Did Brady covered up child abuse?

[passedit]

'Retract your statement or I'll rape you again'

Friday March 19 2010

'SARAH' was 17 and having problems at home and school when her parents suggested she might speak to the new young priest who was making waves with the school children in their Armagh diocese.

It was close to Christmas 1997 when Sarah confided in Fr X, who put her at ease by asking her to relax and offering to massage her shoulders as he soothed her teenage angst.

Sarah left the meeting confused by his conduct but returned to speak with him again, this time with near- fatal consequences.

During their second meeting, Fr X masturbated in front of her and asked her to do the same.

The teen fled the parochial house and tried to kill herself, ending up in a psychiatric hospital.

But several months later in the early part of 1998 she plucked up the courage to tell her school principal.

On the day she confided about the abuse, she returned home to emergency accommodation she was now staying in following her admission to hospital.

She thought she had done the right thing and fell asleep only to find Fr X in her room at the emergency shelter -- he had inveigled his way into her bedroom by using the respect afforded to his priestly garb.

Initially he cried and begged her to withdraw her statement to the school principal, but she said that she could not, prompting an angry outburst from Fr X who said: "If this [complaint] is to finish it, then there is one thing I've got to do before I go."

With those words, he raped the troubled teen and leaving her bedroom he warned her: "You can expect a lot more of that [rape] if you don't retract your statement".

Gripped with fear, Sarah withdrew the statement, causing even more problems with her school principal and her parents who thought she had made a malicious allegation.

Speaking to the Irish Independent last night, Sarah said: "He had me convinced that nobody would believe me".

Sarah fled the North and moved to the south-west of Ireland to recover from her ordeal and to escape Fr X's clutches.

In 2002, she travelled back to the North and told her parents and the PSNI about her abuse.

She received huge support from her family and the police and was devastated when the DPP directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the cleric.

The matter did not end there, however, and Sarah began a civil action against Fr X in 2003.

She also sued Cardinal Sean Brady on the basis he was ultimately responsible for Fr X as Archbishop of Armagh, the diocese where the priest worked.

Sarah did not want to settle her case and wanted it to go to a full hearing at the High Court in Belfast, but said she could not compete financially with Fr X whom, she said, was receiving legal aid for his case. She finally settled at the start of 2010.

One of the main stumbling blocks to the settlement, which was concluded without any admission of liability, was a clause insisting on confidentiality.

Sarah's lawyers tried to have the secrecy clause removed and her father even went to see Cardinal Brady personally seeking its removal.

"I never wanted to be gagged and my dad tried to make sure I couldn't," said Sarah.

"I still have nightmares, but I tell it now like it is somebody else's story."

- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Irish Independent

[orangeman]

'Retract your statement or I'll rape you again'

Friday March 19 2010

'SARAH' was 17 and having problems at home and school when her parents suggested she might speak to the new young priest who was making waves with the school children in their Armagh diocese.

It was close to Christmas 1997 when Sarah confided in Fr X, who put her at ease by asking her to relax and offering to massage her shoulders as he soothed her teenage angst.

Sarah left the meeting confused by his conduct but returned to speak with him again, this time with near- fatal consequences.

During their second meeting, Fr X masturbated in front of her and asked her to do the same.

The teen fled the parochial house and tried to kill herself, ending up in a psychiatric hospital.

But several months later in the early part of 1998 she plucked up the courage to tell her school principal.

On the day she confided about the abuse, she returned home to emergency accommodation she was now staying in following her admission to hospital.

She thought she had done the right thing and fell asleep only to find Fr X in her room at the emergency shelter -- he had inveigled his way into her bedroom by using the respect afforded to his priestly garb.

Initially he cried and begged her to withdraw her statement to the school principal, but she said that she could not, prompting an angry outburst from Fr X who said: "If this [complaint] is to finish it, then there is one thing I've got to do before I go."

With those words, he raped the troubled teen and leaving her bedroom he warned her: "You can expect a lot more of that [rape] if you don't retract your statement".

Gripped with fear, Sarah withdrew the statement, causing even more problems with her school principal and her parents who thought she had made a malicious allegation.

Speaking to the Irish Independent last night, Sarah said: "He had me convinced that nobody would believe me".

Sarah fled the North and moved to the south-west of Ireland to recover from her ordeal and to escape Fr X's clutches.

In 2002, she travelled back to the North and told her parents and the PSNI about her abuse.

She received huge support from her family and the police and was devastated when the DPP directed that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the cleric.

The matter did not end there, however, and Sarah began a civil action against Fr X in 2003.

She also sued Cardinal Sean Brady on the basis he was ultimately responsible for Fr X as Archbishop of Armagh, the diocese where the priest worked.

Sarah did not want to settle her case and wanted it to go to a full hearing at the High Court in Belfast, but said she could not compete financially with Fr X whom, she said, was receiving legal aid for his case. She finally settled at the start of 2010.

One of the main stumbling blocks to the settlement, which was concluded without any admission of liability, was a clause insisting on confidentiality.

Sarah's lawyers tried to have the secrecy clause removed and her father even went to see Cardinal Brady personally seeking its removal.

"I never wanted to be gagged and my dad tried to make sure I couldn't," said Sarah.

"I still have nightmares, but I tell it now like it is somebody else's story."

- Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Irish Independent

Jesus Christ of almighty !!!  This is the same story as appeared in yesterday's news bulletins.

[Bogball XV]

I'm not arguing with that, the point I am trying to make is that the Cathoilic church would knowingly send an offending priest to our parish in an attempt to hide their deeds they've committed in other parishes. It's not solely about the individual priest because there are good and decent ones, its about the organisation I now do not trust to have the best interests of my child as its main aim.
If I thought for one moment the GAA or whatever organisation i chose to send my child to had unwritten procedures for hiding paedophiles and ensuring that they were not prosecuted then I'd hold the same requirements.

You might use the arguement that all this happened 20 odd years ago, but until a sitting Bishop lifts the phone and without prior approval from on high, rings the guards or PSNI to inform them that they've just been informed of an accusation of inappropriate behaviour by one of his clery and could they investigate with the full support of the church then and only then will I cut the organisation some slack no matter what Fr John McManus, a man I know well enough says on TV.

I agree with all of that, the church was a disgrace, although I find the state's behaviour just as reprehensible.  It seemed to me that your earlier post was saying that you wouldn't want your child left alone with a priest, but you didn't seem to have a problem with leaving them alone with other people, I was just trying to point out that once again we've allowed ourselves to be led on by media hysteria about clerical sex abuse, when studies show that the percentage of abusers within the clergy is actually lower than in the population at large.

[Bogball XV]

I have no doubt that any and all of them would do that today, because they have rules in place (that they were dragged, kicking and screaming into adopting) and none of them would dare chance a cover-up now.

The real question is when will any or all of them visit their local garda/PSNI stations with the full list of cases, documented and undocumented, for as far back as they exist, that they know of, participated in, facilitated, recorded or even heard rumours of. If Brady wants to stop the "drip-drip", that's how to do it and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt in assuming that's what he meant in his statement.

Of course, given what Murphy revealed, we have no guarantee that the guards would do anything, though we can probably assume that my first sentence above applies to them too. But I, for one, am a little perplexed at how little comment this aspect of the scandal has received and how we seem to have been distracted by the concentration on the church cover-up from pursuing the state for its criminal abdication of its duty to its citizens.

It suits the state better to have it that way, it's disgusting, but not quite as sexy for the media.

[Ulick]

I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.

Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.

[mylestheslasher]

I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.

Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.

5/6 years back - jaysus you spread your 215 post very thin over the weeks

[Ulick]

I aim for quality not quantity Myles 

[longrunsthefox]

I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.

Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.

Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?   

[Ulick]

Just lost my rag with Nolan on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/UlickO

[Bogball XV]

I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.

Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.

Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?

I thought exactly the same on reading the story, now, I didn't hear her on radio and maybe there was more information, but surely the fact that the DPP dropped the case would lead one to question her story?

[Ulick]

Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?

The timeline and how she recounted the events changed as the interview progressed. That could be down to any number of reasons but for me it just flags up how uncomfortable I am with trial by media.

[longrunsthefox]

I just happened to be listening to Nolan when walking to work this morning and I think it was this girl being interviewed. Now, I know nothing about her and I'm sure she was recounting everything as she remembered it, but as someone who hasn't been following this over the past week or so and has a 'fresh eye' I thought her story was full of holes. Don't get me wrong, I've no doubt she suffered horribly but at the same time she contradicted herself all over the show. Nolan being Nolan was just intent on sensationalising the interview but I don't think was actually listening to what she was saying. For me it just highlights the dangers of the media frenzy where everyone is afraid to question the victims account.

Disclaimer: I was hounded by almost everyone on this side of the Board five or six years back for suggesting the priests should be the first up the wall, so I am by no means a defender of the 'faith'.

Jees! Ulick, she was raped by a priest in his 40s when she was 17. I don't think there is any doubt about that... and then he paid her £45,000 to keep it quiet. I can see why women are so afraid to report rape and abuse. It is like the Kerry story recently when the fellow was convicted and loads of locals shook his hand before he went to jail. Posters on here were saying there must have been more to the story... turned out there wasn't. I heard that this morning and seemed very genuine. Horible what he did. What were the holes in it?

I thought exactly the same on reading the story, now, I didn't hear her on radio and maybe there was more information, but surely the fact that the DPP dropped the case would lead one to question her story?

So why did he pay £45,000? Also the cardinal did throw him out even when there was no conviction. This is the same DPP did not want to take a case against the killers of Thomas Devlin or the RUC man who helped the killers of Robert Hamill.

[clarshack]

is this the same priest that was named on bbc teletext last night?

[Bogball XV]

So why did he pay £45,000? Also the cardinal did throw him out even when there was no conviction. This is the same DPP did not want to take a case against the killers of Thomas Devlin or the RUC man who helped the killers of Robert Hamill.

Has the priest actually been thrown out, the article said he was suspended while the investigation was carried out?  I don't know the facts in this case at all, just what i've seen above so forgive my ignorance.
As for paying the 45K, there are many reasons why that could have been done, in many instances insurance companies advise/insist that is the best way to proceed as the costs of proceeding with court actions would be higher than the payout, there are other reasons too of course, it just seems to me that the girls allegations seem a bit flakey.

[longrunsthefox]

Aye he's been stood down but wears the collar despite being told not to.
Is no way an innocent person would pay out £45,000 and he does not even respond to newspapers saying he raped her. So, reputation destroyed and £45,000 paid and he is innocent and says nothing... I don't think so.