"The shame of the catholic church" - A TV show aired in Ireland tonight. - Page 4

Prodigal_40s · #46 May 4, '12, 1:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slaney

Read the article & the thread, & get with the programme and read the whole thread, then you wouldn't

have to put questions marks (???) in your reply.

I read the article and the thread.The question marks are for effect.

saveusfromhell · #47 May 4, '12, 4:34 am

a bad analogy, police department or there to uphold the law,
priests aren't, since the atheist politicans who closed the irish embassy are now telling sean brady to resign, i hope he stays.atheists should recognise nothing to do with them and mind their own business.
just look at these boards how many atheists are here telling people what we should do, women priests gays etc etc

Prodigal_40s · #48 May 4, '12, 5:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

a bad analogy, police department or there to uphold the law,
priests aren't, since the atheist politicans who closed the irish embassy are now telling sean brady to resign, i hope he stays.atheists should recognise nothing to do with them and mind their own business.
just look at these boards how many atheists are here telling people what we should do, women priests gays etc etc

Oh come now! Cardinal Brady should have fired up the time machine and known these priests were guilty. You're being ridiculous now

As for the atheists, they're given great support by the ACP and Father Nobody from Enniskillen.

feargalmac · #49 May 4, '12, 5:56 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenedictFTW

?

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. I was agreeing, with Slaney, that Cardinal Brady was a victim of the time. Let me elaborate. The then Fr. Brady was asked by his Bishop to question a teenager who made an allegation against Brendan Smith. He did this and got corroborating evidence from another boy the first one had named. He then passed this on to his Bishop. Like anyone of that time, I presume he thought and trusted that his Bishop would do deal with the matter properly. We don't know what his other duties were at the time or how busy he was. We do know from his statement that he was "shocked, appalled and outraged" when he found out in the mid 90's that nothing had been done.

pepipop · #50 May 4, '12, 6:30 am

I heard the abused boy/man, last night for the first time. relaying his story, and it was harrowing. However, in the '70's, children were seen and not heard or believed for that matter, and 100 years prior to that children were sent to work in the work houses. It's only in the last 15 years or so that children have been given a voice in society, prior to that, if they were not in loving homes, they had very little, legally, socially or otherwise to support them.

Cardinal Brady was a victim of the times, he did not know how his bishop would deal with this and when it's all said and done, he didn't abuse the children. However, I do believe he will have to resign due to the furore in the media.

saveusfromhell · #51 May 4, '12, 6:53 am

i missed it, what did his father do? did he report it to the guards? surely his father didn't just report it up the line to other priests and leave it at that, surely he followed it futher to make sure his son was the last child that the brendan smith abused surely he made sure his son got justice,
or was he a victim of the times.

pepipop · #52 May 4, '12, 7:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

i missed it, what did his father do? did he report it to the guards? surely his father didn't just report it up the line to other priests and leave it at that, surely he followed it futher to make sure his son was the last child that the brendan smith abused surely he made sure his son got justice,
or was he a victim of the times.

Good point, and yes his father would have been a victim of the times. I can only assume his son told him he had given other children's names at the meeting - however, as did Cardinal Brady, he probably assumed the bishop and church were dealing with it.

Prodigal_40s · #53 May 4, '12, 10:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pepipop

Good point, and yes his father would have been a victim of the times. I can only assume his son told him he had given other children's names at the meeting - however, as did Cardinal Brady, he probably assumed the bishop and church were dealing with it.

Well pointed out lads. Makes you wonder why the media aren't calling for Brendan's relatives to be arrested.............

Funnily enough the DUP have chosen to turn this into a Sectarian bun fight. The SDLP and Sinn Fein have asked the Cardinal to consider what he should do in the light of the information and the media are busy misquoting people and telling us that he should resign and be arrested. Whereas as previous posters have pointed out the Irish government are out for the man's blood.

Is the whole Dail filled with pro Gay secular lunatics?

saveusfromhell · #54 May 4, '12, 10:46 am

recently i heard a political commentator say that when he was in trinity, there was a lot of people with a liberal view piont wondering how they could change ireland. he said they are all now working in rte inwell placed positions
consider this

It came out his former boyfriend had been convicted of sex with a minor, (came out on the internet forums not from rte) in other words rape. He sent letters to the Israel government asking for leniency, on official Irish headed paper from the SEANAD. Specifically said he had seen them together and knew about their relationship, his campaign team resigned, rte left it for 2 weeks, and then made another assault to get him on the ballot paper. And managed to bully him onto the ballot sheet. He wouldn't release the other letters he sent, and even they could not rescue him from this.

Take Norris name out stick in priest and swap seanad for Vatican.

hmm make no doubt the liberals control all media, presently they are putting forward surrogate mothers, for people who can't have kids, abortion in some circumstances thin end, gay marriage, catholism bad, we have been fed this for 20 years now those that oppose them are outcasts,
You repeat a lie often enough people believe it.
Our kid’s grannies friends now accept everything that was once an abomination to us.
Yes the abuse by priests was disgraceful but be under no illusion what’s going on.

saveusfromhell · #55 May 4, '12, 11:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by saveusfromhell

recently i heard a political commentator say that when he was in trinity, there was a lot of people with a liberal view piont wondering how they could change ireland. he said they are all now working in rte inwell placed positions
consider this

It came out his former boyfriend had been convicted of sex with a minor, (came out on the internet forums not from rte) in other words rape. He sent letters to the Israel government asking for leniency, on official Irish headed paper from the SEANAD. Specifically said he had seen them together and knew about their relationship, his campaign team resigned, rte left it for 2 weeks, and then made another assault to get him on the ballot paper. And managed to bully him onto the ballot sheet. He wouldn't release the other letters he sent, and even they could not rescue him from this.

Take Norris name out stick in priest and swap seanad for Vatican.

hmm make no doubt the liberals control all media, presently they are putting forward surrogate mothers, for people who can't have kids, abortion in some circumstances thin end, gay marriage, catholism bad, we have been fed this for 20 years now those that oppose them are outcasts,
You repeat a lie often enough people believe it.
Our kid’s grannies friends now accept everything that was once an abomination to us.
Yes the abuse by priests was disgraceful but be under no illusion what’s going on.

i missed a bit, i was referring to rte agenda, falling over themselves to get a gay man elected as president.

paperwight66 · #56 May 4, '12, 11:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by pepipop

Good point, and yes his father would have been a victim of the times. I can only assume his son told him he had given other children's names at the meeting - however, as did Cardinal Brady, he probably assumed the bishop and church were dealing with it.

We don't know that the boy gave the names to his father before the interview. He wouldn't have felt able to give them AFTER the interview, as he was made to sign a promise to keep what he had said secret.

Can you imagine how scared the boy Brendan felt? His father wasn't allowed to go into the interview room with hin, he was faced by three priests asking him questions about whether he got an erection, whether the abuser got an erection, did either of them have an emission... how embarrassed and shameful he must have felt. Then being made to sign a promise not to tell anyone (the BBC had obtained a photocopy).

It was a disgrace.

saveusfromhell · #57 May 4, '12, 11:29 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperwight66

We don't know that the boy gave the names to his father before the interview. He wouldn't have felt able to give them AFTER the interview, as he was made to sign a promise to keep what he had said secret.

Can you imagine how scared the boy Brendan felt? His father wasn't allowed to go into the interview room with hin, he was faced by three priests asking him questions about whether he got an erection, whether the abuser got an erection, did either of them have an emission... how embarrassed and shameful he must have felt. Then being made to sign a promise not to tell anyone (the BBC had obtained a photocopy).

It was a disgrace.

you not trying to tell us that the father took him to meet these priests and didn't tell him why he was going. it would have been a big thing to have done in the first place, i'm sure the father had made sure he wasn't making it up, so there is no way he didn't ask him what priest was invovled.
the father was not made sign a confidentiality clause, i would not let it happen to my child and the clasue would not stop me from going to smith parish and telling everyone to be careful and every pariash after that, and going to the guards. or am i looking at it through todays eyes

pepipop · #58 May 4, '12, 12:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperwight66

We don't know that the boy gave the names to his father before the interview. He wouldn't have felt able to give them AFTER the interview, as he was made to sign a promise to keep what he had said secret.

Can you imagine how scared the boy Brendan felt? His father wasn't allowed to go into the interview room with hin, he was faced by three priests asking him questions about whether he got an erection, whether the abuser got an erection, did either of them have an emission... how embarrassed and shameful he must have felt. Then being made to sign a promise not to tell anyone (the BBC had obtained a photocopy).

It was a disgrace.

I agree the questions were harrowing, but they would have been standard questions used in the '70's, no doubt discussed by the church with outside sources, such as lawyers, psychologists, etc.. as the catholic church did take advice from such sources for non-theological matters.

In the '70's, adults were seen to be in the right and innocent until proven guilty and children were thought to be making up stories and not to be believed. Fortunately, the tables have totally turned, over the past 30 years, and the child is now the one that's believed and fully protected with the onus on the adult to prove their innocence.

eireannq · #59 May 4, '12, 2:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by paperwight66

We don't know that the boy gave the names to his father before the interview. He wouldn't have felt able to give them AFTER the interview, as he was made to sign a promise to keep what he had said secret.

Can you imagine how scared the boy Brendan felt? His father wasn't allowed to go into the interview room with hin, he was faced by three priests asking him questions about whether he got an erection, whether the abuser got an erection, did either of them have an emission... how embarrassed and shameful he must have felt. Then being made to sign a promise not to tell anyone (the BBC had obtained a photocopy).

It was a disgrace.

Why was he made to sign a promise to keep what he had said secret?

Slaney · #60 May 4, '12, 5:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by pepipop

What an unbelievable statement! I am flabbergasted by the ACP, maybe I've had my head in the sand regarding liberal clergy in Ireland and elsewhere.

Well I can't answer for you, but just had a discussion today with people who have tunnel
vision in regards to sexual abuse by children.

I had to remind them that ........

1, Married men abuse children.

So it can be assumed that marriage isn't the cure-all for the abuse of children. (in response for his call for married priests )

2, Homosexual men entering the priesthood was a big part of the problem, without them being vetted about their sexual preferences, which should have been chastity to their calling in life.

3, Magnifying the problem by moving abusers around, this was a mega mistake.

4, We can't tar all priests with the same brush, just like we can't accuse all married men for abuse, just because some married men abuse.

So yes, people people seem to have a selective view of what was going on in the real world.

My friend said " priests not marrying was part of the problem " this is naive, being married is no guarantee since the majority of child abuse happens in the home, by fathers, & females to a lesser degree.