Abusing Clergy Must Admit Responsibility, Irish Bishops Told at Vatican
- Status
P
Pilgrimage
Guest
One wonders if there has been some exaggerating going on somewhere for the sake of claiming compensation. This is the problem Bishops would have been faced with. Had they not covered up then having it out in the open may have resulted in many ‘claiming’ to have been abused knowing full well that the church cannot defend itself. It’s a dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t situation.
As the Bible is, and always has been, a book of love, then it also attracts others, plenty of others into church. One supposes these weren’t empty churches, that even though there were only male priests, there were always plenty of women around and others too. Abused children show signs, women (and trained teachers) don’t miss the signs, things were no different then. Women have a compulsion to act when a child is hurting, even when it’s not their own child. They will go to extraordinary lengths too to protect children, I do not believe that ‘all’ the women throughout the country around these children did not see or hear something.
Also there will have been families involved in church and other church activities, they would have noticed. Quite simply people would have noticed, whether in a home or in a church. Even some of the children themselves would have fought back in the case of abuse, as would other priests and nuns. A number many have been abused perhaps, such a number will not have.
Whilst the unmarried can fully dedicate their lives to Christ, so too can a family man. In fact having a family can enhance ministry in so many ways. Also women priests can be just as dedicated as male priests and are unlikely to sexually abuse anyone.
I wonder if the Catholic Church isn’t just a victim of itself and its size. When it was formed there wasn’t media like today, women had a male dominated role in society and the church will have grown out of that oppressive position. Now it is paying the price for not championing women as Christ did. Today, femininity can be embraced and utilised to protect the church and its future years to its fullest. Will it be embraced though?
Just a point, how does anyone read the Bible day in day out and not be rebuked by The Word? Another reason for supposing the extent of the abuse has been exaggerated.
How a child lives their childhood is a subjective experience, and if you talk to anyone their interpretation of it differs from those who brought them up. We should all pray for those who may have claimed to have been abused falsely, for the sake of their own future needs and for the sake of those who actually were abused.
Look at the past, the wisdom of The Bible, and use it wisely to safe guard the future of the churches.
God bless
B
Brickmaker
Guest
I suggest you read the independent reports on the Irish situation before you make further speculative comment on something you don’t seem to know much about.
As for your ‘a woman would know’ theory
Gimme a break.
P
Pilgrimage
Guest
I know children were abused, there is no question about that and people who abuse should not be working with children, there is no question about that either. Nor should anyone else knowingly cover up for people known to abuse, that’s plain stupid.I suggest you read the independent reports on the Irish situation before you make further speculative comment on something you don’t seem to know much about.
As for your ‘a woman would know’ theory
But you have to consider that quite a few of the claims may be people jumping on a rolling band wagon. After all when millions of $ of being paid out and there is no defence, it’s easy pickings. If any court finds just one person telling a lie, then any progress in other cases will be delayed or untenable. Therefore real victims will be the ones who suffer.
I maintain that it’s ridiculous to believe such endemic abuse would go unchallenged or noticed for long. The very nature of God’s Word empowers people to stand up for justice, and it also has a habit of convicting the most guilty too. It would have all come to light a lot sooner than it has, even with the movement of priests. This is an environment where the Word of God is read day in day out.
My women would know theory is not a ‘theory’, it’s a fact. Abused children act differently to other children and women do notice when children are distressed. It’s also a fact that teachers and other children’s workers would notice too, and they would have been around. Children can’t keep secrets for long, good or bad, it’s not in their nature. It’s not possible that in all that time people would go unchallenged if they were abusing on such a large scale.
It will come to light you know because guilt will get the better of people who have wrongly accused others, they will feel that they have no where to turn for salvation.
God bless
S
sidonius
Guest
I would hope that all who were abused receive the compassion as well as the compensation they deserve. And I would hope that any bishop who sheltered clergy who abused would be man enough to admit what he did, apologize and resign.
N
NewEnglandPriest
Guest
Its amazing that so many still don’t get it. People aren’t looking for the sick psychologically messed up molesters to admit their crimes, they’re looking for the bishops who covered it all up to admit to their roles/crimes.
Most people understand that psychologically messed up individuals can sneak through. What they can’t understand is why the hierarchy covered up for them and shuffled them around all these many years.
If heads don’t role amongst the bishops of Ireland then Irish Catholicism will be lost.
N
NPC
Guest
I certainly support calls for those guilty of covering up crimes to take responsibility for their actions (or inactions). However, as much as I fervently desire justice for victims of abuse, the feeling I have been getting recently is that they are seeking heads on plates. It saddens me to say that, given what victims have gone through, and what they go through every day, but I will tell you why I have reached this conclusion.
You may be aware that before the bishops went to Rome, two survivors and one person from a support organisation wrote an open letter to Pope Benedict. There were a number of demands in it - at least they were demands before the bishops departed; now they are referred to as requests. One demand was that the Pope remove Bishop Martin Drennan of the Diocese of Galway from office because he served in the Archdiocese of Dublin during the period investigated by the Murphy Report (he was an auxiliary bishop from late 1997 until 2005). Now, I live in Bishop Drennan’s diocese so I have taken particular interest in the report’s findings regarding his period in Dublin. The report is very clear that from 1995 “a light began to be shone” on the cover up and scandal in Dublin; furthermore, Judge Murphy saw very clearly that January 1996 was a turning point in the Archdiocese as it was then that ALL complaints began to be reported to the civil authorities and the health boards. These facts are stated in the very first chapter of the report, which is freely available on www.justice.ie. Bishop Drennan was serving in a completely different situation to those who had been appointed pre-1996: the bishops and priests now had clear guidelines on what they should do if a complaint was lodged. The report states very clearly that the Archdiocesan authorities followed these guidelines diligently, and the Archbishop of Dublin always implemented the recommendations which were issued on individual cases by the advisory panel (which was made up of men and women in equal numbers, most of them parents, and from backgrounds in law, psychiatry, social work and business).
The survivors who sent the letter to the Pope, are saying day after day in the media that Bishop Drennan was in exactly the same situation as the others. The report is clear that he was not. They ask what he did to challenge the cover up, yet the report is clear that the Archdiocese dealt openly with complaints from 1996 onwards. Granted, the new guidelines which were introduced in 1996 were not perfect - unfortunately, no guidelines will ever be perfect because paedophiles are deceptive and will actively seek out situations where they can be alone with children.
Despite the facts of the report, which the survivors urge us to accept, they are still calling on Bishop Drennan to resign. I am thankful for the firm stance that he has taken.
Another point is that Desmond Cardinal Connell has not said one word since his brief statement last November. He was Archbishop of Dublin for about 15 years, and knows more than any other bishop what the situation was in the Archdiocese and exactly what level of knowledge his auxiliary bishops had. Yet, NOT ONE abuse survivor has demanded that Cardinal Connell be compelled to clarify matters. NOT ONE expressed any sort of outrage that he was not summoned to Rome with the other bishops. Imagine, the only surviving retired Archbishop of Dublin is the ONLY person who knows what exactly was going on in the Archdiocese during the period of cover up (pre-1995) and no one seems to think that he should have to speak. That, for me, is a glaring anomaly.
Finally, to return to the question of my own bishop, the basis for survivors calling for his resignation is “collective responsibility” - he served in the Archdiocese during the period investigated, therefore he must go. I wonder what does collective responsibility REALLY mean. You see, the current Archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, served in the Archdiocese for at least eighteen months of the period investigated, having been appointed Coadjutor Archbishop in May 2003. Yet, no call for his resignation - I’m not saying he should resign; after all he did cooperate well with investigations from the start, but one can’t go demanding “collective responsibility” and then cut the cloth to suit one’s measure. So did the cover up end in 1995, as the Murphy Report says, or did it end when Diarmuid Martin came to town in 2003. If we follow the Muphy Report, then there is no basis for demanding Bishop Drennan’s resignation; if it ended when Diarmuid Martin arrived on the scene, then the survivors are ignoring the findings of the report that that they are admonishing everybody else to acknowledge.
C
Catherine_S
Guest
A lot of these men* still** need to be** charged** with their crimes , brought to justice and the same** penalty** under the law that others would receive should be given to them as well. All those** accused** and found guilty of covering up evidence of these crimes need to be** brought to justice** as well.*
ROME, February 16, 2010 *
The sexual abuse of children is not just a “heinous crime” but “a grave sin which offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image,” Pope Benedict XVI said today** following meetings with 24 Irish bishops. *
In his remarks the pope also linked the abuse crisis in Ireland to “the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church.”
The bishops were called to give personal account,one by one*,** to the pope, of their knowledge of or involvement in the abuse that was documented by two government-sponsored reports published late last year. The reports - the more recent of which was called the Murphy Report and which focused on the Archdiocese of Dublin - have shocked and horrifiedthestill strongly Catholic nation and calls for resignations of the bishopsnamed in the reports have come from both the** laity** andsenior prelates :sad_yes:. *
The Murphy Report said that between 1975 and 2004 the bishops operated on a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and had “obsessively” hidden child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese. *
Clogher Bishop Joseph Duffy admitted that there had been a“culture of concealment” in the Irish Church that the reports said was more interested in covering up the evidence of abuse and saving the reputation of priests, then in actually doing anything to stop the abuse . *
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has denied that resignations were discussed at the meetings. Bishop Duffy confirmed this saying, “Precise questions of resignation is not on the agenda of the bishops* because that is not our prerogative.”*
“I would admit quite frankly what everybody else knows, shouted from house tops,that the church has been seriously wounded,” Bishop Duffy said. “This has done an immense damage to the authority of the church as the mouthpiece of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Of that there is no doubt.”
Meanwhile, more allegations of abuse of minors by priests over the last several decades are coming forward from Germany.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021602.html
ROME, February 16, 2010 *
The sexual abuse of children is not just a “heinous crime” but “a grave sin which offends God and wounds the dignity of the human person created in his image,” Pope Benedict XVI said today** following meetings with 24 Irish bishops. *
In his remarks the pope also linked the abuse crisis in Ireland to “the more general crisis of faith affecting the Church.”
The bishops were called to give personal account,one by one*,** to the pope, of their knowledge of or involvement in the abuse that was documented by two government-sponsored reports published late last year. The reports - the more recent of which was called the Murphy Report and which focused on the Archdiocese of Dublin - have shocked and horrifiedthestill strongly Catholic nation and calls for resignations of the bishopsnamed in the reports have come from both the** laity** andsenior prelates :sad_yes:. *
The Murphy Report said that between 1975 and 2004 the bishops operated on a policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” and had “obsessively” hidden child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese. *
Clogher Bishop Joseph Duffy admitted that there had been a“culture of concealment” in the Irish Church that the reports said was more interested in covering up the evidence of abuse and saving the reputation of priests, then in actually doing anything to stop the abuse . *
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi has denied that resignations were discussed at the meetings. Bishop Duffy confirmed this saying, “Precise questions of resignation is not on the agenda of the bishops* because that is not our prerogative.”*
“I would admit quite frankly what everybody else knows, shouted from house tops,that the church has been seriously wounded,” Bishop Duffy said. “This has done an immense damage to the authority of the church as the mouthpiece of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Of that there is no doubt.”
Meanwhile, more allegations of abuse of minors by priests over the last several decades are coming forward from Germany.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021602.html
N
NPC
Guest
There’s no doubt but that those guilty of such crimes should be judged and punished by the same law as any other citizen - in Ireland there have only been a small number of prosecutions and jail sentences. Many sentences are very short or even suspended because most of the clerics so far have been very old or in ill-health. I have stressed it here on so many occassions that I am 100% in favour of justice for victims and those who abused them; what I am against is the misinformation which is permeating the whole process of gaining justice and is turning out to be nothing but blatant scapegoating.
As for laity and senior prelates calling for the resignation of bishops named in the report, I don’t think this is an accurate summation of the situation. The laity have not, as far as I can tell (as you know from my other posts I am keeping a close eye on the situation), been given much of a voice at all. The only laity which have persisted in calling for resignations are two prominent survivors (one of whom has formally defected from the Church) and dissenting groups such as Voice of the Faithful. To my knowledge, no bishop has called for the resignation of bishops named in the report - Archbishop Diarmuid Martin urged them all to “take responsibility” but has stressed in recent times that taking responsibility does not necessarily mean resigning.
This is not exactly what the Murphy Report says, but this is the angle which is being perpetuated by the media. It says that for “much of the period” investigated by the Commission the bishops operated such a policy. This is quite a different thing - given the position of my own bishop which I outlined in my previous post. It is clear that the culture of cover up and secrecy was unravelling by 1995. Guidelines for dealing with complaints, which the Archdiocese never had before, were introduced in 1996, including compulsory reporting of complaints to the police.
Obviously nothing will undo the harm that has been done to victims, and we are all aware of what the actions of some have done to the Church, its authority and its reputation. However, now the Church must face the issue head-on, especially given what we know is coming down the line in Germany. Nonetheless, I do think it is important to recognise that serious steps are being taken to ensure the protection of children - unfortunately, we don’t often hear about it in the media, lest the people think that the Church is actually doing something good. For example, Pope Benedict is about to sign a document which will ensure that abusers are dealt with severely; also, it was revealed recently that many dioceses in Ireland are actually more than compliant with the state and Church guidelines on safeguarding children. Indeed, it is rather ironic that one diocese in Ireland which was notorious for abuse, Ferns, is now being held up as a model for best practice in protecting the welfare of children.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I am not as familiar with the situation in Ireland, but more those in the US. Here is the major, overwhelming, issue I have. To my understanding (correct me if I am wrong here) everything starts and stops at the priest level. What I mean by that is: nothing has been done, either by law enforcement or more importantly the Church itself, to anyone past the individual priests involved. We have Mahoney here out west, and many others I do not remember the names of, who have gotten away, as far as I can tell, with no punishment whatsoever.
If this was any random company, every single person even remotely connected to these cases, would be fired on the spot and literally escorted from the premises pending any further law enforcement action. It has nothing to do with the law. The executives of the company would do this without hesitation, and the stockholders would absolutely demand it if somehow they didn’t. And it would definitely NOT end at the employee. They would be out for much larger heads, and that is where the focus would fall.
This is obviously a pretty straight forward analogy to the Church (executives, stockholders). I just do NOT understand how the Church didn’t literally clean house of every Cardinal/Bishop or other “executive” level member of the Church. And even beyond that, WHY WASN"T THERE AN ANGRY MOB OF CATHOLICS OUTSIDE DEMANDING THEY GO?!?!?! This is the most confusing part that I don’t understand. If it were my company/church/charity, you can bet they wouldn’t get an ounce of support or a dime of my money until I could see they were absolutely serious about cleaning house, and turning everyone involved over to police.
Anyway, thats my take on it. Some of the posts above only drive this home. More worried about a bad rap in the press than throwing the rats off the ship. I asked once already, but has anyone really been “called out” by the Church itself? No priests doing the molesting, I mean ANYONE above the priests. (It is always a bishop above a priest, yes?)
If this was any random company, every single person even remotely connected to these cases, would be fired on the spot and literally escorted from the premises pending any further law enforcement action. It has nothing to do with the law. The executives of the company would do this without hesitation, and the stockholders would absolutely demand it if somehow they didn’t. And it would definitely NOT end at the employee. They would be out for much larger heads, and that is where the focus would fall.
This is obviously a pretty straight forward analogy to the Church (executives, stockholders). I just do NOT understand how the Church didn’t literally clean house of every Cardinal/Bishop or other “executive” level member of the Church. And even beyond that, WHY WASN"T THERE AN ANGRY MOB OF CATHOLICS OUTSIDE DEMANDING THEY GO?!?!?! This is the most confusing part that I don’t understand. If it were my company/church/charity, you can bet they wouldn’t get an ounce of support or a dime of my money until I could see they were absolutely serious about cleaning house, and turning everyone involved over to police.
Anyway, thats my take on it. Some of the posts above only drive this home. More worried about a bad rap in the press than throwing the rats off the ship. I asked once already, but has anyone really been “called out” by the Church itself? No priests doing the molesting, I mean ANYONE above the priests. (It is always a bishop above a priest, yes?)
N
NPC
Guest
PassingThru,
Certainly, it wasn’t just the abusive priests who were at fault, it was those who covered up the abuse. If a crime was committed, then they should be tried under the same law as anyone else. However, as I see it - with regard to the Dublin (Murphy) Report - there is the question of what exactly the auxiliary bishops knew & what power they had. Essentially they were there to carry out the orders of the Archbishop… That then leads to the question, if they knew something was remiss, why didn’t they shout “stop”? That’s why I pointed out in a previous post that it’s disgraceful that the former Archbishop of Dublin Desmond Cardinal Connell has not been compelled to clarify such issues - he really is the only one who knows.
But I don’t think it’s as clear-cut a matter as to say “you were a bishop while this abuse was going on - you’re fired”. You see, the lack of communication in the Archdiocese in many cases was ASTOUNDING. I’ll give you one example: in one part of the Archdiocese there was a notorious abuser, Fr Noel Reynolds. Having abused children in his parish, he decided he would like to be re-posted to an island off the west coast of Ireland. Now, the Archbishop of Dublin at the time, Dr Ryan, knew about Fr Reynolds’ abuse, yet he did not tell the Archbishop of Tuam (where the island was located) about his background. In fact the Archbishop gave Fr Reynolds a glowing reference, saying that he would be of great service to the islanders. What service do you suppose he gave them? Well, he continued to abuse on the island. (Of course, Dr Ryan’s first mistake was not reporting Fr Reynolds to the authorities, but I just want to illustrate the lack of communication which was going on).
In time, Fr Reynolds came back to Dublin. The Archbishop (then Dr Desmond Connell) appointed him as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Centre - where there was a children’s ward. The staff raised concerns about Fr Reynolds to the auxiliary bishop, Dr O’Mahony (in whose pastoral area the NRC was situated). Bishop O’Mahony arranged a psychiatric assessment with a doctor from “The Granada Institute” - Bishop O’Mahony, however, wasn’t even aware that only a few months previously Fr Reynolds had been assessed by this same psychiatrist. So Auxiliary Bishop O’Mahony was not kept informed - indeed, he wasn’t aware of an interview between Fr Reynolds and one of the Archbishop’s advisors only a year before either.
Furthermore, the Archbishop (Dr Connell) did not inform staff at the NRC about Fr Reynolds’ past - they only found out about his abuse when they were approached by a TV crew from a programme aired on Ireland’s national TV broadcaster, RTE.
So, in this one case, there is a litany of situations where key personnel were not “in the loop”. When my own bishop, Dr Martin Drennan was appointed Auxiliary Bishop in 1997, he was assigned the pastoral area which Dr O’Mahony had before him. Inevitably, people (especially the media) are asking if it is credible that Dr Drennan knew nothing about Fr Reynolds’ background. In ordinary circumstances one might say that he must have known something, but given the secrecy that surrounded Fr Reynolds for years and years, it is actually not unbelievable in the least the Dr Drennan did not know anything.
Because of the level of secrecy, we have to tread very carefully and ascertain what exactly the bishops knew. If they deliberately chose not to hand over information when they knew that certain clergy were committing such horrible crimes, then they must be answerable to the law. However, we have to consider those, who, given the information they had at the time - in terms of abusers, protocols for dealing with abusers, knowledge from the fields of psychiatry and social-work - actually did do their best. There are many examples of practices - slavery, corporal punishment, capital punishment, medical procedures etc. - which were seen by many civilised societies as acceptable but which are frowned upon today. That doesn’t excuse abuse or covering it up as sexual abuse has always been regarded by the Church and civil law as a crime, but we have to acknowledge that many people (especially in the field of medicine) did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. We must acknowledge that there were bishops who did what they could with what they knew - I am not happy for them to be scapegoated. Believe me, I am not supporting my bishop because he’s my bishop; I’m supporting him because I believe he acted correctly and he is being treated dreadfully by some. If I thought he was involved in actively covering up abuse, I too would be calling for his resignation.
Certainly, it wasn’t just the abusive priests who were at fault, it was those who covered up the abuse. If a crime was committed, then they should be tried under the same law as anyone else. However, as I see it - with regard to the Dublin (Murphy) Report - there is the question of what exactly the auxiliary bishops knew & what power they had. Essentially they were there to carry out the orders of the Archbishop… That then leads to the question, if they knew something was remiss, why didn’t they shout “stop”? That’s why I pointed out in a previous post that it’s disgraceful that the former Archbishop of Dublin Desmond Cardinal Connell has not been compelled to clarify such issues - he really is the only one who knows.
But I don’t think it’s as clear-cut a matter as to say “you were a bishop while this abuse was going on - you’re fired”. You see, the lack of communication in the Archdiocese in many cases was ASTOUNDING. I’ll give you one example: in one part of the Archdiocese there was a notorious abuser, Fr Noel Reynolds. Having abused children in his parish, he decided he would like to be re-posted to an island off the west coast of Ireland. Now, the Archbishop of Dublin at the time, Dr Ryan, knew about Fr Reynolds’ abuse, yet he did not tell the Archbishop of Tuam (where the island was located) about his background. In fact the Archbishop gave Fr Reynolds a glowing reference, saying that he would be of great service to the islanders. What service do you suppose he gave them? Well, he continued to abuse on the island. (Of course, Dr Ryan’s first mistake was not reporting Fr Reynolds to the authorities, but I just want to illustrate the lack of communication which was going on).
In time, Fr Reynolds came back to Dublin. The Archbishop (then Dr Desmond Connell) appointed him as chaplain to the National Rehabilitation Centre - where there was a children’s ward. The staff raised concerns about Fr Reynolds to the auxiliary bishop, Dr O’Mahony (in whose pastoral area the NRC was situated). Bishop O’Mahony arranged a psychiatric assessment with a doctor from “The Granada Institute” - Bishop O’Mahony, however, wasn’t even aware that only a few months previously Fr Reynolds had been assessed by this same psychiatrist. So Auxiliary Bishop O’Mahony was not kept informed - indeed, he wasn’t aware of an interview between Fr Reynolds and one of the Archbishop’s advisors only a year before either.
Furthermore, the Archbishop (Dr Connell) did not inform staff at the NRC about Fr Reynolds’ past - they only found out about his abuse when they were approached by a TV crew from a programme aired on Ireland’s national TV broadcaster, RTE.
So, in this one case, there is a litany of situations where key personnel were not “in the loop”. When my own bishop, Dr Martin Drennan was appointed Auxiliary Bishop in 1997, he was assigned the pastoral area which Dr O’Mahony had before him. Inevitably, people (especially the media) are asking if it is credible that Dr Drennan knew nothing about Fr Reynolds’ background. In ordinary circumstances one might say that he must have known something, but given the secrecy that surrounded Fr Reynolds for years and years, it is actually not unbelievable in the least the Dr Drennan did not know anything.
Because of the level of secrecy, we have to tread very carefully and ascertain what exactly the bishops knew. If they deliberately chose not to hand over information when they knew that certain clergy were committing such horrible crimes, then they must be answerable to the law. However, we have to consider those, who, given the information they had at the time - in terms of abusers, protocols for dealing with abusers, knowledge from the fields of psychiatry and social-work - actually did do their best. There are many examples of practices - slavery, corporal punishment, capital punishment, medical procedures etc. - which were seen by many civilised societies as acceptable but which are frowned upon today. That doesn’t excuse abuse or covering it up as sexual abuse has always been regarded by the Church and civil law as a crime, but we have to acknowledge that many people (especially in the field of medicine) did the best they could with the knowledge they had at the time. We must acknowledge that there were bishops who did what they could with what they knew - I am not happy for them to be scapegoated. Believe me, I am not supporting my bishop because he’s my bishop; I’m supporting him because I believe he acted correctly and he is being treated dreadfully by some. If I thought he was involved in actively covering up abuse, I too would be calling for his resignation.
P
PassingThru
Guest
Wow. Lots of words. None of them answered my direct question. But I will look at what you typed up.
Dr Ryan - Was he prosecuted? Did the Church actually DO anything? Did the laity protest? I would imagine the answer to these is no. Hence my confusion. I like how you use the term “mistake” to describe his actions. Disturbing.
Cardinal Connell - Did the Church investigate? Turn over his records either publicly or to the police? Did the laity protest? Did every priest that reports to him stand up and say “No. You make a public account of your position. Until then, we will stand here with our congregation and refuse to support this situation.” I would imagine the answer to these are no.
Did anyone in the Church of any consequence do anything that lead to anyone being punished for anything. This last sentence is intentionally ridiculous sounding. But I am really asking it. You just typed up a whole lot of information to cover nothing that helps answer this issue.
And do you really buy into this whole mysterious “secrecy” that kept all these incredibly educated, intelligent people who document everything that happens in the walls of the Church and you think they really didn’t know what was happening? Come on. If this was anyone but your church, you would not buy it for one second. Not one.
Any why do we have to “tread lightly”? In what other situation would we EVER “tread lightly”? Out of fear of insulting someone or someones office? As a culture, we will absolutely shred anyone who has even of whiff of impropriety of this level.
I can see you are very invested in this issue. But I have strong reservations on any level of unbiased rational you are applying here.
Again I ask: Who above the level of priest has been accountable? How has the Church directly, and strongly acted to make this or anyone else accountable for their actions?
N
NPC
Guest
Re. my use of the word “mistake” - I have not used it in a flippant manner as you imply, and I am in no sense in denial of the gravity of the actions and inactions of some priests and senior clergy.
Dr Ryan was long dead before investigations began, so none of the cover up which took place during his episcopacy was public knowledge while he was archbishop.
The records from Cardinal Connell’s time were given over to the civil authorities, but not until after he had resigned on age grounds. I have stated here before that he has serious questions to answer. That said, when the diocese did finally get formal guidelines for dealing with complaints in 1996, Cardinal Connell followed the guidelines rigidly - reported complaints to the police & took and implemented advice given by his advisory panel. I’m not saying that this should get him off the hook, just that the situation in the Archdiocese was not always constant.
The purpose of my post was to show that while those guilty of crimes should be pursued, it’s not as simple as saying that such and such a person served in the archdiocese at the time and should therefore resign. I am commenting specifically with reference to the Murphy Report and what happened in the Dublin Archdiocese, and I urge you to read at least some of the report if you want to comment on the situation. The auxiliary bishops were very poorly informed, they were not all told as a group of the scale of the abuse or about individual cases. There is also the question of other authorities which were involved - in some cases (even before the 1996 guidelines) the Church authorities did in fact notify the police. However, in some of these cases senior members of the police force ordered that no investigation was to take place.
Read the Murphy Report - which was commissioned by the Irish State, not the Church - and you cannot avoid the fact that there was an astounding level of secrecy. I illustrated that with reference to the case of Fr Noel Reynolds, but that is just one case among many. The report is very well researched and Judge Murphy had no problem stating where there were cover ups - if there was a deliberate cover up on the part of the auxiliary bishops she would not have hesitated to uncover it.
I have made my position clear - those guilty of crimes should be pursued and brought to justice. It is happening in other countries and I hope it happens here - I don’t want such filth, as the Pope has called it, in the priesthood. However, what I am against is scapegoating - if you were to follow the Irish media, you would see that this is what is happening. The path to justice is not going to be a straight one - as much as we want justice, we must not go down the route of merely demanding heads on plates. To do this, we will only get an illusion of justice, which can never bring the healing we desire.
Accountability, of course, does not necessarily mean resignation. However, some of the bishops named in the report have resigned or submitted their resignation - even though they were not found guilty of misconduct, cover up or crimes. The Bishop of Limerick’s resignation has been accepted. Three others are awaiting acceptance of their resignation. The bishops have all committed to cooperate with any investigations which may take place into abuse in their dioceses. It seems to me, however, that what the Irish Church needs in order to move forward is an investigation into Cardinal Connell’s role - I think his silence on the matter has been terrible. He should have been summoned to Rome. I have said in another post though, that I find it interesting that not one survivor’s group has called for him to be compelled to speak. The bishops of Ireland as a group have acknowledged and accepted the findings of the report and have said that as a group they are accountable to some extent for what happened. According to news reports they are going to make some public penitential act during Lent - Cardinal Sean Brady has said that it will be akin to sackcloth and ashes. That will be interesting to see - whatever the act is.
P
PassingThru
Guest
I almost don’t want to reply, but here goes.
The net summary of all of this is: One “forced” resignation, three pending resignations. And the Church allowed this Connell fellow to resign before working with authorities. I will try and hold back my enthusiasm for this overwhelming response.
I do not have anywhere near the details on the Irish side of this issue, and I don’t claim to. What I have heard is very very similar to what happened here in the US. It sounds like a whole lot of nothing happened in Ireland, and I know that nothing was done here in the US. The only things that have happened, for the most part, happened with the Church kicking and screaming bloody murder to avoid any responsibility for the actions of bishops/cardinals.
Its not that I really want any specific justice to be dealt out. It is the attitude of the Church and its members that bothers me so much. I never got any impression that the Church had any interest in fixing this for its own good intents, and I feel like so few Church members really took much of a stand against this long history of abuse and cover-up. Sure, there was lots of “hand-wringing” and “oh-dears”, but for the most part everyone just went about their business, while parroting some line about “its not the Church, its some bad sinners in the Church” and basically washed their hands of the situation. I won’t go into how these same people would NEVER accept this line of reasoning with a different church. It wouldn’t happen.
Bottom line, if the Church really wanted to make this right, it wouldn’t need any Justice Dept intervention, trials, lawsuits etc to fess up and fly right. This is the self proclaimed head of Christianity on earth, and they botched this. Bad. And to this day, I feel they still don’t understand this, nor do they feel any remorse or responsibility. If they didn’t get caught, nothing would have happened. And you KNOW this is true.
The net summary of all of this is: One “forced” resignation, three pending resignations. And the Church allowed this Connell fellow to resign before working with authorities. I will try and hold back my enthusiasm for this overwhelming response.
I do not have anywhere near the details on the Irish side of this issue, and I don’t claim to. What I have heard is very very similar to what happened here in the US. It sounds like a whole lot of nothing happened in Ireland, and I know that nothing was done here in the US. The only things that have happened, for the most part, happened with the Church kicking and screaming bloody murder to avoid any responsibility for the actions of bishops/cardinals.
Its not that I really want any specific justice to be dealt out. It is the attitude of the Church and its members that bothers me so much. I never got any impression that the Church had any interest in fixing this for its own good intents, and I feel like so few Church members really took much of a stand against this long history of abuse and cover-up. Sure, there was lots of “hand-wringing” and “oh-dears”, but for the most part everyone just went about their business, while parroting some line about “its not the Church, its some bad sinners in the Church” and basically washed their hands of the situation. I won’t go into how these same people would NEVER accept this line of reasoning with a different church. It wouldn’t happen.
Bottom line, if the Church really wanted to make this right, it wouldn’t need any Justice Dept intervention, trials, lawsuits etc to fess up and fly right. This is the self proclaimed head of Christianity on earth, and they botched this. Bad. And to this day, I feel they still don’t understand this, nor do they feel any remorse or responsibility. If they didn’t get caught, nothing would have happened. And you KNOW this is true.
G
Guyonthestreet
Guest
Take the time to read The Ryan Report. Not just the executive summary. Read the full report.
Inculding the systematic and systemic physical sexual and emotional abuse by orders of religious nuns.
That will address many of your disbeliefs.
- Status