Clerical abuse!

[Thefisherking]

Just read this this evening, I found it repulsive. The same lack of state leadership pandering to a self riteous cabal.

Utterly sickening.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/dutch-roman-catholic-church-castrated-at-least-10-boys-3054852.html

[Main Street]

Whats wrong with ye lads, did ye honestly think these nasty b**tards would have anything other than weasel words in their report. At this stage people have just been overloaded with the whole clerical abuse. People are tired of hearing about it and this report (or lack of a report) will go unnoticed I imagine. Previously, even though I have been no fan of religion, I have supported fund raising for local church as a matter of courtesy. However, now I would not give them the steam of my piss. This religion is nothing but evil and governed by evil unrepentant dirt bags like Sean Brady. If Irish people want to in doctrine their kids into this then i despair.

On the contrary, I had no expectations. Based on previous church statements, it would have been foolish to have expectations.
And not just based on previous church statements but also the Cloyne report.
We have had a couple of independent reports, which excellently documented the pattern of abuse in the Cloyne and Dublin dioceses.

In the Cloyne report   bottom of page 350
The strongest words I could find to describe the cover-up conspiracy

The Diocese is vulnerable to be seen as complicit in this by not taking action to remove these people from the priesthood.

Maybe someone else can put a value on that statement. I interpret that to be lacking conviction. The Cloyne report gave detailed account to the coverup but fell short of stating that this was deliberate and complicit,  but rather more due  to a lack of understanding of the abuser problem (the voracious deceptive sex abuse predator)  that faced the diocese.

In the conclusions, page 351

2. Children have been placed at risk of harm within the Diocese of Cloyne
through the inability of that Diocese to respond appropriately to the information that
came to it regarding child protection concerns involving the clergy. It failed to act
effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible
complaint of child sexual abuse was made.
3. The competence of those involved in this area of work in the Diocese has to
be questioned. Risk has not been recognised and responded to appropriately.
4. Put simply, the responses of the Diocese could be described as ill advised,
and too little, too late. However, the events that these cases focus on are very significant to those involved


Put simply according to the Cloyne report  the responses of the diocese (outlined in horrific and shocking detail), were "ill advised".

[johnneycool]

Whats wrong with ye lads, did ye honestly think these nasty b**tards would have anything other than weasel words in their report. At this stage people have just been overloaded with the whole clerical abuse. People are tired of hearing about it and this report (or lack of a report) will go unnoticed I imagine. Previously, even though I have been no fan of religion, I have supported fund raising for local church as a matter of courtesy. However, now I would not give them the steam of my piss. This religion is nothing but evil and governed by evil unrepentant dirt bags like Sean Brady. If Irish people want to in doctrine their kids into this then i despair.

On the contrary, I had no expectations. Based on previous church statements, it would have been foolish to have expectations.
And not just based on previous church statements but also the Cloyne report.
We have had a couple of independent reports, which excellently documented the pattern of abuse in the Cloyne and Dublin dioceses.

In the Cloyne report   bottom of page 350
The strongest words I could find to describe the cover-up conspiracy

The Diocese is vulnerable to be seen as complicit in this by not taking action to remove these people from the priesthood.

Maybe someone else can put a value on that statement. I interpret that to be lacking conviction. The Cloyne report gave detailed account to the coverup but fell short of stating that this was deliberate and complicit,  but rather more due  to a lack of understanding of the abuser problem (the voracious deceptive sex abuse predator)  that faced the diocese.

In the conclusions, page 351

2. Children have been placed at risk of harm within the Diocese of Cloyne
through the inability of that Diocese to respond appropriately to the information that
came to it regarding child protection concerns involving the clergy. It failed to act
effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible
complaint of child sexual abuse was made.
3. The competence of those involved in this area of work in the Diocese has to
be questioned. Risk has not been recognised and responded to appropriately.
4. Put simply, the responses of the Diocese could be described as ill advised,
and too little, too late. However, the events that these cases focus on are very significant to those involved


Put simply according to the Cloyne report  the responses of the diocese (outlined in horrific and shocking detail), were "ill advised".

Point 4, the bit not in bold seems to imply that the poor and ill advised response from the Diocese was down to an individual, most probably a bishop or Arch-bishop and not some covert church policy directed from Rome to mount a cover up for the good name of the Church irrespective of the evil being perpetrated by these men of the cloth.
Is it not a bit of a stretch of the imagination that all the Bishops/Cardinals in Ireland, the US and god knows wherever else all seemed to individually respond in a similar manner? It's also a bit incredible that at no point did some of these Bishops/Cardinals etc never informed Rome of these atrocities carried out?

[mylestheslasher]

Whats wrong with ye lads, did ye honestly think these nasty b**tards would have anything other than weasel words in their report. At this stage people have just been overloaded with the whole clerical abuse. People are tired of hearing about it and this report (or lack of a report) will go unnoticed I imagine. Previously, even though I have been no fan of religion, I have supported fund raising for local church as a matter of courtesy. However, now I would not give them the steam of my piss. This religion is nothing but evil and governed by evil unrepentant dirt bags like Sean Brady. If Irish people want to in doctrine their kids into this then i despair.

On the contrary, I had no expectations. Based on previous church statements, it would have been foolish to have expectations.
And not just based on previous church statements but also the Cloyne report.
We have had a couple of independent reports, which excellently documented the pattern of abuse in the Cloyne and Dublin dioceses.

In the Cloyne report   bottom of page 350
The strongest words I could find to describe the cover-up conspiracy

The Diocese is vulnerable to be seen as complicit in this by not taking action to remove these people from the priesthood.

Maybe someone else can put a value on that statement. I interpret that to be lacking conviction. The Cloyne report gave detailed account to the coverup but fell short of stating that this was deliberate and complicit,  but rather more due  to a lack of understanding of the abuser problem (the voracious deceptive sex abuse predator)  that faced the diocese.

In the conclusions, page 351

2. Children have been placed at risk of harm within the Diocese of Cloyne
through the inability of that Diocese to respond appropriately to the information that
came to it regarding child protection concerns involving the clergy. It failed to act
effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible
complaint of child sexual abuse was made.
3. The competence of those involved in this area of work in the Diocese has to
be questioned. Risk has not been recognised and responded to appropriately.
4. Put simply, the responses of the Diocese could be described as ill advised,
and too little, too late. However, the events that these cases focus on are very significant to those involved


Put simply according to the Cloyne report  the responses of the diocese (outlined in horrific and shocking detail), were "ill advised".

Point 4, the bit not in bold seems to imply that the poor and ill advised response from the Diocese was down to an individual, most probably a bishop or Arch-bishop and not some covert church policy directed from Rome to mount a cover up for the good name of the Church irrespective of the evil being perpetrated by these men of the cloth.
Is it not a bit of a stretch of the imagination that all the Bishops/Cardinals in Ireland, the US and god knows wherever else all seemed to individually respond in a similar manner? It's also a bit incredible that at no point did some of these Bishops/Cardinals etc never informed Rome of these atrocities carried out?

Just an amazing coincidence I suppose. Sure the man with a direct line to god would never put such an unwritten policy in place, would he?

[Main Street]

Whats wrong with ye lads, did ye honestly think these nasty b**tards would have anything other than weasel words in their report. At this stage people have just been overloaded with the whole clerical abuse. People are tired of hearing about it and this report (or lack of a report) will go unnoticed I imagine. Previously, even though I have been no fan of religion, I have supported fund raising for local church as a matter of courtesy. However, now I would not give them the steam of my piss. This religion is nothing but evil and governed by evil unrepentant dirt bags like Sean Brady. If Irish people want to in doctrine their kids into this then i despair.

On the contrary, I had no expectations. Based on previous church statements, it would have been foolish to have expectations.
And not just based on previous church statements but also the Cloyne report.
We have had a couple of independent reports, which excellently documented the pattern of abuse in the Cloyne and Dublin dioceses.

In the Cloyne report   bottom of page 350
The strongest words I could find to describe the cover-up conspiracy

The Diocese is vulnerable to be seen as complicit in this by not taking action to remove these people from the priesthood.

Maybe someone else can put a value on that statement. I interpret that to be lacking conviction. The Cloyne report gave detailed account to the coverup but fell short of stating that this was deliberate and complicit,  but rather more due  to a lack of understanding of the abuser problem (the voracious deceptive sex abuse predator)  that faced the diocese.

In the conclusions, page 351

2. Children have been placed at risk of harm within the Diocese of Cloyne
through the inability of that Diocese to respond appropriately to the information that
came to it regarding child protection concerns involving the clergy. It failed to act
effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible
complaint of child sexual abuse was made.
3. The competence of those involved in this area of work in the Diocese has to
be questioned. Risk has not been recognised and responded to appropriately.
4. Put simply, the responses of the Diocese could be described as ill advised,
and too little, too late. However, the events that these cases focus on are very significant to those involved


Put simply according to the Cloyne report  the responses of the diocese (outlined in horrific and shocking detail), were "ill advised".

Point 4, the bit not in bold seems to imply that the poor and ill advised response from the Diocese was down to an individual, most probably a bishop or Arch-bishop and not some covert church policy directed from Rome to mount a cover up for the good name of the Church irrespective of the evil being perpetrated by these men of the cloth.
Is it not a bit of a stretch of the imagination that all the Bishops/Cardinals in Ireland, the US and god knows wherever else all seemed to individually respond in a similar manner? It's also a bit incredible that at no point did some of these Bishops/Cardinals etc never informed Rome of these atrocities carried out?

Unless the commission had evidence of a coordinated path of action from Rome downwards or even from Cardinal to Bishop, there is no way it should speculate.
You may or may not be aware that the Murphy Report documented the requests vainly made to the Vatican to provide specific information relating to the Dublin diocese. And Wikileaks documented just how much the Vatican appreciated the attention.

The Murphy report is one outstanding enquiry and a credit to the legal team involved. We actually don't need any more evidence other than what is contained in that report. All in all, a bargain for an expenditure of €3.6m.
The methodical approach in that report has given us an overview and a template by which we ordinary folk can understand the nature of the beast. The report surgically strips bare the institution, rips to shreds the facades of denials, the moral rot of 'mental reservation', the complicity of the hierarchy and some in higher echelons of the Gardai.

And if one was under the mistaken impression that the Church cooperated, the Murphy reports records how it wasted 4 months breaking the resistance of O'Connell on handing over some 5,000 documents.
The report found that the vast majority of priests turned a blind eye, the bishops complicit and 3 of 4archbishops directing policy with the last archbishop O'Connell, a reluctant and at times a hostile witness.

Maybe the Murphy report conclusion is worth repeating

The Commission has no doubt that clerical child sexual abuse was covered up by the Archdiocese of Dublin and other Church authorities over much of the period covered by the Commission‟s remit. The structures and rules of the Catholic Church facilitated that cover-up. The State authorities facilitated the cover up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes. The welfare of children, which should have been the first priority, was not even a factor to be considered in the early stages. Instead the focus was on the avoidance of scandal and the preservation of the good name, status and assets of the institution and of what the institution regarded as its most important members – the priests

[orangeman]

Did anyone try to convince him otherwise and if so did he even listen ?? Says a lot.


Cardinal Brady will continue to lead church


Cardinal Brady said he would continue to his job to the the best of his ability



The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland has said he will continue his work following a Vatican report into the handling of clerical sex abuse.

The report said "innocent young people" had been abused by clerics in whose care they had been entrusted.

Speaking to the Sunday Sequence, Cardinal Sean Brady said he was leading the church through a time of reform.

"I will continue to try to do that to the best of my ability," said the Primate of Ireland.

Cardinal Brady said he did not know if he was the best person to lead the church, but no one had convinced him otherwise.

"This report is an opportunity for all of us to express sorrow, which we definitely do," he said.

"But also to determine to lead where Christ wants us to go."

[mylestheslasher]

Don't think there was any child porn involved thankfully, but looks to me like another priest hiding away from the truth...

http://www.ulsterherald.com/2012/03/29/priest-inadvertently-showed-explicit-images-during-school-presentation-to-parents/

[orangeman]

Priest in 'indecent images' row in Pomeroy exonerated

It is understood a meeting in Pomeroy to discuss the investigation of a parish priest has been told he has been exonerated.

Father Martin McVeigh has been under investigation after indecent images were shown to a public meeting in a primary school three weeks ago.

Parents from the school met representatives from the Archdiocese of Armagh on Friday evening.

Fr McVeigh remains parish priest but is taking a temporary leave of absence.

It is understood that parents and parishioners were told during the meeting that Fr McVeigh had been found guilty of no crime following a church investigation.

They also heard that the PSNI had found no crime had been committed and that social services said there were no child protection issues.

Those present were told Fr McVeigh will continue as parish priest.

The Catholic Church said a further meeting would be held.

In a statement, the Archdiocese of Armagh said Fr McVeigh, at his own request, has asked for temporary leave and Cardinal Sean Brady had agreed to his request without prejudice to any of the parties involved.

An investigation was launched after the indecent pictures were "inadvertently" shown during the meeting for parents in preparation for First Holy Communion at St Mary's School on 26 March.

One child was also present.

The parents claimed the images were projected onto the screen from a memory stick the parish priest had inserted into a computer before the presentation.

The parents said Fr McVeigh quickly removed the memory stick.

The priest said he had no knowledge of the offending imagery.

Following the incident Cardinal Sean Brady said the PSNI had indicated that no crime had been committed.

Parishioners had wanted Fr McVeigh to attend Friday's meeting.

The Catholic Church described the meeting as inconclusive and said a further meeting would be held.

[Tubberman]

How did the indecent images get onto the memory stick that Fr McVeigh had inserted into the computer?
Were the images of adults only or were children involved?

[Ulick]

How did the indecent images get onto the memory stick that Fr McVeigh had inserted into the computer?
Were the images of adults only or were children involved?

There's been no suggestion there were children in the photos. Gay porn I think.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

How did the indecent images get onto the memory stick that Fr McVeigh had inserted into the computer?
Were the images of adults only or were children involved?

There's been no suggestion there were children in the photos. Gay porn I think.

Well if those in the pictures were over the age of consent and the pictures were not shown to minors, this is the wrong thread for this incident.

[mylestheslasher]

How did the indecent images get onto the memory stick that Fr McVeigh had inserted into the computer?
Were the images of adults only or were children involved?

There's been no suggestion there were children in the photos. Gay porn I think.

Thats sound so, carry on everyone!

[Ulick]

There's been no suggestion there were children in the photos. Gay porn I think.

Thats sound so, carry on everyone!
[/quote]

I didn't say it was okay, just clarifying the point about pictures of children. Gay porn or heterosexual porn, it was inappropriate none the less. I'd expect to get into trouble myself if they popped up during a presentation, but still wouldn't be a police matter.

[mylestheslasher]

But as we all now know cannon law is way more important than normal law. What does cannon law say about priests with gay porn i wonder.

[orangeman]

Sounds like a messy affair.

Statement was read to the parishioners last night saying how well the priest had served the parish and appears to have been withdrawn after protests from parishioners.

The memory stick it was explained appears to have been destroyed before it could be analysed by church authorities.

Not good.