The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

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.

In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.

ISAW

280special wrote: »

Where have we heard the "i was just following orders" argument before ?? All he could do ?????

Give it a rest !!

the Naziism line was already dealt with above;

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.

We are here discussing a particular case of a boy from Belfast. He was not ignored since if he was a statement would not have been taken by Brady.

280special wrote: »

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.

And this relates to Brady??? How???

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

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?

Yes apparently he did.
But
1. It happened in Belfast i believe since the girl was a sister of the Belfast boy. so the rape law in the Republic would not apply and you are back into criminality juristictional problems. 2. Brady was not aware of the girl and that happened after he left Ireland

If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children.

And according to 1975 law and procedures what would "properly" be?

It is an issue of morals above church rules, and prevention of crime as opposed to hiding behind technicalities about extradition, etc.

So you suggest people should disregard the law of the land and put church morals ahead of actual local legal matters? I thought that was what you were complaining about?

I am unclear about what you think of Bradys conduct or morals in this?

What are you suggesting he did that was
1. illegal?
2. Immoral

If you cant supply an answer to 1 then you cant suggest he be charged with anything.

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.

Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

Seth Brundle

I think you should re-read that post.
The IRA would not have had an issue with Brady or anyone reporting abuse against a minor to the minor's parents.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

PDN said informing the parent of the child, not the police, so your post doesn't address his point.

jonniebgood1

Originally Posted by PDN
In all your mental and verbal gymnastics this takes the biscuit. Informing a parent that their child was a victim was most definitely 'looked up to' in Belfast at the time.

ISAW wrote: »

Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

Forget the RUC- you are trying to muddy the waters.

If the parents had been told it would have prevented child sex abuse. A simple phonecall would have protected a whole series of boys and girls from sex abuse. The phonecall was not made dispite a 14 year old boy being brave enough to report the sex to church authority.

jonniebgood1

ISAW wrote: »

I

posted by jonniebgood1
If Brady had dealt properly with what he knew of Smyth raping children then he would have saved many other children.

And according to 1975 law and procedures what would "properly" be?

Ringing the childs parents- there is no civil law or procedure against decency.

ISAW

http://www.psni.police.uk/1973_to_1980_indictable_offences_known_and_cleared.pdf

page 2
Cases of rape (and this includes adult rape)

1974- 29 cases
1975- 17 cases

In 1977 they reclassified offences

Sexual offence page 6
Unlawful carnal knowledge with a girl under 14 - ten cases.

It would seem like in the Republic this offence didnt exist against boys.

Now if in a million people only ten cases were reported to the RUC what do you think the likelihood of a clerical abuse case being reported ?

ISAW

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Ringing the childs parents- there is no civil law or procedure against decency.

People didn't have phones in 1975.
You might have to ring the local phone box.
Also you are calling cross border and calls were monitored.
You really think that is a proper way to deal with such matters?

wolfsbane

I haven't been following this thread for some time, leaving it for Catholics and ex-Catholics to deal with the mess. But I have been ruminating on the matter of sexual abuse and the Church institution, and listening to those familiar with the workings and history of the institution.

Seems to me Brady was one of these:
1. A vile concealer of a child-rapist.
2. A coward who feared questioning his superiors.
3. A regular guy, operating the normal system of his Church.

I've no reason to doubt it was No.3. Seems to fit the mentality of the Roman institution back then. He was offended by the vileness of Smyth's crimes, but was in no doubt that THE way to deal with it was the institution's rule.

Did he feel obliged to tell the parents or the police? No - for the Church was in his view the highest authority on earth. Their decisions would be for the best.

Brady was delusional, but not deliberately immoral. He had given his morals into the care of Mother Church. The tragedy was that she is in reality a corrupt human institution.

Brady was doing his duty, so I see his reasoning about not resigning now. But if he and the Church now admit the Church was guilty of not protecting the flock, resignation of everyone involved in the failure is surely the least they can do. It would not be an admission of wilful malpractice, just of massive error of judgement on his part that contributed to the disaster.

*******************************************************************
Ezekiel 34:7 ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”— 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! 10 Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”

ISAW

koth wrote: »

PDN said informing the parent of the child, not the police, so your post doesn't address his point.

I already addressed this point earlier.
This the ONLY new information in the BBC programme.
somebody should have informed the childs parents. Mybe somebody did. Brady apparently didnt. I agree he should say why he didn't.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

Really ? care to list the number of people in 1975 who were prosecuted in Belfast due to Catholics informing on them? Catholics didnt trust the RUC. In addition 1974 was the worst year for bombing and terrorism. Any Catholic seen talking to the RUC would be under suspicion by the IRA as well. so your "takes the biscuit" comment is nothing to do with verbal gymnastics.

No, I can't list the number of people prosecuted. Nor can I list the number of people who ate rice pudding in Belfast in 1975. Both are equally irrelevant. And both are worthy of derision when used as a smokescreen.

I lived in Belfast in 1975. I had good friends in both Republican and Loyalist areas. If anyone knew that a child was suffering abuse, then it would be strongly expected that the parents should be informed. As for prosecutions - the boys back then had ways of dealing with people that didn't require the niceties of a prosecution.

Police informants and the attitudes towards them have nothing to do with the issue of informing parents that their child was being violated. To use the word 'inform' to pretend that a connection exists is certainly an example of specious verbal gymnastics.

People didn't have phones in 1975.

Really? I wonder what that bakelite object was in our hallway that had numbers on the dial.

ISAW

wolfsbane wrote: »

But if he and the Church now admit the Church was guilty of not protecting the flock, resignation of everyone involved in the failure is surely the least they can do.

so if you are a garda who does not press a suspected theft because you are told a superiour is dealing with it and you later become head of the fraud squad or you leave the Gardai and become a banker and are later appointed to the chair of the central bank you should resign that responsibility based on your lack of pursuing the theft that you boss said was being dealt with years before?

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

No, I can't list the number of people prosecuted. Nor can I list the number of people who ate rice pudding in Belfast in 1975. Both are equally irrelevant. And both are worthy of derision when used as a smokescreen.

I lived in Belfast in 1975. I had good friends in both Republican and Loyalist areas. If anyone knew that a child was suffering abuse, then it would be strongly expected that the parents should be informed. As for prosecutions - the boys back then had ways of dealing with people that didn't require the niceties of a prosecution.

Police informants and the attitudes towards them have nothing to do with the issue of informing parents that their child was being violated. To use the word 'inform' to pretend that a connection exists is certainly an example of specious verbal gymnastics.

No it isnt. And you are suggesting Kangaroo courts were preferable to the RUC.
We dont know if the parents wer not informed;
We dont know if Brady was told whether the parents wer informed.
All we know is Brady didnt inform them.

The "informer" point isnt about Brady it is about a Catholic going to the RUC to take a child abuse case. it isnt a smokescreen!
How many such cases were taken in 1975? I suggest ZERO given there were 29 rape cases which included adults being raped in the entire N Ireland that year.

If people didnt take such cases it is understandable -not justifiable but understandable- that Brady didnt tell them personally.

Keylem

Six could face charges after school paedophile ring probe.

The inquiry was ordered last year by Justice Minister Alan Shatter after this newspaper revealed that Donegal man Michael Ferry was given his job back as a caretaker at an Irish language school despite a previous conviction for child sex abuse.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/six-could-face-charges-after-school-paedophile-ring-probe-3087872.html

280special

ISAW wrote: »

the Naziism line was already dealt with above;

and bears repeating !


We are here discussing a particular case of a boy from Belfast. He was not ignored since if he was a statement would not have been taken by Brady.



And this relates to Brady??? How???

simply passing on information relevent to a post...and its a hell of a good example of the church's attitude to the whole issue, something Brady must have been well aware of , something which would have resulted in any normal moralistic person going straight to the police.

And as for the argument , Re the IRA ,which has been made here, and strangely enough on whinging Joe's programme as well, you can be sure of one thing...they would never have targeted someone who went to the police to report child abuse.

PDN

ISAW wrote: »

No it isnt. And you are suggesting Kangaroo courts were preferable to the RUC.

Please try reading my posts before making untrue allegations about what I am suggesting.

The "informer" point isnt about Brady it is about a Catholic going to the RUC to take a child abuse case. it isnt a smokescreen!

That is manifestly not true. You posted: "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."

Happyman42

A 14 year old boy knew that what was happening to him was wrong and immoral, yet Brady didn't have the courage or will to make absolutely sure it wouldn't happen again.
So busy was he with his career and fulfilling the expectations of his superiors that he has now demonstrated (to the majority of what is left of the sham that calls itself Roman Catholicism) that this institution is rotten, prone to evil and is wholly uncaring in it's pursuit of survival. He has demonstrated, by his sad, pathetic clinging to power, that pomp and ego and aggrandisement is what drives the Vatican and all associated with it. Vile, power hungry, sick men supported by cowardly servants, themselves deluded by nonsense claims of superiority, the same nonsense superiority complex that allowed children to be raped and abused. Thank goodness they are being whittled away one by one.
Keep the calls up everyone for this deluded sick man to fall on his (useless to anyone else) sword.

280special

ISAW wrote: »

People didn't have phones in 1975.
You might have to ring the local phone box.
Also you are calling cross border and calls were monitored.
You really think that is a proper way to deal with such matters?

Have you got some sort of mental block with regards to the 1970s?? Were you alive back then? Did you live in Ireland, either north or south , back then?

I lived in Belfast up to 1975...we had a phone....I moved south....we had a phone....My relations in rural parts of Counties Tyrone, Armagh, Antrim and Derry all had phones, so did my relatives in rural parts of Counties Donegal,Roscommon, Meath...

And yes we could make cross border calls too .....in this case,so what IF they were monitored ???? what is the relevance of your point...if you have one !

Even if, and that is one hell of a big IF, he couldnt contact them by phone any DECENT person would have gone out of their way to ensure that parents were warned as to what was going on. Or was he unable to drive a car or arrange for someone else to drive him??

What dont you understand about normal decent behaviour?

wolfsbane

ISAW wrote: »

so if you are a garda who does not press a suspected theft because you are told a superiour is dealing with it and you later become head of the fraud squad or you leave the Gardai and become a banker and are later appointed to the chair of the central bank you should resign that responsibility based on your lack of pursuing the theft that you boss said was being dealt with years before?

It was not a suspected theft. It was a series of child rapes. If I was a garda and had seen what Brady saw, I would have made sure I knew what was done in follow-up. If I didn't, then when I became Garda Commissioner and the facts came out, I would expect I would have to resign. Especially when I knew the rapist had been allowed to continue his abuse for many years afterwards.

How much more should we expect from those claiming to be shepherds of the flock?

********************************************************************
Ezekiel 34:7 ‘Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “surely because My flock became a prey, and My flock became food for every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, nor did My shepherds search for My flock, but the shepherds fed themselves and did not feed My flock”— 9 therefore, O shepherds, hear the word of the Lord! 10 Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”

Sonics2k

I am absolutely astonished that people would defend this man, no matter their personal religious views.

Cast aside your faith and loyalty to religion for just a few moments and understand the abhorrent crimes that were committed by these men, and who were able to get away with it because of their positions in society.

jonniebgood1

ISAW wrote: »

People didn't have phones in 1975.
You might have to ring the local phone box.
Also you are calling cross border and calls were monitored.
You really think that is a proper way to deal with such matters?

I do. My opinion is that the parents should have been informed, whether by phone or in person is not relevant.

You disagree?

jonniebgood1

ISAW wrote: »

No it isnt. And you are suggesting Kangaroo courts were preferable to the RUC.
We dont know if the parents wer not informed;
We dont know if Brady was told whether the parents wer informed.
All we know is Brady didnt inform them.

Eh- we do.

The boy from Belfast, his parents were not informed of the sex abuse of their boy. Smyth proceeded to sexually abuse his sister following this. He also went on to sexually abuse four of the boys cousins at a later date. This boy, now man was interviewed and revealed this.

If Brady had informed the parents of the abuse when he was told about it he could have saved 5 other children from sex abuse. You can make irrelevant points about phoneboxes or juristictions but this abuse continued because Brady did not have the moral courage to help a defenseless child who had reached out to him.

The Brigadier

This was posted on another forum I use.

As for Cardinal Brady himself, in 1975 when the allegations date to, he was not a Cardinal, he was not in any position of authority other than being a young priest who was part of the investigation team sent to investigate the allegations made against Brendan Smyth.....He was only the note-taker in the meeting where the information was given.....he had no authority over Brendan Smyth and even his Bishop only had limited authority.

He did what he was charged to do and that was give the list of children to those who had the power to act, which is exactly what he did.

If there is any direct blame to be laid here with regard Brendan Smyth, it is with Brendan Smyths Monastery in Kilnacrott and the Abbot and the elders of the Nobertine Order to which Smyth belonged as it was their responsibility to not only censure Smyth. but inform both the Police and the Parents of the children of what had been going on.

That is not to say that Brady is blameless, the whole affair was poorly dealt with, although there was no Church or State guidelines about what to do in this situation in 1975, it is pretty obvious to anyone that the needs of the Church, specifically the Nobertine Order and the Monastery, were put ahead of the needs of those children and that even if Brady had no authority to deal with Smyth himself, he certainly had the opportunity to make sure someone who would deal with it properly was informed when it became patently obvious that Smyth was effectively being protected, he may have trusted that those with the authority to act in relation to Smyth would treat the evidence seriously and respond appropriately, but when he realised that was not happening then he could have taken it further. ......the fact is that the then Fr Brady went along with the party line and the secrecy of the investigation because he wanted to progress within the hierarchy of the Church, when in fact his first responsibility and the first responsibility of all priests is to their congregation, in particular those who cannot protect themselves such as those children, in this he failed and for that he should resign.

Being objective it should also be mentioned that Cardinal Brady has been instrumental in putting child protection measures in place so that this kind of thing is not repeated and is dealt with properly when and if it is........not that excuses him in his failure to respond appropriately to his responsibilities as a priest, which he is patently guilty of, even if not in quite the way the media would like to make out.

I think I agree with that in its entirety.

Fuinseog

we tolerate corrupt politicians who ruined the country, why not a corrupt clergy?

Irish society seems spinless. Why did nobody shout stop when it was happening? where was one in four back in the eighties when the abuse, an open secret, was still ongoing? had people spoken out then they could have saved innocent children from rape. Yes the church is guilty and the good cardinal has a lot to answer for but so does society. Both society and the the cardinal kept stumm and went along with it.

i do not buy the argument that we lived in some church controlled dictatorship.

Fuinseog

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Eh- we do.

The boy from Belfast, his parents were not informed of the sex abuse of their boy. Smyth proceeded to sexually abuse his sister following this. He also went on to sexually abuse four of the boys cousins at a later date. This boy, now man was interviewed and revealed this.

If Brady had informed the parents of the abuse when he was told about it he could have saved 5 other children from sex abuse. You can make irrelevant points about phoneboxes or juristictions but this abuse continued because Brady did not have the moral courage to help a defenseless child who had reached out to him.

the shocking thing is that the irish secular authorities protected smyth. he was supposed to be extradited to face trial, but the authorities here were most reluctant. whoever was responsible should be grilled.
yes, the church is guilty of sex abuse, but secular ireland colluded in this and its time that someone whether it be the dept of justice or Gardai is brought to account.
scapegoating the catholic church alone here only serves the atheist agenda and tries to ease our own sense of guilt.

plasmaguy

For Brady to have done anything in this instance, he would have had to be a whistleblower, ie bring it to the attention of gardai and the general public.

We all know how whistleblowers are treated in institutions such as the church, banks, politics, etc. They are shunned and either demoted or sent to a backwater.

It looks like Brady made a choice between being a whistleblower and his career, and his career won the decision.

Fuinseog

plasmaguy wrote: »

For Brady to have done anything in this instance, he would have had to be a whistleblower, ie bring it to the attention of gardai and the general public.

We all know how whistleblowers are treated in institutions such as the church, banks, politics, etc. They are shunned and either demoted or sent to a backwater.

It looks like Brady made a choice between being a whistleblower and his career, and his career won the decision.

he was a junior at the time and is now being criticised, but what would his critics have done in a similar situation?
he was a teacher and should have done something. There were lay teachers in schools where the priests were known to be a little 'funny', but did nothing because they wanted to keep their jobs. should Brady have done what was right or looked after number one?
i believe he did what the rest of us would have done. the problem is that he now occupies a position of moral authority and can no more lecture us than micheal clery or eamonn casey.

Fuinseog

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.

.[/QUOTE]

no indeed, catholics did not cooperate with the NI authorities. he could have course gone to the catholic police/IRA and they could have dealt with it. oh wait gerry adams brother sexually abused his own daughter (the only known case of secular sexual abuse in Ireland).

Seth Brundle

Fuinseog wrote: »

he was a junior at the time and is now being criticised, but what would his critics have done in a similar situation?

Nonsense. He was not a junior. Of the three men in collars sent to interrogate and silence Brendan Boland, he was the most qualified in canon law.
Furthermore, there are still many unanswered questions about his involvement: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0503/1224315510225.html

Were it me, I would not have ensured that parent could not come in for the interrogation. I know the difference between wrong and right, I learnt it when I was quite young. For some reason, many members of the clergy seem to have lost that ability!

Fuinseog wrote: »

i believe he did what the rest of us would have done.

More nonsense!
Most of the rest of us would have, at the very least, made sure that the parents were informed, if not the authorities. We would not have allowed (what was then an alleged) victim to undergo the type of questions that these boys were subjected to.

There were means to deal with abusers. As an example, Fergus Finlay has revealed his own abuse in 1961 at the hands of a member of a religious order. His father ensured that it was never repeated to either Finlay or other children.