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

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:23:05 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 22, 2009, 10:13:28 AM

If the government must pay out compensation it has to come from somewhere.  Seeing as the government in essence had the church working for them (monies were received!) I think the state is perfectly entitled to seek financial input from the church.   Was this not the essence of the deal made by Michael Woods?    Given that records since found (for example the Christian Brother files that had been moved to Rome) indicate the church's knowledge of the crimes was much broader than conceeded at the time, I think the state need to revisit that agreement.

If taken via the courts, the church will have to pay and that has already been shown.

The principal vulnerability in the church's defence is that they moved this pricks around when they knew they had committed offences.  Most successful cases against them have hinged on that.   It is not the fact that the perpetrator was a church member but the fact that the church organisational helped that perpetrator.

The more worrying aspect is the fact the underlying issue in that behaviour (protection of reputation etc..) is still evident today.  Look at Cloyne earlier this year.......



The State sought input from the Church and it was given, I don't understand why people are now demanding they pay more, particularly now that things have changed. E100 million is a lot of cash for the Irish Church to pay over. More than adequate IMO.

Re Cloyne - Magee fecked up his administrative procedures and was forced to go. Rather than evidence that the Church is still trying to protect abusers, I would see Magee's removal as evidence that the Church has changed.


It is - but it represents less than 10% - they were more than 10% responsible I'm sure you'd agree ?

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:32:50 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:31:14 AM
Go to Land Registry, Belfast and look under Sean Brady for starters.

Ditto for Dublin.

Does that mean you don't have any figures?


Don't have enough time this morning to work it out - sorry.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:33:34 AM
It is - but it represents less than 10% - they were more than 10% responsible I'm sure you'd agree ?

I've already said on this thread that individual priests were involved in dishing out the abuse but that State is liable because they were doing it on their behalf. The State and everyone else knew the abuse was happening and allowed it to continue and continued to send people to the industrial schools. This I believe makes the State liable.  

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:33:34 AM
It is - but it represents less than 10% - they were more than 10% responsible I'm sure you'd agree ?

I've already said on this thread that individual priests were involved in dishing out the abuse but that State is liable because they were doing it on their behalf. The State and everyone else knew the abuse was happening and allowed it to continue and continued to send people to the industrial schools. This I believe makes the State liable.  


Your argument is logical enough but I think you're wrong in that there was a very, very close relationship between church and state and that the church need to pay more than 10% - the fact that they paid anything at all shows that they had no option.

If you conducted a poll and asked people who was resonsible for this sacandal and who should pay, I reckon most people would say that it was the church who were mainly responsible and the state after that.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:43:29 AM
Your argument is logical enough but I think you're wrong in that there was a very, very close relationship between church and state and that the church need to pay more than 10% - the fact that they paid anything at all shows that they had no option.

If you conducted a poll and asked people who was resonsible for this sacandal and who should pay, I reckon most people would say that it was the church who were mainly responsible and the state after that.

Yeah but if you had an election in the morning the vast majority of people would still vote of either FF or FG despite these parties being on the take for decades. Doesn't say much for public opinion or polls.

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:36:37 AM
I've already said on this thread that individual priests were involved in dishing out the abuse but that State is liable because they were doing it on their behalf.

Do you acknowledge that there is another issue in regard to the church's knowledge of abuse and their hiding/moving/not reporting these offenders?


orangeman

Read the piece in today's Irish News page 12 by Patrick Murphy about the abuse scandal and how it was inevitable given the relationship between church and state.





Also read on page 13 the "letter" of apology sent to an abuse victim who had taken a case against the De la Salle order and was compensated :


To whom it may concern :


The De la Salle Order was founded to care for abandoned, disadvantaged and deprived boys and regrets if any boy was abused while inder its care.

Br. Francis Manning,
Provincial.



Your analogy with the election in the morning is not a good one. You're out on a limb here I'm afraid - trying to defend the indefensible.

D4S

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:43:29 AM
Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:33:34 AM
It is - but it represents less than 10% - they were more than 10% responsible I'm sure you'd agree ?

I've already said on this thread that individual priests were involved in dishing out the abuse but that State is liable because they were doing it on their behalf. The State and everyone else knew the abuse was happening and allowed it to continue and continued to send people to the industrial schools. This I believe makes the State liable.  


Your argument is logical enough but I think you're wrong in that there was a very, very close relationship between church and state and that the church need to pay more than 10% - the fact that they paid anything at all shows that they had no option.

If you conducted a poll and asked people who was resonsible for this sacandal and who should pay, I reckon most people would say that it was the church who were mainly responsible and the state after that.


I added a poll there orangeman.
The secret of success in life is for a man to be ready for his opportunity when it comes.

orangeman

Quote from: D4S on May 22, 2009, 11:02:11 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:43:29 AM
Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 10:36:37 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:33:34 AM
It is - but it represents less than 10% - they were more than 10% responsible I'm sure you'd agree ?

I've already said on this thread that individual priests were involved in dishing out the abuse but that State is liable because they were doing it on their behalf. The State and everyone else knew the abuse was happening and allowed it to continue and continued to send people to the industrial schools. This I believe makes the State liable.  


Your argument is logical enough but I think you're wrong in that there was a very, very close relationship between church and state and that the church need to pay more than 10% - the fact that they paid anything at all shows that they had no option.

If you conducted a poll and asked people who was resonsible for this sacandal and who should pay, I reckon most people would say that it was the church who were mainly responsible and the state after that.


I added a poll there orangeman.


Cheers.

Donagh

Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:56:55 AM
Read the piece in today's Irish News page 12 by Patrick Murphy about the abuse scandal and how it was inevitable given the relationship between church and state.

Also read on page 13 the "letter" of apology sent to an abuse victim who had taken a case against the De la Salle order and was compensated :

To whom it may concern :

The De la Salle Order was founded to care for abandoned, disadvantaged and deprived boys and regrets if any boy was abused while inder its care.

Br. Francis Manning,
Provincial.

Your analogy with the election in the morning is not a good one. You're out on a limb here I'm afraid - trying to defend the indefensible.

How am I out on a limb? I agreed with your comment that most people would probably judge the Church to be responsible. I'm merely saying that doesn't necessarily make them correct.

I don't normally agree with ex-NIO mandarins but in this case Murphy is correct, this all stems from the privileged position given to the Church in the Irish State. I am a secularist when it comes to government, so I don't see how you can claim I'm trying to defend the Church. I'm not. I'm simply trying to point out that the problem lay with the State and the bastardised version of the 'Republic' established by DeValera which was a betrayal of everything hoped for in 1916 and Democratic Programme of the First Dáil.

Donagh

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 22, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Do you acknowledge that there is another issue in regard to the church's knowledge of abuse and their hiding/moving/not reporting these offenders?

Of course I do.

orangeman

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 11:14:00 AM
Quote from: orangeman on May 22, 2009, 10:56:55 AM
Read the piece in today's Irish News page 12 by Patrick Murphy about the abuse scandal and how it was inevitable given the relationship between church and state.

Also read on page 13 the "letter" of apology sent to an abuse victim who had taken a case against the De la Salle order and was compensated :

To whom it may concern :

The De la Salle Order was founded to care for abandoned, disadvantaged and deprived boys and regrets if any boy was abused while inder its care.

Br. Francis Manning,
Provincial.

Your analogy with the election in the morning is not a good one. You're out on a limb here I'm afraid - trying to defend the indefensible.

How am I out on a limb? I agreed with your comment that most people would probably judge the Church to be responsible. I'm merely saying that doesn't necessarily make them correct.

I don't normally agree with ex-NIO mandarins but in this case Murphy is correct, this all stems from the privileged position given to the Church in the Irish State. I am a secularist when it comes to government, so I don't see how you can claim I'm trying to defend the Church. I'm not. I'm simply trying to point out that the problem lay with the State and the bastardised version of the 'Republic' established by DeValera which was a betrayal of everything hoped for in 1916 and Democratic Programme of the First Dáil.

Fair enough but I reckon the Church should be made to stump up more - they're the ones that were doing the abusing - and the they had the cheek in certain places to take up collections in order to pay the victims of child abuse - what they did to the children was perverse but it's even more perverse asking the people to pay for their misdemeanours.

Stall the Bailer

Those who need to admit guilt to some degree of another are
The evil scum who carried out the horrid acts on the victims
The hierarchy of church who protected and covered up the offenders while do nothing for the victims.
The state, who protected the church and failed in their duty to the children of Ireland
Those involved with church and state who had suspicions but did nothing.
Anyone who didn't believe the victims and could see no wrong in the church

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: Donagh on May 22, 2009, 11:14:56 AM
Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 22, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Do you acknowledge that there is another issue in regard to the church's knowledge of abuse and their hiding/moving/not reporting these offenders?

Of course I do.

And do you acknowledge that they have a financial liability here?  and if so is that adequately covered by their contribution to the redress fund?

Donagh

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on May 22, 2009, 11:35:21 AM
And do you acknowledge that they have a financial liability here?  and if so is that adequately covered by their contribution to the redress fund?

Jim I think I've already said previously that I think they have a liability and the E100 million is more than adequate. Considering everything the Church does and continues to do for the good of Irish society, I'd probably suggest that a more appropriate figure would be a nominal E1, with the rest being picked up by those most liable, the State. There are many faults within the Irish Church, particularly with the Bishops, but IMO opinion the vast majority of Priests do an invaluable job and they should not be penalised for the sins of their predecessors.