Bishop Lee

Speak Now

The Bishop of Waterford and Lismore has apologised for how he dealt with child abuse allegations in the mid-1990's.

Dr William Lee has said his handling of the claims against one of his priests was "seriously inadequate".

It has emerged he delayed two years before telling Gardaí about the complaints, and when the priest was moved to a new ministry, he did not inform the priest's new colleagues.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/bishop-apologises-for-handling-of-abuse-claims-451288.html#ixzz0jBctHOzk

"seriously inadequate" sounds like a bit of an understatement.

Only coming forward now because he know's it's coming out in the wash next month with the HSE audit results.

ROCKMAN

Totally PR stunt , to little to late ,
Does anyone believe anything these FCUKERS have to say anymore.

kryogen

christ, it really starts to hit home now when its that close

was the priest in question named?

im sure alot of us would remember Bishop Lee from our confirmations etc..

old gregg

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Totally PR stunt , to little to late ,
Does anyone believe anything these FCUKERS have to say anymore.

agree with you there. He should do time just like every other bishop who covered up and aided fellow criminal priests.

ziedth

TBH I can't ever see the church recovering from all of this. I'd be a fairly spiritual guy although I go to mass every other week I wouldn't consider myself catholic.

Like it's our kids who are going to cut and run from what we tell them of what we know now.

PR stunt is right, did they name the priest out of interest? It's actually at the stage that it would put me off a church wedding.

gscully

The fact that every one of the bishops failed in their duty tells me that they were ordered from a higher authority to keep things quiet. How else can you explain so many bishops refusing to disclose such a terrible crime. It looks like the power to say what was right or wrong was taken away from them.

I'm not saying that they should be excused blame, just that there is a rotten element in the church that seems to stretch all the way to the top, and the only way the church is going to recover from this is full-disclosure to the Gardai, resulting in jail-time. Effectively, they all aided terrible crimes by staying silent.

The sad thing is that priests have long since been tarred with the same brush. There seems to be more generalisation associated with this crime than any before or after. There are some good priests out there who take their role as God's representative very seriously.

ROCKMAN

old gregg wrote: »

agree with you there. He should do time just like every other bishop who covered up and aided fellow criminal priests.

Exactly , Surely want he and the other bishops did is against the law ,if that was Joe Soap who help cover up a crime , you think he'd be let off scot free.

Yes Gsully they must have been following orders from higher Authorities
but
As the Nazi would say I was only following orders

ziedth

It's an interesting point though,

Where does the blame lie? I'm sure they have a similar setup to the army and have to obey the commands of those higher up.

I think it's a case of those who do the act be it cover up or kill in the Nazi example mentioned.

Like I would never cover up for a pedophile, if it would mean that I loose my "job" so be it. I have more sympathy in the Nazi case because it was a case of kill or be killed not a case of cover up this sick act or be kicked out of the organisation that is asking you to protect a sicko.

merlante

gscully wrote: »

The fact that every one of the bishops failed in their duty tells me that they were ordered from a higher authority to keep things quiet. How else can you explain so many bishops refusing to disclose such a terrible crime. It looks like the power to say what was right or wrong was taken away from them.

I'm not saying that they should be excused blame, just that there is a rotten element in the church that seems to stretch all the way to the top, and the only way the church is going to recover from this is full-disclosure to the Gardai, resulting in jail-time. Effectively, they all aided terrible crimes by staying silent.

The sad thing is that priests have long since been tarred with the same brush. There seems to be more generalisation associated with this crime than any before or after. There are some good priests out there who take their role as God's representative very seriously.

To be fair, I never heard the word paedophilia before the mid-90's. People had a very vague idea about dirty old men and 'funny' priests, etc. There was no real knowledge or understanding regarding the extent and reality of clerical child abuse, or the long term damage to the victims, etc. -- at least not in the public domain. This doesn't excuse what the priests did or the bishops for covering it up because it's pretty obvious that what they did was against the rules of the catholic church as well as the laws of all sane states.

However, it does perhaps explain why Bishop Lee dealt with the issue in a relatively indecisive way. Nowadays, you'd expect the priest to be reported to the Gardai and removed from the community instantly. There would be no psychological examinations and if there were they would never recommend that a priest could continue in the ministry. I think that while there was an intentional coverup within the catholic church of child abuse, Lee appears to have dealt with the priest in question in as professional a manner as could have been expected for the time. We see that even in 1995, it was becoming clear to him that the issue was a lot more serious than he had understood a couple of years earlier.

It does *seem* that Lee was one of the good guys, since he didn't attempt to get victims to swear any oaths and it appears to have been the victims' choice not to prosecute. Within a couple of years he reports the priests to the gardai anyway. A poor response by today's standards, but perhaps an unusually responsible stance by the standards of the day.

ziedth

You have a good point,

However it still doesn't hold up for me, if they knew it was wrong enough to cover up then they knew it was wrong enough to report.

Simple as that IMHO.

gscully

merlante wrote: »

To be fair, I never heard the word paedophilia before the mid-90's. People had a very vague idea about dirty old men and 'funny' priests, etc. There was no real knowledge or understanding regarding the extent and reality of clerical child abuse, or the long term damage to the victims, etc. -- at least not in the public domain. This doesn't excuse what the priests did or the bishops for covering it up because it's pretty obvious that what they did was against the rules of the catholic church as well as the laws of all sane states.

However, it does perhaps explain why Bishop Lee dealt with the issue in a relatively indecisive way. Nowadays, you'd expect the priest to be reported to the Gardai and removed from the community instantly. There would be no psychological examinations and if there were they would never recommend that a priest could continue in the ministry. I think that while there was an intentional coverup within the catholic church of child abuse, Lee appears to have dealt with the priest in question in as professional a manner as could have been expected for the time. We see that even in 1995, it was becoming clear to him that the issue was a lot more serious than he had understood a couple of years earlier.

It does *seem* that Lee was one of the good guys, since he didn't attempt to get victims to swear any oaths and it appears to have been the victims' choice not to prosecute. Within a couple of years he reports the priests to the gardai anyway. A poor response by today's standards, but perhaps an unusually responsible stance by the standards of the day.

You may well be right, but you'd expect any person who has achieved such a prestigious rank as bishop or cardinal to be a shrewd judge of what is right or wrong. To cover up what happened and not to warn the new parish meant that these crimes would continue. That's unforgiveable! In the US, that would be considered aiding and abetting.

I would agree that Bishop Lee hasn't acted as disgracefully as Cardinal Brady...for now! I feel this particular wash hasn't been fully unloaded yet

deisemum

gscully wrote: »

I would agree that Bishop Lee hasn't acted as disgracefully as Cardinal Brady...for now! I feel this particular wash hasn't been fully unloaded yet

We don't know to what extent he has acted good or bad yet and time will tell when it'll all come out in the wash. This is just another PR stunt.

Having been on the receiving end of how far a parish priest and school principal will go to cover up abuse and the tactics they use to threaten parents I do not believe all the BS about them reporting abuse cases and this was only in the last 5 years.

merlante

Guys, I'm saying I don't think -- on the basis of what we know so far -- that Lee was covering up, unlike others. The victims were contacted and decided not to press charges. A staunchly catholic family, particularly 15+ years ago, could understandably not wish to see the church humiliated. (I'm not saying this is a good thing.)

According to the laws of the land, it's not up to Lee, it's up to the victims to press charges, right? Or at least, if the victims decline, is it so bad that Lee does not go to gardai when, to his mind in the understanding of the day, a psychological evaluation suggested that the priest could continue in his ministry? Plus, when the issue of clerical abuse of breaking in Ireland, he seems to have acted with better judgement by going to the gardai anyway, only a couple of years later.

On the basis of the evidence currently available, I think Lee acted reasonably in the context of time.

Speak Now

merlante wrote: »

Guys, I'm saying I don't think -- on the basis of what we know so far -- that Lee was covering up, unlike others. The victims were contacted and decided not to press charges. A staunchly catholic family, particularly 15+ years ago, could understandably not wish to see the church humiliated. (I'm not saying this is a good thing.)

According to the laws of the land, it's not up to Lee, it's up to the victims to press charges, right? Or at least, if the victims decline, is it so bad that Lee does not go to gardai when, to his mind in the understanding of the day, a psychological evaluation suggested that the priest could continue in his ministry? Plus, when the issue of clerical abuse of breaking in Ireland, he seems to have acted with better judgement by going to the gardai anyway, only a couple of years later.

On the basis of the evidence currently available, I think Lee acted reasonably in the context of time.

You might think he acted reasonably in the context of the time but the bishop himself said his handling of the claims against one of his priests was "seriously inadequate".

ROCKMAN

IT WAS THE 90'S NOT THE 2O'S , and to say a priest or bishop did not know what was really on and the effects and aftermaths would be for families and victims is totally crap ,
As a priest and then Bishop, he would have seen and heard of the cases from the 30's 40's 50's 60's 70's and 80's , This outrageous behaviour and cover ups did not just start to happen in the 90's ,They where happening for years and thats my and many peoples problem , These cover ups just helped to kept it going for years and countless more victims , Christ if the first few bishops or priests had the balls to act may be it could have been stopped by the 90's.

merlante

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

You might think he acted reasonably in the context of the time but the bishop himself said his handling of the claims against one of his priests was "seriously inadequate".

Seriously inadequate by today's standards, sure. We'll learn more on this anyway.

I have a feeling people are going to stop reading my posts and just assume I'm defending priests raping children and coverups, so maybe I'll shut up.

ziedth

To be fair Merlante you raise a very good point and one I had not considered.

It's just I think people are so angry over this (and rightly so) that any form of defence of the institution will be shot down.

goat2

he should step down, and tell the truth, what was the priests name in this event

old gregg

merlante wrote: »

I have a feeling people are going to stop reading my posts and just assume I'm defending priests raping children and coverups, so maybe I'll shut up.

I'd be happy to see them all hang but completely appreciate your logic here and don't see you as trying to defend anyone. Post away

gscully

merlante wrote: »

Seriously inadequate by today's standards, sure. We'll learn more on this anyway.

I have a feeling people are going to stop reading my posts and just assume I'm defending priests raping children and coverups, so maybe I'll shut up.

Not at all. It's a valid point and if someone doesn't try to emphatise with Bishop Lee's situation at the time, then this whole thread becomes a witch-hunt. I have always liked Bishop Lee and he comes across as a genuinely nice guy.

Ziedth made an interesting comparison with the Nazis earlier. I would imagine at the time these crimes were being committed, no bishop knew what was going on in other dioceses(?), so to speak out then meant speaking out alone. The likelihood is that the Church would've denied this and the bishop would be disgraced. They would've had to speak out about this en-masse.

ziedth wrote: »

To be fair Merlante you raise a very good point and one I had not considered.

It's just I think people are so angry over this (and rightly so) that any form of defence of the institution will be shot down.

...and that's the problem. There's nothing wrong with Catholicism, just the Catholic Church, yet people are turning their back on God because of what is going on. Yet, if children were being abused in public schools, would parents and children give up education?

ROCKMAN

gscully wrote: »

Not at all. It's a valid point and if someone doesn't try to emphatise with Bishop Lee's situation at the time, then this whole thread becomes a witch-hunt. I have always liked Bishop Lee and he comes across as a genuinely nice guy.

Ziedth made an interesting comparison with the Nazis earlier. I would imagine at the time these crimes were being committed, no bishop knew what was going on in other dioceses(?), so to speak out then meant speaking out alone. The likelihood is that the Church would've denied this and the bishop would be disgraced. They would've had to speak out about this en-masse.



...and that's the problem. There's nothing wrong with Catholicism, just the Catholic Church, yet people are turning their back on God because of what is going on. Yet, if children were being abused in public schools, would parents and children give up education?

Lads the time is no defence , And this case was in the 1990's not the dark ages,
Bishops had conferences and annual trips to Rome , Our own Bishops had an Irish council , To say they didn't know about other dioceses is laughable , And too just moving them on is criminal .

gscully

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Lads the time is no defence , And this case was in the 1990's not the dark ages,
Bishops had conferences and annual trips to Rome , Our own Bishops had an Irish council , To say they didn't know about other dioceses is laughable , And too just moving them on is criminal .

To discuss these crimes at any council, or at the Vatican would've meant one bishop bringing the subject up. I think they would've all been reluctant to do that.

That said, you are correct in saying that moving them to another parish in full knowledge of what they were doing is criminal, and deserving of jail time!

merlante

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Lads the time is no defence , And this case was in the 1990's not the dark ages,
Bishops had conferences and annual trips to Rome , Our own Bishops had an Irish council , To say they didn't know about other dioceses is laughable , And too just moving them on is criminal .

Depends on what you means by the dark ages:

1985 - (Only 5 years earlier) Condoms legalised (without prescription) to over 18s.
1992 - Media finally have the balls to out Bishop Casey affair.
1993 - Annie Murphy demonised on Late Late show (if you can get hold of the footage of this you will see just how dark ages we were).
1993 - Condoms legalised without prescription in general.
1994 - Micheal Ledwith and Brendan Smyth scandals finally bring decades of clerical abuse to light -- even though the whole country knew that abuse was going on for years.
1995 - Constitutional prohibition of divorce lifted.

You could go on and on...

The 90's were the turning point when Ireland moved from the dark ages into the modern era. There's probably more similarity between 1960 and 1990 than there is between 1990 and 2000.

old gregg

ah sure, merlante, you're on a roll now that you have the backing of the crowd

we'd follow you anywhere now that you've got us all stoked up

ziedth

Yes,

To the who is the next TD of Waterford thread and we all scream for Merlante

old gregg

ziedth wrote: »

Yes,

To the who is the next TD of Waterford thread and we all scream for Merlante

I for one would go on the campaign trail for Merlante

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

On the basis of the evidence currently available, I think Lee acted reasonably in the context of time.

I'm sorry now Merlante. I completely understand the point you're making but I can't agree with it. It's not like it was right to do what he did in the 90s but is now wrong.

We all have a moral compass and the church supposedly had a stronger moral compass than everybody if you were to believe all that crap. But here we have a person in a position of authority who didn't report the abuse of a child to Gardaí for two years and who was party to the cover up by not informing the people in that priest's new diocese.

It's wrong no matter when it happened. Let's not forget what we're talking about here; the abuse of a child. This is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable to most of us and he was part of the cover up. There is no excuse for this.

Silverado

merlante wrote: »

I think that while there was an intentional coverup within the catholic church of child abuse, Lee appears to have dealt with the priest in question in as professional a manner as could have been expected for the time. We see that even in 1995, it was becoming clear to him that the issue was a lot more serious than he had understood a couple of years earlier.

It does *seem* that Lee was one of the good guys, since he didn't attempt to get victims to swear any oaths and it appears to have been the victims' choice not to prosecute. Within a couple of years he reports the priests to the gardai anyway. A poor response by today's standards, but perhaps an unusually responsible stance by the standards of the day.

Are you seriously trying to justify Bishop Lee's situation. This man was a bishop in charge of a diocese. He moralised at his "flock" from the pulpit every Sunday. He told us that we must recognise evil and decry it, he told us that we must do penance for our wrongdoings. Can you not see how hypocritical the man was at the time, i.e. don't do as I do, do as I say?

Bishop Lee cannot remain in office, he is not a suitable leader and is certainly no example to follow by his own admission. If he was unable to recognise the evil of paedophilia then he is not fit to be a pillar of public morality.

merlante

old gregg wrote: »

I for one would go on the campaign trail for Merlante

Aww, you guys. Not used to this!

deisemum

Some priest or bishop was speaking on national radio very recently, think it was in the last week or two and admitted that all the bishops knew who was abusing childing because as cases came to light the bishops discussed it at their bishops monthly meetings. To say they didn't know how widespread it was doesn't hold water in that case.

As for being a catholic well we currently have a Brother in Limerick saying you cannot identify yourself as a catholic and to expect the wrath of god if you go anyway near Thomand Park to see the rugby match on Good Friday and as for drinking on Good Friday big no no yet as a catholic priest or brother you can rape and abuse children and you're still a catholic.

merlante

Silverado wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to justify Bishop Lee's situation. This man was a bishop in charge of a diocese. He moralised at his "flock" from the pulpit every Sunday. He told us that we must recognise evil and decry it, he told us that we must do penance for our wrongdoings. Can you not see how hypocritical the man was at the time, i.e. don't do as I do, do as I say?

Bishop Lee cannot remain in office, he is not a suitable leader and is certainly no example to follow by his own admission. If he was unable to recognise the evil of paedophilia then he is not fit to be a pillar of public morality.

Yeah, but it's not like the Bishop condoned the actions of the priest either. A more balanced reporting of the case is here btw: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0325/breaking8.html (think it's been changed since earlier though).

As I see it, his mistakes can be summarised as follows:
1. He reported the case to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993.
2. The "professional advice" he sought was wrong and he was wrong to take it.
3. Rather than remove the priest immediately, he sent him for a psych evaluation (which concluded that he was fit to continue his ministry).
4. Lee went along with the evaluation rather than canning the priest one way or the other.

Mitigating factors seem to be that the complainants were not interested in taking the case further, and the fact that Lee was only in the job 3 months. Remember that to this day, 15 years after he had informed the gardai, nobody has been prosecuted. Also, the man seems to be ashamed of his handling of the situation, even though other bishops handled the abuse far worse and were reluctant to take the blame.

We could find out later that he was the worst bishop in the country, but not on the basis of what has come out so far I think...

ROCKMAN

merlante wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not like the Bishop condoned the actions of the priest either. A more balanced reporting of the case is here btw: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0325/breaking8.html (think it's been changed since earlier though).

As I see it, his mistakes can be summarised as follows:
1. He reported the case to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993.
2. The "professional advice" he sought was wrong and he was wrong to take it.
3. Rather than remove the priest immediately, he sent him for a psych evaluation (which concluded that he was fit to continue his ministry).
4. Lee went along with the evaluation rather than canning the priest one way or the other.

Mitigating factors seem to be that the complainants were not interested in taking the case further, and the fact that Lee was only in the job 3 months. Remember that to this day, 15 years after he had informed the gardai, nobody has been prosecuted. Also, the man seems to be ashamed of his handling of the situation, even though other bishops handled the abuse far worse and were reluctant to take the blame.

We could find out later that he was the worst bishop in the country, but not on the basis of what has come out so far I think...

Ok leave out the part that a third example in 1996 found the priest in question unfit and he was removed from ministry and is under supervision , Because it does not really help your point .

Also another way of looking at it is ,
That three young people went to bishop Lee for help at the time the crimes where actual happening ,when they where at their lowest , And received no real help or real support , instead the Bishop tried to help the priest [one way of keeping it hush hush] and not his victims ,
Yes two years later he ask them if they wanted to complain .Two fcuking years later . would you like to reopen old wounds then , some people can ,some people take years and some never can ,
But if he had help them back 1993 and given them real support maybe they could have got the inner strength to see it through , maybe..
Also been in the job only three months is no excuse , 3 months or 30 years , children were been hurt ,and his main concern as a so-called community leader should have been them.

Who did the two year delay really help
The Church and the Priest
Job well done Bishop Lee.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not like the Bishop condoned the actions of the priest either. A more balanced reporting of the case is here btw: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0325/breaking8.html (think it's been changed since earlier though).

As I see it, his mistakes can be summarised as follows:
1. He reported the case to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993.
2. The "professional advice" he sought was wrong and he was wrong to take it.
3. Rather than remove the priest immediately, he sent him for a psych evaluation (which concluded that he was fit to continue his ministry).
4. Lee went along with the evaluation rather than canning the priest one way or the other.

Mitigating factors seem to be that the complainants were not interested in taking the case further, and the fact that Lee was only in the job 3 months. Remember that to this day, 15 years after he had informed the gardai, nobody has been prosecuted. Also, the man seems to be ashamed of his handling of the situation, even though other bishops handled the abuse far worse and were reluctant to take the blame.

We could find out later that he was the worst bishop in the country, but not on the basis of what has come out so far I think...

I'm sorry Merlante but I can see no way that a sound-minded individual can even begin to rationalise Lee's actions like you are doing.

He was wrong. End of. Completely and utterly wrong. Whatever excuses he, or anyone else, tries to offer, that's all they are: excuses. How many other children did he put at risk by allowing this priest to be moved to another parish?

And I couldn't care less how sorry he feels. Boo-fcuking hoo for him. He hasn't a leg to stand on here and he, like every other bishop and priest who had any part to play in the abuse and the cover-up, should be fcuked out unceremoniously at the very least.

merlante

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Ok leave out the part that a third example in 1996 found the priest in question unfit and he was removed from ministry and is under supervision , Because it does not really help your point .

Also another way of looking at it is ,
That three young people went to bishop Lee for help at the time the crimes where actual happening ,when they where at their lowest , And received no real help or real support , instead the Bishop tried to help the priest [one way of keeping it hush hush] and not his victims ,
Yes two years later he ask them if they wanted to complain .Two fcuking years later . would you like to reopen old wounds then , some people can ,some people take years and some never can ,
But if he had help them back 1993 and given them real support maybe they could have got the inner strength to see it through , maybe..
Also been in the job only three months is no excuse , 3 months or 30 years , children were been hurt ,and his main concern as a so-called community leader should have been them.

Who did the two year delay really help
The Church and the Priest
Job well done Bishop Lee.

If you read the article, it said:

Dr Lee said three people approached him in December 1993, "a few months" after his ordination as bishop.

They old him they had been sexually abused by the priest. He said he met them in 1993 and 1994. He said they described to him - ‘without the administration of an oath’ instances in which they claimed they were sexually abused as children.

Dr Lee said he "satisfied" himself with regard to the supports then available to the complainants and sought professional advice to see what action he should take.

So he saw that they victims had the support they needed and sought advice to see what action he should take. He did speak to them in 1993 and 1994.

The priest also had to be dealt with one way or another. I really don't think, from what is in this article, that he took the side of the priest. Fair enough if he did, but that's not what comes out from my reading of it.

He *said* he met and victims and ensured that they were sorted. He said he took advice on what to do. He said he had the priest psychologically evaluated. Two years later he went to the gardai personally. The victims could have gone to the gardai before that themselves. Not a perfect response, but for 1993, not a bad one either. At least on the surface of it.

I'm not going to argue this anymore, because people don't want to hear it, and anyway, we probably don't know the full story yet anyway.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

I'm not going to argue this anymore, because people don't want to hear it, and anyway, we probably don't know the full story yet anyway.

No, I'm sorry but you can't get away with the "people don't want to hear it" thing. The reason that people don't want to hear it is that it's crap.

Put yourself in that position. You find out that a priest is abusing children. How do you not straight away report that person to the Gardaí. You become aware of a crime, yet choose not to report it. It doesn't matter whether the families reported it; that is of no concern to you. You, as a law-abiding citizen with your own moral compass have a duty to report this disgusting crime.

It's good that he satisfied himself that the victims were getting the necessary support but secondary to that should be to report the criminal to the relevant authorities, in this case the Gardaí. He didn't do this and it's a massive failing that he didn't. Not only did he not do this, but he allowed this priest to be moved somewhere else knowing the risk he was putting other children at. It's completely inexcusable and it sickens me.

JohnC.

It sickens me to hear people on the radio (usually old biddies) continue to defend them, saying they did nothing wrong. It's amazing to what extent people are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Thankfully, they are in the minority now.

deisemum

Kahless wrote: »

It sickens me to hear people on the radio (usually old biddies) continue to defend them, saying they did nothing wrong. It's amazing to what extent people are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Thankfully, they are in the minority now.

I agree with you, I was absolutely sickened to hear so many people from Galway defend Brady and not only that but some of the old biddies had the brass neck of a jockey to criticise the victims.

ziedth

They are not as bad as those guys in Kerry who hugged that rapist IMO.

These old biddies have been nothing short of brainwashed since children and let's be frank that generation don't question things like ours.

My mother god love her would have been a devout catholic I'm talking lourdes follow church law and the whole nine yards. Even she says that she doesn't look up to the church anymore and is going to take a similar line to me and just be religious in your own way.

Speak Now

Seems to be a pattern of people defending their own bishops but being much more critical when it's someone "up the country" :rolleyes:

merlante

nkay1985 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry but you can't get away with the "people don't want to hear it" thing. The reason that people don't want to hear it is that it's crap.

Put yourself in that position. You find out that a priest is abusing children. How do you not straight away report that person to the Gardaí. You become aware of a crime, yet choose not to report it. It doesn't matter whether the families reported it; that is of no concern to you. You, as a law-abiding citizen with your own moral compass have a duty to report this disgusting crime.

It's good that he satisfied himself that the victims were getting the necessary support but secondary to that should be to report the criminal to the relevant authorities, in this case the Gardaí. He didn't do this and it's a massive failing that he didn't. Not only did he not do this, but he allowed this priest to be moved somewhere else knowing the risk he was putting other children at. It's completely inexcusable and it sickens me.

I don't have to get away with anything, I've given you my honest opinion. I have put myself in the bishop's position, something I don't think anybody is bothered doing, including yourself.

The man had a responsibility to help the victims, deal with the priest, and deal with any legal repercussions. He claims to have spoken to the victims and satisfied himself as to their support. He claims to have dealt with the priest by having him evaluated. He claims he took advice on how to handle the whole thing. The victims evidently didn't want to press charges and he obviously decided that he wouldn't go to the gardai if they wouldn't. As it turns out the man changes his mind 2 years later when things have moved on. Not an ideal response, but he has apologised.

For my money, he did a reasonable job for the standards of 1993 -- particularly compared to his colleagues that actively ignored victims and covered up over a period of decades.

Now that is my opinion, you have said nothing that would cause me to rethink it except calling what I'm saying 'crap'.

You seem to ignore the fact that the victims were happy not to take the matter further and there has never been an investigation. If the victims don't want an investigation it's arguably not the right thing to do for the bishop -- who legally has nothing to do with the priest or the victim -- to report the incident unilaterally anyway.

merlante

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Seems to be a pattern of people defending their own bishops but being much more critical when it's someone "up the country" :rolleyes:

It's pretty typical of a witch hunt when people are condemned as a group and the specific cases are not looked at. People know more about their local bishops. In any case, there are definitely degrees of badness in this whole thing.

Speak Now

merlante wrote: »

It's pretty typical of a witch hunt when people are condemned as a group and the specific cases are not looked at. People know more about their local bishops. In any case, there are definitely degrees of badness in this whole thing.

People know very little about their own bishops as it's turning out.

There are no "degrees of badness" when it come to turning a blind eye to these predators.

ziedth

I have to say Merlante,

You have fought your corner very well here, IMHO it is irrelevent that the victims did not want to press charges.

Nkay hit the nail on the head the church has claimed in some way for decades to have a moral high ground on the rest of us. Obviously that rightfully has all been washed away!

I agree with your point that it SEEMS. That bishop Lee has acted better then other priests/bishops around the country espically given the time.

But, if a man kills 3 people but various other people kill 10 should we excuse the man who killed 3 just because he wasn't as bad?

Although extreme this is what it comes down to. Although yes he is not as guilty as bishops who made people swear not to give eveidence etc he still covered up the crime.

gscully

merlante wrote: »

You seem to ignore the fact that the victims were happy not to take the matter further and there has never been an investigation. If the victims don't want an investigation it's arguably not the right thing to do for the bishop -- who legally has nothing to do with the priest or the victim -- to report the incident unilaterally anyway.

Legally, no. The church's laws are governed by morals. Bishop Lee and all other bishops had a moral duty to report the crimes, yet they didn't.

merlante

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

People know very little about their own bishops as it's turning out.

There are no "degrees of badness" when it come to turning a blind eye to these predators.

Sure there are, the bishop could have not reported it at all, hidden the priest, threatened the victims with huge shame and media exposure. Hell, the bishop could have indulged himself. If you think it couldn't have been worse, you have no imagination.

merlante

ziedth wrote: »

I have to say Merlante,

You have fought your corner very well here, IMHO it is irrelevent that the victims did not want to press charges.

Nkay hit the nail on the head the church has claimed in some way for decades to have a moral high ground on the rest of us. Obviously that rightfully has all been washed away!

I agree with your point that it SEEMS. That bishop Lee has acted better then other priests/bishops around the country espically given the time.

But, if a man kills 3 people but various other people kill 10 should we excuse the man who killed 3 just because he wasn't as bad?

Although extreme this is what it comes down to. Although yes he is not as guilty as bishops who made people swear not to give eveidence etc he still covered up the crime.

But I mean, are we just castigating the man for going to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993. Is that all we're doing? The bishop didn't kill, rape or coverup -- that we know of.

I'm not convinced I'd have done much better than he did tbh, from what I can gather. If the victims were satisfied, and I convinced myself that procedures were being followed then I'd probably feel justified in trying not to scandalise the church.

I think I'm just going to leave this one run for a while without following up because we're operating in a vacuum of information, and I'm not really all that bothered about defending bishops anyway.

ROCKMAN

Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

How which part is Bishop Lee legally not responsible for . Actual knowledge a crime had be committed , that his action or inaction was helping the criminals commit the crime or evade detection

merlante

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

How which part is Bishop Lee legally not responsible for . Actual knowledge a crime had be committed , that his action or inaction was helping the criminals commit the crime or evade detection

"there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape"

Was he trying to do this? The gardai have not charged him as an accessory despite knowing that he didn't report the incidents for 2 years.

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

ROCKMAN

merlante wrote: »

"there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape"

Was he trying to do this? The gardai have not charged him as an accessory despite knowing that he didn't report the incidents for 2 years.

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

Has fcuk all to do with it , as a church leader , the priest's boss , as a community figure head ,man of the cloth and a member of the human race , it was his moral and legal duty to report this crime. and no matter what way you dress it up or dance with words / facts .He is guilty as sin.




Ps Normally with this type of crime ,the person reporting is normally not the victim but a parent ,teacher ,youth worker etc etc

..

Roy Rogers

merlante wrote: »

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

You get the same hesitance in all rape cases though -- I've often heard how most rapes are never reported because they're so hard to prove, and the victims often just want to put it behind them.

As for why the guards haven't arrested him as accessory yet -- it's just politics, really. It's not just one individual, it's a high-level representative of organisation that is still, unfortunately, one of the most powerful in the country, and one that's heavily tied into the state itself.

ROCKMAN

ALSO
If these three victims had approached Bishop Lee and reported their football coach of these crimes . Do you think he would have acted the same and waited two years.
I doubt it very much.