Cardinal will only step down if told by Pope

Lemegeton · 16-03-2010 03:03PM

bishops and priests like this make me sick. they are so obsessed with passing the buck and claiming they did nothing wrong. this ****er claims he did nothing wrong because at the time he was not the " designated person responsible for contacting the relevant statutory authorities"
this makes me so angry. how the hell can he , as a human being, sit in a room with 2 boys who were raped by a colleauge and not only cover it up but allow the sick ****ing rapist to move to another parish, and not feel a moral obligation to report the **** and protect other children.
his colleauge was going around raping children !! how did he even sleep at night. i dont care what bull**** excuses they come out with about canon law and who has responsible. they do not have a MORAL leg to stand on when it comes to this. how does this person sleep at night.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 03:17PM

I don't know whether to be mad at Brady or to pity him. The man has thrown his life away on nonsense. He joined an organisation that forbid hin from having a wife or children and he ended up protecting a child rapist, what an achievement, how proud he must be!
And to think this organisation had parents whose children died before baptism being scared into thinking their child would never get to heaven but a repentant cnut like Brendan Smyth could. I only hope irish people will see this organisation for what it is but I doubt it.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 16-03-2010 03:25PM

It gone too far now.

I'm actually thinking of leaving the Catholic Church. (i.e. stop being a Catholic)

It really is mind-boggling!

Oafley Jones · 16-03-2010 03:52PM

MackDeToaster wrote: »

I've just listened to that Last Word broadcast with Dooly and Colm O'Gorman and I was absolutely gobsmacked at the pure shyte that Dooley was coming out with. With almost every sentence he destroyed any claim either himself or the Catholic church can make as to be either moral or ethical.

Haven't heard him on the Last Word yet, but I was stunned by his performance on the Pat Kenny show. The man lacked any compassion and showed a brass neck that would make our bankers proud.

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 03:53PM

I love how we feel the need to consult politicians on whether there is a case for a criminal investigation or not.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0316/abuse.html

The Green Party leader and Minister for Environment has said he would have no difficulty with the gardaí investigating the circumstances in which two children were asked to sign oaths of secrecy during the Church inquiry, involving the then Fr Séan Brady, into Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975.

Who the f- cares what John Gormley thinks about this? Why is it relevant?

We seem to have this permanent complex about deferring to authority. The Gardai should get up and do their job and investigate it. There isn't any need for some big national debate! How utterly dismaying that this is how we behave today.

Such an over-arching lack of common sense here. And obviously, particularly, within the institutional church. The church for a long long time has suffered a deference to internal dogma and rules instead of basic common sense and human decency - particularly wrt sexual ethics. It has as a result tied up and placed upon others great burdens. It has been a hallmark of the church's behaviour, and this is just another very unfortunate example, but it didn't start, nor will it end, with these abuse scandals. This is just one outcome of this behaviour that's got enough people outraged.

It's the harmful delusion of religion many observers speak of. It completely shortcuts common sense and reason. You only need listen to that monsignor on the radio yesterday to get a sense of how utterly lost these people are in their own bubble.

sbsquarepants · 16-03-2010 03:59PM

Exactly, the police should be above politics. If a crime has been comitted, which it quite obviously has, covering up a crime is a crime in itself, it should be dealt with in the appropriate manner regardless of the criminals job.

Sleepy · 16-03-2010 04:03PM

I have a question: if one of the victims of Brendan Smyth were to rape the Cardinal would it be considered a criminal or canonical matter?

If I had been one of those poor children, popping a Viagra and doing so very publicly would be my ambition in life tbh.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 04:04PM

Sleepy wrote: »

I have a question: if one of the victims of Brendan Smyth were to rape the Cardinal would it be considered a criminal or canonical matter?

If I had been one of those poor children, popping a Viagra and doing so very publicly would be my ambition in life tbh.

It would be an ecumenical matter.

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 04:13PM

Is it just me are is the word 'canonical' getting really, really annoying?

It's like if Starbucks came up with its own arbitrary set of rules, glossed with a fancy name, pushed it as an 'equal' among civil law, and then considered it to be primary in the event of employee transgressions.

If a Starbucks employee, or any employee of any company, ended up raping some kid out the back, they'd be fired and reported to the police. No ifs or buts. Starbucks wouldn't even involve itself in the investigation or punishment of that employee beyond co-operation with the relevant CIVIL authorities.

No organisation can be allowed to nurture a set of rules, that among its members, holds primacy over civil law. Don't want to hear about this rubbish any more! The church people involved in this need attention from the gardai, and from psychiatrists - to help bring them back in touch with the real world.

Jip · 16-03-2010 04:31PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Haven't heard him on the Last Word yet, but I was stunned by his performance on the Pat Kenny show. The man lacked any compassion and showed a brass neck that would make our bankers proud.

Have a listen, he really goes to a different planet with his arguments, and he's a right snide bollox.

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 05:08PM

Colm O'Gorman was abused, I don't doubt that, but Mr O'Gorman has an agenda, beyond the notion of seeking justice. This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church. My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man. He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:18PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman was abused, I don't doubt that, but Mr O'Gorman has an agenda, beyond the notion of seeking justice. This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church. My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man. He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

Always teh ghey. You're wrong; O'Gorman has something called empathy, try it. And you cult too.
Why would you even bring homosexuality into it? Do you get erections in the shower at the gym?

LookingFor · 16-03-2010 05:20PM

Ultravid wrote: »

This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church.

Yeah, where do these victims get off going after the people who abused them!

Ultravid wrote: »

My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man.

Why would he be angry at the Church about that?

I think he's angry at the Church about how they handled the abuse of children, he among them.

Is that not righteous anger? If you can't be angry about that, what the hell can you be angry about?

Ultravid wrote: »

He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

The catholic church has a less than stellar record when it comes to being in touch with reality, and when it comes to sexual ethics, and gay people do have a lot to be righteously angry about in that regard. There's some connection in the context of thinking that informs church attitude and behaviour, but I really don't O'Gorman gives a rat's ass what the church thinks about homosexuality. Who does anymore?

humanji · 16-03-2010 05:22PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman was abused, I don't doubt that, but Mr O'Gorman has an agenda, beyond the notion of seeking justice. This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church. My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man. He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

That is absolutely ridiculous. So is anyone who goes out for justice only doing it becuase of homosexual tendencies? Is the only way a person can try and do some sort of good because they're gay? Did Jesus die for our sins because he was gay? Uttere nonsense.

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 05:23PM

fontanalis wrote: »

Always teh ghey. You're wrong; O'Gorman has something called empathy, try it. And you cult too.

I bet if you asked Mr O'Gorman, and were to get an honest answer, he might just say he is not just so happy about the Church teaching. It's convenient to misuse a rightful anger at having been abused to whack the Church. It's a pattern I've seen with many other abuse victims. They spoil their cause by turning legitimate anger at what happened to them to further other agendas. I think most Catholics can see through this.

If I am wrong, tell me why so many people piggy-back demands for changes in Church moral teaching, always concerning sexual morality, on the back of the abuse crisis???

Cheap Thrills! · 16-03-2010 05:25PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Colm O'Gorman was abused, I don't doubt that, but Mr O'Gorman has an agenda, beyond the notion of seeking justice. This is my hunch: He is using the fact that he was abused to beat the Church. My bet is that he is angry with the Church because he himself is living with a man. He wants the Church to change her teaching (impossible) on sodomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is how I see the situation.

Why would Colm O'Gorman be angry with the church because he is living with a man?

He WANTS to live with a man, he doesn't give two flying fcuks what the Church thinks of his living arrangements.

The Church is an irrelevance.

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 05:28PM

Cheap Thrills! wrote: »

Why would Colm O'Gorman be angry with the church because he is living with a man?

He WANTS to live with a man, he doesn't give two flying fcuks what the Church thinks of his living arrangements.

The Church is an irrelevance.

Because his conscience is stinging him. He wants the Church to tell him that what he is doing is ok. Why doesn't somebody ask him? He has a deep seated hatred for the Church. His self-righteous pompousness is obvious.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:29PM

Ultravid wrote: »

I bet if you asked Mr O'Gorman, and were to get an honest answer, he might just say he is not just so happy about the Church teaching. It's convenient to misuse a rightful anger at having been abused to whack the Church. It's a pattern I've seen with many other abuse victims. They spoil their cause by turning legitimate anger at what happened to them to further other agendas. I think most Catholics can see through this.

If I am wrong, tell me why so many people piggy-back demands for changes in Church moral teaching, always concerning sexual morality, on the back of the abuse crisis???

Beacuse they seem to have more issue with homosexuality (two consenting adults) than with child rapists. You have zero credibility in this discussion.

Cheap Thrills! · 16-03-2010 05:29PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Because his conscience is stinging him. He wants the Church to tell him that what he is doing is ok. Why doesn't somebody ask him? He has a deep seated hatred for the Church. His self-righteous pompousness is obvious.

Ehhhh right ye are ...Mystic Meg..... those are some ...erm great mind reading powers you don't have there! :rolleyes:

Jaysus Wept.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:30PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Because his conscience is stinging him. He wants the Church to tell him that what he is doing is ok. Why doesn't somebody ask him? He has a deep seated hatred for the Church. His self-righteous pompousness is obvious.

Give over, take a trip to the george, thou protests too much.

Cheap Thrills! · 16-03-2010 05:32PM

fontanalis wrote: »

Give over, take a trip to the george, thou protests too much.

The George where more than your conscience will sting, if you do it right

MackDeToaster · 16-03-2010 05:35PM

Ultravid wrote: »

Because his conscience is stinging him. He wants the Church to tell him that what he is doing is ok.

Oh, and you can tell all this how ?

Ultravid wrote: »

Why doesn't somebody ask him?

Ah, so you have asked him yourself then ?

Ultravid wrote: »

His self-righteous pompousness is obvious.

Oh the hypocrisy. (sets ignore button).

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 05:40PM

fontanalis wrote: »

Beacuse they seem to have more issue with homosexuality (two consenting adults) than with child rapists. You have zero credibility in this discussion.

The Church abuse crisis was largely a homosexual abuse crisis - the figures support this. The irony is staggering since such people are now using these scandals to get the Church to change her teaching on... homosexuality!!! Ironic, no?

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:41PM

Ultravid wrote: »

The Church abuse crisis was largely a homosexual abuse crisis - the figures support this. The irony is staggering since such people are now using these scandals to get the Church to change her teaching on... homosexuality!!! Ironic, no?

Give over.

fontanalis · 16-03-2010 05:41PM

David "smug cnut" Quinn.
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/cardinal-brady-row

Blackhorse Slim · 16-03-2010 05:42PM

Ultravid wrote: »

The Church abuse crisis was largely a homosexual abuse crisis - the figures support this. The irony is staggering since such people are now using these scandals to get the Church to change her teaching on... homosexuality!!! Ironic, no?

I think they're more concerned with changing the church's teaching on covering up child rape to protect the church's profits.

foxinsox · 16-03-2010 05:44PM

http://www.armagharchdiocese.org

I found the above website while reading about this story. If any of you really feel strongly enough about this would you not be better e-mailing directly to the cardinal? All contacts are on the site.

Below is on the site and it disgusts me that a ten year old and a fourteen year old were not only abused by Fr. Brendan Smyth but were then further traumatised by being interviewed and made to relive their experiences.

I gave up on the church many years ago and cannot believe that there is no accountability. If you are aware of child abuse you go to the Gardai, that's it.

:mad:

Taken from above mentioned website :

Cardinal says he will not resign over allegations
Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Cardinal Seán Brady, head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, has insisted that he will not resign over his presence at a meeting in 1975 regarding child sex abuser Fr Brendan Smyth.

Twenty years after the meeting, Fr Smyth pleaded guilty to 74 charges of sexually abusing children between 1958 and 1993. Sentenced to seven years in prison, Fr Smyth (70) died in jail in 1997.

However, following press coverage of the 1975 meeting, Cardinal Brady denied suggestions that he was part of a cover up of cases of alleged sex abuse of children in the diocese of Kilmore 35 years ago and insisted he would not resign.

The Catholic primate of all-Ireland was a priest and a teacher in Kilmore when he was asked to interview two children, under oath of secrecy, by the then bishop Dr Francis McKiernan. He said these interviews formed the basis of the action taken to remove Smyth from pastoral ministry, adding that he was not the “designated person” to report the issue to the civil authorities.

Church sources insisted yesterday that the first State guidelines on the issue came into effect in 1987, some 12 years after these cases. They also stressed that the actions of the then Fr Brady were limited to the interviews of a boy (10) and a girl (14), according to a report in The Irish Times.

Cardinal Brady insisted that responsibility for Smyth was with the head of Smyth’s religious order at the Co Cavan abbey where he was sent after he was stripped of pastoral duties as a priest. “The responsibility for his behaviour rested with his religious superior at Kilnacrott,” he said.
The cardinal said he did all that was asked of him by Dr McKiernan in relation to Smyth.

“I did act, and act effectively, in that inquiry to produce the grounds for removing Fr Smyth from ministry and specifically it was underlined that he was not to hear confessions and that was very important.”
In his Archdiocese of Armagh yesterday, the cardinal outlined his role and Dr McKiernan’s in the affair.

“He set up a canonical inquiry to establish firm grounds for removing the faculties, the licence to minister, from Fr Brendan Smyth,” Cardinal Brady told The Irish Times. “It took the form of a question-and-answer sequence under oath before a notary. I was that notary and I didn’t have any decision-making power in it.”

He denied the oath of secrecy, which was agreed to by the two young people he interviewed, was for the protection of the church.

“The reason for the oath was to give it [the interview] credibility and strength in law and robustness against any challenge [from Smyth] because he [Dr McKiernan] was going to use the evidence which this inquiry would produce to take disciplinary action. That inquiry got under way. Within the space of two weeks, three weeks, he had the firm reasons he wanted to remove Fr Brendan Smyth from pastoral ministry.”
Various abuse victims, such as Andrew Madden and head of Amnesty Ireland, Colm O’ Gorman, have called on the Cardinal to resign.

by Tom O'Gorman

Sulmac · 16-03-2010 05:45PM

Ultravid wrote: »

The Church abuse crisis was largely a homosexual abuse crisis - the figures support this. The irony is staggering since such people are now using these scandals to get the Church to change her teaching on... homosexuality!!! Ironic, no?

There's a world of difference between two adults consenting to homosexual sex and raping a child who happens to be the same gender as you. It's not "ironic" in the slightest.

Ultravid · 16-03-2010 05:47PM

Sulmac wrote: »

There's a world of difference between two adults consenting to homosexual sex and raping a child who happens to be the same gender as you. It's not "ironic" in the slightest.

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

Sulmac · 16-03-2010 05:48PM

Ultravid wrote: »

BOTH are gravely immoral. Both ought to be condemned.

:rolleyes:

Cardinal will only step down if told by Pope

Comments