Originally Posted by Catalpa

He was a notary - no more no less

He was not just a notary. He interviewed at least one child on his own:

Acting promptly and with the specific purpose of corroborating the evidence provided by Mr Boland, thereby strengthening the case against Brendan Smyth, I subsequently interviewed one of the children identified by Mr Boland who lived in my home diocese of Kilmore. That I conducted this interview on my own is already on the public record. This provided prompt corroboration of the evidence given by Mr Boland;

Brady says he will not resign over handling of abuse case - The Irish Times - Wed, May 02, 2012

A notary doesn't carry out interviews of abused children on his own.

Originally Posted by Catalpa

He did report the abuse to his higher Authority who passed it on to the Norbitine (?) Order

- who failed in their Duty to stop Smyth in his tracks

BTW it is worth noting that even today the correct procedure is to notify a 'Designated person' within an organisation on allegations of Child abuse

If Brady was doing the same he would still be breaking no law if he handled the file to a Superior within the Church so designated to follow up on claims

The correct procedure in 1975 was to pass on information to the civil authorities. This was the responsibility of the person with the knowledge of the crimes, not their superiors.

Originally Posted by Catalpa

BTW are the HSE members who do not pass allegations of child abuse to teh Garda also now to be prosecuted?

If they've broken the law, then they should be prosecuted. Same applies to Brady.

Originally Posted by eoghanacht

Are you a Jesuit per chance?

Was Luigi Vampa a Jesuit?

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

As I see it Brady is being criticized for not going to the parents with names of kids allegedly abused.
The problem is that how could he do anything of that nature unless there was some formal proof of the abuse.?
If there was formal proof of some kind against Smyth and Brady was aware of it then its a different matter.

But it still makes it almost impossible for Brady to approach the parents because again in the absence of formal proof concerning these named children, Brady could get into a lot of trouble if he broached a subject like that with a parent and it turned out that the kid was not in fact abused.

Its a no win situation all around.

The only safe course of conduct in these matters is to rely on formal proven convictions because the legal /social repercussions of false allegations are enormous for everybody concerned.

---

Indeed, in the absence of a full forensic work-up or any actual recordings of the abuse it's entirely understandable.





That was sarcasm by the way.

Originally Posted by eoghanacht

I was wondering when you were going to crawl out from under your rock. If you don't mind I won't be engaging in any discussion with the likes of you.

Naturally you must de rigeur begin your reply to me with offensive abuse.


Its also clear your unable to debate the reasonable point that I raised.


All reason flies out the window when you are around.

Originally Posted by gaelach

There was clearly both. He failed to report a crime. He made a conscious decision not to report said crime.

So did the victim

- so did the father + mother

Should they also be charged?

Mr Boland even as an adult never went to the Garda

-because he was satisfied that what happened to him remain behind closed doors

Clearly that was his wish and also of his own parents

Brendan Boland has said that at the time “my parents, who were good God-fearing people, and I were assured that Fr Brendan Smyth would not be allowed to associate with young boys and girls and that there would be no recurrence of the abuse which I and other victims had suffered”.He said that “as a result of these assurances, I felt safer and I hoped that the assurances would mean that others would not suffer as I had.” Fr Brady passed his findings to Bishop McKiernan.

'We were assured there would be no recurrence of the abuse which I and other victims had suffered' - The Irish Times - Wed, May 02, 2012

His anger began to mount (& who could blame him) when he discovered that Smyth's abuse of kids continued for years after when he was told he would be dealt with and he felt (rightly so) betrayed by what had happened

Originally Posted by Hooch

Indeed, in the absence of a full forensic work-up or any actual recordings of the abuse it's entirely understandable.

That was sarcasm by the way.

Are you going to debate my point or backslide away like abusive poster eoghancht?

You know what bothers me - is the civil authority in this country concludes that the patron of an educational establishment is no longer a fit person to act as such - indeed appears to be wholly lacking in moral judgement and beholden to a foreign power - they do not appear to have any authority to remove them.

After a hundred years of so-called independence that's sad - do we expect so little?

Originally Posted by HoHoHoHo

Nobody forces you to believe in the teachings of Christ.

What you mean this guy?:


"And whosoeuer shall offend one of these litle ones that beleeue in me, it is better for him, that a milstone were hanged about his necke, and he were cast into the Sea."(Mark 9:42 KJV)

He didn't have any time for child abusers and I doubt he would have had any time for those who colluded in cover ups to protect them.

Originally Posted by Hooch

Philip Boucher-Hayes just tore Brady a new one on RTÉ.

Philip Boucher-Hayes

Hardly the most reliable of journalists now is he?

Originally Posted by The Field Marshal

Naturally you must de rigeur begin your reply to me with offensive abuse.


Its also clear your unable to debate the reasonable point that I raised.


All reason flies out the window when you are around.

You wouldn't know reason if it came up and slapped ye.