Clerical abuse!

[Ulick]

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.

Jim, all I was doing was simply pointing out that Brady is quite possibly the man best placed and most capable to reform the old culture, but the Church critics are using him as a proxy for their attacks on the Church. Brady doesn't have supreme authority over the Church in Ireland, he's merely President of the Bishops Conference each of whom are pretty much automomus in their own diocese. Brady has influence within the Conference to set the agenda but the nature of the acronistic Church structures inevitably mean reform is slow. The Irish Bishops Conference oversaw the vast majority of the abuse scandals and covered them up. Brady as someone with first hand experience and knowledge of the abuse has been Primate at a period when the Church has slowly begun to accept it's responsibility and introduce reforms to ensure it can't happen again. I'm suggesting the two are not unconnected and this ties in with the nature of his original appointment (over the heads of the 'magic circle').

[give her dixie]

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.

What about the suffering and torment that the victims went through following Brady's involvement in the cover up? What about the 30+ victims of Smyth's abuse following Brady's initial involvement in the case? Brady is guilty of covering up abuse in Ireland, and for that, he should stand down, and if possible, face a court of law for his actions.

[johnneycool]

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.

That's the bit that gets me, I suppose we'll never know, but surely that guilt must be weighing heavily on the man if he has a conscience at all.

Then again the institution which is the church is his life and that takes precedence!

Question to some of the more enlightened than myself, but in Canon law did Brendan Smyth break any of its laws?

[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.

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.

Good point - that's probably true.

[give her dixie]

A reflection on the dilemma of Cardinal Brady: Malachi O'Doherty

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/a-reflection-on-the-dilemma-of-cardinal-brady-malachi-odoherty/

Most of us, if we had been priests of Fr Sean Brady's age in the 1970s would have done as he did. The priest takes an oath of obedience to his bishop. Brady was assigned by his bishop to investigate a fellow cleric who was raping children and to report back. He did everything that was expected of him by the only authority to which he had pledged himself answerable. He ascertained that the odious Brendan Smyth was indeed a paedophile priest making use of children for his sexual gratification. And he spoke to two boys who had been used in that way and he believed them. Then he swore them to secrecy.

All of this, in the practical secular view of a later age was what we would now call collusion in the cover up of a vile crime and the manipulation of victims for the protection of an offender and of the institutional church to which that offender belonged. But what was it in the mind of Sean Brady? It was the exercise of unquestioning obedience and loyalty. It was an outward expression of his faith in the power of the church to do the right thing.

No more could possibly be expected of Brady other than perhaps that he be a person of a type we rarely see, someone of heroic indvidual conscience. You don't get many of them in churches.

Sean Brady was not a hero on the day he made two boys kneel and swear to keep secret the name of a rapist; he was an obedient priest. And the failing that has to be identified is not in him but in the very system by which he was expected to swear obedience to superiors who were no wiser or more principled than himself. With that oath of obedience a priest divests himself of his conscience and his citizenship and, as this case demonstrates, makes himself untrustworthy. Once he has decided that he will do as he is told by another, then he is no more reliable or admirable than that other. He has agreed to be the tool of an insitution and of its representatives in the hierarchy over him, people who have now been exposed as conniving and dangerous.

So, should Sean Brady resign as head of the church in Ireland, when any other priest of his generation would have done the same as he did? Nothing distinguishes him from his brother priests or they from him.

And that is precisely the problem. As head of the church, though not the direct boss over those other priests, Sean Brady is best placed to make clear that the docile enslavement of priests, to an institution which always knows best, is over. He has said that he wants to stay in his job to mend the church and heal the damage caused but he could do far more good by acknowledging that a priest is answerable to the whole of society and the law, not just to a hierarchy or even to a flock, a congregation. By leaving he would accept that he is properly answerable to the civil order and the secular society which has basic legal principles and expectations of those who hold office. It is civic order to which he owes an apology.

He may have met the standards of a church which expected only that he do as he was told but he failed – as all sworn priests in his position would inevitably fail – to recognise his wider responsibilities to the rest of us. He should not resign to declare himself guilty of shameless management of coverup. In a sense he has almost nothing to be ashamed of there anyway because he acted within the limits his church imposed on him.

If we don't think we would ourselves have been up to such a brave act of rebellion we shouldn't criticise him for not managing it either.

But he should resign as the man who should now better understand than anybody how dangerous tthe church's limitations are. he should resign as a declaration of the responsibility of priests to the wider society they thought they had the right to ignore. Faced with this challenge in the past, Sean Brady said that he would listen to church-going Catholics and take his guidance from them. That is where he went wrong, and it is not far removed from what was most wrong in what he did to those boys for it amounts to wilfully ignoring the standards that a wider society expects of people, particularly of people in power.

There can no longer be a hermetically sealed Catholic church whose priests refer only to their own authority and moral codes. That is what many priests themselves are saying and being silenced for saying. Sean Brady is only the most conspicuous victim of the way in which the church abuses its priests, stripping them of the right and responsibility to hear guidance from anywhere but above, even from their own consciences. It is time he owned up to the damage that has been done to him and through him.

[Tubberman]

A reflection on the dilemma of Cardinal Brady: Malachi O'Doherty

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2012/05/a-reflection-on-the-dilemma-of-cardinal-brady-malachi-odoherty/

Most of us, if we had been priests of Fr Sean Brady's age in the 1970s would have done as he did. The priest takes an oath of obedience to his bishop. Brady was assigned by his bishop to investigate a fellow cleric who was raping children and to report back. He did everything that was expected of him by the only authority to which he had pledged himself answerable. He ascertained that the odious Brendan Smyth was indeed a paedophile priest making use of children for his sexual gratification. And he spoke to two boys who had been used in that way and he believed them. Then he swore them to secrecy.

All of this, in the practical secular view of a later age was what we would now call collusion in the cover up of a vile crime and the manipulation of victims for the protection of an offender and of the institutional church to which that offender belonged. But what was it in the mind of Sean Brady? It was the exercise of unquestioning obedience and loyalty. It was an outward expression of his faith in the power of the church to do the right thing.

No more could possibly be expected of Brady other than perhaps that he be a person of a type we rarely see, someone of heroic indvidual conscience. You don't get many of them in churches.

Sean Brady was not a hero on the day he made two boys kneel and swear to keep secret the name of a rapist; he was an obedient priest. And the failing that has to be identified is not in him but in the very system by which he was expected to swear obedience to superiors who were no wiser or more principled than himself. With that oath of obedience a priest divests himself of his conscience and his citizenship and, as this case demonstrates, makes himself untrustworthy. Once he has decided that he will do as he is told by another, then he is no more reliable or admirable than that other. He has agreed to be the tool of an insitution and of its representatives in the hierarchy over him, people who have now been exposed as conniving and dangerous.

So, should Sean Brady resign as head of the church in Ireland, when any other priest of his generation would have done the same as he did? Nothing distinguishes him from his brother priests or they from him.

And that is precisely the problem. As head of the church, though not the direct boss over those other priests, Sean Brady is best placed to make clear that the docile enslavement of priests, to an institution which always knows best, is over. He has said that he wants to stay in his job to mend the church and heal the damage caused but he could do far more good by acknowledging that a priest is answerable to the whole of society and the law, not just to a hierarchy or even to a flock, a congregation. By leaving he would accept that he is properly answerable to the civil order and the secular society which has basic legal principles and expectations of those who hold office. It is civic order to which he owes an apology.

He may have met the standards of a church which expected only that he do as he was told but he failed – as all sworn priests in his position would inevitably fail – to recognise his wider responsibilities to the rest of us. He should not resign to declare himself guilty of shameless management of coverup. In a sense he has almost nothing to be ashamed of there anyway because he acted within the limits his church imposed on him.

If we don't think we would ourselves have been up to such a brave act of rebellion we shouldn't criticise him for not managing it either.

But he should resign as the man who should now better understand than anybody how dangerous tthe church's limitations are. he should resign as a declaration of the responsibility of priests to the wider society they thought they had the right to ignore. Faced with this challenge in the past, Sean Brady said that he would listen to church-going Catholics and take his guidance from them. That is where he went wrong, and it is not far removed from what was most wrong in what he did to those boys for it amounts to wilfully ignoring the standards that a wider society expects of people, particularly of people in power.

There can no longer be a hermetically sealed Catholic church whose priests refer only to their own authority and moral codes. That is what many priests themselves are saying and being silenced for saying. Sean Brady is only the most conspicuous victim of the way in which the church abuses its priests, stripping them of the right and responsibility to hear guidance from anywhere but above, even from their own consciences. It is time he owned up to the damage that has been done to him and through him.

Insightful. Shows how warped the inner working of the Catholic Church were and to a large extent still are.
Priests primary duty of care is to the Church, and for 'the Church', read the Vatican/Cardinals/Bishops, whoever is in power above the priest.
They serve the Church first and the 'ordinary' lay Catholics are a much lower priority, if they register at all.
As long as the Church was protected, anything/anyone else that suffered was collateral damage.
But it's simply not good enough to use that an excuse for what went on.

This is the organisation that people still try to defend, and take their moral guidance from.

[nifan]

Jim, all I was doing was simply pointing out that Brady is quite possibly the man best placed and most capable to reform the old culture

If there was an ruc member who was proven to be actively involved in the cover up of colusion - albeit under orders and not the top dog - would people be entitled to question if he was suitable to be chief constable?

Could it be argued hed be the best person to reform the old culture?

And could we all comment not knowing the " organisation, tensions and factions within it, prevailing culture then and now"

[Ulick]

Jim, all I was doing was simply pointing out that Brady is quite possibly the man best placed and most capable to reform the old culture

If there was an ruc member who was proven to be actively involved in the cover up of colusion - albeit under orders and not the top dog - would people be entitled to question if he was suitable to be chief constable?

Could it be argued hed be the best person to reform the old culture?

And could we all comment not knowing the " organisation, tensions and factions within it, prevailing culture then and now"

nifan, a more realistic parallel is probably the appointment of John Stalker. Outside cop appointed to oversee the clean-up investigation. Look how that worked out.

To go back to your RUC analogy, I don't think any of the f**kers should be allowed anywhere near the PSNI - but should or will the PSNI pay any heed to my opinion?

[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.

Your joking. Right?

No I'm not. I'm saddened and concerned at the effect this torade of abuse will have on both the man, and the Church.

[Hardy]

I'm saddened and concerned at the effect this torade of abuse will have on both the man, and the Church.

Orior, are you really seriously happy to stand over the cheapening of the term "abuse" in this particular context?  I think you need to take a long look a the hierarchy of abuse and its effects.

[Declan]

That's a very good article from Malachi O'Doherty

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.


Good point - that's probably true.

But if the bishop went to his Super you know what would happen

[Hardy]

That's true too.

[nifan]

nifan, a more realistic parallel is probably the appointment of John Stalker. Outside cop appointed to oversee the clean-up investigation. Look how that worked out.

I dont get what you mean here - in what way is stalker a more realistic parallel?

[Shamrock Shore]

The cardinal should have resigned two years ago when this part of the whole sorry tale broke first.

However the Vatican pull the strings here and I am sure even if he wanted to the Cardinal would not be 'let' resign. For two reasons in my opinion.

1. For the head of the Irish church to resign would be awful bad 'PR' for the Holy See
2. It would mean that they would have to give top job to Diarmuid Martin. He's not flavour of the month over in Rome but it would seem his cough has softened/been softened of late so maybe he is being assimilated, Borg-like, back into the fold.

[Maguire01]

Anyone considered Brady may have been refused permission to resign?

So he's still bowing to his superiors rather than doing what he feels is right? If you want to resign, you'll resign.