Ongoing religious scandals

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

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

Well, no. As Absolam has pointed out, there are constitutional restrictions on seizing the assets of religious denominations.

But, even leaving those aside, if in return for an indemnity somebody agrees to transfer an asset to you and subsequently fails to do so, you don't get to march in, grab the asset and offer it for sale on e-bay in an attempt to recover what is owed to you. This remains true even if "you" happens to be the state. You have to sue him on foot of his agreement and get a judgment against him in the courts. Then you have to enforce your judgment, for which a variety of mechanisms and procedures are available. It's only when you attempt to enforce the judgment with proceedings to have the asset transferred to you (or sold, and the proceeds transferred to you) that, in this case, the constitutional restrictions on "diverting" the property of any religious institution would have to be considered.

I'm not completely convinced that the constitutional restrictions would prevent the state enforcing a judgment directing the sale or transfer of the property of a religious organisation though, I agree, it's certainly arguable). I think you could argue that the religious organisation has already had "compensation" for the asset concerned, in the form of the indemnity it got and the Constitution allows religious denominations's asset to be "diverted" if compensation is provided.

But none of this is really relevant to the issue raised by Quinn's comments. The question is not whether or how the state can enforce the existing agreement between the religious organisations and the state; it's whether the state can simply tear up the existing agreement and unilaterally impose a new, and larger, financial obligation on the religious institutions. And I don't think it can. The state has agreed - wisely or unwisely - to indemnify the religious institutions in return for a contribution of cash and assets. And I don't see any basis for saying that the religious institutions can't enforce that agreement against the state. I'm not saying that there can be no basis; just that we need to find one. The fact that the state now considers the contract disadvantageous to it doesn't make the contract unenforceable. You and I don't get to walk away from contracts we regret having made; neither does Ireland.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

You and I don't get to walk away from contracts we regret having made; neither does Ireland.

Except for public pay agreements.

Peregrinus

Public pay agreements aren't contracts. Employment agreements are contracts. And while you can vary the rate of pay under an employment agreement for the future, you can't decide that the pay you agreed for last year was too much, and require your employees to pay some of it back. Which is pretty much the analogy of what is being sought here.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, no. As Absolam has pointed out, there are constitutional restrictions on seizing the assets of religious denominations.

But, even leaving those aside, if in return for an indemnity somebody agrees to transfer an asset to you and subsequently fails to do so, you don't get to march in, grab the asset and offer it for sale on e-bay in an attempt to recover what is owed to you. This remains true even if "you" happens to be the state. You have to sue him on foot of his agreement and get a judgment against him in the courts. Then you have to enforce your judgment, for which a variety of mechanisms and procedures are available. It's only when you attempt to enforce the judgment with proceedings to have the asset transferred to you (or sold, and the proceeds transferred to you) that, in this case, the constitutional restrictions on "diverting" the property of any religious institution would have to be considered.

I'm not completely convinced that the constitutional restrictions would prevent the state enforcing a judgment directing the sale or transfer of the property of a religious organisation though, I agree, it's certainly arguable). I think you could argue that the religious organisation has already had "compensation" for the asset concerned, in the form of the indemnity it got and the Constitution allows religious denominations's asset to be "diverted" if compensation is provided.

But none of this is really relevant to the issue raised by Quinn's comments. The question is not whether or how the state can enforce the existing agreement between the religious organisations and the state; it's whether the state can simply tear up the existing agreement and unilaterally impose a new, and larger, financial obligation on the religious institutions. And I don't think it can. The state has agreed - wisely or unwisely - to indemnify the religious institutions in return for a contribution of cash and assets. And I don't see any basis for saying that the religious institutions can't enforce that agreement against the state. I'm not saying that there can be no basis; just that we need to find one. The fact that the state now considers the contract disadvantageous to it doesn't make the contract unenforceable. You and I don't get to walk away from contracts we regret having made; neither does Ireland.

Has this part of the agreement been adequately fulfilled?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Has this part of the agreement been adequately fulfilled?

Well, yes. The state has fulfilled its part of the bargain by providing the indemnity. The religious institutions were supposed to transfer cash and assets with a combined value (at the time) of, I think, 127 million. I'm pretty sure that some of the cash has been paid and some of the assets transferred, but I don't know how much, or how much remains outstanding.

Plus, since the agreement was signed before the property bust the assets concerned are probably now worth less than the value placed on them at the time. It's a matter for construction of the agreement whether it requires the transfer of

(a) specific assets, valued for the purposes of the agreement at a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(b) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the agreement) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(c) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the transfer) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is highly relevant).

And, while I haven't of course read the agreement, there's probably enough in there for some robust disagreement about how much of the agreement has been performed to date. But I imagine that on any view a significant part of it has.

galljga1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. The state has fulfilled its part of the bargain by providing the indemnity. The religious institutions were supposed to transfer cash and assets with a combined value (at the time) of, I think, 127 million. I'm pretty sure that some of the cash has been paid and some of the assets transferred, but I don't know how much, or how much remains outstanding.

Plus, since the agreement was signed before the property bust the assets concerned are probably now worth less than the value placed on them at the time. It's a matter for construction of the agreement whether it requires the transfer of

(a) specific assets, valued for the purposes of the agreement at a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(b) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the agreement) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(c) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the transfer) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is highly relevant).

And, while I haven't of course read the agreement, there's probably enough in there for some robust disagreement about how much of the agreement has been performed to date. But I imagine that on any view a significant part of it has.

What you meant was actually "Well, I don't know", for the above reasons.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. The state has fulfilled its part of the bargain by providing the indemnity. The religious institutions were supposed to transfer cash and assets with a combined value (at the time) of, I think, 127 million. I'm pretty sure that some of the cash has been paid and some of the assets transferred, but I don't know how much, or how much remains outstanding.

Plus, since the agreement was signed before the property bust the assets concerned are probably now worth less than the value placed on them at the time. It's a matter for construction of the agreement whether it requires the transfer of

(a) specific assets, valued for the purposes of the agreement at a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(b) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the agreement) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is irrelevant); or

(c) unspecified assets, with an aggregate value (as at the date of the transfer) of a stated amount (in which case the subsequent bust is highly relevant).

And, while I haven't of course read the agreement, there's probably enough in there for some robust disagreement about how much of the agreement has been performed to date. But I imagine that on any view a significant part of it has.

This simply does not compute. Adequately fulfilling my lease agreement doesn't mean paying some of the rental amount.

Peregrinus

A. I'm not saying that the agreement has been completely fulfilled. This isn't a simple binary. In the present context the relevant question would be, has it been breached to such an extent that the state is entitled to repudiate it? The answer to that question may vary as between different religious institutions (some may have fulfilled their obligations completely, others substantially, others not at all)

B. Even where the answer is "yes, the state can repudiate" so far as some religious institutions are concerned, the state wouldn't be entitled unilaterally to impose a different "agreement" (for a 50% share of the liabilities) instead, as proposed earlier in this thread. All they could do is not indemnify the institutions concerned for claims from abuse victims. As a broad generalisation victims would suffer from this, lawyers would benefit from this, the religious institution would suffer from this, and the State would (probably) suffer from this, or at best not gain very much.

C. It still remains to be established whether the church agencies are in breach at all. They haven't transferred all the property/made all the cash payments envisaged by the agreement, but is that a breach? I don't know what the agreement says about timescales, deadlines, etc. The agreement may not require them to have transferred everything by this point - I don't know.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

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.

You can't have it both ways. If you take the wording literally, then church property cannot be diverted in lieu of cash. Then the original deal is void because it contains illegal terms.
If you take a looser (and more reasonable IMO) interpretation then church property can be diverted in lieu of cash, provided it is in payment of a genuine debt, or payment for a benefit/service such as the indemnity.

History tells us that church property has been stolen or nationalised in the past, such as when Henry VIII when he seized the monasteries, or the French Republic seized the churches at one time. If the wording needs to be clarified so that it only refers to that kind of thing, then we can amend it at any time by referendum easily enough.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

A. I'm not saying that the agreement has been completely fulfilled. This isn't a simple binary. In the present context the relevant question would be, has it been breached to such an extent that the state is entitled to repudiate it? The answer to that question may vary as between different religious institutions (some may have fulfilled their obligations completely, others substantially, others not at all)

You say "this isn't a simple binary" yet offer the other side of the agreement as just that (outright repudiation), is there only grey area on the side one party in the agreement?

Peregrinus wrote: »

B. Even where the answer is "yes, the state can repudiate" so far as some religious institutions are concerned, the state wouldn't be entitled unilaterally to impose a different "agreement" (for a 50% share of the liabilities) instead, as proposed earlier in this thread. All they could do is not indemnify the institutions concerned for claims from abuse victims. As a broad generalisation victims would suffer from this, lawyers would benefit from this, the religious institution would suffer from this, and the State would (probably) suffer from this, or at best not gain very much.

Through having access to legal recompense?

Peregrinus wrote: »

C. It still remains to be established whether the church agencies are in breach at all. They haven't transferred all the property/made all the cash payments envisaged by the agreement, but is that a breach? I don't know what the agreement says about timescales, deadlines, etc. The agreement may not require them to have transferred everything by this point - I don't know.

Agreed, the devil is in the detail. However I'd be enormously surprised if the final line was true. As I'm sure you would be too.

recedite

The two main unknowns here are;
1. How much have they actually paid, and is it enough to pay for the six year indemnity.
2. How much has accrued outside the 6 year indemnity, and is now payable separately.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

You say "this isn't a simple binary" yet offer the other side of the agreement as just that (outright repudiation), is there only grey area on the side one party in the agreement?

No, no. I'm not the one saying that outright repudiation is the only course the state can or should take. I'm resisting that argument. I'm not convinced they have the right to repudiate the agreement and, if they do, I'm not convinced they should (for reasons discussed below).

Deleted User wrote: »

Through having access to legal recompense?

Again, I think you have this the wrong way around. Victims already have access to legal recompense, through the compensation scheme. The reason the church/state agreement on handling liability to pay compensation was made at all was to make the compensation scheme possible - you can't have a functioning compensation scheme unless you have established who will pay the compensation, and in what proportions. And, as a corollary, one consequence of repudiating the agreement is that the compensation scheme will likely collapse (unless the state is going to take on 100% of the liablity, which is not the plan). I don't know how many applications for compensation are still outstanding.

So, far from giving victims access to compensation, repudiating the church/state agreement is more likely to deprive them of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed, the devil is in the detail. However I'd be enormously surprised if the final line was true. As I'm sure you would be too.

I would not be surprised if the church agencies were not in breach. I haven't seen any report of someone in a position to know saying that they are. And, if they were, the state could take enforcement proceedings, which they haven't done.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

You can't have it both ways. If you take the wording literally, then church property cannot be diverted in lieu of cash. Then the original deal is void because it contains illegal terms.
If you take a looser (and more reasonable IMO) interpretation then church property can be diverted in lieu of cash, provided it is in payment of a genuine debt, or payment for a benefit/service such as the indemnity.

Have what both ways? A religious institution is entitled to divest itself of assets as it sees fit. The State is not entitled to divest a religious institution of its assets save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation. The religious organisations can do what they want with their assets, including pay debts with them. The State can't require that they pay debts with them.

recedite wrote: »

History tells us that church property has been stolen or nationalised in the past, such as when Henry VIII when he seized the monasteries, or the French Republic seized the churches at one time. If the wording needs to be clarified so that it only refers to that kind of thing, then we can amend it at any time by referendum easily enough.

Sure, we could just remove the entire clause if we're going to have a referendum. We could even insert a new clause that simply makes all religious properties the property of the State and saves a load of legal haggling. Unlike Henry VIII, we'd just need a majority of the population to agree

Cabaal

Australia Jehovah's Witnesses 'did not report 1,000 alleged abusers'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-33673240

The Jehovah's Witnesses Church in Australia failed to report more than 1,000 alleged child sex abusers to the police, an inquiry has heard.

Instead, the commission says, the Church itself handled all the cases - some of which date to the 1950s.

wp_rathead

Was going to put this in the "Funny-Side of Religion" thread, but it pisses me off to much:

And this is what you hear if you ring the call-line

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

looksee

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Could Ireland refuse to accept him? Better to send him to Vatican City.

recedite

I don't think we can refuse to take him back, if his citizenship reverts to being Irish.
I hope he remembers to register as a sex offender when he gets here.

PopePalpatine

That might be the thing that forces the Ionanists to consider suicide bombing.

robindch

Hawaiian Cardinal fails to turn wine into water fast enough:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/catholic-cardinal-arrested-for-drunken-driving-in-hawaii_55dba411e4b0a40aa3abf313

As usual with senior types, the offending person has said he "regrets" making "an error of judgement" and does not admit wrong-doing, breaking the law or even a simple driving while plastered.

HuffPo wrote:

One of the Roman Catholic Church's most senior clergymen was arrested last week for driving under the influence during a trip to Hawaii. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported Monday that 79-year-old Cardinal William Joseph Levada, of Menlo Park, California, was stopped at about midnight Thursday in Kailua-Kona on the Big Island after a patrol car saw him swerve.

Levada, formerly the highest ranking American official in the Vatican, was charged with driving under the influence and was released from police custody after posting $500 bail. In a statement emailed to The Huffington Post by a spokesman for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Levada said, “I regret my error in judgment. I intend to continue fully cooperating with the authorities.”

Levada, the former archbishop of Portland and San Francisco, was reportedly vacationing with other priests on the Big Island when the arrest occurred. When asked how the archdiocese handles situations like this, spokesman Michael Brown said that in this specific case, "'punishment' is not a factor."

“Speaking generally at all levels of the organization, such things would be looked at on a case-by-case basis," he wrote in an email to HuffPost. "Where a lapse in judgment occurred, the matter would probably be considered less serious. If the matter seemed to indicate a more serious problem, this would be treated more seriously. This would be true at all employee levels."

New cardinal William Joseph Levada receives the biretta cap from Pope Benedict XVI in Saint Peter's Square, March 24, 2006 in Vatican City. The Pontiff installed 15 new cardinals during the Consistory ceremony.
Catholic cardinals, traditionally seen as "princes of the church," are appointed by the pope and are second to him in terms of church hierarchy. Currently, there are 219 cardinals worldwide, including 15 in the United States.

In 2005, former Pope Benedict XVI named Levada as his successor as Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. One year later, Benedict named him a cardinal. Since his retirement as Prefect in 2012, Levada has held the position of Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was part of the conclave that elected Pope Francis in 2013. The Hawaii Tribune-Herald reported Levada is scheduled to appear in Kona District Court Sept. 24. A police spokeswoman declined to provide the newspaper with Levada's blood alcohol content.

robindch

Remember that archbishop who was "recalled" to the Vatican to face trial over a wide range of illegal acts and who fell ill the day before his trial opened last month?

Well, the Vatican has just announced that he's dead:

http://www.thejournal.ie/vatican-sexually-assaulted-boys-trial-dies-2297680-Aug2015/

The Journal wrote:

FORMER POLISH ARCHBISHOP Jozef Wesolowski, who would have been the first high-ranking church official to go on trial on paedophile charges, died overnight, the Vatican announced Friday. Wesolowski, 67, had suffered from health problems that last month caused postponement of his criminal trial, which was to be the first of its kind initiated by the Vatican against a church official.

Wesolowski had been charged with possessing child pornography in Rome in 2013-14, and the sexual abuse of minors during his 2008-13 stint as the Vaticannuncio, or ambassador, in the Dominican Republic. He was secretly recalled from his posting in 2012 after the church hierarchy was informed that he had regularly paid young Dominican boys for sexual services.

Wesolowski was defrocked by a church court in June 2014. He was placed under house arrest in September 2014 following a decision to pursue criminal charges against him. Both moves were personally ordered by Pope Francis, according to Vatican officials. The disgraced prelate fell ill on the eve of the opening of his 11 July trial.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Well, the Vatican has just announced that he's dead:

Am I the only one thinking 'closed coffin full of bricks' at the 'funeral' ?

Is there space for one more in the Benedict Retirement Home?

kylith

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking 'closed coffin full of bricks' at the 'funeral' ?

Is there space for one more in the Benedict Retirement Home?

For a priest called Wozef Jesolowski, perhaps?

robindch

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Am I the only one thinking 'closed coffin full of bricks' at the 'funeral'?

You're ahead of me.

I was thinking the Reverend Green with the lead piping in the Sistine Chapel.

Hotblack Desiato

kylith wrote: »

For a priest called Wozef Jesolowski, perhaps?

It's A Grand Place Altogether For People Not Hiding Away From Possible Extradition For Child Abuse And/Or Conspiracy To Cover Up Same, So It Is.

recedite

I reckon it was the Pope's butler, with a poison tipped umbrella, in the Sistine Chapel.

Hotblack Desiato

Notorious clerical sex abuser dies in prison awaiting trial

robindch

The ominously-titled "National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church in Ireland", funded by the Church, has published its latest audit.

The covering press release is here, the summary results are here and the detailed reports are here.

The most notable thing is the low rate of conviction - only one in every fifty allegations resulted in conviction, which is consistent with the conversion rate for allegations of rape (apparently, only around one percent).

NBSCCCI wrote:

For the 8 male orders a total of 325 allegations have been made since 1941 against 141 priests, or brothers resulting in 8 criminal convictions up to date of each review, one of these allegations relates to abuse having taken place in 2003. All other instances of abuse occurred prior to 1996.

Peregrinus

These aren't 325 new allegations, as far as I can tell. This was an audit, not of how many allegations were received, but of how well or badly allegations were handled when received. As such, it examined the handling of allegations that were mostly already known about.

The low conviction rate, we already know about. It may be comparable with the rape conviction rate, but I think that's coincidental. There are different dynamics at work to influence the conviction rate.

Headlines notwithstanding, these weren't 325 allegations of abuse; the figure of 325 includes (a) allegations of abuse, (b) allegations of suspected abuse ("I am concerned that something may have happened to this child") and (c) allegations of concerns about child safeguarding ("they don't have good procedures in place"/"they're not following the procedures they claim to have in place"/"Brother So-and-so was always hanging around the changing rooms"). A lot of those would not be allegations that any criminal activity has taken place. Even if we look just at allegations of abuse, some of those did not involve any allegation of necessarily criminal activity ("I was given a hard time at school"). Whereas all allegations of rape are allegations of criminal activity.

Of the 325 allegations, one related to the year 2003; the rest to various years between 1941 and 1995. While a proportion of rape allegations would also be made years or decades after the event, I don't think it would be anything like that proportion. And that obviously influences prosecution and conviction rates.

The low conviction rate for rape is partly the result of low reporting rates. Many allegations of rape known to, e.g., hospitals or the rape crisis centre are never reported to the police (because that's up to the victim, and many victims don't go to the police). Counsellors and medics cannot report independently, since this is normally a breach of their professional ethic of confidentiality. Whereas all of the 325 allegations covered by this report were referred to the police.

So, all-in-all, I don't think comparisons with the rape conviction rate are necessarily very meaningful.

Seth Brundle

A leopard doesn't change it's spots apparently...
Abuse survivor Marie Collins speaks out on pope’s child agency