Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Boards.ie wins battle with Brady

13

Comments

  • #62
    Reflector
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 380 ✭✭Reflector


    Although I believe that all people in power should resign if they failed to protect their own parishioners I also think that some of the blame has to fall on society itself.
    We must make sure that we don't go back to a place where shame was used to control people and children were to be seen and not heard. We need to make sure that this can never happen again and as a society we grow and learn from these past mistakes.


  • #63
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    Outrage wrote: »
    Since when does the Church claim to be a democracy?

    I never did. The congregation have no real power in removing him, so their "happiness" at his performance has no real relevance.


  • #64
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    General Zod wrote: »
    You're absolutely right. We should dismantle the entire church in Ireland, sell off their property and let us move as a society into the future together.

    Chairman Mao would be proud.


  • #65
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    Nah, I'm not advocating the slaughter of anyone as part of a great leap forward.

    Just the removal of an organisation where people have no choice of becoming members initially that gains it's morality from a book of fairytales and as a structure spectacularly failed to protect it's most vunerable parishioners.


  • #66
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    Reflector wrote: »
    I also think that some of the blame has to fall on society itself.

    Why? Take a look at society now. We're finally waking up from the religious Nanny state and demanding action be taken against those who failed to protect.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    orourkeda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,916 ✭✭✭✭orourkeda


    69 wrote: »
    We had a Pope Benny here but he got site banned, maybe an Admin could lift the ban and get him to order Brady to resign?

    I'm calling for full reinstatement


  • #68
    m@cc@
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,526 ✭✭✭m@cc@


    Outrage wrote: »
    Your mammy must have taken you to the dentist the day they taught hyperbole?

    He he he he, is that it? Again, like a toddler. You can't even form a counter argument back so this is what you resort to?


  • #69
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    m@cc@ wrote: »
    He he he he, is that it? Again, like a toddler. You can't even form a counter argument back so this is what you resort to?

    What's amusing is that his response to "You're absolutely right. We should dismantle the entire church in Ireland, sell off their property and let us move as a society into the future together" is this:
    Outrage wrote: »
    Chairman Mao would be proud.

    Conservatives are so cute.


  • #70
    MackDeToaster
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 330 ✭✭MackDeToaster


    Not only was there Misprision, but also the Offences against the State Act of 1939, which is still in force, and states:
    17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—
    ( a ) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or
    ( d ) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the Commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,



    Edit - He made children swear oaths of silence, he conveniently forgot about it for 35 years, while Smyth went on to rape many other children. He apparently 'forgot' to tell the other bishops about this until last weekend, he said nothing about it to the Pope on his propaganda trip to Rome. And now look at this from just before Christmas, the hypocrisy is almost unbelievable, but then again, he is the head of Holy Church of Covering Up Rape...

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/1205/breaking21.html..

    "Archbishop of Armagh Cardinal Séan Brady has today called for accountability among bishops in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests.
    ...
    Asked what he would do if it were found that children had been abused as a result of any failing on his part, Dr Brady said he would stand down. “I would remember that the abuse of children is a very serious crime in civil and canon law. It’s also a very grave sin,” he said. "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."

    Hmm, "well then I think I would resign." 'I think' - would that be a mental reservation ?


  • #71
    Winty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    Great work MackDeToaster good research


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Bucklesman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 635 ✭✭✭Bucklesman


    Crud.

    I voted wrong, inadvertantly increasing the yes vote by 50%.

    If anything, this just proves this chap hasn't a leg to stand on.


  • #73
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    General Zod wrote: »
    You're absolutely right. We should dismantle the entire church in Ireland, sell off their property and let us move as a society into the future together.
    Indeed, the church is an obstacle to any religious person hoping to know God, the only way to know God is by studying his work through science. Taking the word of men born into ignorance as that of God should be considered an affront to God himself.


  • #74
    Executive Steve
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    Outrage wrote: »
    Fr Brady broke no law.

    The Church received a serious complaint and Fr Brady was tasked to find the facts and make a report to his Bishop.


    Actually, despite the removal of the Misprision of Felony law from the Statute books some years ago, there is still the rather relevant fact that asking the children to swear an oath of silence and undertake not to inform any secular authorities or specifically authorised clergy is in direct contravention of the 1939 Offences Against the State act - a more serious offence which even carries a minimum two year custodial sentence.


  • #75
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    MackDeToaster wrote: »
    Not only was there Misprision, but also the Offences against the State Act of 1939, which is still in force, and states:

    Seeing as you're in a research mood: could you find some case law where Section 17 of the Offences Against the State act has been applied?

    I seriously doubt is has been used to convict organisational leaders abstracted away several layers about criminal matters that occurred decades in the past.

    The DPP will not be prosecuting. You fail. Go find another law that might stick. Suck it up.

    We should be focusing our efforts on putting perverts in prison and compensating victims.


  • #76
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Outrage wrote: »
    Seeing as you're in a research mood: could you find some case law where Section 17 of the Offences Against the State act has been applied?

    I seriously doubt is has been used to convict organisational leaders abstracted away several layers about criminal matters that occurred decades in the past.

    The DPP will not be prosecuting. You fail. Go find another law that might stick. Suck it up.

    We should be focusing our efforts on putting perverts in prison and compensating victims.

    If Brady had acted like a human being then a pervert would have been in prison a long time ago and there would be less victims to compensate.


  • #77
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    humanji wrote: »
    If Brady had acted like a human being then a pervert would have been in prison a long time ago and there would be less victims to compensate.

    Another member of club 20/20 hindsight. I'm guessing you have night vision too? Perhaps you could tell me Saturday's lotto numbers while you're at it?

    Aren't you the nut from the conspiracy forum who thinks that Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus run the country?


  • #78
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    Outrage wrote: »
    I seriously doubt is has been used to convict organisational leaders abstracted away several layers about criminal matters that occurred decades in the past.

    Which "organisational leader abstracted away several layers" is anyone calling for a conviction on in this thread?


  • #79
    mawk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,737 ✭✭✭mawk


    "It hasn't been used before" is not a great legal defence

    lack of precedence doesnt say a law is not relevant


  • #80
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Oh right. I'm sorry. Out of curiosity, what's the amount of kids you'd let be raped before you acted?


  • #81
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    mawk wrote: »
    "It hasn't been used before" is not a great legal defence

    lack of precedence doesnt say a law is not relevant

    Seeing as you're so concerned, you should put your money where your mouth is and file a test case. I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed barristers with similar Church-hating views as yourself who'd love to have a pop-shot with you.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    humanji wrote: »
    Oh right. I'm sorry. Out of curiosity, what's the amount of kids you'd let be raped before you acted?

    Is this the best a conspiracy nut can come up with?


  • #83
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,605 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Outrage wrote: »
    Another member of club 20/20 hindsight. I'm guessing you have night vision too? Perhaps you could tell me Saturday's lotto numbers while you're at it?

    Aren't you the nut from the conspiracy forum who thinks that Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus run the country?

    Actually he's a Conspiracy Theory Mod and as such doesn't believe in any conspiracies!

    joking


  • #84
    ScumLord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,787 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Outrage wrote: »
    Another member of club 20/20 hindsight. I'm guessing you have night vision too? Perhaps you could tell me Saturday's lotto numbers while you're at it?
    1 19 24 27 35 39 Bonus 10.


  • #85
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Outrage wrote: »
    Is this the best a conspiracy nut can come up with?
    What? Are you now claiming that no crime was committed at all?


  • #86
    Outrage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 172 ✭✭Outrage


    ScumLord wrote: »
    1 19 24 27 35 39 Bonus 10.

    I'll buy a ticket and if I win, I'll give all the proceeds to the Church for the purposes of compensating victims and paying for professional counselling.


  • #87
    Winty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    Outrage wrote: »
    Is this the best a conspiracy nut can come up with?

    Yes a conspiracy nut who thinks that children should be safe from sexual abuse, he or she is twisted.


  • #88
    dunleakelleher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 208 ✭✭dunleakelleher


    humanji wrote: »
    What? Are you now claiming that no crime was committed at all?

    Well that is what the catholic church would have you believe a couple of years ago. Beggars belief doesn't it.


  • #89
    MaybeLogic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭MaybeLogic


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'll buy a ticket and if I win, I'll give all the proceeds to the Church for the purposes of compensating victims and paying for professional counselling.

    Just had a look at your post history and about 80% of your posts are in Priest Child Abuse threads, including the thread your first signed up for.
    Are you some sort of Church/Vatican shill?


  • #90
    General Zod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    He's just a bad troll.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    minidazzler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,650 ✭✭✭✭minidazzler


    Outrage wrote: »
    I'll buy a ticket and if I win, I'll give all the proceeds to the Church for the purposes of compensating victims and paying for professional counselling.

    Because the Church are so likely to pay the victims. How can you defend the actions of these men? How can you stand behind a church that has admitted cover-ups!


Advertisement