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
1…107108110112113…131

Comments

  • Options
    #3272
    Keylem
    Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Keylem


    Looks like Cardinal Brady will be replaced before the end of the year.
    The Vatican is expected to replace Ireland’s leading church figure. Cardinal Sean Brady, and will appoint a coadjutor or deputy bishop by the end of this year who will eventually be his replacement.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Vatican-likely-to-replace-Irish-Cardinal-Brady-with-new-deputy-bishop-150279125.html


  • Options
    #3273
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Keylem wrote: »
    Looks like Cardinal Brady will be replaced before the end of the year.



    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Vatican-likely-to-replace-Irish-Cardinal-Brady-with-new-deputy-bishop-150279125.html[/QUOTE]

    As far as I am aware that would have happened anyway as it is standard practice for a man of his age and has nothing to do with the current crisis.


  • Options
    #3274
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    gimme5minutes wrote: »
    I dont know why you're bothering to defend Brady.

    Im not ! im suggesting the media should be FAIR AND BALANCED!

    ther is a clear anti catholic agenda going on here. you only have to read the posts to see it. The same people that wantr to attack Catholicism don't criticise atheists
    He has come out himself and and said what he did was wrong and apologised for it, and that he should've reported the abuse back then. And no-one else from the church is saying that what he did was alright. You are the ONLY person who sees nothing wrong with Brady did, he himself says he was wrong.

    WHERE? what i said was he has questions to answer but they are not so serious as the questions they hypocrites who accuse him have to answer. Nor are they a matter for immediate resignation.
    what an absolute scumbag this man is, he is not fit to lead anything, he must have no empathy at all.

    And we can easily also see your bias.
    The fact of the matter is that the church have always covered up child abuse and moved priests on to other parishes where they abuse again, that was their standard procedure,

    And there is your bais again.

    How is it a FACT?
    where do you have evidence that in the vast majority of clerics who abused the Vatican or the local bishop covered it up and moved the cleric on?
    He should be up in court for facilitating paedophile priests. He should be done for aiding and abetting a crime or perverting the course of justice because that is what this scumbag is guilty of.

    Again if that is true then why iosnt he in court?
    You are making up crimes which he didnt coimmit because if he did he woumld be tried for them.
    I just hope his massive ego wins out and he stays on in his position as head of the church in ireland as if any good can come out of all this its that Brady will serve as a perfect reminder of what a disgrace of an organisation the RCC is.

    And again you r clearly anti catholic bias is apparent.


  • Options
    #3275
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    Keylem wrote: »
    Looks like Cardinal Brady will be replaced before the end of the year.



    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Vatican-likely-to-replace-Irish-Cardinal-Brady-with-new-deputy-bishop-150279125.html[/QUOTE]

    As far as I am aware that would have happened anyway as it is standard practice for a man of his age and has nothing to do with the current crisis.

    I dont think he will be replaced this year.
    I think he normally might have done another two or seven years. i dont htink he will od the seven and most probably not two.


  • Options
    #3276
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    StudentDad wrote: »
    It really is disturbing to see the idea mooted that it's okay for ordinary citizens of the State (namely clerics) to decide the severity of a criminal act. That is not their job.

    where do you claim i stated it was their job?
    Mr. Brady was in the position where he had evidence of child abuse. Rather than pass this information onto the police he chose to conceal it. To my mind this makes him an accessory to the crimes that were committed after he became aware of the ongoing abuse.

    But if he is an accessory thgen he should be charged with that. He wasnt so he isnt! your uninformed opinion abut what crime he committed is clearly wrong!

    The parents were also aware . should they also be charged?
    Snip moire uninformed personal attack.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3277
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    marienbad wrote: »

    I dont think he will be replaced this year.
    I think he normally might have done another two or seven years. i dont htink he will od the seven and most probably not two.

    I'd say if he gets through this current crisis he will do the two years,or try to, I think he will be 75 then. And the new guy usually gets that grace period of 2 years to learn the ropes .


  • Options
    #3278
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Mr. Brady was in the position where he had evidence of child abuse. Rather than pass this information onto the police he chose to conceal it. To my mind this makes him an accessory to the crimes that were committed after he became aware of the ongoing abuse.

    +1. Any man who is involved in being part of an all male team of Priests who take a boy in to a room, ask disgusting questions to him, and tell him to swear on the bible not to tell anyone except selected Priests of the sexual abuse is, in my mind, a pervert, and it is a pervert who is head of the RCC in Ireland.
    How very appropriate. Why should he resign when it was church policy to cover up all abuse at the time?


  • Options
    #3279
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    ISAW wrote: »
    where do you claim i stated it was their job?


    But if he is an accessory thgen he should be charged with that. He wasnt so he isnt! your uninformed opinion abut what crime he committed is clearly wrong!

    The parents were also aware . should they also be charged?
    Snip moire uninformed personal attack.
    L

    Lets see here. Mr. Brady was brought in as a church investigator,
    to investigate claims of sexual abuse on minors. He obtained such information and rather than inform the police he chose to keep it 'in-house.' That, my friend, can only be construed as obstruction of justice!

    However, it is up to the police to investigate such matters and ultimately the DDP to decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Given what was broadcast by the BBC and the facts that have surfaced. Whether or not the police choose to investigate is something for them to decide. At the end of the day he chose to put the 'in-house' practices of a private organisation above the law of the land.

    Morally, the man to my mind has lost all credibility. This man continuing to act as a minister in the RCC Church just illustrates the gulf between Catholicism and Christianity.

    SD


  • Options
    #3280
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    true wrote: »
    +1. Any man who is involved in being part of an all male team of Priests who take a boy in to a room, ask disgusting questions to him, and tell him to swear on the bible not to tell anyone except selected Priests of the sexual abuse is, in my mind, a pervert, and it is a pervert who is head of the RCC in Ireland.

    But if they are art of a team of prison officers, of gardai or of doctors they are not perverts.
    It is clear you apply your vitriol only to priests. Your mask slips!
    How very appropriate. Why should he resign when it was church policy to cover up all abuse at the time?

    Except for the fact that it wasn't church policy and you are just expressing an unsupported opinion.. It was always church policy that child abuse is wrong.


  • Options
    #3281
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    StudentDad wrote: »
    L

    Lets see here. Mr. Brady was brought in as a church investigator,
    to investigate claims of sexual abuse on minors.
    Nope. In once case he investigated; Probably because of his grographic closeness to the issue i.e. the victim was in his school. In the other case he had the role of recording and didnt ask any questions. I don't know why specifically the local bishop asked him to do this. Maybe because he was in the school and because he knew the procedure in canon law and such a procedure was generally unknown and rare.
    He obtained such information and rather than inform the police he chose to keep it 'in-house.' That, my friend, can only be construed as obstruction of justice!

    Really? then why was he not charged with obstruction of justice? Maybe because the "only be construed as" exists only in your imagination?
    However, it is up to the police to investigate such matters and ultimately the DDP to decide if there is sufficient evidence to prosecute.

    Given they could not extradite Smyth since such laws would not exist fr another 12 years I dont know how such a prosecution could proceed.
    Given what was broadcast by the BBC and the facts that have surfaced. Whether or not the police choose to investigate is something for them to decide. At the end of the day he chose to put the 'in-house' practices of a private organisation above the law of the land.
    Eh no because if the broke the law as I stated he would be charged with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3282
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    true wrote: »
    +1. Any man who is involved in being part of an all male team of Priests who take a boy in to a room, ask disgusting questions to him, and tell him to swear on the bible not to tell anyone except selected Priests of the sexual abuse is, in my mind, a pervert, and it is a pervert who is head of the RCC in Ireland.

    But if they are art of a team of prison officers, of gardai or of doctors they are not perverts.
    It is clear you apply your vitriol only to priests. Your mask slips!
    how many cases by docs/ prison officers/gardai do you know of where parents of minors are not allowed in with then or in fa t aren't even told?
    How many cases did they ask those type of questions?
    ISAW wrote: »
    How very appropriate. Why should he resign when it was church policy to cover up all abuse at the time?

    Except for the fact that it wasn't church policy and you are just expressing an unsupported opinion.. It was always church policy that child abuse is wrong.
    How do you know that it wasn't policy? It certainly seems that way.
    Anyhow, given bradys satisfaction (given his vast experience in canon law) in asking those questions, why would he ask something not part of church policy? Where did brady get those questions?


  • Options
    #3283
    jonniebgood1
    Registered Users Posts: 3,577 ✭✭✭jonniebgood1


    ISAW wrote: »
    Originally Posted by true
    How very appropriate. Why should he resign when it was church policy to cover up all abuse at the time?
    Except for the fact that it wasn't church policy and you are just expressing an unsupported opinion. It was always church policy that child abuse is wrong.
    What was church policy at the time? It always seems that in these issues their policy involved keeping the sex abuse of children away from the knowledge of the wider public.
    When a young child is raped by a priest the procedure seemed to be to talk to the priest about his problem. In other words they were concerned for the priest (themselves) rather than the raped child.

    The current situation is that the head of the catholic church in Ireland is associated with both protecting Fr. Brendan Smyth (it took a journalist to out him in the end) and allowing child abuse to continue when he was in a position to prevent it. It may well be appropriate that such a man continues in this role.


  • Options
    #3284
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope. In once case he investigated; Probably because of his grographic closeness to the issue i.e. the victim was in his school. In the other case he had the role of recording and didnt ask any questions. I don't know why specifically the local bishop asked him to do this. Maybe because he was in the school and because he knew the procedure in canon law and such a procedure was generally unknown and rare.



    Really? then why was he not charged with obstruction of justice? Maybe because the "only be construed as" exists only in your imagination?



    Given they could not extradite Smyth since such laws would not exist fr another 12 years I dont know how such a prosecution could proceed.


    Eh no because if the broke the law as I stated he would be charged with that.

    You have a peculiar but fatal flaw in your argument. You constantly challenge people who say that Brady committed an offence by invoking the laws of the state, but you have no problem with the fact that the Catholic church hierarchy have for centuries, ignored local laws wherever they happen to infest.
    There are bricked up rooms in places like Mount Argus where you can see the horrors of the 'in house' justice of these God loving, mankind loving, humanitarian CHRISTIAN men (it was murder btw).
    We the Irish must see to it that these archaic practices stop. We are almost there, when the likes of Brady go and unblemished men change the organisation from within (will happen and is happening) then they might garner some respect from other christians, muslims, hindus and athiests etc. again. In it's present form and set-up the Vatican based church is still unfit to function in a modern society.
    They (the Vatican, Irish Church) have proven themselves unfit to judge or discipline anybody. They can believe in imaginary all powerful, cloud borne, superheros if they wish but that is the limit of what they can do here. Slap people over the knuckles for taking the superheros name in vain or threaten them with even more imaginary super fires of hell if they indulge in some fun, if that is the clubs buzz, but stay away from making adult, fair and democratic judgements that affect real lifes.
    If one of them trangresses local law, then they are subject to the courts of the land like every other democrat.
    You can twist and simper away on their behalf but what has happened here is that the lie at the heart of the Roman Church has been exposed for all but the most sychophant, hat doffing, ring kissing genuflecters to see. Thankfully that particular breed (for whom I feel nothing but pity) is dying out.

    p.s. Yes, I am biased.


  • Options
    #3285
    irishdude11
    Registered Users Posts: 377 ✭✭irishdude11


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    You have a peculiar but fatal flaw in your argument. You constantly challenge people who say that Brady committed an offence by invoking the laws of the state, but you have no problem with the fact that the Catholic church hierarchy have for centuries, ignored local laws wherever they happen to infest.

    Brady did actually break the laws of the state.
    Article 17 (1) (d) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 makes it a crime to administer an oath to anyone that prevents that person reporting a crime. Forcing anyone to take such an oath is a crime punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years.

    So in effect we have a criminal heading the church. Lucky for Brady, in Ireland people in positions of power are free to commit crimes without having to worry about ending up in court over it. Just ask any FF politician.


  • Options
    #3286
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    ISAW wrote: »
    Nope. In once case he investigated; Probably because of his grographic closeness to the issue i.e. the victim was in his school. In the other case he had the role of recording and didnt ask any questions. I don't know why specifically the local bishop asked him to do this. Maybe because he was in the school and because he knew the procedure in canon law and such a procedure was generally unknown and rare.

    Really? then why was he not charged with obstruction of justice? Maybe because the "only be construed as" exists only in your imagination?

    Given they could not extradite Smyth since such laws would not exist fr another 12 years I dont know how such a prosecution could proceed.

    Eh no because if the broke the law as I stated he would be charged with that.

    Fascinating how you always sidestep the real issue. Post after post railing against any criticism of the RCC. That's the thing though. The criticism of the RCC will only continue and get louder and louder as more and more evidence of abuse surfaces. People are not satisfied with,'I followed procedure.'

    The longer this goes on, the longer Mr. Brady remains in a position of authority in the church, the worse it's going to get for the RCC.

    The fact remains, Mr. Brady was given first hand information about continuing abuse, was given names and addresses of victims. He was given details of abuse suffered by one individual. Yet, in the face of all of this he did nothing!

    That really is indicative of a wider problem. The Church does not feel answerable to anyone. When a problem exists the pattern seems to be, investigate 'in-house' and if possible keep it 'in-house, and if it becomes public, circle the wagons.

    It really is shameful behaviour. If an individual cannot expect proper behaviour from an agent of the RCC, there's no real point is there?

    SD


  • Options
    #3287
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Fascinating how you always sidestep the real issue. Post after post railing against any criticism of the RCC. That's the thing though. The criticism of the RCC will only continue and get louder and louder as more and more evidence of abuse surfaces. People are not satisfied with,'I followed procedure.'

    The longer this goes on, the longer Mr. Brady remains in a position of authority in the church, the worse it's going to get for the RCC.

    The fact remains, Mr. Brady was given first hand information about continuing abuse, was given names and addresses of victims. He was given details of abuse suffered by one individual. Yet, in the face of all of this he did nothing!

    That really is indicative of a wider problem. The Church does not feel answerable to anyone. When a problem exists the pattern seems to be, investigate 'in-house' and if possible keep it 'in-house, and if it becomes public, circle the wagons.

    It really is shameful behaviour. If an individual cannot expect proper behaviour from an agent of the RCC, there's no real point is there?

    SD

    Absolutely correct, a normal christian man, unfettered by allegiance to (what was and is) a business, would have acted on the information. I know that anybody I respect would have been unable to sleep nights or would not have been able to live with themselves had they not done the christian thing and rescued these children. I believe that very soon you will hear testimony from whistleblowers (who no longer will be able to live with themselves) about how they where 'stopped' from intervening and they will name names and produce documents to show that.


  • Options
    #3288
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    true wrote: »
    +1. The protectors of child rapists - the hierarchy of the RCC - go by different moral standards to the rest of the population. Its fitty that Brady should stay as the figurehead, so the Irish RCC can be the laughing stock of the world.

    This is a libellous accusation.

    The hierarchy of the Catholic Church are not protectors of child rapists. This sort of moronic accusation doesn't help anyone or anything.


  • Options
    #3289
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Keylem wrote: »
    As one poster already pointed out, the Church and State were one BIG instsitution in this Country!

    Yes, and for some reason the blame is only really being pointed at the Church.


  • Options
    #3290
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    true wrote: »
    Why should he resign when it was church policy to cover up all abuse at the time?

    It wasn't.


  • Options
    #3291
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    The hierarchy of the Catholic Church are not protectors of child rapists. This sort of moronic accusation doesn't help anyone or anything.
    We have been informed that Rome knew about smyth. We know that nothing was done about smyth to prevent him from raping children. We know that bishops were aware of smyth's behaviour but failed to alert the parents or authorities.
    We know that similar situations where rapes were not alerted to the proper authorities. As an example, did magee act alone given that much of his career was as private secretary to JPII?

    All of this rcc abuse is not just centralised in Ireland. Holland and many other countries are only just uncovering the level of horror enacted by members religious orders. This was all covered up.

    Now, what exactly am I missing?

    Now the likes of ISAW and others will retort in the usual mode. It still does not remove the fact that the church could not have been unaware of the goings on over the decades. Admittedly, there would have been some cases where they were not informed. However, I refuse to accept that each bishop (independently) took the secret with them to the grave - if you were a bishop, would you have stayed silent or passed the details up the chain of command? If you want to protect your church, then fine. But don't protect those who protect abusers by staying silent.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3292
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    @ the brigadier - if you are going to insult and threaten someone, please do it publicly and not via PM.


  • Options
    #3293
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    kbannon wrote: »
    @ the brigadier - if you are going to insult and threaten someone, please do it publicly and not via PM.

    kbannon - I didn't threaten you. I said I was watching you.

    If you are going to post vile bigotry on a thread then please have the bravery to stick by your words. What was it you called all Catholics - scum? You should be ashamed of yourself - some moderator you are.


  • Options
    #3294
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    It wasn't.
    What was the rcc's policy on abusers then?
    What was the recommended procedure for dealing with someone who rapes (a child or otherwise)?
    What was the recommended policy for dealing with a victim (child or otherwise)?
    What were the recommended questions to be put to a victim of rape?


  • Options
    #3295
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    kbannon - I didn't threaten you. I said I was watching you.

    If you are going to post vile bigotry on a thread then please have the bravery to stick by your words. What was it you called all Catholics - scum?
    IMO that's threatenting and I've reported it to the admins.
    Furthermore, you called me "a nasty evil bigot" presumably because of my views on child abuse.

    There is a reported post function here which I'm sure that you are aware of.
    Where is my vile bigotry?
    Where did I call all catholics scum? You appear to be asking me if I'm the one you should be insulting.


  • Options
    #3296
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    This is a libellous accusation.

    The hierarchy of the Catholic Church are not protectors of child rapists. This sort of moronic accusation doesn't help anyone or anything.

    Hmmm. I think you might want to check was libel actually means.

    MrP


  • Options
    #3297
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    kbannon wrote: »
    There is a reported post function here which I'm sure that you are aware of.
    Where is my vile bigotry?
    Where did I call all catholics scum?

    The post was deleted along with my post quoting it and saying it was out of order. If a non CMod had posted what you did then they would have been hit with the banhammer.

    I won't engage with you unless you apologise for your bigotry.


  • Options
    #3298
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Hmmm. I think you might want to check was libel actually means.

    MrP

    Libel covers false accusations made in the writing.


  • Options
    #3299
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    So I apparently posted something that is now deleted? Very convenient!
    Also I'm not a CMod in here - I'm a regular poster.

    As for my bigotry - I repeat my earlier question - where was I bigoted (noting that you seem to have stopped referring to it as vile)?


  • Options
    #3300
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    The Brigadier wrote: »
    I called you a nasty evil bigot because you are a nasty evil bigot.

    You are also a coward.
    Please provide a source so that you can stand over these abusive (and reported) comments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3301
    The Brigadier
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,549 ✭✭✭The Brigadier


    Mod Edit
    The Brigadier has been court martialled and is in the glasshouse for a week, so won't be able to respond to any posts.
    PDN


Advertisement