Cardinal Brady calls for an independent statutory body in the south

Will Crawley has the full statement from Cardinal Brady outlining why he is staying on in his post and what he proposes to do about child sex abuse within the church. In effect, in Northern Ireland, he is accepting that the state will have the final say:

I have asked the Child Safeguarding staff in the Diocese of Armagh to make all necessary preparations for our full participation as a Diocese in the work of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority, which comes into place in Northern Ireland later this year. In the future, it will be this statutory authority and not the Church (or any other organisation which works with children in Northern Ireland) that will decide who is permitted to work with children.

As part of our registration with this new Independent Safeguarding Authority, Bishops in Northern Ireland will give a commitment to sharing ‘soft information’ held or known about any person working in a Church context, as well as all allegations of abuse, with the new Authority. I regret that this important statutory safeguard will only be available in that part of the Diocese of Armagh which is in Northern Ireland. I would welcome the establishment of a similar system for sharing of information on a North-South basis.

, , , ,

  • He should go – clear the decks and start from clean

    He failed the children and now he’s failing the church by staying on !!

    As Oliver Cromwell once said “In the name of God, go!! “

  • daisy

    He has a brass neck, I’ll give him that.

  • Cynic

    That is sneaky.

    For the Safeguarding Authority to work it relies on:

    1 institutions fully disclosing all concerns and reporting incidents

    2 institutions offering full cooperation in investigations – has the Nuncio found those requests for information yet?

    3 institutions not offering victims ‘compensation’ on condition they keep their mouths shut or threatening them with eternal damnation for damaging Holy Mother Church

    4 institutions not moving offenders overseas to allow them continue ./ keep them out of the hands of the law.

    This is a shabby sneaky way of attempting to deflect future responsibility from the Church to the state. If that’s what he wants, fine. Then we should be asking is the Church a fit institution to run any aspect of Catholic education? With this leadership, do we have confidence?

  • “[ISA] will decide who is permitted to work with children.”

    Presumably ‘good’ paramilitaries will continue to benefit from exemptions from any ‘culture of lawfulness’.

  • Neil

    No good. I’m sure in the round he’s a good man, but he made the worst kind of mistakes on the worst kind of subject, and through his actions we can safely say that children were abused.

    Maybe some of those kids grew up to be abusers (yet more victims at the Cardinal’s ffet), while others opted for a life of misery, drug addiction, self-hatred etc. Sorry Cardinal, but those mistakes are too great to be forgiven. If I stepped out of line in my workplace to a 100th of the degree, I’d be sacked. Time to do the right thing for your parishioners and church and do one.

    The suggestion that he’s staying on to oversee the systems of protection for future children, and by association that he’s the man for the job, grates. He did a fucking awful job first time round so maybe he’s not the ideal candidate for the job now.

  • As the old saying goes, when the story becomes about you, it’s time to go.

  • Granni Trixie

    At a human level I could feel sorry for the man. He wants to stay for a year or two so that he does not have to leave with a cloud over his head.

    But he is so self unaware that he is clearly unfit for purpose.How could anyone trust him to lead necessary change to structures and culture which facilitated child abuse.

  • First and foremost, it should not have been Brady’s decision to decide whether he had a future with the Catholic Church.

    I was angered when a parishioner was asked their opinion on Cardinal Brady’s decison today by UTV, she explained that it was the non practising catholics that wanted him removed, no one else.

    If that is the type of narrow minded people Cardinal Brady said today showed him their support to continue his role as Catholic Primate, then to me there was no decision to be made. He was always going to stay. This time of reflection was purely a PR stunt, to show that he was taking the issue of child sex abuse seriously.
    Isn’t it a crying shame he didn’t hold the same morals 30 years ago.

  • I agree completely Donna another cynical PR show

  • hodgie

    spot on Donna. Brady was part of a secret deal where young children were frightened into signing promises of silence so the arch-paedophile brendan smyth could continue his heinous activities. Brady facilitated this ganging up on tormented innocents and the signing of the omerta codes. Catholic leaders appear to have a very, very strange leniency and sympathy for paedophiles. Disgusting.

  • Brady should go, that much is clear, but if he does who can they choose to replace him It is likely the next Cardinal will be put under the microscope and fully examined for any past ‘errors’. I am not sure any of them could withstand the scrutiny.

  • jim

    he done no worse than some other leaders.some other victims didnt get to sign omerta codes.where does ofmdfm stand on this all quite up at stormont

  • jim

    In time we will find out what both the ministers think, there is no rush, and it looks as though there is plenty of shite to go round.

    In one way you are right. Cardinal Brady may have behaved in the same way as previous senior members of the church, not reassuring for anyone.