More Church leaks and then the porkies (Main Forum)

by James, Australia, Wednesday, May 02, 2012, 10:37 (384 days ago) @ desi

One can only assume that the BBC's "uncovering" the Cardinal's notes can only have arisen because a Fr. Julian Assange is pissed off with the continuous lies that keep coming out over the child abuse cover up. After all, Cardinal Brady is hardly likely to have been handing his notes around when he swore the boy concerned the secrecy, and was obliged to observe it himself under pain of automatic excommunication. Every time there is a leak the situation gets worse for the Church hierarchy, and will do so until they face up to the truth.

New revelations about the failure of the Catholic primate of all-Ireland to protect children from abuse have been uncovered by the BBC's This World show.

But this is where the porkies come in.

The investigation centres on a secret church inquiry in 1975 when a 14-year-old boy was questioned about abuse.

In 1975, Cardinal Brady was a priest and teacher in County Cavan in the Republic of Ireland, when he was sent by his bishop to investigate a claim of child sexual abuse by a fellow priest.

The year, 1975 is important, because that is when Crimen Sollicitationis was in force. The bishop was doing exactly what Canon Law as expressed in Crimen Sollicitationis required him to do - to conduct an investigation, and the current Cardinal Brady was his investigator.

http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_crimen-sollicitationis-1962_en.html

Sean Brady's role in the affair became clear in 2010, when it became known that he had been present when the abused boy was questioned.

He (Brady) claimed, however, that the boy's father had accompanied him, and described his own role as that of a note-taker.

However, the BBC This World investigation has uncovered the notes Cardinal Brady took while the boy was questioned.

The child's father was not allowed in the room, and the child was immediately sworn to secrecy.

What Cardinal Brady did in swearing the boy to secrecy was in accordance with the procedures laid down in Crimen Sollicitationis.

13. The oath to maintain confidentiality must always be taken in these causes, also by the accusers or complainants and the witnesses.

There, you have it. In black and white. Cardinal Brady was doing exactly what he was required to do by Canon Law.

What Cardinal Brady failed to tell anyone in 2010 was that Brendan Boland had also given him and his colleagues the precise details of a group of children, some of whom, were being abused by Smyth. Cardinal Brady did interview one of them and swore him to secrecy.

So, Brady did not just do it with one complainant, but with another as well. Further he failed to tell anyone in 2010 about what he was told, because the secrecy imposed byCrimen Sollicitudinis, was continued by the Motu Propio of John Paul II, signed by Cardinals Ratzinger and Bertone in 2001. Had he done so, he would have been automatically excommunicated. However, Canon Law was changed in 2010 when the Vatican amended the Motu Proprio and left out any mention of "pontifical secrecy". So, Cardinal Brady is now free to divulge what he can without incurring automatic excommunication. He won't of course, because to tell the truth, he has to say that he was acting under the direct orders of the Vatican. He was observing Canon Law. He won't say that of course, because that means that he will be pointing the finger at Christ's Vicar (four of them) who ordered or continued and reinforced the cover up.

This World spoke to all of the children who Brendan Boland had identified, they all told the programme that to the best of their knowledge none of their parent's or families were warned in anyway about the paedophile Brendan Smyth.

Well, they couldn't be because Cardinal Brady had gained that information by a canonical investigation pursuant to Crimen Sollicitationis and he was forbidden even to tell the parents, let alone the police.

Now, here is the spin....

The Catholic Church has said that "the sole purpose of the oath" signed by Brendan Boland in Cardinal Brady's presence was "to give greater force and integrity to the evidence given by Mr Boland against any counter claim by Fr Brendan Smyth".

What absolute nonsense. The oath was to preserve "to observe inviolably the strictest Confidentiality". The oath was not to tell the truth.

And now for another porky, which is a repeat of the Vatican claim in its response to the Enda Kenny's broadside against the Vatican that there was no compulsory reporting in Ireland of sexual abuse of minors.

The church also points out that in 1975, "no state or church guidelines for responding to allegations of child abuse existed in Ireland."

This is just not true. The misprision of felony laws were in force in 1975, and were not repealed until mid 1997. And there is no doubt that raping children was a felony.

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?mode=printpost&post=83002

and

http://www.catholica.com.au/forum/index.php?id=80456