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

  • Thread starter Thread starter pepipop
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
saveusfromhell said:
thats exactly what i mean it was unlikely the priest now cardinals idea to do that, of course it was completly insane to move these padeopjile priests around but is that a resigning matter for the then priest sean brady.

again if the father of the child is not guilty, whose very existence was to protect his child, how did he not continue on to the police and other parishes.exasperated at the lack of accountability, simply different times.
Click to expand...
I agree, I do not think - as it was church practice at the time to move priests around - that Cardinal Brady should resign, however I am certain he will, as the media would keep the story going for time and memorial, and it would damage the church more so (if that is possible.)

It was the '70’s and sex abuse crimes in the media were unheard of. It was always hushed up and the child took the ‘blame’ as well, i.e. leading the adult on, enjoyed it, etc… sick world, I know. Hence, IMO, the father most likely did not wish to let more people know what had happened to his son and I assume his son was protected from Smyth from that point onwards - hence his son was safe. I cannot see anyone in those days approaching the police to take the matter any further, with regards to protecting other children.
 
pepipop said:
I agree, I do not think - as it was church practice at the time to move priests around - that Cardinal Brady should resign, however I am certain he will, as the media would keep the story going for time and memorial, and it would damage the church more so (if that is possible.)

It was the '70’s and sex abuse crimes in the media were unheard of. It was always hushed up and the child took the ‘blame’ as well, i.e. leading the adult on, enjoyed it, etc… sick world, I know. Hence, IMO, the father most likely did not wish to let more people know what had happened to his son and I assume his son was protected from Smyth from that point onwards - hence his son was safe. I cannot see anyone in those days approaching the police to take the matter any further, with regards to protecting other children.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree, nor can i see him going to the police.although if my child was abused after his yet he did nothing to warn people, or inform the police, if it happened today i would wonder what sort of parent he was.

If the cardinal resigns in this case where he wasn’t qualified to understand peodophile, but was there as a note taker, how long before every single cardinal has to resign then the pope.
how many have never had any involvment no matter how minimal.
if a few cardinals resign on something that they did 40 years ago, even though there is a dual standard, the father was right, the priest taking notes was wrong.
so because he is now a bishop he must resign.
will, any priest, bishop, pope that ever heard of any priest being a pedophile and did nothing have to resign,
Of course the answer is yes if you set the bar at today’s awareness upon actions of 40 years ago.
there won’t be many priests left. so answer me this why is people not calling for norris to resign from the seanad, he was there with a man in the clear knowelde he was raping a child. why is the media not baying for his resignation?
 
saveusfromhell said:
although if my child was abused after his yet he did nothing to warn people
Click to expand...
I wonder what life would be like for people if even accusations were reported ahead to people yet to be encountered.

Anyway I still don’t understand why a notary has to go to the police whenever he overhears something.
 
Rainaldo said:
I wonder what life would be like for people if even accusations were reported ahead to people yet to be encountered.

.
Click to expand...
that’s what’s being asked of the cardinal, also why would someone go to a priest instead of the police, seems like double standard abound.
 
saveusfromhell said:
Yes I agree, nor can i see him going to the police.although if my child was abused after his yet he did nothing to warn people, or inform the police, if it happened today i would wonder what sort of parent he was.

If the cardinal resigns in this case where he wasn’t qualified to understand peodophile, but was there as a note taker, how long before every single cardinal has to resign then the pope.
how many have never had any involvment no matter how minimal.
if a few cardinals resign on something that they did 40 years ago, even though there is a dual standard, the father was right, the priest taking notes was wrong.
so because he is now a bishop he must resign.
will, any priest, bishop, pope that ever heard of any priest being a pedophile and did nothing have to resign,
Of course the answer is yes if you set the bar at today’s awareness upon actions of 40 years ago.
there won’t be many priests left. so answer me this why is people not calling for norris to resign from the seanad, he was there with a man in the clear knowelde he was raping a child. why is the media not baying for his resignation?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Because he’s not catholic and yes, he too had full knowledge of a 40 yr old male friend who had sex with a 15 yr old boy, and then wrote a letter to the Israeli government supporting the man and trying to get his release from prison. I believe he also stated that young boys should be initiated by older men, as was the case in Grecian times.

The above example just makes it more apparent that the secular media worldwide are gunning for the CC particularly since the sex abuse scandals arose. However, the CC has to take ownership of the way they dealt with the abuse, at that time. Prior to the abuse scandals, all attacks at the church were usually hearsay and fizzled out.

However, in the longer term this will be a hard but good lesson for the church, as already dissident priests and religious groups are being reprimanded, which will lead to a stronger, holier and much more focused church in future.
 
saveusfromhell said:
that’s what’s being asked of the cardinal, also why would someone go to a priest instead of the police, seems like double standard abound.
Click to expand...
That one question is conveniently left unanswered in every single story I have ever read about the scandal.
 
saveusfromhell said:
thats exactly what i mean it was unlikely the priest now cardinals idea to do that, of course it was completly insane to move these padeopjile priests around but is that a resigning matter for the then priest sean brady.

again if the father of the child is not guilty, whose very existence was to protect his child, how did he not continue on to the police and other parishes.exasperated at the lack of accountability, simply different times.
Click to expand...
Maybe the victim’s family did not want to offer their child up to the media through reporting it to the police. Maybe the parents felt that their child had been put through enough and just wanted healing and safety. Maybe they thought the Vatican would take precautions to never let this horror happen again to an innocent child.
 
eireannq said:
Maybe the victim’s family did not want to offer their child up to the media through reporting it to the police. Maybe the parents felt that their child had been put through enough and just wanted healing and safety. Maybe they thought the Vatican would take precautions to never let this horror happen again to an innocent child.
Click to expand...
Same as the then priest? or is he in your opinion not to be afforded the possibility that he also did not understand 40 years ago, the extent and nature of the problem and the proper procedures that are now to be followed in these cases. As a note taker he probably thought his job was to take notes and the people he reported to would do their job.
Why do you set dual standards?
In your haste to demonize the now bishop, you have not pondered your own argument.
 
saveusfromhell said:
Same as the then priest? or is he in your opinion not to be afforded the possibility that he also did not understand 40 years ago, the extent and nature of the problem and the proper procedures that are now to be followed in these cases. As a note taker he probably thought his job was to take notes and the people he reported to would do their job.
Why do you set dual standards?
In your haste to demonize the now bishop, you have not pondered your own argument.
Click to expand...
The bishop had no emotional investment in the child. The bishop was trying to save the church from scandal. The parents were trying to protect their child from further misery. Big difference. Note taker my A**. He knew exactly what was going on and made a choice to defend the indefensible actions of his institution, as opposed to protecting an innocccent child. This is a no-brainer. And there are no dual-standards. Jesus would have not had a problem with choosing to protect the innocent children over a child abuser. Why do others seem to not be clear on this?
 
eireannq said:
The bishop had no emotional investment in the child. The bishop was trying to save the church from scandal. The parents were trying to protect their child from further misery. Big difference. Note taker my A**. He knew exactly what was going on and made a choice to defend the indefensible actions of his institution, as opposed to protecting an innocccent child. This is a no-brainer. And there are no dual-standards. Jesus would have not had a problem with choosing to protect the innocent children over a child abuser. Why do others seem to not be clear on this?
Click to expand...
The above is a response from people who know more than anyone else. Let me just point a few things out from your post.

“The parents were trying to protect the child from further misery” What was the Cardinal (NOT Bishop and priest at the time) doing then?

Your answer: “He Knew exactly what was going on”…“defend the indefensible actions of his institution”. So this was an example of the Catholic church’s actions? Well look at the figures and the sample of self interested individuals. It’s less than 4% so No, it doesn’t represent the church. In the same way not all parents abuse their children, following your logic.

Jesus is God so he’s hardly a good example and you or I don’t know what he would do although maybe you know better…🤷

I’m clear on one thing. Your post is one of the most factually incorrect, deluded and confused I’ve read in a long time.
 
eireannq said:
The bishop had no emotional investment in the child. The bishop was trying to save the church from scandal. The parents were trying to protect their child from further misery. Big difference. . This is a no-brainer. Jesus would have not had a problem with choosing to protect the innocent children over a child abuser. Why do others seem to not be clear on this?
Click to expand...
please show where anywhere in the media somebody has claimed this.or other proof for the quotes below
He knew exactly what was going on and made a choice to defend the indefensible actions of his institution, as opposed to protecting an innocccent child
Click to expand...
he has said that he felt let down by his superiors that didn’t do anything about after it was reported back
more than a note taker .
Click to expand...
i’m paraphrasing because of your rude language.

as for
And there are no dual-standards.
Click to expand...
please explain the norris conundrum then, plus the two ways of looking at it one of a priest asked to take notes, and the other of a father who failed to do his civic duty and report the case, todays standards is he would be up in front of a court for failing to report the incident.
why do you accept for one thats the way it worked forty years ago but the other you demand todays standards.
plus i have reported your last post for the foul language.

Jesus in private revelation has always demanded obedience from his priests and nuns to their superiors even if they told them that they were to ignore the apparitions,
check out st faustina, or st lucy of fatima on obedience.

i will let Jesus himself judge the hearts of the people involved, you seem to have the ablility to do that now though
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:
  • Vatican II
  • Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
  • Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
  • Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
  • Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
  • Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
  • Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Benedict XVI. He is fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.
 
RTE news 6pm - Cardinal Brady’s ‘not for turning’, he is not going to resign!
 
pepipop said:
RTE news 6pm - Cardinal Brady’s ‘not for turning’, he is not going to resign!
Click to expand...
And I’m delighted with that! I understand Robert’s position on the forum because this problem is being exacerbated by that odious meeting today in Dublin involving a disregard for authority as well as denial of the infallibility of the Holy Father but we’ll continue to survive. We’ve come through a schism, a reformation and persecution so a few people who want to get media attention by exploiting horrific sins won’t make any difference to the Bride of Christ.
 
Prodigal_40s said:
And I’m delighted with that! I understand Robert’s position on the forum because this problem is being exacerbated by that odious meeting today in Dublin involving a disregard for authority as well as denial of the infallibility of the Holy Father but we’ll continue to survive. We’ve come through a schism, a reformation and persecution so a few people who want to get media attention by exploiting horrific sins won’t make any difference to the Bride of Christ.
Click to expand...
I haven’t read anything yet about the meeting today, in Dublin, but it too was on the 6pm news. A female speaker was highlighted wanting females ordained, in her words - instead of the church covering up for paedophile priests, they should be ordaining female priests!

Unbelievable dissent against the church, under the guise of an “association of catholic priests”. Other topics were non-celibacy for priests, the church heirarchy needs to be more transparent, yada, yada…
 
while the ACP is off topic, the cardinal stating that he is not resigning sends a signal to the ACP loud and clear we are not moving on any of your issues no matter who is with you:thumbsup:
 
saveusfromhell said:
while the ACP is off topic, the cardinal stating that he is not resigning sends a signal to the ACP loud and clear we are not moving on any of your issues no matter who is with you:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
And just to clarify, the teaching of the Catholic church are not “issues”. Certain members of the ACP have issues with the way they feel the abuse scandal has been handled so I disagree, it is on topic. However I share your views on standing firm, no matter what the temporal cost.
 
The ACP are turning out to be a disgrace, reminds me of the words Our Lady spoke at Fatima.

Jesus was true to his own parable, He built His house on a Rock, Jesus said " those that aren’t with Me are against Me "

The ACP are Prostesters, therefore not recognizable as Catholic in communion with Rome…

Pope Benedict vxi won’t bow to their agenda, there are still faithful Catholics in Ireland, some of which are afraid to make a stand, carried along with the tide of popular opinion.
Prodigal_40s said:
And just to clarify, the teaching of the Catholic church are not “issues”. Certain members of the ACP have issues with the way they feel the abuse scandal has been handled so I disagree, it is on topic. However I share your views on standing firm, no matter what the temporal cost.
Click to expand...
Oh well they may play the abuse card, but that’s not what I heard on the news, with their calls for women priests, married priests etc,

Unfortunately those priests who have dragged us all into this are being used as a rod for our own backs.

We know the ACP’s agenda, and it is at odds with the Holy Roman Catholic Church, so most likely at odds with Jesus…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top