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
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
Sean Brady to say that he didn't realise the effect it would have on the children.
He is a lying scumbag. Who helped one of the worst child rapists to carry on his crimes.
He should be prosucuted for aiding and abetting a monster who raped children.0 -
Backseat modding deleted. If you wish to comment on moderating please do it by PM, not inthread - particularly since you have now used up your one and only Get out of Jail Free card.0
-
Clerical abuse is a small amount, though not unfortunately null, compared to the total of such child abuse. This is based on a term length course I've attended on family and child welfare, looking at cases since the first Children Acts of the early 1990s, where the majority of incidents came from an immediate pool of family members.
Where the state is at fault is both from the under-funding of resources where in certain incidents Judges have threaten the government with contempt (AFAIK) over substandard juvenile facilities and the states persistent failure to back up its own children first guidelines with statutory penalties for non-compliance, which would have primarily impacted state institutions. There have been reports highlighting such issues such have effected thousands of children, which have not generated that much notice.
The Church hierarchy whilst having serious questions to answer have to be differentiated from the vast majority of clerics who from personal experience contributed in a positive way to my own upbringing with their sense of service and commitment to the poorest sections of Irish society.0 -
The worst ever PR week for the Catholic Church in this country.0
-
96% vote on the Nolan show for Brady to resign, its time he goes and maybe face some criminal charges for his actions.....or lack of!!0
-
Advertisement
-
How can this man pretend to care about children when he abandoned so many to continued abuse.
Not only should he resign from the church, he should also be arrested and tried in a criminal court for crimes against humanity (children).
Let him try to plead (lie) his case under real scrutiny.0 -
In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.0
-
In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.
Don't, just Don't....
following procedure, are you for real????
OK I am going to get a warning or worse, but you are just stupid for posting this crap.
<insult removed>0 -
-
ISAW: Yes, I did make a personal attack because you have posted comments I found to be abhorrent. All I have seen you do is try to explain why the Catholic Church is not worse than anyone else and to try to deflect focus away from your precious priests.
Anyone who protects a rapist is as bad as the rapist, and yes, that is you ISAW. There, that is a direct attack.0 -
Advertisement
-
96% vote on the Nolan show for Brady to resign, its time he goes and maybe face some criminal charges for his actions.....or lack of!!
The church should not run like a PR firm or political party based on whatever mood the people happen to be in. It should be based on the truth and what is right and wrong. If 96% of the people on a whim decide the Trinity isn't true the church doctrine doesn't just follow that because most people say it.steelcityblues wrote: »The worst ever PR week for the Catholic Church in this country.
Actually it is all based on a BBC TV show outlining two cases one in Raphoe another in Armagh. Those cases are already known and little new evidence emmerged. The issue isnt who were the abusers that is already old news. the central issue is people in the hierarchy who knew about abuse and did not react adequately to it. That would be the local bishop at the time. The role of Fr. Brady at the time was to record the witness statements and to tell the witnessess not to discuss the process. NB that doies ,not mean "do not report it to the gardai/RUC" but it would be most unlikely for a catholic in 1975 to report anything to the RUC.
The central issue is whether people (Brady or anyone else) had information and did not act on that information to prevent further cases of abuse. People could have gone to the parents of the Children but didn't. The parents probably would not have gone to the RUC anyway but they could have been given the option. Ironically, in another threadf on the subject of free will Marianibad asked whether intervention removed free will. this is possibly a case where intervention could have enabled free will.
I would like to know what the parents of the Belfast boy would have done in 1975; Mc Kintyre the journalist of the BBC documentary did trace the Belfast boy. He also made the point than when another priest knew he went to the parents. Whether the parents are alive i do not know but i would like their view. Also the parents were in a different juristiction to Brady as was his Bishop. Im not suggesting Mc Kintyre dorstep them like he did Brady.How can this man pretend to care about children when he abandoned so many to continued abuse.
He filed a report and he didn't contact parents of a second. As I understand it (I stand open to correction) he had a child in his own school which he interviewed who was abused by Smith and lived in Belfast. The child confirmed the abuse and Brady filed it but didnt contact the parents in Belfast. that is the only new evidence and the central issue in this case.Not only should he resign from the church, he should also be arrested and tried in a criminal court for crimes against humanity (children).
Such a crime would not apply in either jurisdiction.Let him try to plead (lie) his case under real scrutiny.
I dont think there is any question of Brady lying! He has not told any lies and it is your unsupported opinion that he did so.Never in my life have I been asked to investigate (sorry "take notes") on a case of child abuse.
How dare you compare me to this guy.
that is a sidestep and shows double standards.
You can't on one level say "if i was in his position" and claim he should have reacted in a certain way and then when pressed on it say "i have never been in that position so dont ask me"He failed as a human being, never mind as a priest.
Well who do you think he should report to as regards child abuse in Belfast in 1975.
Remember he was a priest in a school in the south who had then gone to rome the following year i believe.
Under what law and based on what evidence should the RUC even listen to him?
Would the pârtent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?0 -
So he was right not to even tell the parents? You do not needs laws to know what is the right thing to do in this situation.
ISAW, What is your agenda? Why are you trying to find reasons to exonerate these people?0 -
ISAW: Yes, I did make a personal attack because you have posted comments I found to be abhorrent.
but that is your opinion. You are bringing personal bias into it. which comments? In what way are the abhorrent? The comments please not the person making them!All I have seen you do is try to explain why the Catholic Church is not worse than anyone else
In your "all i have seen" opinion. i have done a lot more than that but your bias again is that based on a few comments I allege abuse is okay because it is not worse than elsewhere.
i NEVER made such a commnet
I have frequently stated (unlike relativists who say "right or wrong depends on the society of the day" or "right or wrong is meaningless") that child abuse by anyone is always wrong. Not a single case of child sexual abuse is right or ever can be. It is not justified or never will be. but you have to look at the big picture. Why disregard almost all child abuse cases and focus only on a tiny minority of cases?and to try to deflect focus away from your precious priests.
AHA! so you admit yu want to focus only on Roman Catholic Priests?
My point is proved by your own admission!
Why ? why focus only on them?
And please dont personalise this! I never claimed they were MY priests or PRECIOUS.Anyone who protects a rapist is as bad as the rapist, and yes, that is you ISAW. There, that is a direct attack.
Not alone that but you are claiming that we should have lynch law and noone is entitled to the assumption of innocence and that any defence lawyer defending a rapist should be convicted of rape.0 -
The church should not run like a PR firm or political party based on whatever mood the people happen to be in. It should be based on the truth and what is right and wrong. If 96% of the people on a whim decide the Trinity isn't true the church doctrine doesn't just follow that because most people say it.
You are comparing on the one hand Trinity, and on the other, judgement of a man who facilitated (by his actions) rape of children.
I think you should consider that blind faith is not a pleasant thing, and it is also at the route of this issue.0 -
So he was right not to even tell the parents? You do not needs laws to know what is the right thing to do in this situation.
I don't think you are paying attention.
i drew attention to this as the only relevant difference from all prior reports.
I have yet to see it confirmed but I take the journalists word that the parents had not been informed by Fr. Brady.
I would like to know if they were informed by anyone else and whether if informed they decided not to report the abuse or if not informed whether they would have gone to the RUC.ISAW, What is your agenda? Why are you trying to find reasons to exonerate these people?
Ad hominem.
when yu cant deal with the issues do you always resort to attacking the poster?0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »You are comparing on the one hand Trinity, and on the other, judgement of a man who facilitated (by his actions) rape of children.
No I am not.
I am comparing acting on truth or morally right and saying what you believe or were told to be true.
Brady didn't facilitate Smyth. He offered smith no facilities and he never even met Smyth as far as I know.
And it was not his action but his inaction his lack of action (in this case informing the parents in Belfast) which is the point.I think you should consider that blind faith is not a pleasant thing, and it is also at the route of this issue.
I agree blind faith isn't faith. i agree to some extent it is at the root of the issue because that would imply that people are not really concerned with victims of sexual abuse but in attacking members of the hierarchy of the roman catholic church. If Brady was not a bishop today little if anything would appear in the media about this. do you agree?
Would the partent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?0 -
Mod Edit:
Post deleted as poster ignored mod warning and continued to attack another poster. Ratticus is now on a holiday from the Forum
PDN0 -
Humanity's greatest obligation in my opinion is to protect its young. Organised religion, in this instance the catholic church, has flagrantly done the opposite in an attempt at self-preservation purely to retain its power. Its ethos is power not faith.
Colm O Gorman founder of One in Four, stated yesterday that abuse of minors by the clergy has existed for centuries, so there is nothing new about the latest revelations and the latest shocking attempts by the catholic church to attempt to use internal church laws and protocol to excuse the inexcusable.
At this stage with revelations coming thick and fast and with repeated failure by those in the highest positions within the church to do the correct human thing, I believe the catholic church in its current form and its relationship with the irish state needs to be altered dramatically.
If it is to survive, I suggest the catholic church in ireland break away from rome entirely. The cutting off of all ties with the vatican is essential if the catholic church is to have any future in ireland. I would also suggest drawing up an new ethos for this breakaway catholic church which would include female ordination, the reappraisal of womens role in religion as a whole and doing away with celibacy to start with. Having both men and women saying mass and allowing them to marry and have families would restore a normality to an institution that has been deeply flawed in their absence.
These are radical steps, totally unacceptable to some people no doubt, however in its current form the catholic church represents nothing more than a spiritual holocaust in its all pervasive destruction of their childhoods and their humanity. If the catholic church / catholicism has failed even one child then it has failed full stop. The fact is child sex abuse by the clergy for centuries has been the norm, as has its cover up by the vatican, catholicism as it stands is rotten to the core. It must change or die.0 -
Would the partent at that time have backed up a complaint to the RUC and given the RUC didnt have juristiction in the republic and no extradition existed how could the RUC act on an extra juristictional crime . and for what "crime" should or could they arrest Smith in 1975?
Raping children.
Why the inverted comments on Smiths crime?
EDIT>> Would it matter whether it was the RUC or the Garda that stopped Smith?0 -
ISAW rape of a minor was a crime as far back as 1975
I find you quite cold. I wonder do you have any idea what child abuse does to a person? It destroys a child, takes away their trust, makes them live in constant fear and with terrible guilt and shame. I heard a very apt comment once that child abuse is like murder because it kills the person that child should be and instead leaves a shell.
I think you are out on your own in terms of your constant defense of Brady and his kind. Some of the most devout Catholics I know are very distressed over all that has happened and want him out.0 -
Advertisement
-
No I am not.
I am comparing acting on truth or morally right and saying what you believe or were told to be true.
Brady didn't facilitate Smyth. He offered smith no facilities and he never even met Smyth as far as I know.
And it was not his action but his inaction his lack of action (in this case informing the parents in Belfast) which is the point.
I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.fa·cil·i·tate
[fuh-sil-i-teyt]
verb (used with object), fa·cil·i·tat·ed, fa·cil·i·tat·ing.
1.
to make easier or less difficult; help forward (an action, a process, etc.): Careful planning facilitates any kind of work.
2.
to assist the progress of (a person).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facilitate
So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth". It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth. Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.0 -
1. what sports clubs had the moral aspect and also concealed crimes such as the raping of children?I dont know - you mean by the state e.g. department of education? By sports clubs? By "family" institution that controlled behaviour? i dont know. the vast majority of abusers i would guess?
And the church certainly the Vatican had no pôlicy to protect abusers.
I am aware of some church officials -whether by inaction or by misinformed action (with the knowledge and permission of the family) or by the very rare case of positive intervention - protecting some abusing priests (numbers in the tens at most). I am also aware currently of maybe over 1000 cases per year none of which are priests. assuming historic rates were similar one could assert most abuse came under this category and not under the "anonymous stranger dirty old man waiting in the dark " sterotype
2. How do you know that the church has/had no policy to protect abusers? Just because they haven't shown us a policy document does not mean that a policy did not exist! We are told by Father Bruno Mulvihill that documentation relating to Smith was sent from the vatican to kilnacrott was found by BM in a drawer and not acted upon. There must have been something there to ensure that canon law was followed but to avoid the relevant civil authorities (presumably because of the daft perception that canon law actually meant something).
Also, the idea of conducting an investigation into allegations of abuse using an expert in canon law (Sean Brady) and not using civil authorities meant that this procedure, which we can only assume to have been the norm, was part of the policy to protect abusers.
Furthermore, roughly what percentage of the rapists say between 1950 and 1990 were reported straight away by the church to civil authorities. On the flip side, what percentage were dealt with internally by the church?
3. "misinformed action" - clarify this please?
There is a difference between doing something because you were misinformed and not doing something that you know is the right thing purely because you are following procedures. The Nurenburg defence does not work, don't forget. Brady could have quickly penned a note or, less likely given the times, made a quick call to the parents. He didn't.
Tell me something, would you have been satisfied to have stood back in this same scenario? Would you have been happy to not follow up on such a serious allegation? Would you have been happy to sit there listening to questions about how a kid may have enjoyed the experience of being raped and not considered that they needed proper care from their family?
That is not answering my question. How many abusers had an institution available to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities because the institution did not want to look bad? Can you refer to some of them please? I know that both the Department of Education & the Dept of Health/HSE and certain Gardai have been included within reports (seemingly based on an adherence to catholicism). Care to name some of the others?the vast majority I guess since given at their highest levels of clerical abuse one percent of abusers were priests. i cant believe of the other 99% that more than 98% of these were involved in any non church institution.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »Raping children.
there was no such crime in 1975.
Only females could be raped. Rape did not apply to males.
Rape in Belfast (the case being discussed) would not come under Garda juristiction in the Republic (where Brady lived).Why the inverted comments on Smiths crime?
QED Rape of a male was not a crime in the republic.
Brady was not a witness to the rape so his reporting of it would be inadmissible anyway.
I would think soEDIT>> Would it matter whether it was the RUC or the Garda that stopped Smith?
considering the whole government collapsed over an extradition warrant for Smyth and that the extradition could only happen after a law enabling such extradition was passed in both jurisdictions in 1986 I think.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.
So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth".
Brady did not plan to make abuse easier or assist Smyth or help smyth in forwarding his intent to abuse children.
He did not facilitate Smyth.It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth.
That isnt "facilitating" it. To facilitate you have to be aware of the intent to do something and of the probability of that thing coming about. i dont believe Brady either knew Smyth would re offend or believed his lack of action would cause Smyth to re-offend or be a contributing factor in any way.Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.
I don't believe that Brady viewed things like that then.0 -
I would be guessing but ...1. what sports clubs had the moral aspect and also concealed crimes such as the raping of children?
were there cases of swimming instructors which caused or contributed to the collapse of their whole structure and the subsequent formation of Swim Ireland?
Even after that
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/new-child-abuse-claims-rock-swim-ireland-despite-reform-135115.htmlAs a result of a series of high-profile scandals, Swim Ireland, a largely voluntary organisation, has been forced to radically reform the way it conducts its business.
then you have One in Four who dint introduce mandatory reporting of child abuse until a decade after the roman catholic church. and they are a victims group.2. How do you know that the church has/had no policy to protect abusers? Just because they haven't shown us a policy document does not mean that a policy did not exist!
How do you know it was not space aliens or Unicorns did it?
Look up "Argument from ignorance" and "proving a negative" . You will find them under "fallacy"We are told by Father Bruno Mulvihill that documentation relating to Smith was sent from the vatican to kilnacrott was found by BM in a drawer and not acted upon.
Where are we told that?
He is what I do know note smith is not smyth
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/priest-who-blew-whistle-on-smyth-estranged-from-order-2101285.htmln 1995, Rev Kevin Smith, the Norbertine abbot who was Smyth's superior for 25 years, admitted Smyth had abused children in two parishes in the US to which he was dispatched.
Rev Smith stated in a letter to UTV television about Smyth's time in America: "On neither occasion was the bishop of the diocese to which he was sent notified of (Smyth's) propensity to molest children.
"On both occasions, Fr Smyth offended against young parishioners," the abbot said. "I acknowledge that I, as his religious superior, committed a grave error in sending him abroad without warning the bishop to whom I sent him."
That is a bishop=the abbot admitting responsibility.
Im not aware of Vatican documents sent to Kilnacrott.
Thank you for drawing that to my attention
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/abuse-victims-legal-case-dragging-on-for-13-years-2106165.htmlMulvihill said that he had previously seen a document sent from the Vatican in 1968 instructing the Norbertine Order to compel Brendan Smyth to stay within the grounds of the Abbey at Kilnacrott, Co Cavan, and to have no priestly, or any, duties outside. He said he found the letter in a drawer and said it was never acted on.
Where is that letter now?
Did the Vatican send such a letter?
Why was it not acted on if they did?
Why didnt they ask why it was not acted on when the Smyth case broke in the 1980s?There must have been something there to ensure that canon law was followed but to avoid the relevant civil authorities (presumably because of the daft perception that canon law actually meant something).
Again more argument from ignorance. Canon law does not supercede local law except in cases where local law is immoral e.g. nazism there was no policy to circumvent local law. some bishops by some i mean ten or so per ten thousands.Also, the idea of conducting an investigation into allegations of abuse using an expert in canon law (Sean Brady) and not using civil authorities meant that this procedure, which we can only assume to have been the norm, was part of the policy to protect abusers.
N oin fact we cant assume that. we can however see that the secrecy of the procedure (NOT of reporting the crime) was to protect the victims from a plea by the abuser to destroy the case or to protect the family of the abused. such "in camera" cases happen daily in Ireland.Furthermore, roughly what percentage of the rapists say between 1950 and 1990 were reported straight away by the church to civil authorities. On the flip side, what percentage were dealt with internally by the church?
As the church does not deal with criminal cases zero percent -it is for the criminal law to deal with . the church only deal with canon law and they can only disallow a priest from holding an office.3. "misinformed action" - clarify this please?
There is a difference between doing something because you were misinformed and not doing something that you know is the right thing purely because you are following procedures.
Bishops did things because they thought at the time they were the right thing to do. They did it witiout talking to other bishops or to the Vatican. what they decided was wrong. This happened to maybe ten bishops out of tens of thousands.The Nurenburg defence does not work, don't forget.
Nor does its court which was based on retroactive law. One cant invent "war crimes" and then try people after the law is invented. The Nazis were evil people yes and were opposed by the church before WWII but one can argue they didnt break laws. They actually legally passed anti Jew laws. This is a case where the Church would disregard civil law.Brady could have quickly penned a note or, less likely given the times, made a quick call to the parents. He didn't.
a quick call to Belfast in 1975? unlikely.
Penned a note??? surely this is something parents shoul be informed of directly ?
Maybe they were informed. We dont know. all we know is Brady didnt inform them.Tell me something, would you have been satisfied to have stood back in this same scenario? Would you have been happy to not follow up on such a serious allegation? Would you have been happy to sit there listening to questions about how a kid may have enjoyed the experience of being raped and not considered that they needed proper care from their family?
i certainly would not. i was one of the few who talked out to brothers; It was not done. It didnt enter peoples heads. they expected priests (and other adults) not to even think about such things.That is not answering my question. How many abusers had an institution available to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities because the institution did not want to look bad?
How much more can you load a question before asking it?
You question assumes an intent and collosion by the Church to absolutely protect them from investigation by civil authorities.Can you refer to some of them please? I know that both the Department of Education & the Dept of Health/HSE and certain Gardai have been included within reports (seemingly based on an adherence to catholicism). Care to name some of the others?
already done. swiming organisations/ Kincora boys home Bethany homes . I dont want to go into Protestant vs catholic issues. Im sure if educate together existed 50 years ago similar problems would have appeared there.
http://www.paddydoyle.com/category/bethany-homes/Ruairi Quinn has rejected not just Bethany survivors but his own party colleagues Joe Costello and Kathleen Lynch who have been campaigning for years on this issue. Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch was thrown out of the Dail last October while trying to raise the issue of Bethany survivors with the then Fianna Fail minister.
In fact in the US shakeshaft has produced such statistics which i have posted in this thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charol_Shakeshaft
In 1994, Shakeshaft published a report based on a four-year study of 225 sexual abuse complaints—184 in New York State and 41 in other states—against teachers made to federal authorities from 1990 to 1994.[3] She found that "All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package."
In 2004, Shakeshaft published Educator Sexual Misconduct: A Synthesis of Existing Literature for the United States Department of Education.[2] The report indicated that nearly 10% of U.S. public school students, or 4.5 million students, had been the victims of sexual harassment, rape or sexual abuse.0 -
Rape of a male wasnt!ISAW rape of a minor was a crime as far back as 1975
Care to cite the law?I find you quite cold. I wonder do you have any idea what child abuse does to a person? It destroys a child, takes away their trust, makes them live in constant fear and with terrible guilt and shame. I heard a very apt comment once that child abuse is like murder because it kills the person that child should be and instead leaves a shell.
Lets not get all worked up with "think oif the children" when aksed to cite the rape law you claim existed.
In such matters cold facts are required.
And as someone who discussed my own abuse here before i dont require a lecture from anyione as to the ramifications of abuse.
Now have you got the rape law you claim smyth could be charged under?
Then how would you get him into an Irish court? given he was in Northern Ireland?
REmember he could not be extradited until 1986 or so.I think you are out on your own in terms of your constant defense of Brady and his kind.
I think you are not supporting your claims and are resorting to attacking the person who shows up your position rather than deal with the issue.Some of the most devout Catholics I know are very distressed over all that has happened and want him out.
Look up "argument from authority" and Appeal to Popularity
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html0 -
In all fairness, he didnt abuse anyone. But he did follow procedure at the time for dealing with such things. And that was all he could do. The real baddies here are the abusers themselves. If you accuse cardinal Brady of "allowing" children to be abused, well then so did you and I.
Where have we heard the "i was just following orders" argument before ?? All he could do ?????
Give it a rest !!
The church and its clerics are, after all, meant to be amongst the best examples of moralistic values to the rest of the world. So what was he thinking of when he sat back and ignored what was happening around him ???? This man and those like him who ignored the tears of abused children, their pleas for help,were more concerned with saving the church, saving the church's money, saving their own careers than doing what was the RIGHT, the MORALISTIC thing to do.
How they can show their faces in public is beyond me.0 -
jonniebgood1 wrote: »I don't mean to be pedantic but you are mistaken in thinking that to 'facilitate' only means offering facilities.
So I ask you to re-consider your statement that "Brady didn't facilitate Smyth". It is clear that his actions (or inaction if you prefer) allowed the continued sex abuse by Smyth. Smyth knew he had been reported and having got away with it his predatory nature seems to have gained confidence from it, thus his 'progress' was facilitated.
Smyth didnt just know it he went to where one of his victims worked and intimidated the young lad....as reported in person by the victim on the Stephen Nolan show last night.0 -
there was no such crime in 1975.
Only females could be raped. Rape did not apply to males.
Rape in Belfast (the case being discussed) would not come under Garda juristiction in the Republic (where Brady lived).
QED Rape of a male was not a crime in the republic.
Brady was not a witness to the rape so his reporting of it would be inadmissible anyway.
If you wish to use the quoted logic then did Smyth not rape little girls as well as little boys after Brady was notified of the abuse?
If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children. It is an issue of morals above church rules, and prevention of crime as opposed to hiding behind technicalities about extradition, etc.
I am unclear about what you think of Bradys conduct or morals in this?0 -
Advertisement
-
In your unsupported opinion?Humanity's greatest obligation in my opinion is to protect its young. Organised religion, in this instance the catholic church, has flagrantly done the opposite in an attempt at self-preservation purely to retain its power. Its ethos is power not faith.Colm O Gorman founder of One in Four, stated yesterday that abuse of minors by the clergy has existed for centuries,
And by the non clergy. As has church law opposing child abuse.
You do realise One in Four failed to introduce mandatory reporting until a decade after the RC church did? So using One in four as an example of dating actions isnt really good evidence.so there is nothing new about the latest revelations and the latest shocking attempts by the catholic church to attempt to use internal church laws and protocol to excuse the inexcusable.
It isnt shocking! It isnt news it is all odl information . the only difference is that Brady did not inform a Belfast child's parents about that child being abused by Smyth. Informing was not looked up to in Belfast at the time.
Nor did the church use internal laws to excuse anyone of child abuse.At this stage with revelations coming thick and fast and with repeated failure by those in the highest positions within the church to do the correct human thing,
they are not coming thick and fast. It is all old news except that one piece of new information.I believe the catholic church in its current form and its relationship with the irish state needs to be altered dramatically.
It has been altered dramatically since the 1970s!
Constitutional change. Extradition Act. etc.
So your solution to a local abuse problem which Rome always opposed is become Protestants?If it is to survive, I suggest the catholic church in ireland break away from rome entirely. The cutting off of all ties with the vatican is essential if the catholic church is to have any future in ireland.
That denomination already exists . they are called the church of Ireland. They declined much much more than Catholics. Although they are now growing and are the second largest religious denomination in Ireland.I would also suggest drawing up an new ethos for this breakaway catholic church which would include female ordination, the reappraisal of womens role in religion as a whole and doing away with celibacy to start with.
Actually this is what really caused the decline. so no points there. In fact about 150 Anglican Priests left and became Roman Catholic poriests after they intorduced women priests.If the catholic church / catholicism has failed even one child then it has failed full stop.
So we should shut down hospitals, lifeboats, police etc; because they sometimes fail?The fact is child sex abuse by the clergy for centuries has been the norm,
No it hasent! that is your opinion as you stated above! It is not a FACT!as has its cover up by the vatican, catholicism as it stands is rotten to the core. It must change or die.
You have not provided ANY evidence of Vatican coverup!
Colme on hundreds of victims cases of abuse you must be able to produce hundreds of cover ups by the vatican? No? Im not surprised.0
Advertisement