Clerical abuse!

[Pangurban]

If we were able to leave our justifiable outrage and anger aside, remove personalities from the debate, and approach the issue from a purely acedemic and philosophical standpoint, we might just be surprised where our reasoning would take us.     Anyone with experience of work within any kind of institution would know the imperative of passing problems up through the change of command to the point where action can be taken by the appropiate person. In most organisations today responsibility is collective and includes a duty of loyalty to the employing authority. Problems are expected to be discussed and hopefully dealt with in-house, but the individual employee will not necessarily be appraised of the outcome of any subsequent action. Sometimes individuals have to make difficult choices  whether to stick to agreed and approved procedures within their organisations structures or go on a solo run. In different ways we have all at some time faced this dilemna, and made choices based on our own rationale. This experience should have taught us that it is never easy, and to be wary of rushing to judgement on others, without knowing the full facts about the limitations and self doubt they laboured under.
As an aside i believe that Dr.Brady should resign, for the greater good of the Church, this does imply any judgement on his character or actions

[ross matt]

If we were able to leave our justifiable outrage and anger aside, remove personalities from the debate, and approach the issue from a purely acedemic and philosophical standpoint, we might just be surprised where our reasoning would take us.     Anyone with experience of work within any kind of institution would know the imperative of passing problems up through the change of command to the point where action can be taken by the appropiate person. In most organisations today responsibility is collective and includes a duty of loyalty to the employing authority. Problems are expected to be discussed and hopefully dealt with in-house, but the individual employee will not necessarily be appraised of the outcome of any subsequent action. Sometimes individuals have to make difficult choices  whether to stick to agreed and approved procedures within their organisations structures or go on a solo run. In different ways we have all at some time faced this dilemna, and made choices based on our own rationale. This experience should have taught us that it is never easy, and to be wary of rushing to judgement on others, without knowing the full facts about the limitations and self doubt they laboured under.
As an aside i believe that Dr.Brady should resign, for the greater good of the Church, this does imply any judgement on his character or actions

But is that not the point Pangurban? It wasn't "any kind of institution"... it was the church and he a man of God who is now a senior member of it. Surely he and it should be judged according to the standards and values of which they preach? They betrayed the trust of the most faithful of their flock by preying on the most vunerable.

[johnneycool]

If we were able to leave our justifiable outrage and anger aside, remove personalities from the debate, and approach the issue from a purely acedemic and philosophical standpoint, we might just be surprised where our reasoning would take us.     Anyone with experience of work within any kind of institution would know the imperative of passing problems up through the change of command to the point where action can be taken by the appropiate person. In most organisations today responsibility is collective and includes a duty of loyalty to the employing authority. Problems are expected to be discussed and hopefully dealt with in-house, but the individual employee will not necessarily be appraised of the outcome of any subsequent action. Sometimes individuals have to make difficult choices  whether to stick to agreed and approved procedures within their organisations structures or go on a solo run. In different ways we have all at some time faced this dilemna, and made choices based on our own rationale. This experience should have taught us that it is never easy, and to be wary of rushing to judgement on others, without knowing the full facts about the limitations and self doubt they laboured under.
As an aside i believe that Dr.Brady should resign, for the greater good of the Church, this does imply any judgement on his character or actions

I understand to an extent what you are getting at, but this isn't just some lad stealing stationary or the likes, it's the raping of children which is a serious criminal act. Brady was sent to investigate it and by his own admission believed the stories one of the youngsters told him, but was part of the conspiracy to silence and hide it to keep the good name of the church. He was far more than a notary as he called himself. Who formulated and asked the questions?
Even yesterday and after listening to a priest on Vincent Brown last night, the church talks about the designated person within the church who's meant to deal with these issues. The people meant to deal with these issues should be the gardai or PSNI, not bandied about some Bishops residence until a decision is made based on canon law. The Church still doesn't seem to get that.

[Tubberman]

Sean Brady is the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland. What is that role supposed to mean? Does it not make him the man who upholds and maintains and symbolises church and moral teachings in this country? If not, will someone tell me if his role is simply administrative?

If it's the former, how is it in any way sustainable to have someone in that role who previously knew about the rape of children and not only did nothing to prevent it, but actually aided in covering it up, and by so doing aided the continuation of that abuse?

It's morally unforgiveable and I can't see how there is any acceptable argument for him continuing in his current role.

[nifan]

Honestly if it was you involved - even as note taker - would you not be following up to ensure someone like this ended in jail. I dont think i could talk to these children then go about my business without knowing what happened afterwards. And if nothing happened he should have spoke out.

[ziggysego]

Another question needs to be asked.

Why in the 1990s, when Brendan Smyth was in court, didn't Sean Brady come forward with everything he knew? His role? He names and addresses of other children he had in his procession?

He sat back in the shadows and didn't hoped his name wouldn't come up as back of the cover up.

[EC Unique]

Sean Brady is the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland. What is that role supposed to mean? Does it not make him the man who upholds and maintains and symbolises church and moral teachings in this country? If not, will someone tell me if his role is simply administrative?

If it's the former, how is it in any way sustainable to have someone in that role who previously knew about the rape of children and not only did nothing to prevent it, but actually aided in covering it up, and by so doing aided the continuation of that abuse?

It's morally unforgiveable and I can't see how there is any acceptable argument for him continuing in his current role.

Spot on. Regardless of his level or power at the time I would question his personal judgement if he thought passing on the information was enough.

He says he believes he done the right thing at the time. I don't buy that. He done the right thing with regards to pleasing his elders and obviously looked after himself and the Church and that is why he is so high up today... He did not do the right thing for the Children and look after them.

Shame on him.

[Tony Baloney]

One thing's for sure - the 1970s and 80s (not to mention the decade and centuries before) were a completely different place with its own set of moral judgements. It wasn't just the priests who kept quiet. Parents and lay people involved with the Church, who equally should have known better, said nothing. School masters physically and mentally tortured children at school whilst the other teachers and parents of the same children turned a blind eye to it all. There are many who will look back (and I'm sure many on here) and now acknowledge that what they silently accepted as part of life was wrong and if they could travel back in time they would have shouted stop.

In terms of Brady - I think there's a strong element of truth to his version. The Maynooth doctrine did mess with their heads in terms of acting morally esp in cases of sexual abuse. In 2012 we think we'd be whistle blowers in his position. You simply cannot say that though. However, Brady (like many other church issues in recent months) has handled this extremely badly. Instead of using the blame-shift card, which may be legit, he should be asking for forgiveness and publicly recognising the devastation they caused.

The priests weren't stealing a fiver from the collection. They systematically raped hundreds of children, devastating their lives. If Brady doesn't believe he is in any way complicit in that, then he is worse than I thought.

[qwerty]

If we were able to leave our justifiable outrage and anger aside, remove personalities from the debate, and approach the issue from a purely acedemic and philosophical standpoint, we might just be surprised where our reasoning would take us.     Anyone with experience of work within any kind of institution would know the imperative of passing problems up through the change of command to the point where action can be taken by the appropiate person. In most organisations today responsibility is collective and includes a duty of loyalty to the employing authority. Problems are expected to be discussed and hopefully dealt with in-house, but the individual employee will not necessarily be appraised of the outcome of any subsequent action. Sometimes individuals have to make difficult choices  whether to stick to agreed and approved procedures within their organisations structures or go on a solo run. In different ways we have all at some time faced this dilemna, and made choices based on our own rationale. This experience should have taught us that it is never easy, and to be wary of rushing to judgement on others, without knowing the full facts about the limitations and self doubt they laboured under.
As an aside i believe that Dr.Brady should resign, for the greater good of the Church, this does imply any judgement on his character or actions

Whilst passing this information up the chain of command is probably the first act in most organizations, it's not enough! In the following 13 years as he got promotion after promotion did he never think -  hold on I've never heard of Smyth being in court? where is he now? has he still access to children? He was very high up in the Church in Ireland in the mid 80's and for him to claim he didn't know Smyth was still a active priest only insults our intelligence. As a man of god his primary aim should be protection of the innocent, not self preservation of the church!
Now that Brendan Boland has called for Brady's resignation and said that if he stays it further abuse of himself and other victims, I don't think Brady can sit tight and brave this one out. He'll be gone within the week.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

If Cardinal Brady has broken a law(s) then it should be taken up by the police, and then to court.

I listened to Alan Shatter this morning talk about legislation coming with regard to with-holding information.   I guess that implies that there isn't legislation stating that with-holding information is a crime.   Equally making someone sign an oath of secrecy seems like an effort to interfere with the law.  These strike me as strange but I don't know the law

It would appear while not a crime in the Republic, failure to report a crime is an offence under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.   Time for the PSNI to step in?

/Jim

[orangeman]

Brady has and is doing serious damage to the church every day he stays in office. Time for him to go.

It's mind boggling how he thinks ( and Rome and the rest ) that he should remain in office and that this will in som way benefit the church.

[Hardy]

If Cardinal Brady has broken a law(s) then it should be taken up by the police, and then to court.

I listened to Alan Shatter this morning talk about legislation coming with regard to with-holding information.   I guess that implies that there isn't legislation stating that with-holding information is a crime.   Equally making someone sign an oath of secrecy seems like an effort to interfere with the law.  These strike me as strange but I don't know the law

It would appear while not a crime in the Republic, failure to report a crime is an offence under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.   Time for the PSNI to step in?

/Jim

There's a prima facie case to answer, almost certainly. You'd imagine the PSNI would feel obligated to investigate. And if not, surely it's almost certain someone will make a complaint, thus forcing a criminal investigation.

[ONeill]

One thing's for sure - the 1970s and 80s (not to mention the decade and centuries before) were a completely different place with its own set of moral judgements. It wasn't just the priests who kept quiet. Parents and lay people involved with the Church, who equally should have known better, said nothing. School masters physically and mentally tortured children at school whilst the other teachers and parents of the same children turned a blind eye to it all. There are many who will look back (and I'm sure many on here) and now acknowledge that what they silently accepted as part of life was wrong and if they could travel back in time they would have shouted stop.

In terms of Brady - I think there's a strong element of truth to his version. The Maynooth doctrine did mess with their heads in terms of acting morally esp in cases of sexual abuse. In 2012 we think we'd be whistle blowers in his position. You simply cannot say that though. However, Brady (like many other church issues in recent months) has handled this extremely badly. Instead of using the blame-shift card, which may be legit, he should be asking for forgiveness and publicly recognising the devastation they caused.

The priests weren't stealing a fiver from the collection. They systematically raped hundreds of children, devastating their lives. If Brady doesn't believe he is in any way complicit in that, then he is worse than I thought.

Of that there is no doubt. What I find interesting is in discovering how society at the time dealt with this and these types of scandals. Priests and 'the master' were held in such high esteem, almost to the point of infallibility. I was lucky to know someone who was able to see through the adoration. She went toe-to-toe with anyone she thought was doing something wrong. This was in the early 80s and I can tell you that she received little support as it was best not to 'rock the boat' in educational circles as results were good. I know of children who spent most mornings living in fear of what may happen that day in school. I know of one child who vomited regularly before school. The community knew about it but only 1 or 2 raised their heads. That was the mid-80s.

It's no wonder the clergy had an overinflated notion of their importance in society and how they were revered. I'm not attempting to explain why abuse happened or was covered up. I'm just trying to understand why the indignation shown in 2012 didn't seem to occur in 1975 or 1985 (or maybe it did but wasn't heard.) Did any of the parents or family know of this abuse? Surely others outside the clergy were privy to this information. I only watched snippets of it so interested in finding out if that was addressed.

I'm not an ex-boy scout so I don't know much about that area but I was reading lately of the on-going sex abuse cases in the States. Since the 40s, over 5000 scout teachers (or whatever they're called) have been thrown out of the Boys' Scout Organisation for sexual abuse; it's believed at the rate of one every other day, even yet. Their rationale for hiding the info on these cases was because they felt it would encourage other perverts to join the scouts. The mind boggles.

[Main Street]

If Cardinal Brady has broken a law(s) then it should be taken up by the police, and then to court.

I listened to Alan Shatter this morning talk about legislation coming with regard to with-holding information.   I guess that implies that there isn't legislation stating that with-holding information is a crime.   Equally making someone sign an oath of secrecy seems like an effort to interfere with the law.  These strike me as strange but I don't know the law

It would appear while not a crime in the Republic, failure to report a crime is an offence under section 5 of the Criminal Law (Northern Ireland) Act 1967.   Time for the PSNI to step in?

/Jim

There's a prima facie case to answer, almost certainly. You'd imagine the PSNI would feel obligated to investigate. And if not, surely it's almost certain someone will make a complaint, thus forcing a criminal investigation.

I'd equate Brady's culpability with that of the getaway driver, after an armed robbery.

[Abble]

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, he knows there is a case to answer and the only way for the full and absolute truth to come out is to start that process asap.
If that was me in Brendan Bolands shoes, I for one, would not be content at just calling for a resignation, this is what the BBC and all and sundry now want too. But at the end of the day what would BB get out of that. Surely he must suspect, now at his age and he's a bit smarter about things, that there is a very real possibility Brady had others above him running this....(its almost going mafia-like this, and you can almost feel that Brady is afraid to speak out about others involved).