Cardinal Brady "apologises" to abuse victim after BBC exposure

[Cyberman]

One of the reasons I detest discussing any topic related to child abuse/molestation is that the secular side is far too emotional, irrational and illogical.

When a child is involved they are ready to lynch anyone and everyone remotely connected to the alledged crime and toss out the rules of the leagl system without nary a thought nor care.

Quite to the contrary, I wish to see justice served. It's not a lynching if the accused is guilty. The ones who toss out the rules of the legal system with nary a thought or care because they seem to think such things do not apply to them as followers of some higher morality - what are we to make of them?

They do not know all the facts yet talk like they do. They do not know the whole story yet think their eisegetical input replaces such facts.

in reality, those not involved in the alledged crime do not have a clue as to what they are talking about and do more damge than good.

Which is why we have to rely on the facts as presented, just like you do, but without the air of sneering condescension.

---

Oh, it's easy to throw around the biblespam when you're not the victim, isn't it? When it's not your arse and your childhood innocence on the receiving end? Well, whatever helps you sleep at night I suppose. I wonder what choice bits of biblespam Brendan Smyth and his fellow child-rapists use to justify their crimes to themselves and help them sleep at night?

---

You assume far too much. it doesn't matter if my rear end was involved or not, the Biblical instructions apply to all, even victims of crimes.

It's called empathy, you tool. It's one of the things that stops me from breaking the neck of the first preachy prat I see telling me what their bible says I should do. My point was that it's all to easy to quote bible verses as though they had some relevance when you're sitting in a nice warm room with no sexual predator eyeing up your arse. Don't you think the victims of these crimes (and if not these particular 'alleged' victims, then at least those of proven cases) would gladly have swapped places with you if they could?

Wouldn't know what they did to justify their deeds. i wasn't there nor were you.

Right. You keep on saying this. None of us were there at the time, so like everyone else - relevant authorities included (if the crimes are reported to them) - we have to rely on the facts as presented. I wasn't there when you typed out all this that I am responding to; how can I know it really happened?

To reiterate my other point here: you seem to find it easy and perfectly laudible to trot out some bible verse or other to justify your position. These priests would surely find it equally as easy and laudible, it being their job and all. The bible - the big book of multiple choice. Pick 'n' mix morality. You can keep it.

---

So these priests are not of God (sorry... are NOT of God)? How convenient! Wonder if they mentioned that when pocketing their salaries, that they're being paid for a job for which they're not entitled?

---

You've never heard of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'? or false teachers?

That's not my problem. They clearly think they are "of God", you clearly think they are "NOT" (or purport to think that, at least). From my position, I can't tell the difference. And I don't have to.

And what about Brady? By sitting and doing nothing about a crime which he knew had happened, and for all he knew was still happening, he is as guilty as the rapist priest himself; if not more so.

Were you present with him during this time? How do you know he did nothing?

Well for one thing we have Brady's own testimony:

"Definitely the parents should have been informed. That's quite clear," Cardinal Brady told RTE.

But Cardinal Brady accused the documentary makers of exaggerating his role. He said he had been present simply to take notes, and that he had reported to more senior clergy whom he expected to take appropriate action.

Cardinal Brady previously apologised over the issue during Mass on St Patrick's Day in 2010.

He said: "I have listened to reaction from people to my role in events 35 years ago.

"I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by any failure on my part that I apologise to you with all my heart.

"I also apologise to all those who feel I have let them down.

"Looking back I am ashamed that I have not always upheld the values that I profess and believe in."

it is a good thing the world doesn't have to meet your ideas of responsibility, nothing would ever get done and too many innocent people would be hurt.

Oh what, they're not getting hurt now and by people who defer their ideas of responsibility to the same 'holy' book you cited in dismissing them?

like I said, when a child is involved observers throw all sanity out the window and rely on emotion. You are part of the problem not part of the solution.

One of the major differences between me and thee, if comments such as these are anything to go by, is that I actually have emotional connections to my fellow humans. If I see another person in pain, or distress, and I am in a position to help even in some small way, I will always do so. If I cannot, if the most I can offer is my sympathy, I will do that too. Either way, I feel their pain. Your twisting that to pass judgement on my sanity is irrelevant.

As far as being part of the problem is concerned, I might add that I have never molested anyone, sexually or otherwise, child or not; and were I to occupy a position from which I could bring to justice someone who does, I would do all I can to bring that about. I certainly wouldn't attempt to hide the crime and its perpetrators under the carpet like Brady and his superiors are alleged to have done. How is that any way part of the solution?