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…108109111113114…131

Comments

  • Options
    #3302
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    I haven't deleted anything I posted from this thread, nor do I have the access rights to delete anything posted by anyone else. I have not received any warnings from the mods over my comments.

    Now, please tell me where I referred to all catholics being scum? I would like to see what you are attacking me for. I've no reason to make this statement and fail to see why you think that I would have posted it (given that I've never alluded to this view before).

    You have called me several things by now (not very Christian of you!) and reperatedly failed to provide a source.
    FYI, I've reported your posts!


  • Options
    #3303
    Mammanabammana
    Registered Users Posts: 578 ✭✭✭Mammanabammana


    There is a bigger picture here which I haven’t seen addressed yet. The Cathecism of the Catholic Church itself teaches about the fearful, insidious and cunning nature of evil. In this case, that nature manifests itself through sin, namely the sin of the perpetration of acts of defilement and destruction by those in a position to perpetrate those acts against those who are not in a position to defend themselves.

    The nature of those sins are inherently evil;

    “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and morals.” (CCC 407 : 298)

    “…sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. "Structures of sin" are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn.” (CCC paragraph 1869)

    These quotes are directly from the CCC, which means that the church and church leaders, who ostensibly only gain their positions through a detailed and thorough knowledge of this book, are aware of this deceptive nature. They are not in a position of ignorance or a lack of thorough knowledge. They are our self-appointed moral guides and guardians. Sins of defilement are reprehensible. If that reprehensibility can be added to in any way, it is when those sins are perpetrated by those who are charged with the responsibility of our moral well-being. (That might go some way towards explaining why the outrage towards the church is more polarised than other institutions where children have suffered this abuse. However, this thread is purely about the church so I don’t want to address other institutions.)

    Accepting that there are those who, in this position, have, through their acts failed hugely in these roles, I would like to quote this line from the CCC;

    “[Sin] results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil” (CCC paragraph 1865)

    A clear interpretation of this is that the acts and works of Satan will not always be perpetrated by those who it seems are most obviously acting in the ways of evil. Otherwise the devil would not be known as the great deceiver. They will be perpetrated by those who believe in their heart and soul that to defend and justify these acts is, in some way, action that is right or defensible in itself. The bigger picture that I have referred to above is that it seems that we have arrived at a point in this country (and in this thread), where an institution is known, by its own admission, to have permitted and even facilitated the defilement of the innocent and the defenceless, and as of now has made no attempt towards restitution which is on the same scale as the crimes. And as big an evil as this is, there are those in this thread who seems to see no wrong in using statistics, percentages and obfuscation to defend those who are known not only to have done these unspeakable things but to have in any way, through action or inaction, aided them.

    This discussion should not, ultimately about who is LEGALLY right or wrong; it is, however, about manmade legal devices that allow the guilty to hide and child rapists to be defended. That is the bigger picture. There is an inherent wrong and an inherent evil about a situation where those guilty of these crimes and deeds will still have people to speak up for and defend them. The churches own teaching as outlined above shows that evil will work through those who believe they are doing good.

    It appears that those people who are defending the abusers and the people who, both in the media and on this thread, are so caught up in the minutiae and semantics of the subject that they are missing the bigger picture, are being utterly disingenuous – the are arguing on behalf of people who have sexually abused children and have not been brought to bear for their actions, and on behalf of ALL of those who have had some part in those deeds through facilitation or simple inactivity. Surely these people should ALSO answer for their actions. If somebody has behaved in an immoral fashion without the actual breaking of a law, that shouldn’t exonerate them from blame or consequences. Not through lynch mobs, kangaroo courts or any other kneejerk reactivism - the guilty or complicit in these actions should be brought to bear and face up to the relative consequences, whatever they may be. Anyone who has a stance other than that really needs to give serious consideration to his or her own standpoint.

    Because whether you like it or not, whether you see it or not, at SOME level, intentionally or unintentionally, if you are one of those people taking that standpoint and sitting to defend people who are known to have engaged in the action or facilitation of this behaviour, you are taking the side of paedophiles. And that to me is as clear an example of the deception of the workings of Satan - as outlined in paragraph 1865 of the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, as quoted above - as you’re likely to get.


  • Options
    #3304
    Brer Fox
    Registered Users Posts: 244 ✭✭Brer Fox


    Was anyone else sickened by the hypocrisy of Martin Maguinness calling for the Cardinal to resign? Cardinal Brady did what he thought was right in 1975. Around the same time Martin Maguiness was running around with a loaded gun doing God-knows-what. I think his position is untenable and I hereby publically call for his resignation!


  • Options
    #3305
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Brer Fox wrote: »
    Was anyone else sickened by the hypocrisy of Martin Maguinness calling for the Cardinal to resign? Cardinal Brady did what he thought was right in 1975. Around the same time Martin Maguiness was running around with a loaded gun doing God-knows-what. I think his position is untenable and I hereby publically call for his resignation!

    I doubt if the Christianity Forum of boards.ie is really popular enough to issue an effective public call in the political arena.

    Also, you might find that the powers that be tend to take public calls for resignation more seriously when people use real names rather than calling themselves 'Brer Fox'.


  • Options
    #3306
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    kbannon wrote: »
    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?

    Probably ALL cases where the parents are suspects. Do you really thin the gardai say "hello we suspect you are abusing your own child; could you bring them to an interview where we will ask the child about this?"
    How many cases did they ask those type of questions?
    Again probably all cases. hey also hgave to watch child porn to ascertain if it is child porn. Not a job anyone might like but someone has to do it.
    How do you know that it wasn't policy? It certainly seems that way.

    Because;
    1. No such policy has been produced
    2. Very rare examples exist of bishops deciding not to report a crime or punish the priest. By "very rare" i mean in a small percentage of priests that bishops knew a there was
    3. from the last hundred years no records of more than one bishop meeting e.g two or three or more to cover up a child abuser exists.
    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?
    Brady didnt ask the questions. the questons quoted in thread were made to *Boland. Brady dint interview Boland; He only wrote the minutes.
    Where did brady get those questions?
    WHAT questions? We have no records yet of the questions Brady asked the boy from his school.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3307
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    jonniebgood1 wrote: »
    What was church policy at the time?

    Canon law and doccumentation going back tot he Middle Ages have been covered in the thread.

    irishdude11 wrote: »
    Brady did actually break the laws of the state.

    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.

    Again the example you gave about oaths repugnant to the coinstitution is already covered.
    Offences against the state act is about the administration of oaths by the IRA and subversive orginisations. In addition one cant tout a sevularist line i.e. claim a church as part of the state and also claim a church trying to destroy the state.

    If it was as you say a crimle then why isnt Brady charged with it? HINT: It isnt a crime.


  • Options
    #3308
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Fascinating how you always sidestep the real issue.
    when you cant deal with the issue do you always try to attack the person dealing with it?
    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.'

    You made a point about Brady being appointed to interrogate; He wasnt. He questioned one boy and took notes at the interview of the other. Yo were told that FACT and you indulge yourself in ad hominem! the FACT that you were wrong has nothing to do with a personal attack on my motives for posting.
    The fact remains, Mr. Brady was given first hand information about continuing abuse, was given names and addresses of victims.

    Again different issue to whether he was appointed to do the interviews. Your pint which I dealt with and you ignored and now change tack.
    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.

    rubbish! In some rare cases the local bishop made mistakes yes. But policy has been enhanced. the church brought in mandatory reporting before the victims organisations did. the church brought in child protection policies which sports clubs and other organisations lagged on. All sexual activity with minors if it is criminal locally is to be reported to and handled by local criminal authorities.
    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?

    Brendan Smyth may have been an abuser but he does not represent the RCC.

    You cant claim one abuser means there is no point in respecting all other priests.


  • Options
    #3309
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    I must admit that I don't know the full background of Fr. Smyth episode, but what I can't figure out is why didn't the victims didn't report the crimes to the police in the first place? Why not tell their parents even, did their parents not believe them?? It happens in real life that children tell their parents that a relative abused them, and not be believed!


  • Options
    #3310
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    kbannon wrote: »
    I haven't deleted anything I posted from this thread,

    Did you edit out the word "scum" or similar from one or your posts
    Now, please tell me where I referred to all catholics being scum?
    I take that you are saying it was never there and you never edited it out then?


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64965447&postcount=172

    YOUR WORDS:
    Why did scum like Desmond Connell try and actively stop (through legal means) unsuccesfully the revelation of abuse documents?


  • Options
    #3311
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    I must admit that I don't know the full background of Fr. Smyth episode, but what I can't figure out is why didn't the victims didn't report the crimes to the police in the first place? Why not tell their parents even, did their parents not believe them?? It happens in real life that children tell their parents that a relative abused them, and not be believed!

    It is a fair point. why didnt people report the the other more than 99% of abusers? why was chid sexual abuse so low in terms of reporting? And was clerical abuse reported to any significantly lesser extent given less than one per cent of such abusers were priests?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3312
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    I doubt if the Christianity Forum of boards.ie is really popular enough to issue an effective public call in the political arena.

    still that wouldn't remove the valid point about hypocrisy of not informing about illegalities in the 1970s and saying others should resign for the same.


  • Options
    #3313
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    still that wouldn't remove the valid point about hypocrisy of not informing about illegalities in the 1970s and saying others should resign for the same.

    Nobody said it did. I merely commented on the melodramatic public call for resignation.


  • Options
    #3314
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Nobody said it did. I merely commented on the melodramatic public call for resignation.

    This would be the hypocritical call by Gilmore and other atheist TDs or the one in this thread?


  • Options
    #3315
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    ISAW wrote: »
    This would be the hypocritical call by Gilmore and other atheist TDs or the one in this thread?

    Try reading the past few posts. If Gilmore made his call on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie under the name of 'Brer Fox' then by all means apply it to him too.


  • Options
    #3316
    golden lane
    Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    becauseb the catholic church was given a special place in the irish constitution......

    the government failed to do what needed to be done.....it allowed that organisation to feel it was above the law....and still does...

    there is a cover up taking place, that goes back to setting up of the free state...

    and it will go on for many years to come........the shame of the catholic church...is the shame of a whole nation.....


  • Options
    #3317
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    PDN wrote: »
    Try reading the past few posts. If Gilmore made his call on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie under the name of 'Brer Fox' then by all means apply it to him too.

    so the "melodramatic public call for resignation" refers to posters on boards?
    You recognise it is a public forum?

    Dont downplay yourselves:

    http://www.boards.ie/adsales.php?

    boards.ie is one of the largest websites and online communities in Ireland. In September 2008, we served over 22 million pages and had over 1.7 million unique visitors. (ABC Electronic Audit Figures)

    http://blog.daft.ie/2010/08/daft-medias-latest-website-traffic-stats/

    Daft Media. Rank=1


  • Options
    #3318
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    golden lane wrote: »
    becauseb the catholic church was given a special place in the irish constitution......

    the government failed to do what needed to be done.....it allowed that organisation to feel it was above the law....and still does...

    there is a cover up taking place, that goes back to setting up of the free state...

    Duh free state ??? different constitution. current constitution 1937 Republic since 1948; free state was much earlier under a different constitution.

    claims of cover up is not evidence of cover up.


  • Options
    #3319
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    ISAW wrote: »
    StudentDad wrote: »
    Fascinating how you always sidestep the real issue.
    when you cant deal with the issue do you always try to attack the person dealing with it?
    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.'

    You made a point about Brady being appointed to interrogate; He wasnt. He questioned one boy and took notes at the interview of the other. Yo were told that FACT and you indulge yourself in ad hominem! the FACT that you were wrong has nothing to do with a personal attack on my motives for posting.
    The fact remains, Mr. Brady was given first hand information about continuing abuse, was given names and addresses of victims.

    Again different issue to whether he was appointed to do the interviews. Your pint which I dealt with and you ignored and now change tack.
    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.

    rubbish! In some rare cases the local bishop made mistakes yes. But policy has been enhanced. the church brought in mandatory reporting before the victims organisations did. the church brought in child protection policies which sports clubs and other organisations lagged on. All sexual activity with minors if it is criminal locally is to be reported to and handled by local criminal authorities.
    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?

    Brendan Smyth may have been an abuser but he does not represent the RCC.

    You cant claim one abuser means there is no point in respecting all other priests.

    Attacking you? Feel free to get over yourself. The fact remains, Mr Brady and others were given first hand information about abuse and did nothing.

    SD


  • Options
    #3320
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    ISAW wrote: »
    This would be the hypocritical call by Gilmore and other atheist TDs or the one in this thread?

    Another sign of your bias and hypocrisy and that you are missing the 'old days'.
    Why should any TD promote a certain religion? Gilmore and the other 'atheist TDs' see a great wrong and are duty bound by their mandate to comment on it.


  • Options
    #3321
    golden lane
    Registered Users Posts: 1,364 ✭✭✭golden lane


    ISAW wrote: »
    Duh free state ??? different constitution. current constitution 1937 Republic since 1948; free state was much earlier under a different constitution.

    claims of cover up is not evidence of cover up.

    as it has been covered up....what more evidence do you need..

    still being covered up.......by denial......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3322
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    ISAW wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth may have been an abuser but he does not represent the RCC.

    He DID represent the RCC to those children he defiled. But they aren't important in your rush to defend, are they? He was still a priest with the support of his abbot, and the church, nothing you have said excuses or heals that.


  • Options
    #3323
    true
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,325 ✭✭✭true


    gimmebroadband wrote: »
    I must admit that I don't know the full background of Fr. Smyth episode, but what I can't figure out is why didn't the victims didn't report the crimes to the police in the first place?

    Priests forbade that.....and went as far as warning and getting the terrified boy - alone by himself in the roomful of 3 stern men Priests - to swear with his hand on the bible not to tell anyone else about the abuse except certain priests. Do not underestimate the indoctrination power of the RCC, honed through the centuries. As the old RCC saying goes, "show me a boy until the age of 7 and I will show you the man."

    Evidence of indoctrination can be seen in this very thread, where an self-proclaimed abused person ( a person who said in the thread he was abused by a Christian Brother while he was a boy ) is now a very strong defender of the RCC and its history with abuse. "Stockholm syndrome" its called by the experts, I believe. Very interesting.

    I wonder how many other boys were forced to promise things to Priests - especially in those days when one simply did not question a man of the church of God. How many boys committed suicide, or died of natural causes, or emigrated and put the past behind them, or were told that the Priest(s) in question were now elderly and/or transfered elsewhere and it was better to let sleeping dogs lie. How many abused boys were simply too afraid to accuse a man of the and risk eternity in hell? How many were told " time is a healer" and to let ghosts of the past go? How many took the easy option and just kept quiet, and did not want reminding in their adult life that they were abused while young?

    There are of course many good, well meaning priests like Fr. D'arcy. Its tough on them. The sooner Brady resigns the better for all concerned.


  • Options
    #3324
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    Probably ALL cases where the parents are suspects. Do you really thin the gardai say "hello we suspect you are abusing your own child; could you bring them to an interview where we will ask the child about this?"
    But we're not discussing that type of scenario. We're discussing a scenario where someone (not a parent) raped a child and the parents were left uninformed.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Again probably all cases. hey also hgave to watch child porn to ascertain if it is child porn. Not a job anyone might like but someone has to do it.
    I'm lost here now. I was referring to the questions asked to Brendan Boland by brady and the other two "investigators". What has this got to do with watching child porn?
    Now, to repeat, in how many cases would the gardai, doctors or prison officers have asked a rape victim if they enjoyed the experience?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Because;
    1. No such policy has been produced
    2. Very rare examples exist of bishops deciding not to report a crime or punish the priest. By "very rare" i mean in a small percentage of priests that bishops knew a there was
    3. from the last hundred years no records of more than one bishop meeting e.g two or three or more to cover up a child abuser exists.
    1. Because we haven't been told about does not mean that it doesn't exist. The rcc has withheld quite a lot of information so I would not be surprised if they withheld something like this
    2. Fair enough. So then only in very rare cases did the bishops involved in transferring a paedo priest from parish to parish and even from country to country discuss the problem? riiigghht!
    3. as above
    ISAW wrote: »
    Brady didnt ask the questions. the questons quoted in thread were made to *Boland. Brady dint interview Boland; He only wrote the minutes.
    Based on the documentary, brady had written that he was an investigator but I do understand that he wrote the minutes. Did he note his dissatisfaction with the questions and how they were contrary to basic morals? He was also the most senior there and was sent by his bishop to another diocese to do this task. I have no reason to believe that there was nothing untoward in rcc "policy" about these questions. Did brady object to the questions being asked? Did he object in any way? He was one of three interviewing the boy regardless of who said the words, he was involved as a questioner.
    ISAW wrote: »
    WHAT questions? We have no records yet of the questions Brady asked the boy from his school.
    The questions cited and not disputed by brady. The questions that seem to have been aimed more
    towards the potential that Boland enjoyed the experience that to find out the truth about a beast like smyth with the aim of punishing him somehow under civil law.


  • Options
    #3325
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    Did you edit out the word "scum" or similar from one or your posts
    Not that I'm aware of.
    As I understand it, the brigadier is confusing me with another poster.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I take that you are saying it was never there and you never edited it out then?
    Again, that is my understanding. If I did it months ago, I have absolutely no recollection of it.
    ISAW wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=64965447&postcount=172

    YOUR WORDS:
    ...and what? That is not what he got hot and bothered about. The brigadier was moaning that I referred to all catholics as scum, something quite different indeed.


  • Options
    #3326
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    ISAW wrote: »
    This would be the hypocritical call by Gilmore and other atheist TDs or the one in this thread?
    Why is hypocritical for an atheist but seemingly not by a non atheist? Also as a legislator, Gilmore has a responsibility for all citizens including those in schools controlled by the rcc.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Brendan Smyth may have been an abuser but he does not represent the RCC.
    Which church did he represent then? If not the rcc, then why did they protect him for years?


  • Options
    #3327
    Plowman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #3328
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 39,746 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Fair enough.
    No memory of that but yes, that would be sarcasm.
    Apologies if anyone took it literally.


  • Options
    #3329
    gimmebroadband
    Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.


    So does the Brigadier get reinstated since s/he was correct in regards kbannon's post, assuming that was what the infraction was for!


  • Options
    #3330
    Plowman
    Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3331
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    I would point out that any poster who feels they have been banned or infracted unfairly have access to the boards.ie Dispute Resolution Procedure.

    We will not, under any circumstances, discuss anyone's infraction or ban with a third party - so please don't even go there.


Advertisement