Priest was a secret IRA bomber - the Catholic church & UK government covered it up

Kotek Besar

Claudy bomb: conspiracy allowed IRA priest to go free

The report found Fr James Chesney was an IRA leader and was involved in the bombing
The police, the Catholic Church and the government conspired to cover up a priest's role in one of the worst atrocities of the Northern Ireland Troubles, an investigation has found.
Nine people died in bombings in Claudy, County Londonderry on 31 July 1972.
The NI Police Ombudsman's probe found that high-level talks led to Fr James Chesney a suspect in the attack, being moved to the Irish Republic.
No action was ever taken against Fr Chesney, who died in 1980.
Continue reading the main story

• A dark day in the bloodiest year
• Who was Father James Chesney?
• What did the priest know?
• The Claudy victims

In 2002, the Ombudsman, Al Hutchinson, began a probe into the original investigation.
His report, published on Tuesday, found that detectives in 1972 had concluded that Fr Chesney was an IRA leader and had been involved in the bombing.
He added that by acquiescing to a deal between the government and the Catholic Church to move Fr Chesney to a parish south of the Irish border, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was guilty of a "collusive act".
He said this had compromised the investigation and the decision "failed those who were murdered, injured or bereaved" in the bombing.
He said that if officers involved were still alive, "their actions would have demanded explanation, which would have been the subject of further investigation".
As well as investigating complaints made against the Police Service of NI, the Police Ombudsman also has the authority to look at investigations carried out by their predecessors, the RUC.
'Never arrested'
Mr Hutchinson said some detectives' attempts to pursue Fr Chesney were frustrated ahead of a meeting between Northern Ireland Secretary William Whitelaw and the leader of Ireland's Catholics, Cardinal Conway.
There, it was agreed that the priest would be moved to a parish in the Irish Republic.
Continue reading the main story Claudy bombings

• Claudy is a small village, with a mixed Protestant and Catholic population, six miles south-east of Londonderry
• Nine people were killed in the three blasts, which happened on 31 July 1972
• No warnings were given by the bombers
• The IRA never claimed involvement, but were assumed to be behind them
• Local priest Father James Chesney rumoured to have been a member of the IRA unit responsible
• He was transferred by the Catholic Church across the border to Co Donegal
• He died in 1980 without ever being questioned by the police over the atrocity

The Ombudsman found that the Chief Constable, Sir Graham Shillington, was made aware of this decision.
Mr Shillington said he would "prefer a move to Tipperary".
Fr Chesney, who denied involvement in terrorist activities to his superiors, was never arrested.
BBC Ireland correspondent Mark Simpson said that the report lacks any explanation from Cardinal Conway or Mr Whitelaw about how they came to their decision to move Chesney.
"As both are now dead, we can only speculate as to their motives," our correspondent added.
"The most generous theory is that they felt that protecting the priest was the lesser of two evils.
"During that turbulent period in 1972, many believed that Northern Ireland was on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Almost 500 people were killed that year.
"If a priest had been arrested in connection with the Claudy bomb, it could have pushed community relations over the edge."
Both Protestants and Catholics were killed in the blasts.
The youngest victim was eight-year-old Kathryn Eakin who was cleaning the windows of her family's grocery store when the first bomb exploded.
The other people killed were Joseph McCluskey 39, David Miller aged 60, James McClelland 65, William Temple 16, Elizabeth McElhinney 59, Rose McLaughlin aged 51, Patrick Connolly, 15, and 38-year-old Arthur Hone.
Mr Hutchinson said that he accepted some of the decisions taken "must be considered in the context of the time" but added that the conspiracy still amounted to collusion.
"I accept that 1972 was one of the worst years of the Troubles and that the arrest of a priest might well have aggravated the security situation.
"Equally I consider that the police failure to investigate someone they suspected of involvement in acts of terrorism could, in itself, have had serious consequences."
He said he had found no evidence of criminal intent by anyone in the government or the Catholic Church.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

Rabidlamb

something something better than kiddy fiddling etc.

Craebear

Kotek Besar wrote: »

"must be considered in the context of the time"

Now where have I heard that before in regards to atrocities committed by the Catholic Church...

Notorious97

Hadnt ever read much about this, any more information on it? Bit odd that they decided to move him, i would have thought they would have made sure he faced trial for it, maybe as the article suggests moving him was less hassle than trial and the backlash of that, bit mad if you ask me

Also where is county londonderry? must be a 33rd county in the country....:pac:

bleg

A fine moral stalwart.

The Catholic Church doing what they do best, "covering up" :mad:

General Zod

so, no claim of responsibility of the IRA, no proof the priest was in the IRA, if he was, no proof the supposed unit he was in carried out the bombing, this is news how?

bazmaiden

just seen this on the news...


anyone here ever read "preacher"

Minstrel27

It is sickening that not only the Catholic Chruch would cover this up (not surprising as it seems to be what they do best), but the government representing the people killed would cover it up too. What would they have lost if this became public in the 1970's?

wolfpawnat

Right, so how is a suspected IRA priest worse than convicted Paedophile priests???

Fratton Fred

Minstrel27 wrote: »

It is sickening that not only the Catholic Chruch would cover this up (not surprising as it seems to be what they do best), but the government representing the people killed would cover it up too. What would they have lost if this became public in the 1970's?

even more Catholic lives in the ensuing sectarian violence as the Loyalists decided to "Take Revenge"?

Maybe the thought of the Catholic church "Owing them one" was too appealing as well.

DB10

No real evidence just assumptions. Quite a possible scenario but alas, a scenario.

They may not be alive to be questioned but they can't defend themselves either so a very easy target.

DB10

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Right, so how is a suspected IRA priest worse than convicted Paedophile priests???

I guess you need to study the words "suspected" and "convicted" and then you will arrive at the answer.

strokemyclover

Finally, Ireland has it's own Monsignor Martinez...."Vaya con dios!"

http://pleatedjeans.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/monsignor-martinez-king-of-the-hill.jpg

Biggins

The Times version of the story:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/2172/wwwthetimescoukttonewsu.jpg

Wolfe Tone

It was best all round. The priest was removed from the IRA and there were no sectarian retaliations on both sides which would have occurred if said priest was arrested.

humanji

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

It was best all round. The priest was removed from the IRA and there were no sectarian retaliations on both sides which would have occurred if said priest was arrested.

Murderers getting away with murder? Can't see that being a good thing.

General Zod wrote:

so, no claim of responsibility of the IRA, no proof the priest was in the IRA, if he was, no proof the supposed unit he was in carried out the bombing, this is news how?

He was a suspect and was moved out of the jurisdiction so that he couldn't be investigated. And the Catholic Church and British government were behind the move. So how is it not news?

PeterIanStaker

Interesting that the partners in the cover up were the RCC and British Govt.

Dyr

This would be an ecumenical matter tbh

Wolfe Tone

humanji wrote: »

Murderers getting away with murder? Can't see that being a good thing.

First of all there was no evidence that we know of. It would have led to increased sectarian violence.

humanji

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

First of all there was no evidence that we know of. It would have led to increased sectarian violence.

Well you're the one who said he was removed from the IRA. And as I said, he was suspected, but moved out of the area to avoid investigation. There is also no guarantee that violence would have increased if a suspect was apprehended, or even if violence didn't increase anyway.

Pauleta

The catholic church strike again. We have to remove this disgusting organisation from our country. Covering up for paedophiles and terrorists can not be accepted by the people of Ireland.

Wolfe Tone

humanji wrote: »

Well you're the one who said he was removed from the IRA. And as I said, he was suspected, but moved out of the area to avoid investigation. There is also no guarantee that violence would have increased if a suspect was apprehended, or even if violence didn't increase anyway.

If it is true he would have been removed. It deffo would have increased.

humanji

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

If it is true he would have been removed. It deffo would have increased.

Can you really be so sure? The troubles continued for quite a while anyway. And it was widely suspected that the IRA were involved. Would you not think that retaliation strikes happened anyway? It's not like they're all known for giving detailed accounts about each individual attack.

And his being removed fromt he IRA still means nothing. He was a suspect and was allowed to escape investigation. Does that not bother you at all? What if he was a vicar and it was a Unionist set of bombs? Would you want justice then?

Ash.J.Williams

Pauleta wrote: »

The catholic church strike again. We have to remove this disgusting organisation from our country. Covering up for paedophiles and terrorists can not be accepted by the people of Ireland.

Well i have to say this is not new news at all, and this was known long before the sex scandals and nobody that i know really cared about an IRA priest back then.

DOC09UNAM

This joke sums up my feelings towards the church of Ireland.

Two priest's were taking a piss in the urinals one day and the one priest looks down and see's a nicotine patch on the other guy's díck. He says "Im not really a rocket scientist or anything, but, isnt that supposed to be on your arm?" And the other priest goes "Nah, it's working fine. Im down to two butts a day"!

Wolfe Tone

humanji wrote: »

Can you really be so sure? The troubles continued for quite a while anyway. And it was widely suspected that the IRA were involved. Would you not think that retaliation strikes happened anyway? It's not like they're all known for giving detailed accounts about each individual attack.

And his being removed fromt he IRA still means nothing. He was a suspect and was allowed to escape investigation. Does that not bother you at all? What if he was a vicar and it was a Unionist set of bombs? Would you want justice then?

Yes you can. There is little evidence to suggest he was in the IRA, he probably was though. You can be sure it would have looked like state harassment against catholics, innocent priest being arrested and beaten/interrogated by the RUC. To unionists it would have, in their minds, confirmed that the RCC and the IRA were hand in hand. Commence reprisals on both sides. The govt told them not to investigate. This leads me to believe that they turned him, or believed they could.

He was a suspect and was allowed to escape investigation. Does that not bother you at all?

Not really no. When faced with the alternative.

Wolfe Tone

Pauleta wrote: »

The catholic church strike again. We have to remove this disgusting organisation from our country. Covering up for paedophiles and terrorists can not be accepted by the people of Ireland.

What about the main party in the cover up? The Brits?

Kotek Besar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about the main party in the cover up? The Brits?

The "Brits" may have covered it up but it they didn't carry out the attack. They could have chosen to expose it instead. Would you have preferred they did that?

Wolfe Tone

Kotek Besar wrote: »

The "Brits" may have covered it up but it they didn't carry out the attack. They could have chosen to expose it instead. Would you have preferred they did that?

The poster in question was quick to bash the church, but no mention of the main party in the cover-up, the British govt. I wonder why?

steddyeddy

humanji wrote: »

Murderers getting away with murder? Can't see that being a good thing.


He was a suspect and was moved out of the jurisdiction so that he couldn't be investigated. And the Catholic Church and British government were behind the move. So how is it not news?

its big new what i dont understand is why the british government would help move a ira suspect to avoid further investigation

humanji

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yes you can. There is little evidence to suggest he was in the IRA, he probably was though. You can be sure it would have looked like state harassment against catholics, innocent priest being arrested and beaten/interrogated by the RUC. To unionists it would have, in their minds, confirmed that the RCC and the IRA were hand in hand. Commence reprisals on both sides. The govt told them not to investigate. This leads me to believe that they turned him, or believed they could.

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Not really no. When faced with the alternative.

The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What about the main party in the cover up? The Brits?

The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...

danbohan

humanji wrote: »

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.


The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.


The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...

i am sure you were not around northern ireland in 1972 . the british protecting this priest if he was in ira makes me think it was for a reason , not a good one ,and certainly not to spare irish lives , and no they were not the good guys !

Wolfe Tone

humanji wrote: »

You're jumping to a lot of conclusions there. That's all just your opinion. It's not like he'd be sent to the Middle-East to be water-boarded. And to think that unionists didn't think the IRA were behind it is a bit of a reach. They'd retaliate whether a priest was involved or not. It's not an indication of RCC involvement in the IRA.

You do know how suspected IRA men were interrogated and broken? Yes? It was not just questions.
It would be an excuse to attack churches and stuff.

The alternative of not having criminals behind bars? Because, I don't know if you're aware of it, but the troubles continued on for a bit after that.

The alternative of increased sectarian attacks.

The same Brits who you claim were trying to protect lives? I guess they were the good guys after all...

I wasn't making any point other than it was strange that a poster would bash the RCC who went along with the brits, with no mention of the British government. Besides, I doubt the British would really have cared about that. I reckon they hoped to make a traitor of the priest. They either turned him, or reckoned they could have.

Notorious97

If they protected him it was because they knew the backlash that would come from the fact an ordained priest in the catholic church had turned to the armed struggle and was now bombing places. Unionists who oppose the RCC would basically have had a field day with this, the fact an actual official member of the RCC was carrying out attacks against people, thats more of a reason for sectarian violence to explode than the fact the IRA carried it out.

I think the victims deserve justice, but i am only guessing that the British gov saw it as a lesser of two evils as stated earlier to move him, and who knows as Mussolini suggested they could have attempted to turn him and use him, he was now in their pocket.

The british gov didn’t do this as a favour to catholics or the IRA though, they definitely had some form of gain from this, as well as avoiding a rise in sectarian tensions.

humanji

danbohan wrote: »

i am sure you were not around northern ireland in 1972 . the british protecting this priest if he was in ira makes me think it was for a reason , not a good one ,and certainly not to spare irish lives , and no they were not the good guys !

But they don't know he was in the IRA. He was moved before the link could be investigated. It's suspicious alright and but the "it was to stop retaliations" defence makes little sense. In fact, having a priest involved in the IRA would help bolster British ferver against the IRA, particularly in light of Bloody Sunday.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

You do know how suspected IRA men were interrogated and broken? Yes? It was not just questions.
It would be an excuse to attack churches and stuff.

But were they priests? You were saying he was moved because he was a priest. So he wouldn't of been treated the same then.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The alternative of increased sectarian attacks.

They increased anyway. It had nothing to do with the priest.

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I wasn't making any point other than it was strange that a poster would bash the RCC who went along with the brits, with no mention of the British government. Besides, I doubt the British would really have cared about that. I reckon they hoped to make a traitor of the priest. They either turned him, or reckoned they could have.

Then why claim it was to save lives? That's the what I asked ages ago.

Wolfe Tone

humanji wrote: »

But were they priests? You were saying he was moved because he was a priest. So he wouldn't of been treated the same then.

Pull the other one. The RUC would have loved to have gotten their hands on a Priest in the IRA.

They increased anyway. It had nothing to do with the priest.

They would have increased much more dramatically.

Then why claim it was to save lives? That's the what I asked ages ago.

I believe I claimed that it did claim lives? Going by the Brits track record that was probably a nice side effect.

philstar

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The poster in question was quick to bash the church, but no mention of the main party in the cover-up, the British govt. I wonder why?

Well you have to remember that N.Ireland was on the brink of civil war back in 1972, and if it did become public knowledge that a catholic priest was involved in this bombing sectarian tensions would have increased ten fold...so it was a case of damage limitation.

My biggest gripe is why was Fr Chesney sent just over the border to Malin Head surely he should have been sent overseas where he would have been less of a threat.

Bob Z

Notorious97 wrote: »

If they protected him it was because they knew the backlash that would come from the fact an ordained priest in the catholic church had turned to the armed struggle and was now bombing places. Unionists who oppose the RCC would basically have had a field day with this, the fact an actual official member of the RCC was carrying out attacks against people, thats more of a reason for sectarian violence to explode than the fact the IRA carried it out.

I think the victims deserve justice, but i am only guessing that the British gov saw it as a lesser of two evils as stated earlier to move him, and who knows as Mussolini suggested they could have attempted to turn him and use him, he was now in their pocket.

The british gov didn’t do this as a favour to catholics or the IRA though, they definitely had some form of gain from this, as well as avoiding a rise in sectarian tensions.

Yea it would have made priests an open target for the likes of the UFF

This in turn would have spurned on the IRA. It might have been a real bloodbath

yuloni

This post has been deleted.

Min

From the BBC: "During that turbulent period in 1972, many believed that Northern Ireland was on the brink of a sectarian civil war. Almost 500 people were killed that year."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-11061296

dan719

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Pull the other one. The RUC would have loved to have gotten their hands on a Priest in the IRA.



They would have increased much more dramatically.



I believe I claimed that it did claim lives? Going by the Brits track record that was probably a nice side effect.

The Brits.

You have already been called up on this in the politics forum. Why do you insist on using this term, which has obvious negative connotations?

At the end of the day, this so called "man of God" was nothing more than a murdering scumbag. He was protected by the British government and the Church for reasons which we do not know, although fear of a bloody civil war seems a reasonable suggestion.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that nine people (both Catholic and Protestant and including children) were murdered in cold blood by the IRA. The subsequent cover up denied these people justice, and that must be rectified. But the act was more heinious than what followed after.

Wolfe Tone

The Brits.

I know loads of Brtish peoples who refer to themselves as such. I mean no offense.