Thu 23rd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Wed 22nd Oct 2014 at 18:57pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Cardinal Brady now has a coadjutor, and will almost certainly retire early, after a wholly undeserved media witch-hunt, incited by the BBC

He has suffered a profound injustice: and the BBC now has yet another reason to be ashamed of itself

By on Monday, 21 January 2013

Cardinal Seán Brady (PA)

Cardinal Seán Brady (PA)

It has been announced that Mgr Eamon Martin has been appointed Archbishop coadjutor of Armagh. That means that when Cardinal Seán Brady retires, he will succeed him as Primate of all Ireland. Cardinal Brady would have come to his normal retirement age in August 2014, and in theory he could carry on until then. But under the circumstances everyone knows that he will almost certainly retire at some point later this year, finally driven out by the storm of controversy that broke over his head after a BBC documentary last year (in my opinion an utterly scurrilous piece of work) “revealed” that when he was a priest, he had the names and addresses of children abused by the paedophile priest Brendan Smyth, but did not pass them on to the police.

The fact is that it was not his responsibility, nor did he have any authority, to do anything of the kind; nor was it a requirement of the Irish law at the time that he or anyone else should do so. The BBC’s “revelations”, however, led to a media and political furore which greatly weakened the cardinal’s credibility and, inevitably, his moral authority as head of the Irish Church. My own reaction can be summarised in the headline of an article I wrote in this column at the time: “Cardinal Brady’s situation is now irretrievable, and he would be wise, therefore, to retire; but the storm beating down on him is wholly undeserved”.

I had come to hope that I had got it wrong, and that it might be turning out that he was in fact re-establishing his authority: it seems now that he, from the storm’s epicentre, had come to the same conclusion that I and others had from its periphery, and that he had asked the Holy Father for a coadjutor. I cannot let his retirement be announced, however, without one more effort at least to set the record straight: for, already, history is being rewritten. According to today’s Irish Times, for instance, the then Fr Brady actually himself conducted the inquiry into allegations of paedophilia against Fr Brendan Smyth; the Irish Independent simply says he was, as a young priest and canon lawyer, “made aware in the 1970s of abuse by Smyth – but did not inform the police or the abused children’s parents”. The general composite version is that he was in charge of the inquiry and didn’t inform the police of its findings as it was his duty to do: in some versions, this put him in contravention of the Irish law, even though it was only much later that the Irish law was changed to make informing the police a requirement, not simply for the Church but for everyone else (contrary to popular opinion, there was at the time plenty of paedophilia in Irish civil society at large, as there was in our own).

It became generally believed last year that it was because of something the young Fr Brady had actually done, or failed to do, that Brendan Smith carried on abusing children, as though Fr Brady had episcopal responsibility even then. But he wasn’t the bishop, he was the bishop’s secretary. As he said at the time, in reponse to the BBC’s deplorable (but all too successful) essay in character assassination, “the commentary in the programme and much of the coverage of my role in this inquiry gives the impression that I was the only person who knew of the allegations against Brendan Smyth at that time and that because of the office I hold in the Church today I somehow had the power to stop Brendan Smyth in 1975. I had absolutely no authority over Brendan Smyth (my italics). Even my bishop had limited authority over him… As Mgr Charles Scicluna, Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, confirmed in an interview with RTÉ this morning, it was Brendan Smyth’s superiors in the Norbertine Order who bear primary responsibility for failing to take the appropriate action when presented with the weight of evidence I had faithfully recorded and that Bishop McKiernan subsequently presented to them…”

As Cardinal Brady said then (though no one allowed anything he had to say in his own defence to spoil a rattling good witch hunt in full cry) the documentation of the inquiry describes the then Fr Brady simply as the “notary” or “note taker” of the proceedings. He did not formulate the questions asked in the inquiry process. He did not put the questions. He simply recorded the answers.

I end now as I ended then, in May last year: “There is much more that could be said in defence of Cardinal Brady: but who would listen? I fear that his position is now irretrievable, and that for the good of the Irish Church, it would probably be wise for him to ask for the Holy Father’s permission to take early retirement. It seems to me, nevertheless, that he has suffered, at the hands of the [BBC] This World programme, a profound injustice … and that when he finally does bow before the storm, as he almost certainly must, it should be well understood that this is one of those resignations for the greater good which have nothing to do with any culpability on the part of the person resigning.”

The BBC now has its own paedophile scandals, one of which includes its attempt to blacken the character of Lord MacAlpine — another false accusation which was at least authoritatively denounced in such a way that Lord MacAlpine’s reputation was quickly restored, and a very senior head, that of the BBC director general, duly rolled. That was the MacAlpine affair: this should come to be called the Brady affair, and BBC heads should roll over this one, too. They won’t, of course, it’s too late, and anyway, who cares about justice for Catholic prelates? But would the BBC have attempted the same kind of character assassination today? Would they not now have to be more careful? It’s an interesting question.

  • CullenD

    All concepts are made-up! I agree, though I would say recent, rather than trendy. It’s just a handy “catch-all” word, which doesn’t in any way explain a person’s beliefs.

  • JabbaPapa

    Learn how to read first, if you wish to discover what I wrote.

    The above piece of text is not it.

  • CullenD

    In a way, your’e over-thinking it. I’m heading into cliché territory here, but it’s not really a concept, it’s a lack of a concept.

    Would you say that you don’t believe in Zeus? Would you find it strange that a Zeus worshipper couldn’t understand your lack of belief. Once you add the thousands of other gods we don’t believe in, is it so strange that I just go one god further and don’t believe in Yahweh?It really is strange, we don’t believe in unicorns, but we don’t have to call ourselves Aunicornists. Lack of belief is pretty much the default for all other things, so why is god and religion the exception?

  • liquafruta

    Cardinal Brady has been the author of his own problems and not the media or anyone else.

  • liquafruta

    Read the Irish newspapers of the last few years and you will see whether Elizabeth’s remarks are justified or not. The truth is a bitter pill to swallow in this whole sorry tale.

  • teigitur

    Lol, Maybe thats why I have no conception of it, because it is not a concept!!? Belief is (still) the default position because it is the foundation our society was built on. It underpins most of our laws, affects every area of life, which you yourself alluded to in another post. Most people still have a belief, however vague, so unless and until believers become a small minority, belief will be our default setting. I also happen to believe that it is hard-wired into most people. It always gives hope. Faithlessness yields no hope past the here and now. End of homily!

  • JabbaPapa

    Cardinal Brady has been the victim of a horrible witch hunt, which is continuing under our very eyes in this discussion thread.

  • JabbaPapa

    No it is not.

  • CullenD

    But why did the civil authorities do s$$ all? From my personal experience, which I know is not evidence, it was because they were afraid of the church. Or that they trusted the church, which in hindsight was a worse mistake. 

    I agree that Brady may well be a scapegoat. Isn’t that laudable, even admirable, in the catholic view. Isn’t the whole basis of this religion that an innocent should, or could, pay for the crimes of another?

  • CullenD

    Hey, there’s nothing wrong with homilies if they’re done right.

    That lack of a concept thing was a mess. Philosophy is not my strong point. But I’m sure you got the gist of it, unbelief isn’t unusual or hard to understand.

    Our society may well be based on beliefs, but so are most others. The question to ask is, as they all clash, are based on different things and all claim to be right, how do pick one above another.

    Roman society was based on a belief in Jupiter, did that make it right? I may well want Jupiter to exist, it may even be my natural tendency to believe he exists, but that doesn’t change the possibility of his existence . 

    I think we can both agree Jupiter doesn’t exist, so why is it different for your choice of god? 

  • liquafruta

    I would suggest that any interested party should read the Irish Government reports into the matter which should enable anyone on this thread to form their own conclusions as to whether there has been any unfairness concerning Cardinal Brady or not. Whether one feels sorry for him or not is a different issue. The whole sorry affair has, unfortunately, deeply damaged the Church in Ireland.

  • OldMeena

    : -)

  • OldMeena


  • scary goat

     I think this might depend on who the cleric was assaulted by. If you mean a lay person, I really wouldn’t know, but there are plenty of reports of seminarians being abused by their superiors and again it was hidden.

  • Polly

    You’ve summed it up beautifully.

  • Polly

    So typical of you, you nasty horrible little troll, to put 2 + 2 together and make a total bull’s backside of the answer! Your ignorance of the matter – including how the BBC does things - is breathtaking.

    Eamonn Andrews (a good, practising Roman Catholic) reported Savile to the police back in the 1960′s because he didn’t like the fact that Savile and his friends were handing calling cards out to young girls at the school gate. The police did nothing. Eamonn wasn’t the only one to banging his head against the Broadcasting House/Television Centre’s brick wall with frustration at the impotence of their supposedly ‘elders and betters’ over Savile… and other nasty bullies that have come, gone and are still there!

    Other subordinates at the BBC reported Savile to their superiors down the years. Procedures and chains of command were followed. Nothing was done about Savile and those who reported him were threatened with losing their jobs. ‘Savile was TOO big a star’ – yeah, but only because he scr3&ed everyone over – including politicians, prominent members of society and … the Royal Family! Yes, even the Royal Family were fooled! They gave him more gongs than a guest house dining room!

    By your bringing up the Papal Knighthood, daily mass communicant, unmarried and – er – whatever weird crap you have written about a ‘good Catholic’ - is not only offensive, insulting but incredible poor taste. You are handy with your tarring brush, aren’t you?

    Sinners go to Mass every week, OldMeena - not the models of perfection you fantasise about who any place of worship. Savile probably thought he was above Almighty God’s judgement, that his charity work would buy his first class ticket to heaven. Did he ever confess to his priest? Was he ever truly sorry about his heinous sins and presume absolution? Now, I can’t answer that question no more than the Pope himself. If you can, sunshine, you are seriously deluding yourself!

    The Vatican was also fooled by Savile. They are also angry. They had nothing to do with Savile. 

    Savile was a nasty piece of work. He manipulated everyone he met. He was evil.

    It says a lot about the BBC when they retained Savile as their twisted golden goose and banished the brilliant botanist, David Bellamy, off the airy – just because he thought global warming was a load of —–!

    Oh, and what is ‘celebrate’? Single, unmarried Roman Catholic lead ‘celebrate’ lives … hmmmm… the mental images….

  • Paul

    Because the God of Israel does things.  Ask him if you are ever in a bad place.  When Namaan the Leper was cleansed, he declared, ‘Now I know that there is no other God anywhere on earth except in Israel.’  If you understand that, you understand why he was healed. I  expect you’ll get it in time because you are at least intellectually honest.

  • Parasum

    “The fact is that it was not his responsibility, nor did he have any authority, to do anything of the kind; nor was it a requirement of the Irish law at the time that he or anyone else should do so.”

    ## If that is Catholic morality, God help us all. Thank God it is a degenerate perversion of it, and not the real thing.

    The practical message it sends is: “To Hell with the victims – let’ em suffer; what matters to avoid being embarrassed”. What a Heavenly morality. Those tried at Nuremberg would be greatly comforted. He was, after all “only obeying orders”. So that’s all right then.

  • Parasum

    The Church needs *some* kind of code of conduct and law, because it is a society, and a very complex one. The problem is the set of attitudes that produce, animate, re-inforce & result from the Church’s behaviour. Scrapping a code, or even some of it, would not solve the problems if the attitudes were not changed for the better.

    The C of E & the Church of Scotland have similar codes for their governance; so it’s hard to see how the CC can avoid having one.

  • Parasum

    “How can you “live up to” the “standards of a civil authority that you’re simultaneously denouncing ?”

    ## Matthew 23.2 gives a hint how. There’s no contradiction in believing an institution to be a moral trainwreck, while acting by the good it enjoins in its better moments.

  • Parasum

    “Isn’t that laudable, even admirable, in the catholic view. Isn’t the
    whole basis of this religion that an innocent should, or could, pay for
    the crimes of another?”

    ##  That is part – and an important part – of the theology of indulgences; and of making satisfaction for the Holy Souls in Purgatory. It’s also part of “offering up” one’s woes: including those not based on any discernible justice. And it’s also part of the theology of the Morning Offering prayed by members of the Apostolate of Prayer.

    It is very admirable, and very Christian. So while it may be unjust by some standards to treat Brady as a scapegoat, it is also, from a Catholic POV, profoundly Catholic. And even *if* he is being treated unjustly, that does not at all prevent him turning the unjust treatment to good. Anything, even the injustice others cause us, can be a blessing, if we allow it to be.

    *Is* he being treated unfairly ?

  • Parasum

     Astonishing, worrying, and sad.

  • Parasum

    Don’t you think there is a difference between Brady’s legal status, and his moral status ? And in any case, an unjust oath does not bind the person taking it. That is – or it was – Catholic moral doctrine. If an oath leads to harm to a third party, by leading to the concealment of a crime, it loses its obligatory force. One cannot be morally bound to be silent in such circumstances, even when a positive law binds one – the Second Great Commandment applies even here; it cannot be dispensed, not even by the Church.

    If, & as, it is not possible (say) for a conspirator in a murder plot to sue for redress when a fellow-conspirator reneges on their agreement to murder a third party; then a promise or an oath to do something morally wrong in order to observe a Church law has is equally null. What is the good in following the letter of the law, if the end of the law – which is a moral & Christian one – has been emptied of meaning ? How can a law have any moral force in a particular case, if in that case obedience to it could prudently be foreseen to be harmful to others ?

  • Parasum

    Here are 634 books about theism from archiveDOTorg:

    A lot are “recent” only if were are living in 1930 or so.

  • Parasum

     Is someone who doesn’t believe Australia is a deity an atheist ? Seriously. Maybe part of the problems is that *anything* can be a deity: a wooden board was worshipped as Athene; aerolites have been treated as gods; so why can’t a teddy bear, a sock, or a PC be deified ? All they would need, is to be preached.

    Allotheism (to coin a word) is still a theism – the objects of worship are merely surprising to those who don’t worship the deity they hear preached. Jedi worship is an existing allotheism; adoring one’s PC would be another, if it were to happen. 

  • Parasum

    OTOH, Jupiter may be an *alias* for the “Really Real” God. So Jupiter may in a sense be a really existent being. 

    God can be seen both as the Reality “behind” myths, and the Myth Whom all created reality echoes

  • teigitur

    I could go on about that for a long time. But I think I ll just refer you to my penultimate sentence.

  • Parasum

     It’s called making a good case why people found good reasons (excuses ?) for not being as inquisitive as they might have been.

    As for the OP being a troll – STM she deserves an apology.

  • teigitur

    Funny you should say that. They went on about money a lot in Ireland. Back here in the UK where I am now, its never mentioned.

  • JabbaPapa

    This is just nonsensical vilification and hatred, masquerading under a thin veneer of self-righteousness.

    If that is Catholic morality

    Morality includes defending the innocent, not heaping massive piles of imaginary abuses upon them.

    1) Father Brady was not a child molester

    2) Father Brady did not materially assist in the cover-up of such crimes

    There is no 3)

    The practical message it sends is: “To Hell with the victims – let’ em suffer; what matters to avoid being embarrassed”.

    This is a disgusting suggestion !!!

  • JabbaPapa

    Meeny IS a troll — this is just a statement of the reality of her presence in these forums.

  • JabbaPapa

    Sorry, I tend to prefer reading the results of formal investigations into these horrid abuses rather than vitriolic journalistic fantasies concerning them.

  • JabbaPapa

    Was that an attempt to contradict my statement ?

    A very feeble one, if so, given your entire lack of success.

  • JabbaPapa

    These abstract intellectual constructions are not only grossly clichéd and fundamentally irrational, based as they are on gross category errors ; but they also have exactly NOTHING to do with any actual religion.

  • JabbaPapa

    Don’t you think there is a difference between Brady’s legal status, and his moral status ?

    Given that Father Brady was not Judge, Jury and executioner all rolled into one, can you please explain how the total inaction of his hierarchy and of the Irish Police forces in this matter is his moral or legal responsibility ?

    People just want a scapegoat, and they do not give a d*mn about Cardinal Brady’s legal or moral integrity nor honour.

    They don’t care that the actual guilty in this case of cover-up are entirely different people, now deceased (or, in the case of any Irish Police officers of the time, completely out of sight as to their fates).

    Concerning the oaths, you’ve apparently nothing to contribute other than simply paraphrasing what I’ve already said — but are you claiming Father Brady was under an oath of silence concerning these cases ???


    Father Brady was a minor officer of the court of canon law, hence required by his office in that court to take a position of legal neutrality and impartiality.

    NOT a position of Judge, Jury and executioner all rolled into one.

    Do you understand, from information contained in official reports on the Irish clerical child molesting cases, that the Irish Police at the time routinely ignored complaints that were made to them about child molesting ? I mean — in general, not *just* accusations made against clergy ?

    Do you understand the sheer, horrid degree of legal and professional irresponsibility of the Irish Police Officers in the face of such horrendous crimes during the period in question ?

    Do you understand that it is totally abject to accuse a man who had a direct legal responsibility of impartiality not to have completely violated every one of his professional duties towards that court of canon law, not to have taken the law into his own hands, and not to have made some kind of romantic complaint to a completely inefficacious and incompetent and irresponsible local Police force, concerning some crimes that he was not even a material witness to ????

    Do you understand that it is NOT possible to file complaints of crimes against others based on pure hearsay ???

  • JabbaPapa

    How can the hypocrites that are complaining about Cardinal Brady “expect” the Catholic Church to “live up to” the “standards” of an Irish Police Force that routinely failed to act upon complaints of child molesting, whilst denouncing such horridly irresponsible attitudes towards these horrid crimes simultaneously ?

    How can paedophiles end up in prison when Police officers do sod all to put them there ?

  • JabbaPapa

    But why did the civil authorities do s$$ all?

    This questrion is 1000 times more pertinent than the scapegoating of Cardinal Brady.

    From my personal
    experience, which I know is not evidence, it was because they were
    afraid of the church. Or that they trusted the church, which in
    hindsight was a worse mistake.

    If you read the Murphy Report, while there’s a certain element of truth in what you say — what actually emerges is that the Irish Police of the time simply failed to act upon complaints of child molesting made against anyone at all — it’s most certainly NOT the case that they followed up accusations made against non-clergy, while ignoring those made against priests.

    They just routinely ignored nearly all complaints made to them about child molesting generally.

  • JabbaPapa

    Isn’t the whole basis of this religion that an innocent should, or could, pay for the crimes of another?

    Most certainly not !!!

    Twisted and objectionable caricatures do not make your position more convincing.

  • Jonathan West

    Of course it is possible to make a complaint based on hearsay. It just won’t lead to a conviction unless the subsequent investigation uncovers additional evidence. If things were as you describe, the investigation couldn’t even start.

    Many cases of child abuse reach the police as a result of the child telling an adult and the adult calling the police. What the police receive is hearsay, the adult’s account based on what the child told the adult. Of course the police can investigate based on that.

    In case it has escaped your notice, Brady is an adult who was told about abuse by a child.

  • Mr Grumpy

    3) Father Brady was guilty of a serious sin of omission in failing to ensure that evidence of vile criminal acts was passed on to the police. That failure left Brendan Smyth free to prey on new victims.

  • scary goat

     Disgusting…..but true.  I’m afraid I have seen this with my own eyes.

  • Nat_ons

    ‘The fact is that it was not his responsibility, nor did he have any authority, to do anything of the kind; nor was it a requirement of the Irish law at the time that he or anyone else should do so. The BBC’s “revelations”, however, led to a media and political furore which greatly weakened the cardinal’s credibility and, inevitably, his moral authority as head of the Irish Church.’

    Without doubt that is true, yet while ‘true’ it also misses the point. The political shenanigans around Sean Cardinal Brady were fed by his sadly inept – or un-media-savvy – reactions (which amounted, in media terms, to bluster, rejections and self-pity). Ireland today, like the rest of the world, is held under the rough and tough rules an impious and merciless principle: ‘News’ – its chief god being Hermes (not Christ); and this 24 hour idol along with its priesthood and aristocracy demands immediate, absolute, and submissive agreement with its mercurially swift changes of interest .. any hesitancy, any delaying, any covering (but its own) is ruthlessly demolished – and all opposition left feeling crushed beneath its swiftly fleeting heel.

    Even via its ablest of speakers, including W Oddie, the church catholic must never seek to heap all blame on those who bow to the all consuming ‘good’ of The News – although its eager priests do bare a heavy burden of guilt .. much more than equal to that of the judgements they so readily give out upon others (as with any servant made holy a god or the One God, not least with orthodox catholic faith in its Good News). 

    The priests and lords of the god ‘News’ – the journalist, the commentator, the investigator, the presenters, editors, and interrogators, with their inquisitional panels, their untiring inquiries, and their ad hoc or ad libitum inquests – all seek after something like ‘the common good’ .. or at least something of vulgar interest.

    Indeed – not wholly unlike the judges of imperial Rome or the church catholic – they seek to expose injustice, vice and malice; they even stoop (were safety of the state may be deemed necessary) to the vilest of tortuous methods.

    So, rather that seeking to make ‘evil’ out of what is undoubtedly a desire to do ‘good’ (vainly, it seems, being without wisdom), the church catholic needs to convert the followers of the idol Hermes from their self-appointed lead in his name to follow the pioneer of our Faith (in so far as many among them may be so anointed in him). Now this is no easy task I realise, for those who do already see through the wild-west careering of mercury are also marked out by its adherents as beyond the (self-imposed) pale of their temple’s crafts. And that is the difficulty that Ireland faces now: two incompatible versions of ‘good’ and ‘news’ at work; hermetic licence grants freedom to do as one so pleases, calling it ‘liberty’, ‘independence’, or ‘rights’, the Gospel rather sets its yoke lightly yet integrally on all who understand ‘the Cross’ (including those who fail to bear it up, but fall under the weight of their own wrongdoing); in a simple picture, draw up the figures of the Irish peoples enslaved again to making slaves of others, as ‘freedom’, then place before their sullen minds once more the lives of the able administrator Palladius – who rightly feared their leaders – and the rollicking, indomitable spirit of Patrick – who loved them all (well aware of their egregious faults and with their oft hidden goodness).

  • JabbaPapa

    Rubbish — Fr Brady fulfilled his legal duty, and properly refrained from taking the law into his own hands.

    Or what ?

    Do you think that the canon law courts should start to reorganise themselves as Inquisitions ?

  • JabbaPapa

    If things were as you describe, the investigation couldn’t even start

    If things ARE as I describe, then victims and their families would be able to make complaints to Police Officers who actually did their jobs instead of doing sod all.

  • Jonathan West

    No. I think that those who have knowledge of child sex abuse should put that knowledge into the hands of the police, so that the matter can be properly investigated, and where appropriate the matter can be tried in the criminal courts.

  • JabbaPapa

    Do you understand that the Irish Police at the time were totally and completely incompetent and irresponsible in their “handling” of complaints against child molesters ?

    To the extent that they routinely failed to act upon receiving such complaints ?

    Do you understand that 80% of the responsibility for the continuation of the child molesting during that period belongs to the Irish Police, and their inaction, incompetence, and irresponsibility (given that around 80% of complaints made against child molesting priests were totally and completely ignored by the Police) ?

    How exactly is “putting that knowledge into the hands of the police” going to fix things if the Police do not act upon such knowledge ?

  • Jonathan West

     If the police don’t act, then we can complain at the police. But if the information is withheld from the police, then they are denied any opportunity to act. And this is a situation which existed with regard to Brady and Smyth.

  • onepieceman

    “The institution’s reputation was simply more important than finding 

    the truth, or having some common sense about the potential danger
    to other children.”
    I think that’s what was at the heart of this and other similar situations, and why it is so tragic. The moral arithmetic disconnected completely from the values that the institution was supposed to be promoting. Using the “it wasn’t my responsibility, it was somebody else’s” defence makes a mockery of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

  • JabbaPapa

    You clearly do not understand Fr Brady’s position at the time.

    Nor do you appear to understand the failures of the Irish Police.

    Fr Brady was in a position where he had one job to do, and that is what he did — you are claiming that he should have had 20/20 hindsight, and that he should have known at the time that a cover-up would ensue from the hearings.

    How was he to have known this ?

    Magic ?

    Messages sent back in time from the future ?

    Omniscience ?

    There is no reason whatsoever to think that he should, in 1975, have had the sort of awareness that is available on the internet in 2013 of the true nature of the cover-up scandals that he was peripherally involved with.

    Do you even remember what 1975 was like, if you were alive at the time ? People simply did NOT have vast quantities of detailed information instantly available with the press of a few buttons.

    Fr Brady was in a position where he had NO REASON to doubt that the complaints against Smyth would be properly dealt with by his and Smyth’s superiors.

    Obviously, this was a false impression — but it is a simple fact of human nature that we will, all of us, have such false impressions arise in us. Have YOU never made a mistake in your life because you were under a false impression, or because you gave your trust to somebody who then betrayed it ? Have you never seen other people suffer because of your own poor decisions ?

    This horrid witch hunt against Cardinal Brady is characterised by its inhumanity and by its holier-than-thou sanctimony.

  • JabbaPapa

    In case it has escaped your notice, Brady is an adult who was told about abuse by a child.

    No — he came to know of the case through the agency of his professional duties towards his diocese.

    You are trying to make it sound as if he had been the recipient of the complaint and did nothing.