Ongoing religious scandals

Religious congregations indemnity deal was ‘a blank cheque’, says Michael McDowell

The State “effectively signed a blank cheque” in agreeing the controversial 2002 indemnity deal with 18 religious congregations, the then attorney general Michael McDowell has said.

Under the deal the congregations paid €128 million in return for a State indemnity against all future actions by people who, as children, had been in institutions run by them. Compensation so far has cost the State more than €1.4 billion.

In a new RTE documentary, Rome v Republic, to be broadcast next week Thursday, Mr McDowell says he and senior ministers were kept out of the negotiations.

Describing the deal agreed during the “dying days” of the 2002 Fianna Fail-Progressive Democrats administration, Mr McDowell said then minister for education Michael Woods effectively capped the liability of the religious orders.

“The simple fact of the matter is that the result was that the State effectively signed a blank cheque which cost us €1.4 billion in the end, in exchange for a promise of a contribution of €128 million from the religious orders,” he says.

How on earth was a Minister for Education allowed to make what turned out to be a massive financial commitment on behalf of the state without even a Cabinet meeting, never mind a Dail vote? IIRC that administration had already called a general election at the time.

Religious congregations yet to meet redress commitments made in 2002 and 2009

So far, the 18 religious congregations who ran the orphanages, reformatories and industrial schools have yet to fully fulfil the terms of the 2002 indemnity deal and of later offers they made to the State.

Of the €128 million they agreed to pay at the time, €4.21 million (3 per cent) is still outstanding. Negotiations over the handover of remaining properties is continuing.

More significantly, following publication of the Ryan report in May 2009, all 18 congregations were called in by the government of the day and asked to increase their contributions to redress costs.

It followed a recommendation by Mr Justice Sean Ryan in his report that the congregations pay half the costs of redress, with the taxpayer paying the rest.

Combined, the congregations offered a further €352.61 million, of which €103.17 has been paid over (in cash and property), or 29 per cent. Negotiations are continuing over the transfer of ownership of nine properties.

The redress scheme has cost the taxpayer €1.5 billion with 15,579 people, who had been in institutions managed by the 18 congregations as children, receiving awards which averaged €62,250 each.

One Mr B Ahern had a few things to say on the matter:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/bertie-ahern-state-s-1999-apology-to-abused-children-was-absolutely-necessary-1.3887799

I didn’t think that there was going to be a campaign by legal people that put ads in Australia and Canada, America, and almost invite people to forward applications, which is what happened. I’m not too sure how much I agreed with that at the time. It was what happened and that grew the numbers and I know as a constituency politician that people who had short terms in an institution, or who had even very failed memories of time in an institution, came forward and received very large compensation. I suppose from experience in these things once you set them up you find it hard to control them.

Yeah, well not withstanding what I said, I think we were as generous as we could be, the State, [and] as head of one of those governments. And I think Michael Woods was being as sympathetic as he could be to the religious because he wasn’t trying to take assets that he believed they required for other purposes. And, in fairness, remember that most of our schools down through the years were on church land. Most of the community centres, most of the boy scouts, the girl guides were on church lands. So the religious had not been ungenerous to the State down through the years, and to hospitals and all the other organisations. So I thought that [2002] was a fair deal.

Yes, governments did these deals in good faith and I don’t believe either my government or Brian Cowen’s government were being unduly unfair on them. So I think they were duty bound to honour them and honour both of them. Honour what was negotiated in both cases.

US bishop tells parents LGBTQ events harmful to children

On Saturday, Bishop Tobin tweeted: “A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ ‘Pride Month’ events held in June. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. They are especially harmful for children.”

Colm O’Gorman, whose abuse by Fr Sean Fortune and its cover-up led to the October 2005 Ferns report, the first statutory report into clerical child sex abuse in Ireland, responded “There’s shameless and then there is this guy.”

He retweeted a newspaper report from last year highlighting findings of a grand jury inquiry in Pittsburg diocese when Bishop Tobin was auxiliary bishop from 1992 to 1996. It found the bishop had been aware of the sexual abuse of children by priests but did nothing. He told the grand jury it was outside his area of responsibility.

The grand jury found that, over many decades in six Catholic dioceses in Pennsylvania, including Pittsburg, more than 300 priests had sexually abused more than 1,000 identifiable survivors.

“They lied, they covered up, they abandoned me and so many others to rape and abuse, and when we spoke out, they tried to damn us and silence us. Pretty clear who is ‘harmful to children’,” Mr O’Gorman tweeted.

robindch wrote: »

The Holy Ghost Fathers, owners of Blackrock College have decided to flog a large plot of adjoining land - with estimates coming in around the €20 million mark.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/blackrock-college-site-seeks-offers-in-excess-of-20m-1.3903109

The Holy Ghost Fathers, aka the Spiritans, are not party to the Michael Wood's indemnity deal from 2002, and have avoided committing themselves to paying recompense to any of the people alleging that they were abused by Spiritan priests (here and here etc), by speaking, vaguely . . .

The flip side of not being party to the indemnity deal is, of course, that they don't benefit from the indemnity, so are fully liable to meet any award of damages against them out of their own resources. They don't get to chose whether to pay recompense. As you rightly point out, the statement is vague about what the "debt within the province" is, but the sale proceeds are certainly available to satisfy any outstanding judgments against the province.

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/church-goers-stunned-kilkenny-priest-16501932.amp

Church goers stunned as Kilkenny priest compares gay people to infected zombies
Brother Tom Forde suggested those who believe in contraception and abortion are 'morally rotten' and the 'living dead'

Church goers were stunned when a priest compared gay people and those who have sex before marriage to infected zombies.

In his homily to parishioners last weekend in the Friary in Co Kilkenny, Brother Tom Forde suggested those who believe in contraception and abortion are “morally rotten” and the “living dead”.


The homily read: “I begin this homily with an embarrassing admission. It may destroy whatever respect you have for me.

“You may decide to disregard everything I say now and in the future. But there is a point to my admission and I ask you to be patient with me. I am a little odd. I like zombies.”

He said: “We see this when the mask slips and someone we thought a friend is revealed as a fiend, full of anger, spite, malice, lust or pride we had not seen before. We see it in self-destructive, irrational behaviour.

“It is visible in the abuse of drugs and alcohol, in adultery, fornication and homosexuality (and there are other unnameable behaviours). As well as in acceptance of abortion and contraception and in the move to legalise euthanasia.

“In the zombie genre once you’re bitten you’re infected and there’s no hope. The only way to deal with the monsters is to stab or shoot them in the brain for otherwise they are merciless relentless and unstoppable.

“Zombies, thank God, do not actually exist but I would suggest, spiritual-zombie hood does.”

It is understood a number of people got up and left the mass last Saturday. When contacted to explain his views by the Irish Mirror, the secretary of the Capuchin Friary in Kilkenny said: “He [Brother Forde] has nothing to explain. There will be no comment.”

Following the mass, Brother Forde posted his homily to his blog page – but it has now been deleted. The Irish Mirror saw the two-page speech, which included a photo of zombies and was titled: “The living dead are all around us and Christ alone has the cure: the Holy Spirit.”

Brother Forde continued to say that being obedient to Christ was the only cure for those “infected”.

What a gob****e.

Bishop apologises over priest’s homily comparing gay people to zombies

In a statement on Thursday, posted on the Ossory diocesan website, Bishop Farrell said that, as well as being saddened at the language used and sentiments expressed by Fr Forde, he was “saddened too that a liturgy was used to convey any sentiment so at variance with our understanding of God”.

“Words can hurt and care needs to be taken by all, in all situations, so as not to alienate, hurt or cause offence,” the bishop said.

He also welcomed “the statement of the Capuchin order expressing their deep regret [over the incident] and their strong reaffirmation of their welcome of all people. I know the affection in which they are held by the people of Kilkenny.

“I express our appreciation for the Capuchins’ service of the most vulnerable [in Kilkenny and beyond], and I thank them for outlining clearly their views on the good news of the inclusion of all.”

On Wednesday the Capuchins in Kilkenny said in a statement that Fr Forde’s homily “which had been published as a blog is no longer posted online”.

“On reflection Fr Tom removed the blog as it was not his intention to cause hurt to anyone,” the statement said.

It continued: “The Capuchin order wishes to state that all are welcome in our churches, irrespective of sexual orientation. Unfortunate comments were made about homosexuality last Saturday, which gay people would have found hurtful, and we deeply regret this.

“When asked about gay people, Pope Francis has said: ‘Who am I to judge?’ And speaking to a gay man at an audience in the Vatican he said: ‘God made you like this and he loves you.’

“We support Pope Francis in his comments on gay people and we will continue to be guided by him and by our own mission statement, which states that ‘we affirm that our fraternities will be places of prayer, hospitality and outreach to all’.”

Oopsie.

Gotta point out that this isn't really a "religious scandal". While there were accusastions of "satanic" abuse, the supposed religious element was part of the accusation and the accusations were, substantially, baseless. The people or instititutions making and acting on the accusations were not necessarily motivated by religion and in many cases were not religious at all. (And in many cases the people against whom the allegations were made were also not religious at all.) To the extent that religion was a factor in this issue at all it was largely ignorance of/fear of/an animus against religion - specifically, against Satanism.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2019/0701/1059531-abuse-confession/

Vatican says laws cannot force priests to break seal of confession

The Vatican has today reaffirmed Catholic teaching that priests cannot reveal what they learn in confession, in an apparent response to moves in Australia and elsewhere to force them to do so in cases of sexual abuse.

A document from the Vatican's Apostolic Penitentiary, which deals with issues of the sacrament of confession, said no government or law could force clergy to violate the seal "because this duty comes directly from God".

The document, which does not mention any countries or the sexual abuse crisis, complained of a "worrying negative prejudice against the Catholic Church".

Most countries' legal systems respect the religious right of a Catholic priest not to reveal what he has learned in confession, similar to attorney-client privilege.

But the sexual abuse crisis that has embroiled the Catholic Church around the world has seen this right challenged more frequently.

In Australia, an inquiry into child abuse recommended that the country introduce a law forcing religious leaders to report child abuse, including priests told of it during confession.

So far, two of Australia's eight states have introduced laws making it a crime for priests to withhold information about abuse heard in confession. Others are still considering their response.

In May, the California state senate passed a bill to require the seal of confession to be broken if a priests learns of or suspects sexual abuse while hearing the confession of a fellow priest or a colleague such as a Church worker.

Church leaders in both the United States and Australia have opposed such laws and the document backed them up unequivocally.

"Any political action or legislative initiative aimed at breaking the inviolability of the sacramental seal would constitute an unacceptable offence against the (freedom of the Church)," the document said.

"(The Church) does not receive its legitimacy from individual States, but from God; it (breaking the seal) would also constitute a violation of religious freedom, legally fundamental to all other freedoms, including the freedom of conscience of individual citizens, both penitents and confessors," it said.

The document said a priest could not demand that a penitent turn himself or herself in to authorities as a condition for receiving absolution from their sins.

The penitent also cannot free a priest from his obligation to respect the seal of confession, it said.

...and these guys regard themselves as the moral guardians of society? :rolleyes:

robindch wrote: »

Cardinal Pell's appeal against his conviction fails and unless a subsequent appeal succeeds, will be eligible for parole in October 2022. The pope has yet to defrock him, and Australia has not yet stripped him of his "Order of Australia" medal.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-49416573

Neither the defrocking nor the stripping were ever going to happen while he maintained his innocence and pursued appeals. And he still has the option of appealing to the High Court of Australia, which he is reportedly considering. Until that appeal fails, or it is announced that he will not pursue it, he will remain frocked and medalled.

Well, I don't know about "finally admitting"; when did they claim the contrary?

But, yeah, I think they are facing up to this in a way they didn't before. They may take some heat for being slow with their own penal processes, but if they moved quickly they would expose themselves to charge that they are seekign to pre-judge, influence, pre-empt, etc the state processes.

Key issue is whether they will accept that conviction in civil courts establishes conclusively (or as conclusively as these things can ever be established) that the abuse did happen - they will simply accept this as proven, and not run their own investigation reaching a different conclusion.

Only similar case at this level of the church has been Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington from 2000 to 2006, when he retired at the usual age of 75. Some years later, allegations about multiple instances of "inappropriate behaviour" with seminarians became public. These mostly related to adult seminarians, but there was at least one allegation of abuse of a boy of 16, and another by a man who said he was abused at age 11. MCarrick was formally removed from priestly ministry and directed to "observe a life of prayer and penance in seclusion", and his resignation from the College of Cardinals was accepted. This all happened very quickly after he was accused of the abuse of minors.

Differences from Pell: McCarrick never faced criminal charges, so interface between church and state processes didn't really arise. Also, although he denied abusing anyone under age, he hasn't (SFAIK) denied the bulk of the accusations against him, involving abusive (but not criminal) sexual relations with adults.

Whereas Pell still maintains his innocence. So his case presents the issue of whether the church will accept Pell's guilt on the basis of the civil conviction, or whether it will make its own, independent investigation and finding. Pell stood aside from his Vatican role (as prefect for the Secretariat for the Economy) when he was charged, and I assume that he either stood aside from or was formally suspended from priestly ministry at the same time, since this is standard practice. He resigned from the Council of Cardinals (a 6-member advisory board on the organsation of the Roman Curia) but not from his role as Prefect of the Secretariat. However he had been appointed to that role for a 5-year term; the term expired during his trial and was not renewed.

The upshot of all this is that (a) Pell has never been disciplined by the church on the basis that he is guilty of anything, but (b) he's not in active ministry and doesn't occupy any office or position from which he can be dismissed. SFAIK the only two things that could be done at this point are (a) "accept his resignation" from the College of Cardinals, and (b) formally "remove him from the clerical state" (which is more permament and more radical than simply suspending him from priestly ministry). Neither of these would mean much in practical terms, given that he is in prison, but their symbolic signficance would be enormous.

robindch wrote: »

No doubt, his frock heaves happily with the weight of honorary metal. However, he could have considered, voluntarily, turning in his gongs while investigations and court cases were ongoing on the reasonable expectation that they'd be returned if, and when, he'd been declared innocent of the charges laid against him.

And given the seriousness of the claims, it's hardly an unreasonable course of action, though it's one which does not seem to have occurred to the technically innocent, and by now, no doubt enormously lonely, figure of George Pell.

I think handing back your honours would be seen by some as an admission of guilt and I can how, if someone is maintaining his innocence, it is unrealistic and unreasonable to think he will hand back his honours. If you can find an example of somebody who renounced an honour when under suspicion/investigation and then had it re-awarded to him when he was cleared, point it out. I don't think that's how these things work.

I can think of a lot of criticisms that I could make of George Pell. But, that he failed to resign his Order of Australia when charged with a crime, of which he maintained his innocence? I'll give him a pass on that one.

Shur didn't Osama bin Laden get a mass?