Emer O'Kelly: There's No Excuse under Civil Law

Irish Independent
May 6, 2012

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/emer-okelly-theres-no-excuse-under-civil-law-3101328.html

Senior church figures in the Vatican have come, once again, to the defence of the now intensely beleaguered Cardinal Sean Brady.

In 1975 Fr Sean Brady, a 36-year-old canon lawyer, was appointed to be one of three churchmen conducting an inquiry into the sexual molestation of children by the Norbertine priest Brendan Smyth. Sean Brady says now, as he said after the publication of the Murphy report in 2009, that he had believed the children's allegations. And that he presumed that when he passed his report to his superiors, he believed in good faith that it would be followed up to protect those children and others. At the time, after one session in company with the other religious lawyers, and one where he questioned at least one child alone, he swore them to secrecy about their abuse. He did nothing further.

Those are the bones of the actions which the Vatican was defending last week, saying he "acted correctly". And that is the core of the problem. He did act "correctly" according to canon law. He did not act compassionately; he did not act responsibly; he did not act justly.

When the Murphy report was published, Cardinal Brady said in an interview that were he to find out that any action or inaction of his had led after 1975 to a continuation of the abuse of children, named or unnamed, then it would be a matter for his resignation. The caveat, if he were in a position of authority, was included. Now the BBC has made a television documentary, shown last week, in which Brendan Boland, one of the men who as children were sworn to holy secrecy by the then Fr Sean Brady about their abuse by Brendan Smyth, said that during interrogation he had given Brady the names of four other boys who he believed were in danger from Smyth. Two of them were already victims, and continued to be abused for several years. Four cousins of one of them, as well as his sister, continued to be abused by Smyth for very many years.

Having been given the names of the children by Sean Brady, the late Bishop of Kilmore Francis McKiernan passed them to Brendan Smyth's abbot. Neither the abbot nor the bishop informed the children's parents ... or the gardai.

Neither, of course, did the future Cardinal Sean Brady. It's believed there were many more victims in the years when the abbot continued to refuse to act against his criminal priest.

To the lay person's ear, that sounds remarkably like the scenario which Sean Brady admitted in 2009 might be a resignation matter.

But he stayed quiet about knowing the names given to him by Brendan Boland until Mr Boland went public on television last week with the facts.

A civil or criminal lawyer might have grave difficulty in swallowing a claim that someone in that position "acted correctly". But that is the difference between canon law and the law of the land.

The purpose of canon law is to protect the institution of the church and her reputation. Sean Brady, a canon lawyer, did that admirably; it was "correct" in church terms. The rising young Sean Brady kept his career nose clean.

The welfare of children is important in canon law, according to the church. That statement, made in isolation, sounds admirable. But it falls, as does everything else, when it comes to protecting the church. It was during the Smyth saga that we learned that, under canon law, a lie in defence of the church is a truth.

Sean Brady admitted last week to being horrified when he discovered after many years that no action had been taken against Smyth on grounds of his report. Why? He, a canonical lawyer faced with clearly truthful evidence of horrors perpetrated on children, did not have the courage or the sense of righteousness to do his human and legal duty. Why should he trust that Kevin Smith, Smyth's superior in the Norbertine Order, should have such courage and sense of righteousness ... in defiance of canon law?

When priests are ordained, they take holy vows to uphold canon law. As citizens, the rest of us are not lined up and handed a constitution or a text of affirmation to uphold the law of the land. But as citizens, our respect for it must take precedence over everything else. There are no exceptions: perjury in defence of a politician does not count as the truth. Perverted sexuality is not exempt because we have "uncontrollable urges". The law applies to everyone, even those of us who have conscientious objection to some of its provisions.And every priest in the land is also subject to the provisions of that law. Except that it is not accepted by them or their superiors if the requirements of canon law get in the way.

In 1975 Sean Brady swore two little boys to silence about what they had undergone, and went home to sleep the sleep of the just.

Brady has said several times, as have his brother bishops and priests, that they "didn't know" in 1975 just how damaging sexual abuse was for its victims. Maybe that's an acceptable excuse under canon law: under civil law, it's irrelevant. Rape and other sexual abuse was a crime then, it's a crime now. And as it dawned fully on the ageing Sean Brady, and he came to terms with what he admits was the full horror of the crimes of so many of his fellow priests, he still waited for the revelations to drip out.

Sean Brady admits that it hasn't taken all the years since 1975 for him to realise the suffering caused by sexual molestation in childhood.

He realised it years ago. He admits that. But he did not go to the gardai with his information, even when he knew that his fellow religious had been perverting the course of justice.

The calls for Sean Brady to resign as the leader of Irish Catholicism are reaching a crescendo. They include carefully phrased calls from the Tanaiste and the Minister for Education, and even from the Fianna Fail leader -- although it was a Fianna Fail Minister for Education, Michael Woods, one whose last actions in office was to indemnify the religious orders against claims from the abused.

And let's not forget that the church authorities are still twisting on the pin of mandatory reporting of child abuse. It's that old canon law thing again: the "seal of the Confessional" must be exempt from the requirement. It would seem that under canon law, which rules the behaviour of all Catholic clergy, the correct thing is, and will always be, very different from the ethical, compassionate, and legal thing.