Bishop saw paedophiles as 'friendship that crossed the line'

davet82 · 06-09-2012 10:57AM #1

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4523202/Bishop-saw-paedos-as-friendship-that-crossed-a-line.html

A BISHOP who failed to protect kids from child-molesting priests claimed yesterday he didn’t know what a paedophile was.

now if this was in reference to cases in the 1940s or 50s Ireland maybe you might have thought these were more innocent times but this was in reference to cases in the mid 90s

what a píss poor excuse... surely there must be some way of bringing criminal charges to these 'men of god' who lie and cheat to protect paedophiles and endanger others by moving them to unsuspecting parishes?

*i know we're probably all sick to death of these threads but the pathetic excuse used just spurred me on to post on a topic i usually steer clear of

The_Minister · 06-09-2012 11:17AM

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

krudler · 06-09-2012 11:20AM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Bull.
Fucking.
Shit.

Corkfeen · 06-09-2012 11:24AM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

If something that you don't understand occurs but is illegal and with a clear victim , you'd assume that they'd go to the authorities. You don't simply assume that it'll go away.

My name is URL · 06-09-2012 11:26AM

Not that it makes what he stated or believed at the time any better, but what he said is that he didn't understand the recidivist nature of pedophiles. In any case, he knew it was wrong both legally and morally and should have taken appropriate action at the time instead of moving the priests somewhere else in the hope that they wouldn't re-offend. He should resign at the very least.. there's no way he can continue on as a Bishop if the church is serious about wanting to right the wrongs of the past.

06-09-2012 11:26AM

The_Minister wrote: »

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.
.

You address me by my proper title, ya little bollocks!

eviltwin · 06-09-2012 11:29AM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Even if at the time that's what his understanding of it was why did he not report in later years when he knew what it involved or even check to see what this guy was up to?

I don't buy it, sorry. Its very easy after the fact to say you didn't know etc but the fact his first instinct is to distance himself from any responsibility says it all for me.

Mr Benevolent · 06-09-2012 11:30AM

krudler wrote: »

Bull.
Fucking.
Shit.

I agree. That's horsepiss.

maximoose · 06-09-2012 11:30AM

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

You address me by my proper title, ya little bollocks!

How's the son?

Nodin · 06-09-2012 11:37AM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

.

He said that he thought pedophillia was a "friendship that crossed the line". This, from a senior member of a sex obsessed church that was terrified of sex between consenting adults. My arse.

My name is URL · 06-09-2012 11:39AM

Can the Gardai not take action against your man now considering that there's evidence that he covered these crimes up? That's something I've never understood over the course of all these reports being released... has anyone actually been retrospectively held to account for their involvement?

Mycroft H · 06-09-2012 11:40AM

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

Nodin · 06-09-2012 11:42AM

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

...as they were the ones fixated on telling adults where, when and what they could use their genitals for, thats not that suprising.

davet82 · 06-09-2012 12:10PM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

To me thats like saying he didnt know rape was illegal or that he thought rape was a 'friendship that crossed the line'.

Unless he has been living in a cave with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears for last two decades that arguement just dosen't stand up.

mackg · 06-09-2012 12:10PM

Whatever about the story, credit to The Sun for finding the creepiest of photo of the man in existence.

Best case scenario he was extremely negligent worst case this is BS and he is just trying to cover his tracks, either way resignation is in order.

Shryke · 06-09-2012 12:11PM

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

Are you serious? The abuse was carried out and covered up specifically by the Church. The church sheltered abusers and allowed them to continue to re-offend.
There seems to have been so much of it you could rename the Irish Catholic Church as the Super Adventure Club. It's difficult to believe it wasn't nurtured considering the numbers. Any other authorities that failed are secondary to the failure of the Church, (a large, powerful and influential institution that supposedly teaches morals), and all the more so because of what the church tries to exceedingly ridiculously represent.
I don't believe that a person in the position of the Bishop with a life time in the Church in Ireland could be unaware of the conduct of other priests and certainly not when allegations reached him. If he didn't know what a pedophile was he could have picked up a dictionary. Complete BS.

hardCopy · 06-09-2012 12:15PM

davet82 wrote: »

To me thats like saying he didnt know rape was illegal or that he thought rape was a 'friendship that crossed the line'.

Unless he has been living in a cave with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears for last two decades that arguement just dosen't stand up.

I don't think he's claiming to have misunderstood the abuse or how it happened. He's claiming he thought it was a once-off and that if he separated the offender from that specific child it would end there.

It's still a complete nonsense excuse but there seems to be some confusion as to whether he understood the nature of the abuse.

davet82 · 06-09-2012 12:23PM

hardCopy wrote: »

I don't think he's claiming to have misunderstood the abuse or how it happened. He's claiming he thought it was a once-off and that if he separated the offender from that specific child it would end there.

It's still a complete nonsense excuse but there seems to be some confusion as to whether he understood the nature of the abuse.

I just find that impossible to believe regardless of the time frame involved. Could somebody be that niave? I can't help being skeptical.

mackg · 06-09-2012 12:25PM

In the interest of fairness this is a part of the story that unsurprisingly didn't make The Sun article.

Although he signed off the transfers, he also notified gardaí of the allegations.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/head-of-churchs-abuse-watchdog-criticises-friendship-gone-too-far-comment-565840.html

Zulu · 06-09-2012 12:38PM

still though, ignorance is no defense. All they needed to do was think; empathise.
These men will burn,

davet82 · 06-09-2012 12:40PM

Zulu wrote: »

still though, ignorance is no defense. All they needed to do was think; empathise.
These men will burn,

agreed, his comments were adding insult to injury so regardless he should stand down

Guill · 06-09-2012 12:44PM

Confab wrote: »

I agree. That's horsepiss.

Me too, It's total frogspawn.

Biggins · 06-09-2012 01:18PM

The_Minister wrote: »

...there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Totally agree.

Else where priests that cover-up and/or stay silent, get sent to jail.
Yesterday report:

William Lynn, Philadelphia Priest, To Be Sentenced For Child Endangerment
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/william-lynn-philadelphia-priest-child-endangerment-sentencing-tuesday_n_1697864.html

The first U.S. church official convicted of covering up sex-abuse claims against Roman Catholic priests was sentenced Tuesday to three to six years in prison by a judge who said he "enabled monsters in clerical garb ... to destroy the souls of children."

Lynn, who handled priest assignments and child sexual assault complaints from 1992 to 2004, was convicted last month of felony child endangerment for his oversight of now-defrocked priest Edward Avery.

Lynn did what Brady did - didn't report the abuses and kept silent. Lynn got sent to jail!

...Lynn chose to remain in the job and obey his bishop – by keeping quiet – as children suffered, she said.

"You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong,"

What has Cardinal Brady got? NOTHING!
...Well except the ability (after keeping his head down for a while in hope that his disgusting silence for over ten years, has gone away and forgotten about) to stick his head up again and lecture the rest of the nation once more on moral issues!
He's nothing less than a double-standard bastard.

Meanwhile also yet another Irish government (who I suspect is also hoping the public will forget about Brady) is additionally seeing no more held to account!
They don't wish to tackle the culprits further.

We have a complete shower of **** in this country in high offices - be it political and/or religious ones!

El Siglo · 06-09-2012 01:18PM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

You mean to say that he didn't have one of these items, and that he couldn't have looked it up for instance?

That's an even more ridiculous post than the excuse given by the bishop.

Ghost Buster · 06-09-2012 01:19PM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Seeing as the RCC has decades if not centuries of vocalised opinion on pre marital and gay sex and its damage and ramifications upon the physical, moral and social well being of its practitioners, one might assume that it may be a little clued in on the matter of grown men raping and riding children.:rolleyes:

Ghost Buster · 06-09-2012 01:21PM

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

They get flack for what they are answerable for. Others get flack for what they are answerable for.
The RCC have more to get flack for.
Simple.....

syklops · 06-09-2012 01:24PM

maximoose wrote: »

How's the son?

He's a son?

Seriously, in the mid-nineties I was 12 and I knew what a paedophile was. How a dioceses moral and ethical leader could not is, what would a good word be, bollocks.

06-09-2012 01:28PM

davet82 wrote: »

I just find that impossible to believe regardless of the time frame involved. Could somebody be that niave? I can't help being skeptical.

Although he signed off the transfers, he also notified gardaí of the allegations.

Actually, to me that makes it even worse. If he KNEW it was behaviour that deserved to be brought to the attention of the gardai, what the fúck was he doing transferring them and why the absolute fúck did he think he could get away with these lies about "friendships"?

[mind boggled]

syklops · 06-09-2012 01:40PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, to me that makes it even worse. If he KNEW it was behaviour that deserved to be brought to the attention of the gardai, what the fúck was he doing transferring them and why the absolute fúck did he think he could get away with these lies about "friendships"?

The thing I dont get about the friendship line, is that, some of these friendships which crossed the line were with boys. SO this wasnt a young curat a bit confused, who groped a girl a few years younger than himself. This was homosexual acts between a priest and a same sex boy. Considering homosexuality is a sin according to the church, you would have thought that would have been enough for him to do something about it. No, instead it was brushed under the carpet, say a few hail marys and we'll move on. The hypocrisy is just shameful.

Linoge · 06-09-2012 01:41PM

"Friendship that crossed the line"? What a nice way to put child rape.

So he knew that whatever was going on was wholly not acceptable if it crossed a line then surely?

He is pathetic really. Its funny, all these priests think that everyone is as stupid as they are.

starbelgrade · 06-09-2012 01:42PM

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

The 1990s were a time in Ireland where the publicity regarding sex abuse by members of the clergy was in every newspaper and on every television station on an almost daily basis.

The Brendan Smyth case alone & the publicity surrounding it managed to bring about the collapse of the Irish government in 1994.

The word "paedophile" became commonplace in the vocabulary of the entire country.

This is not a man who served as a priest in some godforsaken part of the world that had little or no communication with the outside world. Kirby was appointed as a Bishop in 1988 & would have known first hand exactly what was going on in Ireland at the time and in his own religious order.

The fact that he states that he misunderstood the gravity of paedophelia is not only an outright lie, but it's a fucking insult to the intelligence of the people of this country that this man thinks he can still get away with shit like this.

And as for not taking decisive action when it happened? Well, he did take decisive action - as soon as he found out that there were rumours that one of his priests was a paedo, he moved them on to another parish.

That's about as decisive as you can get. But sure if it was only a "friendship that crossed the line", why would he have done this?

Because he's a fucking liar & an outright fucking scumbag who should be jailed for his part knowingly in covering up the abuse of children.

No mercy should be spared for these unmerciful cunts.

Bishop saw paedophiles as 'friendship that crossed the line'

Comments