Â鶹ԼÅÄ

That the Catholic Church colluded in covering up Chesney's alleged involvement in the Claudy bombing smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. Where is the morality in acting in a way that assists an alleged bomber and murderer escape justice? It makes me wonder what a priest would have to do to be defrocked.

I think the behaviour of the Police and the British Government is much more significant in this story than that of the Church. The intelligence services had evidence which it chose not to pursue and dragged the Church into this situation. What alternative did Cardinal Conway have when told that the police and the State did not want to arrest him?

In his conclusions, the Ombudsman found that the RUC decision not to investigate Father Chesney was "wrong" and "contrary to a fundamental duty of police to investigate those suspected of criminality".
Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson has said the Government was "profoundly sorry" that the victims of the 1972 Claudy bombing and their families had been denied justice.
So what is to be undertaken now to give the remaining members of these families justice & closure?

It is breath-taking that the Roman Catholic church allowed someone suspected of being a mass murderer to continue on as a priest.

We seem to all be assuming the truth of this allegation. Even on a cursory reading of this very sketchy article, I can see at least one clanger: a cardinal of the Catholic Church does not have the authority to reassign a priest from one diocese to another. Only the relevant bishops can do that. Perhaps this priest was involved with the IRA, or perhaps he wasn't, but can we please leave the 'everybody knows the Church is evil' school of intellectualism at the door?

1. Honestly, after reading the silly response from post 2, I wonder is there really any true Christians left within the roman catholic religion.

2. It just goes to show "that" even the ira + catholic religion are colluding with the BRITISH STATE.

3. The roman catholic religion is to blame for keeping "that" DEMON on the Island of Ireland, so that he could carry on his Terrorist calling.

4. I think the British State should spend the same amount of money into a inquiry just the same as bloody sunday.

Who speaks for the victims? Let down by all!
We must remember matters such as this when we consider issues such as who carried out 9/11? The best indictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. They will do this again!

DK

I wonder if anyone here has put themselves in the position of those who were involved back at the time of the bombing. It would have been a next to impossible situation - imagine the rioting and accusations that would have erupted if the police had arrested a priest. It could well have led to more violence and there probably would have been huge doubts hanging over the validity of any evidence presented. I'm not sure this is such a black and white case of injustice as some are suggesting.

That said, it is a tragedy that justice cannot always be achieved and I'm sure this is all incredibly hurtful for many people. I hope that in their hurt, any of them who are Christians will be able to find comfort in God's promise that he will some day bring justice and that although the wicked and guilty seem to prosper in this life, that will not be so for eternity. I also hope that some grace can be shown to those who had such difficult decisions to make.

For 1700 years Catholicism has had a self imposed monopoly on Christendum and this latest whitewash only serves to illustrate that the movement was founded on political rather than religious grounds. Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity on political grounds and to ensure that the moribund Roman Empire would always have an influence on the plebians he himself (a reluctant pagan convert) asserted the tenets of Christendum. Spiritualists the world over need to wake up to the fact that no order of man can dictate the terms of spirituality - man, by definition is a flawed creature. The state of being spiritual is personal to the individual and "he who feels it, knows it." This sectarianism amongst all the religions of the world has always been - and always will be detrimental to the spiritual and social welfare of mankind. The Catholic Church, indeed all of the world's religious orders need to re-examine their objectives and be honest with their disciples - their respective doctrines are not divine but politicized. I always thought it ironic that the order who ostensibly revere Christ the most is the very same order that crucified him in the first place.

Jonathan Boyd's comment (8) is a total red herring. Did the non arrest of this priest end the violence? Of course not. If I remember right, William Whitelaw was also a Roman Catholic. Could it be that it was the reputation of the Roman Catholic church that was the major concern in the minds of all involved?

Interesting to hear that Mr Brady claims that the church interviewed Chesney. Are those records going to be made available?

After watching and listening to all the reports today regarding Claudy my thoughts and prayers are with all the families.

I watched John Snow interview Edward Daly on Ch4 news tonight, what a disgrace, it's the same arrogance that we the public had to listen to after the vile, filthy priests were caught out and named by the Ryan report, it makes me sick when I hear these so called carriers of Gods word cover up for each other, shame on you.

How in Gods name can anyone attend this so called church it's rotten to it's core.

God will judge them.

@Robertrev (10)

'Jonathan Boyd's comment (8) is a total red herring. Did the non arrest of this priest end the violence? Of course not.'

I'm not sure why you think I was suggesting that it did. As you point out, it fairly obviously didn't. Why would anyone expect it to? My point was that arresting him may have caused additional violence, suspicion of the stated and sectarian hatred or rather that such concerns may have featured in the minds of those who made the crucial decisions 38 years ago.

As for what the Catholic Church should have done with him, if he was never actually put on trial and never actually found guilty, then it's hardly a black and white case of 'they should have defrocked him and are utterly evil for not doing so.' It's very easy to condemn the actions people took and take the moral high-ground nearly 40 years later, but also an extraordinarily glib reading of the situation.

Was he the priest local people went to , to be consoled after he'd consorted with the IRA in blowing up & murdering their family and friends ? It sounds pretty sickening he wasn't asked to leave the church if nothing else. Can't imagine many people would feel comfortable being consoled by someone who had a hand in a loved ones murder. I spose at least if he was involved, he's in hell now

Willie Whitelaw was not a Catholic.

We have no information as to what precisely Cardinal Conway was told about the involvment of Chesney.

But, I repeat, responsibility for criminal law, as people have repeated many times in discussions over child abuse, lies with the police and the State.

That said - Jonathan has a point about appreciating the context of the early seventies. It mightn't be right but it has to be understood.

Mcc,

But, I repeat, responsibility for criminal law, as people have repeated many times in discussions over child abuse, lies with the police and the State

I agree, so why have the the catholic church been shown to repeatedly flaunt this by not reporting crimes and dealing with it themselves.

You sound a bit like a parrot for Brady, whatever he says you seem to believe and then tell us the same thing as if it is a fact. Even when the evidence points in the opposite direction. Brady and the rest cannot be trusted as they have used this line before and found to be covering up.

Mcc, has the catholic church been shown to have covered up crimes and perverted the course of justice in this or other cases?.

I'm with mccamleyc on this one...

Regardless of how reprehensible the actions of the Catholic Church may have been in this atrocity, the ultimate responsibility of justice and law enforcement lies with the State....period.

I would expect the Church to protect their own...historically, this has been their M.O. and I find it surprising that anyone is even remotely shocked by this "revelation."

I would also expect the State to protect the rights and interests of its citizens, and to actively pursue and prosecute those who would endanger the rights and interests of others.

I don't elect the Catholic Church to serve as my representative on matters of law and order. My government, however, is another matter entirely...

lgchi,

I do not disagree that the ultimate responsibility lies with the State, that is as it should be, but too many times in the past has the church (and the catholic church is not alone in this but at the moment is under most scrutiny) used its influence to cover up the crimes of its employees.

That is not really the issue here though. Brady etc. are suggesting that the catholic church had no role in this at all which is impossible to accept from the report. I can accept that they went along with it for whatever reason but not that they were not involved or did not know what was really going on.

I can understand why all concerned tried to cover it up. Clergy, like Red Cross etc, have nearly always had a neutral position in areas of conflict which allowed them to carry out humanitarian work, if this neutrality is blown then the 'goodwill' they enjoy from both sides is blown as well and open season on all humanitarian agencies is the result.

You can almost see in this the state asking the church to 'sort out this problem' as either state arrest or execution would have been disastrous, one side would have said it was oppression and an attack on their faith the other as an excuse to attack all clergy. Either way the outcome was unacceptable in an already volatile and escalating sphere of conflict.

So I understand the decisions made in the context of the time, what I do not accept is this painting of the church (by Brady and Mcc etc.) as whiter than white in their part in the cover-up.

Sometimes conflicts call for less than perfect solutions (and denial of justice for victims is certainly less than perfect) to problems and when those decisions come to light later and the danger has passed we should at least be honest about them. The catholic church seems to have a problem with honesty and openness.

I am sure that this is not the only case of people getting away with murder in this conflict or in most others and I am sure it will not be the last, sometimes it is better to try and save lives than to extract every last piece of justice.

What is about truth being the first casualty...

I’m sorry if my opinion angers some, but I am not convinced by the report. I have read it in detail, and much of the ‘evidence’ is second and third hand accounts from former RUC inspectors – and they were not exactly what I would call an un-biased institution – And unnamed intelligence sources.
Also the famous letter that started this process was proven – in the course of this investigation – that the writer was not a Catholic Priest as the letter contained SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. He kept referring to Chesney as John when in fact his name was James; He stated that Fr. Chesney had confessed to him at Malin Head, when records show that Fr. Chesney had not been posted to Malin Head; the author wrote that they both attended Maynooth Seminary when at the time there were no Irish Priests in England from Maynooth. Finally when the P.O. called for the writer to step forward no one did.
Furthermore the report makes mention that the Chesney’s name only began to show up when a widely held belief had formed within the Unionist community of Fr. Chesney’s involvement in 1973.
Finally onto the RC Church’s perceived role in the cover-up…my question would be what exactly should they have done? At the time all their was rumor and innuendo that he was a member of the Provisionals…and need I remind everyone that following Bloody Sunday the widely held belief was that everyone at the march was a Provo so why would anyone take rumors at face value, especially in Derry during the early 70’s. The RUC not only refused to investigate, they refused to even speak to the man….leaving that up to the Bishops…who questioned him five times each with the same response…so what exactly were they to do? Finally many would ask why he was moved out of the province…well if my name was floating about certain circles of Northern Ireland as being in bed with the IRA, I would certainly be gone as fast as possible as it would not be the police I would be worried about but the UVF….Again apologies if my opinion makes anyone uncomfortable however it is my opinion and after reading the report I feel that there are enough holes to drive a lorry through.

Having thought long and hard about this report, I have come to the conclusion that for political expediency certain people where excluded from being interviewed. I don't blame the detectives who where investigating what happened. They have to obey their superiors on how any investigation is conducted. If my memory serves me right, so called secret talks where going on between Sinn Feinn and the government. As I write this I have just on the news that an RUC detective was told not to to see the priest and was told to "leave him alone" as it would be sorted out. I believe that the decision not to after certain people was made at Prime Ministerial level and this political interference at its worse. I also beleve that their have been other murders aswell where Downing Street has interfered in police investigations like the murder of Rev Robert Bradford.It was said at the time of Rev Bradford's murder that he was going to expose some major scandal and was taken out by the IRA with a blind eye being given to silence him. I for am NOT surprised by what came out of the report by the police ombudsman. I wonder if Nula O'Loan had of been still police ombudsman would she had been so thorough in reaching this decision.

Sean, you are building a nice conspiracy theory there. All sorts of people were out to blacken Father Chesneys name but you leave out Ivan Cooper! Why would an ex civil rights activist accuse Father Chesney unless he had good reason to believe it.

Of course there are people in government, the deputy first minister no less, who must know something about the people concerned, but they are staying silent.

Presumably all this started with military intelligence sources. Would anyone be surprised to discover that the whole thing was to protect a high level agent? Perfidious Albion at work again?

But to get back to the question - what were Cardinal Conway's options? Take out an ad in the Irish News saying the RUC and British Government's in the IRA but they won't investigate him further?

It all comes down to onething, the roman catholic church "IS" at fault.

Also the murder of Rev Bradford a TRUE man of God should be fully, truly and honestly investigated by someone else rather than the British state.

Onething is also true, it wasn't just the Loyalists who were

It all comes down to onething, the roman catholic church "IS" at fault.

Also the murder of Rev Bradford a TRUE man of God should be fully, truly and honestly investigated by someone else rather than the British state.

One other thing is also true, it wasn't just the Loyalists who were colluding with the British state.

MCC,

Would anyone be surprised to discover that the whole thing was to protect a high level agent?

Where is your evidence for such an assertion (in this specific case) or is it just trying to muddy the waters and provide deflection from the real evidence (such that it is).

The option the church did not take was to say

"No we will not collude in a perversion of justice or in hampering an investigation. If there are allegations against a priest then let them be proved through the judicial system. Father Chesney will make himself amenable to detectives."

If necessary they could have done it in the Irish News

For whatever reasons this option was not taken, maybe for what appeared at the time very valid reasons, but to deny involvement now is dishonest and disingenuous, but is in line with what we have come to expect from the church. Any admission of wrongdoing is rejected until the truth is dragged out of them and then they seem to resent being found out.

nobledeebee I am not diasagreeing with the possibility that Fr. Chesney was a member of the PIRA he very well could have been, howver I am just stating that this report is very light on evidence and nearly everyone involved is dead so there is no way to actually prove if any of these "intelligence sources" are factual, and considering we are not told what or who these sources are I simply cannot accept them at face value as credible. You mention Ivan Cooper and I read the Guardian as well...Mr. Cooper states the Fr. Chesney was a very vocal republican which is accepted he did not say he was in the IRA...which is a distinction that should be made and in my experience those republicans who are outwardly vocal do not get recruited into the IRA since they have outted themselves...but hey who knows. My point is, unless there is someone who was there or knew something first hand how can I take this as fact. Here is a novel idea...if Fr. Chesney acted as a IRA leader in Derry why not simply ask Martin McGuinness? Give him immunity from prosecution and ask him what he knows.

Once again, in the Father Chesney case, we see how men of ‘authority’ twisted and distorted morality during the Troubles. A priest of the Christian Gospel who ministered to children assisted in the blowing up of an 8-year-old girl and eight 8 other innocents.

And what about the other ‘men of authority’ who let him literally get away with murder? Here we find more moral contortions. We are told that If there was a public disclosure of his involvement in Claudy, other priests might be considered legitimate targets. In the Telegraph Malachi ODoherty and Eamonn McCann seem to imply that in this case church and state had no alternative. But they did and they should have done.

For a start, if loyalists were aware of the suspicions that Father Chesney was involved in Claudy, this would not only have confirmed their anti-Catholic bigotry to them, but it could also be used to justify their existence and their killing, since the state was not doing its job of protecting innocent citizens and punishing the guilty but implicitly colluding in the notion that a priest was 'above’ the law.Ìý

As for the IRA itself, if priests were actively involved in bombing people or supporting the campaign, and they were not ‘punished’, then they may have reasoned that perhaps the Church secretly approved of it. “After all, if priests are actively helping us, it can’t really be wrong, can it?�

On the Protestant side, too, men of religion could be used by men of violence to justify their actions. Paisley’s warnings of a Romish plot to take over Ulster may have offered a similar spurious moral authority to kill the people who posed the threat.

The truth is that the Troubles were a moral morass, and Claudy proves that both church and state contributed to it.

Dave, Fr. Chesney was moved to Donegal, not Mars and the RC church has always stated that Detectives were free to question him at any time they wished - in fact IF you had read the report, it absolves the Church of any charges of criminal behavior, and placing it all at the feet of the RUC and NIO. Look I am not saying that anyone comes out of this looking like gold, but IF the RUC were honest in their reports in 1972, IF these intelligence sources are reliable and not simply criminals on the leash of Special Branch, IF Cardinal Conway ever spoke directly to Chesney, IF the letter with no name and no address and all the erors is real, and finally IF Fr. Chesney was involved in the bombing or IF he just gave two lads a ride as he said in a statement, IF the RC Church knew what Chesney was up to, IF this and IF that...this is my issue there are far too many IF's to come up with such a definitive statement as the Government colluded with the church and police to protect a murderer.

SeanD1981,

I have not said, nor has the report, that the catholic church has been involved in criminal behaviour.

What I have said is that the catholic church colluded with the the RUC (at the highest levels) and the NIO to block and frustrate investigations and remove persons from the theatre of an investigation which both thought would be damaging to the already unstable situation.

My point is that the church had a decision to make, it could
1)believe the suspicions of the RUC were groundless and so told them to go hang
2)believe the suspicions had grounds and collude with the RUC to find the most expeditious solution (and cover their own proverbials)
3)believe the suspicions had grounds but refuse to collude and force the RUC's hand to execute judicial enquiry.


The report concludes that they chose the middle one which is the most grubby (in hindsight and viewed from our context) but they are now trying to appear whiter than white again. It is all someone else's fault.

BTW Donegal might as well have been Mars for all the good it would have done the RUC if they wanted to question him and for all they might say the catholic church could not have forced him back to Northern Ireland.

Seems to be one rule for the Roman Catholic Church regardless of the allegations and another for all and sundry.

I wonder if one day they will deny the existence of God as they seem to be to total denial.

Fr Tim Bartlett has suggested on Sunday Sequence that the decisions surrounding Fr Jim Chesney were "for the greater good". My interpretation is that is a sad inditement of the Catholic Church that it has taken 38 years to admit the sacrifice of the largely forgotten victims and people of Claudy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Contributors should remember that the Catholic Church beleives itself to operate outside the law of the state. As is more than apparent from its mishandling of the child abuse allegations- the Catholic Church beleives that it is not accountable to the state. This is why the Bishop of Derry (& the Archbishop of Armagh)would have welcomed the RUC's cover up. Why should anyone be shocked that an organisation that does all it can to hide child abusers would not also welcome the initiative of the corrupt police force in NI to cover up a terrorist priest?

Questions.

1. What did the security forces say to Bishy Conway which prompted them to move him to Donegal? Can we only speculate?

2. If the security forces thought he was in the RA, why would they not just have had the priest whacked by their loyalist dogs? Lesser reasons have provoked such deaths.

3. Would you trust the word of RUC/British Army inteligence report?

redflyfisher,
Sorry for agreeing with you, it appears someone else didn't like me having an opinion.

This all happened back in 1972 - a different time, different politicians. In my opinion, it was correct that Willy Whitelaw covered up the priest's involvement and no matter what the IRA and their fellow-travellers say, the RUC were sensitive enough to the public order issues not to pursue an RC priest.
On the other hand, however, the RC Church could now come out and apologise for its part in the cover-up rather than try to deny its total innocence in the affair. After all everyone else has apologised, why not the RC Church?
The priest died in 1980 from cancer, I read somewhere. Certainly if that is true - and has it been checked, was there anything odd about his death? - he got sufficient punishment.
And hasn't McGuiness and Adams been very quiet about the issue? What do they know of this priest and his involvement with the IRA?

Well said cullybackeyjim, the RUC in that instance made a judgment call in the interests of public order.The Catholic Church now needs to tell the truth, but is anyone holding their breath?