Cardinal Brady - holed and sunk, but does he know it?

Happy Monday

Had Sean Brady gone to the police in 1975 it is likely that the Gardai would have taken no action.

Going to SS RUC would have been out of the question.

Why didn't that kid's father take some legal action?

Galvasean

gawker wrote: »

I've noticed that one excuse being posited by some people on TV and radio for Brady's inaction is that "it was 1970s Ireland, things were different, there were different expectations etc...".

Didn't the head of Barnardos (whose name escapes me) come out the other day to say this is a huge urban myth. He noted that he was abused aged 11 and everybody knew what child abuse was back then. His father certainly is meant to have put a stop to that particular abuser.

Nodin

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't the head of Barnardos (whose name escapes me) come out the other day to say this is a huge urban myth. He noted that he was abused aged 11 and everybody knew what child abuse was back then. His father certainly is meant to have put a stop to that particular abuser.

Fergus Finlay. Ineedy he did.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0502/fergus-finlay-sexual-abuse.html

Turtwig

Happy Monday wrote: »

Had Sean Brady gone to the police in 1975 it is likely that the Gardai would have taken no action.

Ifs and buts. The fact is he never went to them. That's like saying "I think my daughter may have been raped, but you know what I don't have much faith in local law enforcement so why bother reporting it?"

Happy Monday

Jernal wrote: »

Ifs and buts. The fact is he never went to them. That's like saying "I think my daughter may have been raped, but you know what I don't have much faith in local law enforcement so why bother reporting it?"

Not because of a lack of faith.
Because of the conservative nature of senior extremist Catholics in the force.
The Church believed that Brendan Smyth could be reformed within the church.
He didn't have the power to go to the Gardai at that time.

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

Not because of a lack of faith.
Because of the conservative nature of senior extremist Catholics in the force.
.

You can name a few of them then?

Happy Monday wrote: »

He didn't have the power to go to the Gardai at that time.

He didn't? You've some source or argument behind that, I trust.

Sonics2k

Happy Monday wrote: »

He didn't have the power to go to the Gardai at that time.

Bóllocks he didn't.

Stop making excuses for these people, it's absolutely disgusting.

Galvasean

Didn't have the power? Did somebody break both of his legs and pull out his voice box?

Nodin

Galvasean wrote: »

Didn't have the power? Did somebody break both of his legs and pull out his voice box?

.......maybe they just took a hould on his hair as he was going down the road, but he got away from them and never chanced it again.

Happy Monday

Sonics2k wrote: »

Bóllocks he didn't.

Stop making excuses for these people, it's absolutely disgusting.

Your language is disgusting.

Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

ironingbored

Happy Monday wrote: »

Not because of a lack of faith.
Because of the conservative nature of senior extremist Catholics in the force.
The Church believed that Brendan Smyth could be reformed within the church.
He didn't have the power to go to the Gardai at that time.

I didn't know Brady was paralysed.

This wouldn't be happening to him if he had:

1) Informed the parents (maybe off the record) of the kids being abused or in danger of being abused.

2) Subsequently enquired as to the progress on the case say 6 months down the line (and on discovering nothing was done going to the Gardai/RUC/Parents).

3) Informed the RUC/Gardai (again in a private capacity even).

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

.......

Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

whats the relevance?

Gbear

Happy Monday wrote: »

Why didn't that kid's father take some legal action?

Wasn't the Attorney General a member of the Knights of St Columbanus?

ironingbored

Happy Monday wrote: »

Your language is disgusting.

Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

I presume Brendan Boland's father only knew of his son's abuse as Brendan was sworn to secrecy by Brady during the investigation.

Happy Monday

ironingbored wrote: »

I didn't know Brady was paralysed.

This wouldn't be happening to him if he had:

1) Informed the parents (maybe off the record) of the kids being abused or in danger of being abused.

2) Subsequently enquired as to the progress on the case say 6 months down the line (and on discovering nothing was done going to the Gardai/RUC/Parents).

3) Informed the RUC/Gardai (again in a private capacity even).

Religious orders are just that - orders.
You don't have the independence to go on solo runs.
The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.
The hierarchy rules the roost.

Happy Monday

ironingbored wrote: »

I presume Brendan Boland's father only knew of his son's abuse as Brendan was sworn to secrecy by Brady during the investigation.

You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
But came on here to contribute!
His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
Sean Brady did what he could at that time.

Hotblack Desiato

Nodin wrote: »

I was a teenager in the 1980's. The Church - as some have noted over the years - was a tad on the sex obsessed side then

So what's changed? Sex is still duurty, unless you got married in a Catholic church before doing it of course. Sometimes I wish I'd stayed in touch (hehe) with the local priests just so I could ask them hard questions like, if you got married under the rites of the RCC is anâl allowed? Where in the bible does it say it isn't?

Hotblack Desiato

Happy Monday wrote: »

The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.

No it's not. Morality is not the prerogative of the 'hierarchy'. Every christian is supposed to know what is right and what is wrong, aren't they? Actually even we godless atheists know what is right and wrong. I'd bet that our sense of right and wrong is functioning rather better than theirs.

Hotblack Desiato

Happy Monday wrote: »

Why didn't the child's father go the police at that time?

Because the god botherers told him not to?
Because these people had told him, ever since he was knee high, that they alone knew the path to righteousness and salvation, and questioning their authority was greviously wrong?
Stuff like that. When the commies did it it was called brainwashing.

Nodin

ninja900 wrote: »

So what's changed? ......

O they're in no way as "in your face" as they were then, nor are they consulted for their opinion as much.

Nodin

Happy Monday wrote: »

You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
But came on here to contribute!
His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
Sean Brady did what he could at that time.

....other than make bold assertions on an ongoing basis, without backing them up, why don't you get back to me on a few you made earlier.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=78491759&postcount=57

Seth Brundle

Happy Monday wrote: »

Sean Brady did what he could at that time.

Sean Brady did not do "what he could" at the time. He did what he felt was best for the RCC. There is quite a significant difference.
His actions and inaction were not completed on behalf of ensuring protection or compassion for victims but for the self preservation of his church.
His lack of clarity on this matter over the years (by his lack of forthcoming with the facts) is evident of his lack of concern over the victims.

Hotblack Desiato

I was a teenager in the 80s in Catholic school, too.. their official line hasn't changed a bit, but maybe they've modified their tactics? I imagine that they'd get openly laughed out of it today with the stuff that we quietly sniggered about.

Seth Brundle

Happy Monday wrote: »

Religious orders are just that - orders.
You don't have the independence to go on solo runs.
The notion that a lowly priest would liaise with the authorities is laughable.
The hierarchy rules the roost.

He wasn't a lowly priest. He was an expert in canon law and the most senior of the three "investigators" there.
He was also secretary to the bishop so could have easily had the inside knowledge of whether proper action against smyth had been taken or not.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0503/1224315510225.html

Happy Monday

ninja900 wrote: »

Because the god botherers told him not to?
Because these people had told him, ever since he was knee high, that they alone knew the path to righteousness and salvation, and questioning their authority was greviously wrong?
Stuff like that. When the commies did it it was called brainwashing.

Because he felt that the Bishop would act on Sean Brady's damning report on Smyth.

He and the Cardinal were both let down by the Church.

It beggars belief that politicians who were elected on a pack of lies 12 months ago like Kenny and Gilmore talk today of moral bankruptcy.

As for Sinn Fein think of the child killings of Bloody Friday and Jean McConville.

Sonics2k

Happy Monday wrote: »

You didn't watch the documentary then did you.
But came on here to contribute!
His father let him down and the Bishop and hierarchy at that time let him down.
Sean Brady did what he could at that time.

Sean Brady only did things for himself and the Church, no-one else.

He had nearly 40 years to come forward and do what was right, instead he cowered in the background giving speeches on morality and doing what Jesus wants.

I'm sure Jesus would be proud of such a man :rolleyes:

Seth Brundle

Happy Monday wrote: »

Because he felt that the Bishop would act on Sean Brady's damning report on Smyth.

How do you know the report was damning on smyth? It's likely it may not have been given the lack of action on the affair. We haven't been shown his report so you are just presuming that it was damning.

Happy Monday wrote: »

He and the Cardinal were both let down by the Church.

Do you really believe this?

Happy Monday wrote: »

It beggars belief that politicians who were elected on a pack of lies 12 months ago like Kenny and Gilmore talk today of moral bankruptcy.

How many of our politicians were involved in covering up child abuse? How many of our politicians were involved in investigations where rape victims were subjected to vile questions about how they may have in fact enjoyed the experience?
I think lowry, bertie, haughey, scum as I believe them to be, are still far more morally superior compared to the rcc.

Happy Monday wrote: »

As for Sinn Fein think of the child killings of Bloody Friday and Jean McConville.

I have not forgotten about this and for this reason would not vote for SF. However, what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?

Happyman42

I've spent quite a bit of time around priests and bishops in my time. Like any club they are constantly asking and cross referencing other members (priests) that they know. Making remarks on their characthers etc.
All Sean Brady had to do was to ask, 'What ever became of that busness with Brendan Smyth?' as he sliced into his rack of lamb with the Bishop. His testimony is bull**** anybody with an ounce of curiousity not to mention concern would want to know.
Lies upon corruption and evil, self and church protection.

Happy Monday

kbannon wrote: »

How do you know the report was damning on smyth? It's likely it may not have been given the lack of action on the affair. We haven't been shown his report so you are just presuming that it was damning.

Do you really believe this?

How many of our politicians were involved in covering up child abuse? How many of our politicians were involved in investigations where rape victims were subjected to vile questions about how they may have in fact enjoyed the experience?
I think lowry, bertie, haughey, scum as I believe them to be, are still far more morally superior compared to the rcc.


I have not forgotten about this and for this reason would not vote for SF. However, what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?

Sinn Fein first - McGuinness today called for the Cardinal's resignation.
That is laughable given their open support for child killings.

When I talk of immoral politicians it's the current crew I have in mind.
Lies to get elected then bankrupt the country for a generation to pay bond holders. Did they stand on any moral high ground when they met the Chinese dictator recently responsible for the brutal treatment of students and Tibetan monks?

The Cardinal did all he could have done at that time to help the victims involved.

Galvasean

kbannon wrote: »

what has this got to do with a thread on brady allowing a cover up?

It's distractory whataboutery. Don't fall for it.

Seth Brundle

Happy Monday wrote: »

The Cardinal did all he could have done at that time to help the victims involved.

There is that line again. No he did not.
He could have allowed the boys father into the room.
He could have contacted the gardai.
He could have been more compassionate towards the victim.
He could have contacted the media.
He could have contacted the health board.
He could have contacted the IRA.
He could have contacted a politician to intervene.
He could have contacted the family afterwards to make sure that everything had been done.
He could have followed up with his bishop (for whom he was secretary to) to see that punishment had been made.
He could have followed up with the abbott for the same reason.
He could have done may different things but didn't bother his arse because he had followed the church line which didn't involve being concerned about a filthy disgusting rape victim (who probably enjoyed it anyhow and sure wasn't it gay sex which means the victim will go to hell).

Seth Brundle

Galvasean wrote: »

It's distractory whataboutery. Don't fall for it.

I'm use to reading it from the apologists over the last few years!

WhatNowForUs?

Stepping down should be taken as given.

What this debate should concentrate on is if he and his like can be jailed.

Happy Monday

kbannon wrote: »

There is that line again. No he did not.
He could have allowed the boys father into the room.
He could have contacted the gardai.
He could have been more compassionate towards the victim.
He could have contacted the media.
He could have contacted the health board.
He could have contacted the IRA.
He could have contacted a politician to intervene.
He could have contacted the family afterwards to make sure that everything had been done.
He could have followed up with his bishop (for whom he was secretary to) to see that punishment had been made.
He could have followed up with the abbott for the same reason.
He could have done may different things but didn't bother his arse because he had followed the church line which didn't involve being concerned about a filthy disgusting rape victim (who probably enjoyed it anyhow and sure wasn't it gay sex which means the victim will go to hell).

When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

He should be supported not condemned.

Turtwig

Happy Monday wrote: »

When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

He should be supported not condemned.

So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying that if the company you're working for was involved in fraud the type of fraud that would bankrupt a country you'd just keep your mouth shut? If you had a suspicion a co-worker was abusing a child you wouldn't report it?


No, my dear sir/madam, Cardinal Brady most certainly should not be supported and your opinion most certainly should be condemned.

Seth Brundle

Happy Monday wrote: »

When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

He should be supported not condemned.

What? You are trolling now.
I prepare a tasklist for each day the night before.
Thankfully I work in IT and not in moralising over the use of rubber johnnies. However, I think I would have made sure to remember to follow up on the rape case were I involved.

As for being supported, I would think otherwise!

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

When you go into you job in the morning there are many things you can do and many things you can not and not within your remit to do.

Exactly the same for the good Cardinal.

As a man of the cloth and a man of integrity he did all he could have done at that time within his own remit.

He should be supported not condemned.

Why did this good man not own up to this himself, why did he force the victim to go public? He had ample oppurtunity and had to be aware that people where requesting and investigating the records. The BBC must have been contacting him for a long time about the affair.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why did this good man not own up to this himself, why did he force the victim to go public? He had ample oppurtunity and had to be aware that people where requesting and investigating the records. The BBC must have been contacting him for a long time about the affair.

Own up to what?

Happy Monday

Jernal wrote: »

So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying that if the company you're working for was involved in fraud the type of fraud that would bankrupt a country you'd just keep your mouth shut? If you had a suspicion a co-worker was abusing a child you wouldn't report it?


No, my dear sir/madam, Cardinal Brady most certainly should not be supported and your opinion most certainly should be condemned.

My good man he did report it!

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Own up to what?

To his involvement. Why is he only blowing the whistle on the abbot (at who's door he is landing the crime) now? Why wasn't he hammering the pulpit long ago on this, WHEN HE HAD NO MORE SUPERIORS TO WORRY ABOUT IN IRELAND.

Happy Monday

Jernal wrote: »

So, just to make sure I'm understanding this correctly. You're basically saying that if the company you're working for was involved in fraud the type of fraud that would bankrupt a country you'd just keep your mouth shut? If you had a suspicion a co-worker was abusing a child you wouldn't report it?


No, my dear sir/madam, Cardinal Brady most certainly should not be supported and your opinion most certainly should be condemned.

Happyman42 wrote: »

To his involvement. Why is he only blowing the whistle on the abbot (at who's door he is landing the crime) now? Why wasn't he hammering the pulpit long ago on this, WHEN HE HAD NO MORE SUPERIORS TO WORRY ABOUT IN IRELAND.

Smyth had been jailed by then.
Case closed.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Smyth had been jailed by then.
Case closed.

So he hid the criminal involvement of a whole raft of people, is that what you are condoning now in your typical RC sychophantic servile effort to protect this man?

Feck sake, they've never forgiven Judas and he's dead a while.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

So he hid the criminal involvement of a whole raft of people, is that what you are condoning now in your typical RC sychophantic servile effort to protect this man?

Feck sake, they've never forgiven Judas and he's dead a while.

He served notice to the Bishop that this man was a danger.
He served his role.
As Cardinal he has ensured transparency in all of these matters coming up to him.
What more can you atheists who believe in nothing ask from this man who expounds God's love.

Turtwig

Happy Monday wrote: »

He served notice to the Bishop that this man was a danger.
He served his role.
As Cardinal he has ensured transparency in all of these matters coming up to him.
What more can you atheists who believe in nothing ask from this man who expounds God's love.

I'm agnostic.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

He served notice to the Bishop that this man was a danger.
He served his role.
As Cardinal he has ensured transparency in all of these matters coming up to him.
What more can you atheists who believe in nothing ask from this man who expounds God's love.

I found the BBC programme featuring a victim forced to seek closure and the subsequent pressure put on this excuse for a human being very transparent alright.
His behaviour is closer to atheism than mine, let me assure you. As cardinal he has further disgraced an evil organisation.
Troll elsewhere.

Happy Monday

Happyman42 wrote: »

I found the BBC programme featuring a victim forced to seek closure and the subsequent pressure put on this excuse for a human being very transparent alright.
His behaviour is closer to atheism than mine, let me assure you. As cardinal he has further disgraced an evil organisation.
Troll elsewhere.

True colours at last!
Evil organisation.
You're not aware of what the Church does to help millions of people across the world.
But you hop on every bandwagon to condemn it.
Shame on you pal shame on you!
By the way if can't accept an alternative viewpoint maybe it's you who shouldn't be on Boards.

Happyman42

Happy Monday wrote: »

Evil organisation.

I was just thinking that during the Songs of Praise repeat. I nearly choked on my digestive...the singing!!!!!:rolleyes:

Turtwig

Well, this sure is a thread filled with Happy.

celticcrash

Atheists have more soul than the catholic church.
The CC have no real human empathy with anyone.
Their arrogance is there downfall.

People say Brady is not fit to be a cardinal.
I say Brady is perfect to repersent the church.

Galvasean

Jernal wrote: »

Well, this sure is a thread filled with Happy.

Had to read that back n' forth a couple of times. The names started blurring into each other.