"I have listened to reaction from people to my role in events 35 years ago.For those of you who don't speak Catholic, allow this reformed one to translate for you:
"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."
"Unfortunately those children whose abuse I helped enable wouldn't keep their bloody mouths shut and now everyone knows what a complete cunt I was 35 years ago when I helped force some children who had been raped to keep quiet about it.
"I want to say to anyone who has been hurt by my complete lack of integrity, moral courage, honesty or compassion that I now have to pay lip service to contrition. Because, after all, if I was really sorry about any of this I could have done something about it at any point in the previous 35 years, couldn't I? Instead though, since what I thought would remain hidden has come out now I have to at least make it look like I feel sorry for it. After all, we all know that if this had stayed secret I would never have a said a fucking thing about any of this to anyone before I died or done a damn thing about any of it. I mean really, is anyone going to buy this apology since it was only forced out of me by the fact that I actually got caught? Do you really think I would be 'fessing up to this shit if it was still a well kept church secret? Fuck off! And you've only seen the parts that have come to light, boy if you only knew what other shit I've gotten away with.
Anyway, in order to try and take the heat off the Pope I now have to pretend that all along I have felt sorry for this and just never done anything about it up until now, when it became public.
I apologise to all those who feel I have let them down. And by that I mean the Vatican and for me not helping to bury this shit so deep it would never have come to light.
Looking back I would have done everything all over again, only this time made sure I didn't get caught because if I had ever at any point felt real shame or horror, if I was ever at any point anything even approaching a man, I would have done something long before I was caught, wouldn't I?"
Clearly morality is the purview of the religious. Why is this pathetic excuse for a human being not being prosecuted for witholding this from the police? Oh yes I forget, he's a religious man and he didn't actually do the abusing. He just knew who was. And kept that information from the police (who it seems may not have acted on it anyway). And then enabled the abusers to keep abusing.And helped keep it a secret for 35 years.
Cunt.
And if you need proof of just how delusional and divorced from humanity people can be when it comes to religion read what the cardinal's parishioners think of him:
ReplyDeleteThe decent people of Armagh
Apparently, since this was 1975, people thought child rape was not worth reporting to the police.
But, hang on, isn't morality absolute and ordained by God? So God didn't think child rape was wrong in 1975 but does now? When was the memo sent?
It must be so confusing being a Catholic.
And as to how victims of priestly sexual abuse feel about Brady, their reaction is similar to mine, just a lot more polite:
ReplyDeleteAbuse victims react to apology
Andrew Madden is quoted:
"The notion of careful reflection is nonsense - he's had 35 years to reflect on what he did then," Mr Madden said.
"If the Catholic Church in Ireland is to be led by a man who accurately reflects it in its current state, then maybe it's only right and fitting that it should be led by a man who has covered up the sexual abuse of children by a priest.
"He's either going to go or he's not going to go and if he doesn't, the Catholic Church can't pretend to be serious in any way about the issue of child protection and about reaching out to people who have been abused."
More polite perhaps, but more damning too.
What did you want him to say or do? I don't understand how you can disagree with his apology. I do not understand what he could do to appease you other than by not allowing the abuse to go unreported in the first place but as it did then he can't (unless he invents a time machine and they stopped making DeLoreans a long time ago). I also do not understand how allowing to happen can be considered the same as doing. Perhaps you can en-light us all or are you just having a rant?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDeleteWhat did I want him to say? How about actually saying the word 'sorry' - that would have been an almost but barely approaching adequate start for what he did. Go ahead, check the full text of his homily to see if he actually uses the word. He doesn't, which makes his claimed apology along the lines of those the Japanese use to claim they have apologised for atrocities committed during the Second World War when we know they are actually avoiding doing exactly that.
And what could he do? Well, you make it sound like there's nothing he can do but pay lip service to contrition, which is not the case. How about he also come clean about what else he has covered up over the years? How about he push the Vatican to adequately compensate victims of abuse the world over? How about he ensures Catholic institutions fully and completely and openly cooperate with law enforcement? How about pushing the Vatican to reform the way it deals with abuse claims from the ground up? How about pushing for more open and transparent inquiries by an independent body? How about he resign, as he apparently said he would if it was shown his actions led to the continued abuse of children by the rapist in question and as any decent human being in his position would have done?
But no, you're right, there was nothing more he could do but make an apology that wasn't, pretend he's ashamed of what he did and then ask for people to pray for him.
What actions is he taking? Why didn't he say "Sorry"? Why does his claimed shame only come forward now, after he's been exposed by other events and the actions of others? Do you think he would have ever said anything if this had not been exposed? If so, why did he do or say nothing in the intervening 35 years? If you don't think he would have said anything then his pathetic excuse for an apology means nothing, he doesn't really mean he is sorry for what he did but that he is sorry he got caught.
I disagree with his apology because it is obvious it is nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from the fact that for 35 years he hid the fact that he protected a known rapist from law enforcement. A rapist who continued to molest children for a further 20 years. It is a 'not-pology'. It's insulting and worthless and the wording is carefully designed to illicit sympathy for him as if he is a victim too.
But to go back to his actions - isn't it part of Catholic teaching that confession is not enough, you have to act like you are contrite, you have to act in ways necessary to redeem yourself? He has done nothing but confess and continue as he has before - no actions that show he means it. Where did this silly idea that no matter what you did saying "I apologise" absolves you of any wrong doing come from?
He enabled, through his inaction, a child rapist to continue to rape children. Do you really think saying "I apologise, pray for me" makes that alright?
To continue:
ReplyDeleteI also don't understand how allowing to happen can be considered the same as doing
No, I imagine you don't. My view on this can be summed up by Martin Luther King Jr:
He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.
King was talking about the moral implications of doing nothing - morally if not actually (and you could argue actually if you felt inclined) what Brady did was as bad as actually participating in the abuse.
Under US law (as an example), Brady would be guilty of aiding and abetting the abuse. I'd wager Irish law is something similar, and the UK also (since the US legal system has much in common with English law).
Do you think Brady bears no responsibility at all for the subsequent 20 years of abuse by the priest in question? I would argue that since Brady and the others involved did nothing they bear responsibility for every single subsequent rape or incidence of abuse by the bastard in question. He did nothing to prevent them and he could have, very easily. Instead what he did was help silence the victims. He helped pervert the course of justice, which in English law carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
He enabled a rapist to continue for another 20 years and did or said nothing about it for 35 years until his hand was forced by one of the victims.
And yet you think all he has to do is say "I apologise, I really am ashamed, pray for me."
I'd say that makes you just another Catholic making excuses for child abuse within the church.
it's sad...your hatred of the church has such a hold on you that you are intellectually crippled. I was were you are once but I grew up and matured.the notion of two people of the same gender being MARRIED is just fucking stupid .It makes no more sense for two people of the same gender being married than it does allowing someone to marry their favorite sheep. as for the child abuse scandals pedophiles did not CHOOSE to be attracted to children (just like gays dont choose to be gay) we should all be forced to accept pedophiles as they are (just like gays want to force everyone into accepting their lifestyle) If gays somehow think they have a "right' to gay marriage then pedophiles have a right to have sexual relations with children. Pedophiles are under attack in this country and allowing it to happen is as evil as doing it yourself.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
DeleteIf you wish to comment again then pick a name to do so, it makes it easier to follow who said what. If you post anonymously again I will delete the comment. Not because you won, not because I can't debunk what you said, but because that's my rule. It's right there under Comment Policy on the right of the page. But then it is fairly obvious reading isn't your strong suit.
it's sad...your hatred of the church has such a hold on you that you are intellectually crippled.
This from the person who can't spell, use capital letters correctly or even bother with at least half decent grammar and punctuation.
I was were you are once but I grew up and matured
Clearly you've confused getting older with growing up and maturing.
the notion of two people of the same gender being MARRIED is just fucking stupid
And yet you can't come up with a single reason why, other than your say so. Hardly damning. Oh, incidentally, this also has nothing at all to do with the topic of Catholic clergy abusing children - the topic of this blog post. See what I mean about you and reading comprehension?
It makes no more sense for two people of the same gender being married than it does allowing someone to marry their favorite sheep.
What does sense have to do with it? It isn't about marriage making sense (because it doesn't from almost every way you can look at it), it is about basic human rights. It is about equality. No wonder you don't understand. Why does same sex marriage make no sense? Show your working.
And what is it with people like you and comparing same sex relationships with bestiality? Did you take the birds and the bees talk a little too literally?
as for the child abuse scandals pedophiles did not CHOOSE to be attracted to children
Stopped clock, twice a day and all that. But, you should probably learn a little about what you think you already know first, by reading this.
just like gays dont choose to be gay
Two things right today. Look at you go!
More to come - comment length limit.
To continue:
Deletewe should all be forced to accept pedophiles as they are
Aww. And I really thought you were building up some momentum.
Why do you think we should be forced to accept pedophiles as they are? (Of course, I know the rhetorical device you are trying so hard to use, you are just doing it really badly.)
just like gays want to force everyone into accepting their lifestyle
That is why you fail.
Gays want people to accept them as they are - you don't have to accept their lifestyle to do so - and as long as no-one is hurt and all parties are consenting their lifestyle is none of your fucking business anyway - but no-one is forcing anyone to accept a lifestyle. You tried a bait and switch and thought we wouldn't notice.
You didn't say we should accept a pedophile's lifestyle - you said we should accept them as they are - and what they are is an adult with a psychological attraction to children which they may or may not be able to control. It's uncomfortable to us but that is all that they are as long as they do not act on it.
Accepting a pedophiles lifestyle however could be an issue - especially if that lifestyle led to the harm of children. The difference is the key here - and it sailed you right by or you tried to fudge it deliberately in order to try the tired tactic of comparing homosexuality to pedophilia. Seen it before, still bullshit.
I may or may not be intellectually crippled - either way would still beat being intellectually dishonest like you.
If gays somehow think they have a "right' to gay marriage then pedophiles have a right to have sexual relations with children.
Do you, as a heterosexual, think you have a "right" to heterosexual marriage? How is that "right" different to a gay "right" to marriage? Does your "right" to heterosexual marriage mean pedophiles have a right (could you at least use the quotation marks consistently - it makes it easier to mock you) to abuse children? What you are is heterosexual (presumably). What pedophiles are is attracted to children. See if you can follow your own fucking stupid argument through to the end now genius...
You really are a candidate for stupidest commenter to post on this blog. Let's phrase this all in another way:
Marriage is a right given to some consenting adults but denied to others in the USA. This is doing something that is quite rightly illegal under US law (you do know your Constitution, don't you?). Pedophiles who have sex with children are also doing something that is quite rightly illegal under US law.
So, all you really managed to do was point out yet another way why denying gay marriage is wrong - it's like letting pedophiles have sex with children - illegal! Why do you want pedophiles to have the right to have sex with children?
Pedophiles are under attack in this country and allowing it to happen is as evil as doing it yourself.
Fuck me you're stupid. Go away.
Oh, by the way. You don't have to be a pedophile or gay to abuse children (try reading the report I linked to) - this is a clearly established and well known fact that bigots like you ignore.
Now really, just fuck off you disgusting bigoted child rapist defending parasite.
It has been noted that rather than condemn child abuse, you defended it and those who commit it, and those who tried to cover it up - all whilst condemning other people who would just like to get married but have done nothing else wrong. Well done scumbag. That's some fucked up world you live in.