Ongoing religious scandals

Arcus Arrow

Abuse Survivors Refused Entry To Diarmuid Martin’s Service of Repentance in Pro-Cathedral
By Bock

This is the moment when a disabled abuse survivor and the daughter of a woman imprisoned in the Magdalene laundries were refused admission to a Catholic church by stewards and a policeman. The woman wanted to hand a letter of protest to Archbishop Diarmuid Martin who was holding a service of “lament and repentance” for the failures of the Catholic church to protect abuse victims.

The lady in the picture describes herself as the daughter of a “Magdalene Woman” and wanted to deliver a letter to Bishop O’Malley. I offered to help out but once I did that the police and the stewards at the Pro Cathedral refused to allow either me or the lady into the church.

The doors are open but you can't come in.

Nodin

Link to above
http://bocktherobber.com/2011/02/abuse-survivors-refused-entry-to-diarmuid-martins-service-of-repentance-in-pro-cathedral

Pushtrak

Charges initiated against pope for crimes against humanity.

TWO GERMAN lawyers have initiated charges against Pope Benedict XVI at the International Criminal Court, alleging crimes against humanity.

Christian Sailer and Gert-Joachim Hetzel, based at Marktheidenfeld in the Pope’s home state of Bavaria, last week submitted a 16,500-word document to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Dr Luis Moreno Ocampo.

Their charges concern “three worldwide crimes which until now have not been denounced . . . (as) the traditional reverence toward ‘ecclesiastical authority’ has clouded the sense of right and wrong”.

They claim the Pope “is responsible for the preservation and leadership of a worldwide totalitarian regime of coercion which subjugates its members with terrifying and health-endangering threats”.

They allege he is also responsible for “the adherence to a fatal forbiddance of the use of condoms, even when the danger of HIV-Aids infection exists” and for “the establishment and maintenance of a worldwide system of cover-up of the sexual crimes committed by Catholic priests and their preferential treatment, which aids and abets ever new crimes”.

They claim the Catholic Church “acquires its members through a compulsory act, namely, through the baptism of infants that do not yet have a will of their own”. This act was “irrevocable” and is buttressed by threats of excommunication and the fires of hell.

It was “a grave impairment of the personal freedom of development and of a person’s emotional and mental integrity”. The Pope was “responsible for its preservation and enforcement and, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his Church, he was jointly responsible” with Pope John Paul II.

Catholics “threatened by HIV-AIDS . . . are faced with a terrible alternative: If they protect themselves with condoms during sexual intercourse, they become grave sinners; if they do not protect themselves out of fear of the punishment of sin threatened by the church, they become candidates for death.”

There was also “strong suspicion that Dr Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of his church and as Pope, has up to the present day systematically covered up the sexual abuse of children and youths and protected the perpetrators, thereby aiding and abetting further sexual violence toward young people”.

murphthesmurf

I am originally from England, having moved here recently. This made all the headlines in England too. I have to admit, I wasn't even remotely surprised to hear this had been happening, for me its pretty common knowledge that lots of priests have been doing this for many yrs and will continue to do it for many more. I would NEVER leave my son alone with any priest, I know this is a sad thing to say, and the religious among us will most likely be fuming, but its the truth. There are many good intentioned people in the church who genuinely mean well, and I sincerely feel sorry for them, as they will be tarnished with the same brush as the bad ones.
As for the defense of the bishop that for him to disclose the information would be like a doctor breaking doctor patient confidentiality, thats nonsence. If a doctor knew or had good reason to believe that a child is in danger it would be his duty to report it, doctor/patient confidentiality would be over ruled in any case where a child may be in danger.
The bishop has without doubt broken laws, perverting the course of justice, failing to report a crime, aiding and abeting, among possibly many more.
To hear that the 2 abused women were refused entry into a church is shocking enough, to hear that they were refused entry by the policeman is even more shocking. On what grounds was the officer refusing entry? :mad:

mikhail

murphthesmurf wrote: »

On what grounds was the officer refusing entry? :mad:

Whatever else, it is private property, and so the church has the right to refuse entry.

Was the event by invitation only? If not, then either the people in question were either somehow known to the Garda, or somehow drew attention to themselves. Did a priest or other representative indicate to the Garda that these people were unwelcome? Did they demand entry via some side entrance not open to the public? There's no indication from the article, and so it's impossible to assign blame here.

murphthesmurf

mikhail wrote: »

Whatever else, it is private property, and so the church has the right to refuse entry.

Was the event by invitation only? If not, then either the people in question were either somehow known to the Garda, or somehow drew attention to themselves. Did a priest or other representative indicate to the Garda that these people were unwelcome? Did they demand entry via some side entrance not open to the public? There's no indication from the article, and so it's impossible to assign blame here.

From how it reads, it seems it was a service of some sort for the victims. Surely they didn't hire a Gaurde as door staff.
Surely the Devil would never allow this kind of thing to go on in hell, how is it 'god' has allowed it to go on in his churches. You could almost say it was under his protection, or at least the protection of his house.
I suppose someone will have an answer to this, somewhere along the lines of 'we shouldn't question the actions of our lord, or try to understand why these things happen'
Where do religious people think these priests will go when they meet their end? Will God open up the pearly gates for them? Or will they be banished to hell? Even though religion has protected them.

dcmraad

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0224/1224290732558.html

So another priest who XXXXXX and abused kids, got caught internally and sent off to USA so he could start afresh,
finally this filthy individuals are getting punished.

we need a full enquiry in ireland into who allowed him to go to the USA


In a 24-page report on the extradition hearing, the judge detailed the accusations made against Mr McCabe. The alleged assaults took place between 1973 and 1981. For most of that time he was working as a curate at Dublin’s Pro-Cathedral on Marlborough Street. The claims were made by men who said they were between 10 and 14 when the alleged offences took place.

Patrick Joseph McCabe (74) fought extradition on the grounds that the alleged offences had passed the statute of limitations in the US.

Nodin

Channel 4 News has learned that the head of a London-based evangelical church with 3,000 congregation members has been charged with indecent assault on a child under-16.

The pastor of a global evangelical movement based in the UK has been charged with sex offences against former members of his congregation.
Dr Albert Odulele who runs Glory House International in London is to appear in court next week. One charge alleges indecent assault of a child under the age of 16.
Dr Odulele, who is 47 years old, is a major figure in the word of evangelism. His church, based in east London, says it has a congregation of 3,000, but he has many more followers around the world through appearances at international evangelic conferences, on religious TV programmes and videos on YouTube.

http://www.channel4.com/news/evangelical-pastor-charged-with-sex-offences

Arcus Arrow

mikhail wrote: »

Whatever else, it is private property, and so the church has the right to refuse entry.

Was the event by invitation only? If not, then either the people in question were either somehow known to the Garda, or somehow drew attention to themselves. Did a priest or other representative indicate to the Garda that these people were unwelcome? Did they demand entry via some side entrance not open to the public? There's no indication from the article, and so it's impossible to assign blame here.

It was not as far as I know by invitation. People who were simply passing the church or who had heard about it walked in. There was no list of invited guests.

Two of the survivors who did take part were interviewed on TV 3 after the event. One of them, Christine Buckley, who after leaving the Church was involved in a shouting match with some of the protester's gave her reasons for attending (in the TV3 interview).
TV3 interview with Marie Collins and Christine Buckley.

In the interview Christine Buckley states;

“I saw him [Diarmuid Martin] when a survivor [who was in fact John Ayres] who went on hunger strike, when at 3 and 4 in the morning, without cameras with the tea and that changed things for me in relation as to how I feel about the Catholic Church. Because there are good people just like Diarmuid Martin and I saw that on Sunday.”

It's not any reflection on Diarmuid Martin, as a person being spoken about, that the above statement by Christine Buckley is an out and out lie. The story about the cup of tea at 3 am is a complete fabrication. John Ayres, who was outside the Cathedral that day, confirmed this again today in O'Connell street.

Neither Christine Buckley nor Diarmuid Martin ever came near John Ayres in his three weeks outside the Bishops Palace.

Even if he did, how a cup of tea could lead an individual to the conclusion that everything is fine and dandy with an organisation that continues to cover up child rape can only be wondered at.

Diarmuid Martin, it should be noted, was shocked to learn after the service that the two people in question had not been allowed in and apologised outside the front door of the Pro Cathedral after the ceremony was over.

robindch

Self-confessed pedophile preists are living in the USA without much monitoring:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_california_church_abuse

What caught my eye was this quote, from the diocese's lawyer:

Michael Hennigan wrote:

[...] our mission has been to cleanse the priesthood, and we think we've done that effectively and well [...] Once they're out, it's up to civil authorities to deal with them on behalf of society.

Handsome Bob

Didn't know where else to post this, it doesn't warrant it's own thread so this thread will have to do. :P

Anyway, my dear oul mum injured herself on Friday so I escorted her to her final Novena mass on Saturday on Gardiner Street. I stood at the back, arms folded, until the thing ended when low and behold who do I see standing beside me? Bertie ****ing Ahern.

I mean the irony of that man being religious. Bertie Ahern, made of high christian moral fibre alright. :rolleyes:

robindch

More accusations of appalling behaviour, this time from Spain.

Seems that there have been many reports where newborn babies of single mums were declared dead by the hospital, only for the baby to be subsequently sold onwards at a healthy profit to families with catholic religious beliefs:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2059563,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

Time wrote:

In each case, the woman gave birth to what she believed to be a healthy child, only to later be told that the infant had died and that it was impossible to see the body. Those babies were then allegedly sold to couples who paid, on average, the equivalent of $8,000. And the people accused of doing the selling are in many cases the very doctors and nurses who had delivered the babies. This is according to testimony given to lawyers and journalists by people who unwittingly bought the babies — many were told the charges were to cover the mother's expenses.

There was no longer any legal cover for what they were doing," says lawyer Enrique Vila, who, in the Valencia case, is representing Anadir, an association of parents and children who believe they were the unwitting victims of these thefts. "But some doctors, priests and nuns realized that there were economic benefits to the practice."

Economic and, it seems, spiritual. Many of the women who believe their children were stolen were unmarried at the time, a shocking breach of social norms during the strict years of the Catholic Franco regime. Journalist Natalia Junquera has been investigating the cases for a series that the national newspaper El País is publishing this month. "From what I've seen, the most important motive was ideological," she says. "Nuns and priests who simply decided that the child would be better off with families they trusted than with the ones to which they had been born." The thefts are believed to have continued into the early 1980s.

[...]

Spain's Episcopal Conference, the ruling body of the Catholic Church in Spain, has thus far not commented on the cases, saying only that it learned of their existence through the media. Vila emphasizes that he does not believe it was church policy to facilitate these thefts, but rather, a high number of nuns and priests are implicated because they formed an important part of hospital staff at the time. Still, he notes, "It's possible that the church simply looked the other way."

recedite

robindch wrote: »

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2059563,00.html?xid=rss-mostpopular

Probably more for ideological reasons than financial, but its incredible how these sanctimonious priests and nuns could consider that they had the right to make those decisions to move the babies to more "suitable" parents.

Nodin

An order of US Catholic priests has agreed to pay $166.1m (£103.3m) to hundreds of Native Americans sexually abused by priests at its schools.
The former students at Jesuit schools in five states of the north-western US said they were abused from the 1940s through the 1990s.
Under a settlement, the Society of Jesus, Oregon Province, will also apologise to the victims.
The order had argued paying out abuse claims would cause it to go bankrupt.

"It's a day of reckoning and justice," Clarita Vargas, who said she and two sisters were abused by a priest at a Jesuit-run school for Native American children in the state of Washington, told the Associated Press.
"My spirit was wounded, and this makes it feel better."
The province ran schools in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

Most of the alleged victims were Native American. Much of the alleged abuse occurred on Native reservations and in remote villages, where the order was accused of dumping problem priests.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12868046

No corner of the globe seems to have been safe.

robindch

Nodin wrote: »

No corner of the globe seems to have been safe.

I don't believe that there have been any prosecutions in the Vatican itself.

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I don't believe that there have been any prosecutions in the Vatican itself.

True....




....yet for some reason that wouldn't give me the ease of mind to use their child minding service.

Arcus Arrow

"Give me the child for seven years,
and I will give you the man."

Jesuits pay $166m to abuse victims

A Jesuits order in the US has agreed to pay $166 million to settle more than 500 child sexual abuse claims against priests in five states.

The payout by the Oregon Province of the order - part of an agreement to resolve its two-year-old bankruptcy case - marks one of the biggest settlements to date in the Church's sexual abuse scandals.

Lawyers for the victims said it also is the largest ever by a Catholic religious order such as the Jesuits.

The Oregon Province covers Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho and Montana.

The victims, most of them Native Americans from remote Alaska Native villages or Indian reservations in the Pacific Northwest, were sexually or psychologically abused as children by Jesuit missionaries in those states in the 1940s through the 1990s, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.


Read more.

AhSureTisGrand

Arcus Arrow wrote: »

Jesuits pay $166m to abuse victims

For a moment there I had the wrong impression entirely

robindch

Following the publication of the Ryan Report last year, the religious orders agreed to cough up €500 million. To date, 4% of that has been paid:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0408/abuse1.html?RTEMAILID

RTE wrote:

The religious orders have only paid over €20m to the State in compensation for child abuse outlined in the Ryan Report.

The details were included in a Department of Finance briefing documents for the incoming minister.

Following publication of the Ryan Report, the State sought additional contributions from the orders.

In response, offers of €348.5m were made, comprised of €111m in cash, €2m in a rent waiver, and €235.5m in property.

However, in April 2010 the State asked the orders to pay half the costs, which would require further contributions of at least €200m from the religious orders.

To date only €20m of the original cash offers has been received, and the offers of property are still being examined in terms of their usefulness.

Two paragraphs of the notes in relation to this matter have been blacked out in the Department document.

CiaranMT

Was writing about this on another forum, this was reported on by the Sunday Times last weekend in their article on Quinn's plan to get assets as part payment from the orders, seems to have slipped under the radar.

CiaranMT

Which reminds me of what I was reading earlier....

irishtimes.com

Court clears way for abuse report


The High Court has paved the way for the publication of a report into the handling of clerical child sex abuse allegations in the Diocese of Cloyne.

One chapter of the report will be censored over fears it could prejudice the upcoming criminal trial of an alleged paedophile priest, the President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns ruled.

Counsel for Minister for Justice Alan Shatter appeared before Mr Justice Kearns this morning to seek directions on the publication of the report, which centres on allegations of child sexual abuse against 19 clerics operating in the diocese between 1996 and 2009.

Its publication follows a two-year investigation by Circuit Court judge Yvonne Murphy, who also investigated the handling of abuse claims in the Dublin Archdiocese.

The court heard chapters nine to 26 deal with allegations, complaints and concerns relating to 19 clerics in the diocese. None are named but are given pseudonyms.

However legal arguments over the contents of chapter nine, which focuses on one priest who is due to stand trial in the Circuit Court, were held in camera.

Mr Justice Kearns said he was anxious to ensure the pending prosecution would not be prejudiced or run the risk of “being derailed” by the publication of the report in full. “There is a pending criminal trial and I take the view . . . that there is a risk that the trial due to take place very shortly might be prejudiced if that particular portion of the report, largely contained in chapter nine, were to be published at this stage,” he added.

The judge ordered issues surrounding the publication of chapter nine be brought back before the court on July 15th.

Welcoming today's High Court decision, Mr Shatter said he understood it was now necessary for counsel for the parties to agree what deletions are necessary to the report to give effect to the judge's order. Once that is completed, Mr Shatter said arrangements would be made to publish the report as soon as possible.

The State inquiry was ordered in January 2009 after a damning report by the Catholic Church’s abuse watchdog found the-then bishop of Cloyne John Magee took minimal action over a series of child abuse allegations against two of his priests.

Branding his child protection inadequate and dangerous, the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church said that what little action Dr Magee took was also inappropriately delayed.

The one-time Vatican aide, from Newry in Co Down, faced down repeated calls to quit his post in Cork until his resignation was finally accepted by Rome in March 2010.

Victim support groups said men and women sexually abused by paedophile priests have been waiting years to learn how so many allegations were mishandled.

Maeve Lewis, executive director at One in Four, said the court’s decision will come as a relief to the people who were sexually abused as children in the diocese of Cloyne.

She said the postponement of the publication of one chapter was regrettable, but added: “Very few survivors of child sexual abuse engage with the criminal justice system. It is important that the cases which come before the courts are not jeopardised in any way.

“However, we are concerned that the omission of certain sections may undermine the integrity of the report and may also mean that the full picture of how children were endangered in the Cloyne diocese will not emerge.”

Connect counselling service will open its helplines this evening and over the weekend for anyone distressed by reports the Cloyne report. Survivors of abuse can call 1800 477 477 from the Republic of Ireland and 00800 477 477 77 from Northern Ireland.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Following the publication of the Ryan Report last year, the religious orders agreed to cough up €500 million. To date, 4% of that has been paid:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0408/abuse1.html?RTEMAILID

It raises an interesting ethical question.
Does one generation have the right to saddle the next generation with a debt incurred through bailing out an institution considered at the time to be of "systemic importance" to the nation?

Morag

http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2011/04/catholic-church-evades-sex-charges-in-south-dakota/

CiaranMT

irishtimes.com

Belgium's justice minister urged the Vatican today to impose stiff punishment on a disgraced Catholic bishop who denies being a paedophile despite admitting to sexually abusing two of his own nephews.

Stefaan de Clerck spoke out amid a media uproar after the former bishop of Bruges Roger Vangheluwe defended himself on television by saying the abuse he committed was only "superficial."

Vangheluwe, who quit his post and went into hiding a year ago after admitting to molesting a nephew, confessed in the interview yesterday evening that he had molested a second one.

He left Belgium last week under Vatican orders to seek "spiritual and psychological treatment" abroad and Belgian media say he is now in a French monastery. The Vatican has said the final decision on disciplining him lies with Pope Benedict.

"The Church must take up this case and see what sanction it should impose. It should be much more severe and much more complete than what has been said up until now," Mr De Clerck, a Christian Democrat, told RTL radio.

"We expect the Church to punish him," he said. "They told him to leave the country - that was also to shut him up. Making comments trying to minimise what happened is unacceptable."

The Vatican has been reluctant to impose stiff punishments on bishops found guilty of covering up sexual abuse of youths by priests under their authority.

Three bishops in Ireland and one in Germany have resigned but others accused of mismanagement have held onto their jobs.

Vangheluwe is the only admitted sexual abuser among the disgraced bishops and risks being defrocked if the Vatican should decide to impose the stiff punishment that Catholic critics of the hierarchy say is needed.

Clearly exasperated at the Church's defensive response to the scandals sapping its moral authority, Mr De Clerck also called on the Belgian Catholic hierarchy to compensate abuse victims as recommended by a parliamentary commission.

Brussels Archbishop Andre-Joseph Leonard, who is head of the Belgian bishops conference, has caused controversy by saying the Church had no obligation to compensate victims.

In his interview, Vangheluwe told VT4 television he was sorry for molesting his nephews but did not consider himself a paedophile or see the acts as anything serious.

"It had nothing to do with sexuality," he said. "I have often been involved with children and I never felt the slightest attraction. It was a certain intimacy that took place."

"I don't have the impression at all that I am a paedophile. It was really just a small relationship. I did not have the feeling that my nephew was against it, quite the contrary."

The nephew who Vangheluwe admitted to abusing for 13 years went public with his painful secret last year, saying he could no longer keep quiet and wanted to expose his uncle's actions.

Vangheluwe said he had paid the nephew sums of about €25,000 on a number of occasions but this did not buy his silence.

In both cases, his abuse occurred years ago and can no longer be prosecuted, a justice official told Belgian radio.

"Vangheluwe is a sick man who doesn't realise what he's spewing out. He doesn't show the least bit of regret for the evil he has done," the Brussels newspaper De Morgen wrote. "Shocking, disgusting, monstrous - which word will end up being the best to describe Roger Vangheluwe's comments?"

"How can this man dare show himself on television?" the daily Gazet van Antwerpen asked. "For the love of God, how could someone like that become a bishop?"

This kind of personal revelation just takes the wind out of my sails

How can the Vatican stand by this? I'm usually angry at this kind of report but today I'm just... Sad.

robindch

Irish Times wrote: »

The Vatican has been reluctant to impose stiff punishments [...]

That has to be the understatement of the week.

Meanwhile, back in Dublin, further allegations of abuse have been made against Dublin-based priests:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0415/1224294728557.html

The interesting figure's down at the end -- allegations and suspicions have been raised against 177 out of the 2800 priests who've worked in Dublin the last 70 years, giving an allegation rate of approximately 6.5%, or about one in every sixteen priests. I don't know what the allegation/suspicion rate is amongst the wider population, but I'd imagine that it's far, far lower than that.

oldrnwisr

robindch wrote: »

That has to be the understatement of the week.

Meanwhile, back in Dublin, further allegations of abuse have been made against Dublin-based priests:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0415/1224294728557.html

The interesting figure's down at the end -- allegations and suspicions have been raised against 177 out of the 2800 priests who've worked in Dublin the last 70 years, giving an allegation rate of approximately 6.5%, or about one in every sixteen priests. I don't know what the allegation/suspicion rate is amongst the wider population, but I'd imagine that it's far, far lower than that.

There doesn't seem to be any solid consensus on prevalence of paedophilia within the general population. Some studies have suggested that the actual prevalence is as low as 3.8% but as high as 9% if you consider potential paedophiles. Since the accusations levelled against priests have not been confined to paedophilia alone, it would be more useful to compare those priests accused to the percentage of the prison population composed of sexual offenders (excluding rapists). However, any such comparison would be purely correlative. There seems to be a great deal of uncertainty regarding causal factors so I'm not sure what the significance of a deviation from the population average would be.

Maybe it would just have been simpler to say I don't know.:)

CiaranMT

irishtimes.com

Patsy McGarry wrote:

A report published today by the Catholic Church child protection watchdog discloses that it was not told until recently of over 200 new allegations of clerical child abuse received by Church authorities in the year ended March 31st.

It also disclosed that the so-called independent watchdog may not publish its findings on child protection standards in dioceses or religious congregations without permission of the relevant bishop or religious superior.

The National Board for Safeguarding Children (NBSC), set up by the Catholic Church to monitor its child protection practices, in its annual report for 2010 said there was a significant increase in the number of clerical abuse allegations reported to it in the year ended on March 31st last.

The 272 new allegations of abuse (physical, emotional or sexual) were reported to it and the statutory authorities between April 1st of last year and March 31st of this year. This is an increase of 75 on figures reported to the NBSC and statutory authorities for the previous year, when the total was 197.

The watchdog revealed that just 53 new allegations had been reported to it by Church authorities until a recent “final pro forma check in anticipation of finalising this Annual Report revealed that a total of 272 new allegations” had been received during the year.

Most of the allegations, whether for 2009 or 2010, are believed to be of an historic nature but a breakdown is not yet available.

Of the 272 new allegations, 166 allegations were received to religious congregations and 106 made to dioceses. The NBSC emphasised that it “has been advised that all of the 272 allegations have been reported to the statutory authorities.”

A total of 86 of the new allegations were made against deceased clerics or religious; 12 were made against clergy who are still in ministry, and 174 against those who had been or were removed from ministry, retired or who had left the clerical state through laicisation.

Over the year the NBSC provided training to 52 groups on various aspects of the safeguarding guidelines.

One of its priorities for 2011 will be to continue the review programme initiated by the Catholic bishops in January 2009 and following the Government’s decision to extend the remit of the Murphy Commission to include Cloyne diocese.

That in turn followed publication on the Cloyne diocesan website of a NBSC report which found child protection practices there to be “inadequate and in instances dangerous.”

The NBSC’s emphasis will be to complete the review process in the dioceses before commencing with the religious congregations and missionary societies.

Chief executive Ian Elliott also said that work on the review commissioned by the Bishops had been frustrated until March of this year by its sponsoring bodies, the Bishops, Conference of Religious of Ireland (Cori), and the Irish Missionary Union (IMU), who received legal advice they should not co-operate due to possible breaches of data protection legislation.

The sponsoring bodies still had some such concerns, he said, despite the NBSC having an “approved and top-rate data protection policy, to which it fully adheres in all its operations.” But it was now accepted that the review can go ahead in a manner which is legally possible, he said.

He said that, to date, the NBSC had concluded reviews of three unidentified dioceses. Their findings can only be published with the approval of the relevant bishops, he pointed out.

He also said that last October the NBSC had been informed by the Church sponsoring bodies that no additional money would be available for the training of volunteers in child protection.

NBSC chairman John Morgan said it was “insufficiently appreciated that the inculturation required to overcome the difficulties which have been made manifest in the Church through the inadequate safeguarding of children will, regrettably, take a considerable time.”

There were “traces, as yet perhaps dim and indistinct, that Christian consciousness in Ireland is beginning to feel the repercussions of this in a ‘collective awakening’, which seeks anew the road of true fidelity to our fundamental vocation as Christians. It will be a long road for us but Faith is the substance of hope,” he said.

Maeve Lewis of the One in Four group said this afternoon that while “Ian Elliot and his team are to be commended on their work in policy and training…they are clearly being impeded by forces within the Church in their monitoring role. This must be frustrating in the extreme, and may also endanger children.”

Abuse victim Andrew Madden expressed “considerable concern” at delays in the NBSC review of Catholic Church. It was “totally unacceptable that the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church cannot move any child protection concerns or findings into the public domain without the consent of Catholic Bishops,” he said.

He urged Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald “to introduce legislation to put the Children First Guidelines on a statutory basis as a matter of absolute urgency.”

In a joint statement on publication of the NBSC report, the Catholic Bishops, Cori, and the IMU, welcomed publication of its report and thanked the NBSC for its “untiring commitment to the safety and welfare of children in the Church and for their unstinting professionalism in helping us all to meet the highest possible standards in this area.”

They were “fully committed to working with the Board” and to resolving “any remaining issues as quickly and as comprehensively as possible,” they said.

the culture of deference

Here we go again, how much can they get away without a single interference from the government.

2 articles out today

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fury-as-church-withholds-abuse-complaints-from-own-watchdog-2644481.html

THE Government is under intense pressure from outraged victims of clerical child abuse to order an immediate national probe of all 26 Catholic Church dioceses as well as religious and missionary orders.



The renewed calls for the State to subject the entire Catholic Church to a statutory investigation followed revelations yesterday that church authorities withheld a staggering 219 abuse complaints from its own independent watchdog.


Mindblowing


and then this

Latest actions show church is unreformable




PATSY McGARRY
ANALYSIS: The Catholic Church is more interested in reaching for lawyers than protecting children
THERE WAS that familiar, sickening feeling at yesterday’s press conference at the publication of the National Board for Safeguarding Children’s annual report for 2010.


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0512/1224296752704.html

Nodin

VICTIMS of paedophile priests reacted with fury yesterday after new guidelines from the Vatican insisted bishops, rather than gardai, should deal with child abuse cases in the first instance.

A document drawn up by Cardinal William Levada, the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, concludes that the responsibility for dealing with child abuse cases within the church "belongs in the first place to bishops".

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/victims-furious-over-new-vatican-abuse-guidelines-2648496.html
(my bold)

One would hope that this is misreporting.

MrPudding

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/victims-furious-over-new-vatican-abuse-guidelines-2648496.html
(my bold)

One would hope that this is misreporting.

This seems at odds at the apparent desire for incidents to be reported to the authorities.

My understanding is that the church investigation involves all parties, the victim, the victim's parents, the priest and whoever carries out the investigation, sign a confidentiality agreement that forbids them from discussing the incident in question with anyone, including national authorites, on pain of ex-communication.

If the church is now say that all allegations must first be dealt with by the church then presumably this rule will then aply to all cases...?

MrP