Reynolds says RTÉ chiefs must face 'consequences'

Onesimus

Reynolds says RTÉ chiefs must face 'consequences'

Fr Kevin Reynolds has said those at the heart of decision-making at RTÉ have to face the consequences of their actions.


The priest at the centre of the RTÉ libel case, Fr Kevin Reynolds, has said those at the heart of decision-making at the national broadcaster have to face the consequences of their actions.


Asked on Shannonside Radio whether he would like to see disciplinary action in RTÉ over the libel case, Fr Reynolds said he was not out for anybody's blood or looking for people to be sacked.


The priest, who is based in Ahascragh, Co Galway, said he would leave the issue in the hands of his solicitor.


He said people in authority who have been appointed to State institutions and people at the heart of decision making in RTÉ have to face the consequences of what happened and they are doing that now.
Fr Reynolds said he was grateful to neighbours and friends for their support during his ordeal.


When he was asked to stand down from his ministry, Fr Reynolds said it was as if everything he believed in and had achieved had gone down the swanee. "It was all over. I was destroyed."
He said that what upset him terribly and was very sad was that such distress was inflicted on his family and his parishioners.


Asked about whether priests are currently getting a tough time in the media, he said it was a hard life and he was living in a different Ireland now than the one in which he had been ordained.
"We are living in a secular society in which priests have been pushed to the sidelines."


However, Fr Reynolds said a lot of priests had telephoned him over the weekend to say they felt that they had been given a boost of confidence and he added nothing could compare to what the Catholic Church has to offer.

Call for public inquiry
A Fine Gael Senator has called for a public inquiry into how RTÉ conducted and made the programme 'A Mission to Prey'.


Michael Mullins said large amounts of taxpayers' money had to be spent in order to repair the damage done as a result of the programme and he said the minister should cut funding to RTÉ appropriately.


Senator Mullins said irreparable damage had been done to Fr Reynold's reputation and he said there were other allegations of defamation in the programme against a person who is now deceased.


He said he had been provided with information that calls into question the basis on which the programme was made.


Fine Gael Senator Martin Conway has called on Senator Mullins to hand over the additional information to gardaí.


Senator Conway said the information should be made available for a criminal investigation to be conducted.


He said it was time for serious reflection on the powers of the press in general.


Independent Senator John Crown called for information on who imposed a 'gagging order' on the terms of the settlement to made public.
He said public bodies should be prevented from imposing such orders.

*cough at headline* his name is addressed as Fr.Reynolds not ''Reynolds'' RTE it seems still can not but help showing disrespect to this man.

Glad to hear we wont be funding RTE anymore.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

*cough at headline* his name is addressed as Fr.Reynolds not ''Reynolds'' RTE it seems still can not but help showing disrespect to this man.

It isn't sign of disrespect to leave out his title. Ahern says... Fitzgerald dithers... Kenny u-turns. Not a Mr, Dr or Fr in sight for anyone. Standard journalistic practice that


As one who figured Reynolds (:)) as being presented with a blue-chip opportunity to act in counter to the average-litigious-dog-in-the-worldly-street I was disappointed to see him fluff the catch with both hands.

Not sure what to make of this double-speak either

The priest at the centre of the RTÉ libel case, Fr Kevin Reynolds, has said those at the heart of decision-making at the national broadcaster have to face the consequences of their actions.


Asked on Shannonside Radio whether he would like to see disciplinary action in RTÉ over the libel case, Fr Reynolds said he was not out for anybody's blood or looking for people to be sacked

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It isn't sign of disrespect to leave out his title. Ahern says... Fitzgerald dithers... Kenny u-turns. Not a Mr, Dr or Fr in sight for anyone. Standard journalistic practice that


As one who figured Reynolds (:)) as being presented with a blue-chip opportunity to act in counter to the average-litigious-dog-in-the-worldly-street I was disappointed to see him fluff the catch with both hands.

Not sure what to make of this double-speak either

It's not double speak. Fr.Reynolds is just saying that it's out of his hands and should the local authorities decide to take it further thats their business. But as for him he is not out for revenge at all.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

It's not double speak. Fr.Reynolds is just saying that it's out of his hands and should the local authorities decide to take it further thats their business. But as for him he is not out for revenge at all.

It's out of his hands and the same time as his saying he want's the offenders to face the consequences of their actions?

What if he said he didn't want the offenders to face anymore consequences that they have already borne?

Would you see a difference between the two out-of-hands statements?

antiskeptic

That's some double-edged sword of a sig you've got going there btw.

imo

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's out of his hands and the same time as his saying he want's the offenders to face the consequences of their actions?

What if he said he didn't want the offenders to face anymore consequences that they have already borne?

Would you see a difference between the two out-of-hands statements?

He never said he ''wants'' them to face them he said ''they will HAVE to face them''

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's some double-edged sword of a sig you've got going there btw.

imo

Praise be Jesus and Mary, I often try to apply it to myself daily.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

He never said he ''wants'' them to face them he said ''they will HAVE to face them''

The question was whether his saying he didn't want them to face consequences would have a different effect (on the local authorities) to his saying they have to face consequences.

If so then something is in his hands.

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question was whether his saying he didn't want them to face consequences would have a different effect (on the local authorities) to his saying they have to face consequences.

If so then something is in his hands.

it doesnt matter what way he stated it. I'm not going to play the ''lets invent what he could have said'' game and then expand on that.

he said they will have to face the consequences but you have imposed your own interpretation upon that statement of him saying he ''wants'' them to face consequences. Thats the way I read it and I see no double standard there at all.

legendary.xix

RTE are a disgrace. They were a disgrace last year as well regards the report on Gerry Ryan's death and the report which followed. The station has lost all confidence and credibility.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

it doesnt matter what way he stated it. I'm not going to play the ''lets invent what he could have said'' game and then expand on that.

he said they will have to face the consequences but you have imposed your own interpretation upon that statement of him saying he ''wants'' them to face consequences. Thats the way I read it and I see no double standard there at all.

You're being evasive. I'm not asking you to interpret what he said. I'm not asking you to start a game of what he could have said. What I am asking is this:

Do you think folk in general would view the following two statements as indicating markedly different attitudes:

1) They have to face the consequences of their actions

2) I don't want that they face consequences for their actions.


And do you think that issuing both statements at the same time is double-speak?

Onesimus

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're being evasive. I'm not asking you to interpret what he said. I'm not asking you to start a game of what he could have said. What I am asking is this:

Do you think folk in general would view the following two statements as indicating markedly different attitudes:

1) They have to face the consequences of their actions

2) I forgive them. I don't want that they face consequences for their actions.

Ah I see what you mean. Yeah it's quite possible that the everyday public could perceive it as such. I'm sure Fr.Reynolds had more to say than just those qoutes but thats the thing with sensationalist journalism, they want to take qoutes that force the public to view it in such a way.

lmaopml

The way I read it was that Fr. Reynolds is glad it's over, and that he is grateful to those who supported him in the community. He's glad that his name was cleared and would like to put it behind him now and move on as best as possible.

As far as the 'consequences' mentioned are concerned, I would have thought that he would indeed be glad if the 'consequences' included actually researching before airing a program that was libelous, unfounded, and had the potential to ruin a persons good name, indeed there life - ANY persons good name, whether they are a Priest or no. I think the man was alluding to the fact that others have called to have 'standards' looked at and for a public inquiry to take place that may have the effect of bringing about better standards.

I don't see an obvious contradictions at all....sorry anti.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

Ah I see what you mean. Yeah it's quite possible that the everyday public could perceive it as such. I'm sure Fr.Reynolds had more to say than just those qoutes but thats the thing with sensationalist journalism, they want to take qoutes that force the public to view it in such a way.

So we should take this...

Asked on Shannonside Radio whether he would like to see disciplinary action in RTÉ over the libel case, Fr Reynolds said he was not out for anybody's blood or looking for people to be sacked.

..with a pinch of salt?

holyhead

I feel very sorry for Fr Reynolds. Yes his name is unequivocally cleared but at the same time it should never have been in the dock. It was shoddy journalism of the highest order which has the consequences of smearing a man's good name in this case a priest. The poor man must have been under tremendous stress during the whole ordeal. My sympathies to him and I'm not sure any amount of money could compensate you for having your good name, dragged through the mud, without due cause.

passarellaie

holyhead wrote: »

I feel very sorry for Fr Reynolds. Yes his name is unequivocally cleared but at the same time it should never have been in the dock. It was shoddy journalism of the highest order which has the consequences of smearing a man's good name in this case a priest. The poor man must have been under tremendous stress during the whole ordeal. My sympathies to him and I'm not sure any amount of money could compensate you for having your good name, dragged through the mud, without due cause.

whats even worse is that BR Dillon was equally savaged by the Anti Catholic hit squad but that poor man is dead and cant defend himself

The Quadratic Equation

I wonder what would have happened if Father Reynolds could not have obtained a paternity test to prove he did not commit rape ?

Zombrex

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I wonder what would have happened if Father Reynolds could not have obtained a paternity test to prove he did not commit rape ?

He probably still would have sued RTE for libel and the case would have gone to court. The difference would have been RTE would have probably mounted a defense.

lmaopml

'Prime Time Investigates', is actually a really good program, and they have a decent reputation for reporting and investigating - even if it does come across as 'The Star' on TV sometimes.

In this particular instance they were wrong - I think if nothing else they need to be more careful going forward, and understand the harm media can cause when they make terrible mistakes - I would like to see the program continue though.

They say the 'truth' sets you free, they're right - nothing like it. Cold hard facts dished up are a good thing, and so too is justice.

I know in real life of only 'one' other person who had their life ruined by what nobody knows was false or true accusations - it's serious stuff - they guy commited suicide.

The media serves a purpose, but it is not above the law, and prejudice or any kind of discrimination is not where any worthwhile journalist, or investigative journalist should go before writing a piece for print or tv.

It's like chinese whispers, or planting an acorn - they have a responsibility too, and a lot of power, it shouldn't be abused.

...imo of course.

Keylem

If Fr. Reynolds had only been accused of rape no-one would have believed him, and he would have been hounded to this day. Because he was also accused of fathering a child, he could prove his case, and his accusers backed off!

There are still some priests in the USA who were falsely accused of abuse and are shunned by their bishops beacuse the bishops are afraid of being accused of protecting those priests. They are set adrift by their own leaders to fend for themselves and they have no one to turn to. It's a pity some of the Bishops didn't set the same standards to the real abusers. Once a priest is accused, they are guilty until proven guiltier!

http://www.thesestonewalls.com/gordon-macrae/a-book-every-priest-needs-to-read-catholic-priests-falsely-accused/