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

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 12:21:42 PM
Is that why it has by independent verification the most robust child and vulnerable adult protection procedures anywhere in the contemporary era which sees Priests automatically stood down when a mere allegation is levelled at them?

1. Stop deflecting to avoid the point I have made about the Bishops and the sin of omission.

2. Historic cases of abuse do not disappear because new structures have been implemented and those victims are every bit as relevant as any victim during this period with new structures.  Your Church has continually dragged its feet in relation to the victims of historic abuse in N.Ireland dioceses, usually waiting until the abuser or the victim has died.

3. Quote the body that 'independent verification the most robust child and vulnerable adult protection procedures anywhere in the contemporary era' so that we may read their report.

4. The standing down of the alleged abuser is far from unique as it is a standard feature of safeguarding procedures already in place.

smelmoth

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
DD.Thanks for those comments.For the record I abhor Brendan Smyth,Finnegan and all the other perverts who have done untold damage to victims and to my Church.It is clear since the revelations of Savile 6 years ago that child abuse was rampant and woefully mishandled by all organisations.They followed the natural human instinct of self protection and this blinded them to any realisation far less concern for the plight of victims.This was totally wrong.

There is no safety in numbers defence for the church. All these organisations are condemned. The bigger the scale the greater the condemnation. This is logical.

If any of the organisations want an ongoing involvement with children the scrutiny will be greater. This is logical.

If any of these organisations claim to have moral authority or a role to play in moral instruction then the condemnation will be greater. This is also logical.

Only the anti logic brigade will have a difficulty with this

smelmoth

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
But the demonisation of individuals like Sean Brady and Bishop Mc Areavey for mistakes they made years ago gets on my goat.

Are there any individuals outside the church who have kids open to ongoing abuse that you think deserve a bye ball?

smelmoth

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 12:21:42 PM
Is that why it has by independent verification the most robust child and vulnerable adult protection procedures anywhere in the contemporary era which sees Priests automatically stood down when a mere allegation is levelled at them?

Post the independent verification

smelmoth

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 02:45:29 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 18, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
DD.Thanks for those comments.For the record I abhor Brendan Smyth,Finnegan and all the other perverts who have done untold damage to victims and to my Church.It is clear since the revelations of Savile 6 years ago that child abuse was rampant and woefully mishandled by all organisations.They followed the natural human instinct of self protection and this blinded them to any realisation far less concern for the plight of victims.This was totally wrong.

There is no safety in numbers defence for the church. All these organisations are condemned. The bigger the scale the greater the condemnation. This is logical.

If any of the organisations want an ongoing involvement with children the scrutiny will be greater. This is logical.

If any of these organisations claim to have moral authority or a role to play in moral instruction then the condemnation will be greater. This is also logical.

Only the anti logic brigade will have a difficulty with this

Bullshit.A handful of perverts do not reflect or invalidate the church,the
vast majority of its Priests or right to offer moral guidance and instruction

You are losing this debate on and off this site

tonto1888

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 02:45:29 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on February 18, 2018, 02:43:01 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 11:13:43 AM
DD.Thanks for those comments.For the record I abhor Brendan Smyth,Finnegan and all the other perverts who have done untold damage to victims and to my Church.It is clear since the revelations of Savile 6 years ago that child abuse was rampant and woefully mishandled by all organisations.They followed the natural human instinct of self protection and this blinded them to any realisation far less concern for the plight of victims.This was totally wrong.

There is no safety in numbers defence for the church. All these organisations are condemned. The bigger the scale the greater the condemnation. This is logical.

If any of the organisations want an ongoing involvement with children the scrutiny will be greater. This is logical.

If any of these organisations claim to have moral authority or a role to play in moral instruction then the condemnation will be greater. This is also logical.

Only the anti logic brigade will have a difficulty with this

Bullshit.A handful of perverts do not reflect or invalidate the church,the
vast majority of its Priests or right to offer moral guidance and instruction

Tony, I hate that the church as a whole gets tatted with the actions of the pervert priests and those that covered it up. But let's be clear on one thing. It is more than a handful. Fully admitting the extent of the problem is a start

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 02:40:58 PM
1.Sin of omission could be argued as could the case that Brady honestly informed his superiors and expected them to act effectively. Police knew about Finnegan but also did nothing.

2.Agreed.A victim of Finnegan's received a six figure compensation award.Two young girls who lost both parents at La Mon received £4k.

3.Are you saying the Church's current Protection Procedures are not up date or fit for purpose?

4.I didn't say it was unique but it dispels your statement that Canon Law protects abusers in the modern day.

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.

2. No action is taken and the alleged abuser is left in limbo at least for years and what looks left indefinitely, there are numerous examples of this across the country.

This is not proper safeguarding procedures nor is it any form of natural justice for alleged abuser or the victims.

Still waiting on you to post the source of the independent verification of the Church's safeguarding procedures?


Lar Naparka

Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 09:03:21 PM
Well why then are the statutory authorities not all over it and the Church being pulled apart for non compliance?
Fair question, Tony.
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

Aaron Boone

Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 18, 2018, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 09:03:21 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

It is. I always thought there should have been prosecutions and why there hasn't been i do not know.

Owen Brannigan

Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 18, 2018, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 09:03:21 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.

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.

Lar Naparka

#2291
Quote from: T Fearon on February 19, 2018, 07:10:49 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 19, 2018, 08:29:03 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on February 18, 2018, 10:29:51 PM
Quote from: T Fearon on February 18, 2018, 09:03:21 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?
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

Owen Brannigan

#2292
Quote from: T Fearon on February 19, 2018, 07:10:49 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.


smelmoth

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on February 23, 2018, 02:07:34 PM
Parent power beginning to emerge:

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/parents-dont-want-bishop-confirming-kids-after-he-said-funeral-mass-for-pervert-priest-36634737.html

Are St Colmans content that their Board of Governors have child protection at the heart of everything they do?

Will the parents sit quietly