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

Cardinal Sean Brady aware of abuse in 1975

Options
13567…15

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    KeithAFC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,239 ✭✭✭✭KeithAFC


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    :D:D:D:D
    If that is the best you have to offer, you should really say nothing at all. Care to argue any of those points about the protection of paedophile priests and the cover up of child abuse?


  • Options
    #63
    tayto lover
    Registered Users Posts: 51,652 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    Grawling wrote: »
    What crime did he commit? (apart from some unspecified allegations)
    When was it committed? (preferably the exact date)
    What court has found him guilty? (preferably a link to the court proceedings)

    As much as you lot like to bash Catholicism and its members, Cardinal Brady is a man of upstanding character. His conscience is clear. Judging from this thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055844760), it is clear that certain frequenters of AH should look inward on themselves, before criticising others.

    Cardinal Brady was sent by his superiors to the Friary Church in Dundalk in 1975 to interview THREE victims of Fr Brendan Smyth. He was secretary to the Bishop of Kilmore at the time. He met the victims with their parents. At that time none of what we know now had come out and people had a lot of both fear and respect for the priesthood. He told the victims and parents that he would put a stop to Smyth's abuse and that he believed them. He also got them to sign sworn statements saying that they would speak to nobody else about it.
    Nothing changed. Smyth continued to offend and to be moved from parish to parish. The victims remained silent for years mainly through fear of breaking their vow. Then all the other abuses of Smyth became known.
    I know this first hand because one of those three boys ls known to me and only about 10 years ago did he tell me all about it. He had a very bad time in his life because of it and actually left the country only returning home a few years ago. He comes from a very decent family who were very god-fearing and hard working.
    I think they deserved better from the person they placed their trust in -- Fr Brady now our Cardinal.


  • Options
    #64
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    KeithAFC wrote: »
    If that is the best you have to offer, you should really say nothing at all. Care to argue any of those points about the protection of paedophile priests and the cover up of child abuse?

    TBH Keith I'd discuss it with ANYONE else here........but not you. For extremely obvious reasons.


  • Options
    #65
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    It is actually very offensive TBH.



    I suggested this to someone a while ago. I think it would be a runner.
    No. You chose to be offended owing to your devotion to your imaginary friend in the sky. Its still an imaginary friend in the sky none the less. Sorry
    Chosing to invest heavily in an idea does not give you the right not to be offended by those who call it for what it is.


  • Options
    #66
    gimme5minutes
    Registered Users Posts: 387 ✭✭gimme5minutes


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    However, along with them must come the State and its agents, which were complicit in these horrific events. If a parent is paedophile, does that make ALL of us paedophiles?

    Im sick of hearing this crap about how we are all at fault because the 'State' did nothing...

    The Church controlled the State up until about 30 years ago. If the Church had a problem with you, you would not be climbing very high up the career ladder...whether that be politician, guard, etc...There were many decent guards around back then that had their careers f**ked over and then transferred into some backarse kip because they tried to bring paedophile priests to account. One word from the bishop in the superintendants ear and these guards were out the door.

    The same with politicians, you were never going to rise up the ranks of FF/FG if you didn't keep the Church onside. You criticize the church back in those days, and the bishops would be on to your party superiors about it and if you somehow managed not to get thrown out, you can forgot about getting back in at the next election with the Church's propaganda machine working against you.

    That's how they got away with the ridiculous ****e they were at. To rise up the ladders of society you had to be a team player.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    gimme5minutes wrote: »
    Im sick of hearing this crap about how we are all at fault because the 'State' did nothing...

    The Church controlled the State up until about 30 years ago. If the Church had a problem with you, you would not be climbing very high up the career ladder...whether that be politician, guard, etc...There were many decent guards around back then that had their careers f**ked over and then transferred into some backarse kip because they tried to bring paedophile priests to account. One word from the bishop in the superintendants ear and these guards were out the door.

    The same with politicians, you were never going to rise up the ranks of FF/FG if you didn't keep the Church onside. You criticize the church back in those days, and the bishops would be on to your party superiors about it and if you somehow managed not to get thrown out, you can forgot about getting back in at the next election with the Church's propaganda machine working against you.

    That's how they got away with the ridiculous ****e they were at. To rise up the ladders of society you had to be a team player.
    NAIL ON THE HEAD. In 1951 our then taoiseach John Costello, siding with that evil cnut Bishop McQuaid in opposing a 'Mother and Child Welfare Scheme' announced that he was "catholic first and an irish man second" and this is just one tiny example of the grip on the state which existed.


  • Options
    #68
    mcmoustache
    Registered Users Posts: 7,236 ✭✭✭mcmoustache


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    It is actually very offensive TBH.

    It's not but I'm not going to get into another existence of God debate.
    Freddie59 wrote: »
    I suggested this to someone a while ago. I think it would be a runner.

    This actually seems like a moral imperative. The current Church and its authorities have proven themselves to be more interested in protecting the heirarchy than innocent children.

    That's not to say that all catholics believe in protecting paedophiles. Nobody says that. There are loads of good priests and lay people out there. The problem is that these good people are propping up a rotten organisation.

    I'm not sure what their reasons are for remaining in the organisation are: old habit, peer pressure, hope for change, denial... I really don't know. All I know is that supporting this type of organisation can't be right.

    The Catholic Church needs another reformation or split. The good and right-thinking people should simply cut ties with Rome. That's all they need to do. All the rites can remain the same and the references to the pope can be removed from mass. They don't need to change beliefs. They could even maintain the current heirarchical system if they like.

    Failing to do so just shows that they are happy to keep this corrupt organisation in business.


  • Options
    #69
    the culture of deference
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,196 ✭✭✭the culture of deference


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    How come nobody who has protected child rapists gone to jail? :confused::mad:
    St.Spodo wrote: »
    It's astonishing to think that Brady is still in a position of power in the church. He should be arrested. He's simply a bastard.

    when is our govenrment going to launch an investigation nationwide.
    markesmith wrote: »
    OP, your username lodges you solidly in 'Angry Young Man' territory.

    I suggest you get off the computer and listen to the Clash's first album.

    i am sure my life would have being not so angry if i had been protected from abuse in school. please think in future before posting what you did.

    i had to report it to the local priest (there is one on the committee of every catholic primary school still today), the peron is still teaching today 30 years later, dept of education will not investigate due to time.
    mcmoustache wrote: »
    It's not but I'm not going to get into another existence of God debate.

    we are not talking about god, we are talking about the catholic church and what is represents


  • Options
    #70
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    the culture of deference wrote: »
    when is our govenrment going to launch an investigation nationwide.



    i am sure my life would have being not so angry if i had been protected from abuse in school. please think in future before posting what you did.

    i had to report it to the local priest (there is one on the committee of every catholic primary school still today), the peron is still teaching today 30 years later, dept of education will not investigate due to time.



    we are not talking about god, we are talking about the catholic church and what is represents
    I was asked to go on the parents committeel of my kids school. I asked (intentionally deviseively!) if the position of chair was open to all which surprise surprise is not. The local PP (Nice man but thats not the point) is chair for life. So I refused stating that i have been om many committees in my life and the chair is always, like all other positions, open to nominations and votes and indeed on most commitees the position cannot be held for more than 3 years by the same person. I recieved the usual bewildered "sure thats how it works" look.
    Needless to say i aint on the committee:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #71
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    No. You chose to be offended owing to your devotion to your imaginary friend in the sky. Its still an imaginary friend in the sky none the less. Sorry
    Chosing to invest heavily in an idea does not give you the right not to be offended by those who call it for what it is.

    What you term an idea:rolleyes: is so far beyond your comprehension my friend........


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    gimme5minutes wrote: »
    Im sick of hearing this crap about how we are all at fault because the 'State' did nothing...

    The Church controlled the State up until about 30 years ago. If the Church had a problem with you, you would not be climbing very high up the career ladder...whether that be politician, guard, etc...There were many decent guards around back then that had their careers f**ked over and then transferred into some backarse kip because they tried to bring paedophile priests to account. One word from the bishop in the superintendants ear and these guards were out the door.

    The same with politicians, you were never going to rise up the ranks of FF/FG if you didn't keep the Church onside. You criticize the church back in those days, and the bishops would be on to your party superiors about it and if you somehow managed not to get thrown out, you can forgot about getting back in at the next election with the Church's propaganda machine working against you.

    That's how they got away with the ridiculous ****e they were at. To rise up the ladders of society you had to be a team player.

    I said the State was complicit - not everyone. Big difference.;)


  • Options
    #73
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    mcmoustache wrote: »
    It's not but I'm not going to get into another existence of God debate.



    This actually seems like a moral imperative. The current Church and its authorities have proven themselves to be more interested in protecting the heirarchy than innocent children.

    That's not to say that all catholics believe in protecting paedophiles. Nobody says that. There are loads of good priests and lay people out there. The problem is that these good people are propping up a rotten organisation.

    I'm not sure what their reasons are for remaining in the organisation are: old habit, peer pressure, hope for change, denial... I really don't know. All I know is that supporting this type of organisation can't be right.

    The Catholic Church needs another reformation or split. The good and right-thinking people should simply cut ties with Rome. That's all they need to do. All the rites can remain the same and the references to the pope can be removed from mass. They don't need to change beliefs. They could even maintain the current heirarchical system if they like.

    Failing to do so just shows that they are happy to keep this corrupt organisation in business.

    The biggest problem with the concept is that it (like any organisation) would be infiltrated by those with agendas. Take our current Government as an example (or any opposition party).

    As soon as they got in every commitment and touch with reality was lost, i.e Leo Vradkar's comments on Wednesday.


  • Options
    #74
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    I was asked to go on the parents committeel of my kids school. I asked (intentionally deviseively!) if the position of chair was open to all which surprise surprise is not. The local PP (Nice man but thats not the point) is chair for life. So I refused stating that i have been om many committees in my life and the chair is always, like all other positions, open to nominations and votes and indeed on most commitees the position cannot be held for more than 3 years by the same person. I recieved the usual bewildered "sure thats how it works" look.
    Needless to say i aint on the committee:rolleyes:
    Unfortunately those committees are merely a rubber stamp - just like boards of management on which I served two terms.


  • Options
    #75
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    What you term an idea:rolleyes: is so far beyond your comprehension my friend........
    Poor.
    Try again and expand on your point, such as it is, without the smiley faces and aid my comprehension.


  • Options
    #76
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Unfortunately those committees are merely a rubber stamp - just like boards of management on which I served two terms.
    Again i dont have a clue what you mean. My comprehension issues again eh!
    My point is that it is totally out of order to have a defacto unelected chairman...thats all


  • Options
    #77
    Knight who says Meh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 464 ✭✭Knight who says Meh


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    What you term an idea:rolleyes: is so far beyond your comprehension my friend........
    An idea with nothing added but time, myth, pixie dust, theology and hokum is still just an idea. Nothing much to comprehend


  • Options
    #78
    Dionysus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,420 ✭✭✭Dionysus


    Brendan Boland, one of the children whom Seán Brady got to sign this confidentiality agreement, is being interviewed by Gavin Jennings on RTÉ Radio 1's This Week programme this minute:

    This Week

    It's really harrowing listening to him talk about it, with his voice shivering as he reads the transcript of the document which he was forced to sign as a child.


  • Options
    #79
    Zebra3
    Registered Users Posts: 13,859 ✭✭✭✭Zebra3


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    I normally avoid these threads because of the hysteria attached, and because it is - for some - just another opportunity to attach the Catholic Church.

    However the statement above must be responded to.

    As a catholic parent I would never ask myself "what's best for the Church". I would ask what is the most just action. And yes, the paedophiles - and their protectors/sympathisers - must be brought to book and made to pay.

    However, along with them must come the State and its agents, which were complicit in these horrific events. If a parent is paedophile, does that make ALL of us paedophiles?

    And it's worth remembering that the Catholic Church is not merely an institution, it is the very people themselves (myself included). Some bishops and priests forgot this - some still do.

    However, comments such as "burn the church" and "imaginary man in the sky" do nothing to help. These are bigoted ignorance of the worst kind. The vast majority of Catholics (both lay people and clergy) are normal, hard working people who abhor the scandal of child abuse.

    Should Brady be prosecuted? Most likely, but it won't happen. Should he publicly apologise a hundred times over? Yes. Will that help the people who were molested? Some maybe.

    The Catholic Church and its people are easy targets today, with the rule of mob law applying. Many clergy and lay people are good, honest people, with a deep faith in the Almighty God, who do monumental community work and help many others. Sadly, because of the church authorities and their inaction,
    this is always overlooked.

    Untrue.

    If those people were so decent and honest, they'd be up in arms over what happened and demanding that those who protected child rapists were slung out of the Roman church.

    Instead they've kept their heads down and said f*ck all. :mad:

    Shame on them.


  • Options
    #80
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    I normally avoid these threads because of the hysteria attached, and because it is - for some - just another opportunity to attach the Catholic Church.

    However the statement above must be responded to.

    As a catholic parent I would never ask myself "what's best for the Church". I would ask what is the most just action. And yes, the paedophiles - and their protectors/sympathisers - must be brought to book and made to pay.

    However, along with them must come the State and its agents, which were complicit in these horrific events. If a parent is paedophile, does that make ALL of us paedophiles?

    And it's worth remembering that the Catholic Church is not merely an institution, it is the very people themselves (myself included). Some bishops and priests forgot this - some still do.

    However, comments such as "burn the church" and "imaginary man in the sky" do nothing to help. These are bigoted ignorance of the worst kind. The vast majority of Catholics (both lay people and clergy) are normal, hard working people who abhor the scandal of child abuse.

    Should Brady be prosecuted? Most likely, but it won't happen. Should he publicly apologise a hundred times over? Yes. Will that help the people who were molested? Some maybe.

    The Catholic Church and its people are easy targets today, with the rule of mob law applying. Many clergy and lay people are good, honest people, with a deep faith in the Almighty God, who do monumental community work and help many others. Sadly, because of the church authorities and their inaction,
    this is always overlooked.

    Yet all muslims are 'guilty'.

    Fascinating.


  • Options
    #81
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    http://www.thejournal.ie/abuse-victim-calls-for-brady-apology-as-more-lawsuits-against-cardinal-emerge-295912-Dec2011/
    Abuse victim calls for Brady apology as lawsuits against Cardinal emerge

    ONE OF THE victims of the paedophile priest Fr Brendan Smyth has called on Cardinal Sean Brady to issue a public apology for his role in dealing with abuse allegations.
    It comes as the Sunday Times reports that Brady, the Archbishop of Armagh and primate of all Ireland, is being sued separately by three victims of Fr Smyth, who claim the primate’s role in a secret church hearing regarding allegations of sex abuse exposed them to harm.
    The Sunday Times reports that the lawsuits have been brought after the plaintiffs learned of Brady’s role in a canonical inquiry 36-years-ago where two of Smyth’s teenage victims were sworn to secrecy.
    One of those victims, Brendan Boland, who reached a confidential settlement with Brady this week, today spoke RTÉ Radio One’s This Week programme and called on Brady to issue a public apology.
    Brady has offered to meet Boland in person and offer an apology face-to-face but so far that offer has not been taken up. The Catholic Communications Office has said that Brady made an apology publicly at a mass in March 2010 and also told the Sunday Times it would not be commenting on legal cases that are ongoing.


    ‘Big impact on my life’

    Boland claimed today that following the oath of secrecy he signed in 1975, church authorities “reneged on what they said” and as a result it had “a big impact on my life”.
    He recalled his abuse at the hands of Smyth who died in 1997 after being convicted of 91 counts of child sexual abuse which he had continued to perpetrate until 1993.
    Boland said when he first told church authorities about his experience of abuse he ”didn’t know if it was right or wrong because he [Smyth]was a priest”. He said when he learned that Smyth had gone on to abuse after the complaint he made, he was “devastated”.
    “He [Smyth] should have been taken out of circulation in 1975. The guilt that I felt of all the children after me who had been abused. I felt I didn’t do enough then.”
    Of Brady he said: “He gave me and my father assurances that Father Brendan Smyth would be dealt with and that it would never happen again and he didn’t keep his promise, the church didn’t keep their promise.”
    Boland told the programme that he did not believe all priests are bad and said that while he would try to get on with his life in the wake of this week’s settlement, ”I will always hope for an apology in public by Cardinal Brady”.

    It seems Brady has his own personal problems.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Fbjm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,086 ✭✭✭Fbjm


    Omg I'm loving this. The catholic church did some very stupid stuff back in the '70s and now nobody follows them anymore, my local church now has half the priests and services it did only five years ago, same with my granny's one in palmerstown, I bet 'reaping your rewards' is not a phrase priests are all too fond of these days.

    I was in mass over the summer and even small dioceses like Malahide were doing the whole cover up fiasco, 'there's going to be less masses from here on in, due to a lack of priests.' Oh really, It's not due to a lack of a flock, due to public disgust then is it not? I must be sorely mistaken!


  • Options
    #83
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Ghost Buster wrote: »
    Again i dont have a clue what you mean. My comprehension issues again eh!
    My point is that it is totally out of order to have a defacto unelected chairman...thats all

    No quibbles from me on that one!


  • Options
    #84
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Knight who says Meh wrote: »
    An idea with nothing added but time, myth, pixie dust, theology and hokum is still just an idea. Nothing much to comprehend

    Sticks and stones, and ignorance really.:)


  • Options
    #85
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Untrue.

    If those people were so decent and honest, they'd be up in arms over what happened and demanding that those who protected child rapists were slung out of the Roman church.

    Instead they've kept their heads down and said f*ck all. :mad:

    Shame on them.

    Complete bollocks my friend. Ordinary Catholics (myself included), along with honest, hardworking clergy, are up in arms over it and have expressed their views widely.


  • Options
    #86
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Nodin wrote: »
    Yet all muslims are 'guilty'.

    Fascinating.

    Ah, Nod. Never an opportunity missed to kick the RCC and the faithful. Nothing new there though.:rolleyes::D


  • Options
    #87
    Freddie59
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,679 ✭✭✭Freddie59


    Fbjm wrote: »
    Omg I'm loving this. The catholic church did some very stupid stuff back in the '70s and now nobody follows them anymore, my local church now has half the priests and services it did only five years ago, same with my granny's one in palmerstown, I bet 'reaping your rewards' is not a phrase priests are all too fond of these days.

    I was in mass over the summer and even small dioceses like Malahide were doing the whole cover up fiasco, 'there's going to be less masses from here on in, due to a lack of priests.' Oh really, It's not due to a lack of a flock, due to public disgust then is it not? I must be sorely mistaken!

    Both really. They are reaping what they sowed by not allowing married priests, women priests, and clearing out the paedophilic scum and their protectors.


  • Options
    #88
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Freddie59 wrote: »
    Ah, Nod. Never an opportunity missed to kick the RCC and the faithful. Nothing new there though.

    Don't see how I was kicking the RCC and the faithful there. Unless you're their official representative. I was in fact pointing out the sheer hypocrisy inherent in your attitude, not actually disagreeing with anything specific you said. But you know that, of course. You just can't admit it.


  • Options
    #89
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Why isnt brady in jail? Can anyone answer me that?


  • Options
    #90
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Why isnt brady in jail? Can anyone answer me that?

    Bold boy, that would never do. This is Ireland!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Bobeagleburger
    Registered Users Posts: 45,291 ✭✭✭✭Bobeagleburger


    Brady should be jailed for the rest of his life.

    The death penalty for his like would be preferable though.


Advertisement