Catholicus - diarium in tela

The Irish Times front page today has a story on Sean Cardinal Brady's pay-off to the second man, one of the teenagers he swore to secrecy concerning Fr Brendan Smyth back in 1975.  The deal will be recorded in the High Court today.

The Irish Times reports that "In June 2010 Cardinal Brady reached an out-of-court settlement, said to be worth more than €250,000, with the other teenager whose abuse by Smyth he investigated in 1975."

Now my question is, how did Sean Brady fund a pay-off of a quarter of a million quid last year and whatever he's agreed to pay today?

And more importantly, did any of this money come from the funds of the Archdiocese of Armagh?  If so, on what possible basis could this be justified?  Did the Diocese of Kilmore fund it?  Did the Norbertines?

Time for answers, if not to us, at some point to the Revenue Commissioners/Charity Commissioners.
--------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE - 5th DECEMBER

Statement by the Catholic Communications Office correcting today’s Irish Times article referring to Cardinal Seán Brady – 30 November 2011

A news report carried on the front page of today’s Irish Times referring to Cardinal Seán Brady, and a High Court case which has been settled by the Archdiocese of Armagh and Mr Brendan Boland, includes some serious inaccuracies.  As a follow-on to this article a number of journalists have contacted the Catholic Communications Office today citing this report as part of their own news research.  The following information is now being issued to correct the record:

The settlement has been agreed between the plaintiff and the Archdiocese of Armagh on the basis that abuse suffered by the plaintiff occurred in the archdiocese.

It is not true that Cardinal Brady reached a settlement with another teenager involved.

The other teenager referred to in this newspaper report was not Ms Marie McCormack.  The other teenager has never brought any action against Cardinal Brady or the Archdiocese of Armagh.  Therefore, the Irish Times statement that “In June 2010 Cardinal Brady reached an out of court settlement … with the other teenager who was abused by Fr Brendan Smyth in 1975” is false.

The reference in this news report of payment to Ms McCormack is also wholly inaccurate.  Ms McCormack settled her case with the Norbertine Order.  All compensation was paid by the Norbertines.  No contribution was made by the Archdiocese of Armagh or by Cardinal Brady to the damages paid to Ms McCormack.

Separately, when Cardinal Brady was recently asked to offer an apology and to acknowledge and accept the failings of the Church in its handling of the case, he immediately offered to meet Mr Boland, in person, to offer that apology.  Whilst this offer was not accepted it still stands.  Cardinal Brady feels that this is the most appropriate way to offer an apology in the circumstances.

ENDS

Further information:

Catholic Communications Office Maynooth: Martin Long 00353 (0) 86 172 7678 and Brenda Drumm 00353 (0) 87 310 4444

-------------------------------------------

MY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS

"The settlement has been agreed between the plaintiff and the Archdiocese of Armagh on the basis that abuse suffered by the plaintiff occurred in the archdiocese."  This is a rather curious statement, is it not?  When did geography become important in matters such as these?  In what way was the Archdiocese of Armagh legally liable for the actions of a priest from the Norbertines and a priest from Kilmore?  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something.

"It is not true that Cardinal Brady reached a settlement with another teenager involved."  I have been known to use very specific language to get myself out of trouble - "Did you throw a glass of milk at my window?"  "No!" (it was a cup and more of a drop from above than a throw).  So there's been no settlement with the other teenager involved (i.e. Marie Mc Cormack).  I've lost track.  I can't figure out if there are now three teenagers - Marie, the "other teenager involved" and a third teenager, not involved but somehow the recipient of a settlement payment.