Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Ghost Buster · 17-07-2011 12:05PM

Back to the original topic:
There are many many religious beliefs in this country and a fair percentage with none. As a democracy all people are equal... so..

Can anyone here honestly think that one religion should be granted special status and have its beliefs given special status in state law.
Or is anyone suggesting that all beliefs should be given special status in state law?
How would this work?

If a law states that the with holding of information relating to crimes committed becomes an offence, which it should, then can supernatural beliefs really expect to stay outside of this law.. I mean really?

philologos · 17-07-2011 01:16PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Can anyone here honestly think that one religion should be granted special status and have its beliefs given special status in state law.
Or is anyone suggesting that all beliefs should be given special status in state law?
How would this work?

No, but unfortunately thanks to the previous Government's 2002 agreement the abusers won't be prosecuted due to an indemnity agreement.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

If a law states that the with holding of information relating to crimes committed becomes an offence, which it should, then can supernatural beliefs really expect to stay outside of this law.. I mean really?

Of course not if the law is passed. The question is if it is a reasonable law to pass. I personally can't see one prosecution arising from a priest in a confessional. It's fundamentally unworkable as law. We need to start bringing forward solutions to actually tackle this head on such as going back on the 2002 agreement and prosecuting immediately.

Ghost Buster · 17-07-2011 01:37PM

philologos wrote: »

No, but unfortunately thanks to the previous Government's 2002 agreement the abusers won't be prosecuted due to an indemnity agreement.

Of course not if the law is passed. The question is if it is a reasonable law to pass. I personally can't see one prosecution arising from a priest in a confessional. It's fundamentally unworkable as law. We need to start bringing forward solutions to actually tackle this head on such as going back on the 2002 agreement and prosecuting immediately.

No. The question is can The RCC claim that its canon law is above state law. Thats what we are discussing.
The law is not specifically about the confessional but about individuals having serious knowledge about crimes committed and keeping it secret. The confessional falls within this. Simple.

philologos · 17-07-2011 01:41PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No. The question is can The RCC claim that its canon law is above state law. Thats what we are discussing.
The law is not specifically about the confessional but about individuals having serious knowledge about crimes committed and keeping it secret. The confessional falls within this. Simple.

The question is about whether or not the law that Alan Shatter is attempting to pass is workable also. That's important to remember.

kylith · 17-07-2011 01:46PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes it is. As Crucamin has pointed out, Catholic parishioners built their schools from the ground up - at a time when there was no State support and they were practically viewed (like many Irish) as subhuman.

If someone wants to do something, then get off their ass and stop looking for the easy way out-or for fall guys.

Schools should be made to give up their Catholic/Protestant/Other Faith ethos as soon as they accept money from the government. If you want to discriminate against people you should foot the bill yourself.

philologos · 17-07-2011 01:47PM

kylith: That's a separate discussion really.

Ghost Buster · 17-07-2011 01:50PM

philologos wrote: »

The question is about whether or not the law that Alan Shatter is attempting to pass is workable also. That's important to remember.

Thats another question I'll grant you but is for another thread. What is under question here and being suggested by other posters is whether it is some sort of religious oppression to not exempt the confessional from such a law were it to be passed.
The law is the law with no exceptions or special pleading for supernatural beliefs and this does not sit well with The RCC.

Ghost Buster · 17-07-2011 01:52PM

philologos wrote: »

kylith: That's a separate discussion really.

And whether or not the law is workable is a separate discussion. This is about the application of the law with no exceptions.

philologos · 17-07-2011 01:52PM

It's being discussed on this thread because this thread is about that law. If you want a simple answer as to whether or not the RCC is above any law, the answer is obviously is no. However, the law that Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald are attempting to bring in is fundamentally unenforceable and unworkable in practice. The law isn't drafted yet, so that discussion must be had.

Ghost Buster · 17-07-2011 01:55PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Yes it is. As Crucamin has pointed out, Catholic parishioners built their schools from the ground up - at a time when there was no State support and they were practically viewed (like many Irish) as subhuman.

If someone wants to do something, then get off their ass and stop looking for the easy way out-or for fall guys.

And I like a good many here are either fair minded catholics who understand democracy, former catholic parishioners or one generation removed from catholic parishioners so the schools are ours, paid for by us and we want change in the schools we have paid for on the collection plate or through tax.

toby08 · 17-07-2011 01:56PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No. The question is can The RCC claim that its canon law is above state law. Thats what we are discussing.
The law is not specifically about the confessional but about individuals having serious knowledge about crimes committed and keeping it secret. The confessional falls within this. Simple.

This is exactly put clearly what the thread is about. It is not an attack on the rc church it is about a safer society for our chìldren

dvpower · 17-07-2011 02:19PM

ShadowGal wrote: »

I dont think its double speak at all.

Go ahead -why not?

ShadowGal wrote: »

We all know the church did wrong with all of their cover ups, but the church didnt turn people into pedophiles, well i dont believe they did anyways.

So it wasn't the church that put children in danger.

ShadowGal wrote: »

The church harbored them and covered it up in the most sickening way, i just believe these guys were interested in kids before that. So ya, they're all sick

So it was the church that put children in danger.

dvpower · 17-07-2011 02:22PM

philologos wrote: »

However, the law that Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald are attempting to bring in is fundamentally unenforceable and unworkable in practice.

It hasn't been drafted yet, so lets wait and see.

philologos wrote: »

The law isn't drafted yet, so that discussion must be had.

:P

Edit: We will have to wait and see what it looks like. There have been social workers and others that think it may do more harm than good. On the other hand the Children First guidelines that the law is going to put on a statutory footing is already being implemented by many organisations (but sometimes by varying degrees).

Pace2008 · 17-07-2011 03:35PM

gsxr1 wrote: »

Follow them and you may well have a better life

Do you think I did wrong by having a **** when I woke up this morning? The Catholic Church does; in fact, they believe the act I committed was "an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."

From the Catechism:

By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm

Have a look at their views on sexuality in general, hell, read the whole thing, as a good Catholic should. Come back and tell me if you think it's a good life guide.

Hint: You can't just pick and choose which parts you'd like to follow. You've got the wrong Christian denomination for that.

philologos · 17-07-2011 03:41PM

dvpower: I'm judging based on what Alan Shatter and Frances Fitzgerald have stated thus far.

Biggins · 17-07-2011 03:42PM

From todays The Times (England)

A garda recommendation that the former Bishop of Cloyne be prosecuted under the 1997 Criminal Law Act for concealing a crime was dismissed as “not relevant” by the Director of Public Prosecutions’ office last year.

Bishop John Magee, who has been in hiding since the Cloyne report was published on Wednesday, wrote two conflicting versions of an interview he conducted in September 2005 with Fr Brendan Wrixon, the only one of 19 priests in the report who has been convicted.

In the account he prepared for diocesan records, Magee claimed Wrixon denied sexually abusing a 16-year-old boy. But in the version he sent to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Magee wrote that Wrixon immediately admitted it and offered his resignation. Magee told the Murphy commission he did this because he thought the documentation he sent to Rome would not be discoverable.

Wrixon, 75, who is given the pseudonym “Fr Caden” in the Murphy report on Cloyne, received an 18-month suspended sentence for gross indecency last November. The report said Magee and Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan, his delegate-general, showed no concern for the protection of children in their handling of the complaint.

In December 2009, following a complaint to gardai by a member of the public that Magee had put children at risk, gardai discovered diocesan documents in which Magee and Wrixon acknowledged the priest’s sexual abuse. A file was sent to the DPP, but gardai were advised the bishop could not be charged with reckless endangerment as the offence was only created in August 2006.

Gardai then sent the same file to the DPP again, urging that Magee be charged under Section 8 of the Criminal Law Act for failing to disclose information about an arrestable offence. A conviction under that section is punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. The DPP advised that the act was irrelevant and that no charges be brought.

The Murphy report states: “Not only was the reporting to the gardai delayed and lacking in basic information, Bishop Magee and Monsignor O’Callaghan did not co-operate with the garda investigation in 2006.”

Alan Shatter, the minister for justice, has referred the Cloyne report to Derek Byrne, an assistant garda commissioner, and the Garda Siochana ombudsman commission. Garda headquarters last week launched a fresh investigation into the allegations. Byrne’s team plan to re-open investigations into Magee and O’Callaghan.

“O’Callaghan is likely to be re-interviewed under caution given his role,” said a source close to the inquiry. “There appears to be prima facie evidence suggesting he concealed a crime. Magee may also be interviewed.”

The ombudsman is expected to examine the handling of certain complaints by gardai. While the report was mostly complimentary about the force, it expressed concerns about thehandling of three cases. One of these involves the work of a serving senior officer.

O’Callaghan, a former professor of moral theology, has admitted that “in some instances became emotionally and pastorally drawn to the plight of the accused priest, to the detriment of the pastoral response I intended to make to complainants”.

Even as the commission was investigating his handling of complaints, O’Callaghan wrote a curt replying letter to an abuse survivor who has received compensation from the diocese. “I assure you that in all my dealings with you, I acted properly and professionally within my role as delegate for clerical sex abuse in the diocese of Cloyne,” he wrote on October 29, 2009. O’Callaghan said he had a pastoral-style approach to abuse complainants.

The report shows that, while the diocese spent €30,000 on counselling provision for survivors in an 11-year period, it spent €328,000 on legal costs in nine years.

It revealed that Cardinal SeÃ¡n Brady, the Catholic primate, was aware a complaint had been made against Magee when he supported him against calls for resignation in January 2009. Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza, the papal nuncio, was also aware of the complaint by a man identified as Joseph, according to the report.

A spokeswoman for Diarmuid Martin, the Archbishop of Dublin, said he did not hear about the complaint until the latter half of January 2009. Martin had called on Magee on December 23, 2008 to “do what is in the best interests of child protection” in Cloyne.

“Archbishop Martin was never given any precise information on the details of the allegation or the procedures being taken,” his spokeswoman said.

Screen-shot: http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4748/20110717154320.jpg

The other part that stood out for me was the bit "...The report shows that, while the diocese spent €30,000 on counselling provision for survivors in an 11-year period, it spent €328,000 on legal costs in nine years...."
Just goes to show, someone is making money out of this whole mess and as usual its not the people that should be really getting it.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 05:49PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Can anyone here honestly think that one religion should be granted special status and have its beliefs given special status in state law.

In the Irish Republic, which religion has been granted special status?

ShadowGal · 17-07-2011 05:52PM

dvpower wrote: »

Go ahead -why not?

So it wasn't the church that put children in danger.

So it was the church that put children in danger.

I think you're cherry picking lines in order to make some point but its not coming across.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 05:53PM

philologos wrote: »

No, but unfortunately thanks to the previous Government's 2002 agreement the abusers won't be prosecuted due to an indemnity agreement.

Did the indemnity agreement state that the abusers will not be prosecuted? I thought that some abusers had been prosecuted and jailed.

I find it hard to believe that any agreement not to presecute offenders could be legal.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 06:08PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

No. The question is can The RCC claim that its canon law is above state law. Thats what we are discussing.
The law is not specifically about the confessional but about individuals having serious knowledge about crimes committed and keeping it secret. The confessional falls within this. Simple.

Any attempt to remove the confidentially of the confessional could be construed as a direct attack on freedom of religion and could be declared unconstitutional - not to mention being in breach of international law - including the European Convention of Human Right.

I am not at all sure that any legislative attack on the right to confidentiality between doctor and patient would survive scrutiny in the European Court of Human Right. Likewise any attack on the right to confidentiality between solicitor and client.

I think these potential constitutional conflicts would be better avoided. This could be done by legislation stating that all complaints about criminal conduct by any person shall be made to the police. Investigating crimes is a task for the police. Any attempt to prevent a person seeking the protection of the criminal law is, in itself, a crime.

I cannot understand why the child protection policies (or lack of such policies) of the Catholic Church or of any other organisation should be of any concern to the government. It is the job of the government, through the police, social workers, probation officers and the courts to protect children - and adults. An organisation might have reasons of its own for having child protection policies e.g. public relations and legal liability in private law.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 06:16PM

kylith wrote: »

Schools should be made to give up their Catholic/Protestant/Other Faith ethos as soon as they accept money from the government. If you want to discriminate against people you should foot the bill yourself.

Why? If you receive help from the taxpayer to buy your house, should you be obliged to allow any Tom, Dick or Harry to sleep over-night in your sitting room or in bed with your wife?

Why should any Catholic be obliged to allow his children to be taught by an anti-Catholic? Would you compel a Jew to allow his children to be taught by a Nazi?

P.S. How do you feel about the measures the UK Secretary for Education is trying to introduce? He wants to give Headteachers power to dismiss any teacher who holds extremist views? I would hold that the opinion that the Pope is an anti-Christ is an extremist view - even though it is a view held by a majority in some counties of this island.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 06:25PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And I like a good many here are either fair minded catholics who understand democracy, former catholic parishioners or one generation removed from catholic parishioners so the schools are ours, paid for by us and we want change in the schools we have paid for on the collection plate or through tax.

If you buy a lottery ticket and do not win, would you expect to get your money refunded?

You seem to be suggesting that lapsed Catholics have as much right to Catholic schools as do practising Catholics. You might understand democracy but you obviously do not understand the law of Trusts.

philologos · 17-07-2011 06:27PM

crucamim wrote: »

Did the indemnity agreement state that the abusers will not be prosecuted? I thought that some abusers had been prosecuted and jailed.

I find it hard to believe that any agreement not to presecute offenders could be legal.

Child abuse is illegal. The Government can choose not to enforce the law. Under the 2002 agreement 18 orders were indemnified from prosecution.

Indemnity means:

Secure (someone) against legal responsibility for their actions

I think any reasonable person now can see that was a poor decision in hindsight.

Tehachapi · 17-07-2011 06:30PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

Delusional nonsense? Hmmm. You appear to be a quite angry chap, for whatever reason. And choose not to believe in God. Makes me wonder are you missing something in your life.......

Right, so because I don't believe a load of fairy tales that don't make the slightest bit of logical sense (sorry - because I don't believe your SPECIFIC fairy tales) means I'm missing something in my life. Right.

On a side note, I watched a parent who had systematically tortured her own children be give the equivalent of 4 years in jail for it during the week. (24 year sentence - last SIXTEEN years suspended, and she'll only serve around half). Are we really displaying any kind of deterrent here?

Finally, the facts of that case were truly horrific - beyond comprehension. But does this make ALL parents monsters like this?

Arguing with religious people is fairly pointless, just like arguing with a child is pointless imo. You can repeat the same point again and again, but it just doesn't seem to register. Nobody once has said every priest was having sex with children, they said the leaders of the catholic church were complicit in covering up these crimes though and should be punished under the full extent of the law , just like any other individual/business/organization. They should not receive any special protection because of religious status.

Biggins · 17-07-2011 06:31PM

I thought orders were indemnified from prosecution IF they lived up to their end of the deal - so far they haven't so like a legal contract that is broken or unfinished, they are open to subsequent consequences are they not?

BrianOFlanagan · 17-07-2011 06:36PM

crucamim wrote: »

With the exception of France, there is greater separation of Church and State in Eire than in any other country in Western Europe. If you do not like the Catholic Church, stay well away from it. And do not interfere with the right of Catholics to be Catholics.

I would never interfere with any persons right to belief. Believe what ever you want, it doesn't bother me as long as it's not bashed in my face. Unfortunately in this country it's impossible to avoid the church.
I don't agree with your statement about the church and State being separate but you're entitled to your opinion.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 06:43PM

philologos wrote: »

The Government can choose not to enforce the law.

REALLY???????

crucamim · 17-07-2011 06:45PM

BrianOFlanagan wrote: »

Unfortunately in this country it's impossible to avoid the church.

Why is it impossible?

philologos · 17-07-2011 06:46PM

Biggins wrote: »

I thought orders were indemnified from prosecution IF they lived up to their end of the deal - so far they haven't so like a legal contract that is broken or unfinished, they are open to subsequent consequences are they not?

At the time under Michael Woods as Minister of Education the orders owed €125mn rather than half.

crucamim · 17-07-2011 07:01PM

Biggins wrote: »

I thought orders were indemnified from prosecution IF they lived up to their end of the deal - so far they haven't so like a legal contract that is broken or unfinished, they are open to subsequent consequences are they not?

Indemnity does not cover criminal liability. The Religious Orders were indemnified from civil liability.

The indemnity was no gift by the State to the Catholic Church. The State had skeletons in its cupboard, very, many skeletons. None of those Religious Orders had sent out snatch squads to grab people from the streets and drag them, kicking and screaming, to any of their Industrial Schools, Orphanages or Care Homes. People were sent to those places because the State had no facilities of its own. The State used the facilities which the Catholic Church, thanks to its plentiful supply of cheap, celibate labour, could provide on the cheap. So the State was totally responsible. Not only did it send unfortunate people to those places, it also failed to supervise those places.

The Religious Orders could have dug in their heels and put the blame entirely on the State. But they had to think of their public relations. And elderly nuns, priests and monks, whose numbers are fast dwindling, seem to have been all too willing to transfer no longer needed properties to the State. I think that they should hand over all the orphanages, Care Homes and Industrial Schools to the State and let the State take on the responsibilities it has long shirked.

But the schools must stay with the Church. No Catholic child should have to submit to the authority of an anti-Catholic teacher. Moreover, sexual abuse in Catholic schools (if there was any) was not convered by the indemnity agreement.

Catholic Church claims it is above the law

Comments