Religious Misunderstandings and the Case of Cardinal Sean Brady

Religion is increasingly seen as outdated, outmoded and outranked by twenty-first century dilemmas such as politics, economics and the trivial but trendy fashion scenes. In fact, despite being classed a Catholic country, it gradually appears that we are perhaps more catholic in culture than by practice.

We distance ourselves from religion, which seems logical given that these organisations once proffering hope feature in our lives more and more through media stories, and negative media stories at that.

Whether it’s an anti-gay movement, or a slur on Islam, the religion crisis continuously rears its head and is so often something that twenty-first century paraphernalia attempts to shield us from.

Take, for example, the current case of Cardinal Brady, wrapped amidst a certain fervour concerning a, somewhat archetypal news piece, of paedophilia within the church.

On Tuesday, a BBC documentary revealed that in 1975, a 14-year-old boy who had been sexually abused by a paedophile priest, Fr Brendan Smyth, gave the then Fr Brady the names of other children who had been abused.

The scandal however is focussed on the fact that the Father did not then proceed to inform either parents or relevant police officials about the information that had been divulged to him.

Yet, whilst many people have suddenly jumped on the bandwagon, so to speak, in support of the Cardinal’s removal, that quick logic ignores cornerstone doctrine of the church itself that has been respected for centuries.

The idea that most probably held the Father’s tongue was that sanctity of confession, where the priest is not allowed to repeat, by oath, anything which he has been told over the course of the religious practice.

It is a fairly obstinate routine for twenty-first century officials, but it has well served various people across the millennia as a source of forgiveness and secrecy. Since it is not clear whether this confused teenager was more confused rather than angry, there is a problematic situation in deciding how far the priest is guilty of any wrong-doing.

This is not necessarily to read as an exoneration: from my perspective, the priest should have acted to protect those of his parish. However, it highlights that perhaps the now cardinal has risen to his current position by always practicing the letter of religious teachings. His mediation of his role has been taken extremely seriously and in fact he could consider that repeating something spoken in confidence would in fact injure his religious duties.

Different ideals between religion and other aspects of society are frequent cause for divide then, and there are calls for reformation of practice. Yet, it is interesting that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council which made profound reforms in the Church. The Roman Catholic mind-set is one in which admissions and revisions have been granted for this age of society, even if others think it needs to go further.

Whilst the 2001 census found more than 71% of people in the UK to deem themselves Catholic, a Guardian/ICM pollin 2006 found that just 33% describe themselves as "a religious person" while 82% see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. The Ipsos MORI poll in 2003 reported that only 18% were "a practising member of an organised religion".

Marred by a crisis of faith and a constant string of negative images from child abuse to supporting social inequalities, the Catholic church, and particularly the Roman Catholic church, has to come a considerable way towards twenty-first century life if it is to spark a revival and capture the imaginations of the majority.

To read more about various perspectives on the Cardinal’s position, see this BBC news report.