This is a self-contradictory and pointless post. Or it would be if it didn't serve at least to show your vain bitterness, along with your likely future (and utterly vain) strategy to deal with the uncomfortable fact that O'Toole is right and has been right on this issue for the longest time ... while you have been wrong.Originally Posted by Dr Pat
Strategy? What are you on about? I am not an apologist for Brady or anyone else. What have I been wrong about?
I bet you're wrong about transubstantiation.
What?
I'd add a respectful nod there too, Gerhard, and echo the comments from Mistui and Cruimh.
Something that really has enraged me whenever I think on it has been Sean Brady's application of oaths of silence on victims of Brendan Smyth.
There were two girls who later committed suicide because they were left in such a state following attacks on them by Smyth AFTER Brady and others involved in that canonical hearing had the clear chance to stop him.
I've heard people try to say that Brady was just a young fellow along on that canonical hearing to take notes but Brady was in his 30's I believe, a University graduate and a qualified canon lawyer. No man of that age with his supposed training in ethics and qualifications should be allowed to walk away from such a disgusting and deliberate ethical failure with a shrug. 'I did what I was there to do'.
I take that as an admission. And how that man can set himself up to preside at the upcoming eurcharistic congress and no doubt plan to make a little ethical speech for the nation is really extraordinary. I'm encouraged by the attitude of many people who would once have found it hard to criticise a cardinal- I understand why. But seriously this thing with Brady has gone far enough and while in some ways it would serve my views on religion to have Sean Brady on national TV spouting his crippled ethical rubbish I don't think many catholics will stand for it either at this point.
He has to go. He should be in jail.
About the trustworthiness of the Roman Catholic Church.
Your strategy, as implicit in your post, is that Brady is yet another bad egg and that O'Toole and all the others who claim that he's yet another symptom of a systemic ethical disease in that organisation is just using the misdeeds of people like Brady as a stick to beat their enemy with.
Why such people as O'Toole should see the Roman Catholic Church as being worthy of such a beating does of course not enter your head.
That's not where the effects of that absence of empathy stops.
You don't get to be a head-honcho in any organisation without dirtying your hands somewhat. The Smyth case was surely not the only case that Brady was involved in as a Note Taker/Investigator. Bernard Law covered up multiple cases in Boston and ended up as ArchPriest. Brady will STILL have expectations of following a similar promotions road.
You are really obsessed, seeing agents of the Vatican everywhere . I ain't no apologist for the Catholic Church or Cardinal Brady or anyone else for that matter but heh, don't let reality stop you in your obsession which I don't expect it will. Really, you do seem to be mad.
I despise the crimes and coverups that went on in the Church and anything that brings the people involved to account should of course be acted on. However, I admit that I am highly skeptical of the likes of O'Toole who is a leftist agenda pontificating shrill who talks down to the rest of us, the little people.
Last edited by Dr Pat; 2nd May 2012 at 11:19 AM.
Those are two issues.
If he commited a crime he should be tried by the State. He is no different to any other citizen.
In relation to his position within a private organisation, has he boken their canon law and failed to uphold the oaths he has taken?
109Likes
