Did Brady covered up child abuse?

[longrunsthefox]

Fair enough Pints... is how you see it and I would keep going on about it... c'est la vie. 

[pintsofguinness]

Maybe you should let us know what the charge would be?

Perverting the course of justice (by being party to two vunerable children being made to swear not to tell anyone  ie; the police)... aiding and abetting child abuse... withholding information about an offence being committed against two children....  I'm sure there is  a law against this sort of thing 

Proving it will be the problem.

Its like the Adams case. Its clear his niece will never forgive Gerry for not intervening, but how can anyone prove that he knew what was going on.

wtf? It's nothing like the Adams case.

[mylestheslasher]

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cardinal-brady-is-sued-by-victim-of-serial-abuse-priest-2098868.html

Cardinal Brady is sued by victim of serial abuse priest
Primate accused of not passing report on child victim of Smyth to gardai

Sued: Cardinal Sean Brady attended meetings with abuse complainants as far back as 1975

By JIM CUSACK
Sunday March 14 2010
Cardinal Sean Brady is being sued in his personal capacity by a victim of serial paedophile rapist, Fr Brendan Smyth, who is claiming the primate was one of three priests who interviewed her in 1975 about her five-year long ordeal and then failed to ensure it was reported to the civil authorities, including the gardai.

The cardinal was present at two meetings at which clergy interviewed victims of Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975. At both meetings the victims, a young woman who Smyth had abused for five years and a boy who was also abused, were made to sign oaths saying they would not discuss their meetings with anyone other than authorised clergy.

After 1975, Smyth went on to abuse many more children.

Cardinal Brady is being sued in a personal capacity as well as in his role as head of the Catholic Church in Ireland by the female victim who Smyth brutalised and sexually abused between 1970 and 1975, on occasions when she was taken on church outings. She brought a case against the church in 1997 and it has been in the High Court ever since.

Cardinal Brady is, according to court affidavits, accused of: "1. Failing to report to An Garda Siochana the fact of formal signed complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth of sexual assault and paedophilia on other children made to the church authorities investigated by them at interviews -- at which the second named defendant was present and participated -- on March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, respectively.

"2. Failing following such interviews to take any adequate steps to ensure that Fr Brendan Smyth did not continue to perpetrate sexual assaults on children including the plaintiff.

"3. Requiring and causing the two children, the subject matter of the inquiries held on the March 29, 1975, and April 4, 1975, to sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss the interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it.

"4. By failing in its duty to report complaints against Fr Brendan Smyth negligently deprived the plaintiff and others of appropriate medical treatment."

In a statement yesterday on behalf of the Cardinal, the Catholic Information Office confirmed to the Sunday Independent that Fr Sean Brady had attended meetings with then alleged victims of Fr Smyth.

The Catholic Information Office said: "In 1975, Fr Sean Brady, as he then was, was the part-time secretary to the then Bishop of Kilmore, the late Bishop Francis McKiernan. At the direction of Bishop McKiernan, Fr Brady attended the two meetings referred to in your email. In the Dundalk meeting, Fr Brady acted as recording secretary for the process involved. In the Ballyjamesduff meeting he asked the questions and recorded the answers given.

"At those meetings the complainants signed undertakings, on oath, to respect the confidentiality of the information-gathering process. As instructed, and as a matter of urgency, Fr Brady passed both reports to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action," the statement added.

The Sunday Independent has learned that for 10 years the solicitor representing the woman had unsuccessfully attempted to force disclosure of documents relating to the handling of her case by the church. In 2007, the solicitor sought and received documentation from gardai who by then were examining documents relating to abusing priests. These documents finally disclosed the meetings at which Cardinal Brady was present. The case is still before the High Court.

In an affidavit before the High Court last December, the woman's solicitor said the victims were made to "sign under oath undertakings that they would not discuss their interview with anyone except priests who had permission to discuss it".

Cardinal Brady is the second named defendant in the case. The other two clergy are Fr Gerard Cusack, head of the Norbertine Order, of which Smyth was a member, and Bishop Leo O'Reilly of Lismore diocese, where the Norbertine's head abbey is situated, outside Ballyjamesduff in Co Cavan.

Fr Cusack and Bishop O'Reilly were not involved in any way directly with the young woman and are not being sued in a personal capacity but in their capacities as head of the order and head of the diocese respectively in which it is claimed negligence towards the victim took place. The proceedings are being defended by the defendants.

The lawyer, Brian Coady, of Murphy Coady Solicitors of Navan, Co Meath, wrote to the cardinal in January 2008, after examining the files unearthed by the gardai.

In his affidavit to the High Court last December, Mr Coady said: "I made it clear in my letter of January 25, 2008, enclosing the particulars of negligence that those allegations were made against the second named defendant (Sean Brady) in his personal capacity and not in his capacity as Catholic Primate of All Ireland. I also requested that the second named defendant indicate if he had any objections to same.

"However, the second named defendant client failed to indicate his position. I begged to refer to the copy of the letter of January 25, 2008, upon which marked the letters BC2 I have signed prior to the swearing thereof."

He wrote again in June last year. His affidavit to the High Court on this date reads: "By letter dated June 16, 2009, this firm again wrote to the second named defendant's solicitors seeking their consent to the amendments proposed by the statement of claim. I beg to refer to a copy of this letter upon which marked the letters BC3. I have signed my name prior to the swearing thereof.

"The plaintiff continued to wait for a response to the said letters in order to admit this application to be heard by the Master of this Honourable Court and to reduce costs. The second named defendant was aware of his personal involvement in and at all other details of the enquiry from the outset of proceedings and also knew that until September 2007 the plaintiff was unaware of same.

"In the circumstances the plaintiff assumed that he would consent to the amendment and gave him every opportunity to do so. However, at the date of swearing the second named defendant has not done so. In the circumstances, I believe the plaintiff has no option but to bring this motion before this Honourable Court."

By 1975 there had already been an enormous number of complaints about Smyth's abuse of children in Ireland, the UK and the US. At least one priest, Fr Bruno Mulvhill, had raised the complaints with the Irish hierarchy as early as 1968. It later emerged that Smyth had been abusing children from the 1940s but was continuously moved and allowed to go on abusing right up to the 1990s when his extradition from the Republic was finally sought by the RUC and he was convicted and imprisoned. It was the scandal that arose after it emerged that the RUC's extradition warrant had sat for months in the Attorney General's office in 1994 that led to the collapse of the FF/Labour coalition government. Fr Smyth died in prison in 1997.

The plaintiff, according to the affidavit, "suffered sustained and continued to suffer from very severe personal injuries, distress, trauma, loss and damage by virtue of the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants".

It says the defendants: "Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned church activities and in particular children's outings when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe to do so;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the organisation of such outings by a servant or agent of whom they knew or ought to have known had paedophile tendencies or was, in fact, a paedophile;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned access to children and in particular to the plaintiff herein by a servant or agent who they knew or ought to have known presented a grave risk to children;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in circumstances of great danger of which they knew or ought to have known of;

"Required the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in which they knew or ought to have known she was likely to be sexually assaulted which in fact occurred;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned a servant or agent to have unlimited, unregulated and unsupervised access to young children and particular to the plaintiff herein which access was utilised for repeated sexual abuse;

"Failed to protect children and in particular the plaintiff herein from sexual assaults by their servants or agents;

"Exposed the plaintiff to the immediate danger of ongoing sexual assaults which in fact occurred; and faced the plaintiff in a real apprehension of immediate battery being committed on her."

The affidavit states that the victim continues to suffer from the trauma of the violent sexual abuse which began when she was 14 and continued until she was 20. It states: "She complained of sleep disturbance, nightmares, reduced energy, mood swings, flashbacks and hyper vigilance. The plaintiff also suffered from a sense of estrangement, an absent sex life and distress even at the mention of sexuality. Her symptoms further included fear, nervousness, diarrhoea, choking sensations, muscle tension, increased heart rate and breathing difficulties. The plaintiff complained of thoughts of death, loss of concentration, interest and appetite. She avoids closeness to people including her husband and is fearful of rejection. Her marriage and quality of life have been greatly affected. The plaintiff was deeply distressed and overwhelmed by sexual abuse from the time she was 14 to 20 years of age."

- JIM CUSACK

[orangeman]

Brady is no better than the rest.


He should resign. No doubt about it.

Definitely complicit.

[ardmhachaabu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm

Might as well let the man's own version of events be aired 

[orangeman]

When asked why he had not contacted the relevent statutory authorities, Cardinal Brady said that he was not the designated person to do so.

When asked if he was going to resign he said that he would not because he did not think it was a resigning matter.

[Pangurban]

No question, the Cardinal must resign. Though he was acting in obedience, by carrying out the instructions of his Bishop, whose duty it was to deal with this matter, his responsibility did not end there. To claim as he now does that proper procedures to deal with these matters were not in existence at this time, is a complete cop out. Is he seriously suggesting that a senior churchman required a procedure to tell him the difference between right and wrong. He has no credibility left, and should go quickly, before the Church is damaged further, by his non-sensical defence

[slow corner back]

I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.

[orangeman]

I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.

Spot on -

The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.

[mylestheslasher]

I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.

Spot on -

The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.

The old defence of the "couple of bad apples" is well and truly blown at this stage. Brendan Smyth was one of the most heinous scumbags that ever walked in this country and to cover up his deeds is even worse. Imagine a scenario where you as part of your job came across evidence that a guy was a rampant paedophille, would you seriously say "its not my responsibility to tell the cops". No one would say that unless they were tryin to cover it up.

[theskull1]

Boys will you just put you hands in your pockets, help the church put this to bed and shut the f**k up 

[muppet]

The issue here is whether the process, in which the Cardinal played a key role, concluded with the matter being reported to the authorities in a timely fashion.

If it was not then his defense of not being the 'designated person' to do so is irrelevant and he should resign immediately.

It should also be noted that only the Ferns & Dublin dioceses have been properly independently investigated to date. Here is a very good reason to investigate another and there is probably an argument to do the lot of them.

[mylestheslasher]

The issue here is whether the process, in which the Cardinal played a key role, concluded with the matter being reported to the authorities in a timely fashion.

If it was not then his defense of not being the 'designated person' to do so is irrelevant and he should resign immediately.

It should also be noted that only the Ferns & Dublin dioceses have been properly independently investigated to date. Here is a very good reason to investigate another and there is probably an argument to do the lot of them.

Brendan Smyth abused kids for a further 18 years as a priest after this "process" - the Gardai were never informed. On this evenings news they played an interview from the cardinal stating some time ago that if his failure to act in the past had resulted in children being abused then he would resign (he gave this at a time when people were looking for the resignation of the 4 bishops criticised in the Dublin Diocese.) Surely, he will now live up to his word and do just that.

[BallyhaiseMan]

I caught the tail end of a report on this on the morning news and heard someone call for him to resign. At first I thought it was more sensationalist stuff from the press... then I heard the full story later in the day. Unbelievable his position is completely untenable he has to go. However it does beg the question Is there a senior Cleric in Ireland who has not been party to a cover up at some stage in the last 30-40 years? Given the scale of the problem and how widespread it has been all over the country all of them must have had suspicions/ heard rumours about some of the goings on.

Spot on -

The whole lot of them should resign and be replaced by the young lads who are able to deal with the issues affecting the church. Brady and co have no credibility left. Time for him to go - now.

Well said OM.

[pintsofguinness]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8567144.stm

Might as well let the man's own version of events be aired 

I don't think that helps him at all, in fact it makes me even more angry.