Ongoing religious scandals

UDP · 02-10-2012 9:10am

MrPudding wrote: »

I really don't see how those trusts can stand. Sham trusts can be challenged. Trust created to defeat creditors can be assed as sham trusts. If the government chose to I expect they could get to the property.

MrP

Exactly, its no different than the Quinns moving assets around or builders "gifting" assets to their wife to protect them. Scumbags the lot of them.

robindch · 02-10-2012 10:53am

MrPudding wrote: »

I really don't see how those trusts can stand. Sham trusts can be challenged.[...] If the government chose to I expect they could get to the property.

I think the crucial phrase there is "If the government chose to".

Now, call me cynical, but I don't think the government will choose to; even if they do stand to recoup, on behalf of the taxpayer, perhaps 1,000 times what the closure of the Vatican embassy saved.

MrPudding · 02-10-2012 12:36pm

robindch wrote: »

I think the crucial phrase there is "If the government chose to".

Now, call me cynical, but I don't think the government will choose to; even if they do stand to recoup, on behalf of the taxpayer, perhaps 1,000 times what the closure of the Vatican embassy saved.

I don't disagree with you, but I think it is important to clarify that the actions of the church, in cynically divesting itself of assets, is not the reason the government cannot seize those assets, ir is merely a lack of will on the governments part.

MrP

robindch · 02-10-2012 6:16pm

The trial of Ratzinger's butler has started, but quite dramatically with the trial judge ordering an inquiry into claims of police maltreatment within the Vatican's walls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19795742

Nodin · 02-10-2012 6:19pm

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't disagree with you, but I think it is important to clarify that the actions of the church, in cynically divesting itself of assets, is not the reason the government cannot seize those assets, ir is merely a lack of will on the governments part.

MrP

Well they can't seize them without court action, and given the time thats been allowed pass since the initial revelations not to mention the offences, securing convictions of a 'corporate' nature (as I presume they'd have to be) may not be that easy.

I do however agree that there seems no political will to tackle the issue.

MrPudding · 02-10-2012 8:40pm

Nodin wrote: »

Well they can't seize them without court action, and given the time thats been allowed pass since the initial revelations not to mention the offences, securing convictions of a 'corporate' nature (as I presume they'd have to be) may not be that easy.

I do however agree that there seems no political will to tackle the issue.

Passage of time is not really relevent to this issue. No convictions are required. The church, or the various orders, owe an amount of money to the government as per an arrangement that was made. Subsequent to the arrangement, which is questionable itself, be church and various orders transferred assets to trusts instruments run by people sympathetic to the church.

Making the assumption that the law of trusts in Ireland is similar to that in the uk, which is not unreasonable, these trusts are on very shaky ground. Sham trusts will generally not hold up when challenged. Transfers of property, where the intention was to defeat creditors, are sham trusts. If challenged successfully in court it is as if the transfers never happened.

Anyone can make a trust and can do so for any reason. Whether it is properly formed for proper reasons only becomes relevent when challenged. All the transfers that have been carried out by the church and the orders are, right now, perfectly valid. They have done exactly what was intended, if they aren't challenged nothing changes. All the government needs to do is challenge the validity of the trusts. It is a civil matter. No convictions needed. Just the will to say "hold on. You can't agree to pay damages or discover you are liable for damages, then transfer assets to sympathetically run trusts and then claim poverty when the bill arrives for your part of the agreement or damages are awarded to your victims."

To be honest, I think this sham trust scam the church has engaged in is of a similar level of despicability to the cover up. It shows just how little this organisation cares for its victims. Disgraceful.

MrP

aidan24326 · 03-10-2012 7:15pm

MrPudding wrote: »

To be honest, I think this sham trust scam the church has engaged in is of a similar level of despicability to the cover up. It shows just how little this organisation cares for its victims. Disgraceful.

MrP

The church only cares about protecting its own interests in all of this. And I don't know why anyone would be in the least bit surprised by that. Look how they behaved while these abuses were actually taking place. Everything was cover-up after cover-up, protect our own position of power at all costs, even if that cost includes children being beaten and raped. You get the impression some of them still don't think they even did anything wrong. The State should aggressively chase the religious orders for the money they owe. Unfortunately I can't see that happening.

gctest50 · 03-10-2012 8:18pm

robindch wrote: »

The trial of Ratzinger's butler has started, but quite dramatically with the trial judge ordering an inquiry into claims of police maltreatment within the Vatican's walls:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19795742

"Police said Mr Gabriele, once one of fewer than 10 people who had the key to an elevator leading to the private papal apartment, had printed instructions on how to hide files in computers and how to use cellphones secretly."

from : http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/butler-stole-papers-pope-wanted-destroyed-police-275226

Delirium · 08-10-2012 9:22am

Bishop knew priest moved by him went on to abuse again

BISHOP OF Clonfert John Kirby has been aware since the mid-1990s that a priest he moved following allegations of child sex abuse continued to abuse children in his new parish, contrary to statements by the bishop last month.

Twice last month Bishop Kirby asserted that the priest in question did not abuse children in the parish to which he moved him.

However, the priest, sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment in 1994 for the sexual abuse of one child in Co Galway, told Bishop Kirby in the mid-1990s he had abused 17 children in the diocese.

This emerged when Bishop Kirby visited the priest while he was serving his jail sentence at Arbour Hill between 1994 and 1998.

Full Article

FouxDaFaFa · 08-10-2012 3:52pm

He's already saying that the Irish Times is wrong and that he's pissed that they are causing further suffering to victims by publishing this.

I really, really doubt IT would have published such a serious allegation without backing it up.

Galway Advertiser: "Contrary to what is stated in today's Irish Times, I am not aware of an acknowledgement by 'Priest A' that he abused any child subsequent to October 1990, the date when I first learned of his sexual abuse of a child."
The bishop said that he had not received any complaints that 'Priest A' has abused a child in either of the parishes he was transferred to.
He said: "I have neither knowledge nor suspicion that 'Priest A' abused a child in either of the parishes of Kiltormer or Creagh subsequent to October 1990."
Bishop Kirby said that he wanted to correct the public record on the matter.
"I regret that this again could serve to exacerbate the hurt which my earlier widely publicised remarks have caused to victims of child sexual abuse and to their families," he said.
A review of child protection practices in Clonfert was published in September by the National Board for Safeguarding Children.
It found that nine child abuse allegations had been made against four priests, including 'Priest A', between 1975 and 2011.
Bishop Kirby apologised to survivors for comments he made following the publication of the report.
He said that 20 years ago he "hadn't a clue" how paedophiles operated and that he had believed that child abuse was a "friendship that crossed a boundary line".

recedite · 08-10-2012 9:47pm

This one is going to be very interesting, the Bishop is obviously going to try to "brazen it out," but the Irish Times will not want to drop it because that would be tantamount to admitting they had made up the story.
The details seem very specific, and the "statutory authorities" would have a record of the admissions of guilt by the priest in prison, and the visit by the bishop.

The Irish Times wrote:

Nine of these were in Kiltormer parish, from where he was removed by Bishop Kirby when it emerged in 1990 he had abused a child there. He was then moved to Creagh parish where, it is believed, he claimed to have abused five more children.
Priest A also said he abused a further two children in Portumna and one other in the diocese.
It is understood that Priest A disclosed all these details to Bishop Kirby, as well as to statutory authorities, while serving his prison sentence in Arbour Hill.
In 1994 Priest A was sentenced to 10 years, with five suspended as he pleaded guilty. He was in prison until 1998.
Priest A gave the 17 names to Bishop Kirby after the bishop had been approached by a mother in the diocese who was anxious to know whether her son had been abused by Priest A. Bishop Kirby visited Priest A at Arbour Hill to secure the list of victims.

I'm guessing the Bishop may have been emboldened by the recent vindication of the African based priest against RTE when they alleged he had fathered a child out there. What he may not fully realise is that
(a)Fathering a child is not a huge crime in the real world
(b) That allegation was unfounded in that particular case (as proven by the scientific wonders of DNA testing)

The best the Bishop can hope for, is that when the record of his visit to Arbour Hill is produced, he can say "we only talked about the weather" and some people will believe him.
/grabs popcorn

Sarky · 08-10-2012 9:53pm

I'm from Kiltormer. Holy f*ck.

joseph brand · 08-10-2012 10:08pm

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e#Connections_with_the_Catholic_Church

Connections with the Catholic Church
The Ustaše held the position that Eastern Orthodoxy, as a symbol of Serbian nationalism to them, was their greatest foe. The Ustaše never recognized the existence of a Serb people on the territories of Croatia or Bosnia they recognized only "Croats of the Eastern faith." They also called Bosnian Muslims "Croats of the Islamic faith," but they had a stronger ethnic dislike of Serbs.
Some former priests, mostly Franciscans, took part in the atrocities themselves. Miroslav Filipović was a Franciscan friar (from the Petrićevac monastery), who joined the Ustaša army on 7 February 1942 in a brutal massacre of 2730 Serbs of the nearby villages, including 500 children. He was hanged for his war crimes in his Franciscan robes. Filipović became Chief Guard of Jasenovac concentration camp where he was nicknamed "Fra Sotona" by the camp inmates.
For the duration of the war, the Vatican kept up full diplomatic relations with the Ustaša state (granting Pavelić an audience), with its papal nuncio in the capital Zagreb. The nuncio was briefed on the efforts of religious conversions to Roman Catholicism. After the Second World War was over, the Ustaše who had managed to escape from Yugoslav territory (including Pavelić) were smuggled to South America. It is widely documented that this was done through rat lines operated by members of the organization who were Catholic priests and had previously secured positions at the Vatican. Members of the Illyrian College of San Girolamo in Rome were reputedly involved in this: friars Krunoslav Draganović, Petranović, and Dominik Mandić.
The Ustaše regime had sent large amounts of gold that it had plundered from Serbian and Jewish property owners during WW II into Swiss banks. Of a total of 350 million Swiss Francs, about 150 million was seized by British troops; however, the remaining 200 million (ca. 47 million dollars) reached the Vatican. Allegations exist that it's still being kept in the Vatican Bank. This was reported by the American intelligence agency SSU in October 1946. This issue is the theme of a recent class action suit against the Vatican Bank and others.

All about the $$$$'s

Blessed are the bank accounts.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-10-2012 9:16am

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1009/1224325061312.html

LAND OWNED by religious congregations in Dublin is set to be rezoned to allow for residential development following a decision to change the Dublin City Development Plan.

The plan, which sets down what developments are permitted in the city, had barred some 770 hectares of institutional land on 186 sites across the city from being used for housing.

Cha-ching!!! Oh, forgot, they're broke, can't afford to compensate the State a cent, and Ruari says we don't want to bankrupt them :rolleyes:

Sarky · 10-10-2012 3:53pm

Sarky wrote: »

I'm from Kiltormer. Holy f*ck.

Yeah, my parents just confirmed it. The parish priest where I went to school as a child was that guy. It's why he was moved to another parish. Rumour was he was moved to Ireland from the UK previously because of similar behaviour.

Sh*t, that's hitting entirely too close to home. I remember he took some of my classmates on holiday, I just thought it was some kind of kind community outreach kind of thing. He probably molested people I used to know.

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2012 4:10pm

Sarky wrote: »

Yeah, my parents just confirmed it. The parish priest where I went to school as a child was that guy. It's why he was moved to another parish. Rumour was he was moved to Ireland from the UK previously because of similar behaviour.

Sh*t. He probably molested people I used to know.

The sad fury inducing thing is that we all probably know someone who was abused by a member of the clergy.

We recently found out my mother's first cousin was.

Due to tragic family circumstances and following the advice of the parish priest her mother was pressured into putting her into the 'care' of an order of Nuns in Cobh when she was 5 (she 'got out' when she was 7). This was a purely temporary measure while her mother got back on her feet following the sudden death of her husband (she was 26, he was 28 when he died). This was in the early 50s when there was little or no State support for people. It was not a 'charity' case as great-Aunt paid school fees and for her daughter's up-keep.

Mother and daughter's relationship never recovered and to her dying day my great-aunt couldn't understand why her daughter was so angry about it. She realised in retrospect that she should have taken my grandmother up on her offer of support but felt that when her daughter was an adult she would understand.

It was only after my great-aunt's death and the revelations about abuse began to surface that the story emerged.

My great-Aunt - a devout Catholic and energetic charity worker - would have been horrified - so her daughter never told her about the abuse (including sexual) as she didn't want her mother to be upset but she also found it hard to forgive what she felt was abandoning her to abuse.

So many lives have been damaged by these b**tards. :mad:

FouxDaFaFa · 10-10-2012 4:32pm

It's disturbingly common. The priest that married my parents is in prison for abusing children.

Obliq · 10-10-2012 4:44pm

Gotta say there's a Church of Ireland self-appointed reverend local to here who was charged with sexual abuse of a minor back last year. Abuse dated back to the 80's. Everyone so very sickened as he surrounded himself with children - summer camps every year, environmental groups, all that.

recedite · 10-10-2012 7:09pm

Obliq wrote: »

Gotta say there's a Church of Ireland self-appointed reverend

Self-appointed?

Obliq · 10-10-2012 7:51pm

recedite wrote: »

Self-appointed?

Apparently so. He also bought a doctorate. I believe he spoke in church every sunday and this qualified him to call himself a rev. No need for ordination....don't know exactly though, but I have heard people call him reverend many times.

Bannasidhe · 10-10-2012 7:54pm

Obliq wrote: »

Apparently so. He also bought a doctorate. I believe he spoke in church every sunday and this qualified him to call himself a rev. No need for ordination....don't know exactly though, but I have heard people call him reverend many times.

You can buy them???

Well feck. I'm never getting those years back. :mad:

Obliq · 10-10-2012 7:58pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can buy them???

Well feck. I'm never getting those years back. :mad:

Well, if ya wanted a U.S. doctorate from some dodgy college....pretty sure yours is more credible though!

Obliq · 10-10-2012 8:06pm

recedite wrote: »

Self-appointed?

Ah. Was wrong to say that. Lay-preacher is what he was and I only heard reverend.

Obliq · 10-10-2012 8:10pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can buy them???

Well feck. I'm never getting those years back. :mad:

Get yourself a few more! Looks cheap enough - might get one myself in bolloxology :pac:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2003/oct/26/administration.highereducation

who the fug · 10-10-2012 8:35pm

Bloody hell they got one who was reaching in the boarding school I was at, I did mention to the old fella when we were talking about this a couple of years ago that he was a likely suspect.

Worse they knew he had previous and had him looking after juniors.

recedite · 10-10-2012 8:56pm

Obliq wrote: »

Lay-preacher is what he was and I only heard reverend.

The reason you don't hear about paedo cases in C of I clergy is that they would become unemployed very quickly. Parishioners select their own priest in an interview process. Any whiff of child molestation and they would get the proverbial boot, and no other parish would take them.
The lay member population though, is no different to any other population.

swampgas · 10-10-2012 9:03pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My great-Aunt - a devout Catholic and energetic charity worker - would have been horrified - so her daughter never told her about the abuse (including sexual) as she didn't want her mother to be upset but she also found it hard to forgive what she felt was abandoning her to abuse.

This aspect, I think, is the one that troubles me most with so many stories like this. A family member or friend is protected from "the awful truth", based on the assumption (justifiable, perhaps?) that the truth would be too painful for them to handle. But at what cost to the victim?

I wonder sometimes if we underestimate our mothers/aunts/great-aunts/brothers/fathers/uncles, perhaps they are made of sterner stuff than we imagine. While the truth might hit them hard, maybe we should respect them enough to share it with them?

On the other hand, I really would find it hard to deliver such a truth to someone I loved .

So many lives have been damaged by these b**tards.

Quite so. And sadly, the damage often goes on long after their deaths. Sometimes I wish there were a hell for them to roast in.

Sulla Felix · 10-10-2012 9:18pm

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

It's disturbingly common. The priest that married my parents is in prison for abusing children.

The fella who baptized me was for a while.

Nodin · 10-10-2012 9:23pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can buy them???

Well feck. I'm never getting those years back. :mad:

It's apparently how Paisley got his.

swampgas · 10-10-2012 9:26pm

Nodin wrote: »

It's apparently how Paisley got his.

He didn't stop at that - he started his own church while he was at it.

Ongoing religious scandals

Comments