Magee has stepped aside from duties but remains bishop of cloyne

lostexpectation

Bishop Magee steps aside over Cloyne controversy - The Irish Times - Sat, Mar 07, 2009

Bishop John Magee of Cloyne has been replaced in his diocesan duties following criticism over his handling of child abuse cases in the diocese.


A statement issued by the Irish Bishops’ Conference in Maynooth today said Pope Benedict had appointed the Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, Dr Dermot Clifford, to assume the powers and duties of the Bishop of Cloyne.


However, Bishop Magee will retain the title of Bishop of Cloyne.


The statement said Bishop Magee had made a formal request to Pope Benedict on February 4th last to appoint an apostolic administrator to carry out “the ordinary governance” of the Diocese of Cloyne.

this is frustrating, will he just go he doesn't deserve the title
,hopefully some group of school reps and parents has made enough noise to achieve this

A separate statement from the Cloyne Diocese today said the appointment of Archbishop Clifford would “enable Bishop Magee to devote the necessary time and energy to cooperating fully with the government Commission of Inquiry into child protection practices and procedures in the Diocese of Cloyne, as he has already committed himself to do.”

... i presume that someone else taking over his powers and duties means he's not in charge of child protection anymore.

Mena

Am I the only one wondering why this person has not been criminally charged?

robindch

Mena wrote: »

Am I the only one wondering why this person has not been criminally charged?

Criminal law isn't my thing, but I'd imagine it would be difficult to make a charge of conspiracy stick -- I'm not sure how much legislation there is in this area.

More generally, I'm simply surprised that there seem to be plenty of people out there who still trust the church with their kids.

Dades

Pope Benedict had appointed the Archbishop of Cashel and Emly, Dr Dermot Clifford, to assume the powers and duties of the Bishop of Cloyne.

I wonder if the 'powers' they mention above actually include supernatural ones...

No really, I'm serious! Does being Bishop supposedly give you extra powers?

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

I wonder if the 'powers' they mention above actually include supernatural ones...

No really, I'm serious! Does being Bishop supposedly give you extra powers?

As far as I know a bishop can make someone an exorcist, whether or not he bestows any actual power on them I'm not sure.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Does being Bishop supposedly give you extra powers?

I think you get a +5 Crozier.

mukki

they don't need to use the operator


they got the direct line

Overblood

Dades wrote: »

Does being Bishop supposedly give you extra powers?

Of course! The Magic Hat of Bishopness, duh!!! There's a lot of Jesus's power pent up in those hats you know... the first trick they usually learn is "The Power of Appearing Taller Than Most Folk via the Magic Hat of Bishopness so as to Exude a Sense Of Authority and Dominion"... or something along those lines, can't remember exactly how it goes.

They have a Magic Stick as well don't they? And a Magic Ring, which one must kiss.

So I think it's safe to say that yes, they do have extra powers.

Or were you talking about extra administrative & clerical powers?...

Overblood

Am I the only one wondering why this person has not been criminally charged?

Why should he be criminally charged?

Galvasean

Overblood wrote: »

Why should he be criminally charged?

For purposely hiding child abusers from the law perhaps?

Overblood

Ah. Don't really know much about this guy sorry! I'll do some googling.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

I wonder if the 'powers' they mention above actually include supernatural ones...

No really, I'm serious! Does being Bishop supposedly give you extra powers?

This is going to make an awesome film some day. Actually it reminds me of a friend's idea for a film set in mythic USSR where one's party rank is determined by the might of your supernatural martial arts.

Mena

Galvasean wrote: »

For purposely hiding child abusers from the law perhaps?

I thought as much was obvious .

Overblood, why do you think he should not be?

Edit: Missed OB's reply, ignore this.

Nodin

Galvasean wrote: »

For purposely hiding child abusers from the law perhaps?

Or some form of corporate negligence, perhaps.

Nodin

Mena wrote: »

Am I the only one wondering why this person has not been criminally charged?

Hasn't happened anywhere in the world yet in similar cases, to my knowledge, and its very very unlikely that this kip is going to take the lead.

Galvasean

Nodin wrote: »

Or some form of corporate negligence, perhaps.

At the very least.

MrPudding

In the UK, if you have knowledge or suspicion that a child is being abused in some way, and you do not report this to the authorities, then you are committing a criminal offense. I was almost certain this was the same in Ireland.

If this were indeed the case, then any member of this child abuse cult that knew of, or even suspected, that a priest was raping children would be guilty of a crime. If they then went that step further and took action, like moving them or ortherwise hiding their actions, then I would have thought that they would be guilty of an even more serious offense.

Why do they seem to get special treatment is this kind of case?

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

In the UK, if you have knowledge or suspicion that a child is being abused in some way, and you do not report this to the authorities, then you are committing a criminal offense. I was almost certain this was the same in Ireland.

If this were indeed the case, then any member of this child abuse cult that knew of, or even suspected, that a priest was raping children would be guilty of a crime. If they then went that step further and took action, like moving them or ortherwise hiding their actions, then I would have thought that they would be guilty of an even more serious offense.

Why do they seem to get special treatment is this kind of case?

MrP

Indeedy.

There was even a standard Church procedure which he failed to implement, so its not like they can use the 'no idea how to handle this kind of thing' line. Plus this isn't "new" anymore. He should be charged, as much to send a message as for his own criminal neglect (not dealing with child molesters....for fvcks sake....what kind of rat bastard fails to deal with that?).

lostexpectation

indo says he going to quit fully when he finished dealing with the inquiry

bluecell99

Mena wrote: »

Am I the only one wondering why this person has not been criminally charged?

No,but why surprise or shock even.NO cleric has ever been charged with witholding information or assisting the escape of paedophiles.

It aint going to happen .