Cardinal Brady "apologises" to abuse victim after BBC exposure

[DeeTee]

Quite to the contrary, I wish to see justice served. It's not a lynching if the accused is guilty.

This depends upon whose definition of justice you want to use. In cases where children are involved this word is rarely used and its application is rarely sought.

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?

In other words, you want justice only if it meets your idea of it and to heck with those who disagree with you.

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

OH pulleeaasssseeee... what a crock. In the penn state case, used as an example only, the facts used to oust officials from their jobs now turn out to be wrong. you can't trust people's judgement when they move to the emotional state.

It's called empathy, you tool.

well i was going to respond to your complete post but that one word just stopped me. just so you know, empathy is not fact, evidence nor does it bring any. you are just excusing your ignorance with some emotion you do not know how to apply properly.

[Jaysyn]

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

[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.

[Cyberman]

Aw, poor ickle lamb, I hurt his feelings!

Good. Byebye, Delirium Tremens.

[DeeTee]

If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by.

Read the Bible, this is not the case. It would be unfair to believers to admit people into heaven who only lived a good life and still practiced sin while they repented from their sins and obeyed the teachings of the bible.

Someone spoke of fairness in another thread well, here someone is advocating unfairness simply because they want to be in heaven but are unwilling to follow the rules to get there.

[Minimalist]

Jesus said--'He who is without sin cast the first stone.'

Actually, Arch, it has been demonstrated that this particular bullshit story was edited into your fucking bible in the middle ages. It does not appear in either of the intact bibles we have from the 4th century, the Codex Vaticanus or the Codex Sinaticus.

So you godboy said no such thing. Just some shit made up by some monk who must have thought it was the kind of thing that a "god" would say.

So much for your inerrant fucking bible, eh?

[The Heff]

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

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality. In fact, given the history of the mainstream religions in the world today I would argue your religions have the least valid claim to it.

It's funny how religious people seem to think non-believers cannot have morals simply because we do not believe in the same thing as you.

Arrogance.

It would be like me claiming you have no intellect based on the fact you do not believe the teachings of science (which you shouldn't, that's what evidence is for). You clearly do because you are able to debate finer points of detail with some degree of credibility.

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.

Evolution led to complex systems like the human brain which allowed humans to start to think. Thinking led to the creation of societies based on crude barter systems, religions and eventually laws. Many of these laws are written to protect others from intolerance, abuse and unnecessary suffering.

Treat others as you would like to be treated. I have to assume Catholic priests would all like to be molested and have their abusers protected in the process. Mind you, would they even consider it abuse? Most of them probably like it anyway.

B. If you think the standard of morality came from other humans, then that standard is subjective and the people 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.

See point above.

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.

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality, no matter how hard you try to claim it. You are arguing in philosphy and beliefs yet you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims.

Please prove, definitively, that religion has a monopoly on morality. That means evidence my friend. Not your ramblings or interpretations of an ancient book, but clear evidence of your claims. (FYI - I expect ramblings and ancient books)

#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.

I don't need training to spot child abuse, especially when the child comes out and just says at. If Cardinal Brady needs training... Oh dear. He really is devoid of intellect.

Maybe that's it, maybe it's an intellectual problem and not a moral one? Cardinal Brady is just dense.

#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.

Wrong. It is a crime if the report is filed with the intent to maliciously harm another without good reason.

#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.

The church have failed to act in this matter and are as much to blame as Cardinal Brady. How many other abuses have been uncovered in recent years? I recall a story about castration in the not too distant past, I believe that was the Catholic church too.

#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.

Wrong. You are making assumptions about people you don't actually know.

Oh and innocent people did get hurt, they were the children.

Nobody is blaming Cardinal Brady for the crime, the crime committed was by another. Cardinal Brady failed to act in the best interests of the children who were abuse and prevented justice being done.

Feel free to quote everything above word for word, dissect it as you will. Though I don't know why you bother, I have no right to assign morality to events because I don't believe in God.

[DeeTee]

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality

God does. All others copy from him. Remember God puishe dCain for His murder long before there were any secular societies thus the secular civilizations copied their moral standards from God.

t's funny how religious people seem to think non-believers cannot have morals simply because we do not believe in the same thing as you.

Didn't say you couldn't have morals, it is the source of them that we disagree about.

Evolution led to complex systems like the human brain which allowed humans to start to think.

So funny, so justice came long after humans existed. Kind of unfair don't you think? With God justice and morals were at th ebeginning so all people knew what is was.

That means evidence my friend

We only have to look to WW2 Japan, Stalinistic Russia, Modern day Somalia for the evidence you seek. We can add in Nazi Germany, communist China, North Korea as well. The Bible teaches to do good to those who do evil, turn the other cheek etc. If you are honest then you will see the difference.

I don't need training to spot child abuse

Yes you do for even doctors get it wrong. I know of a woman who when her child was young ,a doctor said that her child's injury only came from abuse but the woman did not abuse her child.

So if doctors will err then so will you, you need traiing.

especially when the child comes out and just says

This is another phenomenom that I have found interesting in thise type of crimes. A child is a minor andnot allowed to enter into contracts, their word is not accepted in most cases in a courtof law and on it goes YET when they say a crime was commited against them then these same children become infallible and wiser than Einstein.

Sorry doesn't wash.

The church have failed to act in this matter and are as much to blame as Cardinal Brady. How many other abuses have been uncovered in recent years

You assume that all abuse accusations are true. Ever hear of false accusations? Ever hear of over-zealous social workers? I have, read the witchunt in wennatchee and see what people do with children when they have a vendetta against others.

Or what about the forensic scientist (non-believer) who falsified DNA reports and falsely sent people to prison?

You dseem to ignore all these abuses of the system just because a child may have been touched inappropriately and bestow some grand divinity upon the child in question. Sorry but your position fails to meet muster.

You are making assumptions about people you don't actually know

Yet that is something all atheists seem to do to christians and other religious people.

Cardinal Brady failed to act in the best interests of the children who were abuse and prevented justice being done.

A false standard that has been created to abuse families who do not do what secular people want and to criminalize innocent people who did nothing wrong. It is also a subjective standard that changes with the person weilding that ideology.

Observers do not have the best interest of the child in mind, they have their own ideas they want enforced. Your whole argument is based upon subjective ideas that can and do change over time and with the people supporting it. You really have nothing to stand upon.

[Jackalope]

Read the Bible, this is not the case. It would be unfair to believers to admit people into heaven who only lived a good life and still practiced sin while they repented from their sins and obeyed the teachings of the bible.

Likewise, it's also quite unjust to punish one for the audacity to have ones brain wired in such a way that one believes that which is demonstrable, and can't believe based on wishful thinking and faith.

Perhaps god gave us the gift of intellect in the hopes that we wouldn't exercise it on this one particular topic, or perhaps he wishes us to distrust what our intellect tells us.

Here's the deal. You came to your conclusions about your beliefs based upon your experiences and the manner in which you processed them to form your opinion, subject to cultural and other influences. Guess what? That's precisely how everyone comes to their conclusions. You found the case for god compelling. Others do not.

And guess what? People are perfectly capable of being moral, ethical people either way - just as they are capable of being immoral and unethical. Your system of belief doesn't have a monopoly on morality or ethics, in any way shape or form, no matter how fervently you believe it to be so.

You will disagree, of course. It's your right to be blinded by your prejudice if you choose.

Someone spoke of fairness in another thread well, here someone is advocating unfairness simply because they want to be in heaven but are unwilling to follow the rules to get there.

Today's free clue: It's exceedingly unlikely that he believes in such a place or is pining to go there. Rather, it's more likely that he finds the conceptual notion of your alleged overlord's concept of justice to be highly flawed and barbaric, and furthermore suspiciously similar to the brand of flawed justice of that time.

But hey, he's god, he does what he wants.

Then again, you won't find many around here who give any of that any credibility. But, if believing that we're just angry at god because we want to have our cake and eat it too works for you, knock yourself out. By the way, that's my nice way of saying, "you're wrong". And yet, you are so smug in your self-righteousness that you can't even see a sliver of how wrong you are. Not about whether god exists, that may possibly be unknowable and I make no claim there, but about your delusions on what atheists believe. You, sir, are wholly without clue on that topic - and that's a fact. Having conversed with many of these people for quite some time, I have come to know what they believe, and you sir, have not.

Oh - and one more thing. You might have found that your reception here would have been an entirely different experience had you bothered to learn what is believed (and why) rather than depend on your own flawed prejudice.

[The Heff]

Religion does not have a monopoly on morality

God does. All others copy from him. Remember God puishe dCain for His murder long before there were any secular societies thus the secular civilizations copied their moral standards from God.

As I assumed you would, you reply with not a shred of substance.

You, Sir, are a waste of a forum post. Good day!