It's more of the same; the deeper they dig into the Irish Catholic Church, the filthier it gets. The latest news is a revelation from the senior cleric in Ireland.
Cardinal Sean Brady, primate of all-Ireland, admitted he was present at meetings where two abused teenagers were made to sign vows of silence.
He was part of a cover-up. In a case of known sex-offender priest, Brady helped conceal the truth about this monster by compelling the victims to silence. And now he shows no guilt, saying "Frankly I don't believe that this is a resigning matter." Why? Because he was only following orders.
I've heard that excuse somewhere else, before.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Eric Dejaeger is a Catholic priest and pedophile who benefited greatly from church policy: when it was learned that he was a child-raping monster, the Catholic Church did the upright, moral thing and kept him on as a priest, but simply shipped him off to the Canadian north where he'd only be raping…
John Fiala is a bad man, and he's also a Catholic priest. I've got a flood of email telling me I ought to highlight the case because he's a priest who forced a boy to have sex with him at gunpoint, and later tried to hire a hit man to kill him. What he has done has been awful and evil, but, you…
The Catholic Church still doesn't get it
By Adrian Liston
No matter how many revelations of child sex abuse by Catholic Priests come out, the Catholic Church still doesn’t get it. Take, for example, this story told by the Archbishop of New York, in which he recounts a (probably apocryphal)…
This is a real mystery. Donohue is an angry guy with a fax machine who gets donations from affronted Catholics, which is nothing the church can do about, obviously…but he also pretends to be a defender of Catholicism while having no standing with the church and while making the most outrageous…
I couldn't stop laughing when I read this earlier.Maybe Walton can allude to the origin of the title.
Btw, shouldn't someone be, uhm, working ?
;)
"it was underlined that he was not to hear confessions and that was very important."
Of all the skewed perspectives on assigning level of importance... What #1 no confessions, #2 safeguard the church's reputation, and #3 keep victims silent??? Or do I have 1 & 2 backward?
"The responsibility for his behaviour as a priest rested with his religious superior in Kilnacrott."
Would someone like to offer a wager that the above mentioned superior is no longer of this world?
You can't be asked to resign from dead.
Oh, PZ, you are proving Kw*k's point yet again.
If PZ had any honor, he would give special credence to Kw*k's mentor and say no more about how the Irish RCC applied pressure to the victims of abuse. Because, as we all know, PZ does not have an unkind word to say about Islam.
It might not be a resignation matter for Brady, but it should be a criminal matter for the justice system.
Pathetic and shameful. No guidelines? I am so sick of hearing these despicable men use excuses such as these. Apparently, Brady is so morally bankrupt that he was unable to tell right from wrong. Brady is full of an Augean amount of ordure.
Not a resigning matter, of course it isn't.
With any other employer it would be an instant sacking matter and if there's any sort of justice in Ireland a matter for the police (Garda).
All those present at those meetings should be prosecuted as accessiories to child rape.
Imagine the reaction if an American politician with a (D) after their name were to admit to doing something like this.
I became rage boy when I saw this.
RAGE BOY, I TELL YOU!!!!!!
Calling for his resignation might be counter-productive. In the wake of scandal, large organizations often practice ablation PR, shedding lower-level members to protect those higher up, and also so they can claim they have rooted out the wrongdoing.
Colin:
Bulldung. That's just making his excuses for him. He did wrong, he's admitted it, he should be kicked out and prosecuted.
Imagine any normal person faced with a meeting where abused teenagers were asked to sign a piece of paper promising not to speak out about the abuse. Alarm bells would ring out in their head saying THIS IS NOT RIGHT, anyone with a moral compass would immediately realise that this is not morally acceptable.
If only the Catholic priests had some sort of guidebook to teach them morality and the difference between right and wrong.
If only such a book existed.
Btw, if people are unfamiliar with "Rage Boy" (who I became after reading of the Irish primate's chimpy behaviour) he's the stock "Islamic nutter" used to illustrate many an article about, er, Islamic nutters (in truth I believe he's actually a nice young man).
Usual appearance:
http://marypmadigan.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/rageboy.jpg
Photoshop fun:
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/rage-boy-sitar.jpg
Caine
I fully agree he did wrong and he should be prosecuted. I'm not trying to make excuses for him.
I've given it some more thought.
One of the problems here is that resignation is essentially a civil remedy. It's the same thing that happens all the time with the RCC - child abuse is treated the same as corporate wrongdoing, where the worst penalty is monetary fines, generally.
It's not corporate wrongdoing - it's criminal activity and should be prosecuted. In this case it's at least (arguably) reckless endangerment. Calling for his resignation actually allows the RCC an easy out - they can wash their hands of him and claim they've done their job.
I guess what I'm really saying is resignation is not enough. Especially for someone as close to retirement age as he appears to be in the pictures...
And they say primates show signs of proto-morality! The Catholic church would be better off handing over control to bonobos.
Priests should be held to the same legal standards as the rest of the world, and no attempt to shield them should be tolerated. But of course, the RCC had decided that Priests are never subject to "Temporal law" , even if they're accused of murder.
So a little molestation is no big thing to them.
Move the "fallen" one, pay settlements so long as the victims are silenced by accepting payment and then lie and refuse to cooperate with the police when they come to get the priest.
As for penile-vacuums like Kwok -- Don't go away mad, Kwok. just Go Away.
Colin:
I fully agree. I get what your saying; the whole situation is beyond frustrating. Even though resignation isn't much, he shouldn't have a choice in the matter, especially because his refusal to leave is allowing him to offset both his guilt and his responsibility.
Last week, I was reading about a priest in Britain who was a known molester; the church offered him 30,000 pounds to leave, he refused. It's infuriating that 'the church' acts as if they are powerless in this regard. Wretches, all of them.
Trying to decide whether Godwin's Law applies...
The Catholic church, by now, should have sold the Vatican to pay punitive damages for its tacit endorsement of sexual abuse alone, not to mention its contribution to the African AIDS epidemic. These stories are starting to make me sick... especially when the apologists write them off and the legislators write pardons.
Maybe covering up paedophilia is in his employment contract?
For everyone making the "primate" gags, we should note that it's primate as in prime, primacy - and the reason our subgroup of living organisms are called "primates" is because Linnaeus was putting us at the top. The ecclesiastical use pre-dates the biological one.
Cardinal Brady has the moral compass of a concentration camp guard and should be sued for conspiracy and obstruction of justice.
Yeah, ironically, I am aware of that in part because of the unChristian brothers and their patented methods of Latin inculcation...bash it in and if he's slow (which unfortunately I was at languages) bash it in harder. Meh, at least I dodged "Brother Bugger" banging his koch up my arse, unlike some I could mention.
Even Steve Gould had a chuckle about RCC primates before he twigged (it's in one of his essays somewhere).
RCC primates are still chimps though.
I just don't understand why the lot of them haven't been arrested for abetting crime and obstructing justice.
Like I posted the other day, in covering it up, Brady may as well have diddled them himself. Isn't this known as being "An Accessory after the fact." In my country he would be criminally charged.
PZ
so has Ratzinger
Is any additional evidence required to state without equivocation that the "holy" roman catholic catholic church is morally bankrupt?
Filthy buggers...
#25
no, but there's plenty more where that come from
#6
This is a natural result of religion. Since the only source of morality is rules given by superiors, if you have no such rules, you are incapable of behaving morally.
The bible didn't say anything about covering up child abuse and his superiors didn't give him guidelines. How was he supposed to know?
Who is Stu?
Apparently children's welfare was not a priority for the Church before.
Rey Fox:
Stu is a valiant Pharyngulite who has been braving the herd of pearl clutchers over at the intersuction.
Fil @21--Calling the leaders of the RCC chimps is a GROSS insult!
Pan troglodytes is a perfectly respectable species, while the leaders of the RCC aren't respectable anything!
On a somewhat selfish tack, I hate the feelings these priests engender in me. I am not violent person, but when I heard this story I felt a desire to do serious harm to the Archbishop.
W
I vas chus folloving orders.
Hmm, where have we heard that excuse before.
"My job is to send the priests up...where they go down is none of my concern."
Wernher von Brady?
By this point, shall we just assume that any Catholic cleric we meet is involved in covering up sexual abuse, until he demonstrates otherwise? Men like O'Doyle and Wall from Deliver Us From Evil are the troublemakers, not the mainstream.
Actually, chimps can be violent, territorial, and even cannibalistic. Other than the fact that they aren't prone to rooting adolescents up the jacksy as far as I know, the differences are mostly cosmetic.
Has anybody figured out what is wrong with Kw*k? He's becoming too lampoonable to lampoon.
I think at the very least no priest should be left unchaperoned with a minor.
Don't these people believe in their own bullshit about eternal punishment? They sure act as if they're only concerned about this world.
The more I hear about the church cover-ups, the more i think the US should go after them using the RICO statutes. Of course it will never happen.
Cthulhu's minion
Reading the article and the comments here I have to ask, why can't rape-priests and their accessories be arrested?
Do they have diplomatic immunity for being agents of a foreign government (the Vatican See)? Or is this some quiet "gentlemen's" agreement between the Catholic Church and local governments that priests and bishops and such won't be arrested, like anyone else would for such crimes, out of obscene deference to one particular religion?
How does this work?
I was just following orders
Godwin's fail.
@40 : RICO would be an interesting and somewhat more comprehensive approach, but sadly, child abuse doesn't appear to be on the list of triggering crimes.
One could possibly argue extortion (pay/pray or go to hell), but, yeah, I don't see that happening.
Pity.
Steve @ #39
Steve @ 39
They don't get eternal punishment because they play the "Get out of Hell Card" by going to confession where one of their fellow RCC priests pronounces that all is forgiven if they say a rosary because jebus died for their sins.
But...but...but....religion!.....morality!....absolute ethical standard!....
*catastrophic irony meter failure*
Is this priest admitting that his faith DOES NOT provide guidance for his morality?
Have I phased into an alternate universe here?
Ooh, my badly-researched mistake.
RICO has been used already for prosecution of RCC cover-ups of child abuse (at least, according to Wikipedia). Those concerned were cleared of the charges, though.
The babble says to bear no false witness, but it's silent about the notion of coercing victims to bear no witness at all. Maybe that was in one of the books that didn't make the cut.
I was reading on RTE (Irish equivalent of the BBC) that an "expert" in cardinal law said there was no requirement for Brady to inform the police.
What ever happened to the acting like a responsible member of society ? Does being a priest somehow exempt one from that ?
I propose we start referring to the pedophile Irish priests as "The Brady Bunch".
Yes, I think the "good" Cardinal Brady should face criminal prosecution for covering up a crime. What is the Irish equivalent to Accessory After the Fact?
No, see, they confess their sins and put their faith in Jebus, so there's nothing to worry about. It's just us heathens who sleep until noon on Sundays and have sex with people our own age who need to fear for our souls.
Oops.
Meant to include a link to the RTE report: It is here.
I can't speak to Ireland, but the overwhelming majority of priests in the US have no legal shield from prosecution for child abuse.
You might be thinking of diplomatic immunity from prosecution under the laws of the host nation. I imagine that some priests are official diplomats in the US, but merely having the status as a priest in the RCC affords no immunity from prosecution whatsoever in the US.
This, of course, goes all the way to the top.
The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it
May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture.
It's sad, yet somehow poetic that your back-to-back posts on Ireland can be so different in emotion.
Best of times, worst of times indeed.
Then again, on the positive side, the Priest scandal has hit the Vatican. Even Andrew Sullivan is seeing patterns of Catholicism's death-throes, which grow worse the longer Ratzinger's in power.
Clarification: "... but the overwhelming majority of priests in the US have no legal shield from prosecution for child abuse perpetrated in the US."
I do not mean to suggest that the US (or one of the states) could prosecute a priest for an act of child abuse that is perpetrated entirely outside of US (or state) territory, absent some extraordinary jurisdiction-extending situation.
This whole scandal is widening across Europe, and a very big fish indeed is trapped in the net:
"The Pope was drawn directly into the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal last night as news emerged of his part in a decision to send a paedophile priest for therapy. The cleric went on to reoffend and was convicted of child abuse but continues to work as a priest in Upper Bavaria..."
-- Timesonline
In UK politics "I have no intention of resigning" usually means "I'll get my coat" and they're gone within the week.
Let's hope it's so with the paedophile enabler Cardinal Brady. The most mindnumbing for me is how totally uncomprehending the church, with its, oh, roughly 2000 years of sin-free history, since Jesus died for all our sins, was to the danger in its ranks.
It's also hilarious to see how other science blogs, where they still allow that twat Kwok - yeah, I know, but PZ hasn't banned that word - though he has banned Kwok - take a high moral tone regarding this sacred, blessed blog.
I find pharyngula to have the highest moral standards. And if people don't like our tone, they can really...well...err go away. Sexually. And hard.
See also: Roger's Profanisauras -
http://www.viz.co.uk/profanisaurus.html
AnthonyK,
I like your comment, but could I ask you to not say twat ? Like you, I live in the UK, and I know it has no sexual connotations here anymore. It is just an emphatic way of saying idiot, with the advantage of rhyming with prat. However in the US it still retains strong sexual connotations and is used in a derogatory manner aimed at women.
I used to use the the word here as well, but Carlie and others made me re-think that. It was causing offence when I intend none. It is one think to insult someone on purpose, but another to do so without meaning to.
I do like you point about saying you are not going to resign as said here in the UK. If Brady were in the UK he would be gone by Friday.
Think these lyrics ('Sinister Rouge' by Bad Religion) are fitting:
***
Innocents burned alive at the stake
Tortured and dumped in nameless graves
Centuries wane
Authority died
Scattering seeds of ancient lies
Sinister rouge
Coming back for more
To even the score
Sinister rouge
Coming back for more
To even the score
Child molesters and Jesuits
Holding secret conference
Underneath the pontiff’s nose
And only God will ever know
Sinister rouge
Coming back for more
To even the score
Sinister rouge
Coming back for more
To even the score
Give us this day our daily bread
Your legacy we'll not forget
Lick the wounds
Cleanse the land
The modern world rejects your hand
Yyeah, ok, no more twat, but...ok, no buts. And yet - well just go to Viz for details.
Then again, why not?
Kwok it,but really, why not?
1)Throw him in prison
2)Let the prisoners know he protected child rapists
3)Guards go on hour long lunch break
This is pretty much how to settle that one.
It is definitely not a "re - signing" matter, those boys went through enough the first time:)
This is a matter that is long past due for resolution, not resignation. The use of the term just shows how devious the language can be. Is it a resignation as a solution, is it resignation they feel at their unassailable Pontifical position, or is it resignation the victims feel after years of abuse and neglect and spiritual blackmail? Is there anyone who doubts that excommunication was used as a lever?
It is time for confession, pure, honest and complete - that too is a Catholic sacrament. Never heard of resignation as sacred in my RC years ending at age 12, 50 years ago.
Matt @60. I don't know whether Brady would have to go were he in the UK.
The last Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor while Archbis of Arundel moved a known paedophile to keep him from the law. He moved him to be Chaplain at Gatwick Airport where the preist carried on abusing.
As blatant as Brady's crimes and more recent. The UK press kept very quiet about it both when he was Archbishop and when he was Cardinal.
In related stories:
Pope allows pedophile priest to continue with ministry
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7060406.ece
Scientologists try to block film
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/scientologists-try-block-ge…
1)Throw him in prison
2)Let the prisoners know he protected child rapists
3)Guards go on hour long lunch break
This is pretty much how to settle that one. - Kome@63
No, it isn't. Rape and torture are evil. Enabling rape or torture is evil. Even if the victim is a rapist and torturer.
Matt re: #60
Well said. Thank you!
I agree with Knockgoats (for a change) at #67.
Rape and torture are never acceptable, in any circumstances. And we shouldn't be looking to "make paedophiles (or their enablers) suffer", in any case. Inflicting torment on those who have committed acts of abuse will do nothing to undo the abuse, nor will it compensate the victims. It's simply vengeance - which is not something a civilised society should be doing.
When someone commits acts of child molestation, we should be looking at the mental, emotional, psychological, social and familial factors that made them that way. A very high proportion of child abusers were themselves molested in childhood. Certainly, when someone is a known abuser, he or she should be kept away from children. But inflicting some sort of Talionic "punishment" is barbaric, IMO.
@67
Thanks for that. I'm guessing Kome is American? It shames me that here rape apologetics are alive and well with the constant gloating about how people will "learn what rape is like" in prison. Even otherwise liberal people can go for that sort of thing (and living in a conservative area, I miss even those liberals). The problem is so widespread, I have no idea how to even begin making inroads towards curbing that depravity.
@70
I may be a minority, but I didn't read Kome's remark as advocating rape so much as torture. I'm not saying torture is something to advocate, but I can understand the idea of wanting somebody like Brady to get his ass kicked. Personally, I think stopping at step 1 would be fine with me. At least a fine and a defrocking.
@71
Fair enough. I am perhaps oversensitive to "ha ha, prison rape" being thrown around on the interwebs as often as it is. Reading again, it probably was a Type 1 Error. But torture is no more acceptable than rape.
How the heck do you say each? They're nowhere near rhyming, at least the way this USian says each. Prat rhymes with slat for me.
Paul,
I understand. Prison rape is something I never really thought about until reading comments here chastising others for joking about it. That made me think about it and now I, too, am bothered every time I hear somebody joke about it. That's what I like about this place - always challenging me to think about things I hadn't already. Sometimes it can be painful and embarrassing, but it's worth it.
Lets not forget the Roman Catholic Church claims to be THE moral authority on Earth.
American evangelicals told Ugandans that gays acted like Catholic priests, and the Ugandans enacted a death penalty.
So, we have yet another Catholic archbishop and cardinal who participated in child rape cover-ups...
I wonder, after he resigns, will the pope also reward him for his services with diplomatic immunity and a church in Rome, as the (in)famous cardinal Law?
Oh, and speaking of cardinal Law... among other councils and committees and whatnots (including the conclave in 2005) of the RCC, he still is member of the Pontifical Council for the Family. So much about "concern for the children" on the part of the church.
#67
"No, it isn't. Rape and torture are evil. Enabling rape or torture is evil. Even if the victim is a rapist and torturer."
I'm not arguing that it isn't evil, I'm merely suggesting that it might be effective as a form of punishment against someone who was perfectly willing to hide people who committed such evil. Maybe if he personally understands what it's like to experience such exploitation, manipulation, and contempt, he'd be less willing in the future to protect perpetrators of it.
Worth quoting later sentences from the BBC report:
However, in an interview with Irish broadcaster RTE last December, the cardinal said he, himself, would resign if he found that a child had been abused as a result of any managerial failure on his part.
[...]
Smyth was eventually convicted and jailed for more than 90 offences, many of them committed after the Brady meetings.
So children were abused as a result of Brady's involvement in a cover-up, and he is hoping that no-one remembers his earlier promise to resign.
Over there, it rhymes with prat and slat. And, as mentioned, it seems to have almost completely lost its connotation with gender specific body parts and is just another way to call someone an idiot/moron/imbecile/dumbass/etc.
Personally, I'd take the exact opposite tack... instead of forcing him to resign, force the church to keep him.
And then put him on a sexual predator listing. (I'm no fan of those lists, but if we insist on having them, let's find a good use for them at least.)
Put all of the priests involved in this on lists like that, and then, after repeatedly watching news footage of priests in full garb being barred from schools and escorted away from church playgrounds, people might start getting the message...
Just a thought.
If you're already assuming that evil can be justified, why not murder the bastard? It's even less cruel and unusual, and he'd be even less likely to protect perpetrators in the future.
@82 "If you're already assuming that evil can be justified, why not murder the bastard? It's even less cruel and unusual, and he'd be even less likely to protect perpetrators in the future."
Can't learn from your mistakes if you're dead.
And what are you thinking they'll "learn" in being tortured? That if you do bad things, you might be tortured? If the torturing doesn't lead him to "personally understands what it's like to experience such exploitation, manipulation, and contempt", what's the next step? More torture? Ludovico?
I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue this. It doesn't matter if you try to frame it as a "remedy" or a "lesson", the government has no business torturing anyone. I would defend the death penalty before I would defend government-sanctioned punitive torture. If you're willing to countenance being a monster to fight monsters, at least the former offers assurance that they will not repeat their crimes.
Wait
WHAT?
"And what are you thinking they'll "learn" in being tortured?"
I would think part of the reason we get punished is to teach us things like "don't do that again." Whether it's a detention slip or a belt to the butt or a lengthy prison term, punishment serves to modify behavior by attempting to decrease the expression of undesirable behavior. The death penalty undercuts that by preventing the ability to learn the lesson. Just make sure the punishment fits the crime.
For whatever reason, the majority of us (I'm assuming) have managed to stay out of jail. While it could just mean a lot of us are really good at hiding the evidence, I'd suggest it's more likely that the majority of us just don't commit those kinds of crimes. These people are accused of doing so. Give 'em a fair trial and if they're convicted... oh well. They probably shouldn't have engaged in institutionalized child rape and a rather large conspiracy to cover it up.
"I don't even know why I'm bothering to argue this. It doesn't matter if you try to frame it as a "remedy" or a "lesson", the government has no business torturing anyone. I would defend the death penalty before I would defend government-sanctioned punitive torture. If you're willing to countenance being a monster to fight monsters, at least the former offers assurance that they will not repeat their crimes."
Well, if you read how I worded my solution, the government isn't actively doing anything aside from trying and (in theory, should the evidence warrant it) convicting the suspect(s). They're just passively letting others do it and then not intervening.
---
"Wait
WHAT?"
For non-violent offenders, my attitude towards punishment and the judicial system is a lot more in line with y'alls (I imagine). In the cases of violent and heinous offenders, especially repeat offenders (and the rampant child rape by clergy and massive protection of child rapists on the part of the RCC counts), my ability to care about perpetrators goes out the window. They've shown they simply just don't care about other people and the rules of society. To wit: the pope has issued a memo to the church staff that essentially says, in the eyes of the church, raping a child is a lesser crime than turning in a clergyman who has raped a child. Assuming a fair trial and a conviction, putting them through what they put other people through doesn't strike me as all that monstrous.
Sure, prisoners still have rights. But, then again, they also had a right not to commit those crimes in the first place. They chose to wave that right, at the expense of innocent people.