The Last Word…. Final response to Cardinal Brady Emeritus Archbishop of Armagh

coat of armscb1

Following my mail to the Cardinal and his swift reply indicating his willingness to meet it became clear that this response was not genuine. I sought clarification and got no reply……

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/part-one-of-the-correspondence-between-the-director-of-dialogue-ireland-and-cardinal-brady/
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/part-two-of-the-correspondence-between-the-director-of-dialogue-ireland-and-cardinal-brady/
——– Original Message ——–
From: – Thu Aug 28 17:32:19 2014
From: Dialogue Ireland info@dialogueireland.org

To: Sharon Murphy smurphy@aracoeli.com

Subject: Re: Message from Cardinal Brady

Dear Cardinal Brady,

Further to my response to your kind invitation to meet I was talking to Sharon today to clarify the nature of our meeting.
As it is likely that we will not have access to much documentation while in Mellifont would it be a good idea if you could respond to my last email however, not in detail. In other words do you accept my thesis in regard to the House of Prayer and the canonical context for Fr McGinnity? Is our meeting to process an agreement or is it about your totally disagreeing with me and then needing to agree to differ? Giving me some sense of where you are in our dialogue would be most helpful. I understand you have a busy schedule in September, so am grateful for your response to this on your return.
I believe it is the Collins company that goes past the door.


Regards

MIKE GARDE MA

There was a total silence and the Cardinal did not keep his word to respond and make arrangements to meet.

——– Original Message ——–
From: – Thu Oct 02 17:46:55 2014
From: Dialogue Ireland info@dialogueireland.org

To: Sharon Murphy smurphy@aracoeli.com

CC: Cardinal Sean Brady admin@aracoeli.com

Subject: Re: Message from Cardinal Brady

Dear Cardinal Brady,

I am writing to you having given you at least two days grace in regard to your email below in which you proposed to meet me and would contact me in early September.
I can understand that with your retirement at the beginning of September your plans would have been altered but with your promise to meet came a duty of care to me to respond. I have since written to you at the end of August to discuss the terms of our meeting as they were not clear from your email below.
Last week when you had not kept your word to contact me I contacted the office in Armagh and between us they have gathered up all the correspondence and prepared a file for you.
They also indicated that you had not taken up your new responsibilities and were then away and would be still at your residence there.
I understand you were at your last meeting as head of the Episcopal Conference up till yesterday.
I need to know whether you intend to keep to your agreement to bring closure to the victims of the House of Prayer, or whether you now wish us to take this to your successor?
Regardless of your role now it will have to be Archbishop Martin who as the ordinary addresses the issue of Fr McGinnity’s role in giving succour to a schismatic and an unrecognised entity, and the more minor issue of Fr McGinnity’s absence from his role as PP every Saturday. The canonical issues related to fundraising on behalf of a person who is patently a fraud and the issues of allowing vulnerable Catholics, generally older to be hoodwinked would also be involved. (Elder abuse.)
Also their seems to be a need for the Episcopal Conference to take a hold of the process as Archbishop Neary seems to be unable to move beyond “Non Recognition” of the House of Prayer.
This means that the faithful are flying without radar and believe themselves to be in a safe place. Your letter to me means you believe that to be the case as well.
It is clear that the Code of Canon Law from 1983 seems to be defective in moving onto condemnation and excommunication where it would be clear where the rubber hits the road.

I hope you will honour your agreement to meet and I will look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.


Regards

MIKE GARDE MA

——– Original Message ——–
From: – Mon Oct 06 17:15:53 2014
From: Una Kennedy ukennedy@aracoeli.com

To: info@dialogueireland.org info@dialogueireland.org

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2014 17:15:03 +0100
Subject: RE: Message from Cardinal Brady
Dear Mr Garde
Thank you for your emails.
I have been out of the country recently on business and hence the delay in replying.
When I originally agreed to meet you I was, of course, then Archbishop of Armagh. Since 8 September and the acceptance, by Pope Francis, of my resignation, as you noted, the situation has changed totally. I am no longer Archbishop of Armagh and I do not believe that a meeting between us would contribute to the resolution of the difficulties which you wish to discuss.

Yours sincerely

Archbishop Emeritus of Armagh
Diocesan Office
Archdiocese of Armagh
Ara Coeli, Cathedral Road
Armagh, BT61 7QY
Tel (028) 3752 2045

Friday 31st October 2014

Dear Cardinal Brady,

Thank you for your belated reply, which I have considered for a few weeks.I am hereby concluding our correspondence with a few observations. While it is true you are no longer Archbishop of Armagh you have a duty of care to your successor to actually address the issues you have failed to address during your term of office from 1996 until 2014.

The people who sought your help still wish to hear from you and your changed status has no bearing on the issue. You can as a human being address the pain and confusion your inaction has caused.
Because you failed to respond to these cries many called on me to seek to address them with you and to receive a response from you.

When you agreed to meet me in September you had already handed in your resignation and knew you were not going to be Archbishop. I can only conclude that your offer to meet was totally bogus as you had no intention of honouring it.
cb12

It now obviously, falls to your successor to address this 21 year saga. However, my mandate was to contact you and you are still able to meet but have chosen to hide behind technicalities. I will report to the group of people who have sought to use the offices of Dialogue Ireland not to seek a new mandate, but rather to suggest to them that they should go directly to your successor, Eamon Martin to seek a hearing.
Having reviewed your correspondence it is clear you have no issue with Fr McGinnity and see no problem in his involvement with the House of Prayer.
Having such an attitude it would be impossible to obtain relief for the victims. In fact they say to me they found your defence of Fr McGinnity very painful.

Yesterday I sent the file of this correspondence to the Archbishop of Tuam and the Nuncio and asked them to forward this file to the Pope for his consideration.
Now I am again going to copy them in my final correspondence with you but I am also going to add Archbishop Eamon Martin for other reasons.
Eamon Martin
1. He will have to evaluate the issues concerning the House of Prayer from the perspective of his role as Ordinary of Armagh and the role of Fr McGinnity who is a priest of your diocese.
2. As head of the Episcopal Conference he needs to engage with the Archdiocese of Tuam in that one of his priests is giving succour to an unrecognised group there.
Up till now these two dioceses are playing pass the parcel.
3. He needs with all the Bishops to address the pastoral needs of thousands affected from Donegal, to Kerry and from Cork to Antrim who believe they are going to a place which is in union with the Catholic Church. They seem oblivious to the view expressed by the Tuam archdiocese that it has no recognition. This is likely due to the role exercised by Fr McGinnity.
This policy of non recognition has singularly failed and has brought the Archbishop of Tuam into disrepute as people regard his stance as weak and without teeth.
It is clear that for ordinary Catholics to be absolutely clear a process of disciplining Fr McGinnity needs to occur.
Also the house of Prayer needs to be condemned and excommunication needs to result.
Looking at it from the perspective of fraud and the abuse of the elderly this is going to produce a bitter harvest. Any rejection of my appeal to you from within your canonical cocoon will not change the fact that a person claiming to be a Catholic visionary has enriched herself ably abetted by a priest in good standing.
This is a ponzi scheme and a pyramid scheme of shameful proportions.


Regards

MIKE GARDE MA

DIRECTOR

Friday 31st October 2014
Letter sent to the Papal Nuncio and Archbishop of Tuam with a request to send it on to the Pope.
I humbly request for you to respond to this file
Dear Archbishop Michael, and Charles,

I am writing as the Director of Dialogue Ireland. I have written to you both before requesting assistance with the victims
of the House of Prayer. I am not writing to Armagh as the process I started is not complete.
I would request you to read the file I am attaching and send it to the CDF for investigation.
I would also request it would be in all humility be forwarded to the Pope for his consideration.
Many of the victims have not received an appropriate response from the Nuncio, from Tuam or Armagh and wrote to the Pope directly.
None received a reply from him.
I appeal to you before this horrendous fraud and open sore festers out of control to act.

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/part-one-of-the-correspondence-between-the-director-of-dialogue-ireland-and-cardinal-brady/
https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2014/10/30/part-two-of-the-correspondence-between-the-director-of-dialogue-ireland-and-cardinal-brady/

Regards

MIKE GARDE MA

DIRECTOR

One Response

  1. All along the Cardinal and Hierarchy is afraid to burst the bubble of faith of the victims of this outrageous scam out of fear for the Knock on effects to more benign Marian devotion .
    Also afraid to openly confront Fr McGinnity out of fear of resurrecting the Maynooth scandal where he was the whistle-blower.
    It’s the sin of silence when he should protest that makes cowards of men . Canon law for heresy and simony should have been applied.
    Why does the shepherd not care for his flock maybe because the Institution of the Church is more important to protect from scandal
    so to hell with the victims and their concerned families.
    This is the ultimate betrayal of all decent Catholics
    The Cardinal has no clothes or cover story should be the cry

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: