Politicians call on cardinal to "examine his own conscience"
Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness, joint head of the Northern Ireland executive, has called on Cardinal Sean Brady to "consider his position". Mr McGuinness is Green Party leader John Gormley, who serves as environment minister in the Republic's government, has asked the cardinal to examine his own conscience, and Roisin Shortall, spokesperson on social and family affairs for the Irish Labour Party, concluded that the church leader was "hopelessly compromised by what had emerged". Those political leaders join a growing number of individuals and organisations across Ireland, including The Rape Crisis Network Ireland, who have called on the primate to step down.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Communications Office released this statement today to "clarify media reporting on Cardinal Seán Brady":
1. The State's first Child Abuse Guidelines came into effect in 1987 and the Church's first guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, were published in 1996.
2. In late March 1975, Fr Seán Brady was asked by his bishop, Bishop Francis McKiernan, to conduct a canonical enquiry into an allegation of child sexual abuse which was made by a boy in Dundalk, concerning a Norbertine priest, Fr Brendan Smyth.
3. Fr Brady was then a full-time teacher at St Patrick's College, Cavan. Because he held a doctorate in Canon Law, Fr Brady was asked to conduct this canonical enquiry; however he had no decision-making powers regarding the outcome of the enquiry. Bishop McKiernan held this responsibility.
4. On 29 March 1975, Fr Brady and two other priests interviewed a boy (14) in Dundalk. Fr Brady's role was to take notes. On 4 April 1975, Fr Brady interviewed a second boy (15) in the Parochial House in Ballyjamesduff. On this occasion Fr Brady conducted the inquiry by himself and took notes.
5. At the end of both interviews, the boys were asked to confirm by oath the truthfulness of their statements and that they would preserve the confidentiality of the interview process. The intention of this oath was to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry's evidence and to ensure that the process was robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr Brendan Smyth.
6. A week later Fr Brady passed his findings to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action.
7. Eight days later, on 12 April 1975, Bishop McKiernan reported the findings to Fr Smyth's Religious Superior, the Abbot of Kilnacrott. The specific responsibility for the supervision of Fr Smith's activities was, at all times, with his Religious Superiors. Bishop McKiernan withdrew Brendan Smyth's priestly faculties and advised psychiatric intervention.
Comment number 1.
At 16th Mar 2010, allybalder wrote:Should he go? Where?
He should face the courts on conspiracy to obstruct justice!
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 16th Mar 2010, David Kerr wrote:I am calling on Mr Brady, yes, he is a citizen first, to name the two other priests. He should honour his pledge made in 2009 to resign. He should acknowledge, that on reflection, he should have reported the matter to the police or resigned.
Do the anti theists a favour and stay, Mr Brady.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 17th Mar 2010, Rusticatus wrote:Martin McGuinness? Now that really does put things in perspective.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 17th Mar 2010, Heliopolitan wrote:There is no point in simply scapegoating Mr Brady. This rot runs to the heart of an institution that believes (still) that its "canon law" excuses it from the real law of the land and straightforward moral responsibility. David is right. Mr Brady should indeed stay, and provide as much opportunity as possible for sensible people to work to dismantle this malfunctioning machinery. Indeed, SOCA should seize its assets for distribution among victims and victim support groups.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 17th Mar 2010, brianmcclinton wrote:Allybalder (1):
In asking the two teenagers to take an oath of secrecy, Brady was effectively asking them to to take an oath to conceal the commission of a crime. It is typical casuistry to claim that this oath applied only to the interviews, for I doubt this was not explained to the children, and I doubt if they were advised (or their parents advised) to go to the police. Indeed, if it is the case, asking them to sign such an oath without the presence of their parents is itself deplorable.
Brady should be asked to clarify certain points:
1. Did he or the bishop or anyone else involved strongly advise the children to go to the police?
2. Did he or the bishop or anyone else involved strongly advise the parents of the children to go to the police?
3. What part did the parents of the two teenagers play in all this? Did they know the full details of what went on?
4. Did 'confidentiality' mean that the Church was obliged not even to inform the parents of what has happened or was happening?
5. Why did he keep this a secret for 35 years?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 18th Mar 2010, filiocht wrote:in response to the information posted on the Catholic Communications Office's website claiming there were no Church guidelines about sexual abuse at the time of Dr Brady's interview with Father Smyth, how does that claim match up with what Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, the "promoter of justice" of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in an inerview recently posted on the Vatican website (see below)?
Question: Monsignor, you have the reputation of being "tough", yet the Catholic Church is systematically accused of being accommodating towards "paedophile priests".
Answer: It may be that in the past - perhaps also out of a misdirected desire to protect the good name of the institution - some bishops were, in practice, too indulgent towards this sad phenomenon. And I say in practice because, in principle, the condemnation of this kind of crime has always been firm and unequivocal. Suffice it to recall, to limit ourselves just to last century, the famous Instruction "Crimen sollicitationis" of 1922.
Q: Wasn't that from 1962?
A: No, the first edition dates back to the pontificate of Pius XI. Then, with Blessed John XXIII, the Holy Office issued a new edition for the Council Fathers, but only two thousand copies were printed, which were not enough, and so distribution was postponed sine die. In any case, these were procedural norms to be followed in cases of solicitation during confession, and of other more serious sexually-motivated crimes such as the sexual abuse of minors.
Q: Norms which, however, recommended secrecy...
A: A poor English translation of that text has led people to think that the Holy See imposed secrecy in order to hide the facts. But this was not so. Secrecy during the investigative phase served to protect the good name of all the people involved; first and foremost, the victims themselves, then the accused priests who have the right - as everyone does - to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Church does not like showcase justice. Norms on sexual abuse have never been understood as a ban on denouncing the crimes to the civil authorities.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)