Without a doubt, anyone who has watched the recent BBC program concerning Irish clerical abuse can only have deep sympathy for those who suffered such awful trauma. Specially harrowing is the fact that this abuse came from people, figures, individuals for whom they had the utmost respect and trust.
There are several aspects to this situation that must not be ignored however, especially when it is considered in the context of current anti-religious developments in Ireland.
Cardinal Brady, the primate of Ireland, was and is simply a servant of the Roman Catholic Church. In that sphere, 30 years ago, he completed his duties, observed the law of the Church and acted submissive to his superiors as was expected of him. In accordance with the fact that he was dealing with a serious abuse case, he promptly and diligently followed the guidelines of canon law - the dictates of the Catholic Church - to the best of his ability. We have no reason to doubt this. The incriminating documents record the work of a conscientious man. In this respect he was dedicated to his Church – he chose not to tell the Guards, but such an action would be completely unexpected and out of order for him. He states himself that he acted as he thought 'most effectively to end the abuse' and he allocated 'the case to the clergyman most powerful to deal with it'.
What we ought not to do here is jump to a subjective conclusion and accuse Cardinal Brady of not acting correctly. Instead it is very important that we look at the Church as a body objectively – and observe that the problem lies with the institution of the Catholic Church. It is not established solely on Scriptural principles. Its law book is not the Christian Bible, but rather the dictates of tradition and the Church fathers. This is an institution which regards Brady, not as a free individual, at liberty to obey the dictates of his conscience, but rather as a servant, duty bound to the law of the Church, its traditions and rituals. The Church has become the conscience of its people; it has power that God never gave to it, and this power sadly to say has turned to terrible abuse, evident in the actions of individuals such as Brendan Smyth.
Cardinal Brady did not have the freedom to exercise his own moral judgement, to be led by what his conscience may have been saying. Instead he followed the rules of his Church and considered such adherence enough.
Should Brady resign? I would not take it upon myself to exercise moral authority over him and demand him to go, as many politicians and media presenters are currently doing - he's a servant of the Church, he did what was required of him and it's his own business. He has done his duty as a Catholic priest. We need to move the focus away from him and instead look at the institution of the Church which allowed this all to happen. If we take issue with what happened, we need to leave the Catholic Church. It is not an institution which is about to radically change.
I come from a Catholic background myself, but left the Church, am now a Christian. I have the freedom to obey my conscience - a freedom which was claimed at the Reformation when the Reformers rebelled against a system that chained them to rules and traditions, and embraced the hallowed privilege of conscience. I am free to act as I believe God would want me to act, and to live my life as an individual, accountable to God – not captive to any religion but beholden only to Him. If I had been in Brady's situation, I would have followed my conscience, as an individual before God. My loyalty is to God. Brady's loyalty is the the Church of Rome.
High Moral Ground
Having said all this however, I do think we need to be very careful of the current 'witchhunt' into the Catholic Church. There are people pointing the finger in a very righteous and indignant way today whose own reactions in a similar situation could be very dubious. With actions like these, one always needs to be objective and think for themselves – What is really going on here?
Miriam O'Callaghan, Prime Time Presenter, for example, can appear so empathetic and caring now when she interviews Brendan Bolan, the victim of clerical abuse; however the question must be asked, if a serious issue regarding some victim in a politically incorrect, unpopular situation was brought to her attention as an individual in a position of authority, what would she do about it? Would she whistleblow?
Where does she get the authority to pronounce a moral judgement upon Seán Brady and call upon him to leave his post?
Whilst I don't agree with the Catholic Church, I do wonder if Enda Kenny and Eamonn Gilmore are trying their best to remove any vestige of a spiritual belief in God from the Irish people – are they seeking to become our new gods? This current scandal is yet another blow at the Catholic Church, seeking to remove it from its position of spiritual guidance; our current government want to remove religion from schools, legalise same-sex marriages, provide abortion services, forbid us from exercising conscientious objection, force us to pay a tax on our own homes and command us to give up our national sovereignty to a faceless European institution that few people understand. We need to be very careful of falling for everything the Kenny/Gilmore duo say.
Let us think things out for ourselves. Are the accusers of Cardinal Brady really concerned about child abuse when we look at the sad state of many families in our nation today, and consider the upsetting levels of abuse amongst children in state care or are they more concerned with promoting secularism, breaking down our standards, and replacing the God we have with a new god of their own making? Words like moral credibility and moral authority are bandied about in serious tones, but it is of extreme importance that we look beyond the faces of politicians and TV presenters and discern what really is the reason behind their words.
