The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

aloyisious

There's been a development in the Garda investigation of clerical sexual abuse cases, following on from the Murphy Commission report of the Dublin Diocese. A Wicklow-based Garda has been arrested and is facing charges in connection with falsifying DPP documents.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda-held-over-claim-she-forged-dpp-documentation-1.1404865

marienbad

aloyisious wrote: »

There's been a development in the Garda investigation of clerical sexual abuse cases, following on from the Murphy Commission report of the Dublin Diocese. A Wicklow-based Garda has been arrested and is facing charges in connection with falsifying DPP documents.

A member of the Garda has been arrested and was due to appear before the courts this morning over allegations that she forged documentation from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/garda-held-over-claim-she-forged-dpp-documentation-1.1404865

Friends in low places .:mad: will it never end ?

Benny_Cake

Mod note: Can I remind everyone that simply copying and pasting a full article from a newspaper or blog is not allowed. You may post one paragraph and provide a link. Please read Dav's post here.

Moderators shouldn't have to edit other user's posts and chase down links, so if it happens in future such posts will simply be deleted.

aloyisious

Murphy Commission report Chapter 20.

Chief superintendent McGovern told the Commission “he considered Fr McCabe’s behaviour to be a matter for the Church to deal with. This was despite his knowledge that an investigation had just commenced into an allegation of indecent assault,” as the report puts it. He said “the question of disciplining the priest was a matter for Archbishop’s House who were in the main responsible for the priest.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/church-can-t-whitewash-abuse-archbishop-diarmuid-martin-1.1462322

PopePalpatine

It seems that old habits die hard: the Catholic Church's envoy to the Dominican Republic has been recalled after allegations of paedophilia. [Reuters]

Faith2013

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It seems that old habits die hard: the Catholic Church's envoy to the Dominican Republic has been recalled after allegations of paedophilia. [Reuters]

Yeap zero tolerance policy.

PopePalpatine

You'd think that they'd make him face justice in that country's courts, not just get sentenced to X years of "penance".

Faith2013

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You'd think that they'd make him face justice in that country's courts, not just get sentenced to X years of "penance".

If there was a civil crime commited believe me he will face trial... He won't be sent to a monastery. The Pope has made it quiet clear that if you commit a crime you will serve the time, that is why there is a Monsignor in jail for money laundering in Vatican bank. There simply is no place in the Church for abuse and no Bishop is going to stand over this.

Kettleson

Faith2013 wrote: »

If there was a civil crime commited believe me he will face trial... He won't be sent to a monastery. The Pope has made it quiet clear that if you commit a crime you will serve the time, that is why there is a Monsignor in jail for money laundering in Vatican bank. There simply is no place in the Church for abuse and no Bishop is going to stand over this.

And there are plenty of bishops and other clergy members who are still keeping quiet on previous crimes and various other wrong doings, but did not have the balls or moral strenght to do anything about it either now, or at the time.

Many were so knee deep in the corruption of the catholic church that they knew no better and many were hiding their own deviancy within the secrecy and corruption of the church.

So now they know for their own survival that they have to challenge and expose such heinous crimes in the future. Little more than a crass PR excercise. Too little too late and totally false.

The catholic church is finished, done and thank god for that.
<SNIP>
Mod: This isn't the thread for discussing Catholic theology. Remarks or statement as facts that directly contradict the belief of Catholics in an offensive manner aren't really welcome here.

Kettleson

Faith2013 wrote: »

If there was a civil crime commited believe me he will face trial... He won't be sent to a monastery. The Pope has made it quiet clear that if you commit a crime you will serve the time, that is why there is a Monsignor in jail for money laundering in Vatican bank. There simply is no place in the Church for abuse and no Bishop is going to stand over this.

"The pope has made it quite clear...."

Do you really believe that one man in the vatican can police the actions and appalling behaviour of hundreds of thousands around the world?

I work directly with the victims of clerical abuse and there are plenty of people still in high places who still remain silent about what they know or were party to covering up. I consider the defence of the indefensible utterly offensive.

Manach

Kettleson wrote: »

"The pope has made it quite clear...."

Do you really believe that one man in the vatican can police the actions and appalling behaviour of hundreds of thousands around the world?

Where are you picking those figures out from? Given the wide-ranging and universal nature of the Church, there are always going to be various bad elements. However based on academic courses I've attended, the rate of criminal offence of clergy in general would indicated be either lower that other professional norms, or equivalent in some cases.

Kettleson

Manach wrote: »

Where are you picking those figures out from? Given the wide-ranging and universal nature of the Church, there are always going to be various bad elements. However based on academic courses I've attended, the rate of criminal offence of clergy in general would indicated be either lower that other professional norms, or equivalent in some cases.

I wasn't referring to criminal offenders, I was referring to the number of clergy in total within the catholic church. Perhaps you can advise how many members that is?

Then apply my logic that what one person has decreed has little influence on what numerous others are intent on doing around the world and how that is policed. That isn't 100% achievable within one diocese, or even one parish.

Just because one man says he wont tolerate it from here on, doesn't mean everything has been put right forever for the future.

Faith2013

Kettleson wrote: »

"The pope has made it quite clear...."

Do you really believe that one man in the vatican can police the actions and appalling behaviour of hundreds of thousands around the world?

I work directly with the victims of clerical abuse and there are plenty of people still in high places who still remain silent about what they know or were party to covering up. I consider the defence of the indefensible utterly offensive.

So you honestly think that Bishops are going to cover up criminal acts?

The Church has come to clear terms it can't cover up abuse.

Also if you believe that people in high places are covering up abuse then you have the moral obligation to report it.

You can't accuse clergy of covering abuse without proof. And if you actually have proof of abuse then go to the Gards.

Faith2013

Kettleson wrote: »

I wasn't referring to criminal offenders, I was referring to the number of clergy in total within the catholic church. Perhaps you can advise how many members that is?

Then apply my logic that what one person has decreed has little influence on what numerous others are intent on doing around the world and how that is policed. That isn't 100% achievable within one diocese, or even one parish.

Just because one man says he wont tolerate it from here on, doesn't mean everything has been put right forever for the future.

The Pope has made it crystal clear that it will not tolerate abuse, which is a crime never mind a sin.

That x bishop decides to deal with abuse of a priest without reporting it to the authorities is HIS problem, he is committing a crime and he knows it.

Sonics2k

Faith2013 wrote: »

So you honestly think that Bishops are going to cover up criminal acts?

The Church has come to clear terms it can't cover up abuse.

Also if you believe that people in high places are covering up abuse then you have the moral obligation to report it.

You can't accuse clergy of covering abuse without proof. And if you actually have proof of abuse then go to the Gards.

What? It's been shown that Bishops have covered criminal acts, it had been reported to the Gardai and the people have been moved somewhere else in the world.

Read a newspaper for crying out loud.

Manach

Perhaps read a history book as well for comparison.

The treatment of the most vulnerable in European societies up to the 70s is broadly comparable to church based institutions - given that this state from its earliest foundation had emigration as a solution to social ills.
As for a broad ignoring of the facts of rights abuses (using ECHR terminology), then sections of the civil guards and civil service in other areas are complicate in such dealing with prisoners, the elderly and mental patents. To use the abject failings in the hierarchy to then paint most ordinary clerics and to seek to implement a broad anti-religious re-structuring of society based, a la some type of 3rd Republic France, on political historical actors who have failed so deeply would be a cause of wonderment if it was not so foolish.

Kettleson

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps read a history book as well for comparison.

The treatment of the most vulnerable in European societies up to the 70s is broadly comparable to church based institutions - given that this state from its earliest foundation had emigration as a solution to social ills.
As for a broad ignoring of the facts of rights abuses (using ECHR terminology), then sections of the civil guards and civil service in other areas are complicate in such dealing with prisoners, the elderly and mental patents. To use the abject failings in the hierarchy to then paint most ordinary clerics and to seek to implement a broad anti-religious re-structuring of society based, a la some type of 3rd Republic France, on political historical actors who have failed so deeply would be a cause of wonderment if it was not so foolish.

Yes indeed it was a wondrous example of letting us all eat cake. Even well into the late 20th century. The analogy used based on the imagery of cake eating to suggest anti-religious sentiment was indeed common enough as well in the united states as Dr John Hindleberg suggested in his research papers which unfortunately remain unpublished to this day.

Bearing this in mind, there are numerous cases of clerical abuse in Ireland which have yet to be brought before the courts, but they will be in due course and not before time.

Faith2013

Sonics2k wrote: »

What? It's been shown that Bishops have covered criminal acts, it had been reported to the Gardai and the people have been moved somewhere else in the world.

Read a newspaper for crying out loud.

"Shown" past tense.. If an allegation is make known today to a Bishop he has to report it to the Civil authorities.

Has there been a case of abuse in Ireland in say the last 10 years.. I mean a case report of abuse committed since 2003?

Abuse runs contrary to everything that Christ preached.

Sonics2k

Faith2013 wrote: »

"Shown" past tense.. If an allegation is make known today to a Bishop he has to report it to the Civil authorities.

Has there been a case of abuse in Ireland in say the last 10 years.. I mean a case report of abuse committed since 2003?

Abuse runs contrary to everything that Christ preached.

I'm on my phone, so it's hard to find a link. But I believe there was a case reported from 2003.

But maybe we should be congratulating them for not molesting children for 10 years, all past cases will be forgotten because they realized it's bad to touch kids.

Honestly.

Faith2013

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm on my phone, so it's hard to find a link. But I believe there was a case reported from 2003.

But maybe we should be congratulating them for not molesting children for 10 years, all past cases will be forgotten because they realized it's bad to touch kids.

Honestly.

No much point having a discussion if you won't believe the objective facts of how abuse cases are handled by Bishops today.

forgot to add @Sonics2k you don't need to believe my word, you can just go by the state audits of Irish Diocesis, they speak for themselves. there has not been a case of abuse commited in the last 10 years. If abuse were to be reported it would be reported by and large to the Gards or HSE and they are certainly not going to let it pass.

Sonics2k

Faith2013 wrote: »

No much point having a discussion if you won't believe the objective facts of how abuse cases are handled by Bishops today.

forgot to add @Sonics2k you don't need to believe my word, you can just go by the state audits of Irish Diocesis, they speak for themselves. there has not been a case of abuse commited in the last 10 years. If abuse were to be reported it would be reported by and large to the Gards or HSE and they are certainly not going to let it pass.

Here is my point.

Are we supposed to be proud that apparently no member of the Clergy has molested a child in the last 10 years? Are we supposed to be happy with this? Surprised?

I'll be honest. I kinda go along the lines -no one has molested a child at all, ever-.

Whoopededoo for the Clergy. They managed to go a decade without ruining a childs life. That we know of anyway.

Turtwig

I'd actually be shocked if there wasn't a case of child sex abuse among a member of the clergy in the last ten years. Perhaps that's a indication of their position of trust being reduced. Still though like teachers, child psychologists and other professions that have high levels of trust and confidentiality with children you would expect some child abusers to be present. It's a horrible fact to say but those are the kind of professions that provide the preferred environment for the abusers to operate in. So you would expect to hear cases about it. Actually, I'd be more concerned if we ended with a situation where no cases were coming to light, ever!

Faith2013

Jernal wrote: »

I'd actually be shocked if there wasn't a case of child sex abuse among a member of the clergy in the last ten years. Perhaps that's a indication of their position of trust being reduced. Still though like teachers, child psychologists and other professions that have high levels of trust and confidentiality with children you would expect some child abusers to be present. It's a horrible fact to say but those are the kind of professions that provide the preferred environment for the abusers to operate in. So you would expect to hear cases about it. Actually, I'd be more concerned if we ended with a situation where no cases were coming to light, ever!

Its not surprising at all, Alter boys are supervised always a 2nd adult present, if a priest wants to organise an event with kids there has to be a parent present. Its the same with other organisations, you can't have a swimming class without a parent present.

Child protection is very different today, and the guidelines are clear.

Also new seminarians today have a lot more stringent psychological evaluations, training is different to 30 years ago. Seminarians are also older today and many come from uni or work...

So the evidence speaks for itself, the Church has rooted out abuse as best it can, you can never say 100%, but you an put in place the best measures possible.

Glined

A cover up being when an organization goes out of its way to cover up a scandal.

But with the Catholic church, this wasn't the case. Since the Church has always dealt with all problems privately - because of the nature of the organization (some would say organism).

The failure to handle the problem was a natural consequence of this DIY policy. I can see a difference here, a difference that very few are willing to notice.

Since it is not a crime to be unable or ill equipped to handle something like child abuse, I don't see why anyone but the actual abusing priests are guilty for doing wrong.

If you saw someone drowning, but you didn't know how to swim to save them, then the person died, does that make you a murderer?

Thoughts..

Mod: Moved to clerical abuse megathread

PopePalpatine

Not saving a drowning person because you can't swim is totally incomparable to perverting the course of justice. :mad:

Glined

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Not saving a drowning person because you can't swim is totally incomparable to perverting the course of justice. :mad:

You're not taking into account, the fact that nobody knew how to handle the problem. That is not a crime. Anybody here would have done the same thing in those days. But it's just easier to judge by todays standards I guess.

Oh, and the police can't arrest anyone apart from the actual abusers, because not being trained or equipped to properly handle such a serious situation is not a crime, punishable by law. Stop complaining about nobody being arrested, it would be unlawful.

Way to ignore my main point.

PopePalpatine

It is naive to believe that the Church was simply "ill-equipped" to tackle child abuse. Time and time again, it has been proven that the hierarchy were aware of child abuse and did little to stop it until they were caught (e.g. Fr. Brendan Smyth).

Glined

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It is naive to believe that the Church was simply "ill-equipped" to tackle child abuse. Time and time again, it has been proven that the hierarchy were aware of child abuse and did little to stop it until they were caught (e.g. Fr. Brendan Smyth).

Uh, would the Church doing nothing about it not be a clue that they didn't know how to handle it? Proving my point.

They were unable to handle it, I'll admit that, but that is not a crime. Just as you might find yourself in a similar difficult situation.

Anyway, it wasn't a cover up since the Church operates rather 'privately' anyway. It cannot be classed as a cover up because of the reason I gave.

I don't know what it would be called.

PopePalpatine

For such a hierarchy of learned men (how else would they have become bishops and archbishops?), you'd think they would be able to handle clerical abuse. Perhaps reporting the offender like ordinary people would have been a good starting point.

marienbad

Glined wrote: »

Uh, would the Church doing nothing about it not be a clue that they didn't know how to handle it? Proving my point.

They were unable to handle it, I'll admit that, but that is not a crime. Just as you might find yourself in a similar difficult situation.

Anyway, it wasn't a cover up since the Church operates rather 'privately' anyway. It cannot be classed as a cover up because of the reason I gave.

I don't know what it would be called.

Aiding and abetting is crime and covers this perfectly. And that is the least of the church's crimes.

I see you are a new poster - might I ask why would you raise this particular question and in such a peculiar manner ?