new rules for priests accused of sexual abuse

Orion

http://www.thejournal.ie/priest-child-abuse-1948599-Feb2015/

He also referred to a study conducted by Amarach in 2012, which found that almost half of Irish people thought 20% of priests are paedophiles.
“That’s absolutely crazy and we like to point out that’s not so. Priests got a lot of attention for this, rather than teachers or doctors or gardaí in the same position.”

Possibly because the controlling body for teachers, doctors and gardai didn't cover up the abuse, move the offender to different parishes where he could start again, move Brendan Smyth to a retreat centre where kids were bussed in to him on a daily basis, lie about abuse cases, destroy and hide evidence, refuse to disclose evidence to the authorities a la Sean Brady and base it all on their religious doctrine to avoid any responsibility.

I think the church would do better in safeguarding children than in safeguarding priests. There are already national guidelines in place to deal with accusations - founded or unfounded. Seems the behemoth hasn't learned from its mistakes.

Michael OBrien

Orion wrote: »

Seems the behemoth hasn't learned from its mistakes.

For an organisation that took out insurance against claims of this sort, I would dispute they consider the horrible acts mistakes. The only thing they regret is that people finally had the courage to stand up and speak out and demand change.
The church has committed such acts for a thousand years, using force and terror to keep people in line, now they play the victim card, often blaming everyone else for their crimes, then they deflect blame onto society, then they go quite and wait for it to blow over and start all over again, only more carefully next time.
Too many people think this is a 'mistake' by the church. No its a tradition.

bpmurray

It's not 20% - I think the number is really around 4% which is still really, really high. However, the thing the church keeps forgetting and probably the thing that really pisses people off is the fact that 100% of the hierarchy, all the way to the CEO in the Vatican, they all covered it up.

There is one simple rule that should be followed: if there is an accusation, report it immediately to the Gardai. Anyone who doesn't is an accessory. Why should there be one rule for priests and another for any other member of society?

lazybones32

Orion wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/priest-child-abuse-1948599-Feb2015/



Possibly because the controlling body for teachers, doctors and gardai didn't cover up the abuse, move the offender to different parishes where he could start again, move Brendan Smyth to a retreat centre where kids were bussed in to him on a daily basis, lie about abuse cases, destroy and hide evidence, refuse to disclose evidence to the authorities a la Sean Brady and base it all on their religious doctrine to avoid any responsibility.

I think the church would do better in safeguarding children than in safeguarding priests. There are already national guidelines in place to deal with accusations - founded or unfounded. Seems the behemoth hasn't learned from its mistakes.

I think you may have missed the point of the article, which I think can be summed up from this excerpt "...there is a difficult balancing act when it comes to abuse allegations, between duty of care to the child and fairness to the priest involved."

When a Garda is accused of something, they (probably) get suspended with pay and return to their home or lodgings. The Garda doesn't get kicked out of their house until the proceedings are finished. I don't know if the Priest continues to draw a wage or if he has to collect his stamps.

Due process indicates a person is innocent until proven guilty but for a Priest accused, he is homeless until proven "not guilty".

Hotblack Desiato

Have you any evidence of that? that a priest facing an accusation is left homeless and without income? It's just not credible. The RCC has convicted paedophile clerics given free 'sheltered accommodation' and a pension for the rest of their lives.

lazybones32

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Have you any evidence of that? that a priest facing an accusation is left homeless and without income? It's just not credible. The RCC has convicted paedophile clerics given free 'sheltered accommodation' and a pension for the rest of their lives.

Maybe read the article? or even what I wrote? It points out that an accused priest is removed from the house, which is owned by the Diocese. The priest lives there rent free but it's never his house.

Pensions are paid out after being paid into, which the priest usually does throughout his working life. Need proof of how pension plans work?

Hotblack Desiato

I read both. The article you linked to doesn't say any such thing and I'm not taking the unevidenced assertion in your post at face value. So.. got any evidence for your claim?

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

Maybe read the article? or even what I wrote? It points out that an accused priest is removed from the house, which is owned by the Diocese. The priest lives there rent free but it's never his house.

Pensions are paid out after being paid into, which the priest usually does throughout his working life. Need proof of how pension plans work?

The article doesn't say anything like you are suggesting it does. It does mention that people in other professions can simply go home when they are suspended, but it doesn't actually say a priest can't, or if he can't that he has nowhere to go.

Clearly the principle of innocent until proven guilty is an important one, but surely you can see that children that have potentially been victims of those that could potentially be victims need protecting. Admittedly this is balancing act, and one the church has been getting wrong thus far.

Personally, as much as I dispise your church, I would not support an accused priest being turfed out on the street. I therefore look forward to you showing us that this happens so I can send an email expressing my unhappiness.

MrP

shruikan2553

bpmurray wrote: »

It's not 20% - I think the number is really around 4% which is still really, really high. However, the thing the church keeps forgetting and probably the thing that really pisses people off is the fact that 100% of the hierarchy, all the way to the CEO in the Vatican, they all covered it up.

There is one simple rule that should be followed: if there is an accusation, report it immediately to the Gardai. Anyone who doesn't is an accessory. Why should there be one rule for priests and another for any other member of society?

I dont know why people struggle so much with this. The problem with the RCC was how it handled the situation and let it continue, something which they pretend never happened and instead claim "not all of them did it!", they are right, it was still a minority but then what about all the others who let it continue?

“Of course, absolutely anything that can protect children in the church we’d be in favour of and we have done that over the years. since we got caught”

fixed a mistake in the article there. They seem more focused on themselves being the victims.

SpaceTime

The scariest aspect of the whole thing is that the Church arrogantly believed and to an extent still seems to think that it's above the law of the land.

They dealt (badly) with what was criminal activity using their own internal processes rather than calling the Gardai / Police. They did this in multiple jurisdictions too.

Ireland was particularly bad because the state didn't challenge this notion and allowed the church to basically override the legal system for decades.

The entire thing boils down to corporatism between church and state and basically a total corruption of our democratic processes, rule of law and justice systems.

It's high time we actually called this "corruption". There was systemic undermining of almost every aspect of the state's structures and systems of governance by a private third party institution.

Swap " church " for "Russian Oligarchs", " big business ", " the Mafia " etc and the situation becomes a lot easier to describe. We still dress this up with exceptionalist terminology as we still can't see past it.

No organisation or private individuals should ever be able to override democracy and operate outside the normal rule of law.

lazybones32

"Sean McDonagh of the Association of Catholic Priests said"..."Priests are in a unique position in terms of these issues. If it’s a garda or a teacher, they can just go home to their house. Priests are living in houses owned by the diocese so where do they go?”

When a priest is accused of abuse the priest is suspended from duties and removed from his ordinary residence; he is sent for medical and psychological evaluation and his activities are closely observed. He is not allowed participate in pastoral duties, nor wear the clerical garb or present himself as a priest (Diocese of Fort Wayne, 2005; FallRiver Diocese 2014)

Hotblack Desiato

That still doesn't substantiate your claim. What alternative lodgings are provided by the diocese, or do you have evidence that none is provided? Your claim in regard to loss of income remains entirely unsubstantiated also.

lazybones32

For a person who claims to have read both article and my posts, you seem to have missed #4 where I wrote "I don't know if the Priest continues to draw a wage or if he has to collect his stamps." You see, I didn't say the priest has no money because I didn't know if he continued to draw a wage or whether he would draw his stamps. So yeah...I didn't substantiate the claim - that you incorrectly attributed to me. I apologise.

Do I have to provide you with a definition of homelessness* also? Note: it includes, but isn't restricted to, people sleeping on the streets. People in temporary accommodation, emergency shelter and those who have to sleep on a family/friends couch because they have no residence of their own are included also. Maybe it is my fault that you don't know the correct usage of the word?, it's not like there was lots of Media coverage about homelessness...what, 8 weeks ago.

Have fun substantiating!

Your conservatory catholic,
lazybones32

* either Citizens Information or a homeless charity define at least 6 categories that are homeless. Not all are destitute and sleeping in boxes.

shruikan2553

Maybe they just get moved to another house? It worked well enough in the past.

MrPudding

lazybones32 wrote: »

For a person who claims to have read both article and my posts, you seem to have missed #4 where I wrote "I don't know if the Priest continues to draw a wage or if he has to collect his stamps." You see, I didn't say the priest has no money because I didn't know if he continued to draw a wage or whether he would draw his stamps. So yeah...I didn't substantiate the claim - that you incorrectly attributed to me. I apologise.

Do I have to provide you with a definition of homelessness* also? Note: it includes, but isn't restricted to, people sleeping on the streets. People in temporary accommodation, emergency shelter and those who have to sleep on a family/friends couch because they have no residence of their own are included also. Maybe it is my fault that you don't know the correct usage of the word?, it's not like there was lots of Media coverage about homelessness...what, 8 weeks ago.

Have fun substantiating!

Your conservatory catholic,
lazybones32

* either Citizens Information or a homeless charity define at least 6 categories that are homeless. Not all are destitute and sleeping in boxes.

So just to sum up, you have no point of any value to make. Got it.

MrP

Brian Shanahan

lazybones32 wrote: »

"Sean McDonagh of the Association of Catholic Priests said"..."Priests are in a unique position in terms of these issues. If it’s a garda or a teacher, they can just go home to their house. Priests are living in houses owned by the diocese so where do they go?”

When a priest is accused of abuse the priest is suspended from duties and removed from his ordinary residence; he is sent for medical and psychological evaluation and his activities are closely observed. He is not allowed participate in pastoral duties, nor wear the clerical garb or present himself as a priest (Diocese of Fort Wayne, 2005; FallRiver Diocese 2014)

And how does that differentiate priests from doctors, say, who have been suspended from their duties? Plus doctors tend to get suspended for misconduct, priests tend to get suspended for not toeing the party line. If they commit misconduct they usually get moved to another parish where they are free to continue with their criminal behaviour.