Cardinal Brady "apologises" to abuse victim after BBC exposure

[DeeTee]

You subscribe more authority to people than they actually have.

1. You are joking, right? This is a troll... Isn't it? Seriously. No, you can't be serious...

2. What would YOU do if you knew a child was being abused?

3. I'll tell you what I would do, I would make sure the police were informed in an instant. I wouldn't give a damn who it was that was abusing the children, it could be a a peer, a colleague, a superior, a friend or a family member, I simply would not care. I'd be on the phone giving them the details, names, addresses, whatever I could do to help those children.

4. The church's excuse in this fiasco, "there were no guidelines", is nothing short of a disgrace. Cardinal Brady and all who defend him are a disgrace. He should be sacked.

5.Both he and the church should be investigated by the authorities to see if a criminal prosecution can be taken forward.

numbers added by me for clarity

#1. you do not believe in theultimate morality giver or His standard, how can you demand people to act with such moral authority when you do not believe in it?

A. If you believe like some evolutionists that morality came from animals then you have no authority to interfere as animals do not stop child molestation. B. If you think the standard of morality came from other humans, then that standard is subjective and thepeople involved can claim they committed no crime because their standard of morality allows them to treat children in such a way.

In other words, you could not attack or stop Hitler because he was a power and he had hisown standard ofmorality that was not subject to yours. C. If there is a higher standard of morality that is greater than any humans which grants moral authority to act, then you would have to dispense and discard your argument that God does not exist for morality and its demands for certain behavior provide the evidence that He exists.

You cannot have it both ways. Either there is a higher moral standard and God exists or there is not and no one has the right to demand moral action from others for their standards are different than other people's and not superior to them.

#2 To demand action from others is implying that you believe that each and every person is trained to recognize the difference between crime and accidental behavior. One cannot assume that accrime took place but must firstinvestigate honestly to get to the truth then take the appropriate action. HEARSAY is NOT EVIDENCE. {Ask minimalist about the Arizona's official who uses hearsay)

Not everyone is trained to tellthe differenced and assumption, interpretation, leaps to conclusions are not evidence that a crime took place.

#3. Keyboard courage. Filing a false police report is a crime; falsely accusing someone opens you up to a lawsuit; think because if you do it wrong you are the one in trouble.

#4. There probably is NO CHURCH denomination guideline BUT there is a scriptural one. That excuse tells you that they are not following God but their own ideas and gives evidence that they are not of God.

#5. No. In today's world, everyone is looking to criminalize each other and that is the wrong way to go. You do not have justice on th emind but a 'gewt the religioous people' mentality and that leads to kangaroo courst, vigilantism and innocent people getting hurt. Think before you act.

---

I bet DeeTee is one of those tools that thinks the children must be seducing the priests.

No. I wasn't there, have bare minimum of facts, and am not judge, jury and executioner. I do not judge others as my duty is to follow scriptures even in cases like this.

---

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.

Here is what we know. The man has publically apologized for his role in the scandal, and is quoted as saying, "Definitely the parents should have been informed. That's quite clear."

So, we know he has taken responsibilty, and acknowledged that parents were not informed while simultaneously admitting that he failed to share what he knew. I'm not sure why you think everyone is just spouting off without the facts. This is quite enough to know this man is complicit in this whole scandal. Your insistance that everyone is jumping to conclusions and does not know enough is coming across as sympathy for what this man has done.

He needs to be held accountable for his actions just as anoyone outside of a religious hierarchy
such as the Catholic church would.

Jesus said--'He who is without sin cast the first stone.' Before you pick up those rocks, are your lives perfect? It is best to calm down and not let your emotions run away influencing your actions.

There are two crimes where almost everyone I read has the people guilty without any facts, any evidence, without any trial, without any proof whatsoever.

1 is abuse against women and the second is crimes against children. If you want to hold someone accountable for their actions go after those who make exceptions to the legal system and justice when these crimes appear on th edocket and in the news media.

Accountability is a two way street.