Ongoing religious scandals

King Mob

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/catholic-church-hired-lobby-firms-block-n-y-kid-rape-laws-article-1.2655010

Imma post this next time I see someone natter on about the Pope downgrading his golden chair to a wooden one...

PopePalpatine

Kevin Doran (yes, that guy who denied cancer treatment to pregnant women when he was in charge of the Mater Hospital) says "[the RCC] have tended to apologise too much for [being an overbearing influence on the State] and we've gone the other way", among other shite.

MrPudding

Stay classy RCC.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Kevin Doran (yes, that guy who denied cancer treatment to pregnant women when he was in charge of the Mater Hospital) says "[the RCC] have tended to apologise too much for [being an overbearing influence on the State] and we've gone the other way", among other shite.

And he says there are still some priests who avoid children altogether as a result.

Good.

MrPudding

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Good.

Yeah. He's saying it like it's a problem. The more priests stay away from kids, and I don't mean just from a "so they don't rape them" perspective, the better it is for those kids.

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

Ex-priest faces maximum of two years for raping boy with crucifix

Former “singing” priest Tony Walsh faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison for raping a boy with a crucifix, a court has heard.

Anthony Walsh (62) committed the offence and two other rapes of the same victim before the Criminal Law (Rape) Amendment Act came into effect in 1990, meaning that the maximum penalty the judge can impose on each offence is two years.

During the trial Walsh told the jury that his offending in relation to children started in 1980 and continued to 1986. He said a number of the children told their families what was happening and he was called in by the Archbishop in 1986.

He said he was sent for six months treatment in the UK and on his return home he was made a hospital chaplain.

Hotblack Desiato

Paedophile priest had links to other infamous child abusers

Hotblack Desiato

Journalists cleared but priest convicted in ‘Vatileaks’ trial

A Vatican court on Thursday cleared two Italian journalists who had been charged with publishing leaked documents that claimed the headquarters of the Catholic Church was riddled with corruption.

In a defeat for the prosecution, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction over Gianluigi Nuzzi and Emiliano Fittipaldi because they are not officials of the Vatican, a sovereign state in the heart of Rome.

However, the court declared guilty verdicts against two other defendants, Italian public relations expert Francesca Chaouqui and Spanish priest Angel Lucio Vallejo Balda. Vallejo was given an 18-month sentence and Chaouqui, who has a three-week-old son, was given a 10-month suspended sentence.

Lithium93_

Minnesota Priest’s Memo Says Vatican Ambassador Tried to Stifle Sex Abuse Inquiry

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/minnesota-priests-memo-says-vatican-envoy-tried-to-stifle-sex-abuse-inquiry.html?_r=1

Rev. Dan Griffith, who was working in the top ranks of the archdiocese and was the liaison to the lawyers conducting the inquiry. He wrote that the ambassador’s order to call off the investigation and destroy evidence amounted to “a good old fashioned cover-up to preserve power and avoid scandal.

expectationlost

just noticed a press complaint over an article from 2010 about those pre-signed mass cards only got ajudicated on recently http://www.presscouncil.ie/Decided-by-the-Press-Ombudsman/mcc-and-the-sunday-business-post article from SBP behind paywall http://www.businesspost.ie/african-bishop-urges-longford-brothers-to-stop-trading-mass-cards/ already lost an appeal on the restictions put in place in 2009 won't say who is authorising cards http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/mass-card-company%E2%80%99s-row-church-escalates

withdrew further appeal http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/bogus-mass-cards-will-finally-be-banned

recedite

I have to laugh at this one. The idea that mass cards are being sold cheaper in Ireland because they have been signed by African priests. Its basically an Irish scam artist being undercut by an African scam artist. And both scammers get their accreditation from to the same organisation in Rome anyway. What was the actual complaint anyway? Is it that the customer is being swindled because the cheapo prayers might not be able to fly all the way to heaven? The complaint was probably withdrawn because they couldn't show any disadvantage to the customer.

recedite

On closer reading I see it was the prayer importer who withdrew the complaint. So now we have the state intervening with legislation to provide a monopoly on selling snake oil for only Irish snake oil salesmen. Totally ridiculous, its at times like this I feel we live in a banana republic.

Cabaal

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36911464

Australia's most senior Roman Catholic, Cardinal George Pell, has called claims that he sexually abused children "a scandalous smear campaign".

Details of alleged incidents have been broadcast by the country's public broadcaster, ABC television.

Police in Victoria state have confirmed they are investigating several allegations against the cardinal.

Cardinal Pell's office says he "unequivocally rejects any allegations of sexual abuse against him".

Two men, now aged in their forties, from Cardinal Pell's home town of Ballarat said he had touched them inappropriately in the 1970s by grasping them around the groin to throw them into the air while swimming.

In a separate incident alleged to have taken place in the 1980s, a man said he had found it "very odd" to find the cardinal standing naked in front of three boys in the changing rooms at a local surf club.

recedite

..a man said he had found it "very odd" to find the cardinal standing naked in front of three boys in the changing rooms at a local surf club..

Its not what it looks like.
See, the when the boys failed to show up for choir practice, the Cardinal became worried about them and went down to the surf club to make sure they hadn't been eaten by sharks. Then, just as he arrived, a hurricane came in from the ocean and blew away all their clothes. Just at that moment, this other pesky man arrived on the scene...

robindch

BBC wrote:

In a separate incident alleged to have taken place in the 1980s, a man said he had found it "very odd" to find the cardinal standing naked in front of three boys in the changing rooms at a local surf club.

Given what we now know about many priests, I have to say that it doesn't seem "very odd" to me at all, at least in retrospect.

BTW, at the secondary school I went to, one catholic priest was notorious for hanging around the boys' changing room and occasionally flicking the boys' perky, dripping bums with wet towels and the like. I don't believe it ever got any further than that, but he was well known for it down several generations of students at the school. That and the "sex talks" he used to have with selected students - one on one, so to speak.

Hotblack Desiato

My secondary school (I was there 1983-88) had about a dozen shower cubicles next to the gym and the use of them was expressly forbidden even though the only CB still around at that stage was the principal. I don't think it was a maintenance issue...

smacl

Meanwhile, back at the seminary; http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0803/806608-maynooth-seminary/

Martin's actions seem to me to suggest a bit more going on than we're currently seeing, given Fr Hoban's comments of "It seems extraordinary that attention is being given to moving deck chairs on the Titanic rather than getting to the issues that are important" would otherwise seem reasonable.

(Edit, just noticed this has already been posted on the hazards thread).

looksee

There is mention in the article of a million catholics in the Dublin area, and yet few priests under 40 (the point seemed to be that Seminarians were being moved to Rome, presumably ultimately they would move back again so it would not matter that they left or their education). It might be more to the point to ask why there are so few seminarians and young priests with such a large population to draw on? The other thought that occurs is that maybe in a desperate attempt to keep up numbers, the admission requirements are less stringent than they might previously have been.

smacl

looksee wrote: »

There is mention in the article of a million catholics in the Dublin area, and yet few priests under 40

But how many regular church goers that would see the local PP as a figure of authority or role model, to the extent that they'd be tempted to join the priesthood? Apparently there were a total of just 14 vocations in Ireland from a population of 4.65 million nominal Catholics. One can understand Hoban's concern over Martin's actions given that his own writings on the state of declining priesthood;

Brendan Hoban wrote:

It isn’t, of course, the only question that needs to be asked as our Church faces a difficult future, but it is of immediate and critical concern. For, at most, we have a window of a decade or so to come to terms with this imminent crisis. And unless we do a Eucharist famine will prevail in Ireland as parishes without Mass will lose their focus and their resilience. Without priests we have no Mass and without Mass we have no Church. It’s as simple as that.

I think he's probably nailed it, and the Catholic church in this country has passed the tipping point where it can continue in its current form. It must be pretty tortuous for the old guard as they become less able and have no one to pass the reins to. The linked article above on Hoban's book, while somewhat lengthy, makes for interesting reading.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

a million catholics in the Dublin area

Yeah, right...

Seth Brundle

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yeah, right...

Once you're a member, you can't leave!

looksee

smacl wrote: »

But how many regular church goers that would see the local PP as a figure of authority or role model, to the extent that they'd be tempted to join the priesthood? Apparently there were a total of just 14 vocations in Ireland from a population of 4.65 million nominal Catholics.
.

That is what I was suggesting, apparently not very well!

PopePalpatine

The Republican mayor of Stockton, California, whose previous hits include giving the Key to the City to God and hosting official "town hall" meetings in his mega-church, has been arrested for playing strip poker with underage boys.

Oh, and there's the small matter of his gun being used to kill a 13-year-old boy prior to him reporting it missing.

robindch

Unfortunately, the religious congregations who were party to the Michael Wood's indemnity deal of 2002, well, they keep on forgetting to pay half of the bill.

Haven't heard any talk of interest or penalties which the rest of us have to pay if we're late on paying taxes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/religious-congregations-owe-245m-in-state-redress-1.2807873

Irish Times wrote:

Religious congregations remain €245 million short in their contribution to a State redress scheme for survivors of residential institutions for children, which the religious congregations ran up to the 1970s. The 2009 Ryan Report, which found there had been endemic abuse and neglect in the institutions run by 18 religious congregations, recommended that they pay about half of the cost of the €1.5 billion redress scheme.

A total contribution of some €725 million has been sought but, to date, they have offered €480 million, according to Department of Education figures provided to Independent Senator Victor Boyhan. A response to Mr Boyhan’s query stated: “Successive Governments have adopted the position that the costs of the response to residential institutional abuse should be shared on a 50:50 basis between the State and those who managed the institutions.”

This position had “broad support across Dáil Éireann and it has been argued that there is a strong moral obligation on those involved, to deliver on their responsibilities”, the department said. The response also noted that “apart from one congregation that believes its contribution represents its 50 per cent share, the remaining congregations have either declined to comment on the appropriateness of, or disagree with the 50:50 principle”.

Meanwhile, the amount paid out to survivors more than tripled last year. According to the 2015 annual report of Caranua, the agency established by Government to provide support to people who suffered abuse in the institutions, €31 million was paid in 2015. This follows €9 million paid in 2014. With another €9 million paid between January and June of this year, the total to date has reached almost €50 million. According to Caranua, 3,545 survivors have now received payments and the payout works out at – on average – €14,122 each. Caranua was established under the Residential Institutions Statutory Fund Act 2012.

Religious congregations who were part of the indemnity agreement in 2002, with the then government, have pledged €110 million to the fund to meet the needs of eligible survivors. The annual report states that, at the end of 2015, €85 million of this had been received, with a commitment for the balance to be received over the next two years. Caranua is responsible for managing these funds to secure improvements in the well-being of eligible survivors, by paying for services for them. To be eligible, individuals must have received financial redress through the Residential Institutions Redress Board (RIRB), legal settlements or the Irish courts. The number of eligible survivors is estimated at just over 15,000. Six of every 10 of these live in Ireland, one in three in the UK and the remainder in other parts of the world, with small clusters in the United States, Australia and Canada.

Absolam

robindch wrote: »

Unfortunately, the religious congregations who were party to the Michael Wood's indemnity deal of 2002, well, they keep on forgetting to pay half of the bill.
Haven't heard any talk of interest or penalties which the rest of us have to pay if we're late on paying taxes:

Wait a sec, is there any reason to think they haven't already paid all of their bill? After all, the bill was only €128 million, and, despite having being indemnified against any further payments by, well, that indemnity deal you mentioned, they've stumped up €480 million. It's a bit disingenuous to claim they're forgetting to pay a bill that they don't owe anything on; the article clearly says "The 2009 Ryan Report, which found there had been endemic abuse and neglect in the institutions run by 18 religious congregations, recommended that they pay about half of the cost of the €1.5 billion redress scheme."

Far more accurate to say the government seriously underestimated the cost of redress, made a very very bad deal with the Congregations, and would like those Congregations to pay half of what the government owes and are trying to spin that moral obligation because they know full well they assumed the actual obligation themselves.

I've no issue with saying the congregations have a moral obligation to pitch in; they assuredly do, but no one can deny they have gone far further than they were legally obliged to. This 'they're not paying their bills' malarkey is just nonsense. They're not their bills; they're the governments, and we shouldn't be complicit in allowing the government to sidle away from their responsibility for the clusterf**k they made of that deal.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

no one can deny they have gone far further than they were legally obliged to. This 'they're not paying their bills' malarkey is just nonsense. They're not their bills; they're the governments, and we shouldn't be complicit in allowing the government to sidle away from their responsibility for the clusterf**k they made of that deal.

The 2002 indemnity signed by treachereous govt. minister M. Woods, on behalf of the state, did not indemnify the RCC for all and every abuse it is responsible for, until the end of time.

Under the terms of his secretive deal, only those matters brought before the Redress Board were indemnified. See clause 1a here.

The Redress Board had a limited 3 year timespan, and is now closed.

However, the legislation was amended and extended in 2005 and again in 2011. The compensation scheme for victims was extended, but the important question of whether the indemnity itself was extended is somewhat murky. I think probably not. It seems this particular can has been kicked down the road ever since. Hence the Dail making "suggestions" of a 50% ongoing contribution from the RCC. If those suggestions are ignored, the state should turn around and land the RCC with the bill for 100% of the ongoing costs, backdated to 2005.

So at this stage RCC and/or their insurers (and we know they took out insurance prior to the inquiries) should be paying 100% of the costs to the current scheme Carranua.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The 2002 indemnity signed by treachereous govt. minister M. Woods, on behalf of the state, did not indemnify the RCC for all and every abuse it is responsible for, until the end of time. Under the terms of his secretive deal, only those matters brought before the Redress Board were indemnified. See clause 1a here. The Redress Board had a limited 3 year timespan, and is now closed. However, the legislation was amended and extended in 2005 and again in 2011. The compensation scheme for victims was extended, but the important question of whether the indemnity itself was extended is somewhat murky. I think probably not. It seems this particular can has been kicked down the road ever since. Hence the Dail making "suggestions" of a 50% ongoing contribution from the RCC. If those suggestions are ignored, the state should turn around and land the RCC with the bill for 100% of the ongoing costs, backdated to 2005.

Well, obviously the RCC wasn't ever indemnified at all, so there's that.... Still, you're kind of giving me the impression you didn't actually read your 'secret.pdf'? According to your document, the eighteen Congregations who were indemnified, weren't just indemnified against claims before the Redress Board, but against any determination of a Court, or Court award or settlement in respect of any action arising out of the same circumstances as gave rise to an application to the Redress Board. Additionally, the term wasn't limited to the lifetime of the Board, but included where proceedings are issued in respect of such matter before the expiry of the period constituting the aggregate of the period and any extension thereof (the "Statutory Period"). Since that Statutory period has been extended, I don't think there's anything at all 'murky' about how far the indemnity has been extended; your 'hence' what 'seems' owes more to the fact that the State knows it clearly has no legal claim on the Congregations and can only recommend that the Congregations give them a dig out.

recedite wrote: »

So at this stage RCC and/or their insurers (and we know they took out insurance prior to the inquiries) should be paying 100% of the costs to the current scheme Carranua.

Well, should is obviously a matter of opinion, but I'd say from what you've presented that the only party with any legal obligation seems to be the State. And if anyone providing legal advice to the State over the last dozen years has been of a different opinion, they don't seem to have mustered enough confidence to put the matter before a Court, have they? You'd imagine with a billion euros at stake they'd at least make the attempt if they thought there was any chance at all.....

Peregrinus

Nah, the thing is, the church isn't a party to the comPensation scheme. If you have been abused, and you apply for compensation under the scheme, and you are awarded such-and-such an amount, that's an award against the state. "The church" (or, more accurately, a particular religious order) isn't liable to pay that award. There has been no claim against them, they haven't been involved in any proceedings, they haven't seen the evidence, they haven't been asked to respond, they haven't had an opportunity to respond, the award is not against them.

The state can't simply turn around and decree that we have decided that this person should be paid this money by "the church"; the Supreme Court would go through them for a short cut. If you want to establish that someone is liable to pay money, you need to sue them. In court. In a court in which they have a right to participate the proceedings, and respond to the claims made.

This isn't a bug in the redress scheme; it's a feature. The whole point was to avoid victims having to go through court processes individually in order to get redress. But the decision that the redress scheme would be a transaction between claimants and the state, with church agencies not involved, was a conscious and intentional decision, and its implications for recovering from the church were well understood at the time.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

but included where proceedings are issued in respect of such matter before the expiry of the period constituting the aggregate of the period and any extension thereof (the "Statutory Period"). Since that Statutory period has been extended, I don't think there's anything at all 'murky' about how far the indemnity has been extended...

The lack of clarity is because subsequent schemes were set up under different acts of the oireactas, and while their purpose may have been broadly similar, ie to provide easy access to compensation for the victims, the issue of whether the indemnity was carried on is less clear cut. An indemnity normally has a specified time limit. If it is going to be extended, that requires the agreement of both parties.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nah, the thing is, the church isn't a party to the comPensation scheme..

Yes, I agree. The state is 100% liable for awards made through Caranua because it has voluntarily set up that scheme and accepted 100% of any resulting liabilities. But it has asked the RCC to voluntarily accept 50% of those liabilities.

The point is, the state can shut down the current scheme (Caranua) at any time, and say to people you must go and sue the religious order/RCC/ and/or their insurers, instead. The church indemnity no longer applies at this stage. It seems the political will for any such action is lacking though.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

The lack of clarity is because subsequent schemes were set up under different acts of the oireactas, and while their purpose may have been broadly similar, ie to provide easy access to compensation for the victims, the issue of whether the indemnity was carried on is less clear cut.

What do you think lacks clarity? Which of the schemes you're talking about isn't covered by 'any determination of a Court, or Court award or settlement in respect of any action arising out of the same circumstances as gave rise to an application to the Redress Board', but does include the eighteen Congregations as specified in the indemnity?

recedite wrote: »

An indemnity normally has a specified time limit. If it is going to be extended, that requires the agreement of both parties.

Maybe. The indemnity agreement you provided certainly does specify how the time limit of the agreed indemnity would be extended, it's true to say.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, I agree. The state is 100% liable for awards made through Caranua because it has voluntarily set up that scheme and accepted 100% of any resulting liabilities. But it has asked the RCC to voluntarily accept 50% of those liabilities.

That's literally not true though. 100% of the money disbursed by Caranua comes from the Congregations; the very purpose of Caranua is to disburse funds pledged by the Congregations, not the government.

recedite wrote: »

The point is, the state can shut down the current scheme (Caranua) at any time, and say to people you must go and sue the religious order/RCC/ and/or their insurers, instead. The church indemnity no longer applies at this stage. It seems the political will for any such action is lacking though.

Are you basing that view on anything more than wishful thinking? Caranua is a fund, which provides support to people who have received an award through settlement, Court or the Residential Institutions Redress Board in relation to their time in an institution. They don't deal with new claims; they assist people who had previously successful claims. And they're not spending State money either; they exist to oversee the use of the cash contributions of up to €110m pledged by the religious Congregations to support the needs of some 15,000 survivors of residential institutional child abuse who have received awards from the Residential Institutions Redress Board or equivalent court awards (which the Congregations were indemnified against, along with any settlements or claims arising out of those circumstances, remember?). They've handed over €85m of that so far by the way, and Caranua has spent €41m of it. So if the State did shut it down, they'd only be denying people money coming from the religious Congregations, in order to make people sue Congregations already indemnified by the government who would then have to pick up the tab (if successful; pretty dubious)?

I can see why the political will for such an action would be lacking to be honest. Are you sure you've thought about these notions you're putting forward? It seems like you haven't even checked out the structures and organisations you're talking about.