Clerical abuse!

[Main Street]

Forget about the BBC agenda, people have been calling for Brady's resignation for years for his active role in the conspiracy of silence.
No legal case could be built against Brady, resignation would be as good as it gets for the abused.

[Ulick]

Anyone considered Brady may have been refused permission to resign? As I remember, Brady's appointment came from nowhere over the heads of the "magic circle" of the Irish Bishops Conference which has ran the Catholic Church in Ireland since Vatican II (early '60s). Seems a little strange to me watching the Church's longtime critics take their aim at Brady as the establisment man when when in reality his direct appointment by JP2 was most likely an attempt to reform the "establishment".

Anyhow, here's Jude sticking his head over the parapet as well:



Cardinal Brady - should he stay or should he go?
http://www.judecollins.com/

Talking about child abuse and the Catholic clergy, if you don't follow the majority line, is to take your head in your hands these days. But here goes.

The airwaves and the headlines are presently dominated by the Cardinal Brady affair from 1975. Fr Sean Brady as he then was took notes at a meeting with a young boy who had alleged sexual abuse – and, there are claims Fr Brady also was involved in gathering evidence regarding the case. There are calls from right, left and centre now for him to resign from his position as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland because of this.

OK. I'll say this three times so no one misses it. Sexual abuse of children is a disgusting, perverted action. For clergy of the Catholic Church to engage in it is shameful beyond words. It is more than understandable that those who suffered in that way should be emotionally wounded for life and they have my full sympathy. (I know those are three different statements but I expect you get my drift.)

That  said, let's consider the facts. Is this a legal matter? That is to say, did Fr Brady in 1975 break the law of the land? If he did, like anyone who breaks the law, he should be brought before the courts, tried and a decision made by a judge and jury as to his guilt or innocence.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm going to assume he hasn't broken the law of the land, since those most opposed to him don't highlight any legal charge. If it's not a legal matter, two things remain – one a question of morality, the other a question of leadership.

Morality first. Did Fr Sean Brady in 1975, by acting as notary and (possibly) gathering evidence on the case, act in an immoral fashion? There's only one person knows the answer to that, and that's Sean Brady. We can speculate that he knew this, he should have that, but in terms of his moral guilt, there's only one question: did he act in accordance with his conscience, or did he act contrary to his conscience? I don't know the answer to that, you don't know the answer to that. Only Sean Brady knows the true answer.

The second question is that of leadership. There have been calls on all sides for Cardinal Brady to resign and allow someone else to lead the Catholic Church in Ireland. Many of the people making the calls are non-Catholics, or  former Catholics, or even in some cases people who have consistently been hostile to the Catholic Church.  It seems to me astonishing that those people should now feel such concern that the Catholic Church is well-led by an appropriate clergyman – i.e., someone other than Brady.  Surely who leads the Catholic Church in Ireland is a matter for the Catholic Church in Ireland – and I don't, repeat  don't mean the Catholic clergy in Ireland. I mean the Catholic Church in Ireland, comprised of all those people who are sincere Catholics.  I've been casting around for a parallel to the calls from those outside the Catholic Church for a change in leadership and the only one I can think of is the Orange Order's attitude to residents' groups. Remember when they used to (they still may) refuse to talk to the groups because they didn't like the spokesperson the group had identified? Quite rightly, the groups said it was their business who they appointed as their spokesperson.  Something similar applies here. It may be that Cardinal Sean Brady is not the best person to lead the Catholic Church in Ireland. It may be that he is.  In either case, it's a matter for members of the Catholic Church to decide, not those who consider it irrelevant, those who once thought it important but no longer do so, or those who detest it.

[Hound]

Jude Collins definition of morality seems straight out of the same dictionary used by terrorists. If you're own conscience is clear, then you're grand!

I can see sense in the sentiment of the last paragraph in that it should be the members of the Catholic church in Ireland who decide who is their leader. But I think he missed the glaring obvious point that the Catholic Church is nothing like the GAA! Members don't have votes. They don't even have a say.

The comparison between the Orange Order and Catholic Church up north is very apt.  It seems there's a helluva lot who treat them like football teams. No matter what they do they feel obliged to keep following blindly

[Main Street]

Forget about the 'I was just the notetaker' claim.
Brady was the senior canon law expert  n that in-house inquisition, in fact the only canon law advocate.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0503/1224315510225.html

[armaghniac]

Brendan Boland calling for Brady's resignation isn't going to solve anything though.
Why doesn't he just walk into a police station and get the ball rolling

Am I correct that Brendan Boland or his parents did not make any report to the Gardai at the time either?

[Orior]

Cardinal Brady is a decent, honest and devout man. He surrendered his freedom to preach the Word. Those people baying for his blood have no idea of the suffering and torment that he has gone through during his time as a clergyman.

[Ulick]

The comparison between the Orange Order and Catholic Church up north is very apt.  It seems there's a helluva lot who treat them like football teams. No matter what they do they feel obliged to keep following blindly

Think you may have missed the point Hound, he's comparing the Orange Order to the current critics of the Catholic Church, as in why should the Church pay any heed to those who would criticise and dictate to them no matter what action they take. This thread is littered with knee-jerk reactionists who seem to either know f**k all about the internal mechanisms of the Church and its organisation, tensions and factions within it, prevailing culture then and now, or simply don't care, lest it prevents them from taking another blind kick.

[Tubberman]

The comparison between the Orange Order and Catholic Church up north is very apt.  It seems there's a helluva lot who treat them like football teams. No matter what they do they feel obliged to keep following blindly

Think you may have missed the point Hound, he's comparing the Orange Order to the current critics of the Catholic Church, as in why should the Church pay any heed to those who would criticise and dictate to them no matter what action they take. This thread is littered with knee-jerk reactionists who seem to either know f**k all about the internal mechanisms of the Church and its organisation, tensions and factions within it, prevailing culture then and now, or simply don't care, lest it prevents them from taking another blind kick.

It concerns everyone in the country when people in the organisation were responsible for committing and covering up widespread and prolonged child rape.
People outside the Church aren't getting involved in doctrinal matters, as that has no impact on them. Raping children is not a doctrinal issue.

[Ulick]

It concerns everyone in the country when people in the organisation were responsible for committing and covering up widespread and prolonged child rape.
People outside the Church aren't getting involved in doctrinal matters, as that has no impact on them. Raping children is not a doctrinal issue.

If he was "responsible for committing and covering up widespread and prolonged child rape" then he should be in front of the courts. Whether that happens or not is not a matter or responsibility for the Church.

[qwerty]

Cardinal Brady is a decent, honest and devout man. He surrendered his freedom to preach the Word. Those people baying for his blood have no idea of the suffering and torment that he has gone through during his time as a clergyman.

FFS!! He made a raped child swear on a bible never to repeat the accusations and then done next to feck all to stop 13 more years of rape!

[Hardy]

I agree with Jude Collins's last paragraph. I have no position on, or interest in the question of Brady's suitability for his role in the Catholic church. That is a matter for them.

However, I don't need to be an expert on the arcane machinations of the Church, from "mental reservation" to the library of hypocrisy that is "canon law" to know that Brady needs to have his collar felt by the constabulary. By his own admission, he neglected to inform the authorities of a heinous crime and his indifference or negligence directly facilitated the rape of children that persisted for at least a further thirteen years from the date of his first knowledge of it.

Yes, the church was all-powerful. As O'Neill says, until quite recent times, people were in almost mortal fear of its power, to the extent that they dared not stand up to it. This was a manifestation of true evil.

The organisation was infinitely more powerful than governments, which were so in its thrall that it didn't even occur to them that its more extremely evil machinations even needed to be resisted, never mind quelled. Quite the contrary; they accorded it special privileges. (That's why it wouldn't have made a whit of difference to the plight of Brendan Boland or his fellow victims had the monster Smith, unleashed by the Church to do as he wished to children across the country, been reported to the guards. They wouldn't have prosecuted a "man of the cloth".)

But for Brady to roll out the Nuremberg defence, as someone here appropriately put it, and portray himself as a victim of the system is pathetic. He was an instrument of it. He was no mere note-taker, as we are now learning. He was a canon lawyer, investigating the allegations. His job was to verify the evidence. When you hear the questions the three-man committee asked  a fourteen-year-old boy being interrogated on his own without a supporting adult being present, your stomach turns.

In my view, his pathetic squirming is unwittingly doing a service to society as it opens people's eyes even further to the evil the church embodied and continues to defend. It helps to ensure that this miserable outfit will never again be allowed to rampage through society and families, imposing its arbitrary judgements on decent people for whom it held nothing but contempt.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

The comparison between the Orange Order and Catholic Church up north is very apt.  It seems there's a helluva lot who treat them like football teams. No matter what they do they feel obliged to keep following blindly

Think you may have missed the point Hound, he's comparing the Orange Order to the current critics of the Catholic Church, as in why should the Church pay any heed to those who would criticise and dictate to them no matter what action they take. This thread is littered with knee-jerk reactionists who seem to either know f**k all about the internal mechanisms of the Church and its organisation, tensions and factions within it, prevailing culture then and now, or simply don't care, lest it prevents them from taking another blind kick.

Not withstanding the "knee-jerk reactionists" on this thread we have victims (even those who try to stay onside with church ala Marie Collins) who are criticising him.

The facts is that there are many lay Catholics who maybe "know f**k all" about the internal mechanisms of the Church etc..." and indeed maybe too young to remember the culture of the past but just see that reporting rape to civil authorities is the most natural thing in the world to do.   Having Brady on the 6-One news doing verbal gymnastics about rules and regulations just alienates them.

People have pointed out how many people claimed to be Catholics in the last census.  I suspect that these are substantial part of the current critics rather than the atheist, humanists, trendys etc... that maybe taking a pop for other reasons.

The Church might save Brady but lose that constituency.  In that case the Church will be the big loser.

/Jim.

[EC Unique]

Cardinal Brady is a decent, honest and devout man. He surrendered his freedom to preach the Word. Those people baying for his blood have no idea of the suffering and torment that he has gone through during his time as a clergyman.

Your joking. Right?

[guy crouchback]

I agree with Jude Collins's last paragraph. I have no position on, or interest in the question of Brady's suitability for his role in the Catholic church. That is a matter for them.

However, I don't need to be an expert on the arcane machinations of the Church, from "mental reservation" to the library of hypocrisy that is "canon law" to know that Brady needs to have his collar felt by the constabulary. By his own admission, he neglected to inform the authorities of a heinous crime and his indifference or negligence directly facilitated the rape of children that persisted for at least a further thirteen years from the date of his first knowledge of it.

Yes, the church was all-powerful. As O'Neill says, until quite recent times, people were in almost mortal fear of its power, to the extent that they dared not stand up to it. This was a manifestation of true evil.

The organisation was infinitely more powerful than governments, which were so in its thrall that it didn't even occur to them that its more extremely evil machinations even needed to be resisted, never mind quelled. Quite the contrary; they accorded it special privileges. (That's why it wouldn't have made a whit of difference to the plight of Brendan Boland or his fellow victims had the monster Smith, unleashed by the Church to do as he wished to children across the country, been reported to the guards. They wouldn't have prosecuted a "man of the cloth".)

But for Brady to roll out the Nuremberg defence, as someone here appropriately put it, and portray himself as a victim of the system is pathetic. He was an instrument of it. He was no mere note-taker, as we are now learning. He was a canon lawyer, investigating the allegations. His job was to verify the evidence. When you hear the questions the three-man committee asked  a fourteen-year-old boy being interrogated on his own without a supporting adult being present, your stomach turns.

In my view, his pathetic squirming is unwittingly doing a service to society as it opens people's eyes even further to the evil the church embodied and continues to defend. It helps to ensure that this miserable outfit will never again be allowed to rampage through society and families, imposing its arbitrary judgements on decent people for whom it held nothing but contempt.

i totally agree with everything you have said above, however in relation to the highlighted sentence  i think there may be one exception,  if it was another priest or priests who went to the guards with the report or with the victim when reporting, then i have no doubt the guards would have investigated it.

[Tubberman]

It concerns everyone in the country when people in the organisation were responsible for committing and covering up widespread and prolonged child rape.
People outside the Church aren't getting involved in doctrinal matters, as that has no impact on them. Raping children is not a doctrinal issue.

If he was "responsible for committing and covering up widespread and prolonged child rape" then he should be in front of the courts. Whether that happens or not is not a matter or responsibility for the Church.

And there's no problem with him leading the Catholic Church in Ireland unless he's convicted in a courtroom?
The Church is all of a sudden going to take it's lead from the law of the land? Strange, seeing as it has seen itself far above the law of the land since the foundation of the state, and probably far before that.

I'd have thought 'morals', the concept of 'right v wrong' and 'conscience' might have come into it, but it seems the Church doesn't pass much heed on such things.