Clerical abuse!

Started by D4S, May 20, 2009, 05:09:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

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

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2009, 02:14:42 PM
I know it's only a straw poll and only 59 people have voted -


But does anyone want to comment on the outcome of the poll so far ???

I haven't vote, so can't see the result. What is it?

Jim_Murphy_74

#301
Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 11:46:34 AM
Jim in this case the State knew that the abuse was happening for decades and did nothing while the abuse continued. So for the State to start crying about it now is like the Church going after the descendants of Guglielmo because he f**ked up the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Church has already agreed to hand over £100 million which is the right thing to do, just as it was correct for Volkswagen to do something similar for the Jews but there are people who will not be happy until they see the Church stripped of everything. The Church has conceded the principal and the cash so now there is nothing to be gained by further punishing modern Catholics for the sins of the past.

Donagh,

There may have been a time that the state knew what was going on but in recent times the church (or elements) within have been very evasive in their dealings with the state.  Either that or the Ryan and Fern reports are very very misleading.

Not everybody (victims in particular) would acknowledge that the church have conceeded the principle.  

Do you think that Cardinal Brady or Diarmuid Martin will not be "happy until they see the Church stripped of everything"?  Because they are unequivocal in their view of what the relevant orders should do.

I think you are correct in a sense that there is a swell of opinion against the worst offenders like the Christian Brothers but I think you'll find that this is because of recent behaviour as much as sins of the past.

I personally would be happy with the following:

1.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by the Brady and the Pope ackowledging the events and the churchs culpability.  I would like them to have some victims groups (1 in 4 etc.)  review the wording to avoid usage of terms such as "occasional lapses" etc.. to describe abuse.

2.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by Taosisech Cowen and President McAleese.  It should also be reviewed as above.

3.  Removal of church management (of any denomination) of state-run institutions.  

4.  An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.

5.  An audit of assets of religious orders named in Ryan report to determined their ability to pay compensation and set request compensation accordingly.  Legislation if necessary.

6. A criminal investiagation into the results of the Ryan report to prosecute sex offenders and those that aided them (within and without church).

7. If necessary a legal reform or constitional referendum on article 44 regarding rights of religious orders and property ensuring that the practice of placing property in trust is not abused to avoid compensation payments.

I don't any of the above will run the church into the ground.  In fact I suspect it would help grow their future numbers.


orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 02:22:16 PM
Quote from: orangeman on May 28, 2009, 02:14:42 PM
I know it's only a straw poll and only 59 people have voted -


But does anyone want to comment on the outcome of the poll so far ???

I haven't vote, so can't see the result. What is it?

10% say state should pay the most
40% say the Church should pay the most
50% say a 50/50 split between Church and State.

longrunsthefox

There is too much being made of the money thing... getting these sadists/paedophiles into prison should be priority. The money debate is becoming a diversion.   

The Iceman

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 28, 2009, 02:29:16 PM
Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 11:46:34 AM
Jim in this case the State knew that the abuse was happening for decades and did nothing while the abuse continued. So for the State to start crying about it now is like the Church going after the descendants of Guglielmo because he f**ked up the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The Church has already agreed to hand over £100 million which is the right thing to do, just as it was correct for Volkswagen to do something similar for the Jews but there are people who will not be happy until they see the Church stripped of everything. The Church has conceded the principal and the cash so now there is nothing to be gained by further punishing modern Catholics for the sins of the past.

Donagh,

There may have been a time that the state knew what was going on but in recent times the church (or elements) within have been very evasive in their dealings with the state.  Either that or the Ryan and Fern reports are very very misleading.

Not everybody (victims in particular) would acknowledge that the church have conceeded the principle.  

Do you think that Cardinal Brady or Diarmuid Martin will not be "happy until they see the Church stripped of everything"?  Because they are unequivocal in their view of what the relevant orders should do.

I think you are correct in a sense that there is a swell of opinion against the worst offenders like the Christian Brothers but I think you'll find that this is because of recent behaviour as much as sins of the past.

I personally would be happy with the following:

1.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by the Brady and the Pope ackowledging the events and the churchs culpability.  I would like them to have some victims groups (1 in 4 etc.)  review the wording to avoid usage of terms such as "occasional lapses" etc.. to describe abuse.

2.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by Taosisech Cowen and President McAleese.  It should also be reviewed as above.

3.  Removal of church management (of any denomination) of state-run institutions.  

4.  An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.

5.  An audit of assets of religious orders named in Ryan report to determined their ability to pay compensation and set request compensation accordingly.  Legislation if necessary.

6. A criminal investiagation into the results of the Ryan report to prosecute sex offenders and those that aided them (within and without church).

7. If necessary a legal reform or constitional referendum on article 44 regarding rights of religious orders and property ensuring that the practice of placing property in trust is not abused to avoid compensation payments.

I don't any of the above will run the church into the ground.  In fact I suspect it would help grow their future numbers.

Good work Jim.  At last  - the start of something constructive.
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

longrunsthefox

Why Iceman? Is putting them in jail not constructive. In the film Sleepers the best part was the evil doers getting their just reward.

Evil Genius

Quote from: Lar Naparka on May 28, 2009, 02:12:45 PM


Good to see you back again, EG. I'm sure you are not trying to provoke Donagh or anything as base as that. (You're not, are you?)
I do agree with your line of reasoning here. I've no problem with that. (Well, maybe that agreement doesn't extend to the last paragraph. I think that could be a matter of unfinished business with Donagh.)
However, I would suggest that all of us should bear in mind the terms of reference given to the commission and the conclusions it arrived at.; that's the objective part; any consideration of moral culpability or financial redress is very much a subjective issue. It's a case of us all of having an opinion and expressing it.
Personally, I do agree with the consensus now emerging that both State and Church have been found wanting in the discharge of their legal and moral obligations. The most common form of redress is financial restitution of some sort. Therefore, I say both Church and State are morally bound to make restitution. At the moment, the obligation to do so is a moral one.
Perhaps it will also become a legal one if a court of the land should find this to be the case.
I think the State failed in both its legal and moral duties in failing to adequately supervise the running of the religious institutions. I think  our present Taoiseach (or Chief in Roger-speak) was in no way involved in the perpetration of this scandal but as he willingly undertook the duties and responsibilities that go with his office, he and his administration must shoulder the State's share of the blame.
Yes; I do accept that restitution should be made on behalf of all citizens of this state even though most of us were not around when much of the wrong doing took place.
We, the citizens of the Republic accept the rights and privileges that come with our citizenship so we also have to bear responsibility for the actions carried out on the state's behalf, both past and present.
That includes my atheist buddy who moved his family back from England around ten years ago. It's part of the baggage that comes with becoming an Irish citizen.
I've no problem with the State having to pony up.
The Church, through its religious congregations, assumed responsibility for the care and supervision of the children committed by the State into its collective care.
My parish priest is as sound a skin as you could meet; I would say he never willfully harmed a child and I would back the family silver on my assertion.

However, both he and I are both members of the Catholic Church. We find ourselves there by choice. We are consenting adults and both accept the responsibilities that come with membership. I feel my church is obliged to make financial redress as it is the only practical way to make reparation and I am a member of this Church..
My non-Catholic buddy should not be obliged to pay up in this way. Even if I decided to leave the Church after hearing of this scandal, I would still be obliged to accept my moral responsibilities as I was a member when the commission reported.
One final point; many of us confuse the Church with the Hierarchy. All Irish Catholics are bound to acknowledge our collective failings as we have inherited them from previous generations.
It's a case of "If you are in, you accept the bad with the good," and Irish Catholics are so by choice.
Anyway, EG, that's a fine post and it gets "nihil obstat " from me and my  Imprimatur as well but resist the temptation to wander off-topic, won't you?  ;D

Not trying to provoke, nor is it because it is Donagh - my view would be the same regardless of who it was was expressing such opinions.

As regards the rest, considering there appears to be a broad consensus in the Republic over the gravity and extent of the scandal etc, I'm genuinely astonished that those responsible haven't even been identified, never mind lost their jobs, never mind been prosecuted etc.

Compare that with the relatively much more trivial (imo) subject of MP's expenses in the UK. Such has been the public anger that 10 MP's (so far) have been disciplined or stood down, with possibly many more to follow. Moreover, this has caused the Speaker to be (effectively) sacked, for the first time in 300 years, with potentially far-reaching Constitutional reform liable to follow. And despite this being something which affects all parties, it is entirely possible that this will be the final nail in Labour's hopes of forming the next Government.

Now as a UK Taxpayer, I am as angry as anyone at the thought of my hard-earned going towards eg some Toff's Moat, or some so-called Socialist's "second home" 120 miles from either her Constituency or from Parliament. But that is as nothing compared with what I would feel if my taxes were going towards mitigating the moral and legal obligations of an organisation which condoned and covered-up some of the most vile and endemic abuse of its kind witnessed anywhere in the developed world, whilst all the time the actual perpetrators appear to have received some sort of immunity from prosecution.

In fact if anything, that final aspect (immunity) is even more shocking to me than the actual abuse itself  :o
"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"

The Iceman

Quote from: longrunsthefox on May 28, 2009, 03:04:16 PM
Why Iceman? Is putting them in jail not constructive. In the film Sleepers the best part was the evil doers getting their just reward.
Putting them in jail is one of many suggestions bundled in with a lot of other whimsical ideas that are all talk and no sense.
I don't agree with everything Jim has suggested but at least he is being sensible and realistic about the whole thing.  It's a refreshing change from the mass chant of "Barabbas"
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

Donagh

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 28, 2009, 02:29:16 PM
Donagh,

There may have been a time that the state knew what was going on but in recent times the church (or elements) within have been very evasive in their dealings with the state.  Either that or the Ryan and Fern reports are very very misleading.

Not everybody (victims in particular) would acknowledge that the church have conceeded the principle.  

Do you think that Cardinal Brady or Diarmuid Martin will not be "happy until they see the Church stripped of everything"?  Because they are unequivocal in their view of what the relevant orders should do.

I think you are correct in a sense that there is a swell of opinion against the worst offenders like the Christian Brothers but I think you'll find that this is because of recent behaviour as much as sins of the past.

I personally would be happy with the following:

1.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by the Brady and the Pope ackowledging the events and the churchs culpability.  I would like them to have some victims groups (1 in 4 etc.)  review the wording to avoid usage of terms such as "occasional lapses" etc.. to describe abuse.

2.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by Taosisech Cowen and President McAleese.  It should also be reviewed as above.

3.  Removal of church management (of any denomination) of state-run institutions.  

4.  An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.

5.  An audit of assets of religious orders named in Ryan report to determined their ability to pay compensation and set request compensation accordingly.  Legislation if necessary.

6. A criminal investiagation into the results of the Ryan report to prosecute sex offenders and those that aided them (within and without church).

7. If necessary a legal reform or constitional referendum on article 44 regarding rights of religious orders and property ensuring that the practice of placing property in trust is not abused to avoid compensation payments.

I don't any of the above will run the church into the ground.  In fact I suspect it would help grow their future numbers.



Jim it seems that you are actually one of the few on this thread who understands that I am not absolving the religious orders of any responsibility so I find it difficult to object to anything you suggest there. I would expect that in light of your Point 5, you would also have no objection if the £100 million promised under the original deal was subsequently reduced?

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 04:03:13 PM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 28, 2009, 02:29:16 PM
Donagh,

There may have been a time that the state knew what was going on but in recent times the church (or elements) within have been very evasive in their dealings with the state.  Either that or the Ryan and Fern reports are very very misleading.

Not everybody (victims in particular) would acknowledge that the church have conceeded the principle.  

Do you think that Cardinal Brady or Diarmuid Martin will not be "happy until they see the Church stripped of everything"?  Because they are unequivocal in their view of what the relevant orders should do.

I think you are correct in a sense that there is a swell of opinion against the worst offenders like the Christian Brothers but I think you'll find that this is because of recent behaviour as much as sins of the past.

I personally would be happy with the following:

1.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by the Brady and the Pope ackowledging the events and the churchs culpability.  I would like them to have some victims groups (1 in 4 etc.)  review the wording to avoid usage of terms such as "occasional lapses" etc.. to describe abuse.

2.  A reiteration of apology and acknowledgement by Taosisech Cowen and President McAleese.  It should also be reviewed as above.

3.  Removal of church management (of any denomination) of state-run institutions.  

4.  An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.

5.  An audit of assets of religious orders named in Ryan report to determined their ability to pay compensation and set request compensation accordingly.  Legislation if necessary.

6. A criminal investiagation into the results of the Ryan report to prosecute sex offenders and those that aided them (within and without church).

7. If necessary a legal reform or constitional referendum on article 44 regarding rights of religious orders and property ensuring that the practice of placing property in trust is not abused to avoid compensation payments.

I don't any of the above will run the church into the ground.  In fact I suspect it would help grow their future numbers.



Jim it seems that you are actually one of the few on this thread who understands that I am not absolving the religious orders of any responsibility so I find it difficult to object to anything you suggest there. I would expect that in light of your Point 5, you would also have no objection if the £100 million promised under the original deal was subsequently reduced?

Donagh,

If that is how it turned out based on an open and fair audit and process I would have no objecton, assuming other points were delivered.

If the other points, most particularly 1 and 4 are not delivered I would be in favour of going after the church for everything, regardless of consequences for them.

mylestheslasher

Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2009, 02:00:04 PM
A lot of people will not be satisfied until the Church is completely brought down.  For some people I can imagine (and please read the word "some" ) that this isn't about justice - this about bringing down the Church.
But aside from that let's not get away from the issue at hand.

So everyone agrees that the Church is to blame.  Some people agree that the State has to share a portion of that blame but this does not take anything away from the responsibility of the Church to atone for it's past sins.
The Church has agreed to pay out EUR 100million to the victims.  The State have yet to pledge anything.

When will people be satisfied?  When can we look forward and move on from this and make sure it never happens again?
When get we let the victims get on with the rest of their lives?

Present reasonable demands from the Church.  Present reasonable, intelligent suggestions.
Doing otherwise would suggest that you have no interest in justice for the victims but only to bash the Church and bring it down however possible.

Thats bullshit and you know it. The state is paying for everything over and above 100 million promised by the Church Orders. The current estimate on the end bill is 1 billion. That means the Orders who inflicted the abuse, covered it up and obstructed the enquiry are deemed 10% liable and the tax payer 90%. I can concede the state are without fault but if it was up to me those percentages would be reversed. However, a 50:50 arrangement would be a big improvement.

When will people be satisfied and move on? Oh I'm sure the victims are awful sorry for holding things up! I think what they want is justice. Genuine apologies and acceptance of the truth. Do a google and read some of their statements and you'll see what they want. To the best of my knowledge (I could be wrong) neither you or Donagh have made any comment on the fact that the modern church has obstructed the investigation and fought every allegation brought against it tooth and nail. That is why the mealy mouthed apologies mean nothing when accompanied by the language of dilution, which is what we get with every apology.

muppet

Quote from: The Iceman on May 28, 2009, 02:00:04 PM
A lot of people will not be satisfied until the Church is completely brought down.  For some people I can imagine (and please read the word "some" ) that this isn't about justice - this about bringing down the Church.
But aside from that let's not get away from the issue at hand.

So everyone agrees that the Church is to blame.  Some people agree that the State has to share a portion of that blame but this does not take anything away from the responsibility of the Church to atone for it's past sins.
The Church has agreed to pay out EUR 100million to the victims.  The State have yet to pledge anything.

When will people be satisfied?  When can we look forward and move on from this and make sure it never happens again?
When get we let the victims get on with the rest of their lives?

Present reasonable demands from the Church.  Present reasonable, intelligent suggestions.
Doing otherwise would suggest that you have no interest in justice for the victims but only to bash the Church and bring it down however possible.

That is not correct. The Church's EUR100million was agreed as 10% of the total. The State has agreed to pay the rest. 90%. That is why people are annoyed.
MWWSI 2017

orangeman

Out of curiosity can anyone tell me who was the 90 year old brought from Rome as referred to by the gentleman on Questions and Answers on Monday night, who said that the victim were telling lies ?????

Donagh

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 28, 2009, 04:18:28 PM

If the other points, most particularly 1 and 4 are not delivered I would be in favour of going after the church for everything, regardless of consequences for them.


Even if that means the closure of essential services? I'm thinking in particular here of Sister Consilios in Newry which is the only emergency admittance drug and alcohol treatment centre in the north.

Lar Naparka

QuoteNot trying to provoke, nor is it because it is Donagh - my view would be the same regardless of who it was was expressing such opinions
.

My apologies; I accept what you say. Maybe I wasn't being totally serious here.

QuoteAs regards the rest, considering there appears to be a broad consensus in the Republic over the gravity and extent of the scandal etc, I'm genuinely astonished that those responsible haven't even been identified, never mind lost their jobs, never mind been prosecuted etc.

It is important for us all to realise that this was a commission of inquiry and not a criminal investigation. Indications are that the DPP's office is studying the findings of the report and prosecutions may very well follow.


QuoteIn fact if anything, that final aspect (immunity) is even more shocking to me than the actual abuse itself 

I do not think immunity has been guaranteed to any specific individual or organisation. Indeed, it could well be that persons not referred to in this report (lay teachers and department inspectors for instance) could find themselves facing criminal charges.
This has not been explicitly stated but it could arise from any follow up investigations by the gardai.

Quote4. An issuing of papal decree with clear and unequivocal terms superceeding past decrees (Crimens Sollicitationis etc..) indicating that sexual abuse is handled as a crime by civil authorities.
I think Jim's point must be followed up. In the past various church authorities tried to hide behind Canon Law when asked to release evidence to the gardai.
The former archbishop of Dublin, O'Connell, said at one stage that he was bound by the dictates of Canon Law when he refused to co-operate with an inquiry. (The Ferns one I think.) To this, the then Minister for Justice (Michael McDowell) retorted that Canon Law had as much legal standing as the rules of a golf club would have on its members.
Fair dues to him; Rome must acknowledge that the law of the land takes precedence and that its internal rules apply only to its own members.

QuoteI would expect that in light of your Point 5, you would also have no objection if the £100 million promised under the original deal was subsequently reduced?

I can only speak for myself. If a court of law found this to be the case, I would abide by its verdict.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi