Sunday, 4 December 2016

BRADY AND QUESTIONS

BRADY AND QUESTIONS

Image result for cardinal brady

DEFENDERS of Sean Brady have been saying on this blog that he was only the "note taker" when Brendan Boland and another were quizzed about their sexual abuse by Father Brendan Smyth.

They also want to stress that Sean Brady did not ask the majority of the questions - questions like:

BRENDAN BOLAND AT ABUSE AGE

"DID YOU ENJOY BEING ABUSED IN ANY WAY"

or

"WAS THERE ANY MALE SEED SPILT DURING THE ABUSE".

What were two adult men - priests - doing locking themselves into a room with two boys - keeping their parents outside - talking about enjoying sexual abuse and the spilling of semen?

To me that smacks of co-abuse - or abuse after the abuse. 

And if Brady was only there as a "note taker" why was he the one who drew up the vow of silencing the boys in his own hand - and signed it below the boy as per below.




Brady was an integral part of that weird interview and it does not matter whether those other "Father Donnelly" asked more of the questions than Brady did. 

Brendan Boland in his book says that "Brady asked the odd question". All the questions were "odd" in my mind.

Surely the act of abusing a child is extremely serious. What is all this preoccupation about "spilling the seed". Is abuse less serious if semen is not spilt! I hardly think so.

Image result for Brendan Boland book


Whether people like it or not Brady was part of the cover up of Brendan Boland's abuse and the abuse of the other boy interviewed.

AND - Brendan Boland says he gave Brady a list of other children abused by Smyth. What happened that list?

Does Brady still have that list in his safe?

Brady was unfit to be a priest. He was unfit to be a seminary rector. He was unfit to be a bishop and a cardinal.

AND NOW - he is unfit to be parading around Rome and Ireland in flowing red robes as if nothing had happened.

He should be living a low profile life preparing himself for his meeting with Christ who will ask him:

WHAT DID YOU DO TO THESE LITTLE ONES"

If you are still not convinced - watch this 58 minute film:



vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

48 comments:

  1. Maybe this need he has to be visible is a two fingers to those he'd see as his 'persecutors'. However, he is only shooting himself in the foot as many who might have been sympathetic with him had he resigned in 2010 now see him as just another pathetic self serving has been. The same blinkered perspective can be seen in the ACP who rightly focus on priests wrongfully accused but who give much less attention to the devastation wreaked by their colleagues against defenceless child victims. In fact I believe some suspended priests do attend their general meetings.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There were two other priests involved in the Brendan Boland investigation - one considerably older than the then Fr. Brady, and I suspect (prepared to be corrected) the other was also senior to him.
    How was it that these two men were not investigated or questioned as to their part in this debacle?
    Fr. Brady, as a Cardinal became a five-star target for sensation seeking journalists. Even more so, since the principals at that time are, I believe, dead!
    Easy and big bulls-eye to aim at - especially since he is, is he not,the last man standing.
    I do believe he got a very lousy deal here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Even so, why would a man who was dealt a lousy hand, be parading around like a "winner"?

      Delete
    2. Even so, why would a man who was dealt a lousy hand, be parading around like a "winner"?

      Delete
    3. Never noticed him parading around like a winner!!!!
      That is, of course, my personal view!
      Others, Bishop, see what they wsnt to see!

      Delete
    4. Not a church, institutional or bishop/ clergy supporter but as reader and observer to the Brady child abuse debacle and having trolled countless web pages I can find no case were the Cardinal has been charged with child abuse or instigating child abuse!

      I read and watched his apologies and I can only ascertain them as most remorseful and sincere, what more does one want? The man like me and you has the right to live and walk the streets as he wishes.
      Unfortunately there are many child abusers walking our streets today, its sadly reflective on the modern society that we live in.

      I know that this may not what you want any blogger on here saying Pat, as this blog and its bloggers are mostly anti catholic and church.

      It's very unfair to continually highlight one individual because he has gained position within the church as aiding and abetting child abuse. To me these most vile crimes seemed to be ingrained in many rouge clergy and family members who have a sad thinking.

      Looking at the Boland case, has his parents not questions to answer as to let a minor sit unaccompanied in an interview! Would any right minded parent today allow this? I don't think so.

      Please respect my opinion Pat.

      Delete
    5. 11:21 "Never noticed him parading around like a winner!!!!"

      Have you forgotten his GAA-style victory parade from Dublin Airport to Armagh the day he returned from Rome a cardinal?

      He stands condemned as a man for his failure to disappear simply out of respect for the abused. No "wrong-doing" really, just personal vanity. No one is indispensable - except ME.

      Delete
    6. Always wondered why parents of the unfortunately abused children did not report these crimes directly to the police/guards.
      13.43 is quite right - any minor in such a predicament should have been accompanied by a responsible adult.

      Delete
    7. It was an age of excessive clerical deference, 14:52. Those parents would not have gone against the instructions of Brady and his co-investigators. Besides, Brady had the boys sworn to secrecy on pain of excommunication. To such young minds that probably meant eternal burning in Hell for breaching the oath. What use then the parents going to the police. The boys would have remained silent since Brady already had them frightened into submission.

      Even if Brady's claim about merely having been a notary were true (which clearly it wasn't), he was still fully complicit with what the two other priests on that panel were doing; Brady was an accessory during the fact.

      13:43, you are easily persuaded if you believe that Brady sincerely apologised for his conduct. He did no such thing. He merely made clear that he would not repeat his actions today. But by the standard of that time, Brady believes he acted correctly. Watch the video above. He said he did what he was there to do, and he was adamant about it. No remorse, just arrogant dismissal. Brady is a Canon lawyer and is using his skills with words to fool gullible people. And you are one of them.

      When Brady did those things to those boys, I was sixteen years old. Even at that tender age I knew it was a crime to conceal information about serious crimes from the police. Brady was 36 years old with a doctorate in Canon Law. He, too, must have known that he was breaking Civil Law by swearing those boys to secrecy. Brady, therefore, is both morally AND legally culpable. He should have been prosecuted for what he did.

      Pat, you said that Brady was unfit to be a priest, seminary rector, bishop, and then cardinal. I should have thought that he showed exemplary fitness for these roles, given that they each require a person's loyalty to the institutional church and not to Christ.

      13:43 again, I can't speak for other bloggers here, but I most certainly am not "anti-catholic". I am certainly anti-clericalism, and am proud to be so. Clericalism has been the bane of the Body of Christ since the beginning. Clericalists like Brady have done more damage to this body than anyone else...And they've done it with the complicity of docile, stupid sheep like you.

      Delete
    8. 14.52 If you had been following the blog correctly you will know from the note signed by Brady that HE had sworn these children to secrecy, how where the families to know then about the abuse? The children were taken to a Monastery in Co. Cavan and accompanied by an adult but the adult was not allowed to be present during the interview. This was insisted upon by Brady and the two other clergy.

      Delete
    9. 13.43 To make a young child sign a document promising not to tell anyone, is child abuse. To talk to them away from their parents is child abuse. It adds insult to injury. The burden those children carried completely on their own. The sleepless nights. The blind terror. The shame. The guilt.....Just so that the Church looked good! Where was their conscience!!?!?

      Delete
    10. As a Child Protection Officer, I fully agree with Jane's comments, particularly those regarding a child being very wrongfully sworn to secrecy. You should never tell a child that he has to keep a secret. Neither should you promise him that you will keep his disclosure to you a secret.(You cannot do that as further investigations may mean that you would almost certainly be unable to keep your promise.)

      Delete
  3. I see Big Hughie is in the news again! Sunday Life

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your eagerness, Bishop, to revel, in scandal and the misery of others, as you seem to me to do so, borders on the lecherous!
      As you are 64 years of age it seems to me that it is well past time that you found something better to do - occasional little acts of charity, perhaps.

      Delete
    2. 15.59
      The Bishop - ... See tomorrow's Blog .., does give the impression that he is almost salivating in anticipation of another opportunity to attack Fr. Kennedy (rightly or wrongly) - and - in all probability,
      Bishop Treanor, the English Cardinal and who knows what or who else!
      Leave scandal to the gutter press and do what you were ordained to do and did well for many years!
      Get back on track, Bishop

      Delete
    3. I try to do everything I do well.

      Where else can critical Catholics speak out?

      Delete
  4. Brady is parading around and in some instances where people are made to feel uncomfortable. We have heard from some Parishioners in Armagh on this blog say they had to endure his presence at Mass. Others in Rostrevor which is not even in his Diocese have complained about not being told he was there to confirm their children.

    For Brady to say he was merely a note taker, he was authenticating the report, he was doing what his Bishop wanted, following orders trivialises the abuse that took place. Its like the Nazi's at the Concentration Camps saying they were only following orders. Brady had a list of children given to him in that interview and he passed it on to his Bishop. What he should have said to the Bishop was if he wasn't going to act on the names then Brady would act. Not to do so is criminal because the names were not acted upon and those children went on to be abused for another 7 years. Brendan Boland's friend could not tell his own family about the abuse because Brady swore him to secrecy in that note and so his family were unable to prevent further abuse of him, his Sister and his cousins. Shocking! It's these children that got more than a lousy deal here, not Brady.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The church keeps going on about 'causing scandal'. As a laicised priest, I had to sign a document stating I should not frequent places where I might be known as a former priest. Surely what Brady did is just as scandalous as a priest leaving to marry? And yet he's possibly going to parishes where victims or relatives of victims worship. One law for bishops, another for the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. Is it not true that some considerable time before Cardinal Brady's unfortunate involvement in Brendan Boland's interview that Smyth's 'activities' were known to the Guards/Police. (?)
      Is it not also true that a case was to be taken against them for neglecting to act on their information - leaving them (as the Cardinal is accused of) responsible for YEARS of abuse by Smyth.
      Could someone clarify this issue, please

      Delete
    3. "Is it not true..."? These are rhetorical questions ,suggesting that these things ARE true, at least in your head. So will you tell us on what grounds you have made such statements, because I for one have absolutely no reason to believe that Brendan Smyths crimes were known to the police before Brady's willing involvement in covering up Smyth's crimes.

      Delete
    4. To 17.23
      It is perfectly true that the Gardai did know of Smyth's abusive history!
      I am not very good with computers - however, I did Google .... Garda knowledge of Fr Brendan Smyth ... I suggest you do this also.
      You will find there that the Gardai knew of Smyth's behaviour since the EARLY 1970s - and that those abused by him are seeking answers and redress - from the Gardai.
      Read this and you will '..,, have reason to believe that Brendan Smyth's crimes were known to the police -
      Please be more careful.
      Check, as I do, my facts!
      Not very pleasant reading for the Gardai. - or for that matter - Enda Kenny - I would I imagine!'!!'!





      of Fr. Brendan Smyth .., i

      Delete
    5. 21:41, if what you said about the Garda is true, then it deserves to be shamed publicly and to be held to account for genuflecting to the insitutional Catholic Church while sacrificing children on the vile altar of clerical deference.

      However, the onus to provide evidence for this is on you, not me, since you made the claim. Proof?

      Delete
    6. 22.00
      I do not have to prove anything -
      Google - as I suggested
      Garda knowledge of Fr Brendan Smyth
      And you will find, I am sure, what I found.
      Please do this - and now!

      Delete
    7. 22:09, I did as you suggested. You are absolutely right. The Garda knew, from the early 1970s, that Smyth was a child abuser.But the Garda, like Brady, did nothing to protect vulnerable children.

      Unionists have always been right about Home Rule: it meant Rome rule. Thank God for the "Black North".

      Delete
  5. Is there anyone who is technology minded able to set up an online petition calling for Brady to stop making public appearances and stop rubbing salt into the wounds of the children he knew were being abused and did nothing. Mary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are on line petitions. Will look into it.

      Delete
  6. I am grateful that God shall be my Judge.
    Most of us would end up - long-term - in Purgatory (at least) if some bloggers were on the jury,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ain't that the truth. Thankfully, they are the lunatic fringe of society rather than being representative.

      Delete
    2. There will be no jury on that occasion. It's a Diplock court I'm afraid.

      Delete
    3. You are fools, 14:03 and 16:07. It is people like you who do not challenge the crimes of priests like Brady. You ennable and facilitate such crimes. Children continue to be in danger because of people like you.

      You have made the Church your God rather than the God of the Church.

      Delete
    4. 17.28
      Cannot comprehend your unjustified conclusion - we on never condoned cover-ups.
      Seem logical to me to rely on God's mercy rather than some of the lynch mobs.
      Would advise you to rely on God' s mercy than some of your buddies

      Delete
    5. 17.28
      ??????
      Well, well!
      Cannot understand how you arrived at this irrational conclusion either.
      Nothing in what either us have said condones cover-ups or the facilitating of crimes.
      Suggest you find an evening class in basic English!
      You have a serious comprehension problem!
      Get it sorted!

      Delete
    6. 14.03 &'16.07
      Pay no attention to this fella!
      Fortunately, the Bishop's blog gives the intellectually bereft an opportunity to make themselves appear, in public, and of their own free will, profoundly mentally underprivileged.
      Lots of them about.

      Delete
  7. Only a small few may feel uncomfortable, the majority love and respect him and they have the right to do so.
    You heard from one parishioner show respect to the others. All opinions to be respected!

    Was at a GAA Mass to remember the dead from the various clubs from the Armagh County area and it was hugely attended. At the end the County Chairman and his committee presented the Cardinal with gifts as a token of appreciation for his involvement and continued support with the GAA, was all these people wrong that attended?
    Live and let live 13:05.

    If all in life followed Pat and his teachings 'God help society' but you have your following and I fully respect you and there opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What in God's name is a "GAA Mass"? The GAA often makes it difficult for its members to fulfil their Sunday obligation and has long ceased to be a Catholic friendly organization. Sadly some of the older clergy who profited from their GAA membership in the past look the other way and continue to cheer.

      Delete
    2. Read the first line 15:49. Very simple English for right mined folk to understand!
      Tip: November been generally a month to remember our beloved dead and the GAA has a right in Gods name to remember their dead.

      Delete
    3. Ironic the use of the word cheer here, since it reminds me of a comment U read somewhere in connection with Ealing Abbey school about 'cheerleader parents'. The commenter's point was that those parents will be involved heavily in the school, often friends with the teachers, and their children are the most likely to be abused by paedophile teachers because of the trust that is built up there.
      My point is that abuse takes place in a context of trust and 'cheering'. The facilitation of abuse takes place in a context of forgetting about the past.

      Delete
  8. Looks like the "Dean" won't be getting Adm of Westminster Cathedral after all?

    http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/tv-choir-priest-fr-hugh-kennedy-quizzed-over-sex-assault-35265776.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hugh Kennedy was never realistically on the radar for Adm of Westminster Cathedral. I can assure you of that. English Priest.

      Delete
    2. Mary at 13.09, I agree with you about the petition, I for one shall be signing it. I find it staggering that a few people on the blog defend the covering up of the abuse of children. I am astounded by the excuses being used, "He's an old man", "He gives great support to the GAA", He's liked by the people", "He was only a note taker", "He was such a young Priest at the time", "He was only doing what his Bishop asked", "He was only following orders" and "He's only a wounded healer". Pathetic excuses, sad excuses and sickening excuses. The vile scumbag had a list of names of children being abused and did nothing, where is that list now Brady?

      Delete
    3. 17:32... I find it staggering that you take any other view that differs from you as people that defends the abuse of children. I have my opinion on Cardinal Brady as does may more and you included.
      But I can assure sure you that I do not and will not condone the abuse of children in any shape or form, I have a family relation that suffered abuse due to a sick perverted Priest from many years ago and I can assure you that Cardinal Brady as Primate done everything he could to help the family.
      You seem to be a norrow minded person with selective tunnel vision!

      Delete
  9. Well of course out here in civvie street, fit septuagenarians spend their retirement caring for grandchildren, pursuing their interests or possibly voluntary work. Of course some of these things are not open to Catholic clergy because of their ritual purity and it would hardly befit a Prince of the Church to volunteer in a charity shop. The opportunity to share his joy in his vocation with younger clergy and to continue to contribute to parish life is always there, of course.
    Oh bugger, my tongue went so far into my cheek I've bitten it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. And there was I at the 10.30 solemn mass at Westminster Cathedral this very morning just wondering why the former Belfast Dean wasn't concelebrating!.
    Victoria Vincent ( No, not that one)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Brady I can see as an obedient servant with an "ours not to reason why" mentality. Maybe he was just a note taker and the oath was part of his secretarial duties. All this spilling seed sh*t is part of a warped view of sin sex and sexuality and belongs to history. Thing is Sean Brady became Cardinal. One would hope he learned and matured over the years. He had/has a duty of care to address in the present the wrongs of the past. This sure I was a poor Cavan servant of God and Church cuts no mustard. There is still time to justify the red skirt he loves to wear and gain some credibility. I have seen the good side of Brady as a student

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The higher a monkey climbs....???

      Delete
    2. The fact that the Garda knew about Smyth does not excuse Brady from doing more.

      The Garda AND Brady were wrong!

      Delete
  12. In 1975 he signed his name 'John'. Later he became a Sean indicating an identity switch. The 'oath' is something partially remembered from police TV crime dramas of the 70s which then merges into an undertaking not to talk except to unspecified 'authorised priests'. The oath/undertaking is confused and confusing, its purpose unclear except to intimidate - it has and never had any legal effect at all. It was just a jumble of words. But a 14-year old would not know this.
    An evidence taker is a note taker: he takes notes of what is said. He does not attempt to impose an undertaking to silence under guise of an 'oath'. Sean Brady said he was an evidence taker. The oath indicates he was more than an evidence taker. He imposed oaths of silence. Any responsible person, no less a canon lawyer, made aware of facts supporting an investigation of serious criminal wrong-doing would have given the evidence to the appropriate civil authorities. That was his moral duty.
    The Criminal Law Act 1967 of Northern Ireland makes such failure a crime. To paraphrase it says it is the duty of every person who knows or believes an offence has been committed and who has information likely to be of material assistance in securing the prosecution or conviction of an person for that offence to give that information within a reasonable time to a constable and if without reasonable excuse he fails to do so he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment. However the Republic of Ireland did not have such a law at the time of the interview which took place in the south. Therefore it was not an offence under Irish law in 1975 for Sean Brady to keep the evidence he heard private. Andy Athlone

    ReplyDelete