Oaths of Silence Forced On Fr. Brendan Smyth's Victims

[sondagefaux]

RTÉ News: O'Gorman says Cardinal Brady should resign

Will Brady resign now? Or after he's been dragged through the High Court?

[Catalpa]

utterly disgraceful post.

How can you suggest that forcing two rape victims to sign an oath of confidentiality was in their own best interest.

How can you suggest that Brady was part of the process to convict Smyth when he went on to continue to abuse children with the protection of the church for another decade after this cover-up.

How can you suggest that forcing two rape victims to sign an oath of confidentiality was in their own best interest.

I didn't - I suggested they might have thought so.

How can you suggest that Brady was part of the process to convict Smyth when he went on to continue to abuse children

I didn't - as the news report indicates he was engaged in an information gathering exercise & not a process of conviction.

Still 'In toxicated' are we?

[RobinsReturn]

I agree totally with Akrasia. There is just no defence for this. I have long despaired of the leaders of the church to really address the problems at core of the institution, but I always felf that Sean Brady was a decent man, to a certain extent bumbling, but inherently decent none the less. This news is just the last straw for me. Do any of his defenders not see the awfulness of what he did? He was a man in a collar, a man with the air of great authority in that he was a representative of no less a man than the bishop (remember, it's the 1970s) and he interviewed young, vulnerable children/teenagers about a most awful crime that had been done to them, and then demanded that they sign a document swearing them to secrecy? This goes against any sense of what is right, ethical, decent. It is morally repugnant.

[jackryan]

He didn't get to where he is today by not doing what he was told to do.

[RobinsReturn]

How can you suggest that forcing two rape victims to sign an oath of confidentiality was in their own best interest.

I didn't - I suggested they might have thought so.

How can you suggest that Brady was part of the process to convict Smyth when he went on to continue to abuse children

I didn't - as the news report indicates he was engaged in an infornation gathering exercise & not a process of conviction.
:

An "information gathering excercise". and what did he do with that information? Was he not shocked and horrified with what he heard? Did he not think he should ensure that the man was charged and sent to jail for his crimes? It was the early 1990s before this man was sent to jail. I'm am just speechless with bafflement at this, firstly that it happened and secondly, that there is any defence for it. I feel shame as a catholic that the leader of our church could do such a thing. this is it for me

[sondagefaux]

How can you suggest that forcing two rape victims to sign an oath of confidentiality was in their own best interest.

I didn't - I suggested they might have thought so.

Then why is a woman suing Brady, specifically citing the fact that other children were required to sign oaths in her affidavit.

Why did she say in her affidavit that the actions of the defendants placed her at immediate risk from ongoing sexual assault and fear of immediate battery?

The plaintiff, according to the affidavit, "suffered sustained and continued to suffer from very severe personal injuries, distress, trauma, loss and damage by virtue of the negligence and breach of duty of the defendants".

It says the defendants: "Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned church activities and in particular children's outings when they knew or ought to have known that it was unsafe to do so;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the organisation of such outings by a servant or agent of whom they knew or ought to have known had paedophile tendencies or was, in fact, a paedophile;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned access to children and in particular to the plaintiff herein by a servant or agent who they knew or ought to have known presented a grave risk to children;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in circumstances of great danger of which they knew or ought to have known of;

"Required the plaintiff to assist in church-related activities in which they knew or ought to have known she was likely to be sexually assaulted which in fact occurred;

"Caused, permitted, allowed or condoned a servant or agent to have unlimited, unregulated and unsupervised access to young children and particular to the plaintiff herein which access was utilised for repeated sexual abuse;

"Failed to protect children and in particular the plaintiff herein from sexual assaults by their servants or agents;

"Exposed the plaintiff to the immediate danger of ongoing sexual assaults which in fact occurred; and faced [sic]the plaintiff in a real apprehension of immediate battery being committed on her."

Why has she spent 13 years of her life on this matter?

How can you suggest that Brady was part of the process to convict Smyth when he went on to continue to abuse children

I didn't - as the news report indicates he was engaged in an infornation gathering exercise & not a process of conviction.

Information gathering, also known as investigation IS part of the conviction process. Brady was involved in a process that could have led to a conviction in Canon Law if the church had bothered to use the information it gathered for that purpose.

He was also involved in a process that should have led to the information that was gathered being passed on to the Gardaí.

As previously pointed out, the failure to report Smyth's crimes was itself a criminal offence, known as misprision of felony, in 1975.

[Catalpa]

An "information gathering excercise". and what did he do with that information? Was he not shocked and horrified with what he heard? Did he not think he should ensure that the man was charged and sent to jail for his crimes? It was the early 1990s before this man was sent to jail. I'm am just speechless with bafflement at this, firstly that it happened and secondly, that there is any defence for it. I feel shame as a catholic that the leader of our church could do such a thing. this is it for me

I agree they made a balls of it.

But unless these kids were homeless orphans it seems reasonable to conclude that they were accompanied by their parents or guardians to these interviews.

Again you leave out the point that the victims could also have wanted Anonymity.

[gallowglass]

Cardinal Sean Brady has confirmed that he represented the Church at meetings when two teenage victims of Fr Brendan Smyth signed an oath of silence about their complaints.

Statement from Cardinal's office :

You got a link for this?
Thanks

[Toland]

But unless these kids were homeless orphans it seems reasonable to conclude that they were accompanied by their parents or guardians to these interviews.

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But the reports state explicitly that at least one of the meetings was between three persons, i.e. Brady and the two victims.

You're clutching at non-existent straws.

[Catalpa]

You would think so, wouldn't you?

But the reports state explicitly that at least one of the meetings was between three persons, i.e. Brady and the two victims.

You're clutching at non-existent straws.

Methinks you are.