Just what is a resigning matter for cardinal?

Dear sir - I would like to respond to Paul Murphy's viewpoint article in defence of Cardnal Sean Brady (Meath Chronicle, 12th May) in which he states: "A decision by Sean Brady to resign now would be to give in to a very evident mob mentality. He has done no wrong and the sins of omission in dealing with this awful case should be left to other people to deal with." Now while I agree that it can be unfair to retrospectively expect people living and toiling away in the 1960s and '70s to be judged by 2012 sensibilities and expectations; nevertheless the claims by Cardinal Brady that recent revelations about his role in the Brendan Boland case are not a resigning matter, leaves me somewhat confused. Is questioning of an abused child without the knowledge or consent of the child's parents - a resigning matter? Is forcing child victims to sign sworn oaths forbidding them to talk about the interviews with anybody who might be in a position to help - a resigning matter? Is failing to alert legal authorities and parents of what was happening - a resigning matter? Failure to do the right thing in any one of the above areas may not in itself justify resignation but failure in all three. Cardinal Brady is probably a very decent and good man and is unfortunate to find himself caught up in this sordid mess but he has now lost credibility and in the opinion of one who is not of the mob mentality I feel he should resign so that closure and healing of this very sad saga can take place. If this does not happen then could I ask Mr Murphy who does he suggest are the 'other people' who can deal with this awful case? The fantastic young priests of Navan parish and priests from other parishes throughout Ireland should be allowed continue their great work without the spectre of these ugly scandals regularly demoralising them. Yours, Noel Holian, Dublin Road, Navan.