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

CiaranMT

Happy Monday wrote: »

By the way if can't accept an alternative viewpoint maybe it's you who shouldn't be on Boards.

Irony.... Mmmmmm.

WhatNowForUs?

celticcrash wrote: »

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.

Yep represent the church from jail.

Delirium

Happy Monday wrote: »

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.

Indeed, it's truly awful that someone wouldn't look on someone failing to report child abuse to the childs parents in a less than favourable way :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Fortyniner

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.

This has got to go the top of my list of quotations from the lunatic fringe.

Seth Brundle

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.

1. You don't know what he told the bishop so stop making claims on this matter.
2. He served his role to the church, not to the victims or to society or to the rule of law.
3. He has not ensured transparency. His involvement in these private "tribunals" had to be exposed by the victims through the media. He has not once come forward with facts voluntarily and even now he continues to deny the victims the satisfaction of full truth and disclosure.
4. Expounds Gods love? What kind of God would condone those actions?
to quote a letter in today's Irish Times:

Sir,

– I quote

Cardinal Seán Brady: “The only people who had authority within the Church to stop Brendan Smyth from having contact with children were his Abbot in the Monastery in Kilnacrott and his Religious Superiors in the Norbertine Order.”

Mark 11:15: “Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers”.

Throwing over tables is one thing, but what else might Jesus have done with Fr Brendan Smyth? Would he have taken notes?

– Yours, etc,

JOHNNY REILLY,
Barrogstown,
Maynooth, Co Kildare.

Well, would Jesus (and I'm aware of the forum we're currently posting in) have taken notes or would he have done more without having to worry about internal church procedures and secrecy?

5. Lastly, I'm not an atheist but I don't believe in the catholic church as a representation of the Christian God. Please don't make assumptions about everyone reading in here.

magicbastarder

lads, i suspect you're being trolled.

Seth Brundle

magicbastarder wrote: »

lads, i suspect you're being trolled.

I suspect you are correct but in fairness, there are plenty of apologists out there who can't see beyond the collar!

Banbh

A long time ago when I was very young. I was only about 35 or 36.

Anyway I was walking by a river and saw a boat capsize and a group of kids fall in the water. Now I had been attending swimming training for several years at the time but I didn't have my lifeguard's certificate so I reported it later that day to the lifeguard in the next village.

I never checked the papers to see what happened to those kids as I had done my duty and it wasn't my responsibility.

This post may contain irony and sarcasm. Terms and conditions apply.

Delirium

From broadsheet.ie

Retired Garda Martin Ridge told a BBC Spotlight investigation, also presented by Darragh McIntyre, into Fr Greene’s activities: “I don’t believe a week went by in West Donegal where you hadn’t a child or a number of children sexually abused . It’s horrendous. Anywhere you look around here which is so hard to fathom: by-roads, side roads, churches, schools – the abuse here was something unbelievable, unbelievable. And the fact that nobody in the public spoke out about this after the total carnage here.”

Which makes this report from The Sunday Tribune (not available online) of November 2008 all the the more disturbing:

Fr Eugene Greene (81) was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment eight years ago for raping and sexually assaulting boys as young as seven from 1962 to 1985 in the west Donegal Gaeltacht.
The priest is due for release on 4 December and is expected to return for Christmas to the village where he committed many of his crimes. A collection organised by some of his supporters while he was in jail is estimated to exceed €50,000.

Link

People raised €50,000 for the convicted rapist???? What about the f*cking victims??:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Happyman42

koth wrote: »

From broadsheet.ie



People raised €50,000 for the convicted rapist???? What about the f*cking victims??:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Based on conversations I have had out here in the real world since the Brady story broke, there are still a hardcore of RC's who just wish these stories would go away so they can get back to being the dutiful, sycophantic servants of the Vatican that they have always been.
I suspect that it was the same sick, misguided 'hardcore' that raised the money for Greene.

Hermy

Banbh wrote: »

A long time ago when I was very young. I was only about 35 or 36.

Anyway I was walking by a river and saw a boat capsize and a group of kids fall in the water. Now I had been attending swimming training for several years at the time but I didn't have my lifeguard's certificate so I reported it later that day to the lifeguard in the next village.

I never checked the papers to see what happened to those kids as I had done my duty and it wasn't my responsibility.

This post may contain irony and sarcasm. Terms and conditions apply.

You forgot the bit about swearing all concerned to secrecy just before they drowned - otherwise nail hit on head.

magicbastarder

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/05/04/fr-vincent-twomey-wheres-the-humanity/

Hermy

If Brady is really suffering as Twomey suggests, I'd like to know what the cause of that suffering is because Brady himself says he did nothing wrong and that if the situation arose again he would do nothing differently.

joseph brand

Hermy wrote: »

If Brady is really suffering as Twomey suggests, I'd like to know what the cause of that suffering is because Brady himself says he did nothing wrong and that if the situation arose again he would do nothing differently.

Twomey speaks like there's a small bit of fear in him, judging by his voice and choice of words. He is talking about his boss and then showing us that that instilled fear which they blame on so much of the failings in the church (in the past), is still there, just as much as it was before.

Twomey: And I think Cardinal Brady must be suffering enormously at the moment.

HOW DARE they talk about Brady 'suffering' when there are so many victims suffering for 35 years, lives ruined. Meanwhile Brady occupies the top position here as the Big Cheese of the church. Playing the 'feel sorry for the poor oul church ahh god' card.

Twomey: “May I just preface my remarks by saying I’m here very reluctantly. I didn’t want, I’ve refused several invitations to speak on this thing

It's rare that a guest on any show utters these words. I don't know whether he's trying to apologise to Brady or just letting us know that we're lucky he attended and graced us with his presence. Either way it's garbage.

recedite

This whole case is quite interesting in light of the recent spat between Enda Kenny and the Vatican. The Vatican have always maintained that bad stuff happened here because of the failure of clerics in Ireland.
But here we have a faithful priest who rose up through the ranks, to the top job, by doing everything according to the book. Always following correct procedure and obeying them fully. And now pretty much the whole Irish population is calling for his resignation.
How can the Vatican condemn him? On the other hand, he has become a liability. I think he's going to be shafted, its the only way out for them. He'll be getting a parcel from Rome soon containing the proverbial revolver and a bottle of whiskey.

LostinKildare

See Patsy McGarry's piece in the Times today about Bruno Mulvihill, a priest who complained many times to different church officials about Brendan Smyth, to no avail. Sickening stuff.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0504/1224315592493.html

. . . he produced a letter he sent to the bishop of Kilmore, Francis McKiernan, dated November 1st, 1974. In it he disclosed how “ever since 1964 I have known that a member of the community, Fr Brendan Smyth, is misbehaving: he is molesting children who attend bingo sessions. Two of them who are superficially known to me have told me about their troubles.” He “brought this matter to the attention of the abbot but to no avail”.

That letter was dated almost five months before Fr Brady, then secretary to Bishop McKiernan, and two other priests interviewed 14-year-old Brendan Boland about the boy’s abuse by Fr Smyth.

Bishop McKiernan denied receiving the letter. A copy was sent to then papal nuncio Archbishop Gaetano Alibrandi.

In another letter, dated July 1994, and sent to papal nuncio archbishop Emanuele Gerada, Fr Mulvihill said he had tried to speak to Bishop McKiernan about Fr Smyth at a function in Kilnacrott Abbey in the early 1970s.

That letter detailed more incidents he had seen involving Fr Smyth and children. He had seen the priest enter a room at Kilnacrott with a young girl. He told the abbot, who saw no harm in it. A boy told him Fr Smyth had made advances. He told the abbot, who “laughed it off as a joke with a remark that I must have a problem myself, otherwise the child would not have come to me”.

In that letter to the nuncio, Fr Mulvihill detailed his many approaches about Fr Smyth to Felim Colwell, abbot at Kilnacrott, Co Cavan, until 1969, and his successor, abbot Kevin Smith.

He recalled seeing at Kilnacrott a “stiff decree” issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious in 1968 concerning Fr Smyth. It said Fr Smyth was not to leave there without permission or without being accompanied by a trustworthy person for the rest of his life. His faculties for confession were to be forever restricted.

The decree was ignored, he told the nuncio. Fr Smyth had his own car with a Belfast number plate and was permanently absent from the community. When he was at Kilnacrott he heard confession.

After the election of abbot Smith in 1969, Fr Mulvihill said he risked being allowed take his final vows by asking why the decree was ignored. “I was told that in his [the abbot’s], opinion Smyth had been penalised too much in his life, that his pastoral record was impeccable and the stipulation from the Congregation for Religious was far too stringent.”

Archbishop Gerada told The Irish Times he knew nothing of the letter from Fr Mulvihill. Fr Mulvihill also claimed he told then abbot general of the Norbertines, Fr Marcel Van de Ven, in 1986 about Fr Smyth after an ordination service in Belgium. Abbot general Van de Ven denied this to The Irish Times.

In March 2010 documents from Garda files produced during a legal action taken by a woman abused by Fr Smyth included the letter sent by Fr Mulvihill on November 1st, 1974, to papal nuncio Alibrandi and a similar letter of the same date to bishop McKiernan. Both dealt with Fr Smyth’s abuse of children.

In a statement to gardaí of June 1995, Fr Mulvihill recalled his attempts to raise his concerns about Fr Smyth with papal nuncio Alibrandi and Bishop McKiernan at a 1974 function in Kilnacrott. Archbishop Alibrandi “was not interested”. Bishop McKiernan “showed no interest”.

So he then wrote to both.

Fr Mulvihill left the priesthood in frustration. He went to Germany, where he died in a car crash in October 2004.

Am I reading that bolded part right?? For all the talk about strict deference to Church hierarchy, it seems that perhaps the problem was too little deference (to the Vatican's restriction of Smyth).

robindch

recedite wrote: »

How can the Vatican condemn him?

That oleaginous oik from Vatican who appeared on the BBC documentary made it clear to the presenter that the Vatican wasn't going to do anything about Brady, instead leaving it up to Brady himself to "consider his position" or some such phrase.

Considering the Vatican's usual veiled commentary, and bearing in mind the Vatican's splendid tradition of Latæ Sententiæ (basically, guilt implied by action, without the benefit of a trial), that's probably as close as they're going to get to demanding he resign.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

oleaginous

New word of the day for me, thanks.:)

Came across someone today who thinks Brady shouldn't go for the first time. He also thinks the Holocaust is a myth so there's that. :pac:

smokingman

Happy Monday wrote: »

What more can you atheists who believe in nothing ask from this man who expounds God's love.

I would be one of your more gnostic atheists and your pitiful attempt at attacking my lack of belief in magic and insinuating I am some kind of morally deficient person just goes to show your Stockholm syndrome for what it is.

You are defending someone who stood by and did nothing as more children were raped.
You are defending someone who knew of the parents of children that were continuing to be raped and did not at least inform or warn them.

Your "morality" in defending this man is testament to the disgusting cowardice you hide behind here.

Banbh

Ironically, if he doesn't go, it will deal a swifter death blow to the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Imagine the reception he will get parading up and down O'Connell Street in his full dress and silly hat at next months congress when the Catholic Church was hoping for a bit of triumphalism. I wonder how many politicians will line up to bend the knee and kiss his ring.

mikhail

Happy Monday wrote: »

Religious orders are just that - orders.

Ah, the so-called "Nuremberg defense".

Banbh

Well they are certainly not religious.

Happyman42

Banbh wrote: »

Ironically, if he doesn't go, it will deal a swifter death blow to the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Imagine the reception he will get parading up and down O'Connell Street in his full dress and silly hat at next months congress when the Catholic Church was hoping for a bit of triumphalism. I wonder how many politicians will line up to bend the knee and kiss his ring.

Do you know if anybody is planning to protest at this, because I would like to lend my support to it.

Banbh

Great idea.

Seth Brundle

who will organise the "Down with this sort of thing" and "Careful Now!" placards?

LittleBook

recedite wrote: »

here we have a faithful priest who rose up through the ranks, to the top job, by doing everything according to the book. Always following correct procedure and obeying them fully. And now pretty much the whole Irish population is calling for his resignation.
How can the Vatican condemn him? On the other hand, he has become a liability. I think he's going to be shafted, its the only way out for them. He'll be getting a parcel from Rome soon containing the proverbial revolver and a bottle of whiskey.

Banbh wrote: »

Ironically, if he doesn't go, it will deal a swifter death blow to the power of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

There was an interesting theory mentioned on the radio this morning (sorry, can't remember by who) that the Vatican may have taken an executive decision to cut their losses with Ireland.

On a global scale they stand to lose more (money ... obviously) by the publicity that would surround the international scandal of a(nother) cardinal being forced to resign, than they do by leaving Brady where he is for another two years (when he retires at 75). So feck us! They've had enough of Ireland's shenanigans anyway ... tribunals, reports, closing our embassy (the cheek) ... so they'll excise this tiny island in order to prevent the spread of the disease to their global interests.

What does Ireland really contribute to the coffers these days anyway? And there's the tiniest possibility that the Irish CC will one day be forced to hand over their assets to the state as restitution. I mean, heaven forbid the Vatican itself may be called upon to put it's hand in it's pocket for the victims of the abuse ... better distance ourselves from that scenario as soon as possible!

And since I've only ever viewed them as I would any mult-national money-making corporation, this makes perfect sense to me.

Happyman42

kbannon wrote: »

who will organise the "Down with this sort of thing" and "Careful Now!" placards?

and the stones!

Genghiz Cohen

Happyman42 wrote: »

and the stones!

You know the Rolling Stones!?

Happyman42

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

You know the Rolling Stones!?

Don't be taking the Mick!

christmas2012

In fairness,he did highlight it to other higher ranking officials when he heard about it,and he said he beleived the boy..something i suspect a lot of other religious officials in his position mightnt have done..
the fact he went public is like shooting himself,once journalists have a go you are finished.
having said all that though,i do think the religious order in ireland was put on such a high pedastel that they were untouchable,people did not question them,they could do no wrong,they were once a huge authority in ireland,and the morality of even their priests was without question,which is why abusers could get away with it for so long

Seth Brundle

christmas2012 wrote: »

In fairness,he did highlight it to other higher ranking officials when he heard about it,and he said he beleived the boy..something i suspect a lot of other religious officials in his position mightnt have done..

I don't think him believing the boy's tale of rape is something that should be a redeeming factor.
He could have followed up on this but didn't. He was the then bishop's part time secretary. He, of all people, possibly had ample opportunity do follow up on the case to make sure that justice was done. He failed to do so for wahtever reason you choose to believe.

christmas2012 wrote: »

the fact he went public is like shooting himself,once journalists have a go you are finished.

When exactly did he go public? My understanding is that he has been firefighting all along and the revelations were because the victims are slowly becoming brave enough to come forwards.

recedite

LostinKildare wrote: »

See Patsy McGarry's piece in the Times today about Bruno Mulvihill, a priest who complained many times to different church officials about Brendan Smyth, to no avail. Sickening stuff.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0504/1224315592493.html


He recalled seeing at Kilnacrott a “stiff decree” issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious in 1968 concerning Fr Smyth. It said Fr Smyth was not to leave there without permission or without being accompanied by a trustworthy person for the rest of his life
Am I reading that bolded part right?? For all the talk about strict deference to Church hierarchy, it seems that perhaps the problem was too little deference (to the Vatican's restriction of Smyth).

If the Norbertines had complied with the decree, then the cover-up would have been effective. Smyth's earlier crimes would have gone unpunished, but his subsequent crimes would have been prevented. From a purely "church" point of view, you could say the Nuncio was at fault there for not checking up on the Norbertines, and similarly Brady and his boss, the Bishop, could have had a look in later on, just to see what Smyth was up to.
But from a "common human decency" point of view, Smyth should have been turned over to the courts immediately. Social services could have been there to help the abused kids as they grew up.
Interesting that Mulvihill who chose to speak out, ended up leaving the priesthood. While Brady, who stayed silent, went on to become cardinal and primate.

christmas2012

he went public recently,yes i know its been in the public eye,but if he didnt agree to be interviewed again,all that stuff mightnt have been thrown up so intensely over the last coming days..

i think he did do what he believed was the best of his ability to remedy the situation,its a pity that the higher ranking officials didnt do anything about it,as it was effectively in their hands..

robindch

LittleBook wrote: »

On a global scale they stand to lose more (money ... obviously) by the publicity that would surround the international scandal of a(nother) cardinal being forced to resign, than they do by leaving Brady where he is for another two years (when he retires at 75).

The Vatican isn't so concerned about cash, as it is about reputation -- hence the text in the cardinal's oath above. The Vatican trades heavily upon its reputation a provider of moral-and-other-certainity, and that's very appealing to a lot of people. Stuff like this makes their certainty look a lot less certain.

The Vatican and Brady have paddled themselves up a creek with this one -- they can't fire him and he can't resign without looking like minds are being changed and people admitting, by implication, that the Vatican's rules and regulations are less than perfect (hence Brady's insistence on the Nuermberg Defense). The implication of imperfection is a bigger threat to their business model than anything arising from the abuse inquiry.

It would be so much easier if Jesus were to gather Brady unto himself over the weekend, but he's showing little sign of doing that. Not to add that it would have been easier still if Jesus had told Brady that raping children was bad, and leave Brady to do this decent thing 40 years ago, but Jesus seems to have forgotten to do that too.

Corkfeen

christmas2012 wrote: »

he went public recently,yes i know its been in the public eye,but if he didnt agree to be interviewed again,all that stuff mightnt have been thrown up so intensely over the last coming days..

i think he did do what he believed was the best of his ability to remedy the situation,its a pity that the higher ranking officials didnt do anything about it,as it was effectively in their hands..

He was effectively the second highest ranking member involved, being the bishop's secretary etc at the time.

Jimmy Bottlehead

Listen, if I was told by a young lad that he was being abused, I'd PERSONALLY make sure that the abuser was confronted, that the child's parents were informed, and that the authorities were informed.

I don't care what position or religion you are - if you're told a CHILD is being sexually abused, all the other details go out the window.

There is not one person alive today who has a valid excuse not to do their best to make sure child abuse is stopped immediately when they have that knowledge.

Seth Brundle

christmas2012 wrote: »

he went public recently,yes i know its been in the public eye,but if he didnt agree to be interviewed again,all that stuff mightnt have been thrown up so intensely over the last coming days..

i think he did do what he believed was the best of his ability to remedy the situation,its a pity that the higher ranking officials didnt do anything about it,as it was effectively in their hands..

When did he come out? He has responded to claims made against him but he never came out with anything. He never went public with anything.
The only reason that we are discussing this is because the BBC with the help of some victims of abuse told us of what went on. Had it not been reported within the media about brady's disappointing inactions in the seventies, this information probably would have followed him to his grave.

As for what he did to remedy the situation, what exactly did he do to remedy the situation? He took notes and made a vulnerable child swear an oath of secrecy? Is that what you call remedying a situation? He could have done so much more but did not. The reasons for this are unclear but the only thing that I can think of is that he couldn't be bothered because it was hassle and would have been very embarrassing for his employers.

Banbh

Three men call a boy into a room. Tell him he's not to tell his parents. Make him sign his name to an oath to tell nobody what goes on and then ask him about having erections and more. That alone is child abuse.

christmas2012

I woudlnt for a minute say that wasnt wrong..I PERSONALLY THINK IT VERY MUCH IS MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG..I find it hard to think about it in a good light..What i was trying to say or understand is why it didnt get out,it was because priests were wrongfully put on pedastels by the irish public back then,nothing was said about the magdalene laundrys until recently too,thats because the church was seen as an authorative figure.I do think that the cardinal did what he thought in his head was right,eventhough myself i would struggle to not bring it out in the open personally myself..

Happyman42

christmas2012 wrote: »

I woudlnt for a minute say that wasnt wrong..I PERSONALLY THINK IT VERY MUCH IS MORALLY AND LEGALLY WRONG..I find it hard to think about it in a good light..What i was trying to say or understand is why it didnt get out,it was because priests were wrongfully put on pedastels by the irish public back then,nothing was said about the magdalene laundrys until recently too,thats because the church was seen as an authorative figure.I do think that the cardinal did what he thought in his head was right,eventhough myself i would struggle to not bring it out in the open personally myself..

So it's the Irish people's fault now?
You say you would have had the moral strenght to intervene....have it now and call this what it is.
The cardinal did what anybody who wanted to progress in the church would do....he shut up, and concealed it. And furthermore he concealed it up until the BBC did us all a favour and revealed it. That is despicable, he became one of the people he criticises for doing nothing back then and what did he do when he got into the most powerful position in the Irish Church? HE TOO DID NOTHING.

magicbastarder

Banbh wrote: »

Three men call a boy into a room. Tell him he's not to tell his parents. Make him sign his name to an oath to tell nobody what goes on and then ask him about having erections and more. That alone is child abuse.

and asked him if he enjoyed it, i have heard. can anyone verify this?

ironingbored

@rtenews
Aoife Kavanagh, the reporter on the Mission to Prey programme which libelled Fr Kevin Reynolds, has resigned from RTÉ.

I wonder if Cardinal Brady has taken note. Not likely.

Happyman42

magicbastarder wrote: »

and asked him if he enjoyed it, i have heard. can anyone verify this?

....and if he had enjoyed that type of thing with anybody else.
Shocking that they sought an excuse for Smyth's evil, maybe they where gonna suggest it was because of the way he was dressed!

Doctor DooM

magicbastarder wrote: »

and asked him if he enjoyed it, i have heard. can anyone verify this?

He said it on the new programme I was watching last night, although I havent seen it written down anywhere.

magicbastarder

Doctor DooM wrote: »

He said it on the new programme I was watching last night, although I havent seen it written down anywhere.

brady said it? which program?

Fortyniner

For me, one of the most distressing parts of the BBC programme was near the end, when the poor man who had reported that bastard Smythe all those years ago was reunited with his friend, a fellow victim, who doesn't want to be identified (understandably). He hugged his friend and said 'I thought I'd saved you, you know'.

Anyone not moved by this has a heart of stone. Doesn't seem to have affected the cardinal or his mates though, does it?

Chiliroses

All the priests, cardinals and "holy men" involved in this ongoing scandal are all evil and I believe it goes right to the top, to the pope, I'm not saying all priests etc. are bad but the pope has a responsibility to all the members of the of the catholic church, there needs to be an external investigation into this issue with full co-operation from the RCC.

christmas2012

the irish public back then didnt put up a moral fight either,if you said anything you could be whipped away to the bold boys school,or if you got pregnant your own family would disown you,and that was from the public..people looked up to these religious figures and gave them a lot more authority than they should have had..
as far as im concerned what the cardinal did was wrong and he shouldnt have just left it at that,but what i was saying was that by his moral logic he thought he had done all he could,which i dont think he did personally myself..

palmcut

The abuse of children was and is a horrible crime.

The cover up and denial of this abuse was and is a horrible crime.

The continued denial of this abuse using the mantra that it was a tiny minority was and is a horrible crime.

The continued protection of the abusers was and is a horrible crime.