Poll

We all know this disgusting scandal is as a result of The Church and The State, but who do you hold mostly accountable, and should therefore pay out the most in compensation to victims?

The State
The Church
Split 50/50

Author Topic: Clerical abuse!  (Read 162469 times)

Lar Naparka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • I just know this is gonna be our year!
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2400 on: February 18, 2018, 10:29:51 PM »
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.

Aaron Boone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2401 on: February 18, 2018, 10:46:06 PM »
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.

If there were ‘likes’ on this website, the T Fearon profile would not be a lone ship.

imtommygunn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7579
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2402 on: February 19, 2018, 07:26:38 AM »
It is. I always thought there should have been prosecutions and why there hasn't been i do not know.

Owen Brannigan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2403 on: February 19, 2018, 08:29:03 AM »
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.

Because firstly the paperwork meets minimum safeguarding standards and the Church has used its legal resources to ensure that it cannot be sued by victims as all procedures are in place. However, while the alleged offender is stood down, two things happen:

1. If any action is taken it proceeds at a glacial pace with no referral to civil authorities and the main activity is to manage the media fallout to protect the reputation of the Church. Foot dragging of the worst order occurs. Look at the Finnegan case to see how long it took for the Church to deal with the matter and reach some conclusion for one victim of the many who have come forward.

2. No action is taken and the alleged abuser is left in limbo at least for many years and what looks left indefinitely, there are numerous examples of this across the country.  In every diocese there are priests who have been removed from frontline duty with no explanation and have been put into apparent exile for years.  However, in some cases the priest has refused to leave the parochial house and the parish is not informed what has been happening in reaching a conclusion.

This is not proper safeguarding procedures nor is it any form of natural justice for alleged abuser or the victims. However, it meets minimum standards as far as preventing any legal action against the Church being taken.

Still waiting on you to post the source of the independent verification of the Church's safeguarding procedures? You are still deflecting, any longer and it looks like you just made it up.

T Fearon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12627
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2404 on: February 19, 2018, 07:10:49 PM »
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.

Because firstly the paperwork meets minimum safeguarding standards and the Church has used its legal resources to ensure that it cannot be sued by victims as all procedures are in place. However, while the alleged offender is stood down, two things happen:

1. If any action is taken it proceeds at a glacial pace with no referral to civil authorities and the main activity is to manage the media fallout to protect the reputation of the Church. Foot dragging of the worst order occurs. Look at the Finnegan case to see how long it took for the Church to deal with the matter and reach some conclusion for one victim of the many who have come forward.

2. No action is taken and the alleged abuser is left in limbo at least for many years and what looks left indefinitely, there are numerous examples of this across the country.  In every diocese there are priests who have been removed from frontline duty with no explanation and have been put into apparent exile for years.  However, in some cases the priest has refused to leave the parochial house and the parish is not informed what has been happening in reaching a conclusion.

This is not proper safeguarding procedures nor is it any form of natural justice for alleged abuser or the victims. However, it meets minimum standards as far as preventing any legal action against the Church being taken.

Have you recent evidence of the Church not following policy and procedures?

Another thing why should the Church be liable for the  actions of perverts masquerading as Priests? Were Peter Sutcliffe's employers open to be sued because he raped and killed winning while lorry driving?


Lar Naparka

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3825
  • I just know this is gonna be our year!
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2405 on: February 19, 2018, 07:52:57 PM »
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.

Because firstly the paperwork meets minimum safeguarding standards and the Church has used its legal resources to ensure that it cannot be sued by victims as all procedures are in place. However, while the alleged offender is stood down, two things happen:

1. If any action is taken it proceeds at a glacial pace with no referral to civil authorities and the main activity is to manage the media fallout to protect the reputation of the Church. Foot dragging of the worst order occurs. Look at the Finnegan case to see how long it took for the Church to deal with the matter and reach some conclusion for one victim of the many who have come forward.

2. No action is taken and the alleged abuser is left in limbo at least for many years and what looks left indefinitely, there are numerous examples of this across the country.  In every diocese there are priests who have been removed from frontline duty with no explanation and have been put into apparent exile for years.  However, in some cases the priest has refused to leave the parochial house and the parish is not informed what has been happening in reaching a conclusion.

This is not proper safeguarding procedures nor is it any form of natural justice for alleged abuser or the victims. However, it meets minimum standards as far as preventing any legal action against the Church being taken.

Have you recent evidence of the Church not following policy and procedures?

Another thing why should the Church be liable for the  actions of perverts masquerading as Priests? Were Peter Sutcliffe's employers open to be sued because he raped and killed winning while lorry driving?

No they weren’t.
If it was proved that they knew very well what he was doing and decided to do nothing about it, you would have another scenario. Furthermore, if it was transpired that his employers moved him from one place to another in order to obstruct the course of justice and refused actively to co-operate with the police but rather tried to obstruct them at every turn, a case could be made that they were guilty by association. (Not sure of the legal term here. Owen??)
To cap it all, if his employers approached his victims or their relatives and offered cash settlements in return for their decision not to press changes, the b**tards would/ should stand in the same dock as Sutcliffe.

PS I have read that Brady forked out a total of 55 million euro in out of court settlements in order to prevent cases going to court. Care to comment on that?
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 07:55:46 PM by Lar Naparka »

Owen Brannigan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1086
    • View Profile
Re: Clerical abuse!
« Reply #2406 on: February 19, 2018, 08:57:19 PM »

Quote from: Owen Brannigan
Because firstly the paperwork meets minimum safeguarding standards and the Church has used its legal resources to ensure that it cannot be sued by victims as all procedures are in place. However, while the alleged offender is stood down, two things happen:

1. If any action is taken it proceeds at a glacial pace with no referral to civil authorities and the main activity is to manage the media fallout to protect the reputation of the Church. Foot dragging of the worst order occurs. Look at the Finnegan case to see how long it took for the Church to deal with the matter and reach some conclusion for one victim of the many who have come forward.

2. No action is taken and the alleged abuser is left in limbo at least for many years and what looks left indefinitely, there are numerous examples of this across the country.  In every diocese there are priests who have been removed from frontline duty with no explanation and have been put into apparent exile for years.  However, in some cases the priest has refused to leave the parochial house and the parish is not informed what has been happening in reaching a conclusion.

This is not proper safeguarding procedures nor is it any form of natural justice for alleged abuser or the victims. However, it meets minimum standards as far as preventing any legal action against the Church being taken.


Have you recent evidence of the Church not following policy and procedures?

Another thing why should the Church be liable for the  actions of perverts masquerading as Priests? Were Peter Sutcliffe's employers open to be sued because he raped and killed winning while lorry driving?

I am not saying that the Catholic Church is not following procedures.My point is that the Catholic Church is following the minimum legal requirement in policy and procedures but is being entirely unchristian in avoiding the spirit of them. See Points 1 & 2 above. 

Clergy in the Catholic Church are not considered to be employee of this Church.  Priests are self employed as far as tax and employment issues are concerned and their employment rights are therefore curtailed. 

However, the High Court has decided that the Catholic Church has vicarious liability for those it appoints to carry out its work in parishes.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/12/catholic-church-loses-apeal-liability

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator.

Knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others.


Therefore, under civil law, when a bishop appoints a priest to his ministry he assumes vicarious liability for all actions by that priest.  Therefore, the Catholic Church has paid out hundreds of thousands to victims and will pay much more into the future.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2018, 08:59:40 PM by Owen Brannigan »