td's wont be allowed to take communion if they vote for abortion.

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

what has struck me most about your last few posts is the equation with the Muslim community, where women have few rights and dare not voice their personal opinions within their families and communities.

If what you say about the rural environment is your personal experience, then how is the Catholic community any different to a Muslim one, in terms of it's attitudes towards women? Other than you are not required to wear a burkha and may choose your own husband, though it's not that long ago that Irish women were required to wear headscarves or veils in church, and the practice of "churching" married women who had given birth before they were allowed to attend mass, only died out in the 60's.

I'm presuming that's at me nowanatheist! Hmm, good question and one I would have to agree with Olivia O'Leary on with her Taliban analogy on RTE radio, that sparked off Lucinda Creighton's puritanical backlash. I haven't a link to the podcast, but I found myself cheering along tbh.

I suppose the difference is that we have equality under the law EXCEPT in terms of the 8th amendment. The Catholic heirarchy has, as you know, had to be dragged kicking and spitting feathers through every change in law that has brought about equality for women, as for the LGBT community.

The main difference I see here in rural Ireland is that young women THINK they have equality, and for the most part, that's reflected in law (except in my point above). In that respect, it's a world apart from women living under strict Muslim laws. It's only when they are actually confronted with situations where they are forced into the realisation they are second class citizens that they have to formulate their own morality and square their continued religious beliefs with themselves. So many people living with a massive cognitive dissonance in terms of how their lives are enhanced/sublimated within their religion.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

He did say this however:



Cathal Brday 2009. :rolleyes:

I think most people are offended by a hypocritical facilitator of child abuse being in a position of such authority and influence and thus having his opinion relayed far and wide and respected by so many.

This is very offensive to many, and probably even most members of civilised society.

This thread is amazing.

Every time it is pointed out that Seán Brady, or any other leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, has explicitly not said what the OP is claiming, the discourse immediately shifts to "well yes he didn't say this but here's why I still dislike him".

Yes, there absolutely is a place for criticizing Seán Brady.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that his resignation was rejected. I think Irish Catholics should be ashamed of his previous behaviour.

But for the sake of a sane, rational argument, can it at least be established that this latest news story is entirely an After Hours invention following on from a media story which tried to get Brady to say something he rejected - namely that politicians should be refused Communion if they vote for the upcoming abortion legislation.

The (really shameful) child abuse stories have nothing to do with the abortion legislation.

Obliq

Clandestine wrote: »

All you need to know about Sean Brady:

I'm loving that so much I may play it again. Stealing for facebook, ta muchly

M5

Surely this should be an issue of personal choice. If you believe is wrong to have an abortion, don't have one! Why do we need to force the teachings of the church on everyone? Surely that impinges on their rights to decide!

nowanathiest

COYW wrote: »

I don't get what the big issue is here. The RC church has a set of rules like any other organisation and one of those rules is that they are anti-abortion full stop. By supporting abortion in any form, TDs, well those of the RC faith, are breaking the rules of the church and therefore they are no longer welcome as part of that church.

Before anyone jumps :

1) I am not anti-abortion.
2) I am not a member of the RC church.

Like most of their rules, eg: you are not allowed to cohabit or have sex before marriage, the RC church will turn a blind eye to this when a TD turns up with a few quid looking for a service, wedding or funeral, I'm pretty sure.

I still believe that the potential loss of votes will be the biggest worry for politicians in relation to this issue. Plenty could lose their seat over this. The extremists on both sides are vicious and uncompromising.

The issue is that the RC have imposed their rules on everyone in the land, managed to enshrine them in law no less, regardless of whether or not you are a member of the RC - this is offensive to many people. I do not care if someone is RC and chooses to follow their rules, but I strenously object when they dictate that I must also be subject to them.

Mardy Bum

This is brilliant, with the help of god once this goes through a few more people will have left the church.

Catholic Church are so invested in the rights of children but made sure that Noel Browne's Mother and Child Scheme never passed. Sure why bother with free healthcare for mothers and children.

nowanathiest

clairefontaine wrote: »

Scratch the surface and the Irish RC is not all that different. Unless you cherry pick what you practise, it is fundamentalist.

It's ironic that so many defend Islam on boards and slam the Irish RC. Lol...

so effectively, Irish rural woman have been silenced on the matter. No one seeks or wants their opinion on a legislation which may directly effect them, their future daughters and grandchildren.

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Am I the only person who finds this creepy?

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Am I the only person who finds this creepy?

Nope

Nodin

nowanathiest wrote: »

so effectively, Irish rural woman have been silenced on the matter. No one seeks or wants their opinion on a legislation which may directly effect them, their future daughters and grandchildren.

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Shame and fear of demonisation would keep many quiet. Considering the number we know go abroad every year, theres rather a dearth of those who would admit it.

This is something related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxI6HGpaP3Q

Obliq

I think they are only starting to find their voices now really. A number of young women I spoke to around the time that Savita's death was breaking news were naturally horrified, but genuinely expressing helplessness about how to take action on these issues. "But what are we supposed to do about it Obliq?" was one question that I was able to answer - another that i couldn't help with so much was "But I can't approach the subject with my mother at all and we'd have an awful row if I went to a march, what do I do?". "Well, grow up" would be slightly unkind, but to the point....

I'm not sure I'd use the word creepy actually, more terrifying as regards how much power over MY reproductive rights is in the hands of people who are only now wondering how to think for themselves. It'll be a long road yet....:mad:

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

This thread is amazing.

Every time it is pointed out that Seán Brady, or any other leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, has explicitly not said what the OP is claiming, the discourse immediately shifts to "well yes he didn't say this but here's why I still dislike him".

Yes, there absolutely is a place for criticizing Seán Brady.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that his resignation was rejected. I think Irish Catholics should be ashamed of his previous behaviour.

But for the sake of a sane, rational argument, can it at least be established that this latest news story is entirely an After Hours invention following on from a media story which tried to get Brady to say something he rejected - namely that politicians should be refused Communion if they vote for the upcoming abortion legislation.

The (really shameful) child abuse stories have nothing to do with the abortion legislation.

My issue is with the facilitator of child abuse still being in a position where he can make statements which get so much coverage and can have so much influence on society.

The OP can be forgiven for the thread title as, like you said, there was an attempt by the media to put that spin on it.

Also while Brady did not say that TD's would be refused the Eucharist should they support the bill, he said the bishops have not discussed it and that there would be a reluctance to politicise it. He could have said we will not politicise it, although given his history we could not have had much confidence in that statement either.

Given his vast experience I believe that he chose his words carefully to leave a vague threat, although I do not believe that they would ever collectively decide to do it. As in the USA, one or two individuals might decide to do it, but the church as a whole would not as it would be a PR disaster.

As for the child abuse having nothing to do with the abortion debate, I have to disagree. I do not trust the Roman Catholic church when it comes to their motivations.

An example would be the post posted below which mentions their oppostion to the state supporting mothers and their children.

At a time when the Roman Catholic church were abusing children in their care, it worries me that their motives were at best self-serving, e.g. creating more need for women to look to Roman Catholic church run instituitons for help, to downright reprehensible such as creating a scenario where more children would fall into the clutches of a paedophile ring which only they were aware of.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

This is brilliant, with the help of god once this goes through a few more people will have left the church.

Catholic Church are so invested in the rights of children but made sure that Noel Browne's Mother and Child Scheme never passed. Sure why bother with free healthcare for mothers and children.

BTW, Brady was 36 years old when he "was present when children signed vows of silence over allegations against Father Brendan Smyth in 1975."

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

Shame and fear of demonisation would keep many quiet. Considering the number we know go abroad every year, theres rather a dearth of those who would admit it.

This is something related.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxI6HGpaP3Q

Beautiful and totally relevant. Thank you Nodin, am sharing that immediately.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

My issue is with the facilitator of child abuse still being in a position where he can make statements which get so much coverage and can have so much influence on society.

Yeah... that's fine, but you must admit it has nothing to do with the OP.

The OP is about directly threatening TDs to vote in a certain way.

That allegation has now been disproved.

I think Brady was more negligent in his responsibilities than going out and positively facilitating child abuse, as you suggest, and he deserves full and complete condemnation for his negligence.

But seriously, all you're doing here is accusing him of moral hypocrisy. It doesn't have anything to do with faith-based political threats as suggested by the OP.

Obliq

nowanathiest wrote: »

We all know the issue with the RC, but what in the wider community is making women afraid to voice their opinions?

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-was-raped-when-i-was-17-where-were-the-abortion-experts-and-commentators-29241620.html

"Abortion is a highly charged, difficult subject. It sparks so much passion, fury and hatred that many women are afraid to speak out privately, let alone in public.

I was afraid to write this. But, on balance, I think I'm more afraid of living in a country where I'm afraid to say what I believe and why."

Sorry this discussion is a bit off topic as per the OP, but it's all relevant to this Catholic culture of shaming women into silence.

PopePalpatine

Obliq wrote: »

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/i-was-raped-when-i-was-17-where-were-the-abortion-experts-and-commentators-29241620.html

The comments section of the Indo is usually facepalm-inducing.

Also, cheers for posting that song Clandestine. :cool:

Mr Tibbs

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/cardinal-keeps-excommunication-threat-hanging-over-abortion-tds-29242992.html

Interesting article from the front page of the Indo today, seems the threat of excommunication is still being spoken of against TD's who will vote for the abortion legistation with Cardinal Brady to the forefront of this threat. I wonder how many of those who raped children were denied to practice their religion by this man who sat in a room where children were sworn to secrecy about being raped by Priest's. Here they are again trying their bully boy tactics on the Irish people, so much for democry but this time I wonder how many will obey their threat.
Knowing Irish politician's they will probably run scared worrying about losing votes from the moral brigade in their consticuencies. The Catholic church denied communion to the men who fought for the International Brigade in the Spanish civil war on their return to Ireland believing they were fighting for an evil communist regime while they sided with that God fearing Catholic General Franco. Doesn't make a difference what crime you commit so long as you appear at the alter every Sunday to recieve communion and toe the church party line and of course donate heavily sure if you give enough they will praise you from the high.

Sarky

Obliq wrote: »

Great article. Unfortunately, the Independent had to close the comments section because of so much victim blaming.

That's utterly disgusting.

COYW

nowanathiest wrote: »

The issue is that the RC have imposed their rules on everyone in the land, managed to enshrine them in law no less, regardless of whether or not you are a member of the RC - this is offensive to many people. I do not care if someone is RC and chooses to follow their rules, but I strenously object when they dictate that I must also be subject to them.

Stop being silly. People are free to practice whatever faith they want to, or no faith at all, in this country.

Can you give me an example of an RC specific law to which you are subject too? I'm not talking about democratic decisions here btw.

gobnaitolunacy

Oh boo-hoo. They won't get a tasteless little symbolic wafer.

COYW

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Oh boo-hoo. They won't get a tasteless little symbolic wafer.

Erm, wrong faith there. RCs believe that it is the actual body of Christ.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Yeah... that's fine, but you must admit it has nothing to do with the OP.

The OP is about directly threatening TDs to vote in a certain way.

That allegation has now been disproved.

I think Brady was more negligent in his responsibilities than going out and positively facilitating child abuse, as you suggest, and he deserves full and complete condemnation for his negligence.

But seriously, all you're doing here is accusing him of moral hypocrisy. It doesn't have anything to do with faith-based political threats as suggested by the OP.

fa·cil·i·tate: Make (an action or process) easy or easier.

Brady KNEW Smyth was abusing children.

Had Brady gone to the police, as any 36 year old man in any era should have known, and Brady would have known as a very educated man (with a specialty in morality nonetheless :rolleyes: ), was the right thing to do, Smyth would have been arrested and hopefully put in jail. Brady did not do this, and Smyth was abel to continue abusing.

So while you are able to dismiss this as neglect, which I find appalling, I cannot dismiss it as simply negligent and see it as Brady facilitating Smyth in continuing his abuse of children.

gobnaitolunacy

COYW wrote: »

Erm, wrong faith there. RCs believe that it is the actual body of Christ.

I'm an RC (on paper only) and believe they're manufactured as a little cottage industry and quite logically do not contain any traces whatsoever of a Judean born about 2,000 years ago.

clairefontaine

murraykil wrote: »

fa·cil·i·tate: Make (an action or process) easy or easier.

Brady KNEW Smyth was abusing children.

Had Brady gone to the police, as any 36 year old man in any era should have known, and Brady would have known as a very educated man (with a specialty in morality nonetheless :rolleyes: ), was the right thing to do, Smyth would have been arrested and hopefully put in jail. Brady did not do this, and Smyth was abel to continue abusing.

So while you are able to dismiss this as neglect, which I find appalling, I cannot dismiss it as simply negligent and see it as Brady facilitating Smyth in continuing his abuse of children.

He's an accomplice to a crime. Can't understand why he isn't in prison.

Paramite Pie

clairefontaine wrote: »

Scratch the surface and the Irish RC is not all that different. Unless you cherry pick what you practise, it is fundamentalist.

It's ironic that so many defend Islam on boards and slam the Irish RC. Lol...

We don't defend the religion itself but we defend generalizations that all Muslims have extreme views. There are different factions and beliefs within Islam. Like us 'Catholics' many of Muslims are relaxed toward their religion, ie drinking beer, not fasting, pre-maritial sex etc... :P

We slam the RC because it interferes with our lives alot more, not because we think other religions are better.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

So while you are able to dismiss this as neglect, which I find appalling

You find it appalling?

I find the word negligence, when used in conjunction with the responsibility of protecting children from sexual predators, to be about as serious as it gets.

That is, the charge for which Brady deserves condemnation is about as serious as it gets.

However, it does not go as far as "facilitating" child abuse, which I think implies some sort of co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured so as to bring about the abuse of children.

In that sense, yes, negligence is a better way of describing the wrongdoing of Seán Brady. I don't think negligence could be called a 'dismissal' under anyone's definition.

Sarky

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I'm an RC (on paper only) and believe they're manufactured as a little cottage industry and quite logically do not contain any traces whatsoever of a Judean born about 2,000 years ago.

No wonder you're only Catholic on paper; once they're consecrated, it's your duty as a Catholic to believe that it's real flesh.

gobnaitolunacy

Sarky wrote: »

No wonder you're only Catholic on paper; once they're consecrated, it's your duty as a Catholic to believe that it's real flesh.

Yup, going to hell in a handcart.:D

murraykil

clairefontaine wrote: »

He's an accomplice to a crime. Can't understand why he isn't in prison.

The legislation which makes the non-reporting a crime has only just been introduced and he cannot be prosecuted for an incident before this date.

Legally he did nothing wrong; how he can justify it to himself and others, I just don't know.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You find it appalling?

I find the word negligence, when used in conjunction with the responsibility of protecting children from sexual predators, to be about as serious as it gets.

That is, the charge for which Brady deserves condemnation is about as serious as it gets.

However, it does not go as far as "facilitating" child abuse, which I think implies some sort of co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured so as to bring about the abuse of children.

In that sense, yes, negligence is a better way of describing the wrongdoing of Seán Brady. I don't think negligence could be called a 'dismissal' under anyone's definition.

While you feel all he needs is condemnation, I feel he needs to be jailed.

While you feel that knowing a man is abusing children and watching while abused children sign forms saying they will keep the abuse a secret is only negligent, I see it as him facilitating the the protection of Smyth which allowed him to continue abusing children.

What form do you think the condemnation should take? A simple 'tut-tut Mr. Brady', maybe said in a loud and angry tone?

Very interesting words you choose, "some sort of co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured".

I would think that these words are a perfect way to describe the meeting and process where the children were made to sign their silence was exacly "some sort of co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured" but the protect the church's reputation, not to "to bring about the abuse of children".

"the (continuing) abuse of children" was just a very obvious side effect of this "co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured".

krudler

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I'm an RC (on paper only) and believe they're manufactured as a little cottage industry and quite logically do not contain any traces whatsoever of a Judean born about 2,000 years ago.

You'd be amazed how many catholics think the same, despite not having a clue about their own religion, nothing symbolic about it.

clairefontaine

murraykil wrote: »

The legislation which makes the non-reporting a crime has only just been introduced and he cannot be prosecuted for an incident before this date.

Legally he did nothing wrong; how he can justify it to himself and others, I just don't know.

He did more than not report it, he pressured the victims to stay quiet. That is aiding and abetting. He should have been arrested.

Cody Pomeray

murraykil wrote: »

While you feel all he needs is condemnation, I feel he needs to be jailed.

If he has broken the law, then he should be imprisoned.

I'm entirely critical of Seán Brady's actions when he was a Priest involved in the Smyth case.

But to park that there for a minute, it has nothing to do with Bishops allegedly making threats to politicians over abortion legislation. That's my point.

I would think that these words are a perfect way to describe the meeting and process where the children were made to sign their silence was exacly "some sort of co-operation, teamwork, or unity of purpose deliberately structured" but the protect the church's reputation

Yes, I agree.

The Church did facilitate the protection of its reputation by silencing victims.

However, to say that Seán Brady himself facilitated child abuse is going too far, judging by what we know of the Smyth case. He was negligent in his duty to protect children, and by extension, protect the faithful who trusted his Church. But he did not go out and deliberately seek victims or co-operate with paedophiles to groom children, so your use of the term "facilitate" is inappropriate.

electro222

Actually.
I think what you heard was an interviewer putting forward the proposition that this would happen, The church has not said anything about withholding communion, Hate to spoil a good rumor,

electro222

Very true.
The catholic church is the most tolerant religion in the world maybe its time we changed !!, Islam issues fatwas, and ask the comedian Tommy Tiernan what happens when you piss off the Jews,
You go from comedy festivals in Canada to Banteer community hall in Cork.

murraykil

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If he has broken the law, then he should be imprisoned.

I'm entirely critical of Seán Brady's actions when he was a Priest involved in the Smyth case.

But to park that there for a minute, it has nothing to do with Bishops allegedly making threats to politicians over abortion legislation. That's my point.

Yes, I agree.

The Church did facilitate the protection of its reputation by silencing victims.

However, to say that Seán Brady himself facilitated child abuse is going too far, judging by what we know of the Smyth case. He was negligent in his duty to protect children, and by extension, protect the faithful who trusted his Church. But he did not go out and deliberately seek victims or co-operate with paedophiles to groom children, so your use of the term "facilitate" is inappropriate.

I guess this is how he justifies it to himself also.

I wonder what does it say about the calibre of clergy we have in this country when someone like him, at the age of 36, was too weak, or too un-willing to stand up to the hierarchy of the church and protect the children already abused and yet to be abused.

But no, that's not the case, the majority of the clergy in Ireland are great are good people, his promotions are probably reward for his towing the Roman line and putting the reputation of the hierarchy of the church ahead of it's loyal and devout followers and their children.

Dave!

nut_in_a_rut wrote: »

im atheist yet I too don't have a problem with the catholic church position on abortion etc , no one forces me to attend mass each week and hasn't for the past twelve years , if a TD is weak enough to vote out of fear of what their local priest thinks , their not worth their seat in the dail , let alone the local chapel

I agree. The Catholic Church are lobbying the TDs, just like any other lobby group does. They want to influence policy on this matter, just like the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" lobbyists do, and just like the unions and business groups do on fiscal matters.

They may be a bit cheeky and on unstable moral ground, but they should be at liberty to try and influence legislators. And legislators should feel at liberty to ignore them.

The ire should be directed at any TD who might let these jokers sway them.

clairefontaine

Dave! wrote: »

I agree. The Catholic Church are lobbying the TDs, just like any other lobby group does. They want to influence policy on this matter, just like the "pro-choice" and "pro-life" lobbyists do, and just like the unions and business groups do on fiscal matters.

They may be a bit cheeky and on unstable moral ground, but they should be at liberty to try and influence legislators. And legislators should feel at liberty to ignore them.

The ire should be directed at any TD who might let these jokers sway them.

What other lobby group gets so much media voice?

COYW

clairefontaine wrote: »

What other lobby group gets so much media voice?

The pro-choice movement has a serious media voice to be fair clairefontaine, as does pretty much every trade union in the land. I think both sides have a fair share in the media voice on this.

Nodin

electro222 wrote: »

Very true.
The catholic church is the most tolerant religion in the world maybe its time we changed !!, Islam issues fatwas, and ask the comedian Tommy Tiernan what happens when you piss off the Jews,
You go from comedy festivals in Canada to Banteer community hall in Cork.

He made that joke in 2009. He was in that Festival in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Any other stories for us?

Phill Ewinn

nut_in_a_rut wrote: »

criticising Catholicism on boards is tolerated as Catholicism doesn't make the list of " pc liberal sacred cows "

islam does

Pretty much a Catholic bashing forum.

Sarky

If Catholics actually stood up to their leaders and called them on their sanctimonious bullsh*t, you might have an easier time of it. Then again, such dissident actions would be very unCatholic and you'd probably be excommunicated for daring to show independant thought. Rock, meet hard place.

murraykil

clairefontaine wrote: »

What other lobby group gets so much media voice?

The Vintners ass or whoever lobbies for the pubs. They are getting the gov to up prices in the supermarket. The gov going along under the guise of public health concerns due to excess drinking. The gov are unable to deal with antisocial behaviour due to excess alcohol consumption so they do this, might mean extra tax and they get praise from the Vintners. F U citizen, you have to pay extra for your bottle of wine because some arseholes who drink to excess.

The motor industry; haven't they got them to bring in this half year reg thing to artificially create or inflate a market which is based around the Celtic tiger attitude of 'your car ain't worth shoite if you don't have the highest number reg?

I don't see them bending to the Roman Catholic church on this one though. Even Enda is sick of Rome at this stage. Irreagardless of the thread title, the content of the opening post might come to fruition, this might be the last time much attention is paid to RCC press releases, especially ones made by Brady.

Morag

Brady has no ground to be lecturing anyone on Morals after he was complicted in covering up for pedo priests.

Pherekydes

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Pretty much a Catholic bashing forum.

They'll be all pissing themselves when Jesus Christ returns. It'll be any day now. Anyday...

P.S. One thing JC hated more than anything was a hypocrite*. He had complete contempt for them. The first thing he'll do is depose the church leadership, all of them, from their gilded thrones and ivory towers.

*Excepting people who hurt children, of course.

P.P.S. It'll be any day now. Any day.

P.P.P.S. They've been saying this for 2000 years. But it'll be any day...

murraykil

Pherekydes wrote: »

They'll be all pissing themselves when Jesus Christ returns. It'll be any day now. Anyday...

P.S. One thing JC hated more than anything was a hypocrite*. He had complete contempt for them. The first thing he'll do is depose the church leadership, all of them, from their gilded thrones and ivory towers.

*Excepting people who hurt children, of course.

P.P.S. It'll be any day now. Any day.

P.P.P.S. They've been saying this for 2000 years. But it'll be any day...

This is the truth! So many Christians are so far removed from the real messages of Jesus and Christianity. The santicity of the institution that is the Roman Catholic church and it's corrupt hietarchy,with their self-serving doctrine is far more important than real Christian values which Jesus stood for. It seems for many that saving their own soul is what matters, not caring who gets trampled on in the process.

padd b1975

clairefontaine wrote: »

What other lobby group gets so much media voice?

The unions.

murraykil

nut_in_a_rut wrote: »

he should have resigned when that came out and has no credibility left but I sympathise with his predictament going back to the seventies , had he gone to the guards , his complaints would have been ignored as the guards have always been deferential to powerfull institutions , the guards aided the nuns during the time of the laundries , had brady gone to this bishop or higher , he would have found himself on a plane to some corner of Africa

Aww, poor Mr. Brady, you are right! Had he stood up for the children already abused and yet to be abused he probably wouldn't have risen to the top of the RCC. There was me thinking of the children (no Simpsons please) but Brady is the real victim here. How tough the seventies and the following decades must have been for him, ignoring the suffering of children for so long. He should be sainted.

Birroc

nut_in_a_rut wrote: »

he should have resigned when that came out and has no credibility left but I sympathise with his predictament going back to the seventies , had he gone to the guards , his complaints would have been ignored as the guards have always been deferential to powerfull institutions , the guards aided the nuns during the time of the laundries , had brady gone to this bishop or higher , he would have found himself on a plane to some corner of Africa

Are you for real?!!!? In some instances Brady didn't even inform/warn the parents of kids that were being abused. Smyth abused several of these children further after the interviews. He swore them to secrecy alright. Smyth continued to abuse for another 13 years. Brady could have stopped it but his priority was power.

Catholics of Ireland, wake the fcuk up!

Birroc

Sorry I was wrong, Smyth continued for another 18 years.

Brady’s so-called ‘investigations’ in 1975 concerning Smyth actually enabled Smyth to continue his reign of terror for another 18 years. It can be argued that Brady’s ‘investigations’ actually cleared Smyth – as Smyth stayed free for nearly TWO more decades. Brady must go and all the files relating to the Smyth ‘investigations’ must be released. Brady’s 1975 ‘detective work’ took place only yards from Dundalk Garda Station. Brady couldn’t walk those extra few yards to protect children … over 100 children were raped by Smyth AFTER Brady’s ‘investigation’.

He should be in prison.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/cardinal-sean-brady/

plannerscanner

For once the CC are spot on in their threat. And they should carry it through come the aftermath of the vote.

Just to be clear - I am in favour of legislation in respect of the x-case. However, I am also interested in how the CC will go about renewing itself on the island after a lenghty period on the political sidelines. I have felt for a number of years that if they wish to be taken seriously they will have to start utilising their strong points to force their way back towards the centre of political discussion. And one of their strong points, as seen by politicians, is association. TD's want to be seen at mass, and more especially funerals. And if the CC has a rule that will exclude them then they should go ahead and use it to protect their values. The same goes for non-practising Catholics. You don't come to mass - then forget about the church wedding/baptism/communion etc.

Although I am very much in the lapsed Catholic camp, and I disagree with the CC on many issues, I have to admit, if they follow through on this threat I will be very impressed.