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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

1…6791112…79

Comments

  • #402
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    underclass wrote: »
    Best of luck with that.

    Well I for one am convinced. Kudos good sir


  • #403
    problemchimp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭problemchimp


    kbannon wrote: »
    I have not seen any action by the church in recent times to suggest that this is what the Church wants.
    The primate of Ireland recently tried to stop the disclosure of documents.
    The church actively tried to stop the publication of the Murphy report.
    AFAIK nobody in the church to date has stood forwards voluntarily and said such and such happened 10/20/30/40... years ago. Everything has been done with a pitchfork up their rear end!
    This is not just in Ireland - this is the case in several countries!
    Ha Ha Ha
    Why? Am I one? Because I like heavy metal and I feel that I have the right to question the Church that I'm supposed to be a part of?
    Is it because I think contraception is a good thing?
    Is it because I managed to overcome the Christian Brother upbringing and now have no ill-feeling to homosexuals?
    Is it because I don't think that the church should have an active role in the running of our country?
    Is it because I think?
    I had to write a similar length report for my Msc recently. It was on something I don't fully understand and have no intention of ever using again and also feel that it was a waste of my time. I had to do it, I did it and it was hopefully well received. That doesn't mean that I successfully addressed all of the requirements though!
    Could any of the above apply to the letter at all?
    What exactly is the Church's mission?
    any response from under class on this post? maybe it's easier to ignore this post as you have learned to do by your false Gods in robes. I'm still waiting on an answer' " do you think the Pope would have circulated his letter if nobody had been caught"?


  • #404
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Ok - just to clarify on the 'anecdotal evidence' issue. Outrage used anecdotal evidence to illustrate the 'support' that the cardinal has. I used anecdotal evidence to refute it. So if you dismiss my evidence you have to dismiss his - understand?

    Neiother of you have evidence. Both have offered OPINION based on what yu claim are other peoples opinion. However he is claiming people want Brady to stay in office. he does not really have to prove this. Brady will prove it himself if he says a substantial number wanted him to leave. If you are claiming that a substantial number want him to leave then yu do in fact need more than hearsay to support this.
    Obviously its only wrong to abuse anyone outside the church. :rolleyes:

    I never made any such claim. what I claimed was that being a victim does not mean leaving the church. There are few if any victims who were not already members of the church at the time.
    So why don't ye have a vote to settle the issue?

    I already explained this process is very rare. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3020875 for an example.

    Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, April 1860 to July 1860
    By Henry Burgess p. 168

    it wanst really common practice snce the first millennium. Abbots of a monastery would probably be an exception to this - technically they are bishops and are elected. In practice the Priests of a diocese are salso consulted abut the elevation of a new Bishop.
    True. So seeing as most 'catholics' don't go to mass,

    do you mean most catholics who have been confirmed i.e. do you include per teens in this? You soe most or a large cohort may be in the 0-8 age group. then the teenage Catholics would not be the type you might consider affecting policy - just as they don't vote in civil elections.

    But given the confirmed catholics where is your evidence most don't go to Mass?
    and, as you've stated, some of those aren't necessarily catholics anyway, I wonder how small a minority catholics actually are in this country?

    In Ireland? they arent a minority at all. They are about 90 per cent of the population.

    Out of fear no doubt.

    No i would assume out of shame and scandal. Just as a woman raped might not want it to get out. or even a woman not raped at that time who was an "unmarried mother"
    Or maybe he just wanted to protect the chutch.

    You are the one who asked why he didn't report a crime. Your have been given several possibilities as to why maybe he didn't. You can;t conclude the only reason he didn't was he wanted to protect the orginisation!
    One fact is known. He abused more than once after that meeting that Brady attended. I would be surprised if Brady didn't know about that subsequent abuse.

    I would! Because if he did know about subsequent abuse why didn't he say so when he revealed he had interviewed the two teenage boys?
    Even if he didn't, the church leaders at the time certainly did.

    that is a separate issue! You can't say the Bishop of Armagh at the time is the one responsible when you are claiming that Fr Brady a priest in Armagh at the time is responsible. The issue we are discussion here is not wherer someone was responsible but whether Brady was responsible.If someone else was responsible as you claim then Brady clearly wasn't!
    You can hardly blame the Gardai in this case - it was never reported to them - remember?

    You are the one going off the particular case into other cases and making general points about "if someone knew they were responsible and should have done something"
    Gardai knew and parents knew in similar cases and yes the church knew . In particular we know that Orders in the church knew about clerical abuse and covered it up inside their own order. Gardai who knew probably knew they couldn't charge a cleric with rape of a male or knew how difficult it would be to make a charge stick and how the family and victim would suffer for even trying to make it stick.


  • #405
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    problemchimp wrote: »
    any response from under class on this post? maybe it's easier to ignore this post as you have learned to do by your false Gods in robes. I'm still waiting on an answer' " do you think the Pope would have circulated his letter if nobody had been caught"?

    I'll remind you that this is the Christianity forum. And I don't do nit-picking. Go find someone else who wants to enter your fly trap.

    I wonder will the regional health boards be issuing letters of apology any time soon? They're only too happy for the Church to deal with the abuse victims and take the public flak while they simply write the cheques in the background. Brendan Drumm will be retiring soon and will no doubt have happy days in his suburban residence. Deacons, priests and bishops never fully retire from the Church. They are on duty 24-7 until the day they die. The levels of accountability demanded by you for your beloved secular society are very different to the levels of accountability you insist on from an organisation that you have such limited knowledge of.


  • #406
    problemchimp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭problemchimp


    underclass wrote: »
    I'll remind you that this is the Christianity forum. And I don't do nit-picking. Go find someone else who wants to enter your fly trap.

    I wonder will the regional health boards be issuing letters of apology any time soon? They're only too happy for the Church to deal with the abuse victims and take the public flak while they simply write the cheques in the background. Brendan Drumm will be retiring soon and will no doubt have happy days in his suburban residence. Deacons, priests and bishops never fully retire from the Church. They are on duty 24-7 until the day they die.
    that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.


  • #407
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,296 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    underclass wrote: »
    What institution and what's your name? Anonymous MSc's have no standing. To compare your half-hearted MSc to a Papal Letter is laughable.
    What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.
    My point was that I have written documents of similar length to that of the Pope's letter and that quantity does not equal quality.
    underclass wrote: »
    The Church's mission is to save souls.
    OK I misunderstood because it appears that the only thing that the church upper hierarchy is interested in is saving itself. This certainly appears to be the case.


    Also can you please answer why you feel that most of the people in Ireland are going to hell and of these will those who did not speak out against child abuse (regardless of their role in either society or the church) be part of this group?


  • #408
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bduffman wrote: »
    I have to say this is an extremely disturbing post. There is a hint of 'condoning their actions' about it.

    Where ANYWHERE in that post or anywhere else did condone child sexual abuse?

    I clearly state in ever case it is morally wrong. Your invective and inability to deal with the actual issues and trying to label me as "disturbed" isn't getting the discussion anywhere.
    Apart from the fact that it is nonsense. If this abuse was not illegal in the 70s, how come so many priests have been convicted of crimes committed in that time?

    So many priests haven't been convicted! care to list them? They run to ten or maybe twenty. The one not involving girls or not involving cases after the law was changed? If they were convicted they were not convicted of rape. They to my knowledge number from 1977 for a sentence like rape - six years - made against boys is zero . The whole point being made about 1977 is that charges were not taken because and if they were people believed they would not stick. The law and culture changed since then. But again going by what we now know most of the abuse was not by priests.

    Smith do not forget was not convicted in the Republic of Ireland! fortune was awaiting trial but.The Mc Coy report, Galway, which was begun in 1999 and made public in December 2007, found that eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965–1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. ill bet the two convictions were not of males and were from laws AFTER the legal changes. And again these were not clergy! It doesn't make it acceptable but they were not clergy and probably not charged for what they did to boys.

    I wont go into a long list of abusers the reason the point is valid is that we know from the most widespread investigation so far (the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) of thousands of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. The report drew on the testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses, men and women who attended more than 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.

    As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.

    See how legal rights to damages crept in there?

    the point again as I stated is that MOST institutional abuse was of boys according to that report.

    Given rape of boys didn't exist then that therefore means that most institutional abusers
    will never face the sentences they would face today.
    So, you see, it was seen as wrong even then.

    It was always wrong and slavery was always wrong. Just don't expect that people who did it to boys when is wasn't such a serious crime as it is now can have the heaviest penalty under law brought to bear on them.
    And if the church were operating in a different standard as now, why did they cover it up?

    Elements WITHIN THE CHURCH covered it up. religious orders and families being the main elements. the church always looked upon it was wrong but again look at slavery. If the Church knew slavery was being operated in or from the UK did they sent over people from the Vatican to force the UK to change the law or did they encourage bottom up support from those on the ground?

    And if the orders covered up the priests (let us say there were about 50) there were 5000 other abusers who weren't priests. Most of these were covered u ias well because we certainly don't have 5000 convictions of non priests from before the 1980s.
    Why bother if it wasn't wrong? Because they knew it was wrong & still allowed it to happen again & again.

    i already answered that. Scandal shame lack of possibility of a conviction lack of laws etc. You can't just conclude that if part of the church covered it up that right across the hierarchy worldwide (or in Ireland) there was knowledge of such vile acts and a concerted effort to prevent justice.
    Maybe you should look at Jesus' teachings again. Or should those teachings be looked at as something of their time that has no relevance to today?

    Jesus was accused of something he didn't do. You accuse me of supporting disturbed sexual offenders and condoning their actions.


  • #409
    problemchimp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭problemchimp


    do you think the abuse is still going on in Africa where children don't have a voice?


  • #410
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    problemchimp wrote: »
    I read the Popes letter and it doesn't change things one bit. Ask yourself this question, if nobody had been caught would the Pope have circulated this letter? I personally don't think so. It all seems to be about saving the organisation and not getting to the bottom of the truth. I say the cardinal should resign for the sake of his organisation.

    and I have pointed out that most institutional abuse was against males in 1977 and that nobody could be caught for rape of a male in 1977 because the law referred to FEMALES only.

    so the answer to the quwstin of "if nobody had been cought would the pope have issued that" is YES.
    Even if the Dail brought in a special law indemnifying all priests from prosecution (as they did in south africa for other offences) the church should still act on something which is morally wrong.


  • #411
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    ISAW wrote: »
    Neiother of you have evidence. Both have offered OPINION based on what yu claim are other peoples opinion. However he is claiming people want Brady to stay in office. he does not really have to prove this. Brady will prove it himself if he says a substantial number wanted him to leave. If you are claiming that a substantial number want him to leave then yu do in fact need more than hearsay to support this.
    Right - he claims that Brady has enough support to stay in office & he doesn't need to prove it. I claim that he doesn't have the support but I do have to prove it. Seems fair. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    I never made any such claim. what I claimed was that being a victim does not mean leaving the church. There are few if any victims who were not already members of the church at the time.
    Irrelevant - victims are victims whether they were in the church or not. Anyway, did you ever hear of the saying that there is no such thing as catholic children - only the children of catholic parents?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I already explained this process is very rare. http://www.jstor.org/pss/3020875 for an example.

    Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, April 1860 to July 1860
    By Henry Burgess p. 168

    it wanst really common practice snce the first millennium. Abbots of a monastery would probably be an exception to this - technically they are bishops and are elected. In practice the Priests of a diocese are salso consulted abut the elevation of a new Bishop.
    So until there is a democratic vote no one can claim anything one way or the other - agree?
    ISAW wrote: »
    do you mean most catholics who have been confirmed i.e. do you include per teens in this? You soe most or a large cohort may be in the 0-8 age group. then the teenage Catholics would not be the type you might consider affecting policy - just as they don't vote in civil elections.
    But given the confirmed catholics where is your evidence most don't go to Mass?
    Simple. There are approx 4 million people in Ireland. You claim that 90% of those are catholic. 90% of 4 million = 3.6 million. Claiming that the majority goes to mass is claiming that 51% of that 3.6 million go to mass regularly - i.e. 1.8+ million. What do you think? (Note: yoau are the one who claims 90% - not me)
    ISAW wrote: »
    No i would assume out of shame and scandal. Just as a woman raped might not want it to get out. or even a woman not raped at that time who was an "unmarried mother"
    Just as well the RCC was there to support those victims eh? :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are the one who asked why he didn't report a crime. Your have been given several possibilities as to why maybe he didn't. You can;t conclude the only reason he didn't was he wanted to protect the orginisation!
    Yes, because in your blinkered view you can't see that it is the most obvious explanation.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I would! Because if he did know about subsequent abuse why didn't he say so when he revealed he had interviewed the two teenage boys?
    Uhm - because he lied? Or no - sorry - I meant that maybe he used 'mental reservation'. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    that is a separate issue! You can't say the Bishop of Armagh at the time is the one responsible when you are claiming that Fr Brady a priest in Armagh at the time is responsible. The issue we are discussion here is not wherer someone was responsible but whether Brady was responsible.If someone else was responsible as you claim then Brady clearly wasn't!
    Wasn't he the only church representative at that meeting?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are the one going off the particular case into other cases and making general points about "if someone knew they were responsible and should have done something"
    Gardai knew and parents knew in similar cases and yes the church knew . In particular we know that Orders in the church knew about clerical abuse and covered it up inside their own order. Gardai who knew probably knew they couldn't charge a cleric with rape of a male or knew how difficult it would be to make a charge stick and how the family and victim would suffer for even trying to make it stick.
    Gardai knew? But the whole issue is that Brady did not report this abuse to the Gardai as he should have. So how do you know they knew about this case?


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Bugbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10 ✭Bugbear


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65021880&postcount=331


  • #413
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you get your spiritual guidance from an organisation that did not rape generations of our children and do (and is still doing) everything it could to cover it up?

    Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.


  • #414
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Cunsiderthis wrote: »
    Oh, but it is "his" church. If you think the lay people have any legal rights of ownership, or any influence over decisions, then you are mistaken. in the catholic church, what the pope says in law, which pretty much makes it "his" church.

    According to what evidence do you claim that everything the pope says is law? accodding to what do you say non clergy have no influence?


  • #415
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I would for the abuse victims. I would not for the "renewal of the Church in Ireland". There are a few things I'd like to do/live up to but I think they are against the charter of the forum.


  • #416
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    ISAW wrote: »
    Where ANYWHERE in that post or anywhere else did condone child sexual abuse?

    I clearly state in ever case it is morally wrong. Your invective and inability to deal with the actual issues and trying to label me as "disturbed" isn't getting the discussion anywhere.



    So many priests haven't been convicted! care to list them? They run to ten or maybe twenty. The one not involving girls or not involving cases after the law was changed? If they were convicted they were not convicted of rape. They to my knowledge number from 1977 for a sentence like rape - six years - made against boys is zero . The whole point being made about 1977 is that charges were not taken because and if they were people believed they would not stick. The law and culture changed since then. But again going by what we now know most of the abuse was not by priests.

    Smith do not forget was not convicted in the Republic of Ireland! fortune was awaiting trial but.The Mc Coy report, Galway, which was begun in 1999 and made public in December 2007, found that eleven brothers and seven other staff members were alleged to have abused 21 intellectually-disabled children in residential care in the period 1965–1998. By 2007, two members of staff were convicted of abuse, eight had died and the rest had retired. ill bet the two convictions were not of males and were from laws AFTER the legal changes. And again these were not clergy! It doesn't make it acceptable but they were not clergy and probably not charged for what they did to boys.

    I wont go into a long list of abusers the reason the point is valid is that we know from the most widespread investigation so far (the Irish Child Abuse Commission 2009) of thousands of children over 70 years was published on 20 May 2009. The report drew on the testimony of nearly 2,000 witnesses, men and women who attended more than 200 Catholic-run schools from the 1930s until the 1990s.

    As per 2002 agreement between the victims on one side and the Catholic brothers and Irish government on other side, all those who accepted the state/Brothers settlements, had to waive their right to sue both the church and the government. Their abusers' identities are also kept secret.

    See how legal rights to damages crept in there?

    the point again as I stated is that MOST institutional abuse was of boys according to that report.

    Given rape of boys didn't exist then that therefore means that most institutional abusers
    will never face the sentences they would face today.



    It was always wrong and slavery was always wrong. Just don't expect that people who did it to boys when is wasn't such a serious crime as it is now can have the heaviest penalty under law brought to bear on them.



    Elements WITHIN THE CHURCH covered it up. religious orders and families being the main elements. the church always looked upon it was wrong but again look at slavery. If the Church knew slavery was being operated in or from the UK did they sent over people from the Vatican to force the UK to change the law or did they encourage bottom up support from those on the ground?

    And if the orders covered up the priests (let us say there were about 50) there were 5000 other abusers who weren't priests. Most of these were covered u ias well because we certainly don't have 5000 convictions of non priests from before the 1980s.



    i already answered that. Scandal shame lack of possibility of a conviction lack of laws etc. You can't just conclude that if part of the church covered it up that right across the hierarchy worldwide (or in Ireland) there was knowledge of such vile acts and a concerted effort to prevent justice.



    Jesus was accused of something he didn't do. You accuse me of supporting disturbed sexual offenders and condoning their actions.


    Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia. I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was. Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.
    Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.


  • #417
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't need any spiritual guidance thanks but you seem to and I don't see why you have to get it from these specific people.

    Fine don't see why somewhere else then and don't bring it to a discussion with Catholics.
    You don't have to turn every thread into "prove god exists" or "prove the church has authority" .
    You say "secular society" as if it's a ridiculous idea to get your spiritual guidance from there

    Technically it IS silly to get spiritual guidance from non spiritual sources isn't it?
    but is it any less ridiculous to get it from an organistion that has done so much evil and is still hiding its crimes?

    As opposed to atheistic regimes who did much more evil and killed much more people?
    See what happens when we go off on the "church authority" tangent?
    You can believe in god without giving your support to the catholic church

    Indeeedd you can. You can believe in Allah or Yahwed although One might claim they are the same God anyway. You could believe in Thor or Zeus maybe. Which is why the discussion is alsong Catholics in a christian forum to discuss it. You are quite welcoms to chip in even if you are an atheist but you cant change the issue into a question of 2which denomination is right" or "does catholicism have authority" It is assumed you are discussing within those confines.


  • #418
    studiorat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,408 ✭✭✭studiorat


    I wonder how many of those victims could actually give a fiddlers what the pope instructs his flock to do.


  • #419
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia. I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was. Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.
    Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.

    I was shocked by that statement too. Rape is rape and is wrong in any time frame.

    In regards to the earlier comment that the majority are going to hell, maybe he's right, especially when the organisation that is here to represent god does everything in its power to protect it's image rather than protecting the most vulnerable in society.


  • #420
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,170 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    ISAW wrote: »
    Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.
    Indeed, however non priest offenders have nowhere to hide, and only receive protection from other sex offenders. Clerical sex offenders were protected, and protected by a powerful organization at that. An organization that through fear and spiritual intimidation made it seem "wrong" for families of victims to speak ill of priests.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Right - he claims that Brady has enough support to stay in office & he doesn't need to prove it. I claim that he doesn't have the support but I do have to prove it. Seems fair. :rolleyes:

    When you are discussing criminal charges is is what ios considered fair.
    ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty" . Brady does not have to prove innocence if you are accusing him of being guilty.

    But yes he is relying on hearsay . the point is whether he need to prove his hearsay.
    Irrelevant - victims are victims whether they were in the church or not. Anyway, did you ever hear of the saying that there is no such thing as catholic children - only the children of catholic parents?

    i didn't bring up the point about abusers leaving the church. go back through the thread an you will see where I replied on this.
    So until there is a democratic vote no one can claim anything one way or the other - agree?

    Nope. if child abuse or slavery is wrong I don't have to wait for a referendum on it to say it is wrong. How does that relate to the church being a democracy? well the church should inform you conscience even if others try to subvert that. But the specific point was about electing Bishops. AS I pointed out only abbots today are elected but there is input into the process by local people for a Bishop. The pope doe not just appoint some pal from the Vatican. But don't expect it to be a popular election. However ther is a precident whereby if all the people of Dublin turned up and demanded such and such a priest be the next Bishop then he technically IS.
    Simple. There are approx 4 million people in Ireland. You claim that 90% of those are catholic. 90% of 4 million = 3.6 million.

    that is about right. 3.6 million or so.
    Claiming that the majority goes to mass is claiming that 51% of that 3.6 million go to mass regularly - i.e. 1.8+ million. What do you think? (Note: yoau are the one who claims 90% - not me)

    Nope as i pointed out a one year old child isnt assumed to be a mass goer. and "regularly" wasnt in the original claim was it? ~what do you mean by that? Once a mointh once a year or once a week?
    My figures come fromn the 2006 census.
    http://www.cso.ie/Census/census2006_volume_13.htm

    You will find of the 3.6 million over one million are children/minors. that leaves about 2.6 million.
    http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/117563-mass-attendance-ireland-up.html
    The Red C poll, conducted between October 19th and 21st last, for the Catholic Iona Institute and based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over, found that weekly church attendance is now 46 per cent while monthly attendance is 65 per cent.

    Mind you the criterion of mass attendance was not introduced by me was it?
    Just as well the RCC was there to support those victims eh? :rolleyes:

    In the case you were replying to yes. Cherish was founded and supported by Catholics.
    Yes, because in your blinkered view you can't see that it is the most obvious explanation.

    No because in your blinkered view you assert that something is true WITHOUT EVIDENCE! Then when called on for evidence you ask "what other explanation could there be" . when you are offered several you jump back to unsupported bald assertion which you claim must be right because the numerous alternatives are "blinkered"? i dont have to prove Im not closed minded. I offered you several explanations and you rejected then in favour of your own unsupported one. what is your definition of "blinkered" ? do you apply it to anyone who doesn't accept your unsupported opinion?
    Uhm - because he lied? Or no - sorry - I meant that maybe he used 'mental reservation'. :rolleyes:

    You are the one claiming he lied and he knows about other cases and covered them upi . when you are asked for evidence the evidence is your opinion that he lied. While you are struggling for a definition of blinkered look up "bigot" as well will you? If you insist that you must be right in spite of no supporting evidence and being offered alternative explanations then you have a bigoted position.

    Wasn't he the only church representative at that meeting?

    Two meetings and as far as I know from the reports I have seen so far NO he wasn't! You don't seem to have read your brief!
    Gardai knew? But the whole issue is that Brady did not report this abuse to the Gardai as he should have. So how do you know they knew about this case?

    I didn't refer to this particular case. I referred to the other 99 per cent of cases in society.
    Gardai eventually knew about Smith and he was not charged. He was eventually extradited and convicted in Northern Ireland.


  • #422
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    problemchimp wrote: »
    that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.

    i answered it- "yes" was the answer.


  • #423
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    kbannon wrote: »
    What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.
    My point was that I have written documents of similar length to that of the Pope's letter and that quantity does not equal quality.

    I found your M.Sc. remark quite witty and valid. Mione was 60,000 words long ten years ago so and that was just the written parts. stats and diagrams doubled the size. Maybe
    quantity is quality? :)
    OK I misunderstood because it appears that the only thing that the church upper hierarchy is interested in is saving itself. This certainly appears to be the case.

    "appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.
    Also can you please answer why you feel that most of the people in Ireland are going to hell and of these will those who did not speak out against child abuse (regardless of their role in either society or the church) be part of this group?

    Are they voting Fianna Fail? :)


  • #424
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I was shocked by that statement too. Rape is rape and is wrong in any time frame.

    I shocked you claim I justified rape. Where did I do such a thing? I am also annoyed that in spite of saying it everytime i mention rape you have to resort to smear tactics and not even read the post. especially where i constantly point out my belief rape is immoral even if it was not illegal!
    In regards to the earlier comment that the majority are going to hell, maybe he's right, especially when the organisation that is here to represent god does everything in its power to protect it's image rather than protecting the most vulnerable in society.

    and your evidence is?
    and your personal involvement with victims or with the church is?


  • #425
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    Right, I'm going to atempt to go past the hysteria and summarise the reasons that I have seen given for the cardinal to stay in place...

    1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

    2 - No law was broken (the LEGAL defence)

    3 - Everyone makes mistakes, let's forgive and forget (the FORGIVENESS defence)

    4 - Leave him alone, it's an anti-catholic consipracy (the CONSPIRACY defence)

    5 - That was the standards of the time, don't judge then by now (the TIMES PAST defence)

    In my opinion not a single one of these justifies him staying in place.

    1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
    Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else. The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.

    2 - The LEGAL defence:
    On Brady himself this is yet to be proven in a court of law. There are several common law offences he could be tried for and the TV news reported that a criminal investigation is "likely". As for teh sophistry around the tightening of the laws on sexual abuse... Yes there are more clearly defined crimes now. But forcing a pre-teen boy to have sex with you was ALWAYS a crime in this country. And irrespective of the legal definitions rape is rape. Rape is morally wrong. Someone with information on an individual abusing children must be morally bound to report this crime.

    3 - The FORGIVNESS defence:
    I have no issue with forgiving teh cardinal. His "crime" is one of omission, which is lower by orders of magnitude than the crimes of those who carried out the abuse. However forgivness is normally accompanied by remorse and repentance. By refusing to resign he is not only wallowing in teh sin of Pride he is clearly showing a lack of remorse and repentance - his attitude seems to be that he will not resign as he has done nothing wrong. How can we forgive him if he will not repent?

    4 - The CONSPIRACY defence:
    Is totally irrelevant. The free press in a free society have a duty to expose corruption. This is not a witch hunt and a refusal to do the right thing just because you are being asked to do it is perverse and contrary as well as counter productive

    5 - the TIMES PAST defence:
    Standards have changed. Times, morals, laws and attitudes have (thankfully) changed beyond recognition since the mid 1970s. But evan as early as 1922 (Crimen Solicitationis, according to teh Sunday Business Post) child sex abuse was recognised as "the worst crime". Ignorance is no defence, irrespective of whatever standards there were in teh church he must have known that forcing pre-teens into having sex with you was wrong and deserved punishment. Punishment he helped prevent hapening, thus facilitating decades more abuse. Things haven't changed that much

    If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.


  • #426
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bduffman wrote: »
    Just to be clear on this - seeing as I am under threat of being banned. I did not accuse you of condoning paedophelia.

    You and others most certainly DID but I'm not going into that issue in this thread. I highlight it when it was stated. go back yourself and see.
    I accused you of implying that it was not illegal at the time - which it was.

    Raping a male was not illegal n the past. Look at all the convictions and show me ONE where rape of a male was upheld BEFORE the law was changed. Can you do that?
    Saying it was not illegal implies that it may somehow have been 'less wrong' than it is now.

    I was quite clear about it! We can't judge the past based on the present. Slavery was wrong . I dont thin it was right. it was legal. child sex may be legal in Asian countries. it is still wrong. Sex with a man in his foutties who picks up a teenager is wrong in my opinion. It so happens that one man did this and found out it was also illegal since the girl was under 17. But should he be guilty of rape? that is the difference between the positive law and natural law.
    Even if there was only one priest convicted of child abuse back in the 70s proves that it was illegal & therefore your argument is at least misinformed.

    NO! Not of rape of a male! If he was convicted of a sexual offence (and Priests WERE) it was a lesser offence. Manu of these convictions were for 12 or eighteen months! You can get 12 years for rape. The law needed to be reformed. Just like the one on "head shops".


  • Advertisement
  • #427
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    ISAW wrote: »
    ........."appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.......

    I find that argument offensive for many catholics. Just because someone states they are not happy with how certain members of the church managed this scandal over the last few decades, they are automatically not involved with the church or christian enough for your standards.

    Brady did wrong and he has admitted that. So have others. They have been a part of a system of coverup and inaction over the last few decades. Anyone who facilitated this should go as called for by the survivors groups.


  • #428
    getz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    ISAW wrote: »
    Less than one percent of clergy did this in a country where there were 100 non priest offenders for every priest offender. I still accept the Oireachtas as the constitutional lawmakers of Ireland even if a small percentage of governments or TDs made mistakes.
    i am not sure what you are saying,the church and the bishops was responsible for the large number of nuns[magdalene sisters] who are on record[a official irish report] for the locking up and abuse of over 60,000 young girls, some of were horrific abused and raped,or doesent that count ?


  • #429
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    ISAW wrote: »
    When you are discussing criminal charges is is what ios considered fair.
    ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty" . Brady does not have to prove innocence if you are accusing him of being guilty.
    But yes he is relying on hearsay . the point is whether he need to prove his hearsay.
    The 'hearsay' we are talking about is whether he has support or not - not about his actions. He was at the meeting & did nothing. You don't see that as as issue but many people do.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope. if child abuse or slavery is wrong I don't have to wait for a referendum on it to say it is wrong. How does that relate to the church being a democracy? well the church should inform you conscience even if others try to subvert that. But the specific point was about electing Bishops. AS I pointed out only abbots today are elected but there is input into the process by local people for a Bishop. The pope doe not just appoint some pal from the Vatican. But don't expect it to be a popular election. However ther is a precident whereby if all the people of Dublin turned up and demanded such and such a priest be the next Bishop then he technically IS.
    You are getting confused here. I was talking about a vote on whether catholics support him or not - not on whether he is right or wrong in his actions.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope as i pointed out a one year old child isnt assumed to be a mass goer. and "regularly" wasnt in the original claim was it? ~what do you mean by that? Once a mointh once a year or once a week?
    My figures come fromn the 2006 census.
    http://www.cso.ie/Census/census2006_volume_13.htm

    You will find of the 3.6 million over one million are children/minors. that leaves about 2.6 million.
    http://www.politics.ie/culture-community/117563-mass-attendance-ireland-up.html
    The Red C poll, conducted between October 19th and 21st last, for the Catholic Iona Institute and based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,000 adults aged 18 and over, found that weekly church attendance is now 46 per cent while monthly attendance is 65 per cent.

    Mind you the criterion of mass attendance was not introduced by me was it?
    Obviously this depends on the criteria for being a catholic. Obviously for you, someone does not have to go to mass every week to be a catholic. I'm sure not everyone agrees. But as you said youself, just going to mass doesn't make you a catholic. And neither does ticking a box in a census form.
    ISAW wrote: »
    In the case you were replying to yes. Cherish was founded and supported by Catholics.
    By catholics or by the RCC organisation (& please don't give me the usual 'all catholics are the church rubbish). Incidentally I never heard of cherish - what have they done exactly?
    ISAW wrote: »
    No because in your blinkered view you assert that something is true WITHOUT EVIDENCE! Then when called on for evidence you ask "what other explanation could there be" . when you are offered several you jump back to unsupported bald assertion which you claim must be right because the numerous alternatives are "blinkered"? i dont have to prove Im not closed minded. I offered you several explanations and you rejected then in favour of your own unsupported one. what is your definition of "blinkered" ? do you apply it to anyone who doesn't accept your unsupported opinion?
    The evidence is that he attended a meeting which involved a gagging order being signed by vulnerable children. And did nothing else even when Smyth abused again. That is evidence.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are the one claiming he lied and he knows about other cases and covered them upi . when you are asked for evidence the evidence is your opinion that he lied. While you are struggling for a definition of blinkered look up "bigot" as well will you? If you insist that you must be right in spite of no supporting evidence and being offered alternative explanations then you have a bigoted position.
    I am offering the possibility that he lied (or mentally reserved) as a possibility. Indeed, going on the RCCs track record, its not unlikely, is it? If your explanations are possible, why isn't mine?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I didn't refer to this particular case. I referred to the other 99 per cent of cases in society.
    Gardai eventually knew about Smith and he was not charged. He was eventually extradited and convicted in Northern Ireland.
    This entire thread is specifically about the Smyth case & the admission by Brady at being at that meeting. If you want to talk about other specific cases then maybe another thread might be appropriate?


  • #430
    Bduffman
    Registered Users Posts: 520 ✭✭✭Bduffman


    ISAW wrote: »
    You and others most certainly DID but I'm not going into that issue in this thread. I highlight it when it was stated. go back yourself and see.

    Raping a male was not illegal n the past. Look at all the convictions and show me ONE where rape of a male was upheld BEFORE the law was changed. Can you do that?

    I was quite clear about it! We can't judge the past based on the present. Slavery was wrong . I dont thin it was right. it was legal. child sex may be legal in Asian countries. it is still wrong. Sex with a man in his foutties who picks up a teenager is wrong in my opinion. It so happens that one man did this and found out it was also illegal since the girl was under 17. But should he be guilty of rape? that is the difference between the positive law and natural law.

    NO! Not of rape of a male! If he was convicted of a sexual offence (and Priests WERE) it was a lesser offence. Manu of these convictions were for 12 or eighteen months! You can get 12 years for rape. The law needed to be reformed. Just like the one on "head shops".

    You are very wrong here. Even if it was not referred to as 'rape' it was referred to as 'assault' - still a criminal offence. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Irish law might be able to confirm that.
    But this is irrelevent to the argument. Brady sat there in that meeting knowing that what he heard was wrong. Are you actually suggesting that he sat there thinking 'well its not rape in the strict sense of the law so there is no point in reporting it'.
    Give me a break.


  • #431
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    ISAW wrote: »
    and your evidence is?

    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

    Hopefully similar reports will be conducted for every diocese in the country showing how the church covered this up.

    ISAW wrote: »
    and your personal involvement with victims or with the church is?

    Didn't know that catholics had to prove their worth to you or know an abuse victim before they could comment on what they believe what is wrong with the church.


  • Advertisement
  • #432
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 40,296 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    I found your M.Sc. remark quite witty and valid. Mione was 60,000 words long ten years ago so and that was just the written parts. stats and diagrams doubled the size. Maybe
    quantity is quality? :)
    I presume that you are referring to your thesis. I was referring to a report not my thesis!
    ISAW wrote: »
    "appears" being the important word above. Just like others who assert it "appears" to then the church is doing nothing. they of course are all people not involved with the Church.
    What has the church done to reveal all information on file regarding abuse then?

    On a related matter, when was Pope Pius V's order Horrendum removed?

    In spite of the reforming legislation and the establishment of mandatory training, education and formation for priests, the bishops at Trent were no more successful at curbing celibacy violations than their predecessors. Illicit sex with women, men and young boys continued but for a time were much less obvious. By 1566, in the first year of his pontificate, Pope Pius V (1566-72) recognized a need to publicly attack clerical sodomy. The constitution Romani Pontifices promulgated legislation against a variety of actions and practices, including the ‘crime against nature.” This short canon condemned all who committed this crime and prescribed that they be handed over to secular authorities for punishment. Clerics however were to be first degraded, presumably by an ecclesiastical court, and then handed over to secular authorities.

    [*]Two years later the same pope apparently found it necessary to fire another salvo at clerical sodomy. The constitution Horrendum specifically named clerics who committed “the sin against nature which incurred God’s wrath” (“quae contra naturam est, propter quam ira Dei venit in filios diffidentiae.”) and stipulated that they be punished with deprivation of income, suspension from all offices and dignities and in some cases, degradation.
    http://www.crusadeagainstclergyabuse.com/htm/AShortHistory.htm (#16 & 17).

    Secondly, we have been told by the clergy all the way up to the Pope that homosexuality was wrong and yet they kept the secret of child abuse hidden - did this not occur to them they it was wrong? In the last 40 or 50 years (excluding the last 15-20), did they ever speak out about it?
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/PB09000504

    Hopefully similar reports will be conducted for every diocese in the country showing how the church covered this up.
    Which the Catholic church tried their best to prevent!
    Desmond Connell tried via the high court (knowing full well what he was doing).
    The week prior to its release, they were still actively lobbying against it.


  • #433
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    underclass wrote: »
    Alive O is full of half truths. Is a watered down version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Holy Bible. I'll hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10, it's taught by teachers who aren't in full communion with the Church. I'd even go so far as to say that some don't even believe in God. My religion teacher in school was an open atheist - a Catholic school would you believe. This was in the 1990s. Thankfully, I met some great people when I left school who led me back to the light.

    If qualified teachers are doing their jobs and delivering a set curriculum what does it matter about their personal beliefs?


  • #434
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    If qualified teachers are doing their jobs and delivering a set curriculum what does it matter about their personal beliefs?

    That's fine for secular schools. I'm sure you'd have no trouble if someone bearing Nazi tattoos was teaching your child.


  • #435
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    underclass wrote: »
    That's fine for secular schools. I'm sure you'd have no trouble if someone bearing Nazi tattoos was teaching your child.

    Unsure if you have noticed but the majority of schools in this country are under the patronage of the RCC for historical reasons.

    Religious considerations are important for some parents but for many other parents they are just looking to give their children a good education in a local school. I very much doubt that religious patronage lists in the top 5 reasons for sending a child to a school for a significant proportion of parents.

    And as i said earlier, the personal beliefs of teachers are nobody's business outside of the classroom while they deliver the set curriculum.


  • #436
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.

    Very telling that you've left out any reference to your beloved secular authorities and focus solely on church men who "must go now".


  • #437
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    kbannon wrote: »
    What has the institution or indeed my name got to do with anything.

    Quite a lot actually. An MSc from Tralee IT pales in insignificance to an MSc from say Oxbridge or an Ivy League university. And yes, your name is very important when you're citing your academic credentials.


  • #438
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    And as i said earlier, the personal beliefs of teachers are nobody's business outside of the classroom while they deliver the set curriculum.

    I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends. Catholic schools will scrutinise potential candidates and they have every right to do so. And this screening process is going to be even more stringent once representatives from the Curia pull up their sleeves.


  • #439
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    problemchimp wrote: »
    that's a handy response, but not an answer to the question. As regards the hse, that is not the issue here. as you say yourself this is a Christianity forum not a HSE one.

    I note that you post nothing on boards.ie about the failings of the regional health boards. You have proven yourself to be selective in your outrage. Do you have a good reason for this?


  • #440
    WesternNight
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,286 ✭✭✭WesternNight


    underclass wrote: »
    I note that you post nothing on boards.ie about the failings of the regional health boards. You have proven yourself to be selective in your outrage. Do you have a good reason for this?

    You don't do nit-picking, eh?

    Why anyone would be anything other than selective in their outrage is beyond me. You'd be constantly outraged if you didn't pick your battles. But I'm afraid you just don't get to choose the battles other people pick.


  • #441
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    WesternNight wrote: »
    You don't do nit-picking, eh?

    Why anyone would be anything other than selective in their outrage is beyond me. You'd be constantly outraged if you didn't pick your battles. But I'm afraid you just don't get to choose the battles other people pick.

    Ah ok, a bubble of probability popped and you ended up over here. Fair play to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #442
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    underclass wrote: »
    I don't want my child being taught by a member of Hell's Angels. Nor do I want my child being taught by a Freemason or a homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends. Catholic schools will scrutinise potential candidates and they have every right to do so. And this screening process is going to be even more stringent once representatives from the Curia pull up their sleeves.

    And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

    And in regards to "homosexual or someone who enjoys paying prostitutes to whip him at weekends", church authorities had no issue in covering up and ignoring far more heinous offences, so maybe they might not want to act here either?


  • #443
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

    The curriculum sets out a minimum set of standards that schools must adhere to.


  • #444
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    --amadeus-- wrote: »
    Right, I'm going to atempt to go past the hysteria and summarise the reasons that I have seen given for the cardinal to stay in place...

    1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

    2 - No law was broken (the LEGAL defence)

    3 - Everyone makes mistakes, let's forgive and forget (the FORGIVENESS defence)

    4 - Leave him alone, it's an anti-catholic consipracy (the CONSPIRACY defence)

    5 - That was the standards of the time, don't judge then by now (the TIMES PAST defence)

    In my opinion not a single one of these justifies him staying in place.

    1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
    Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else.

    Brady was not "at it" i.e. he was not a sexual offender.
    Nor was he involved in covering up a criminal case.
    the law isn't about what is wrong in Bradys case it applies to EVERYMAN at that time.
    How many of people were charged with rape of a male at that time 1977?
    None!
    how many non clergy outside of the church were charged with other sexual offences. Several but not many in fact NONE as far as i am aware for rape of boys which is what the person you are saying he didn't do anything about was doing.

    and he DID do something about it just as a policeman would. He took the statements and filed the report.
    The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.

    While I agree each case is judged on it's merits the law HAS TO be even handed with respect to other cases and so has to operate with reference to precedent i.e. what happened in other similar cases.

    2 - The LEGAL defence:
    On Brady himself this is yet to be proven in a court of law. There are several common law offences he could be tried for and the TV news reported that a criminal investigation is "likely".

    You ASSUME there are several "common law" (not Criminal law) possibilities but the legal cite you yourself gave as reference as much as ruled out all but one of these possibilities. In the one remaining case it was also doubtfull abot a conviction or even the possibility of a charge.

    But forcing a pre-teen boy to have sex with you was ALWAYS a crime in this country.


    As you stated this isn't the Smith case it is the Brady case. Brady didn't force any children
    to have sex. One can not report a rape when rape didn't exist under law. Yes lesser a crime under Irish law was committed but not reporting that was not a crime either. And Brady was following a line of enquiry by filing a report as was the procedure at the time.
    And irrespective of the legal definitions rape is rape. Rape is morally wrong.

    Brady neither then or at any time since then claimed or believed rape was morally acceptable. Blowing up people with bombs by the terrorists was morally wrong yet we are meant to forgive and accept that the people concerned have turned over a new leaf.
    Someone with information on an individual abusing children must be morally bound to report this crime.

    Which is what Brady did. You are faulting him for not reporting it to the police then which under today's circumstances he would do and which then was not clearly defined as something anyone knew about should report to the police. that fact that the ther 99 percent of child sex abuse were mostly not reported bears this out!
    3 - The FORGIVNESS defence:
    I have no issue with forgiving teh cardinal. His "crime" is one of omission, which is lower by orders of magnitude than the crimes of those who carried out the abuse. However forgivness is normally accompanied by remorse and repentance. By refusing to resign he is not only wallowing in the sin of Pride he is clearly showing a lack of remorse and repentance - his attitude seems to be that he will not resign as he has done nothing wrong. How can we forgive him if he will not repent?

    He did repent but you assume repentance means resignation. Hewas njot a Bishop in 1977 when he did the thinkg you claim he should repent for. why should he have to resign form an office which was nothing to do with his status as a priest in 1977? furthermore he CANT resign Holy orders or from being a bishop he can only resign from active ministry.

    4 - The CONSPIRACY defence:
    Is totally irrelevant. The free press in a free society have a duty to expose corruption.

    They why don't they concentrate on the 99 other percent and why do they focus on the one percent of clerical abusers?
    This is not a witch hunt

    I beg to differ. In this debate some posters have said he is a liar and criminal and when asked for evidence to support bald assertion have stated that people like me who made a case for Brady were supporting abusers.
    and a refusal to do the right thing just because you are being asked to do it is perverse and contrary as well as counter productive

    And your moral authority to judge that resigning is the best and only thing to do comes from where and is based on what evidence?

    5 - the TIMES PAST defence:
    Standards have changed. Times, morals, laws and attitudes have (thankfully) changed beyond recognition since the mid 1970s. But evan as early as 1922 (Crimen Solicitationis, according to teh Sunday Business Post) child sex abuse was recognised as "the worst crime".

    Yes and Crimen Solicitationis in 1962 outlined the procedure for conducting investigations into such matters. www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Criminales.pdf
    based on 1917 cannon law
    until replaced by this: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010518_epistula_graviora%20delicta_lt.html
    Ignorance is no defence, irrespective of whatever standards there were in teh church he must have known that forcing pre-teens into having sex with you was wrong and deserved punishment.

    Yes an trusted the Bishop of the day to do it so he knows how people feel if he does nothing today. But he is doing something. He is saying that he knew even if he hadn't the wot courage or grace to act then.
    Punishment he helped prevent hapening,
    I am sorry but in such a case ignorance IS a defence of preventing punishment happening.
    If he referred the case then he assuemd the authorities would deal with it. It took 15 years for this to happen.
    thus facilitating decades more abuse. Things haven't changed that much

    They ahave entirely changed. that fact that several bishops are now saying that they were made aware of something when Bishops NEVER did that in the 1970s is proof of that!
    If those are the 5 strongest defences then IMO teh cardinal must go now, along with every other churchman implicated.

    But iof you are saying this is a braod principle that everyone who knew about any abuse in 1977 should resign from any position of authority today then there might well be tens of thousands of doctors nurses teachers gardai and others who by your reasoning should have to resign. And how would that improve things? Maybe you want an auto-de-fey instead of a witchhunt?


  • #445
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Indeed, however non priest offenders have nowhere to hide, and only receive protection from other sex offenders. Clerical sex offenders were protected, and protected by a powerful organization at that. An organization that through fear and spiritual intimidation made it seem "wrong" for families of victims to speak ill of priests.

    We know from one report that clerical offenders IN ORDERS did get favourable protection compared to lay offenders in the institutions run by the same orders.

    But for the widespread clergy in parishes compared to non clergy and given that there were 99 non clerical for every clerical offender might you not think that ther should be 20 or 30 times as many convictions as there are of clerics?

    Furthermore non clerical offenders as I have argued were protected by the same societal resistance to reporting . Families also hid or ignored non clerical abuser.


  • #446
    philiporeilly
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 602 ✭✭✭philiporeilly


    underclass wrote: »
    The curriculum sets out a minimum set of standards that schools must adhere to.
    philiporeilly wrote: »
    And how would / could the board of management of a school monitor the external activities and beliefs of a teacher? Once they execute their duties as defined in the curriculum how could they be legally removed?

    Very interested in how you would answer my question though? If they do their job as required how can you remove them?


  • #447
    --amadeus--
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    underclass wrote: »
    Very telling that you've left out any reference to your beloved secular authorities and focus solely on church men who "must go now".

    That would be:
    --amadeus-- wrote: »

    1 - Everyone else was at it (eg the fore-runner to the HSE, school teachers, etc) (the EVERYMAN defence)

    Answerd by:
    --amadeus-- wrote: »

    1 - The EVERYMAN defence:
    Everyone else may have been at it but this discussion is about Brady, not everyone else. The flaws of other organisations (and there are many) should not be used as a shield for anyone elses wrong doing. He should be judged on his actions and lack of action, not others actions.


    ISAW I have already said that I don't intend to debate further with you for many, many reasons. The answers to all of your points are in my earlier posts, I'll be ignoring all of your representations from here in.


  • #448
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    I find that argument offensive for many catholics. Just because someone states they are not happy with how certain members of the church managed this scandal over the last few decades, they are automatically not involved with the church or christian enough for your standards.

    I never said that! Let people who are catholics say so and let people who are anti catholic say so and it wil lall be clear. Ther are people who post the this forum who are militant atheist and have referred to the Catholic church as a threat to society. I don;t think such people have the authority to make claims for the church. If someoine in the Church or even an atheist who is not anti church posts without the intention of damaging the Church then that is a different matter.

    Brady did wrong and he has admitted that. So have others. They have been a part of a system of coverup and inaction over the last few decades. Anyone who facilitated this should go as called for by the survivors groups.

    Why? I have a deal of sympathy for survivors but why should they have the decision. You also have the Sinn Fein deputy first minister for N ireland parliamnet calling for Brady to resign. Has he also got such authority when he mentions nothing about a similar case where the president of his own party didn't report abuse?


  • #449
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    ISAW wrote: »
    You also have the Sinn Fein deputy first minister for N ireland parliamnet calling for Brady to resign. Has he also got such authority when he mentions nothing about a similar case where the president of his own party didn't report abuse?

    Great point.


  • #450
    underclass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭underclass


    philiporeilly wrote: »
    Very interested in how you would answer my question though? If they do their job as required how can you remove them?

    It's very hard to remove someone from tenured employment. The trick is to weed them out before you let them into the classroom. That said, there are ways and means of getting rid of people - anyone who works for any organisation knows this.


  • Advertisement
  • #451
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bduffman wrote: »
    You are very wrong here. Even if it was not referred to as 'rape' it was referred to as 'assault' - still a criminal offence. I'm sure someone with more knowledge of Irish law might be able to confirm that.
    But this is irrelevent to the argument. Brady sat there in that meeting knowing that what he heard was wrong. Are you actually suggesting that he sat there thinking 'well its not rape in the strict sense of the law so there is no point in reporting it'.
    Give me a break.

    nope I have stated it several times - what did you expect Brady should have done?
    You are now in 2010 and you hae the internet and all the information at your fingertips.
    What do you think Brady should have dnone in 1977?
    Gone to the RUC? And reported what?
    Did other Catholics go to the RUC? No. did Catholics r go to the RUC about non clerical abuse?

    Lets take the Republic. SAy he filed the report and he waited and nothing happened. You are suggesting that a priest involved in a case who has filed a report should go to the Gardai and report a common law misdemeanor? When? Say a year later? doyou eally think in 1978 that a sexual assualt case would be entertained? SAy it was. The Gardai then go to the family and want to take statements and the parents refuse to allow them to. This type of thing happeded regularly with husbands who beat their wives back in the 1970s.
    Yes it was wrong but the society or the law or the systems were not in place to deal with it. It was only later when women refuges got going in the 1980s that they could get away form the abuse and were prepared to make statements. And only then usually if they had children. yes thses womes should have left their husbands but they didnt . they were wrong but they dint know any better. Brady also knew something was wrong but I suspected felt powerless just as a woman being beaten feels powerless. it makes no difference if the woman is rich or a successful business woman she may still be paralyzed.


Advertisement