Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Cardinal Brady is the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland. In the late 70s he investigated allegations made against a priest who was (much later) convicted of several counts of child abuse.
The priest wasn't prosecuted or even brought to the attention of the authorities after those initial allegations and went on to abuse many more children. Cardinal Brady was present at a meeting when those early victims were asked to sign vows of silence over the crimes.
No. He was an ordained priest, doctor of Canon Law, teacher and part-time secretary to the Bishop of Kilmore. He wasn't calling the shots I don't think.
That said, in my opinion he was complicit in a coverup that he kept to himself for many years as he progressed through the ranks of the Church. A coverup that allowed a man to abuse children from one diocese to another as he was shuffled hither and yon by the administration.
I was actually wondering today if there could be charges brought against those who covered up the crimes. I think it could be done but it wont, mostly because the powers that be still don't have the balls.
Cardinal Brady is the head of the Catholic Church in Ireland. In the late 70s he investigated allegations made against a priest who was (much later) convicted of several counts of child abuse.
The priest wasn't prosecuted or even brought to the attention of the authorities after those initial allegations and went on to abuse many more children. Cardinal Brady was present at a meeting when those early victims were asked to sign vows of silence over the crimes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8568280.stm
Was he a cardinal back then? If so, yes.
No. He was an ordained priest, doctor of Canon Law, teacher and part-time secretary to the Bishop of Kilmore. He wasn't calling the shots I don't think.
That said, in my opinion he was complicit in a coverup that he kept to himself for many years as he progressed through the ranks of the Church. A coverup that allowed a man to abuse children from one diocese to another as he was shuffled hither and yon by the administration.
Ooh... I see your point.
Guilty as charged!
Off with his head! :)
This comment was deleted.
[4 points] 2 years ago by deleted user ReplyI was actually wondering today if there could be charges brought against those who covered up the crimes. I think it could be done but it wont, mostly because the powers that be still don't have the balls.
Maybe the problem is that they do have balls :P
Statue of limitations? Would that apply in Ireland, and would it already have run? Is that perhaps why he waited so long to speak up?
Like Bush and company...
Ooh... nice one!!! :)
;)