Ongoing religious scandals

blackbird 49

10,20,30 years down the road there will still be more scandals emerging about the Catholic Church,

PopePalpatine

blackbird 49 wrote: »

10,20,30 years down the road there will still be more scandals emerging about the Catholic Church,

Yep, I'm wondering when we'll see abuse scandals from developing countries on a scale seen in the developed world.

robp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

we have unknown numbers of incestuous marriages because tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have no idea who their real parents were.

It is questionable if there is a right to know one's birth parents, and even if there is it is even more questionable to retroactively establish it. If a mother gives up her child on the premise of anonymity is it fair to deny her that 20 years later. Its debatable but certainly there is no easy answer.

As for incestuous marriages, the proportion of births that went through adoption was very small. Indeed it was so small that there was no official mechanism of adoption till the 50s. And many that were adopted seem to have been fortunate to be adopted abroad so risk of incest seems very low.

Hotblack Desiato

The Catholic hierarchy still doesn’t get child abuse

Since the Inquisition, the church has been policing the sexual behaviour of consenting adults, with disastrous consequences for the health of Irish people. This obsession with normal sexual activity engendered a warped view of sexual abuse within the hierarchy. It is time to debunk some of the myths surrounding sexual abuse and view it as a heinous crime, not a behavioural problem that needs treatment.

Hotblack Desiato

Former papal Nuncio goes on Vatican City trial on child sex abuse charges

Just when it appeared that investigators both in the Dominican Republic and in his native Poland were preparing to file charges against him, he was hurriedly recalled to Rome in August 2013. In January 2014, in response to media reports that Poland wanted to extradite the Archbishop, Holy See spokesman Fr Federico Lombardi stated that as a Vatican City state citizen, he would first be tried in both Holy See (canonical) and Vatican City state courts. Furthermore, Fr Lombardi said that the Holy See, Poland and the Dominican Republic were co-operating in the Wesolowski investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae8t-QKPVY4

The Wesolowski trial is likely to run from now until the New Year and, if found guilty, the former Archbishop could face a five- to seven-year sentence.

If found guilty, I predict he will be sentenced to admonishment and/or detention for a wee while in a luxury apartment in the nicest area of one of Europe's legendary capitals with food, drink and servants on call.

recedite

The Holy See's new (2011) citizenship law streamlines the process so that a fleeing priest can, if given some "public official" job in the Vatican, automatically become a citizen as soon as he arrives into Vatican City.

Whereas before, the norm was for someone who had been living there for a while to claim it by mutual arrangement, ie an "exchange of notes" by diplomats/ambassadors.

So now there is no chance of another country being able to launch a successful extradition procedure.

galljga1

recedite wrote: »

The Holy See's new (2011) citizenship law streamlines the process so that a fleeing priest can, if given some "public official" job in the Vatican, automatically become a citizen as soon as he arrives into Vatican City.

Whereas before, the norm was for someone who had been living there for a while to claim it by mutual arrangement, ie an "exchange of notes" by diplomats/ambassadors.

So now there is no chance of another country being able to launch a successful extradition procedure.

It is great to see that things have moved on in this new era of openness and accountability.

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33491956

The trial of a former archbishop charged with child sex offences has been adjourned after the defendant fell due hours before he was due to appear in court at the Vatican.

Jozef Wesolowski, 66, is accused of paying for sex with children in the Dominican Republic from 2008-2013.

He is being treated in intensive care for an unspecified illness.

recedite

Suddenly becomes too ill/frail to appear in court, just before the trial due to start.
The oldest trick in the book.
Why not let the medics in Poland or Dominican Republic have a look at him?

robindch

Depends on how he fell - so many anti-apartheid activists died falling down the stairs of South Africa's police stations, that one almost suspected a conspiracy.

expectationlost

Quinn: Church hard-nosed over redress | Irish Examiner http://t.co/E1B1RmHYgS he spoke on newstalk

dig out the audio there somebody or I'll do it later

Hotblack Desiato

The RCC played politicians for fools on the abuse compensation issue, just as they're playing them for fools now with the so-called 'divestment' red herring.

recedite

expectationlost wrote: »

Quinn: Church hard-nosed over redress | Irish Examiner http://t.co/E1B1RmHYgS he spoke on newstalk

Just more hand wringing, this time from the political sidelines.
I just don't accept his point of view that...

I don’t have and I didn’t have as minister, nor does Jan O’Sullivan the current minister for education and skills, or indeed the Government, have the legal powers to compel them to pay...

Unless he meant....

I don’t have and I didn’t have as minister, nor does Jan O’Sullivan the current minister for education and skills, or indeed the Government, have the balls to compel them to pay...

Peregrinus

You mean you think he does have the legal power to compel them to pay? How do you figure that?

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

You mean you think he does have the legal power to compel them to pay? How do you figure that?

I don’t have and I didn’t have as minister, nor does Jan O’Sullivan the current minister for education and skills, or indeed the Government, have the legal powers to compel them to pay...

Well let's just focus on the Government. The Government clearly have the legal powers to compel payment, they are after all the Government. And I have to say they seem pretty determined to force people to pay their water bills etc. So what does it say that they won't use the same powers to force an organisation to make some attempt to redress an historic evil? Answers?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Well let's just focus on the Government. The Government clearly have the legal powers to compel payment, they are after all the Government.

This is only true if you think governments have the "legal power" to do anything they care to do. But, of course, in democracies, they don't. They are constrained by the rule of law.

obplayer wrote: »

And I have to say they seem pretty determined to force people to pay their water bills etc. So what does it say that they won't use the same powers to force an organisation to make some attempt to redress an historic evil? Answers?

Because water bills are a service charge. If you use the water supply, you incur the charge.

Whereas this is different. Both the state and the church were looking down the barrel of a substantial liability to the victims of abuse in residential institutions run by church agencies and authorised and supervised by the state. They entered into an agreement as to how they would share that liablity. You may think it was an unwise agreement, or that the state could have got better terms if it had bargained harder, or even that the state should have made no agreement and simply let the courts determine how liability should be shared on a case-by-case basis, but even if any or all of those views are correct, they don't amount to a "legal power" for the state to set the agreement aside and unilaterally impose a different basis for sharing the liability.

You and I don't get to walk away from our contracts purely because we regret having made them. Neither does the state. Something more than that is needed if the state is to have a legal basis for unilaterally imposing a 50% share on the church agencies.

(I'm not saying that there can be no legal basis for this; just that those who assert that there is a legal basis need to be able to say what it is.)

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is only true if you think governments have the "legal power" to do anything they care to do. But, of course, in democracies, they don't. They are constrained by the rule of law.


Because water bills are a service charge. If you use the water supply, you incur the charge.

Whereas this is different. Both the state and the church were looking down the barrel of a substantial liability to the victims of abuse in residential institutions run by church agencies and authorised and supervised by the state. They entered into an agreement as to how they would share that liablity. You may think it was an unwise agreement, or that the state could have got better terms if it had bargained harder, or even that the state should have made no agreement and simply let the courts determine how liability should be shared on a case-by-case basis, but even if any or all of those views are correct, they don't amount to a "legal power" for the state to set the agreement aside and unilaterally impose a different basis for sharing the liability.

You and I don't get to walk away from our contracts purely because we regret having made them. Neither does the state. Something more than that is needed if the state is to have a legal basis for unilaterally imposing a 50% share on the church agencies.

(I'm not saying that there can be no legal basis for this; just that those who assert that there is a legal basis need to be able to say what it is.)

One example of the Catholic Churches antics. I will find more tomorrow.
Your Church's behaviour is not only indefensible but evil. You have been cascaded with examples. What is wrong with you that you try to defend them?

http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/redress-scheme/

Law lecturer Mairéad Enright has written about the symphysiotomy redress scheme on the Human Rights in Ireland blog.
From her piece:

The closing date for applications to the symphysiotomy redress scheme is this Friday. Assessment has already begun, some redress offers – a very small fraction of the total projected value of the scheme – have already been made and a very small number of those have been accepted.
I have written before about the core problem which has dogged this scheme since it was first proposed – it is simply incompatible, in principle, with the requirements of international human rights law. In particular, these women have not been offered any adequate remedy for breaches of their European Convention rights by the Irish state. O’Keeffe v. Ireland confirms that ex gratia redress without an acknowledgement of state liability cannot be considered an adequate remedy.
Since the scheme was announced, less than a month ago, it has been roundly criticised by expert commentators including, most recently, Sir Nigel Rodley of the UNHRC.
The devil is in the detail of the implementation. The time limit for application is unconscionable. The women had 20 working days to apply. This is the shortest time limit in the history of any State redress scheme: for example, the Residential Institutions Redress Board time limit was 3 years. The rudimentary progress reports published on the scheme website indicate that 70 women only received their application forms in the first week, because they requested them by telephone. The forms are, of course, available to download from the website, but the survivors of symphysiotomy are often very elderly and may not be computer literate.
Applications made after the deadline may be considered in ‘exceptional circumstances’, but in any case will not be considered if they are made after January 15 2015. ‘Exceptional circumstances’ is not defined within the terms of the scheme. It is worth noting that the same phrase affected the RIRB, and was interpreted in a very conservative fashion, to the particular detriment of applicants who took longer to apply because they were socially isolated, had intellectual or psychiatric difficulties, or lived abroad.1 It is beyond doubt that some women who deserve, in principle, to have access to state redress will go without it because the government refuses to give them more time. 70 women have joined Survivors of Symphysiotomy since the UNHRC hearings in July and there may be others. Two women recently brought a High Court challenge to the scheme because it was not clear that women with dementia could have a representative apply on their behalf.
The Department of Health said yesterday that 257 applications have already been made to the scheme. The progress reports give some indication of what is going on. It is not clear that the scheme can be considered a success. Certainly it is working very quickly. For example, in Week 1, 10 applications were made and 7 of these were assessed and offers made.
Everything is moving so quickly, not only because the volume of applications was very low in the beginning, but because assessment is done entirely on paper and payments are not individualised. The sole question for the assessor is whether to put an applicant in one payment band or another, or none at all. There is no hearing, and no finding of liability. Some applications have been rejected, and there is no appeal from the assessor’s decision.
The fact that so many women have made an initial application does not demonstrate that they are happy with this scheme or that they accept that it offers a better compensation package than they might obtain in court. On November 16, the majority of members of Survivors of Symphysiotomy (S.O.S.) voted overwhelmingly – not for the first time – to reject it. They have no obligation to accept any offer made under the scheme – they may yet withdraw.
The progress reports indicate that ‘a large number’ of the applications already received are awaiting medical records from hospitals or the preparation of specialist medical reports. This sort of problem was to be expected. Some women, for example, do not have their records because hospitals had levied unaffordable charges to provide them. Better consultation with Survivors of Symphysiotomy would have made this clear and the scheme could have been designed accordingly.
There are about 400 survivors of symphysiotomy known to S.O.S. The women who have not yet made an application may be experiencing related difficulties. How many have the necessary support to travel for medical and legal appointments, gather hospital documentation and so on? It will be very interesting to hear about women’s experiences of compiling and submitting their applications.
For now, the scheme trundles on. But this is not what proper redress looks like.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

One example of the Catholic Churches antics. I will find more tomorrow.

How is this an example of the "Catholic church's antics"? The symphysiotomy redress scheme is established and run by the Department of Health, and funded by the taxpayer, and it deals with claims against the state. SFAIK The Catholic church isn't involved at all, at any level.

obplayer wrote: »

Your Church's behaviour is not only indefensible but evil. You have been cascaded with examples. What is wrong with you that you try to defend them?

Reread. I am not defending the Catholic church; I am defending Ruairi Quinn.

I have never defended the church over this. They entirely deserve what is coming to them, and more besides, and if there is a legal basis for reopening the agreement, you won't find me objecting to it (provided it doesn't delay payment of compensation to victims).

But wishing doesn't make it so. On the basis of what I know Quinn seems to me to be correct in what he says. I'm open to being persuaded that he's incorrect, but the case does need to be made.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

How is this an example of the "Catholic church's antics"? The symphysiotomy redress scheme is established and run by the Department of Health, and funded by the taxpayer, and it deals with claims against the state. SFAIK The Catholic church isn't involved at all, at any level.


Reread. I am not defending the Catholic church; I am defending Ruairi Quinn.

I have never defended the church over this. They entirely deserve what is coming to them, and more besides, and if there is a legal basis for reopening the agreement, you won't find me objecting to it (provided it doesn't delay payment of compensation to victims).

But wishing doesn't make it so. On the basis of what I know Quinn seems to me to be correct in what he says. I'm open to being persuaded that he's incorrect, but the case does need to be made.

have the legal powers to compel them to pay, without repudiating the deal done by Fianna Fáil,”

Governments repudiate deals made by their predecessors all the time, with much less moral basis. Every time they change the tax rate for instance. The water charge is a repudiation of the previous deal that water costs were paid out of general taxation, it is only now a separate charge because this government made it so. What part of the rule of law prevents this government simply saying that the previous government were conned and they are now going to impose a fairer and more just settlement on the church.

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

Governments repudiate deals made by their predecessors all the time, with much less moral basis. Every time they change the tax rate for instance. The water charge is a repudiation of the previous deal that water costs were paid out of general taxation, it is only now a separate charge because this government made it so. What part of the rule of law prevents this government simply saying that the previous government were conned and they are now going to impose a fairer and more just settlement on the church.

There's a difference between changing the law (which the Oireachtas can do at any time, subject to constraints imposed by the Constitution) and unilaterally tearing up a legally-binding agreement made with another party. The rule of law, a fundamental principle of democracy, means that the government has no more right to renege on its legally-binding commitments than you or I do.

Then can no more unilaterally shred their agreement on this matter than they can, e.g., tear up the certificate of title that shows they sold you a house and evict you as a trespasser, or tear up a civil servant's contract of employment and seize his property in order to recover the wages they paid him for the past 27 years. If you contract with the government you have exactly the same rights as if you had contracted with anyone else; you can enforce a contract in the courts against the government as readily as against a company or an individual. And you can see, I imagine, why this is generally a seen as (a) a good idea, and (b) a fundamental condition for a functioning democracy.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's a difference between changing the law (which the Oireachtas can do at any time, subject to constraints imposed by the Constitution) and unilaterally tearing up a legally-binding agreement made with another party. The rule of law, a fundamental principle of democracy, means that the government has no more right to renege on its legally-binding commitments than you or I do.

Then can no more unilaterally shred their agreement on this matter than they can, e.g., tear up the certificate of title that shows they sold you a house and evict you as a trespasser, or tear up a civil servant's contract of employment and seize his property in order to recover the wages they paid him for the past 27 years. If you contract with the government you have exactly the same rights as if you had contracted with anyone else; you can enforce a contract in the courts against the government as readily as against a company or an individual. And you can see, I imagine, why this is generally a seen as (a) a good idea, and (b) a fundamental condition for a functioning democracy.

Again, he is saying the government do not have the legal power to change the terms of this agreement. They do, the government has control of the law as evidenced by the water charges. If they do not have the guts to change the agreement to a more just one then let them say so but to say they cannot is utterly absurd. If you cannot grasp this then I cannot help you.

Peregrinus

It's true that the government can change tax rates, or the level of charges levied for public services. But the fact that they can make this particular change in the law does not mean that they can make other, completely different changes. Simply asserting that the government can walk away from contracts that it does not like, and impose new ones that it does like, is not convincing, ob. Nobody would enter into contracts with the government if they could not be enforced, or could be unilaterally changed to the disadvantage of the non-government party. And yet people enter into contracts with the government all the time, and the courts have consistently held that they can be enforced. The passion of your belief is notable, but the evidence is against you.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's true that the government can change tax rates, or the level of charges levied for public services. But the fact that they can make this particular change in the law does not mean that they can make other, completely different changes. Simply asserting that the government can walk away from contracts that it does not like, and impose new ones that it does like, is not convincing, ob. Nobody would enter into contracts with the government if they could not be enforced, or could be unilaterally changed to the disadvantage of the non-government party. And yet people enter into contracts with the government all the time, and the courts have consistently held that they can be enforced. The passion of your belief is notable, but the evidence is against you.

Show me where in law it prevents the government simply introducing a tax or surcharge on the church to force them to pay a decent part of the costs of their vile behaviour.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

Show me where in law it prevents the government simply introducing a tax or surcharge on the church to force them to pay a decent part of the costs of their vile behaviour.

Introducing a new tax or surcharge is different from repudiating an existing contract though.
And the Constitution requires that "‘The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status."; I'd say imposing a specific tax or surcharge on a religion would seem to be an imposition of a disability.

recedite

An indemnity is a bit different to most contracts. Its more like an insurance policy, ie it protects the indemnified party from unknown liabilities, for a certain period of time.

The indemnity deal was never fully transparent. It was negotiated by one (very catholic) minister M. Woods. €127M has often been mentioned, but this includes the transfer of property, which may or may not have been transferred. Some of the property may have been property such as schools which had already been transferred before the deal, and already been valued at close to zero because it was already effectively owned and operated by the State. So for the purposes of this deal they must have revalued the property in hindsight and added it in as part of the contribution.
Some more of the property seems to have been transferred to NGO's and not to the State at all.

It seems the amount of cash actually stumped up may have been about €40 to €50 million. The total redress bill is estimated at €1.5 Billion, or €750 million each if it was split 50:50
By my reckoning, that leaves about €650 million still owed (allowing for approx. €50M in cash and €50M in property already paid)

It seems the paltry sum already paid up indemnified the RCC for 6 years in the original deal. If the redress bill went up (which it did) then the State could revisit the deal and demand more money from 2007 onwards.
If, as seems to be the case, no money is forthcoming, the State can now confiscate property in lieu of cash payment.

....On one issue only did the State gain a concession of sorts from CORI. CORI had initially sought an "open ended indemnity", one that would protect them even 50 and 60 years ahead. The State refused, and they compromised on a six-year indemnity.

source

robindch

recedite wrote: »

If, as seems to be the case, no money is forthcoming, the State can now confiscate property in lieu of cash payment.

I'm sure I'm the only person in Ireland who believes that no government is ever going to go up against the religions - even the ones who did what these people did, or their heirs and assigns and protected, stuffed trusts.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

If, as seems to be the case, no money is forthcoming, the State can now confiscate property in lieu of cash payment.

I'm not so sure of that; the Constitution specifically protects the religious denominations from the State seizing their assets without compensating them:
"The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation."
Seizing properties would mean the State could be forced to prove (at some cost) that the seizure was a necessary work of public utility, which is dubious, and would still be forced to pay compensation for doing it, which would effectively be paying to recover and then discounting the debt.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

recedite

Good point. Well in that case, they could still be compelled to pay cash, which would necessitate them liquidating the assets.

Its a bizarre constitutional provision. It assumes religious and educational institutions are always virtous, and the State would only be diverting their property for some malicious reason. Its like putting into the Constitiution "no priest shall ever be sent to jail".

Also, on the face of it, it appears to make the original soft touch indemnity deal negotiated by Michael Woods null and void. As the deal involved diverting church property, and not for works of public utility (CPO's) it was therefore illegal.

Absolam

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would be unConstitutional though.

recedite wrote: »

Good point. Well in that case, they could still be compelled to pay cash, which would necessitate them liquidating the assets.

I don't know; they could be subjected to a civil action for the debt just like any other organisation, but since the State can't divert the assets without compensation, I'm not sure how the religious orders could be compelled to liquidate them, even if they were insolvent. They might volunteer to do so to avoid being made insolvent, but I'm not really sure how insolvency applies to religious institutions to be honest....

recedite wrote: »

Its a bizarre constitutional provision. It assumes religious and educational institutions are always virtous, and the State would only be diverting their property for some malicious reason. Its like putting into the Constitiution "no priest shall ever be sent to jail".

It's not that bizarre; States/Monarchs have an eminent history of seizing religious assets when they needed a bit of cash. If you're a poor nation looking to encourage an organisation to throw money into schools and hospitals which could easily be redefined as State assets somewhere down the line, you might provide some guarantees against that possibility for them.

recedite wrote: »

Also, on the face of it, it appears to make the original soft touch indemnity deal negotiated by Michael Woods null and void. As the deal involved diverting church property, and not for works of public utility (CPO's) it was therefore illegal.

I don't think so at all; the Constitution doesn't prohibit religious and educational institutions from disposing of their assets, or entering into an agreement to do so; the religious orders can freely volunteer their properties as part of a payment in a deal. It only prohibits the State from compelling the institutions to hand over their assets except under specific provisions.