28 Comments

• seamus60 | Oct 25, 2012, 07:00 PM EDT

  Bock. Maybe he doesn`t understand hiding true allegations of sexual abuse was actually defending child abusers. Outdone only by moving the peados on to a fresh stock of possable victims.

• seamus60 | Oct 25, 2012, 06:51 PM EDT

  He`s waiting permission to defend the indefensable. lol

• Bocktherobber | Oct 23, 2012, 06:06 PM EDT

  Nothing back from Kilbarry. Hmm.

• rickspringer | Oct 21, 2012, 10:16 PM EDT

  And the catholic church had yet to make any kind of meaningful apology to the victims of its priests and those (the bishops) who protected them.

• seamus60 | Oct 21, 2012, 07:31 PM EDT

  Killbarry. Surely most priests are known to the general public and complaints against them would most likely come from people who were in personal contact. Again the lack of transparency from the leadership in the church has left it open to this type of journalism. The same leadership have the right of reply to name and shame liars working to the agenda you wish us to believe.

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 06:16 PM EDT

  I notice your website, irishsalem.com, has been closed down. What did you do to cause that? I forget whether you used to be a priest or a monk, and maybe you'd just clarify that for the readers.

• Kilbarry1 | Oct 21, 2012, 06:12 PM EDT

  Bocktherobber- Do you understand that denouncing false allegations of child abuse is NOT the same thing as defending child abusers?

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 05:48 PM EDT

  Kilbarry -- People can look it up for themselves. Maybe it would be no harm if you explained about your own website defending clerical child abusers, so that people would understand you're not exactly detached from this.

• Kilbarry1 | Oct 21, 2012, 05:37 PM EDT

  According to Bocktherobber "Oliver Brennan stood up against those who protected clerical child abusers,and was himself persecuted for doing so. This was a decent man who stood by his principles, and he was made to suffer for doing so."........ If this was actually true, there would be an avalanche of newspaper articles from our anti-clerical journalists instead of one very short one in the Irish Independent. Indeed it's quite possible that Fr Brennan was targeted because his name was in the newspapers at the time and therefore he was fairly well known. This has happened on numerous occasions before - and the targets have been "liberal" AND traditionalist clerics who attracted obscene allegations simply because their names were known to the general public. Thus in 1995 Bishop Brendan Comiskey went to the USA for treatment of alcoholism; there followed a frenzy of obscene lies in the newspapers - up to and including a claim that he was fleeing allegations of child abuse. A short time previously he had been reprimanded by Cardinal Cahal Daly for raising the issue of married priests. However we can be reasonably sure that the Cardinal was not the source of the obscenities! ..... A few years later a journalist published a biography of Archbishop John Charles McQuaid that included claims he had been a paedophile - and the Sunday Times publicised the book by publishing the relevant section. The claims were so lacking in evidence that one anti-clerical reviewer REGRETTED that they would create sympathy for the late Archbishop! .... There were several other allegations of this kind all aimed at WELL-KNOWN prelates. That is the only qualification you need nowadays to become the target of some crazy loser.

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 04:40 PM EDT

  This story was widely reported in the Irish papers when it first broke. Anyone who takes the trouble can look it up. Oliver Brennan stood up against those who protected clerical child abusers,and was himself persecuted for doing so. This was a decent man who stood by his principles, and he was made to suffer for doing so.

• seamus60 | Oct 21, 2012, 04:26 PM EDT

  Bocktherobber. If what you are saying is correct. Fr Brennan holds the golden egg. He is now in a position to tell his story and prove how corupt some of his fellow clergy still are. Best of luck to him.

• seamus60 | Oct 21, 2012, 04:19 PM EDT

  Smyrnian. I would be more inclined to worry about victims who have not had the strength to come forward as they will have already been suffering in silence for god only knows how long. ( sorry a few bishops might know as well). I would sincerely hope that all priests with morals to match what they preach, would stand up to their superiors and rid the church of those who have left them all so vunerable. Forget about bishops not knowing what to do in the face of past offences, carried out on their watch. The fact that they moved the offenders on to fresh stock blows that excuse out of the water. So little was their concern for the young victims, they didn`t appear to worry about how many new ones their inaction would result in.

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 04:08 PM EDT

  The journalism here is a disgrace. Patrick Counihan, for reasons known only to himself, has failed to explain the real facts behind the persecution of Oliver Brennan, an innocent man. Of course, it could simply be because the story he reworded from the Irish Independent didn't mention those facts.

• seamus60 | Oct 21, 2012, 04:04 PM EDT

  Maxtiger. As we do not know yet why credability is an issue we can only assume there is something underhand. As for what happens in the present with clergy accused of whatever, things may not be as they are percieved. Recently a priest was given a parish to run in Fanadhead. Co Donegal, even though he earlier pleaded guilty at Derry court to improper behaviour in the public toilets of a local shopping mall.

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 04:02 PM EDT

  The bishop brought up the accusations after Fr Brennan supported his parishioners who felt that Cardinal Sean Brady was not a fit person to attend confirmations. The parishioners were concerned because Brady had previously sworn abused children to secrecy. As a result of supporting his people against child abuse, Brennan was shafted by the cardinal. That's why they have to apologise.

• SingleDonald | Oct 21, 2012, 03:42 PM EDT

  I agree with hermitTalker and most of the others!These false accusations are bound to be made, when so much time has passed from the alleged transgressions occuring. How can the accused defend himself? I'm glad that Father Brennan was able to do so!

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 03:41 PM EDT

  Has anyone here read the original story, or does everyone think it was just another case of a priest being accused in the wrong?

• MaxTiger | Oct 21, 2012, 03:16 PM EDT

  Portia, we know the allegations are false because the police investigation found them to be "totally lacking in credibility". Whatever about the mistakes of the past, today when any credible allegation is made the priest is removed from his work, his home and publicly named by his employer as a potential threat to children. There are few organisations anywhere else that have such aggressive procedures to investigate complaints of child abuse. Unfortunately this isn't the first priest to be the victim of lies and is unlikely to be the last.

• Bocktherobber | Oct 21, 2012, 03:11 PM EDT

  HermitTalker -- Do you have any theory as to the reasons why the bishops were so naive about child abuse?

• Smyrnian | Oct 21, 2012, 03:08 PM EDT

  Makes you wonder how many other false allegations are out there. One would be too many.

• mairint | Oct 21, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  Some good points in earlier comments (apart from the grumpy Portia777). So do we hear the blogs and journalists who spread the falsehood and destroyed this priest's reputation are lining up to compensate Fr. Brennan financially. He should just - for the sake of the other priests in danger of the media hate - demand reparation even if their money goes to support Catholic missions in Haiti or Mother Teresa's sisters who nurse those dying with AIDS.

• barneyjo | Oct 21, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

  Talk is cheap...... enough said!!

• Portia777 | Oct 21, 2012, 10:12 AM EDT

  Why would the Roman church apologise to one of its own? How do we know the allegations are false?

• hermitTalker | Oct 21, 2012, 10:10 AM EDT

  contd 6 Then the PR machine is in full swing, media are on the prowl so every accused cleric and teacher is presumed guilty. The distinction between the sickness of pedophilia and ephaebia -spell? adolescents is confused and simple boundary violations are treated the same. Wholesale refusal to grant elementary civil or canonical, Church law, rights and that led to cases like this, one can assume and others where the Church authorities are slow to be accused of cover-up. The rest of the story is to find out how many false accusations were made, what lawyers and "support" groups are in cahoots to drive the story. And how many bishops throw their clergy under the bus to protect "the Church." And at what price to reputation, shortage of clergy which was artificially manufactured because of it. Ans lowered morale by hurt parishes, family members and their fellow-clergy.

• hermitTalker | Oct 21, 2012, 09:54 AM EDT

  When the story cools, and can be written, one will find that: 1,Bishops were as naive about child abuse as were most of not all professionals in the earlier years. 2 When allegations were made, lawyers did what lawyers do to shake the accusers on a purely financial level. 3 When allegations began to mount, payments were more readily made, and as is usual, both sides were legally bound to secrecy as happens regularly with other professionals. 4 This got confused with cover-up, of which there was some, but concern for reputations and scandal was mixed in with that. 5 The tsumani from Boston in the USA and the Judges reports in Ireland got the whole story muddled. 6. N

• CelticQueenUSA | Oct 21, 2012, 09:49 AM EDT

  I agree with seamus60. His pay, if any, should also be given and the bother of his lawyer bills paid by the church.

• seamus60 | Oct 21, 2012, 09:20 AM EDT

  Had the church dealt with many earlier simular issues in a proper transparent and honest manner, this priest may not have had to go through this ordeal.

• jacersagain | Oct 21, 2012, 07:56 AM EDT

  The Catholic Church is going to make an apology??? Whaaaat?? Would it not be better for those money-chasers who made the false allegations to step forward and publicly apologise? And face jail time for their calumniations?