Sean Brady Steps Down

[johnneycool]

A clean pair of hands, eh Edward, what can you mean by that?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21073064

The administrator of the Diocese of Derry is set to be the next leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

Monsignor Eamon Martin has been appointed as coadjutor (assistant) Archbishop of Armagh. It was announced by the current leader, Cardinal Sean Brady on Friday.

Msgr Martin said the church must learn from the "terrible trauma" of abuse.

Former Bishop of Derry Edward Daly said he was seen as "a clean pair of hands" after the church's abuse scandals.

"He does not carry any baggage from the past with him," the retired bishop said.

"It's a challenging time for the church in Ireland. He has been asked to lead that church".

Msgr Martin said the church had to learn from past scandals.

"I think today of all those who have been abused by clergy, and the hurt and betrayal they have experienced," he said.

"As the words on the Healing Stone at the International Eucharistic Congress remind us - they have been left with a lifelong suffering.
Jump media player
Media player help
Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Former Bishop of Derry Edward Daly said Msgr Martin was seen as "a clean pair of hands"

"I am saddened that many good Catholics were let down so badly over the issue of abuse and that some have even stopped practising their faith.

"As a church, we must continue in our efforts to bring healing to victims and ensure that young people are always protected, respected and nurtured."

Cardinal Brady has been under pressure to resign over revelations about his handling of clerical abuse claims.

It followed a BBC documentary last year that found that when he was a priest, he had names and addresses of those being abused by paedophile priest Brendan Smyth, but did not pass them to police or parents.

But he has consistently resisted resignation calls.

Cardinal Brady, 73, announced changes to the hierarchy at Mass in Armagh on Friday.

"I am delighted that the man chosen is Monsignor Eamon Martin," he said.

"I congratulate you most heartily, Monsignor Martin. I welcome you to the city and the Diocese of Patrick."

Earlier, the Irish Catholic newspaper described the appointment as an "exit strategy" for Cardinal Brady.
Cardinal Sean Brady Cardinal Brady was a priest in County Cavan at the time of the investigation

The paper's editor, Michael Kelly, told the BBC the identity of the coadjutor bishop had been a well-guarded secret.
Difficult position

"This is an exit strategy for Cardinal Brady and probably something where this new shadow bishop will take over within the next three or four months," he said.

"It's been very clear that the cardinal's position has been, to say the least, difficult in the church and the Vatican has been engaged in a search for his successor.

"It seems now they have eventually found a successor who will shadow the cardinal, allowing the cardinal, at least on paper, or at least publicly, to go at a time of his own choosing."

Meanwhile, the Church of Ireland's Bishop of Derry And Raphoe, Ken Good, congratulated Msgr Martin on his appointment.

He said he had enjoyed working with him over the past few years and described him as "a man of spiritual depth, of humility and of vision".
Dialogue

"I will be sorry to see Monsignor Martin move away from his native city, and will miss his friendship," he said.

Presbyterian Moderator, Dr Roy Patton, also offered his congratulations.

"I look forward to meeting him and welcome his comments that as church leaders we must continue in dialogue and working together for the good of all," Dr Patton said.

[T Fearon]

It means he is untainted with child abuse scandals unlike Cardinal Brady through absolutely no fault of his own

[johnneycool]

It means he is untainted with child abuse scandals unlike Cardinal Brady through absolutely no fault of his own

yep, he was just a young, pig ignorant note taker.

You keep convincing yourself of that Tony.

[T Fearon]

I meant he was drawn into this cesspit involuntarily.He is as much a victim of the Church's then archaic procedures as anyone

[Hardy]

I meant he was drawn into this cesspit involuntarily.He is as much a victim of the Church's then archaic procedures as anyone

Well done Tony. You're serving the purpose of keeping this thread open very well. Keep posting that Brady is a victim and the victims were wrong and their parents were culpable and the church, an organisation that exists to propound a moral framework, "didn't have a clue" what to do about child rape and one of its leaders didn't know child rape was wrong until he took some months off to think about it.

You're doing a service to society in illustrating the difference between morality - "do what is right, no matter what you are told" and zealotry - "do what you're told, no matter what is right".

[whiskeysteve]

Tony knows rightly JC, he just doesnt care all that much about the actual points of the debate and will dodge and shift the goalposts til the cows come home. His central motivation in defending the sickeningly indefensible is stubborness, childishness (claiming 'victory') and provoking reaction and attention towards himself.

This is like a game for him and the more people that join in (like I am now  ) the happier he will be. Salient points are a trifle inconvenience and merely serve to propogate his subversion and amuse him further.

When he takes up a position on the cover up of child rape in the same fashion that you would entrench your support for a soccer team, its no debate at all. I guess it comes down to whether its worth responding further merely to shine further light on a shameful episode in our history as Hardy says.

[T Fearon]

I am simply defending the character of a man that I know to be inherently decent, a view shared by his fellow church leaders, I am not in any way condoning or defending child abuse and I resent the inferences of that nature on this thread.

[Hardy]

You are condoning and defending the cover-up and facilitation of child abuse. You are exonerating the perpetrators - educated, qualified, privileged people - for "not having a clue" and for needing to go on a think-in even to decide it was wrong, while not only refusing to extend that consideration to their child victims and parents but actually holding THEM culpable.

Well done again. You're a one-man demolition squad for respect for the church.

[T Fearon]

Lol! As if the world at large gives a toss about the opinions of a handful of keyboard warriors who havent even.got the courage to reveal their identities when posting abuse.

I think I'm safe in saying the opinion of other church leaders counts for far more in the public psyche than that of a five letter hologram on this Board.

[Hardy]

Lol. Right. You actually think it's funny to blame the child victims and exonerate those responsible for enabling their abuse. Why am I not surprised? Any base behaviour is possible when you abandon responsibility for your actions to those who instruct you.

And the irony is that you are right without understanding why. Indeed it is not my posts that are effective in illustrating the moral vacuum and evil effects that result from blind faith in morally bankrupt leaders and unquestioning compliance with instructions on how and what to think.

It's yours.

That's why I urge you to keep on posting.

[Lar Naparka]

Tony, you make great play of the fact that some kids at your school did tell their parents that they had been molested. The parents believed them and complained to the authorities and action was taken.
By your logic, all kids should tell their parents if they have been abused, all parents should then report this to the relevant authorities and the said authorities will then take action and all will be right with the world- or something like that.
All the time, you  play down the very important fact that it was an older boy who was abusing them and not a priest.
To carry your argument a bit further, if kids don't report clerical molestation to their parents and the parents don't  make a complaint, the kids and parents are at fault.
I think that sums up your argument neatly. Am I right or am I correct?

However, we all know of another case where a boy did complain to a priest that he was being abused. The priest informed his parents. The bishop of the diocese was told about this and he decided that something must be done.
Are we still in agreement?

The bishop decided to take action.
He set up a heavy squad to go and interview this boy, not allow his parents to be present when they forced him to swear an oath of silence and then did nothing.
This meant the assailant was allow to go unpunished, the civil authorities were not informed and the abuse of children by this man continued for almost 20 more years.
In case you don't remember, the boy in question was Brendan Boland and the "36-year-old minion" who did the bishop's dirty work was one John Baptist Brady.
Today, you are still stoutly defending the honour of the same JJB and declaring that he did nothing wrong.
Here's a boy and his parents who took the course you suggested and look where it got them!
One of us, Tony, is speaking through his anal orifice and I don't think it's me.

[T Fearon]

It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

[Zip Code]

It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

And showing no shame in blaming the child victims and their parents for the awful things that happened them, yet trying to exonerate those responsible for enabling their abuse.  I said it before you are a vile little man, hopefully you get what you truly deserve in life.

[Hardy]

It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Excellent. The "demonisation" of Brady is "shameful". But his participation in the conspiracy to cover up child rape is nothing - an oversight, made no difference anyway.

You continue to enlighten our understanding of the twisted thinking of the zealot and of his masters by the selection of the things that are considered shameful.

Well done. Keep on posting.

[imtommygunn]

It was not an incident at school but at a leisure centre where I worked as a student and the abuser was far beyond school going age.

Yes the Catholic Church should have told the Police (as they do nowadays) as the best way to protect any organisation's reputation is to be open and honest. No Sean Brady is not responsible for those who had greater influence than him at the time, not telling the Police. Yes the parents should have told the police as well, but 1975 was a different age, and again,given the Police in collusion with both Church and UK Government moved another cleric on (who was strongly suspected of involvement in a fatal bombing), would telling the Police, by Brady or anyone else, have made any difference?

I am railing against the shameful absolute demonisation of Sean Brady not defending the mistakes he or the church made.

Your response to some people being shameful has been to be shameful as well - do you not see that?