I am deeply sorry: Cardinal

"I am very sorry about that. I apologise to those who were abused by Brendan Smyth after '75. I am deeply sorry that this has happened and I am committed to doing my utmost now to bring healing and closure and to ensure that such crimes are never, never committed again." Those were the words of Cardinal Sean Brady on Monday morning following revelations that he is being sued by one of the victims of paedophile rapist, Fr. Brendan Smyth. She is accusing the cardinal, who was a priest at the time, of failing to report the abuse to the gardaí, failing to take adequate steps to ensure that Smyth did not continue to abuse children and requiring her to sign an oath that she would not discuss the interview with anyone except authorised priests. The current Bishop of Kilmore, Leo O'Reilly and head of the Norbertine Order, Fr. Gerard Cusack, are also defendants in the case although they were not involved in the 1975 cases. Bishop O'Reilly is lending his full support to the Cardinal. For a detailed statement from the bishop (see statement below). The allegations against Fr. Brady concern two meetings in 1975, one of which was in Ballyjamesduff, where victims of Brendan Smyth were interviewed. A statement from the Catholic Communications Office yesterday (Tuesday) reads: "In late March 1975, Fr. Seán Brady was asked by his bishop, Bishop Francis McKiernan, to conduct a canonical enquiry into an allegation of child sexual abuse which was made by a boy in Dundalk, concerning a Norbertine priest, Fr. Brendan Smyth. "Fr. Brady was then a full-time teacher at St. Patrick's College, Cavan. Because he held a doctorate in Canon Law, Fr. Brady was asked to conduct this canonical enquiry; however he had no decision-making powers regarding the outcome of the enquiry. Bishop McKiernan held this responsibility. "On 29 March 1975, Fr. Brady and two other priests interviewed a boy (14) in Dundalk. Fr. Brady's role was to take notes. On 4 April 1975, Fr. Brady interviewed a second boy (15) in the Parochial House in Ballyjamesduff. On this occasion Fr. Brady conducted the inquiry by himself and took notes. "At the end of both interviews, the boys were asked to confirm by oath the truthfulness of their statements and that they would preserve the confidentiality of the interview process. The intention of this oath was to avoid potential collusion in the gathering of the inquiry's evidence and to ensure that the process was robust enough to withstand challenge by the perpetrator, Fr. Brendan Smyth. "A week later Fr. Brady passed his findings to Bishop McKiernan for his immediate action. "Eight days later, on 12 April 1975, Bishop McKiernan reported the findings to Fr. Smyth's religious superior, the Abbot of Kilnacrott. The specific responsibility for the supervision of Fr. Smyth's activities was, at all times, with his religious superiors. Bishop McKiernan withdrew Brendan Smyth's priestly faculties and advised psychiatric intervention." Despite this, Smyth remained as a member of the Norbertine Order and continued abusing children. He was not jailed until 1994. He died three years later. During his lifetime, he sexually abused and indecently assaulted 90 children. Cardinal Brady has been coming under increasing pressure to resign in recent days but still insists that he will not step down. "Now we have higher standards thankfully and certainly I wouldn't act in the same way now as I did then. I repeat that I was not the manager. I was not bishop then and I did act... and acquired the evidence which allowed Bishop McKieran to act decisively. Within three weeks he was able to go to Kilnacrott Abbey with the evidence and say that he was withdrawing the diocesan faculties from Fr. Smyth, which meant that he was no longer permitted to minister publicly as a priest, not alone in the diocese of Kilmore but in any diocese," said Cardinal Brady. "I didn't remain silent. I passed the information to the man who had the power to act," he added. However, the head of the Church in Ireland conceded that because the matter was reported to the gardaí that Smyth continued to abuse children. "That was because others didn't do their duty. I felt I did my duty. It's not fair to judge the actions of 35 years ago by the standards we are following today," he said. The cardinal said that since becoming a member of the Bishops' Conference, he had devoted a lot of energy to introducing guidelines and to ensure that they are implemented precisely. "We are not above the law," said Cardinal Brady, as he clarified that all such allegations are now immediately reported to the civil authorities. The state's first child abuse guidelines came into effect in 1987 and the church's first guidelines on child sexual abuse were published in 1996. However, victims of abuse and survivors groups still insist that Cardinal Brady should go. Victim Andrew Madden said the fact that Brendan Smyth was not allowed to carry on as a diocesan priest after 1975 was irrelevant. He felt that the diocese had passed the buck to the Norbertine Order and washed its hands of any responsibility. "The price for that decision was paid by other young children for almost two decades," he said. "He (Fr. Brady) was a teacher. He was a man who had children in his care in that capacity and he didn't see that he had any other responsibility for the safety and welfare of children that Brendan Smyth was going to meet after that process," added Andrew. He insisted that the cardinal's position is no longer credible. "Out of respect for those people and the experiences they had, Brady should be stepping aside." STATEMENT FROM BISHOP LEO O'REILLY There have been many calls in recent days for Cardinal Brady to resign because of his participation in a canonical enquiry into the abuse of two boys, one fourteen and the other fifteen years old, in 1975. Many of these calls have come from survivors of abuse and their hurt and their anger is easy to understand. I feel particular sympathy for all those who were abused by Fr Brendan Smyth for whom the reawakening of these memories must be especially painful. They and everyone else who has been abused have suffered a grave injustice. I profoundly regret the injustice done to them. I have been asked, should Cardinal Brady resign because of his involvement in these enquiries? Those who say he should put forward chiefly two reasons for the position they have taken: a) he imposed an oath of secrecy on the two boys and b) he failed to report the matter to the police. In regard to the oath it is suggested that this was to cover up the crime and to avoid scandal in the Church. I have no doubt that the avoidance of scandal was far too great a concern in the Church at that time. However, the reason for the oath was to preserve the integrity of the investigation and to make the process sufficiently robust that it could withstand any challenge and to enable the participants to speak freely with no fear that their evidence could be revealed to others. (In this situation there was a risk of collusion since the boys knew each other). Coincidentally the recent Report of the Murphy Commission - even though it didn't claim to be a court of law - had very serious penalties such as, a huge fine and lengthy prison sentence, for anyone who breached its confidentiality. In relation to reporting to the civil authorities a few points need to be made. Even today we recognise that while every citizen has a duty to report crimes, there are key people in every organisation whose responsibility it is to do so. In a school it is the Designated Person, normally the Principal. Several teachers may have become aware of the abuse but they are not all expected to personally approach the civil authorities. In a diocese it is the bishop or the Delegate appointed by him. In a religious community it is the Superior. Doctors, psychiatrists and others in the caring professions have particular responsibilities in this regard also. In this case Cardinal Brady was a priest with no administrative authority in the diocese. He was a full time teacher who did occasional work for the bishop, particularly because of his competence in Canon Law. When Bishop MacKiernan received these reports he asked Fr Brady to act as secretary to one of the investigations and to conduct the other. Fr Brady did so promptly and reported his findings to the bishop. It was clearly Bishop MacKiernan's responsibility to take the matter from there and he did so. Within a week Bishop MacKiernan had a meeting with the Abbot of Kilnacrott, Fr Kevin Smith. Among the outcomes of that meeting was Bishop MacKiernan's decision to withdraw diocesan faculties from Fr Brendan Smyth, including his permission to hear confessions, which would give him access to children on a one to one basis. It is clear that Fr Brady discharged the duty given to him and that any further action in relation to reporting or restricting his movements was primarily the responsibility of the Abbot of Kilnacrott who was Fr Brendan Smyth's superior. It would certainly be the practice today that the Bishop would also report the matter to the civil authorities either personally or through his Designated Person. Clearly also today, we would expect any medical personnel - psychiatrists or others - who became aware of this kind of crime to report it. I believe that it is not fair to now blame Cardinal Brady for the failures of others in dealing with this matter which has had such horrendous consequences for so many children who are now adults. In the case of Fr William Carney who abused children in Dublin the Murphy Report is very critical of the Garda Superintendent and the Bishop who dealt with the case, and with very good reason. However, the same report singles out the junior Garda who conducted the initial investigation for commendation because of the promptness and efficiency of his work. He is not faulted for the failure of his superior. For all these reasons I do not believe Cardinal Brady should resign his position. He was worked tirelessly for the past 15 years or more to ensure that the Church's ministry to children will be a model of good practice and that parents can have confidence in. He has tried ceaselessly to bring a new unity of purpose to the Church's handling of this issue. I believe that his going would deprive us of a great leader and a very humble pastor. Leo O'Reilly Bishop of Kilmore.