Religion Sexuality

Tyrone Priest In Gay Porn Shocker

Poor old Cardinal Seán Brady, the wounded healer, is having a Bishop Brennan moment after it emerged that one of his priests showed a series of gay porn images to parents at a meeting about their children’s forthcoming Communion ceremony.  Brady launched an investigation and even informed the police when he discovered what had happened.

It seems that Fr Martin McVeigh, in true modern-priest style, had a Powerpoint presentation on a memory stick, but when he shoved the USB key into the laptop, it wasn’t a slideshow of little holy Luke Skywalkers that appeared.  No.  Instead, the parents were treated to a dozen or more images of guys with moustaches going at it hammer and tongs.

Jesus Christ!   According to the Belfast Telegraph, the shocked parents were shocked by the shocking pictures.  Shocked!!

Oddly enough, the images depicted consenting adults doing consensual-type things, as opposed to the sort of stuff we’ve become used to from the clergy, but Brady nevertheless immediately referred the matter to the police, unlike his previous actions when he swore abused children to secrecy.

What did the cops say?  No crime here, Seán.  Just a bunch of gay guys doing what comes naturally.

You’d have to love the likes of Brady, wouldn’t you?  Here’s a priest with a few images of adults on his USB key, and Seán goes demented, despite his track record of failing to support children who were attacked by real abusers, but of course, that’s not to say that Martin McVeigh shouldn’t be answering a few questions.  Absolutely not.

Questions like, What sort of an idiot are you?

And What the fuck were you doing with gay porn on the same memory stick as a communion presentation?

Or even Are you completely thick?

All of these are legitimate questions to ask Father Martin McVeigh, but there are a few questions for the shocked parents as well.

Questions like You don’t get out much, do you?

And What’s so shocking about gay sex?

Or even Would you ever get a fucking grip?

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the parents weren’t shocked in the least and that the hack from the Telegraph was simply acting out some deep-seated personal prejudices, but that’s highly unlikely in a Belfast newspaper.  Right?

The whole incident has more than a little FatherTedness to it, especially McVeigh’s claims that he doesn’t know how the images got on his key.  Were they just resting in his account?  Did he accidentally brush against another priest and catch them like a virus?  Did an elite squad of gay priest porn-commandos put them on there while his attention was elsewhere?

I was going to say McVeigh’s story is stretching credulity, but then I remembered what the meeting was about: Holy Communion.  The belief that a man can wave his hands at a biscuit and turn it into someone who has been dead for two thousand years.

If Brady can swallow that, he can surely swallow the story that the Village People ended up on a memory stick by magic.



Crime Favourites

Seán Brady and the Brendan Smyth Sexual Abuse Cover-Up

This article was first published on the 15th March 2010.


Cardinal Seán Brady has featured in a good number of posts on this site.

In December 2006, I wrote to him here after he said that there was more coarseness in Irish society than there used to be.  In Seán’s  opinion, there was too much sexualisation of children at an early age, and how right he was.

What Seán overlooked though, was his personal involvement in silencing the victims of sexual abuse thirty years previously, when he extracted oaths of confidentiality from child-victims of the mass rapist, Brendan Smyth.  Whatever these broken children revealed to Seán and his fellow interrogators, would not be passed to the authorities.

And yet, for all that this holy man felt entitled to go on the airwaves two years ago and fulminate about the moral lapses of the general public, he seemed to have no qualms about interviewing a raped ten-year-old in 1975, a terrified child under an oath of silence, nor did he seem to have qualms about keeping this information to himself, without ever thinking to inform the police.

I’m sure that if Seán had remembered his role in this ecclesiastical investigation, he would surely not have complained that we sexualise our children these days more than we used to.  After all, if his colleague’s rape of children wasn’t an early sexualisation, I don’t know what is.

It’s ironic that Seán’s predecessor, Cardinal Cahal Daly, relied on an administrative defence when questioned about his handling of Brendan Smyth’s crimes.

As I recall, Cahal told reporters that he had no direct responsibility for Smyth because, as  a member of the Norbertine order, Smyth came under the control of the order’s authorities rather than Cahal’s.  Therefore Cahal Daly couldn’t interfere to stop the rapist from raping children.

In light of that, I’d be interested to know how and why Seán Brady was involved in interviewing children as a purely ecclesiastical matter, since the diocese didn’t have any authority over the criminal.  What exactly was the nature of this inquiry, if Cahal Daly is to be believed — and who would doubt the word of such an eminent churchman?

Years after Daly’s limp explanation for his failure to control a rapist, in a further irony, Seán Brady made a liar of him by intervening directly to prevent a member of another order, the Augustinians, from sharing a service of peace and reconciliation with a local Church of Ireland rector.

I heard a heartless old man on the radio this morning seeking to defend Brady’s moral failure by reference to Canon Law.  The condescending old cleric, Monsignor Maurice Dooley, dared to suggest that his church’s private rules take precedence over the law of the land, and had the further effrontery to suggest that the fault lay with the police for failing to catch the rapist.  This was even though Brady and his boss had failed to inform the police about what they knew concerning his crimes, and had placed a terrifying obligation on damaged children to remain silent.

Dooley went on to say that Brady committed no offence by withholding the information and perhaps that’s true.  But there’s another act on the irish statute book; the Offences Against the State Act, 1939, and this act explicitly forbids oaths designed to prevent a victim from disclosing details of a crime.

Administering unlawful oaths

17.—(1) Every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or take part in, be present at, or consent to the administering or taking in any form or manner of any oath, declaration, or engagement purporting or intended to bind the person taking the same to do all or any of the following things, that is to say:—

( a ) to commit or to plan, contrive, promote, assist, or conceal the commission of any crime or any breach of the peace, or

( d ) to abstain from disclosing or giving information of the Commission or intended or proposed commission of any crime, breach of the peace, or from informing or giving evidence against the person who committed such an act,

shall be guilty of a misdemeanour and shall be liable on conviction thereof to suffer imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years.

If Brady had gone to the police in 1975 — and there seems to be good reason to suppose that they would have secured a conviction —  Smyth would not have been in a position to continue raping children for another twenty years.

But the church didn’t even go that far.  In reality, they allowed Smyth a free hand and unfettered access to children and did nothing to stop him.  By their actions, they facilitated the rapist.

These are the  men who for generations have lectured the Irish people about sexual morality.  These are the men who, over generations, made sexual transgressions the worst of all in their demonology, and yet the same men claimed not to understand that Smyth’s rape of children was wrong.

I don’t believe them.  Who could believe a word they say about anything?

Brady won’t resign, though, because, just like his colleagues, he doesn’t get it.  After all, it was only last week that a fellow bishop, Christopher Jones, was complaining about the unfair treatment of the Catholic church.   Seán Brady was a staunch supporter of disgraced bishop of Cloyne, even going so far as to suggest that John Magee should be allowed to remain in office for the protection of children.

Get that now: Cardinal Seán Brady, who personally interviewed raped children and placed them under oath not to speak about the crimes of the man who defiled them, last year defended a bishop who ignored the complaints of rape victims.

Be clear about this.  Seán Brady questioned small children about the precise details of how a grown man in clerical garb touched their bodies, penetrated them and ejaculated all over them.  Brady wrote it all down and swore the children to secrecy but was not sufficiently outraged to tell the police about these crimes.

What a mighty man.

This is the individual who suggested that John Magee, the bishop who ignored rape victims, was suitable to implement child-protection measures.

Why would anyone imagine such a character would resign?


Pledge signed by abused children (according to UTV news):

I will never, directly or indirectly, by gesture, word, writing or in any other way, and under any pretext, even that of a greater good or of a highly urgent and serious reason, do anything against this fidelity to secrecy, unless special permission or dispensation is expressly granted to me by the Supreme Pontiff.


Note from the Catholic Communications Office to clarify media reporting on Cardinal Seán Brady – 16 March 2010

* The State’s first Child Abuse Guidelines came into effect in 1987 and the Church’s first guidelines Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response, were published in 1996.

* 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 Smith’s activities was, at all times, with his Religious Superiors. Bishop McKiernan withdrew Brendan Smyth’s priestly faculties and advised psychiatric intervention.

[Note: the Abbott took no action against Smyth.  The bishop subsequently permitted  him to resume duties as a priest in the diocese.]



William Crawley

Colm O Gorman


Cardinal Seán Brady’s Weasel Words

Now. Look at that statement carefully. That is a classic example of the sort of evasive, dishonest, two-faced nonsense we’re used to hearing from the Catholic hierarchy.

Did he acknowledge that he’d offended anyone?

No. He didn’t. He said If I offended anyone, as if there was any doubt. But leave that little piece of trickery aside. It’s a standard tactic of the bishops to slip the word IF into these kind of statements, like a little spike of verbal Rohypnol.

IF anyone was raped by my staff it hurts me more than it hurts them.

Standard stuff. Now, look at what else he did there. He’s sorry if he offended anyone.

If you’ve been been visiting here for a while you’ll know that I see nothing wrong with offending people. I think it can be good for them, but Brady didn’t just give offence.

What Brady did was to dismiss out of hand the pain of those who were raped, and the legitimate concerns of the people of this land. He advocated leaving Magee in charge of the Cloyne diocese. I’d remind you that Magee is the man who decided to provide minimal information about the rapes to the police, and who ignored complaints from those who had been attacked by his staff. Magee was also the man who tried to suppress the report exposing how derelict he was in his duty to protect the victims of his pervert priests.

By telling us that such a man is the best person to protect children from future attacks, Brady was giving the entire nation the finger.

So, I hope Cardinal Brady won’t mind if I call him a two-faced, lying, arrogant prick, and I’m sorry if that causes him any offence.

The prick.


Cardinal Error: Brady Gets the Red Hat

Cloyne Sex Abuse Case – Cardinal Brady Stands By Magee
Bishop Magee – Where Do You Go To My Lovely?
John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne – Resign You Fucking Bastard
Civil Partnership – Cardinal Brady Makes A Fool Of Himself Again



My cover letter to Cardinal Seán Brady
Religion Sexual abuse

Cloyne Sex Abuse Case — Cardinal Brady Stands By Magee

Cardinal Seán Brady sees no reason why Bishop Magee should resign. Magee has had a painful lesson, Seán reckons, and now he should be allowed to get on with protecting children. Just look into that logic of that. Seán Brady thinks the right man to protect children from sex abuse is someone who ignored victims’ complaints and had a policy of providing minimal information to the police. Brady thinks Magee is a dependable and reliable person, and of course, he’s right about that. After all, Magee discovered the murdered Pope John Paul I, elected by mistake, and could be depended and relied on to keep his mouth shut about the extremely sinister aspects of that case. Magee kept quiet, and eventually ended up as a Bishop in the diocese of Cloyne. Djenkuje, Johnny, said the new Polish Pope, John Paul II. We won’t see ya stuck. Good man. Just don’t write a book, OK? And there you go. Johnny didn’t write a book. Johnny kept his trap shut and that keeps the Vatican happy, and of course, Brady is the Vatican’s man. According to Brady, Magee will now do everything in his power to ensure that clerical sexual abuse doesn’t happen in his diocese again. Hold on a minute. Am I missing something here? Does Brady not get it? This isn’t a new part of the job description for a bishop. This isn’t some radical ground-breaking discovery. It was always Magee’s job to prevent clerical sexual abuse, but he didn’t understand that, and Brady doesn’t seem to understand it either. They still don’t get it and the spin continues. He has begun to address these serious issues, says Brady. He has published the report, and apologised. He has introduced changes which need to be continued to ensure and to keep safeguarding at the top of the list of priorities. Listen. For six months he suppressed the report through empty legal threats and he only published it in the end because he had no choice. He apologised? Talk is cheap. He introduced changes to keep safeguarding at the top of the list of priorities? Correction. Safeguarding was never at the top of his priority list. That’s what his own report shows. That’s why he’s in trouble. They just don’t get it and they won’t get it until they’re forced to understand. Not only does Magee need to resign, but he also needs to be removed by the Minister from his position as patron of the schools in his diocese. Then he might have the time he needs to reflect on a life less useful, and maybe write that book after all.


Murphy Report Part 1

Murphy Report Part 2


All Bock posts on the Murphy Report


Also on Bock:

Bishop Magee – Where Do You Go To My Lovely?

John Magee, Bishop of Cloyne – Resign You Fucking Bastard

What Is Desmond Connell Trying To Keep Secret?
The Brothers of Charity– Raping Your Children Since 1883 !!
Cardinal Error: Brady Gets the Red Hat
Half God, Half Biscuit
Oh those feckin old bishops!

They Just Don’t Get It, Do They? __


Elsewhere Green Ink

Crime Religion Scandal

Seán (can I call you that?)

Archbishop Seán Brady
Co Down

18th December 2006

Dear Archbishop Brady,

May I call you Seán? I read your comments in the paper today, and I have to tell you that I agree completely with almost everything you said. You’re quite right that there’s more coarseness and aggression in Irish society than there used to be. You’re also correct in saying that there’s a lot more drinking and sexualisation of children at too early an age. Fair play to you for pointing it out.

I’m glad for you that you’ve learned so much in the last ten years about the suffering of abuse victims. This is a good thing for you. Also, I’m sorry you’ve seen a decline to zero in the numbers of people joining your priesthood. That’s terrible, for you.

I’m glad you’re so committed to child protection. This is very encouraging.

Seán, (can I call you that?), I grew up in an Ireland where your church demanded complete obedience. I grew up in an Ireland where your church thought it had the right to dictate to the government on what laws it passed. I grew up in an Ireland where bishops like you thought they could tell the Irish people how to vote.

Seán (can I call you that?), you’d do well not to be talking about the sexualisation of children. Your colleague and predecessor, Cathal Daly, declared that he had no authority over that child-abuser, Brendan Smyth, because he was a member of a religious order. It didn’t stop you, Seán (can I call you that?) from silencing an Augustinian priest in Dundalk who did no more than share an act of communion with some protestants. An act of love.

Seán (can I call you that?), if you think there’s a moral vacuum in Ireland, you’re dead right. You see, in the Ireland I grew up in, people like you demanded total obedience, and the Irish people set aside their critical faculties in your favour, because they thought you knew everything. No civic society developed because you, Seán (can I call you that?), took charge of the whole lot and decided where people could dance, what they could wear and who they could talk to.

So, Seán (can I call you that?), is it really any surprise that, when your people are exposed as money-grabbing, child-abusing, power-mad hypocrites, there might be a small bit of a moral vacuum?

I think not, Seán (can I call you that?).




They just don’t get it . . .