Boards.ie wins battle with Brady

General Zod wrote: »

Let's face facts. Brady aided an investigation which ensured that no scandal came to the church ahead of seeing a paedophile brought to justice.

While I take the point of canon law and how this applied to people in the church, not taking this further was a lack of moral courage. Not just with this person, but with many in the church hierarchy. A separation of church law and the civil law in matters such as this is going to be dangerous. Doubly so in the Ireland of the past where much of our civil law was dictated by the same religious organisation.

I also see where he felt his hands were tied. People approached him, not the state. So that he and the moral and canon legal mechanism of the church could be trusted to clean house. OK fine, but clearly it didnt and couldnt be trusted. They kept it in house and did little to stop things like this. This much is fact. As a bishop, his responsibilities should have lain with the moral character of the church he represented, never mond the moral implications of the abuse of the most vulnerable in his care. The word bishop means overseer and he didn't oversee enough.

Outrage wrote: »

I have no doubt that the man sleeps soundly at night (not just because he puts in incredible hours for a man of 71). If he had even the most minor thing on his conscience, I have no doubt that he'd act to cleanse his soul as a matter of priority.

Only if he believes it to be a mark on his soul. Ignorance is bliss in such a situation.

Holding such a responsible position requires that you are constantly in a state of grace.

To ascribe the notion of being constantly in a state of grace to a human being is dubious as far as the church itself would think it. That's sainthood territory and we're well past the time in the churches history when they were handing them out like smarties..

I'm not saying he's perfect,

Apparently you are. "Constantly in a state of grace".

but he is quite obviously highly regarded by both the Church and those in his diocese and I have no doubt that the man continually strives for perfection in everything he does.

It does boil down viewpoint. If you take the viewpoint that his responsibility was to the mechanism of the church and its laws then yes he did the "right" thing, but if you take the viewpoint that his responsibility was first and foremost to be a moral guide for his flock, when then he most certainly did not. The canon law excuse is just that, an excuse. Cast back as an example the founder of the faith. Moneylenders and hawkers were sanctioned by the church authorities in the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus could have stood back and said "well it is the law and sanctioned by the elders". Nope he started taking names and kicking arses. What do you think the same Jesus would have done if faced with familes coming to him telling him one of his trusted flock were abusing children? I think the word shítstorm wouldn't begin to describe it.