort to keep an eye out for Symth to ensure that he was no longer able to access vulnerable people. The oath he swore was not in their interest. I dont know what effect it had on letting Brendan Symth continue to abuse but I do think there was a belief it protected victims. It didn't in reality, but there was a belief that it did.

    "Keep an eye out", see this goes back to that big problem in the church. Abuse was treated as something that could be handled in house. Regardless of if he had or hadn't kept an eye, it was enabling abusers. It was all about protecting the church, not the victims. That's why we are still finding cases from the present century....


  • #1224
    Sycamore Tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Sycamore Tree


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Telling of what? It is true he had no structural power to remind Smyth, but it is my view he should have made some effort to keep an eye out for Symth to ensure that he was no longer able to access vulnerable people. The oath he swore was not in their interest. I dont know what effect it had on letting Brendan Symth continue to abuse but I do think there was a belief it protected victims. It didn't in reality, but there was a belief that it did.

    Wow you are more brainwashed than most. To defend Cardinal Sean Brady's actions in the Smyth case is a little bit sick to be honest given what we know.
    Even he made a late late apology of sorts.
    The leader of Ireland's Roman Catholics said yesterday that he was ashamed of his part in dealing with a child sex abuse scandal 35 years ago, and that he ws uncertain what the future held for him.

    Cardinal Sean Brady has faced calls for his resignation after revelations that he participated in interviews with two victims of the paedophile priest Brendan Smyth in 1975, but did not notify police. "I have listened to reaction from people to my role in events 35 years ago. I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by any failure on my part that I apologise to you with all my heart,"

    This apology is no good to the 200+ children Smyth went on to abuse from 1975 until his arrest and sentence. How many lives ruined? How many families affected?

    And the creep Brady did not resign.


  • #1225
    Sycamore Tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Sycamore Tree


    Because Sean Brady turned a blind eye...
    For five decades, he brutally raped and assaulted hundreds of children using his priest’s collar to gain access into families’ lives.
    Children in orphanages, such as Sam Adair, were routinely brutalised.

    Others, such as Brendan Boland (interviewed in 1975 by Brady), who spoke to BBC this week, were regularly brought on “marathon excursions” up and down the country where they were raped on beaches, lonely country roads and in the priest’s car. He also abused, raped and assaulted young boys and girls on cinema trips, at a hotel, boathouse and even in an abbey.

    One of his Belfast victims described how he was abused for another year after his name was handed to the then Fr Brady in 1975, while his sister was abused for seven more years and four cousins were abused until 1988.


  • #1226
    Sycamore Tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Sycamore Tree


    It is still clear today that priests and bishops in the Roman organisation that cover up the abuse get promoted.

    Sean Brady towed the line and got promoted all the way to the top.


  • #1227
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,856 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Telling of what? It is true he had no structural power to remind Smyth, but it is my view he should have made some effort to keep an eye out for Symth to ensure that he was no longer able to access vulnerable people. The oath he swore was not in their interest. I dont know what effect it had on letting Brendan Symth continue to abuse but I do think there was a belief it protected victims. It didn't in reality, but there was a belief that it did.

    Are you for real? He should have gone straight to the police and reported that scumbag but instead chose to keep his mouth shut and let smyth abuse for many more years. In my eyes he is as guilty as smyth!


  • #1228
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    Does anyone else think it strange that with all the evidence of a cover up available (or at least available with a few warrants), no one has even been arrested for questioning, never mind charged, or put in trial yet for conspiring to cover up crimes ?

    I and many other Irish people, want to see any found guilty in a court of law, aiding and covering up criminal acts in prison.

    We know what's going on in the Church, but what's going on in the Irish authorities that refuse to prosecute them ?
    No one in political power is in favour of the Catholic Church, quite the opposite in fact, so they can't use that excuse.

    No one in the media is asking this question either ?

    So what is going on exactly ?


  • #1229
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,694 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    An_Toirpin wrote: »
    Telling of what? It is true he had no structural power to remind Smyth, but it is my view he should have made some effort to keep an eye out for Symth to ensure that he was no longer able to access vulnerable people.
    Really? That's all he should have done? He ensured that the victims didn't go to the police by making them swear to keep quiet and then he didn't even bother to " keep an eye out"? If a (lay) teacher in your child's school was known to other teachers as an abuser, and they did that, with the result that your child was later abused he or herself, would you be so sanguine about it? But because it's a priest, you can't do it, you can't criticise them.
    The oath he swore was not in their interest. I dont know what effect it had on letting Brendan Symth continue to abuse but I do think there was a belief it protected victims. It didn't in reality, but there was a belief that it did.
    They can't have thought that, it makes no sense. They wanted the abuse kept secret, nothing else.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #1230
    Sycamore Tree
    Closed Accounts Posts: 796 ✭✭✭Sycamore Tree


    Irish Kings wrote: »
    Does anyone else think it strange that with all the evidence of a cover up available (or at least available with a few warrants), no one has even been arrested for questioning, never mind charged, or put in trial yet for conspiring to cover up crimes ?

    I and many other Irish people, want to see any found guilty in a court of law, aiding and covering up criminal acts in prison.

    We know what's going on in the Church, but what's going on in the Irish authorities that refuse to prosecute them ?
    No one in political power is in favour of the Catholic Church, quite the opposite in fact, so they can't use that excuse.

    No one in the media is asking this question either ?

    So what is going on exactly ?

    I have always said Sean Brady should have gone to prison for his cover up. He was protected by "religion".


  • Advertisement
  • #1231
    Irish Kings
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 494 ✭✭Irish Kings


    Sycamore Tree wrote: »
    I have always said Sean Brady should have gone to prison for his cover up. He was protected by "religion".

    Yes but what's preventing his arrest now with all the new evidence coming to light in recent years ?

    The PSNI and those in power now in the Republic in recent years are not pro Catholic Church, far from it.

    Why no arrests for questioning for concealing and conspiring to conceal criminal activity on either/any side of the border ?

    Why are no search warrants being issued to see what other evidence is out there ?

    Never mind any actual trials etc. ?

    Why are the authorities doing NOTHING about the concealment of these crimes ?

    No one in the media is asking this question either, never mind answering it.


Advertisement