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

Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Firstly, no one has yet come onto this thread and explained why the Church should be held liable when the children were under the protection of the State.

1) The orders were paid by the government to fulfill a service.  The service was fulfilled correctly and the state are liable.  However surely the state is entitled to recoup their losses (at least in part) from any thirld party contractor that failed in their task?

2) It is apparent from the investigations that the orders acted as a whole to hide the abusers and the extent of their knowledge.  Therefore we are not dealing purely with errant individuals but also we organisation that aided and abetted them.

3) Regardless if the legal "have to" aspect, many people feel they should pay up because it is the christian/moral thing to do

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Thirdly, no I don't have any family members in any of the Orders (except a few cousins in the Orange) and nor do I have any family members in Sinn Fein. Sometimes I just like to point out the foolishness which has people gunning for people or organisations on the basis of some hysterical media reaction which seeks to protect their own agenda.    

This isn't a hysterical media reaction.  There is too documentary evidence of certain orders (eg. Christian Brothers) acting in at best an obtuse manner and at worst an evasive manner when it comes to compensation and justice for victims.    For example Prime Time showed excerpts from legal adivce forwarded by orders in the U.S. to orders in Canada, advising on how to use trust/corporation law to protect assets.   Equally, the church as a whole continues to be evasive on the role of canon law versus civil law in these manners.  


Jim_Murphy_74

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 11:02:02 AM
3. The individuals responsible should be held to account but going back to point one, present day Catholics should not be punished, which they will be if the Church assets are seized.

How much turnover has their been in terms of membership of the Christian Brothers since 2002?

Because in 2002 the willfully with-held information on abusers from the state.  The relevant files (from Rome) were only made available at a later stage to the Ryan commission.   


Donagh

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.

ludermor

What was the 100million based on? If they agreed to hand over 100 then why not 150-200?

Donagh

Quote from: ludermor on May 28, 2009, 12:03:19 PM
What was the 100million based on? If they agreed to hand over 100 then why not 150-200?

And why not 5 or 1? The important thing is that they have conceded the principle that they were at fault. The money is inconsequential.

ludermor

So you dont think they should have paid anything?

mylestheslasher

Your saying that giving 100 million was the right thing to do yet the other day E1 was sufficient as a jesture. You seem awful concerned about the members of the catholic church being out of pocket, I'm more concerned with the tax payer being iout of pocket which does not correspond to the amount of blame apportional to them. CORI finally came out yesterday and said 50:50 was about right, as did the governments own advisers at the time of this shameful deal. Everyone seems to be saying this now (bishops, normal clergy etc) It seems to me it is only the orders themselves that are saying they don't need to give another 400 million. Well the orders and Donagh.

Evil Genius

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Firstly, no one has yet come onto this thread and explained why the Church should be held liable when the children were under the protection of the State.
Many people have explained (or at least attempted to explain) why the Church should be held at least partly liable and almost everyone has accepted those explanations to one degree or another.  Just because you do not/cannot accept those explanations does not mean this issue has not been addressed.
But just in case you missed it somewhere, as far as I personally am concerned the explanation is as follows. The abused children were "under the protection of the state", but they were also in the care of the Church. What you do not seem to appreciate (will not accept?) is that the question of accountability is not an "either/or". Yes, the State has a responsibility, but to try to use that to deny the additional responsibility of the Church, when it was Church-owned and run Institutions where the abuse occurred, carried out by Priests and Nuns of the Church etc, is perverse in the extreme.
Or to put it another way. If you had a youngster whom you left in the care of a State-registered Child Minder, and you discovered that your child was horribly abused, who would you blame? Would you simply say that the State was entirely to blame for not checking the Childminder sufficiently? And if awarded compensation by a Court, would you insist that it all comes from the State (taxpayer), even if the Childminder lived in a big house? Would the State not be entitled to recover some of the damages awarded against it from the childminder? Or maybe you wouldn't accept damages at all?  
Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Secondly, you don't know the extent of the batin I took just as you don't know the extent of the batin all of these victims took, so don't try to belittle either. The point is that if I took a batin every bit as bad as some of these victims from a lay teacher, then surely I have as much right to claim against the Church as anyone else?  
What you may have suffered and what these children suffered actually differs only as to degree, not in principle (imo). That is, if you suffered abuse as part of your education, then yes, you should be eligible for compensation. As for whom that compensation comes from, that depends on circumstance. For example, there is a difference between an individual teacher abusing kids at a school, where the school immediately turns him over to the police when uncovered, and a school where it was "endemic", with several teachers involved, and the school authorities knew it was happening and took action only in order to cover it up etc.
I don't know, but you seem to have a problem with the "Church" aspect of this matter. How would you react if you sent your child to a secular, fee-paying school eg in England or the USA, and found that he/she was being systematically abused by a number of teachers/staff who had been doing such things for years, without the school's owners taking any action to prevent what they did/ought to have known what was occurring?
Would you be happy if the individual teacher(s) were prosecuted and the State paid you compensation, but the School's owners were permitted to carry on, solely on condition they cleaned up their act in future? If the school was eg a Registered Charity, would you consider that that status, and the benefits which flow therefrom, be unaffected?

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 10:39:30 AM
Sometimes I just like to point out the foolishness which has people gunning for people or organisations on the basis of some hysterical media reaction which seeks to protect their own agenda.    
Of course you must be entitled to your opinion, but have you never wondered why, on a Board where controversial topics normally tend to draw a wide variety of reactions and opinions, you appear to be in a tiny minority who characterises this affair in terms of "foolishness", "hysteria" and "protecting agendas" etc?
You remind me of the proud mother watching her soldier son march down the road with his Regiment, observing that "the rest are all out of step except him"... ::)
"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"

Evil Genius

Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 11:02:02 AM

3. The individuals responsible should be held to account but going back to point one, present day Catholics should not be punished, which they will be if the Church assets are seized.


Really?
You see, when the State has to pay out compensation, that means every citizen/taxpayer gets punished, including eg those who are not Catholic, or who had no connection whatever with what went on, or who are in their late teens/early 20's etc and so were minors themselves when this abuse occurred.. Yet they cannot avoid their obligations as citizens/taxpayers by pointing out that "It was nothing to do with me".
Whereas, those people who are Members of the Catholic church and who contributed money to that organisation, including the Orders who committed the abuse, did so entirely voluntarily, even after stories of this abuse began to leak out.
Yet you would conclude that the former must pay, but the latter should not?
Whatever else your opinions, they are normally at least coherently expressed and containing a certain logic; nor are you a typical WUM. But I must say I find your comments on this matter so perverse that I cannot ascribe them to woolly-mindedness, but wilful contrariness (or somesuch).
"If you come in here again, you'd better bring guns"
"We don't need guns"
"Yes you fuckin' do"

Donagh

#294
Quote from: mylestheslasher on May 28, 2009, 12:16:29 PM
Your saying that giving 100 million was the right thing to do yet the other day E1 was sufficient as a jesture. You seem awful concerned about the members of the catholic church being out of pocket, I'm more concerned with the tax payer being iout of pocket which does not correspond to the amount of blame apportional to them. CORI finally came out yesterday and said 50:50 was about right, as did the governments own advisers at the time of this shameful deal. Everyone seems to be saying this now (bishops, normal clergy etc) It seems to me it is only the orders themselves that are saying they don't need to give another 400 million. Well the orders and Donagh.

Myles, I'm not concerned about the Church being out of pocket but just trying to ensure that those liable are the ones to pay up. In this case it's the State and unfortunately the State cannot absolve itself of paying out because you don't want the taxpayer to foot the bill. If you want to use that approach, sure why not get the Church to bail out the banks or the eVoting machines or any other balls up made by FF and FG over the last 80 years? At the end of the day the State screwed up by placing the children in the hands of these people and it's those gombeens in charge of the State and running FF and FG that have questions to answer as to why they allowed this to continue. Just as the State were liable to pay out after the hepatitis and haemophilia cases  because the Blood Transfusion Service was carring out services on it's behalf then so they are laible for the compensation claims here. CORI and the rest may now be jumping on the bandwagon and saying the Church should pay more but that is more in response to the hysterical media reaction than anything else.

The Iceman

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.
I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight

nifan

QuoteIf you want to use that approach, sure why not get the Church to bail out the banks or the eVoting machines or any other balls up made by FF and FG over the last 80 years?

If it could be shown that church personnel caused and covered up the banking collapse you might be onto something.

Lar Naparka

Quote from: Evil Genius on May 28, 2009, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Donagh on May 28, 2009, 11:02:02 AM

3. The individuals responsible should be held to account but going back to point one, present day Catholics should not be punished, which they will be if the Church assets are seized.


Really?
You see, when the State has to pay out compensation, that means every citizen/taxpayer gets punished, including eg those who are not Catholic, or who had no connection whatever with what went on, or who are in their late teens/early 20's etc and so were minors themselves when this abuse occurred.. Yet they cannot avoid their obligations as citizens/taxpayers by pointing out that "It was nothing to do with me".
Whereas, those people who are Members of the Catholic church and who contributed money to that organisation, including the Orders who committed the abuse, did so entirely voluntarily, even after stories of this abuse began to leak out.
Yet you would conclude that the former must pay, but the latter should not?
Whatever else your opinions, they are normally at least coherently expressed and containing a certain logic; nor are you a typical WUM. But I must say I find your comments on this matter so perverse that I cannot ascribe them to woolly-mindedness, but wilful contrariness (or somesuch).
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
Nil Carborundum Illegitemi

orangeman

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 ???

Donagh

Quote from: nifan on May 28, 2009, 02:08:52 PM
QuoteIf you want to use that approach, sure why not get the Church to bail out the banks or the eVoting machines or any other balls up made by FF and FG over the last 80 years?

If it could be shown that church personnel caused and covered up the banking collapse you might be onto something.

It's not me that's onto it nifan, it's myles - he wants the Church to pick up the bills of the State.

At the end of the day these industrial schools were the young offender centres of their day. If I'm abused while in an offenders centre, my claim for compensation won't be against the Prison Officers Federation but against the individual and the State in who's care I had been placed. Do you think it would be appropriate for the Prison Officers Federation to meet my compensation costs?