Bishop saw paedophiles as 'friendship that crossed the line'

davet82

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/irishsun/irishsunnews/4523202/Bishop-saw-paedos-as-friendship-that-crossed-a-line.html

A BISHOP who failed to protect kids from child-molesting priests claimed yesterday he didn’t know what a paedophile was.

now if this was in reference to cases in the 1940s or 50s Ireland maybe you might have thought these were more innocent times but this was in reference to cases in the mid 90s

what a píss poor excuse... surely there must be some way of bringing criminal charges to these 'men of god' who lie and cheat to protect paedophiles and endanger others by moving them to unsuspecting parishes?


*i know we're probably all sick to death of these threads but the pathetic excuse used just spurred me on to post on a topic i usually steer clear of

The_Minister

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

krudler

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Bull.
Fucking.
Shit.

Corkfeen

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

If something that you don't understand occurs but is illegal and with a clear victim , you'd assume that they'd go to the authorities. You don't simply assume that it'll go away.

My name is URL

Not that it makes what he stated or believed at the time any better, but what he said is that he didn't understand the recidivist nature of pedophiles. In any case, he knew it was wrong both legally and morally and should have taken appropriate action at the time instead of moving the priests somewhere else in the hope that they wouldn't re-offend. He should resign at the very least.. there's no way he can continue on as a Bishop if the church is serious about wanting to right the wrongs of the past.

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote: »

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.
.

You address me by my proper title, ya little bollocks!

eviltwin

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Even if at the time that's what his understanding of it was why did he not report in later years when he knew what it involved or even check to see what this guy was up to?

I don't buy it, sorry. Its very easy after the fact to say you didn't know etc but the fact his first instinct is to distance himself from any responsibility says it all for me.

Mr Benevolent

krudler wrote: »

Bull.
Fucking.
Shit.

I agree. That's horsepiss.

maximoose

Bam Bam Mickey wrote: »

You address me by my proper title, ya little bollocks!

How's the son?

Nodin

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

.

He said that he thought pedophillia was a "friendship that crossed the line". This, from a senior member of a sex obsessed church that was terrified of sex between consenting adults. My arse.

My name is URL

Can the Gardai not take action against your man now considering that there's evidence that he covered these crimes up? That's something I've never understood over the course of all these reports being released... has anyone actually been retrospectively held to account for their involvement?

Mycroft H

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

Nodin

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

...as they were the ones fixated on telling adults where, when and what they could use their genitals for, thats not that suprising.

davet82

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

To me thats like saying he didnt know rape was illegal or that he thought rape was a 'friendship that crossed the line'.

Unless he has been living in a cave with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears for last two decades that arguement just dosen't stand up.

mackg

Whatever about the story, credit to The Sun for finding the creepiest of photo of the man in existence.

Best case scenario he was extremely negligent worst case this is BS and he is just trying to cover his tracks, either way resignation is in order.

Shryke

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

Are you serious? The abuse was carried out and covered up specifically by the Church. The church sheltered abusers and allowed them to continue to re-offend.
There seems to have been so much of it you could rename the Irish Catholic Church as the Super Adventure Club. It's difficult to believe it wasn't nurtured considering the numbers. Any other authorities that failed are secondary to the failure of the Church, (a large, powerful and influential institution that supposedly teaches morals), and all the more so because of what the church tries to exceedingly ridiculously represent.
I don't believe that a person in the position of the Bishop with a life time in the Church in Ireland could be unaware of the conduct of other priests and certainly not when allegations reached him. If he didn't know what a pedophile was he could have picked up a dictionary. Complete BS.

hardCopy

davet82 wrote: »

To me thats like saying he didnt know rape was illegal or that he thought rape was a 'friendship that crossed the line'.

Unless he has been living in a cave with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears for last two decades that arguement just dosen't stand up.

I don't think he's claiming to have misunderstood the abuse or how it happened. He's claiming he thought it was a once-off and that if he separated the offender from that specific child it would end there.

It's still a complete nonsense excuse but there seems to be some confusion as to whether he understood the nature of the abuse.

davet82

hardCopy wrote: »

I don't think he's claiming to have misunderstood the abuse or how it happened. He's claiming he thought it was a once-off and that if he separated the offender from that specific child it would end there.

It's still a complete nonsense excuse but there seems to be some confusion as to whether he understood the nature of the abuse.

I just find that impossible to believe regardless of the time frame involved. Could somebody be that niave? I can't help being skeptical.

mackg

In the interest of fairness this is a part of the story that unsurprisingly didn't make The Sun article.

Although he signed off the transfers, he also notified gardaí of the allegations.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/head-of-churchs-abuse-watchdog-criticises-friendship-gone-too-far-comment-565840.html

Zulu

still though, ignorance is no defense. All they needed to do was think; empathise.
These men will burn,

davet82

Zulu wrote: »

still though, ignorance is no defense. All they needed to do was think; empathise.
These men will burn,

agreed, his comments were adding insult to injury so regardless he should stand down

Guill

Confab wrote: »

I agree. That's horsepiss.

Me too, It's total frogspawn.

Biggins

The_Minister wrote: »

...there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Totally agree.

Else where priests that cover-up and/or stay silent, get sent to jail.
Yesterday report:

William Lynn, Philadelphia Priest, To Be Sentenced For Child Endangerment
* http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/william-lynn-philadelphia-priest-child-endangerment-sentencing-tuesday_n_1697864.html

The first U.S. church official convicted of covering up sex-abuse claims against Roman Catholic priests was sentenced Tuesday to three to six years in prison by a judge who said he "enabled monsters in clerical garb ... to destroy the souls of children."

Lynn, who handled priest assignments and child sexual assault complaints from 1992 to 2004, was convicted last month of felony child endangerment for his oversight of now-defrocked priest Edward Avery.

Lynn did what Brady did - didn't report the abuses and kept silent. Lynn got sent to jail!

...Lynn chose to remain in the job and obey his bishop – by keeping quiet – as children suffered, she said.

"You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong,"

What has Cardinal Brady got? NOTHING!
...Well except the ability (after keeping his head down for a while in hope that his disgusting silence for over ten years, has gone away and forgotten about) to stick his head up again and lecture the rest of the nation once more on moral issues!
He's nothing less than a double-standard bastard.

Meanwhile also yet another Irish government (who I suspect is also hoping the public will forget about Brady) is additionally seeing no more held to account!
They don't wish to tackle the culprits further.

We have a complete shower of **** in this country in high offices - be it political and/or religious ones!

El Siglo

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

You mean to say that he didn't have one of these items, and that he couldn't have looked it up for instance?

That's an even more ridiculous post than the excuse given by the bishop.

Ghost Buster

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

Seeing as the RCC has decades if not centuries of vocalised opinion on pre marital and gay sex and its damage and ramifications upon the physical, moral and social well being of its practitioners, one might assume that it may be a little clued in on the matter of grown men raping and riding children.:rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

BX 19 wrote: »

It was swept under the carpet back then. Catholic church are not the only organisation to blame, though they seem to get the most flak.

They get flack for what they are answerable for. Others get flack for what they are answerable for.
The RCC have more to get flack for.
Simple.....

syklops

maximoose wrote: »

How's the son?

He's a son?

Seriously, in the mid-nineties I was 12 and I knew what a paedophile was. How a dioceses moral and ethical leader could not is, what would a good word be, bollocks.

davet82

davet82 wrote: »

I just find that impossible to believe regardless of the time frame involved. Could somebody be that niave? I can't help being skeptical.

Although he signed off the transfers, he also notified gardaí of the allegations.

Actually, to me that makes it even worse. If he KNEW it was behaviour that deserved to be brought to the attention of the gardai, what the fúck was he doing transferring them and why the absolute fúck did he think he could get away with these lies about "friendships"?

[mind boggled]

syklops

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, to me that makes it even worse. If he KNEW it was behaviour that deserved to be brought to the attention of the gardai, what the fúck was he doing transferring them and why the absolute fúck did he think he could get away with these lies about "friendships"?

The thing I dont get about the friendship line, is that, some of these friendships which crossed the line were with boys. SO this wasnt a young curat a bit confused, who groped a girl a few years younger than himself. This was homosexual acts between a priest and a same sex boy. Considering homosexuality is a sin according to the church, you would have thought that would have been enough for him to do something about it. No, instead it was brushed under the carpet, say a few hail marys and we'll move on. The hypocrisy is just shameful.

Linoge

"Friendship that crossed the line"? What a nice way to put child rape.

So he knew that whatever was going on was wholly not acceptable if it crossed a line then surely?

He is pathetic really. Its funny, all these priests think that everyone is as stupid as they are.

starbelgrade

The_Minister wrote: »

You have to remember what a difference there is in the knowledge available now and the knowledge available even 20 years ago.

I have no problem believing that an old man, sworn off sex could be unaware of what paedophilia was, or how it operated or that it was incurable.

What I have a problem with is that they didn't do anything about it when it happened - there is no excuse for not taking more decisive action when they realised what was happening.

The 1990s were a time in Ireland where the publicity regarding sex abuse by members of the clergy was in every newspaper and on every television station on an almost daily basis.

The Brendan Smyth case alone & the publicity surrounding it managed to bring about the collapse of the Irish government in 1994.

The word "paedophile" became commonplace in the vocabulary of the entire country.

This is not a man who served as a priest in some godforsaken part of the world that had little or no communication with the outside world. Kirby was appointed as a Bishop in 1988 & would have known first hand exactly what was going on in Ireland at the time and in his own religious order.

The fact that he states that he misunderstood the gravity of paedophelia is not only an outright lie, but it's a fucking insult to the intelligence of the people of this country that this man thinks he can still get away with shit like this.

And as for not taking decisive action when it happened? Well, he did take decisive action - as soon as he found out that there were rumours that one of his priests was a paedo, he moved them on to another parish.

That's about as decisive as you can get. But sure if it was only a "friendship that crossed the line", why would he have done this?

Because he's a fucking liar & an outright fucking scumbag who should be jailed for his part knowingly in covering up the abuse of children.

No mercy should be spared for these unmerciful cunts.

syklops

syklops wrote: »

This was homosexual acts between a priest and a same sex boy. Considering homosexuality is a sin according to the church, you would have thought that would have been enough for him to do something about it.

Or maybe this explains why they thought all they had to do was move them. They thought the WORST thing about the situation was the possibility of the ghey.

Zulu

Actually his comments are quite sinister if you take a moment to think of it from a victims perspective.

Imagine if you were raped as a child, and here he is saying it was like "a friendship". So your rapist was a "friend".

Frankly it's disgusting.

crusher000

These bishops should go and make way for the priests that are true to their religion and beliefs. How they're still in authority is beyond me ? . They should be in jail. Their status in the church shouldn't protect them.As earlier post said why aren't the Gardai investigating the cover up of these crimes. We have witnesses that are still alive that can testify.

Japer

Zulu wrote: »

Actually his comments are quite sinister if you take a moment to think of it from a victims perspective.

Imagine if you were raped as a child, and here he is saying it was like "a friendship". So your rapist was a "friend".

Frankly it's disgusting.

+1.

what else would you expect from the "celibate" men of the Catholic church now but more bul*s*it , given so many of them were involved in abuse and cover up of abuse and moving such priests to other parishes and abroad.

up for anything

A "friendship that crossed the line" between say a 50 year old man and a 7 year old child - yeah right! :rolleyes:

I don't see how he say that he didn't realise the recidivist nature of the crime. Back when I was a child in the 60s and 70s most of us knew about 'dirty old men' who went through children even if we didn't have anyone real to base it on or much knowledge as to what went on. We were aware of danger and danger signals. I don't see how he can have missed out on that.

The religious communities like all others had to have contained sexually active members (whether they were active with children or other adults) and from my experience they both shut their eyes to it and covered up. We, as 6th years back in dark ages, saw with our own eyes a nun and priest having sex, and when we alluded to it to another nun we knew by her reactions that she obviously knew but was covering up. She wasn't the only one in the small community of nuns that I had direct knowledge of.

bridestream

In the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, "the founder of a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children concluded [ ... ] offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 – 1978) and "in correspondence with several bishops.

The fact is that pedophiles abuse prepubesent children, and abuse boys and girls equally. If you look at the child sexual abuse cases against Catholic priests, the overwhelming majority involve adolescent boys.

As a former schoolmate of Bishop John Kirby In Garbally college, Ballinasloe I am surprised & extremely disappointed at his apparent lack of knowledge of Pedophilia and all it entailed. Shame on you John - are you in denial too?
Please do the decent thing and resign as Bishop of Clonfert - please.

To those on this forum who are using abusive four letter words - please stop.
You do not impress or improve your arguments one bit. In fact you come across as people who are deficient in basic argumentative decency.

syklops

bridestream wrote: »

To those on this forum who are using abusive four letter words - please stop.
You do not impress or improve your arguments one bit. In fact you come across as people who are deficient in basic argumentative decency.

If you mean standard swear words, then your preaching to the wrong crowd here in After Hours.

deficient in basic argumentative decency.

Welcome to the Internet.

Nodin

bridestream wrote: »

.......

To those on this forum who are using abusive four letter words - please stop.
You do not impress or improve your arguments one bit. In fact you come across as people who are deficient in basic argumentative decency.

I would have thought the moral outrage better directed at the Bishop than anyone here.

syklops

Rape is a four letter word as well.

Crooked Jack

I wish more of my friendships would cross the line

480905

How long do the Clergy think that people are that stupid that they think people are believing the rubbish that they speak? The day is LONG GONE when the priest was all powerful. Your man should be throwing himself at the mercy and begging forgiveness for acceding to what is no doubt a papal decree not to deal with these animals. He knew it was wrong. People don't want to hear their Sh1te anymore.

Patrick2010

syklops wrote: »

He's a son?

Seriously, in the mid-nineties I was 12 and I knew what a paedophile was. How a dioceses moral and ethical leader could not is, what would a good word be, bollocks.

I was 12 in the 70s and knew what dirty old men even if we didn't have a name for it. Its ridiculous to take about the 90s like it was the dark ages.

hardCopy

Patrick2010 wrote: »

I was 12 in the 70s and knew what dirty old men even if we didn't have a name for it. Its ridiculous to take about the 90s like it was the dark ages.

By the mid 90's Brendan Smyth had already been arrested, convicted and had brought down a government. It was all anyone talked about back then.

I remember a popular joke at the time:

"What should you tell your kids to do if they are approached by a priest? - Run and tell the nearest stranger"

There is no excuse for a bishop at that time not to understand Paedophilia, as a 9 year old, I had a pretty passable grasp on the situation.

Ghost Buster

syklops wrote: »

If you mean standard swear words, then your preaching to the wrong crowd here in After Hours.



Welcome to the Internet.

I beg to differ. There is no alternative to "Fu..c,k off" "Go away' is not the same. Some of the best debaters I can think of use swear word when appropriate

Ghost Buster

bridestream wrote: »

In the 1950s, Gerald Fitzgerald, "the founder of a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children concluded [ ... ] offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry," and this was discussed with Pope Paul VI (1897 – 1978) and "in correspondence with several bishops.

The fact is that pedophiles abuse prepubesent children, and abuse boys and girls equally. If you look at the child sexual abuse cases against Catholic priests, the overwhelming majority involve adolescent boys.

As a former schoolmate of Bishop John Kirby In Garbally college, Ballinasloe I am surprised & extremely disappointed at his apparent lack of knowledge of Pedophilia and all it entailed. Shame on you John - are you in denial too?
Please do the decent thing and resign as Bishop of Clonfert - please.

To those on this forum who are using abusive four letter words - please stop.
You do not impress or improve your arguments one bit. In fact you come across as people who are deficient in basic argumentative decency.

I think this song may explain things.

syklops

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I beg to differ. There is no alternative to "Fu..c,k off" "Go away' is not the same. Some of the best debaters I can think of use swear word when appropriate

I think you meant to to quote bridestream not me. I don't disagree with you.

mitosis

Was it The Bandit who said "It's assault with a friendly weapon"?

MadsL

Oddly enough I cannot see priests being friendzoned.