Vatican Response to Cloyne Report Published

link to it is here
http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2011/09/20110903cloyneresponse.pdf

Haven't read it yet but anything interesting you find post here

nozzferrahhtoo

Comically I opened it in a text parser and searched for the phrase "unfounded accusations" off the top of my head.

Guess what... its in there Go me.

MagicMarker

RTE News Report.

The Vatican has issued its response to criticism of it by the Government following the release of the Cloyne Report.

The Vatican issued the 20-page response addressed to the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore.

The statement from the Vatican says "it has significant reservations that the speech made by Enda Kenny TD in the Dáil on the 20th of July, in particular, the accusation that the Holy See attempted to frustrate an inquiry in a sovereign democratic republic, is unfounded."

The statement added that the Holy See wishes to make it quite clear that it in no way hampered or sought to interfere in any inquiry into cases of child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Cloyne.

Furthermore, the Vatican says that at no stage did the Holy See seek to interfere with Irish Civil law or impeded the civil authority in the exercise of its duties.

The Holy See observes that there is no evidence cited anywhere in the Cloyne Report, to support the claim that its (i.e. the Vatican's) supposed intervention contributed to the undermining of the child protection framework and guidelines of the Irish State.

The Cloyne Report scrutinized how both Church and State authorities handled complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse made against 19 priests working under Bishop John Magee in the Co Cork diocese between 1996 and 2009.

It found that Bishop Magee falsely told the Government and the HSE that the Catholic Diocese was reporting all allegations of clerical child sexual abuse to the civil authorities.

The response from the Vatican was prompted by scathing criticism levelled against it by Taoiseach Enda Kenny in the Dáil in July in which he castigated what he termed "the dysfunction, disconnection and elitism" in the Vatican.
The Vatican also responded to claims in the Cloyne Report that it referred to a Framework Document, drawn up by Irish Bishops, on how to deal with allegations of child sexual abuse as "not an official document..but merely a study document."

It says that taken out of context the comments in the letter from Archbishop Storero to Irish Bishops "could be open to misinterpretation, giving rise to understandable criticism."

It says this description was "not a dismissal of the serious efforts undertaken by Irish Bishops to address the grave problem of child sexual abuse."
Rather the congregation "wished to ensure that nothing contained in the Framework Document would give rise to difficulties should appeals be lodged to the Holy See."

The Vatican also refutes the claim that Irish Bishops sought recognition from Rome for the Framework Document but it was not forthcoming.

It says Irish Bishops did not, under Canon Law, seek 'recongnito' for the Framework Document, therefore the Holy See cannot be criticised for failing to grant what was never requested in the first place.

However, according to the Vatican, this would not have prevented applying the Framework Document in individual Dioceses.

Speaking on Vatican Radio today, Fr Federico Lombardi said: "The document is clearly structured and seeks to give detailed and documented answers to all the questions raised, inserting them into a broader perspective".

"The text of the document shows how the Holy See has given very serious and respectful consideration to the queries and criticism it has received, and has undertaken to answer them serenely and exhaustively, avoiding polemics even when giving clear answers to the accusations made".

He continued that the Holy See hopes that its response "will achieve the fundamental shared goal of contributing to rebuilding a climate of trust and co-operation with the Irish authorities, which is essential for an effective commitment on the part of the Church and society to guarantee the primary goal: protecting children and young people".

darealtulip

It is not really a surprice though, they will not admit to anything because that will cost them money.

What is unbelievable that this institution is still running our primary schools.

Galvasean

"the primary goal: protecting children and young people our own asses".

Monty.

I look forward to reading the response in full, particularly the content that will be ignored by those intent on unbalanced reporting. I'll then enjoy watching them selectively misquote extracts from the response to suit their own ulterior agenda.

robindch

Monty. wrote: »

I look forward to reading the response in full, particularly the content that will be ignored by those intent on unbalanced reporting.

I got to the bottom of page three before I had to stop for air, such was the heat radiated by the Vatican's press officers in blaming the local hierarchy and excusing the men who appointed it.

Doctor DooM

Monty. wrote: »

I look forward to reading the response in full, particularly the content that will be ignored by those intent on unbalanced reporting. I'll then enjoy watching them selectively misquote extracts from the response to suit their own ulterior agenda.

You know Einstein believed in God? FACT

darealtulip

In the midst of the sex abuse allegations last year, the Vatican concluded that "the Irish government failed to respect and protect Vatican sovereignty"

http://wikileaks.cabledrum.net/cable/2010/02/10VATICAN33.html

ShooterSF

Monty. wrote: »

I look forward to reading the response in full, particularly the content that will be ignored by those intent on unbalanced reporting. I'll then enjoy watching them selectively misquote extracts from the response to suit their own ulterior agenda.

Indeed. It's just too easy for people to make the protectors of child rapists look bad by selectively quoting them out of context! Won't someone think of the children context.

Monty.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Indeed. It's just too easy for people to make the protectors of child rapists look bad by selectively quoting them out of context! Won't someone think of the children context.

Thanks for proving my point.

darealtulip

And the saga continious:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0904/breaking7.html#.TmNyFzPB5HA.facebook

Galvasean

Monty. wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point.

Eh, to be honest you don't need to quote them out of context to make them look bad. Their own actions speak for themselves.

Galvasean

Monty. wrote: »

As do the haters.

Funny, I'm not ashamed to admit that I hate those who would protect paedophiles from justice and allow them to repeatedly commit the same crime.

Galvasean

Odd. A post has disappeared. Now everyone thinks I'm crazy.

recedite

Well I just read it, and a few points stand out....

It admits the earlier Vatican letter described the Irish Bishop's new child protection guidelines (The Framework Document) as just a "study document", and the guidelines were not mandatory and possibly would not withstand appeals by paedo priests to the vatican on points of canon law. "The definitive text of The Framework Document contained procedures and dispositions which appeared contrary to canonical discipline" (P.10/11)

They are saying the guidelines were not mandatory because the Irish bishops did not seek recognicio from the Holy See, but from the above it seems obvious that recognicio would not have been forthcoming because of the possible conflicts with canon law.

Now they are saying each bishop "is always free to enact laws or adopt guidelines in his own Diocese" (or not) "without any need to refer to the Holy See." Ah.. so its the fault of an individual bishop then, if he fails to comply with the guidelines which they already said were contrary to canon discipline.
So what is the proper procedure under canon law? What is a Bishop to do? Hold a secret inquiry, if it seems necessary at all, and afterwards there is the option of applying such severe penalties as "limitations on the serving of Mass, prohibitions on the hearing of confessions" and for the worst offenders there is even "mandatory retirement into a life of prayer, with no public contact". These so called "penalties" are examples of punishments recommended currently (from 2001 on) by the Vatican, under canon law, for offending priests committing the crime of sexual abuse of a minor under the age of 18 as detailed on P. 21 of this response to Enda and the Irish govt.

On P.24 they say " It should be clear that the Holy See expects the Irish Bishops to cooperate with the Civil Authorities, to implement fully the norms of canon law, and to ensure the full and impartial application of the child safety norms of the church in Ireland". Unfortunately however, this is actually very far from "clear", given they have already explained the conflict between canon law and the local child safety "norms". Therefore that statement is just self serving bull$hit.

On Mandatory Reporting;
They point out that civil law does not require it. On P.13 it says "In 6th Nov 1996 over 200 submissions were received from groups and individuals" during a public consultation in which "a wide diversity of views were expressed" and "complex issues relating to the advisability and feasability" ie the church would never agree due to the inviolability of confessional secrecy and existing canon laws. It turned out that "the majority expressed reservations or opposition to mandatory reporting". (No prizes for guessing who these submissions came from)
So, in the end the govt. caved in and "decided not to introduce it in a formal way". No govt. is going to try to introduce unenforceable law. Priests would simply say they would rather go to jail than break canon law or the confidentiality of the confession box.
This allows the Holy See to now say that they "did not undermine the Irish State or subvert Irish Law".
Further they can say "the prescriptions of civil law regarding the reporting of such crimes to the designated authority should always be followed".

Regarding Enda Kenny's criticisms, on P.14 they recall their earlier response to the govt. Commission of Inquiry into Cloyne , when they were asked to furnish all papers and information pertaining to the abuses. The Papal Nuncio (the pretend ambassador for a pretend State) said in his letter that the Vatican Nunciate was "unable to assist you in this matter".
On the basis of this, they are now claiming that they "in no way hampered or interfered with the inquiry into child sexual abuse cases in the Diocese of Cloyne". They just refused to have anything to do with it. Bear in mind it is reported that the secret reports which certain Bishops sent to the Vatican on sensitive matters differed significantly from those that go on the Diocese record books.

The more of this stuff you read, the more annoying and incredible it gets.....

recedite

Galvasean wrote: »

Odd. A post has disappeared. Now everyone thinks I'm crazy.

It's not because a post disappeared.

Monty.

Galvasean wrote: »

Funny, I'm not ashamed to admit that I hate those who would protect paedophiles from justice and allow them to repeatedly commit the same crime.

Would you be as ashamed to admit the tatic of lumping the innocent majority in with the guilty minority to suit your own prejudice and agenda ?

Monty.

recedite wrote: »

The more of this stuff you read, the more annoying and incredible it gets.....

I can understand why responding with the actual facts would be incredibly annoying.

robindch

Monty. wrote: »

Would you be as ashamed to admit the tatic of lumping the innocent majority in with the guilty minority [...]

In this case, it seems the guilty are in the majority and the innocent, Diarmuid Martin alone so far as I can make out, form a distinct minority in the religious hierarchy.

deman

Furthermore, the Vatican says that at no stage did the Holy See seek to interfere with Irish Civil law or impeded the civil authority in the exercise of its duties.

This is the bit that gets me. Didn't the Vatican say that they are above civil law?

Monty.

robindch wrote: »

In this case, it seems the guilty are in the majority and the innocent, Diarmuid Martin alone so far as I can make out, form a distinct minority in the religious hierarchy.

Many Bishops in Ireland hold exactly the same views and stance as Diarmuid Martin, but they are often ignored / seldom reported by the media. Don't get me wrong there is without doubt some rotten Bishops still serving in Ireland, but the net is closing in. The Vatican also has its share of rotten Bishops and Cardinals, but they are not in the majority, and they too will receive their dues.

The Mad Hatter

I find myself reading that report and wondering whether the doctrine of Mental Reservation was applied.

Monty.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

I find myself reading that report and wondering whether the doctrine of Mental Reservation was applied.

That sounds like a mental reservation.

The Mad Hatter

Monty. wrote: »

That sounds like a mental reservation.

It isn't. Unlike the Catholic Church, I find the tactic of mental reservation both hugely dishonest and laughably juvenile. It's the moral and intellectual equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while you lie.

Caulego

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It isn't. Unlike the Catholic Church, I find the tactic of mental reservation both hugely dishonest and laughably juvenile. It's the moral and intellectual equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while you lie.

Not at all....that's just plain old religion, it's all make-believe and trickery. Their fingers are in the till, and all tax free too. You just rake in the cash and the glory and hope that no one catches you. Then you throw in a load of ecclesiastical red herrings and try to look sincere while you ask people to 'forgive' and also forget, and send your soutane to the dry cleaners to get rid of the stains.

Caulego

deman wrote: »

This is the bit that gets me. Didn't the Vatican say that they are above civil law?

Well, if they claim to represent 'Gawd', the alleged though invisible creator of all that exists, subject to no one, then they must be automatically above civil laws, no? That's the great thing about belief, as you can justify just about anything by hiding behind its imagined entitlements. Why do you think it's so popular? It pays to be blind when you don't want to see the harm you have done and you can say a quick prayer and pretend that all is hunky dory again...till next time. It's a national passtime.

Galvasean

Monty. wrote: »

Would you be as ashamed to admit the tatic of lumping the innocent majority in with the guilty minority to suit your own prejudice and agenda ?

Quite the leap you've made about me.
Jog on.

darealtulip

a good analysis from Micheal Nugent here:

http://www.michaelnugent.com/2011/09/05/is-the-vatican-cooperating-fully-with-the-irish-government/

darealtulip

and an other one

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0905/1224303498653.html?fb_ref=.TmSTYPswwfo.like&fb_source=home_oneline

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

Well I just read it, and a few points stand out....

It admits the earlier Vatican letter described the Irish Bishop's new child protection guidelines (The Framework Document) as just a "study document", and the guidelines were not mandatory and possibly would not withstand appeals by paedo priests to the vatican on points of canon law.

I heard the same sort of excuse in Pirates of the Caribbean

recedite

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Unlike the Catholic Church, I find the tactic of mental reservation both hugely dishonest and laughably juvenile. It's the moral and intellectual equivalent of crossing your fingers behind your back while you lie.

Didn't Borat have a similar doctrine, where he would pause at the end of a statement,and then add the word..... "Not"

Admitted the Borat version was less well developed than church mental reservation because the word was still audible.

These movie doctrines are great.
not

darealtulip

The saga continous:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/itrsquos-church-v-state-as-kenny-refuses-to-back-down-2866548.html

Monty.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

It isn't. Unlike the Catholic Church, I find the tactic of mental reservation both hugely dishonest and laughably juvenile.

That sounds like another mental reservation.

Galvasean

darealtulip wrote: »

The saga continous:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/itrsquos-church-v-state-as-kenny-refuses-to-back-down-2866548.html

Fair play to him. Good to see they don't own the new Government too.

recedite

Monty. wrote: »

I can understand why responding with the actual facts would be incredibly annoying.

Monty. wrote: »

That sounds like a mental reservation.

Monty. wrote: »

That sounds like another moral reservation.

Are these meant to be smart comments?
Why not give your actual opinion on the vatican response?

Dades

Yeah, Monty - please drop the one-liners. They're not smart they're just annoying.

darealtulip

you can read monty's opinion in the christian thread I posted in too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74217171#post74217171

Galvasean

Had a read through that thread. I'm amazed and sickened in equal amounts at the lenghts some will go to stand up for the RCC when they are so clearly in the wrong.
Haven't felt so depressed reading someone's opinion since the 'Beat wife - save family' fiasco.
Religion can be so upsetting by times.

Mistress 69

Galvasean wrote: »

Had a read through that thread. I'm amazed and sickened in equal amounts at the lenghts some will go to stand up for the RCC when they are so clearly in the wrong.
Haven't felt so depressed reading someone's opinion since the 'Beat wife - save family' fiasco.
Religion can be so upsetting by times.

.....Some things will never change!:(

Monty.

Dades wrote: »

Yeah, Monty - please drop the one-liners. They're not smart they're just annoying.

No bother chief

Monty.

darealtulip wrote: »

you can read monty's opinion in the christian thread I posted in too.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74217171#post74217171

Just in case some of my many fans are disappointed, I've not posted in that thread yet, but I'll sort that for ye.

AJ1

Doctor DooM wrote: »

You know Einstein believed in God? FACT

emmm no he didn't:rolleyes:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
[FONT=Bookman Old Style, Arial]Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954[/FONT]

Back on topic: Does anyone really expect anything less than that kind of response from the Vatican? If/when push comes to shove you can bet The Irish bishops will be thrown to the wolves. I suspect the Holy See won't know that that happened either.

soterpisc

Galvasean wrote: »

Had a read through that thread. I'm amazed and sickened in equal amounts at the lenghts some will go to stand up for the RCC when they are so clearly in the wrong.
Haven't felt so depressed reading someone's opinion since the 'Beat wife - save family' fiasco.
Religion can be so upsetting by times.

Hey not all Catholics are like this. What the perverts did was wrong. It was always wrong. Plain and Simple. Nowhere in the Churchs teaching does it say we should coverup abuse and protect abusers. Church has to reform and root out the bad, which its doing.

robindch

soterpisc wrote: »

Nowhere in the Churchs teaching does it say we should coverup abuse and protect abusers.

No, because neither church "teaching" nor canon law have anything to say concerning sex with kids, or the mandatory reporting of those who engage in it. On the contrary -- as recently as last week, the top catholic guy in Ireland, a Mr Brady, said that state law (which governs the citizens of this country) is not as important as church law (which governs the church and its employees):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14707515

If you really believe that the church should protect kids ahead of its employees, then please give Brady a ring and let him know as he's clearly having some difficult accepting this!

alex73

robindch wrote: »

No, because neither church "teaching" nor canon law have anything to say concerning sex with kids, or the mandatory reporting of those who engage in it. On the contrary -- as recently as last week, the top catholic guy in Ireland, a Mr Brady, said that state law (which governs the citizens of this country) is not as important as church law (which governs the church and its employees):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14707515

If you really believe that the church should protect kids ahead of its employees, then please give Brady a ring and let him know as he's clearly having some difficult accepting this!

Get over confession. It goes way beyond catholic church and is part of lots of other churchs. Othodox church has the exact same stance on seal of confession.

alex73

robindch wrote: »

No, because neither church "teaching" nor canon law have anything to say concerning sex with kids, or the mandatory reporting of those who engage in it. On the contrary -- as recently as last week, the top catholic guy in Ireland, a Mr Brady, said that state law (which governs the citizens of this country) is not as important as church law (which governs the church and its employees):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14707515

If you really believe that the church should protect kids ahead of its employees, then please give Brady a ring and let him know as he's clearly having some difficult accepting this!

Lets say for arguments sack tomorrow priests could report what was said in confession, does anyone really think anyone would confess?

Its like me calling the confidential samaratans helpline, if it were not confidential I wouldn't call(not that I have)

AJ1

alex73 wrote: »

Its like me calling the confidential samaratans helpline, if it were not confidential I wouldn't call(not that I have)

Fair point, but if it's in relation to a serious crime they should do it, out of morality if nothing else.

robindch

alex73 wrote: »

Lets say for arguments sack tomorrow priests could report what was said in confession, does anyone really think anyone would confess?

No, I don't expect they would. But that's not the point. Which is whose law trumps whose. The state believes that its law is supreme, and the church believes that it's rules are the greater. One has got to give and while it'll be a symbolic victory (whoever wins) it'll be an important political one.

alex73 wrote: »

Orthodox church has the exact same stance on seal of confession.

As do many other countries. Doesn't make it right, though, does it?

alex73

robindch wrote: »

No, I don't expect they would. But that's not the point. Which is whose law trumps whose. The state believes that its law is supreme, and the church believes that it's rules are the greater. One has got to give and while it'll be a symbolic victory (whoever wins) it'll be an important political one.As do many other countries. Doesn't make it right, though, does it?

Well this is where faith enters, its part of the repository of our faith, its not a law of the catholic church, its the faith our our church. Many times in history priests have been asked to reveal the seal and some have died for it, so its not going to be changed.

robindch

alex73 wrote: »

its not going to be changed.

Hmm, that's alright then, I suppose -- business as usual? :rolleyes: