Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)
Options
Comments
-
The questions begins with the above statement. You have not shown the above statement to be true . You have provided no evidence. Put it this way if Brady was the bishop or head of the order over Smyth and had certain knowledge of abuse for example had actually walked in and caught him he should have acted immediately laicised the priest got people to always be in his company ( this was not known even to non church authorities at the time) and ( supposing there was a law covering it) delivered the priest directly to a police station. But I am not aware of any bishop anywhere having personally witnessed such abuse by clerics. Are you?
So what would you do if you were a bishop? Ask someone to take a victims statement? Mind you delivering him to a police station might not be what the victims family wants so maybe that would be a problem as the case might collapse.
You have dodged the question a third time. Here you are defending Brady's actions when he himself has said he is ashamed of them and has apologised for them. If you think Bradys course of action was the natural decent Catholic thing do to I imagine you would have said by now that you would have expected no different of Jesus Christ were he in Bradys shoes.
Maybe you will answer on the fourth try -
What would Jesus Christ have done if he was in the position of Sean Brady and he knew of a sick twisted priest that liked to rape and abuse children and that this priest was still at large?0 -
ISAW , the overwhelming duty of any responsibile adult in society is the protection the weaker members of that society.
Brady had a choice and he placed his duty to his church ahead of his duty to those children. That is all that matters. Confessional seal, cannon law, future prosecution, are all irrelevant. He had information that someone was accused of abusing children and he did nothing. I accept he was a junior in all of this, I accept he was not alone in all of this, but the fact of the matter when ''put to the question'' he failed .And as we know after that date an appalling amount of suffering was yet to be inflicted.
On a sidenote I never called Brady a scumbag and never would , either of him or any human being .0 -
gimme5minutes wrote: »You have dodged the question a third time. Maybe you will answer on the fourth try
It is quite clear who is dodging. I dint claim Brady should have or should not have done anything
You are the one who claimed he was aware of widespread and other abuses by Smyth. You were askled to support your claim and instead tried to indulge in a hypothetical "what if he knew? " question.
The whole point is you claimed he did know but you have produced no evidence!- What would Jesus Christ have done if he was in the position of Sean Brady and he was knew of a sick twisted priest that had liked to rape and abuse children and was still at large?
But the assumption is that Sean Brady knew. You haven't shown Brady knew whqat you claimed. If you are now saying the claim is just your unspupported opinion and not an actual fact as you claimed that is a different matter.
All Brady knew to our knowledge so far based on the evidence is was the statements of two boys. Are you saying that a Garda present when a statement was taken by someone else or a court sternographer should do something about the case when the case is not their case?Do you think Jesus would just feck off out of the country and say to himself 'ah sure Im in Rome now, I couldnt give a toss what happens back in Ireland with Brendan Smyth on the loose.' I do not think Jesus would do that, but what do you think he would do?
I dont think Brady said " 'ah sure Im in Rome now, I couldnt give a toss what happens back in Ireland with Brendan Smyth on the loose.' because again it assumes Brady was aware Smyth was "on the loose". That is a highly suspect contention and if true then Brady probably would be in a differnet position. Where is your evidence that Brady was aware of other cases perpetrated by Smyth when Brady was in Rome?ISAW , the overwhelming duty of any responsibile adult in society is the protection the weaker members of that society.
Yes but that does not mean getting involved in terrorism or breaking the law or jeopardising a prosecution by interfering with due process for example.Brady had a choice and he placed his duty to his church ahead of his duty to those children.
How? how did he place that duty first? What do you think he could have done as part of his duty?That is all that matters. Confessional seal, cannon law, future prosecution, are all irrelevant. He had information that someone was accused of abusing children and he did nothing.
That isnt true. He recorded a statement and handed it on to the Church when the legal channels were not open and he trusted the Church would deal with the case.I accept he was a junior in all of this, I accept he was not alone in all of this, but the fact of the matter when ''put to the question'' he failed .And as we know after that date an appalling amount of suffering was yet to be inflicted.
Ill agree with you in that. He should have known better. As should we. AS should the Civil service and the Gardai and the departments of education Health and Justice and a whole lot of others. It was a failing in church procedure and policy but not only in the Church.On a sidenote I never called Brady a scumbag and never would , either of him or any human being .
Fair enough. Others clearly have done so however. usually "Holier than thou" types.0 -
It is quite clear who is dodging. I dint claim Brady should have or should not have done anything
You are the one who claimed he was aware of widespread and other abuses by Smyth. You were askled to support your claim and instead tried to indulge in a hypothetical "what if he knew? " question.
The whole point is you claimed he did know but you have produced no evidence!
Of course he knew...he was at the fecking meeting where the victims were sworn to secrecy. I dont understand how you are arguing he did not know that Smyth was abusing children...
How in the name of God are you saying Brady didnt know Smyth was a child abuser...He was at the frigging meeting where the victims were sworn to secrecy...But the assumption is that Sean Brady knew. You haven't shown Brady knew whqat you claimed. If you are now saying the claim is just your unspupported opinion and not an actual fact as you claimed that is a different matter.
All Brady knew to our knowledge so far based on the evidence is was the statements of two boys. Are you saying that a Garda present when a statement was taken by someone else or a court sternographer should do something about the case when the case is not their case?
If a garda or a court stenographer are at a legal meeting where a statement is taken there is no need for them to do anything as the case is already in the legal system and being handled by the proper authorities. If a garda or court stenographer came across details of a child being abused in some non legal meeting you can be sure they would be taking action about it. Just like any decent person who knew of a children being abused. They would take action.
Of course Brady knew Smyth was still at large, sure he was involved in the process of swearing victims to secrecy to cover-up the crimes. Have you any grasp of logic at all? The whole point of swearing them to secrecy was so that this priest wouldnt end up in court. It was covered up so that Smyth wouldnt end up in court and bring shame on the Church and that meant that Smyth would remain at large for another 15 years. Why am I even having to explain the logic? You are saying Brady didnt know Smyth was at large when he was involved in the covering up of the crimes, the whole point of which was to enable Smyth to remain at large and not see the inside of a courtroom. So enough of this nonsense of saying Brady didnt know Smyth was at large, it's like arguing black is white.
FOR THE FIFTH TIME ..... answer this question, why cant you bring yourself to answer it if you think Brady's actions were those of a decent Catholic -
What would Jesus Christ have done if he was in the position of Sean Brady and he knew of a sick twisted priest that had liked to rape and abuse children and was still at large?
If you think Jesus would have done the same thing as Brady just say so.0 -
That isnt true. He recorded a statement and handed it on to the Church when the legal channels were not open and he trusted the Church would deal with the case.
What do you mean by 'he trusted the Church would deal with the case'. Sean Brady knew that the Church's way of 'dealing with the case' was to cover it up and enable Brendan Smyth to keep destroying lives. He even participated in the cover up.
I have read some of your posts and you have likened Sean Brady to a court sternographer when this is clearly not the case because this meeting happened completely outside the legal system. It was in fact a perversion of the course of justice as the Church wanted to avoid Smyth facing charges.
A proper analogy is that Sean Brady was like a guy called in to an office by two of his bosses and told 'we know one of our employees is a child abuser but it will look bad for the company if its gets out so we are about to have a meeting with the victims with the aim of getting them to keep quiet about it.'
If I was in that position personally I would tell my bosses to get stuffed, that I would not be engaging in covering up child abuse, that the abuser needs to be brought to justice for his actions not allowed to roam freely in public where he can destory more lives.
When Sean Brady choose not to step down after this story came out he lost the one chance to redeem himself and booked his place in hell in my opinion. Stepping down would have been the best thing for the Church, it's followers and the victims, and would have been a show of humbleness and selflessness on the part of Brady. Instead, yet again he choose the selfish path, thinking only of himself, just like he did back in 1975.gimme5minutes wrote: »What would Jesus Christ have done if he was in the position of Sean Brady and he knew of a sick twisted priest that had liked to rape and abuse children and was still at large?
That is an easy question. Jesus would not have rested until Brendan Smyth was no longer a danger to children.0 -
Advertisement
-
gimme5minutes wrote: »Of course he knew...he was at the fecking meeting where the victims were sworn to secrecy. I dont understand how you are arguing he did not know that Smyth was abusing children...
Please read the thread before you respond.
The point was OTHER THAN the cases of the two boys have you any other evidence of tall these other[ additional cases whjich you claimed he knew about when he moved to Rome?
Every time I deal with the specific cases oif the two boys you hop off into allegation and supposition about other cases which you assert Brady knew about and for none of which you have produced any evidence that he did know!
Then when this is pointed out to you you hop back to the two cases he did have some knowledge of. Now, or hop off into other supposition again? So, how does his action in these two cases mean he should not be a bishop or a cardinal?How in the name of God are you saying Brady didnt know Smyth was a child abuser...He was at the frigging meeting where the victims were sworn to secrecy...
I am not and never stated that. I asked in particular about your claim abouit the other cases Brady knew about when in Rome.
As regards the two cases he was aware of. In whatway are you saying Brady was responsible for them?If a garda or a court stenographer are at a legal meeting where a statement is taken there is no need for them to do anything as the case is already in the legal system and being handled by the proper authorities.
You refer to "due process" - handling by "proper authorities" . It did not exist as it does today.
I have shown you how the legal system could not handle an extra juristictional case. There was no law which could extradite Smyth in the 1970s and there was no law which would have imprisoned him for a long time if he was in the State and of the laws that were available they required the parents to act and the parents did not want to and could not be legally forced to.
Brady trusted the authorities of the Church to deal with the issue. It was not for jim to judge the case no more than a garda or sternographer could.If a garda or court stenographer came across details of a child being abused in some non legal meeting
What is a "non legal" meeting?you can be sure they would be taking action about it.
If a solicitor is defending a client and has a good chance and is close to acquittal and that client admits to doing something else which was illegal at the time the solicitor won't say "my client didn't rob the bank because he was committing adultery with your wife at the time your honor" If he did the judge would have to dismiss himself and the case collapse. You can't blame the solicitor for not reporting an adultery can you? Many out of court meetings are secret and privileged and the people taking records at such meetings don't take legal actions. In some cases they can lose their own jobs for doing so and also destroy the possibility of a fair trial.Just like any decent person who knew of a children being abused. They would take action.
You have been shown that they could not do so since they would have no legal standing.Of course Brady knew Smyth was still at large, sure he was involved in the process of swearing victims to secrecy to cover-up the crimes. Have you any grasp of logic at all?
I have. Using the cases of two boys as evidence to support the claim of sure and certain knowledge of other cases is not logical!
Also have you any grasp of the issues presented as to why secrecy is maintianed even in non judicial actions or why in camera cases exist?The whole point of swearing them to secrecy was so that this priest wouldnt end up in court.
That is pure conjecture on your part. Brady may well have believed that the reason was to prevent scandal and rumour about the family and the locality or to preserve the fairness of a prosecution. In fact if you take the opposite case wher Fr Reynoldy was accused and the media got hold of it and turned it into a scandal the whole thing collapsed and when it did RTE ended up owing possibly millions to Fr. Reynolds. Butas you say comprensation isnt everything and a whole community has been dreadfully harmed by it.It was covered up so that Smyth wouldnt end up in court and bring shame on the Church and that meant that Smyth would remain at large for another 15 years. Why am I even having to explain the logic?
Because you picked a case wher we know in hindsight the perpratrator was guilty! If you picked one wher the accused was innocent you might understand why such procedures of secrecy exist. RTE apparently didn't!You are saying Brady didnt know Smyth was at large when he was involved in the covering up of the crimes, the whole point of which was to enable Smyth to remain at large and not see the inside of a courtroom. So enough of this nonsense of saying Brady didnt know Smyth was at large, it's like arguing black is white.
LOL! I didnt make any claims! You claimed Brady knew Smyth was abusing other kids. Wher is your evidence Brady knew this? In the absence of evidence we have to assume your accusation is false.FOR THE FIFTH TIME ..... answer this question, why cant you bring yourself to answer it if you think Brady's actions were those of a decent Catholic -
What would Jesus Christ have done if ...Sean Brady ...knew of a sick twisted priest that had liked to rape and abuse children and was still at large?
And by the fifth time you have changed the question!
Earlier you claimed Brady had knowledge of Smyth's abuse over "decades" now you are hopping back to the only two cases we are aware of Brady knowing. Which is it?
The analagy is full of flaws. But Ill answer it.
If today under todays policies ( which didnt exist at the time) a similar case happened in Armagh Diocese ( of which Brady is Bishop) then Brady according tothe policy he introduced himself would report the priest to the Gardaí. If the law in the North is different and does not require it or cant handle it then it would not be reported in the North but I think the law is similar and requires mandatory reporting. Church policy as far as I know is to follow the law of the civil jurisdiction in which they reside. In addition Each parish has a child protection policy which people ata local level follow so that it isnt just a case of a bishop making a decision.0 -
irishdude11 wrote: »Sean Brady knew that the Church's way of 'dealing with the case' was to cover it up and enable Brendan Smyth to keep destroying lives. He even participated in the cover up.
Your evidence thathe knew this and that after the statements were delivered he participated in covering up anything is?
[quo0te]
I have read some of your posts and you have likened Sean Brady to a court sternographer when this is clearly not the case because this meeting happened completely outside the legal system.
[/quote]
Actually there are Church courts and canon law as well but I assume you are referring to the State legal system? While binding juristiction is ceded to the State you are surely not going to argue that no copmparison can be made to a sectretary taking minutes of a meeting or the chair of a committee or the general council of a sports organisation or all sorts of other meetings outside the legal criminal system being compared to a court officer?A proper analogy is that Sean Brady was like a guy called in to an office by two of his bosses and told 'we know one of our employees is a child abuser but it will look bad for the company if its gets out so we are about to have a meeting with the victims with the aim of getting them to keep quiet about it.'
Wher is ther any evidence that Brady was called in by his bishop and told " we know one of our priests is a child abuser but it will look bad for the Church if its gets out so we are about to have a meeting with the victims with the aim of getting them to keep quiet about it." ?
In fact
Smyth was not one of the diocesean priests
Brady to my knowledge never met the Norbertine "boss" of Smyth
Brady was not to my knowledge told in advance that Smyth was a suspected abuser
Brady was a doctor in canon laws and followed the church procedure in such matters. He was unaware of and not expert in criminal law procedures and left them to the people to whom he delivered the report.If I was in that position personally I would tell my bosses to get stuffed, that I would not be engaging in covering up child abuse, that the abuser needs to be brought to justice for his actions not allowed to roam freely in public where he can destory more lives.
No doubt so would Brady butyou hae no evidence to suggest the above meeting ever happened as you outline.
So given your "if that was me" high horse preaching what have you done in your community to help children over the last 30 years?Stepping down would have been the best thing for the Church, it's followers and the victims
Again dealt with earlier in the thread about page 30 or so.That is an easy question. Jesus would not have rested until Brendan Smyth was no longer a danger to children.
Funny how the Gospel does not refer to Jesus crusade and not resting till he found all the child abusers in ancient Rome. It seems not to emphasise "rooting out criminals" as his central mission and that everything else should be dropped until that was done? And it does not go in for State legal process very much as the "proper " way to deal with criminals. In fact it paints quite a different picture of how the State may scapegoat innocent people.0 -
Funny how the Gospel does not refer to Jesus crusade and not resting till he found all the child abusers in ancient Rome. It seems not to emphasise "rooting out criminals" as his central mission and that everything else should be dropped until that was done? And it does not go in for State legal process very much as the "proper " way to deal with criminals. In fact it paints quite a different picture of how the State may scapegoat innocent people.
Come off it, ISAW, this is becoming ridiculous.
Brendan Smyth was a Catholic priest who was protected and shielded by agencies of the Church, and who, according to the Church, stands in a position of apostolic succession.
A fitting analogy would not be that of Jesus rooting out all the non-Christian child abusers in a city thousands of miles away.
A fitting analogy would be if Jesus had a paedophile child-abuser as one of His 12 disciples. Would He drop everything else to root that person out of the Twelve? Yes, I believe 100% He would. I certainly don't think that Jesus would shield that person and allow them to continue to rape children. Do you?0 -
Come off it, ISAW, this is becoming ridiculous.
Brendan Smyth was a Catholic priest who was protected and shielded by agencies of the Church, and who, according to the Church, stands in a position of apostolic succession.
And the claim that this is supported in direct reference to Brady being a bishop or a cardinal is???
Im not suggesting the Bishop at the time it happened or the Norbitine Bishop are not responsible to some degree but that is a wholly different matter. The issue here is about Brady being actively involved in covering up for Smyth, and that that is the basis for himn not being a Bishop or a cardinal.
Cardinal Brady was not in a position of Apostulic succession until ordained a Bishop in 1995
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbrady.html
I don't think you can hold the head of the Norbertines responsible either
Norbertine Father Bruno Mulvihill made several attempts to alert church authorities about the abuse committed by Smyth.
the "Premonstratensians," were aware of Smyth's crimes as early as the late 1940s, yet they did not report him to either the Garda Síochána or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. S
each abbey or priory is autonomous, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premonstratensian#Structure
...the order did not inform the diocesan bishop that Smyth had a history of sexual abuse and should be kept away from children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Smyth_(priest)
...Cahal Daly, both as Bishop of Down and Connor, a diocese where some of the abuse took place, and later as Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh, is recorded as having been privately furious at the Norbertine "incompetence"
So it would be the Abbot of whatever priory who would be responsible or several of them.A fitting analogy would not be that of Jesus rooting out all the non-Christian child abusers in a city thousands of miles away.
A fitting analogy would be if Jesus had a paedophile child-abuser as one of His 12 disciples. Would He drop everything else to root that person out of the Twelve? Yes, I believe 100% He would. I certainly don't think that Jesus would shield that person and allow them to continue to rape children. Do you?
I certainly do not! But he didn't "go after" Judas either did he?
You seem to miss the issue. I am not saying ther were some people in the Church hierarchy without blame. I am saying in redard to sexual abuse of pre pubescent children
1. It was not widespread
2. It was at a much lower degree than outside the church butiot ois true the offenders wher they occurred were some of the worst .
3. Whathas any of this to do with Brady not being a cardinal because of failings by the hierarchy?0 -
If there was any justice he would never have made cardinal, Oh wait, he did a fine job protecting the church so maybe that is why he got the nod.0
-
Advertisement
-
If there was any justice he would never have made cardinal,
Based on what?
What evidence do you have and what criterion of justice?Oh wait, he did a fine job protecting the church so maybe that is why he got the nod.
Well that is pure conjecture. The real problem sith such a conspiracy theory is that you assume the Vatican knew or conspired with Brady when he took the statement about Smyth. You also assume that then then moved hiom to Rome to avoid any run in with Irish authorities. The factthat the Irish authorities North and South had not case and the fact that he was not moved immediatlly but years later seem to be lost on you. Then apparently the usual motif is to move the "protector of the Church" offside with the attention of rewarding him with a promotion and then decades later promote him!0 -
Based on what?
What evidence do you have and what criterion of justice?
Well that is pure conjecture. The real problem sith such a conspiracy theory is that you assume the Vatican knew or conspired with Brady when he took the statement about Smyth. You also assume that then then moved hiom to Rome to avoid any run in with Irish authorities. The factthat the Irish authorities North and South had not case and the fact that he was not moved immediatlly but years later seem to be lost on you. Then apparently the usual motif is to move the "protector of the Church" offside with the attention of rewarding him with a promotion and then decades later promote him!
I do wonder about you ISAW, how many clerics within the catholic church knew about Smyth and his predelictions before the civil authorities became involved ?
And I wont bother demanding proof , just a guestimate will do.
How many does it take to make a conspiracy ?0 -
-
Propellerhead wrote: »Not to mention why Brady has the red hat and Diarmuid Martin does not.
Apart from trying to play Mr. Popular and please the media with the soundbites he thinks they want to hear, I haven't seen Martin give much leadership or direction either.
He reminds me of the liberal "Fr. Trendy" 70's/80's Irish style that also failed so miserably0 -
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »Apart from trying to play Mr. Popular and please the media with the soundbites he thinks they want to hear, I haven't seen Martin give much leadership or direction either.
He reminds me of the liberal "Fr. Trendy" 70's/80's Irish style that also failed so miserably
Then we are obviously getting our news from different sources, he is a breath of fresh air and it takes a lot for me to say that about any bishop.0 -
I do wonder about you ISAW, how many clerics within the catholic church knew about Smyth and his predelictions before the civil authorities became involved ?
I dont know. Why dont you inform us since you are making a claim. what I do know is that ther were several million clerics in the Catholic church at the time and I can guess at least 99.999% didn't know . So your definition of "corruption" or "conspiracy" with regard to a case is if mor than 0.001% know then it is a widespread conspiracy?And I wont bother demanding proof , just a guestimate will do.
How many does it take to make a conspiracy ?
It only takes a few. For a widespread conspiracy I would guess a few dozen. I am not aware of even TWO members of the hierarchy meeting to discuss smyth and deciding to cover up for him. If you can produce any evidence that even two bishops met or corresponded and discussed him and as result of that meeting he was moved or files were hidden or decisions made not to co operate with the police then please show us that evidence.0 -
There were enough clerics at that meeting where Brady was note-taking to constitute conspiracy ,I presume the bishop was informed and the head of the order ? How many is that ?
Then we have Connell and Payne. How many people does it take to discuss, authorise and issue a 'loan' to Payne to make his pay off ?
We have the changed insurance arrangements around 1986/87 by virtually every diocese specifically to handle any child abuse claims , and this before any cases were made known. Are you contending that all this took place without the bishops discussing it collectively ?
I could go on (and on) but is there any point ? To you it just seems to be a minor blot on the record of the church in Ireland and the rest is all conspiracy.0 -
-
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »I doubt it, but I tend to research the true facts and details carefully from as many souces as possible rather than rely on media punchlines, short quotes and rhetoric.
And you assume that anyone with a different viewpoint dos'nt do the same ? A bit arrogant don't you think ?
Just as a side issue how do you research ''the true facts'' ?0 -
And you assume that anyone with a different viewpoint dos'nt do the same ? A bit arrogant don't you think ?
That's incorrect, what's arrogant is for anyone to make the false assumption that any single media story/opinion/source is a sufficient, complete, and balanced representation of all the facts, from all points of view.Just as a side issue how do you research ''the true facts'' ?
For starters, by always cross checking the original sources cited, the accuracy of the quotes used, and their full original context. Sadly most media stories these days are opinion pieces rather than a balanced presentation of all the facts. It's lazy, low cost, unprofessional journalism, but it sells papers/programmes, and sometimes the actual facts are perhaps seen as too unremarkable and boring to generate sales. Therefore never rely on one style or source for your information.0 -
Advertisement
-
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »That's incorrect, what's arrogant is for anyone to make the false assumption that any single media story/opinion/source is a sufficient, complete, and balanced representation of all the facts, from all points of view.
For starters, by always cross checking the original sources cited, the accuracy of the quotes used, and their full original context. Sadly most media stories these days are opinion pieces rather than a balanced presentation of all the facts. It's lazy, low cost, unprofessional journalism, but it sells papers/programmes, and sometimes the actual facts are perhaps seen as too unremarkable and boring to generate sales. Therefore never rely on one style or source for your information.
What arrogance indeed ! Why do you assume that anyone dos'nt do just as you outline ? Is it that if they reach a different conclusion that you then by definition they must be in error ?
A further side side note , my reference you your expression ''the true facts'' was a gentle reminder that this is just a tautology. A fact is either true or it is not a fact,- fact.0 -
There were enough clerics at that meeting where Brady was note-taking to constitute conspiracy ,I presume the bishop was informed and the head of the order ? How many is that ?
Two bishops and two priests. Oneof the bishops was inot involved. The two bishops didnt speak to each other or to Brady or the other priest about the case. The order head probably dint her about it either. Brady was not involved in prosecuting just in taking the statements of two children.Then we have Connell and Payne.
Thisis a separate priest in a totally separate diocese. Brady dint speak to connell or Payne. connell dint discuss Payne with his predecessor. Ther was it appears a Monsegnior who slowed upi or prevented tPayne being prosecuted. One of connels predecessors bishops was aware . So on that case you have two bishops one priest. So far out of about 1000 people of bishop rank associated with Ireland over 70 years we have three bishops and three priests who knew about two different abusers one of which was probably the worst offender in the entire Church.How many people does it take to discuss, authorise and issue a 'loan' to Payne to make his pay off ?
One the bishop or someone with access to accounts. AS happened in tha case (not a chiold abuse case) of Bishop casey giving money to Annie Murphy.We have the changed insurance arrangements around 1986/87 by virtually every diocese specifically to handle any child abuse claims , and this before any cases were made known. Are you contending that all this took place without the bishops discussing it collectively ?
Ill come back to the insurance issue after I point out this insurance took place over 20 years after Brady took the Smyth evidence so it isn't related to Brady not being a cordinal/bishop or whatever in the 1970s. But as regards victims of abut ther were thousand of cases referred.
Victims (not requiring to prove themselves victims) were catagorized into levels one to five. Level five was the worst and included physical and sexual abuse. Ther were about 30 of these cases resulting out of the redredd board into 170,000 children over 70 years. Those 30 got awards in excess of 250,000 each
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74217099&postcount=1895
i admit all category five may not be sexual abuse and all sexual abuse may not be category 5.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74217099&postcount=1895
What we do know is that in Ireland between the 1920s and 1990s in general and specifically in the 170,000 children in industrial schools ( which were as far as we know the worst in terms of abuse) there are
between 14 and 26 reported cases of clergy ( 14 in girls schools and institutions which may overlap with a further 12 in boys schools) sexually abusing children.
We also know that there are 31 really cases of the worst kind ( not all sexual abuse and from looking at Ireland and elsewhere we could say maybe 25 per cent of these were sexual in nature i.e say about 8 really serious cases of sexual abuse) And I accept these are only the redress board and there may be more but that is what we have to go by for stats.
That's about one really serious clerical exual abuser per decade from a population of over 170,000
and about two to three Roman Catholics priests per decade. in times when theer were about 25,000 religious priests nuns and brothers in Ireland.
One in one too many but in relation to outside the church wher it was in the thousands it is a tiny number.
The point is these stats were not known until 2010 when the report came out. Now in 1995 people didnt know how many would apply for and how many would get financial compensation. The Church could have said they woudl "self insure". this is a process wher you oput aside an amount of money which you expect to pay out. But they had no idea how much and they dint have hundreds of millions in cash anyway. So the alternative is to pay into an insurance policy from which you will draw downand leave the actuaries of the insurance policy underwright the policy and come back with a figuyre as to how much they might expect will need to be paid. This is seems is what they did. I have no idea iof bishops met and discussed what figure the actuaries estimated.I could go on (and on) but is there any point ?
Fire away. The point I am making is that every issue when raised I try to take on and someone thenhops off into another issue. The current issue was Brady shoudl njot be a cardinal . This was dealt with a year ago. In the mean tionme all sorts of other issues come into the thread. Periodically it returns to some issues the midia myths that the Vatican covered things up for example or that sexual abuse was widespread and at a high level inm Ireland or the USA for example.
Maybe I haven't dealt with the insurance issue before butas I deal with things people who "could go on" usually do go on - to another issue.
Put it this way. suppose you expect there will be claims for damages, what would you do? Would you not put a fund together to pay them?To you it just seems to be a minor blot on the record of the church in Ireland and the rest is all conspiracy.
I never claimed it is a minor blot. It is despicable behaviour and some people in authority were certainly at fault. And I dont believe we have seen any evidence that anyone in authority committed that type of abuse nor do I believe we have seen evidence numbers of them met and conspired to cover it up. Meanwhjile outside the church the abuse was a hundred times worse in terms of numbers of child sex offenders and tens or even hundreds of thousands of times worse in terms of other sexual offence .
However- Yes people in authoriuty in the Church made mistakes.
I don't think Brady was one of them though. So that would mean as a bishop or Cardinal he didnt make any of these mistaken decisions.0 -
And you assume that anyone with a different viewpoint dos'nt do the same ? A bit arrogant don't you think ?
Just as a side issue how do you research ''the true facts'' ?
I look them up and confirm them.
It would seem that-
about Euro 1,400,000,000 has been paid out in Ireland by just the REligious Orders the church in abuse settlements. An additional 1,000,000,000 was incurred by the state in legal expenses
the "insurance" cover was inrelation to the Dublin Archdiocese and was not applied to other diocese and was additional to the above money
I'm not trying to dodge anything. It is just some people have a different agenda i.e. destroying The church and attacking religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse#2002_Compensation_deal_and_the_question_of_blame
For decades the Government and Department of Education were to blame for lack of oversight, various parts of the Catholic Church refused to reform internal systems, the police generally ignored complaints, and the courts sent small children to the institutions with little concern for their rights. The 2002 deal has appeared in hindsight to be a well-intentioned but unsatisfactory attempt at a quick fix. In May 2009 CORI agreed to contribute more to the envisaged higher compensation amounts.0 -
Sorry ISAW , I am not just talking about Brady, I am talking about Brady and cover ups in general.
Would you accept then that there was a cover up in the case of the two kids sworn to secrecy that Brady was involved in ?
Would you accept that there was a cover up in the Payne case ?
I could then go on to other diocese and show than there was cover up in each one,so that every serving bishop at that time was aware of a least one case within his jurisdiction that was covered up.
Are they not all conspiracies ? And it is unreasonable to believe that the bishops did not discuss this together and did not involve the Papal Nuncio.0 -
I look them up and confirm them.
It would seem that
about Euro 1,400,000,000 has been paid out in Ireland by just the REligious Orders the church in abuse settlements. An additional 1,000,000,000 was incurred by the state in legal expenses
the "insurance" cover was inrelation to the Dublin Archdiocese and was not applied to other diocese and was additional to the above money
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse#2002_Compensation_deal_and_the_question_of_blame
For decades the Government and Department of Education were to blame for lack of oversight, various parts of the Catholic Church refused to reform internal systems, the police generally ignored complaints, and the courts sent small children to the institutions with little concern for their rights. The 2002 deal has appeared in hindsight to be a well-intentioned but unsatisfactory attempt at a quick fix. In May 2009 CORI agreed to contribute more to the envisaged higher compensation amounts.
Sorry ISAW, this post was directed at The Quadratic Equation and not at you, what ever else I may say about you I never disputed that you researched your facts , though I may not agree with your conclusions.:)0 -
What arrogance indeed ! Why do you assume that anyone dos'nt do just as you outline ?
Why, are you assuming everyone does ?Is it that if they reach a different conclusion that you then by definition they must be in error ?
Before you continue building your strawman argument, I'd like you to show where I have claimed this.A further side side note , my reference you your expression ''the true facts'' was a gentle reminder that this is just a tautology. A fact is either true or it is not a fact,- fact.
Some people like to pretend their so called 'fact' is a fact, when in fact it may not be a fact at all. Fact.0 -
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »Why, are you assuming everyone does ?
Before you continue building your strawman argument, I'd like you to show where I have claimed this.
Some people like to pretend their so called 'fact' is a fact, when in fact it may not be a fact at all. Fact.
I see you do have have window into other men's souls- you can determinine who is or is'nt a catholic and now you can determine who does and does not do their research. Arrogance indeed.
Someday you might actually express an opinion and not just throw distainful ''one liners'' at those that at least make an effort.0 -
I see you do have have window into other men's souls- you can determinine who is or is'nt a catholic and now you can determine who does and does not do their research. Arrogance indeed.
Someday you might actually express an opinion and not just throw distainful ''one liners'' at those that at least make an effort.
Still waiting for you to show us where I claimed what you claim I said . . . .
You see the problem about trying to clutch to stawmen arguments is that they are full of . . . .0 -
I look them up and confirm them.
It would seem that-
about Euro 1,400,000,000 has been paid out in Ireland by just the REligious Orders the church in abuse settlements. An additional 1,000,000,000 was incurred by the state in legal expenses
the "insurance" cover was inrelation to the Dublin Archdiocese and was not applied to other diocese and was additional to the above money
I'm not trying to dodge anything. It is just some people have a different agenda i.e. destroying The church and attacking religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse#2002_Compensation_deal_and_the_question_of_blame
For decades the Government and Department of Education were to blame for lack of oversight, various parts of the Catholic Church refused to reform internal systems, the police generally ignored complaints, and the courts sent small children to the institutions with little concern for their rights. The 2002 deal has appeared in hindsight to be a well-intentioned but unsatisfactory attempt at a quick fix. In May 2009 CORI agreed to contribute more to the envisaged higher compensation amounts.
Are you sure about those figures? One billion, 400 million? If each claimant got 50k there would be 28,000 claims?
I'm not doubting your figures I just can't fit that many zeros on my calculator! If each claimant got 100,000 that would be 14,000 people?0 -
Advertisement
-
The Quadratic Equation wrote: »Still waiting for you to show us where I claimed what you claim I said . . . .
You see the problem about trying to clutch to stawmen arguments is that they are full of . . . .
post 2509 for one, where only your research is correctly done.0
Advertisement