The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

ISAW · 05-05-2012 2:44pm

LostinKildare wrote: »

ISAW, there have been many, many articles in the press that have explained the facts of the case.

i dont go by media spin; i prefer primary documents.

Perhaps you have been too busy desperately constructing apologia for Brady to take time to familiarise yourself with the facts?

Perhaps yu can produce what you claim are "the facts" instead of alleging you have them and i dont?

On a minor point, why do you say that the boy Brady interviewed in Cavan was from Belfast and only attending school in Cavan?

He lives in Belfast and did at the time. i am going by the BBC documentary shown the other night. If I am mlistaked i stand corrected. It is my belief that the 15 year old boy was in Belfast; It wouldnt make sense to me if they were both from the same parish why Brady would interview one boy and the parents be asked to come and in another they not be told.

I haven't seen anything to indicate that, and I wonder if you've just made that up to fit your argument that it was somehow not possible for a priest in the South to talk to parents in Belfast.

i dint say it was impossible. I suggested that the geographic and legally juristictional difference might explain the difference.

But the larger picture: Brady never informed ANY of the parents of the 5 abused children identified by Brendan Boland, North or South.

Yes nor did the Gardai ; to which you might say but smyth knew about five of these cases.
smyth was involved in over a hundred cases.
Brady dint know about them.
He knew about six.
four he didnt confirm
Of the other two and he was personally ther when the victim told about it.
In one of these cases the parents were informed and present and in another the parents were not informed by Brady.

Yes mistakes abpout telling parents were made but not by Brady
He was not in charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Smyth_%28priest%29

. In some cases, the order did not inform the diocesan bishop that Smyth had a history of sexual abuse and should be kept away from children.

it continues

Reviewers of the case differ as to whether there was a deliberate plot to conceal Smyth's behaviour, incompetence by his superiors at Kilnacrott Abbey, or some combination of factors.

When Brendan Boland initially confided about the abuse to his priest Oliver McShane, McShane immediately brought him to tell his father and informed the church authorities. DO NOT CREDIT BRADY for telling anyone's parents -- he didn't.

i cant say he would have done something that someone else already did but I assume he met and spoke to Bolands parents when Boland was interviewed as they were there.

Interestingly, McShane was one of the two priests who accompanied Brady in interviewing Boland:

that doesnt seem strange. I assume he was his local priest.

So presumably, McShane also would have heard the information about the other 5 children.

Assuming Boland mentioned the five names and not the 15 year old that Brady interviewed i would agree with you on that.

Why, when he had informed Boland's parents of the abuse, did he not also inform the other children's parents?

Again I dont know; i assumed
1. He was not the local proiest of the other children who lived elsewhere e;g; Belfast.
2. Brady Mc shane and any other church people were told by their superiors that the matter was being dealt with just as a garda might be told that the RUC were dealing with the Belfast case.

Hmm. Could it have something to do with the influence of Brady, who had been dispatched by his bishop, Francis McKiernan (who was already well aware of Smyth's crimes but had not put a stop to them)?

It could but I doubt it. Mc shane has never to my knowledge stated Brady was his superior in this matter or that Brady the Bishop or anyone else told him to conceal the matter from the five other boys parents has he?

Interesting that those priests who apparently stepped outside the rules -- McShane, who at least informed Boland's father, and Mulvihill, who again and again pestered church officials about Smyth
(http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0504/1224315592493.html)
wound up leaving the priesthood and indeed leaving Ireland, while Brady -- who kept shtum -- rose through the ranks.

As did other people rose through the ranks who didnt lknow about it and didnt mention it because they dint even hear abuot it. You are alledging a conspiracy theory of a reward system in the church for promoting people who cover up child abuse. It is a ludicrous suggestion with no evidence. but maybe the CIA shot JFK and maybe space lizards control the Vatican too?

Delirium · 05-05-2012 3:28pm

ISAW wrote: »

the same might happen in a garda investigation. a garda might take notes in one case interview in another and not contact the other four mentioned.

On what planet? Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?

There'd be public uproar if it was uncovered that gardai knew about children being abused and didn't investigate the claims.

philiporeilly · 05-05-2012 3:56pm

ISAW wrote: »

Happens every day it is called "in camera"
It is pârticularly done for minors in family courts
No press and no public and no legal people not connected with the case.
Happens every day.

Yes it happens every day across the courts of the land but what legal authority have the RCC to bound victims to secrecy. Surely if the RCC had the interests of the children at heart they would not be getting them to sign contracts.

More so, the proof that the RCC had no consideration for the well being of these children, came from the complete inaction and coverup that followed the signing of these contracts which facilitated decades of further abuse to happen.

how abut Eamon gilmore knowing about OIRA people? Or Gerry adams knowing PIRA?

Gilmore and Adams have to face the people for election and are representing the people through democratic means, whether we agree with them or not. At least I know I have a say in whether they have a role in shaping this country in the future. The church are a law on to themselves and look after what's in the best interests of the organization's hierarchy, not the people.

LostinKildare · 05-05-2012 4:19pm

ISAW wrote: »

i dont go by media spin; i prefer primary documents.

Perhaps yu can produce what you claim are "the facts" instead of alleging you have them and i dont?

He lives in Belfast and did at the time. i am going by the BBC documentary shown the other night. If I am mlistaked i stand corrected. It is my belief that the 15 year old boy was in Belfast; It wouldnt make sense to me if they were both from the same parish why Brady would interview one boy and the parents be asked to come and in another they not be told.

I also watched the BBC documentary, and I think you are mistaken in your belief that the boy interviewed in Ballyjamesduff, Cavan was actually from Belfast. I think you've come to that idea yourself to try to fill in the blank as to why Brady interviewed him without his parents' knowledge and indeed without informing his parents of what had happened between the boy and Smyth (i.e., you conclude that they were up in Belfast, and therefore, to your mind, too hard to contact).

If you can point out some source for your belief that he was from Belfast -- that his parents weren't on the scene -- please do. (I'm surprised that you rely on your memory of the BBC documentary, since you "don't go by media spin," but I will accept non-primary sources

)

You say, "It wouldnt make sense to me if they were both from the same parish why Brady would interview one boy and the parents be asked to come and in another they not be told."

Boland's father knew only because a different priest had told him -- the parent was already involved before Brady arrived on the scene. In contrast, when Brady went on his own to interview the boy in Ballyjamesduff, he did not involve the parents. One priest acts one way, the other priest acts another. How is that hard to understand?

And why do you say that Boland's parents were "asked to come in"? Do you have a primary or secondary document to back that up? How do you know Boland's father (no mention of his mother) didn't insist on it? Considering that Boland's father was not permitted to sit in on the interview (perhaps he agreed to this because McShane was present, and he trusted him?), and especially considering Brady's later behavior in excluding all the other parents from all knowledge of the situation, it seems unlikely that he would have wanted Boland's parents to know anything about it. Unfortunately, that was already out of his hands.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes mistakes abpout telling parents were made but not by Brady
He was not in charge.

Okay ISAW, keep up that line.

Brady had specific evidence of ongoing revolting crimes against innocents, and his failure to act effectively -- even merely tipping off parents that a monster was attacking their children -- meant that many other children suffered. Brady himself said that if there were evidence that his failure to act had meant that other children were abused by Smyth, he would resign. There IS evidence, but now the story is, "ah sure, it wasn't my responsibility."

Jesus would be so proud.

Anyway, I'm out. I only posted because I wanted you to stop spouting the untruth that Brady had alerted all the parents except those in the North. I hope you will stop making things up and trying to pass them off as truth.

gimmebroadband · 05-05-2012 4:26pm

Wasn't the boy's father waiting outside, while he was being questioned? If so, surely he would want to know why his son was being quizzed?

Brendan, now 51, told the programme he was led alone into a room to be questioned while his father had to wait outside.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138373/Cardinal-Se-n-Brady-Child-abuse-victim-tells-church-investigation-swore-silence.html

philiporeilly · 05-05-2012 4:39pm

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Wasn't the boy's father waiting outside, while he was being questioned? If so, surely he would want to know why his son was being quizzed?
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138373/Cardinal-Se-n-Brady-Child-abuse-victim-tells-church-investigation-swore-silence.html

Good point but who knows what the parents were told at the time. One fact though in the statement you quotated is that the son's father had to remain outside. This was/is extremely wrong.

ISAW · 05-05-2012 6:03pm

ironingbored wrote: »

Just for the record. You do know that the IRA (an illegal terrorist/separatist guerilla army) is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes nor is the IRA the government i.e. The Tainiste Mr gimmore.

You seem to think that we should measure our judgement/opinions on the basis that they are equals.

you have it the wrong way around.

I am saying the principle being advanced by OTHERS is that those in responsibility
e.g. the government or their ministers or the church and their bishops should be responsible for ingforming on criminals they knew e.g. pedophiles or terrorists.

do you understand that now?

ISAW · 05-05-2012 6:06pm

koth wrote: »

On what planet? Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?

There'd be public uproar if it was uncovered that gardai knew about children being abused and didn't investigate the claims.

a single garda didnt investigate all the allegations of smyth. some were investigated by other gardai and some were not investigated at all.

A murderer was up for parole last year. He is the longest serving person in an irish prison as far as i know. He killed a nurse in the phoenix park; apparently he also killed another man in Naas but was never tried for the second murder;
Not just on this planet but in this country.

Delirium · 05-05-2012 6:33pm

ISAW wrote: »

a single garda didnt investigate all the allegations of smyth. some were investigated by other gardai and some were not investigated at all.

I never said it had to be a single garda to investigate all claims of a crime. I was saying that there would public outcry if it came to light that the Gardai didn't investigate all claims of child abuse.

A murderer was up for parole last year. He is the longest serving person in an irish prison as far as i know. He killed a nurse in the phoenix park; apparently he also killed another man in Naas but was never tried for the second murder;
Not just on this planet but in this country.

That has nothing to do with what my post said. The murderer entered a guilty plea for the murder of the nurse and the prosecutor chose not to prosecute him for the other murder. To make that decision, the other murder would have had to been investigated;)

ISAW · 05-05-2012 10:36pm

philiporeilly wrote: »

Yes it happens every day across the courts of the land but what legal authority have the RCC to bound victims to secrecy. Surely if the RCC had the interests of the children at heart they would not be getting them to sign contracts.

The RCC have NO criminal legal jurisdiction whatsoever. they dont claim to. They follow local law. Canon law just can remove a priest from office. it cant do anything like putting him in prison or executing him.

More so, the proof that the RCC had no consideration for the well being of these children, came from the complete inaction and coverup that followed the signing of these contracts which facilitated decades of further abuse to happen.

first of all there was not decades of further abuse. This was in 1975. Smyth was arrested in 1991.

Gilmore and Adams have to face the people for election and are representing the people through democratic means, whether we agree with them or not. At least I know I have a say in whether they have a role in shaping this country in the future.

You dont have any such role if you are not in their constituency.
And the question of cardinals not being elected by the people is a silly point really.
The commissioner of the gardai , army generals , Secretaries of government departments, Heads of Semi state bodies, the governor f the central bank etc. are not elected ; in fact they are appointed by the people who dont accoujnt for their pals from 1975 arent they?

ISAW · 05-05-2012 10:40pm

koth wrote: »

I never said it had to be a single garda to investigate all claims of a crime. I was saying that there would public outcry if it came to light that the Gardai didn't investigate all claims of child abuse.

Using the same criterion a single priest -Brady - doesn t have to investigate all claims of a Priest breaking the rules.

That has nothing to do with what my post said. The murderer entered a guilty plea for the murder of the nurse and the prosecutor chose not to prosecute him for the other murder. To make that decision, the other murder would have had to been investigated;)

the family of the dead man were not informed anything abut any investigation were they?
There is no knowledge of anyone investigating it.

You asked "Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?"

I gave you a case where the garda didn't investigate all accusations of murder.

Raiser · 05-05-2012 10:44pm

I was just wondering - whats the likelyhood of Brady facing criminal prosecution and a possible prison sentence if found to be guilty of in effect contributing towards the enviornment where Smyth was effectively allowed to prey on poor kids?

- Obviously if found to be guilty then he would be going to hell and all, but it would be nice if he was actually punished by a real and factual process first...... I'm also not fully comfortable leaving this one to God and Jesus as I have found their interest in this topic to be minimal at best, certainly their emergency response and humanitarian support has been lacklustre to say the least - They may redeem themselves in time though, perhaps by contributing to compensation funds for victims or similar.

I think its fantastic that people can just carry on as if none of this ever happened - shows the strength of the christian mind as you keep on worshipping and believing day after privileged, cosy, blinkered day.

Delirium · 05-05-2012 10:50pm

ISAW wrote: »

Using the same criterion a single priest -Brady - doesn t have to investigate all claims of a Priest breaking the rules.

I never said Brady had to investigate all claims. And this just shows the failing of the RCC as it did to ensure the safety of the other children that were noted by Brady. At a minimum, they should have informed the parents of the children and passed the information onto the authorities.

the family of the dead man were not informed anything abut any investigation were they?
There is no knowledge of anyone investigating it.

You asked "Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?"

I gave you a case where the garda didn't investigate all accusations of murder.

Afraid not, unless you've information that I've missed. The prosecution had investigated the other murder and decided not to prosecute. The family would have been informed at that stage as they would have had to identify the body.

F12 · 05-05-2012 11:12pm

Raiser wrote: »

I was just wondering - whats the likelyhood of Brady facing criminal prosecution and a possible prison sentence if found to be guilty of in effect contributing towards the enviornment where Smyth was effectively allowed to prey on poor kids?

- Obviously if found to be guilty then he would be going to hell and all, but it would be nice if he was actually punished by a real and factual process first...... I'm also not fully comfortable leaving this one to God and Jesus as I have found their interest in this topic to be minimal at best, certainly their emergency response and humanitarian support has been lacklustre to say the least - They may redeem themselves in time though, perhaps by contributing to compensation funds for victims or similar.

I think its fantastic that people can just carry on as if none of this ever happened - shows the strength of the christian mind as you keep on worshipping and believing day after privileged, cosy, blinkered day.

True, but that's 'faith' for you, as it can even remove the mountains of reality from before your very eyes as though they never existed. Ever wonder why it is so popular? Hear no evil, see no evil, don't believe evil exists...and poof!, away it goes...;)

ISAW · 05-05-2012 11:16pm

LostinKildare wrote: »

would you please link to a source that confirms that Brady informed the parents of the abused children in the South who were identified to him by Brendan Boland?

Because everything I have read indicates that Brady did NOT inform those parents. Again, from today's IRISH TIMES:

It appears it was another priest informed Bolands parents and later when the local bishop was contacted he appointed Brady to go with that other priest and the Boland parents to an interview.

ironingbored wrote: »

[1975 - Phone Call]

Aaarrrgggghhhh....the point is he SHOULD have told them. :mad:

No the poiont is somebody should have; Not necessarily Brady.

ironingbored wrote: »

I refer you to the top of the page:

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

And i refer you to the one of original merged threads which was on calling for brady to resign

you can find it in the first 550 posts to this thread.

ISAW · 05-05-2012 11:19pm

Raiser wrote: »

I was just wondering - whats the likelyhood of Brady facing criminal prosecution and a possible prison sentence if found to be guilty of in effect contributing towards the enviornment where Smyth was effectively allowed to prey on poor kids?
...

Well you might start by suggesting an actual law he broke???

I think its fantastic that people can just carry on as if none of this ever happened - shows the strength of the christian mind as you keep on worshipping and believing day after privileged, cosy, blinkered day.

I think it is fantastic you seem to think Christians deny abuse ever happened whether by clergy or not.

You are aware more than 99% of abusers are not priests? who is wearing blinkers?

F12 · 05-05-2012 11:36pm

ISAW wrote: »

You are aware more than 99% of abusers are not priests? who is wearing blinkers?

Maybe you can provide an more relevant statistic - what percentage of the cases where the abusers were priests, did the Church authorities report to the Gardai? Or maybe there was no 'law' to compel them to do so?

ISAW · 05-05-2012 11:37pm

koth wrote: »

I never said Brady had to investigate all claims. And this just shows the failing of the RCC as it did to ensure the safety of the other children that were noted by Brady.

So you are not alleging Brady shoul resign for not investigating all claims on smyth or on not informing all the parents of the cases which he was eventually made aware some of which the parents had already been told about?

so n what basis are you calling for Brady to resign?

At a minimum, they should have informed the parents of the children and passed the information onto the authorities.

He could not inform parents wh were already informed.
He could not inform parents about things he had not confirmed.
He passed his investigation on to the authorities -the church aithorities.
He could not take any case or appear in any case the Gardai took since he had no locus standi.
The gardai would not take a case because the parents didnt wish it. We know that because the parents didnt take a case.

Afraid not, unless you've information that I've missed. The prosecution had investigated the other murder and decided not to prosecute. The family would have been informed at that stage as they would have had to identify the body.

the body was identified long before any murder investigation into their son or the nurse. The family for years asked the DPP why the case of Murder was not prosecuted. They were never informed as to why.

ISAW · 05-05-2012 11:43pm

F12 wrote: »

Maybe you can provide an more relevant statistic - what percentage of the cases where the abusers were priests, did the Church authorities report to the Gardai? Or maybe there was no 'law' to compel them to do so?

i have gone over the stats several times.

More recently there are I guess about 200 pedophile related guilty verdicts annually. Of the 2000 or so over the last decade non are priests. I can supply the stats and have done so in this thread.

There was not a law of raping of a male in 1975.
One can not report rape if no such law exists.

There has been in canon law and christian culture since the very early chruch a policy of opposing pedophilia. I have also posted evidence of that. Ther has been since the 1980 clear law on reporting and a decade ago ,-years befre One in four had it- it was made abundantly clear that the RCC was to have mandatory reporting and that they follow local civil law. ll have been referenced in this thread.

Delirium · 05-05-2012 11:46pm

ISAW wrote: »

So you are not alleging Brady shoul resign for not investigating all claims on smyth or on not informing all the parents of the cases which he was eventually made aware some of which the parents had already been told about?

so n what basis are you calling for Brady to resign?

For doing nothing to ensure the safety of the children. He could have contacted the parents, reported the information to the authorities or pressed his superiors to carry out those actions.

He could not inform parents wh were already informed.

Obviously.

He could not inform parents about things he had not confirmed.

Hard to confirm anything if he doesn't talk to the parents or child.

He passed his investigation on to the authorities -the church aithorities.

The church authorities have no authority in civil/criminal law.

He could not take any case or appear in any case the Gardai took since he had no locus standi.

Child abuse is a good reason to go to the police. It's up to the police to decide if there are any grounds for prosecution.

The gardai would not take a case because the parents didnt wish it. We know that because the parents didnt take a case.

But the parents weren't informed of the abuse, so it's impossible for them to report the abuse to the police.

the body was identified long before any murder investigation into their son or the nurse. The family for years asked the DPP why the case of Murder was not prosecuted. They were never informed as to why.

All of which still proves that the case was investigated, which was my original point.

true · 05-05-2012 11:49pm

ISAW wrote: »

Well you might start by suggesting an actual law he broke???

Most laws which are broken are considerably less serious than the child abuse carried out and covered up by the RCC. Taking a little boy in to a room with 3 men priests, and forcing that child to swear on the bible not to tell anyone - not even his own parents - about the child abuse by priest(s). And Bradys action / lack of action allowing 5 further children to be abused.
Leave him head of the Irish RCC, its very fitting that such a person with that track record is at the head of that despicable organisation. I know people who have gone to the grave because they were afraid to report on the Priests - it was not the done thing in them days.

Raiser · 05-05-2012 11:52pm

ISAW wrote: »

i have gone over the stats several times.

I'll give you a patent fact Saint Spin - The accusations will grow fuller, the baskets will grow ever emptier, the tainted churches will continue to be converted into galleries and office spaces, until soon your friends profiteering, horrible, evil empire is just an embarrassing memory to the decent and just amongst us.

- You should choose your moral compass a little more wisely next time.

Seth Brundle · 06-05-2012 12:17am

ISAW wrote: »

philiporeilly wrote: »

How about getting young children to sign oaths never to reveal what happened to them?

They werent! They were sworn not to discuss THE CHURCH PROCESS
They were open to report it to the Gardai.
Discussing the process could affect the outcome by the perpetrator claiming an unfair trial.
the reason for this has been discussed in this thread -it was to protect the victims from the process cllapsing.
Happens every day it is called "in camera"
It is pârticularly done for minors in family courts
No press and no public and no legal people not connected with the case.
Happens every day.

1. Did a 14 year old who wasnt allowed have their parents present understand the "church process" and subsequent sworn secret?
2. Did they know that they could report it to the gardai without breaking the sworn church secret?
3. The perpretrator claiming an unfair trial? Trial by whom?
4. In terms of it happening every day, this is via a proper legal process with consultation of parents or guardians and solicitors. It does not happen every day. How dare you compare the two.

As for the misuse of my comment.of the phone, I did refer to it being unlikely but was a possibility. You use the lack of phones as a reason for Brady and his ilk to avoid ensuring the children were protected. Again how dare you.

true · 06-05-2012 12:35pm

ISAW wrote: »

People didn't have phones in 1975.

There was a phone book full of landlines around in 1975, as there is now. Yet Isaw says there were no phones then. How dare he. What a pathetic excuse for intimidating and exploiting little boys, and forcing them to swear on the bible and not tell anyone about the abuse, not even their parents....and what a pathetic excuse for not warning parents of other boys / children from molestation. It takes a particular type of person to constantly minimimise and defend the actions of the molesters in the RCC, and those who shielded them.

The fact is that Brady was aiding a Paedophile by failing to tell parents of those being abused of what had occurred, and intimidating boys to swear on the bible not to tell anyone about the abuse except certain priests. The general cover up of the abuse was widespread in the church at the time. This was a disturbingly immoral choice by a man and an organisation who were supposed to be an authority on morality. it endangered children as a result of their failures.....and lives were lost / destroyed. Too many secrets with priests. I know people who went to the grave as a result of the abuse of the RCC, and who only hinted to their nearest and dearest about the abuse.

F12 · 06-05-2012 12:57pm

ISAW wrote: »

i have gone over the stats several times.

OK, so let me ask yet again, can you provide stats for the number of RCC clergy who reported the rape of children to the Gardai? Do you know of such information or where such information might be kept by your friends in the RCC? Or do you know of any cases where this happened?

Did Jesus use statistics when he said "Temptations, stumbling blocks, enticements are surely to come, but whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a giant millstone would be tied around their neck and they would be thrown into the heart of the sea.”
But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee, for thou art all sodomites, and perverts, and buggerers of children.

No mention of sematic trickery and reliance on skillfull avoidance there - eh? If you and your frock wearing buddies really believed in this, no amount of excuse would prevent you reporting even the slightest hint of a child being put in harm's way, would it? Are these not the perverted men your bible explicitly tells you to kill? Or is your faith in that book not real?

ISAW · 06-05-2012 1:00pm

koth wrote: »

For doing nothing to ensure the safety of the children. He could have contacted the parents, reported the information to the authorities or pressed his superiors to carry out those actions.

But he was not in charge! the local bishop was in charge. it isnt for a garda to contact all the victims of an abuser; He investigates the one reported to him on instruction froml the local inspector or superintendant and he files the report and he leaves his superiors get on with it.

If brady was the local bishop at that tile then you have a point.

People are saying Brady may have suspected wrongdoing and should have told about it. But if so should Gilmore or Adams anot have told about wrongdoing too? and if you are calling on Brady to resign on the basis of what he might have done then why dont you apply the same principle to Adams or Gilmore?

Obviously.
[/quote)

so if it is obvious why are you saying he should inform people who were already informed when Brady got to hear about them?

Hard to confirm anything if he doesn't talk to the parents or child.

Yes and the gardai who eventyually handled the case and the DPP might have not confirmed over a hundred other cases but taken say thirty counts against Smyth. and individual gardai might onluy have take the statement of one or two victims and not have anything to do with other victims.

The church authorities have no authority in civil/criminal law.

They have but they do not have a role in the processing or judgement in criminal law.
they can make mlegally binding decisions under contract law maybe but that is a different matter.
What we are discussing here is in Ireland in criminal cases. the church do not decide on legal criminal guilt or punishment.

Child abuse is a good reason to go to the police. It's up to the police to decide if there are any grounds for prosecution.

the church had no locus standing the victims were minors. so it would be for the parents to go to the police. the church has as you say above no standing or authority in taking deciding on or processing criminal child abuse cases.

and it is up to the DPP not the police;

But the parents weren't informed of the abuse, so it's impossible for them to report the abuse to the police.

Parents were not informed by Brady; Parents were informed by other people. Some parenbts were not informed at all . but in those latter cases they were not informed by the person in charge who is the o,ne in charge. To attribute to Brady the informing about all victims of smyth is ludicrous; He only knew about two cases for a fact. Hr was aware of suspicion of four more but that was hearsay. The only reason peoplke are bringing this up ois because today Brady is a cardinal. But they dont apply the same principle to the President of Sinn féin or to the Taniste Gilmore.

All of which still proves that the case was investigated, which was my original point.

Which is not your later point! a different point. "The prosecution had investigated the other murder and decided not to prosecute. The family would have been informed at that stage as they would have had to identify the body"

the family was not informed at that stage. any investigation if it took place on the murder in Naas happened AFTER identification. Mac Arthur think is the case and it is part of the grotesque, unbelievable, bizarre and unprecedented. GUBU events.

he was not tried for Dunne's murder as the state entered a plea of nolle prosequi AFTER the body was identified.

It is not a case of "could you identify this body as your son. thank you now you have identified Im informing you by the way he was murdered and we are not prosecuting"

Im pointing that out because you asked "Why would the gardai not investigate all accusations of child abuse?" it could be they did investigate all smyth cases or they didnt but in either case they dint do anything about the vast majority of them.
He was sentenced for abusing 20 children. It is believed he had over a hundred victims.

ISAW · 06-05-2012 1:09pm

F12 wrote: »

OK, so let me ask yet again, can you provide stats for the number of RCC clergy who reported the rape of children to the Gardai? Do you know of such information or where such information might be kept by your friends in the RCC? Or do you know of any cases where this happened?

i have never looked into those stats so i cant. i can say that even at its highest level less than one percent of abusers were priests. I can also say no priests have been convicted in the last ten years but there are thousands of non priests convicted.

Did Jesus use statistics when he said "Temptations, stumbling blocks, enticements are surely to come, but whoever causes one of these little ones to sin, it would be better that a giant millstone would be tied around their neck and they would be thrown into the heart of the sea.”

He did use statistical comparisons elsewhere and he did compare self righteous people who look fr the wooden splinter in others and cant see the huge wodden rafter of their own.

But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee, for thou art all sodomites, and perverts, and buggerers of children.

while stistics for most of that clerical sexual abuse suggest it is of older teenage children and homosexual in nature the Biblical refernce to Soddom isnt necessarily to one of Homosexuals.

No mention of sematic trickery and reliance on skillfull avoidance there - eh? If you and your frock wearing buddies really believed in this, no amount of excuse would prevent you reporting even the slightest hint of a child being put in harm's way, would it?

What do you meran by "you and your frock wearing buddies"?

My personal religious beliefs or lack of them have nothing to do with hte issue. Please dont resort to ad hominem.

Are these not the perverted men your bible explicitly tells you to kill? Or is your faith in that book not real?

Again who said it is MY bible? The strongest critique of atheism I have come across on the net is froml fasgnadh an agnostic. Stp attacking the person when you are losing the argument.

ISAW · 06-05-2012 1:25pm

kbannon wrote: »

1. Did a 14 year old who wasnt allowed have their parents present understand the "church process" and subsequent sworn secret?

The question supposes the parents were not allowed. They could not be prevented and were asked to wait in the next room and opted to do so.

2. Did they know that they could report it to the gardai without breaking the sworn church secret?

Again the question presupposes...
If the parents were not in the room they didnt make any such signed oath. How could they make an oath not to reveal something you already claim they didnt witness?
the secrecy was not about the abuse rember but about the process.

i dont know if this is relevant but
Section 11 of Crimen sollicitationis outlines the required confidentiality of the investigation into accusations of the crime of solicitation
Normally it would have ceased to have effect with the entry into force of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which replaced the 1917 Code on which the 1962 document was based, but it continued in use, until 2001, with some necessary adaptations, while a review of it was carried out

An oath of secrecy was to be taken by all members of the tribunal; violation incurred a penalty of automatic excommunication. The ecclesiastical penalty for violation of secrecy by the accused priest was automatic suspension a divinis, although he was free to discuss with his defence counsel (Section 13).

Unless violation of secrecy occurred after an explicit procedural warning given in the course of their examination (Section 13; and cf. Section 23 concerning the person denouncing solicitation: "… before the person is dismissed, there should be presented to the person, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening the person, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See"), no ecclesiastical penalties were to be imposed on the accuser(s) and witnesses.

John L. Allen, Jr. has said the secrecy was aimed rather at the protection of all involved, the accused, the victim/denouncer and the witnesses, before the verdict was passed, and for free finding of facts.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimen_sollicitationis#cite_note-17

3. The perpretrator claiming an unfair trial? Trial by whom?

There is no basis to assume that the Holy See envisioned this process to be a substitute for any secular legal process, criminal or civil. It is also incorrect to assume, as some have unfortunately done, that these two Vatican documents are proof of a conspiracy to hide sexually abusive priests or to prevent the disclosure of sexual crimes committed by clerics to secular authorities."[16] He also remarked: "To fully understand the overriding concern for secrecy one must also understand the traditional canonical concept known as the 'Privilege of the Forum' privilegium fori which has its roots in medieval Canon Law. Basically this is a traditional privilege claimed by the institutional church whereby clerics accused of crimes were tried before ecclesiastical courts and not brought before civil or secular courts. Although this privilege is anachronistic in contemporary society, the attitude or mentality which holds clerics accountable only to the institutional church authorities is still active. This does not mean that the official Church believes that clerics accused of crimes should not to be held accountable. It means that during certain periods in history the Church has believed that it alone should have the right to subject accused clerics to a judicial process."[17]
http://www.richardsipe.com/Docs_and_Controversy/2010-03-04-solicitation.html

4. In terms of it happening every day, this is via a proper legal process with consultation of parents or guardians and solicitors. It does not happen every day. How dare you compare the two.

You are suggesting an ecclesiastical court is not a proper court. It is ; Like a Military tribunal or a Dail tribunal it isnt a criminal court.

As for the misuse of my comment.of the phone, I did refer to it being unlikely but was a possibility. You use the lack of phones as a reason for Brady and his ilk to avoid ensuring the children were protected. Again how dare you.

you asked why someon,e might not use the phone and you were given what i consider logically valid reasons. Whether or not you like them is not reason to attack me personally.

F12 · 06-05-2012 1:28pm

ISAW wrote: »

i have never looked into those stats so i cant. i can say that even at its highest level less than one percent of abusers were priests. I can also say no priests have been convicted in the last ten years but there are thousands of non priests convicted.

He did use statistical comparisons elsewhere and he did compare self righteous people who look fr the wooden splinter in others and cant see the huge wodden rafter of their own.

while stistics for most of that clerical sexual abuse suggest it is of older teenage children and homosexual in nature the Biblical refernce to Soddom isnt necessarily to one of Homosexuals.

What do you meran by "you and your frock wearing buddies"?

My personal religious beliefs or lack of them have nothing to do with hte issue. Please dont resort to ad hominem.

Again who said it is MY bible? The strongest critique of atheism I have come across on the net is froml fasgnadh an agnostic. Stp attacking the person when you are losing the argument.

If you have religious beliefs then they do influence your prejudices, and if you don't then you can still be prejudiced but against inquiring non-god ideas and opinions. 'Agnostics' can't make up their minds as to what is or is not, but they can be just as biased as anyone in their personal opinions, so it's not ad-hominem if you create statitical escapery for a priesthood who has been caught in flagrente delicto abandonment of the very core creods of right thinking they so loudly trumpet at every occasion. There's no need to feel that you are being attacked, but the very fact that you feel that you are, would appear to be symptomatic of an obvious need for self reassurance and comfort for your beliefs. Just keep calm, and don't get excited.

Mr.Wemmick · 06-05-2012 1:52pm

@ISAW

If a single Gardai had at the time been involved in the decision making to hush up the child abuse and keep it secret, and had passed the final decision making up to his superiors, to in later years become one of the top heads of the Gardai Siochana and the very same written proof came out regarding his involvement, he would be long gone by now.

Whether Brady is fully responsible or not, it doesn't matter - he was there as an investigator and versed in canon law, not just a note taker, as he lightly put it. He now presides over a Church that failed to protect children, he needs to move on and allow to Church to set things right. The fact that he is not prepared to resign is shameful and is an insult to all the Catholic children who suffered who continue to suffer as adults.. but he cares very little for them: then and now.

I don't think it is only Brady who should resign; there are plenty more. He should, however, go now.

I hope that we will soon have a whistle blower leaving the RCC with clear indisputable proof from within the church of the systematic failure to protect the many other children in Ireland.. and all the lies will be laid bare.

It's only a matter of time..

The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

Comments