The Clerical Child Abuse Thread (merged)

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

post 2509 for one, where only your research is correctly done.

I note with intrest that you have refused to quote the post.

So I'll quote it for you.

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I doubt it, but I tend to research the true facts and details carefully from as many souces as possible rather than rely on media punchlines, short quotes and rhetoric.

Now of course not everyone does this, but yet again I am still waiting for you to show us . . . . where do I claim I am the only one to do this ?

marienbad

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I note with intrest that you have refused to quote the post.

So I'll quote it for you.



Now of course not everyone does this, but yet again I am still waiting for you to show us . . . . where do I claim I am the only one to do this ?

Why bother to quote the full post, after all you made it. Your post implies that you do the proper research and others don't . I merely ask ( as I did with who is a catholic or who is not ) how do you know ??

Is it because you came up with the ''right answers '' ? Or is just another catch-all to dismiss any you don't agree with rather than present an argument ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry ISAW , I am not just talking about Brady, I am talking about Brady and cover ups in general.

I see . So of these general coverups what specific cover ups was Brady involved in? and could you give examples of twoor three more "cover ups" from the general picture? for that matter haw many cover ups do you claim the Vatican was involved in in order to make it general?

Would you accept then that there was a cover up in the case of the two kids sworn to secrecy that Brady was involved in ?

By Brady. No.
By some Norbertines yes. Given that other Norbertines actually tried to expose Smyth and were prevented by them.

Would you accept that there was a cover up in the Payne case ?

The first complaint to the archdiocese about Fr Payne was made in November 1981. The complaint concerned the abuse of Andrew Madden and was made by Madden's school guidance counsellor to Msgr Alex Stenson.
I would say Stenson like Brady did his job. He would not come in for huge blame. He handed it to Archbishop Bishop Ryan who told
Bishop O'Mahony to "deal with Fr Payne" . O Mahony got a psychatrist Prof. Noel Walsh but didn't give the doctor the full details. the report he got back said Payne was "cured" but of course doctor Walsh hadn't actually been told of the allegations against Payne ( which were not allegation because Payne admitted to them). It seems that Bishop O'Mahony was the only person who read Prof Walsh's 1982 report. ''It must have been obvious to him that Prof. Walsh was making a report based on false information. Such reports are, of course, useless.'' (quote from the Murphy Report) So I cant fault Walsh at that time either, who by the way was later asked to do two more reports.

Later Msr. Sheehy figured strongly for a long period indefending Payne and in defending Paynes position as a marriage council as judicial vicar In the Roman Catholic Church, a judicial vicar is an officer of the diocese who has ordinary power to judge cases in the diocesan ecclesiastical court.

The Murphy Commission concludes that ''Archbishop Ryan and Bishop O'Mahony were particularly culpable'' in the case of Fr Ivan Payne.

''When Archbishop Connell first became aware of the problem, he did not inform himself properly. He took a very hands off approach to this case.

''Msgr Sheehy (an influential background figure) believed in Fr Payne's innocence even when it became abundantly clear that there was no basis for such a belief. He wrote eloquently on the subject of the rights of priests without ever managing to refer to, or consider, the rights of children. He acted in an entirely irresponsible manner in arranging supply work for Fr Payne when Archbishop Connell had effectively, but not formally, removed him from ministry.''

So I would think Mgr. Sheehy and Bishop O Mahony were primarily to blame and to a lesser extent Archbishops Ryan and Connell who caved in to Sheehy and lent money to Payne when the buck should have stopped with them. Because of fear of defamation the case was not brought up at the bishops council. I dont think Connell and Ryan colluded or Ryan and O Mahony or O Mahony and Connell. I accept Sheehy did discuss the case with Connell and others but that is the closest to "conspiracy" it got. One bishop showed extermly bad judgement and another two failed leadership.

I could then go on to other diocese and show than there was cover up in each one,so that every serving bishop at that time was aware of a least one case within his jurisdiction that was covered up.

BNut you havent even done that for Dublin. You ahve shown two successive Archbishops a bishop and a Monsignior over 16 years failed to act or made bad decisions. Ther were other bishops in the docese and a thousand other priests who had no knowledge of the case. Indeed I was in the parish next door to Payne and never heard anything about him. I know people who worked in his parish and spoke well of him and were shocked when the truth came out.

Are they not all conspiracies ? And it is unreasonable to believe that the bishops did not discuss this together and did not involve the Papal Nuncio.

Yes. They certainly didnt involve the Papal nuncio. And the REport is quite clear " Having [for the first time reading the reports into him from 1991] discovered what had happened in 1981, Archbishop Connell decided not to agree to his promotion. [as ''He considered he could not agree to the promotion [from the Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal to be the President of the National Marriage Appeal Tribunal.] as he would have to inform the other members of the Bishops' Conference about the complaint. This would, Cardinal Connell told the Commission, involve ''defaming'' Fr Payne.
So did other bishops hear -no
Did the nuncio-no
Did other parishes or the priests or laity in his own parish know -no

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Why bother to quote the full post, after all you made it. Your post implies that you do the proper research and others don't .

And he asked you where does he imply that others don't.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

And he asked you where does he imply that others don't.

It is implicit in the post ISAW

marienbad

So at the time of the Payne case we have established that at least two bishops were aware of the case. How many bishops were there in the 26 dioceses in Ireland at that time ? 30 ? 40 ?

And we could go on to show that a similar scenario existed in many other dioceses.

As regards whether all or many of the bishops discussed it together or involved the nuncio, I suppose we will never know. But in my experience of large organisations it is highly unlikely that they did not , they certainly discussed it enough to know that legal and insurance safeguards were required.

But you are constantly looking for ''the smoking gun'' and that is just not possible. But the church is held to a higher burden of proof and on that basis most people in Ireland on this issue have found them wanting.

Cato Maior

Reports in today's Irish Times that Archbishop McQuaid has been subject of a number of allegations of child abuse;

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1208/1224308744391.html?via=mr

If true, then the rot went to the top. It might also explain some of the curious decisions taken by McQuaid in relation to other child abusers.

Doc Farrell

Doc Farrell wrote: »

ISAW wrote: »

I look them up and confirm them.
It would seem that

about Euro 1,400,000,000 has been paid out in Ireland by just the REligious Orders the church in abuse settlements. An additional 1,000,000,000 was incurred by the state in legal expenses the "insurance" cover was inrelation to the Dublin Archdiocese and was not applied to other diocese and was additional to the above money

I'm not trying to dodge anything. It is just some people have a different agenda i.e. destroying The church and attacking religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse#2002_Compensation_deal_and_the_question_of_blame
For decades the Government and Department of Education were to blame for lack of oversight, various parts of the Catholic Church refused to reform internal systems, the police generally ignored complaints, and the courts sent small children to the institutions with little concern for their rights. The 2002 deal has appeared in hindsight to be a well-intentioned but unsatisfactory attempt at a quick fix. In May 2009 CORI agreed to contribute more to the envisaged higher compensation amounts.

Are you sure about those figures? One billion, 400 million? If each claimant got 50k there would be 28,000 claims?
I'm not doubting your figures I just can't fit that many zeros on my calculator! If each claimant got 100,000 that would be 14,000 people?

Hi again. Can you post a quick link to this figure of one billion, 400 million? Thanks.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

It is implicit in the post ISAW

Where? Care to quote where he implied others don't do research?

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Where? Care to quote where he implied others don't do research?

If you can't see it I can't help you ISAW.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

So at the time of the Payne case we have established that at least two bishops were aware of the case. How many bishops were there in the 26 dioceses in Ireland at that time ? 30 ? 40 ?

Diocesean bishops - maybe six per diocese or archdiocese. Ill accept 30 butwe can check if you want.
Others whohad "ordinary power" equivalent of a bishop e.g the power to ordain the power o administer a prelature the head of an order or prelature like Opus Dei - maybe hundreds. some might not be in Ireland for example the head of the eg Fransiccans of christian Brothers - butthe Order would have huge membership in Ireland and would have some senior monks here.

AS I say you can chjerck you will find details here:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/scie1.html
you will note in dublin for example that the number of religious priests is about twice that od diocesan priests http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/ddubl.html#stats

This woudl suggest ther are quite a few order heads abbots or the like
Quite a few and they all have Superiors in different parts of Ireland
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/xrel.html
Take one at random - Jesuits
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dqsj0.html
lists 88 biushops and a cardinal Priest . One would have to find ourt wgich are in Ireland. even then each monastary might have a senior Superior. So each Jesuit School might have one. That would be say five for Ireland
and so on. You wouuldn't belong getting into hundreds I reckon.

And we could go on to show that a similar scenario existed in many other dioceses.

Well lets do it them. Do you mean just in Ireland? Or worldwide? I would think the Irish case is well doccuments. You picked out two of the main media cases. But we have another in Raphoe which someone highlightewd last week. In fact four abusers in that diocese alone and onother 4 in five more diocese. Those reports released last week contain about t third of all the cases in Ireland. We already have much of the rest Fortune, Smyth etc. There are only four arch diocese. you have some order people (e.g. norbertines) Three bishops in Dublin (out oif maybe 15 over the period) Maybe up to five bishops elsewhere 9 not all complicit ( i mean not covering up but just didnt believe the case or took a Garda or some other persons word rather then look into it themselves - which was their responsibility- and none of which conspired with any other bishop).

As regards whether all or many of the bishops discussed it together or involved the nuncio, I suppose we will never know.

Sorry but that isnt good enough. You can't accuse someone and then say we just don't know. If that is so you have to assume innocence. We assume they didn't meet with the nuncio. also if they did meet it is quite simple to just ask the nuncio. Of course we can't do that in the Vatican since we have no ambassador there!

But in my experience of large organisations it is highly unlikely that they did not , they certainly discussed it enough to know that legal and insurance safeguards were required.

You conjectre of "highly likely" is just that! conjecture. You dont know . Did you also believe Fr Reynolds in Mayo abused a girl in africa?

But you are constantly looking for ''the smoking gun'' and that is just not possible. But the church is held to a higher burden of proof and on that basis most people in Ireland on this issue have found them wanting.

In criminal cases the burden of proof is the highest possible. Innocence is assumed.
In civil cases it is a "balanced of probability" but the church didnt even ask for evidence it took peoples stories as fact and gave them compensation. So please don't lecture about the burden of proof.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

If you can't see it I can't help you ISAW.

That is funny considering in your last post you lectured on burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.If you claim it it is for you to prove it.
Look up "burden of proof" under "logical fallacy"

ISAW

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Hi again. Can you post a quick link to this figure of one billion, 400 million? Thanks.

Sorry I dont notice your reply.
I miss read the figures
HEre is the source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_to_Inquire_into_Child_Abuse#2002_Compensation_deal_and_the_question_of_blame
128+348 = 476 Million from CORI. thisis the religious institutions. I dont have a figure for the resat of the Irish Church. and 1,000 million in State funding
~ 1,500 million
There might be an additional 1,000 million in legal costs.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

That is funny considering in your last post you lectured on burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.If you claim it it is for you to prove it.
Look up "burden of proof" under "logical fallacy"

I don't lecture ISAW, and I don't need you to lecture me either on an issue that is really of no concern of yours.

The Quadratic Equation

marienbad wrote: »

Why bother to quote the full post, after all you made it. Your post implies that you do the proper research and others don't . I merely ask ( as I did with who is a catholic or who is not ) how do you know ??

Is it because you came up with the ''right answers '' ? Or is just another catch-all to dismiss any you don't agree with rather than present an argument ?

Guess what Marienbad, we're still waiting for you to answer this question :

Where exactly, (and no more desperate dodging, hiding, and trying the strawmen arguments and tangents) do I claim I am the only one to do this, as YOU claimed ?

The Quadratic Equation

Cato Maior wrote: »

Reports in today's Irish Times that Archbishop McQuaid has been subject of a number of allegations of child abuse;

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1208/1224308744391.html?via=mr

If true, then the rot went to the top. It might also explain some of the curious decisions taken by McQuaid in relation to other child abusers.

All that proves is that dead men cannot sue for defamation of character.
Equally I could claim you are a child abuser, but what would it prove ?

Keylem

Clergy who committed heinous crimes against innocent, defenseless children should pay for their crimes, it seems that innocent clergy are also paying for the crimes of their confreres, such as Fr. Reynolds.

Here is a link to a website dedicated to priests who were falsely accused, with case history and and musings from an innocent priest in jail. Sadly it seems that priests are guilty until proven innocent, two wrongs never make a right.

marienbad

I am only interested in Ireland ISAW, so so far we have agreed there were problems in 9 of the 26 dioceses, correct ? And if memory serves the bishops in charge of those units by and large were all there at the same time.

If that was so it would mean that the leadership in at least 9 of the 26 administrative units was dysfunctional in this area. Would you agree with that ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

I am only interested in Ireland ISAW, so so far we have agreed there were problems in 9 of the 26 dioceses, correct ? And if memory serves the bishops in charge of those units by and large were all there at the same time.

If that was so it would mean that the leadership in at least 9 of the 26 administrative units was dysfunctional in this area. Would you agree with that ?

id have to look ateach particular bishop but Im prapared to accept that in advance. That nine bishops in Ireland made varying degrees of mistakes up to and including not reporting or covering up. I agree with that. I am subject to being corrected. this would include whoever was iover the Norbertines in Ireland or whatever monestary Smyth was in. There may also have been other bishops in other countries where Irish clerics visited butas you stated you are only interested in discussing Ireland.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

id have to look ateach particular bishop but Im prapared to accept that in advance. That nine bishops in Ireland made varying degrees of mistakes up to and including not reporting or covering up. I agree with that. I am subject to being corrected. this would include whoever was iover the Norbertines in Ireland or whatever monestary Smyth was in. There may also have been other bishops in other countries where Irish clerics visited butas you stated you are only interested in discussing Ireland.

Taking into account that the diocese is the main admin unit with which the general public interacts can we now agree that the management in at least 35% of the 26 diocese malfunctioned at some level ?

Just briefly on a separated but related issue- I think you or another poster said I was demanding a higher standard and a lesser burden of proof from the Catholic Church. In a general sense you would be correct. But only in the same way that I would for the Gardai, teachers, etc . But only in the broad sense of 'quid custodiet ipso custodes '. From my own upbringing I know the Catholic Church demanded no less of itself.

But this would not extend to criminal cases where all are equal before the law.

Doc Farrell

Keylem wrote: »

Clergy who committed heinous crimes against innocent, defenseless children should pay for their crimes, it seems that innocent clergy are also paying for the crimes of their confreres, such as Fr. Reynolds.

Here is a link to a website dedicated to priests who were falsely accused, with case history and and musings from an innocent priest in jail. Sadly it seems that priests are guilty until proven innocent, two wrongs never make a right.

Hi Keylem,

This is certainly a fascinating case, when I read about it a few months ago I thought that this might be a serious miscarriage of justice similar to 'The Hurricane'. Certainly the sentence seems extremely excessive and there are certainly issues in the case which point to unfairness such as the judge's comments on pornography where no pornography was found.
However.....
Here is the part of the report on the diocese of Manchester which pertains to fr. MacRae. Please have a read of it and tell me what you think. I don't have any fixed opinion on this case, I find it confusing to say the least. If you want to pm me rather than post here feel free, they will be considered confidential.

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ManchesterReport10MacRae.pdf

Thanks.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

But this would not extend to criminal cases where all are equal before the law.

I think this is a problem marienbed, particularly in Ireland. The will to change the law, and to prosecute before a court of law where justice can be served...as much as possible.

The 'guilty' of any society are only subject to the law of the land - it seems to me that justice lies there, and is legislated for by 'us' as a collective too - so, we bear the brunt of making offenders guilty as such, by passing legislation to protect children in our society..


I would much rather trial by jury than trial by media any day.

It seems that some see themselves beyond both - well - no they aren't, but they, need to be given a dose of the law of the land too - and should be innocent until proven guilty too..like any babysitter, judge, layperson, father, mother, or teacher etc. etc.

The 'law' is limited as regards retrospective claims, but it should not be limited where new claims are made - one case at a time, one day at a time..

The sex offenders register is a joke - but it's not insurmountable with a little understanding of their illness. This is the current answer to the problem from the powers that be.....

How much have we learned so..

marienbad

lmaopml wrote: »

I think this is a problem marienbed, particularly in Ireland. The will to change the law, and to prosecute before a court of law where justice can be served...as much as possible.

The 'guilty' of any society are only subject to the law of the land - it seems to me that justice lies there, and is legislated for by 'us' as a collective too - so, we bear the brunt of making offenders guilty as such, by passing legislation to protect children in our society..


I would much rather trial by jury than trial by media any day.

It seems that some see themselves beyond both - well - no they aren't, but they, need to be given a dose of the law of the land too - and should be innocent until proven guilty too..like any babysitter, judge, layperson, father, mother, or teacher etc. etc.

The 'law' is limited as regards retrospective claims, but it should not be limited where new claims are made - one case at a time, one day at a time..

The sex offenders register is a joke - but it's not insurmountable with a little understanding of their illness. This is the current answer to the problem from the powers that be.....

How much have we learned so..

I would'nt disagree too much with any of this, everyone is entitled to their day in court and the presumption of innocence.

But the protection of children does create some difficult questions where the presumption of innocence is reduced somewhat , at least in the public mind when a person is removed,suspended, whatever pending investigation. But is there an alternative ?

Notwithstanding the recent case , the whole trial by media thing is greatly exagerated and is now used by everyone from drug dealers to bankers. When all is said and done we have had very few miscarriages of justice in in this country, we have had some but not too many. A much bigger issue in general and in the whole child abuse history in particular has been that justice delayed is justice denied.

Why does everything in this country take an eternity to get to court ? As well as being just so wrong it also helps fan any media frenzy.

lmaopml

marienbad wrote: »

I would'nt disagree too much with any of this, everyone is entitled to their day in court and the presumption of innocence.

Yes, they are, no matter whom.

But the protection of children does create some difficult questions where the presumption of innocence is reduced somewhat , at least in the public mind when a person is removed,suspended, whatever pending investigation. But is there an alternative ?

I don't know Marien, I do agree though that the protection of children is paramount in any public service anywhere, whether that be teaching, or religious instruction etc. in any denomination under the law - I think the law needs to find some teeth in this regard, and not be a whimp.

Notwithstanding the recent case , the whole trial by media thing is greatly exagerated and is now used by everyone from drug dealers to bankers. When all is said and done we have had very few miscarriages of justice in in this country, we have had some but not too many. A much bigger issue in general and in the whole child abuse history in particular has been that justice delayed is justice denied.

Justice delayed and denied is not a monopoly market for those who are not religious or religious. It's something we are familiar with on this island.

Neither is trial by media any excuse or something to be used as some kind of excuse that can't be fought in a court of law eventually - or something that should be undermined as to the effect of heresay reporting.

Reality is that children are abused somewhere today, if the Catholic Church serves to higlight this, lets not let it blind us either to the reality that kids need help everywhere right now....

The Catholic Church doesn't have the monopoly on ruining childrens lives for sure - it's right and proper to try to help, to get active for kids, and give what you can - anything, your time, your loose change, anything....there are children living a miserable existence but a little hope gives them the strenght of ten soft or defeated men with no get up and go...

Why does everything in this country take an eternity to get to court ? As well as being just so wrong it also helps fan any media frenzy.

Your guess is as good as mine here Marien - I wish it wasn't this way, but I think it will change and take form, I'm watching with others while it does so..

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Taking into account that the diocese is the main admin unit with which the general public interacts can we now agree that the management in at least 35% of the 26 diocese malfunctioned at some level ?

No. thatin 35% of diocese over the last century ther was at least one person in the management who made mistakes or consciously did something wrong. Yes Id think that is fair.

Just briefly on a separated but related issue-

It isn't justrelated it is a central point as i hop we shall see.

I think you or another poster said I was demanding a higher standard and a lesser burden of proof from the Catholic Church. In a general sense you would be correct. But only in the same way that I would for the Gardai, teachers, etc .

What I stated was you were demanding the church to prove clerics innocent when the law assumes innocence of a crime and has to prove guilt.
But this is central because the church itself does not punish crime. That is not their role. that is the role of the State. All a church court can do is to tell the priest he is not to say mass or hear confession and to remove any clerical office from him liasization. the Church can't lock him up. Maybe they could send him off to a monestary which amounts to similar to locking him up but look what can happen if the monastery is lax in discipline.

But only in the broad sense of 'quid custodiet ipso custodes '. From my own upbringing I know the Catholic Church demanded no less of itself.

Clergy are not there to spy on people and try to catch them out. Yes the church should demand standards . Not abusing children isn't a "high" standard it is a normal one that everyone not just clergy should have. Nor do I regard clergy as necessarily "holier" than laity.

But the point is the civil legal authorities are the watchers in a criminal sense. The church have no role in processing criminal cases.

But this would not extend to criminal cases where all are equal before the law.

I don't get you point. You are saying the Church have higher standards then the police except in criminal cases? I don't know. A priest might not feel he is obliged to report someone for speeding , driving after drinking one pint or not having a light on his bicycle.

ISAW

lmaopml wrote: »

The sex offenders register is a joke -

You bring sonething to mind which I shall refer to the attitudes to sex thread.

A fringe issue I know but take a case of a 17 year old having sex with a 16 year old girlfriend. This is discovered and reported andhe is charged with rape or sexual assault of a moinor and found guilty. He is put on a sex offenders register. Noe I dont know how they cataqgorist them bu8t I think it is just you are on it or not. For all intents and purposes he is who the same a a serial pedophile abuser who abused innocent children for years. Is that a strang attitude to sex expressed in society and the law?

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

But this is central because the church itself does not punish crime. That is not their role. that is the role of the State. All a church court can do is to tell the priest he is not to say mass or hear confession and to remove any clerical office from him liasization. the Church can't lock him up. Maybe they could send him off to a monestary which amounts to similar to locking him up but look what can happen if the monastery is lax in discipline.

The church can and should report abusing clergy to the state authorities. Yet as everyone knows there was cover-ups, priests transfered to other parishes, priests transfered so they could abuse abroad, etc etc. Everything except reporting them to the police / state.

The church set itself up as an authority on moral affairs and yet it was found very wanting in this regard. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there. Why did that not happen automatically in the church ?

I think everyone who has been abused should report it to the police / authorities , do'nt you ?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

But the protection of children does create some difficult questions where the presumption of innocence is reduced somewhat , at least in the public mind when a person is removed,suspended, whatever pending investigation. But is there an alternative ?

There is. But the church who maybe have "higher standards" have a policy that if someone is accused they step down as a "fail safe" mechanism even if they are innocent. the law may assume innocence the church assumes that all accused might be guilty. One can only go so for with this policy however. What if every priest in Ireland had a n accusation made against them in the same week for example? Also the policy is enforcable buthas not been except in only one case I think. whatI mean is that if a priest refuses a Bishop can conmpell him . But thathas not happened in practice. Fr Reynolds could for example have refused to step down and the local Bishop would have to decide to remove him and Fr Reynolds could appeal to Rome. That might take years.

Notwithstanding the recent case , the whole trial by media thing is greatly exagerated and is now used by everyone from drug dealers to bankers. When all is said and done we have had very few miscarriages of justice in in this country, we have had some but not too many.

And we have not had many convictions of priests for sexually abusing children either. Maybe ten or twenty in 100 years. There are as many rapes and sexual assaults inm the courts every day.

A much bigger issue in general and in the whole child abuse history in particular has been that justice delayed is justice denied.

I agree.

Why does everything in this country take an eternity to get to court ? As well as being just so wrong it also helps fan any media frenzy.

When the Church tries to "fasttrack" awards and compensation they are criticised for doing it.

gigino wrote: »

The church can and should report abusing clergy to the state authorities.

Welcome back gigino, Yes they should. As should the non church and non organisations.

Yet as everyone knows there was cover-ups, priests transfered to other parishes, priests transfered so they could abuse abroad, etc etc.

These are sweeping statements. You already know ther were thousands and thousands of priests ( maybe up to 20,000-30,000) in Ireland over the last century. Out of these you have 20 or maybe even 30 convicted of child sexual abuse. So the abuse was not widespread to the church. There were no widespread coverups. Im not aware of any two bishops meeting to cover up anything or of more than two bishops fully knowing about a case ( I mean reading the same file in entity) and deciding to cover it up. Of the actual convicted very few were transferred to other parishes, and zero to my knowledge transferred abroad in the knowledge that they would abuse there.

Everything except reporting them to the police / state.

Some were reported and the State didn't process it.
Some when processed took years for the State to get a conviction.

The church set itself up as an authority on moral affairs and yet it was found very wanting in this regard. If a McDonalds worker abused a child in McDonalds it would be reported to the police + the worker would not remain working there.

But you have been shown an example from Mc Donalds before where abuse did happen.

There is a logical flaw here in that you argue from ignorance i.e. if abuse happens in Mc Donalds and it is not reported and the worker remains working there how do you know the abuse happened since it has not been reported?

Why did that not happen automatically in the church ?

It didnt happen outside the church either.
People were niave and didnt think such abusers were so prevalent.

I think everyone who has been abused should report it to the police / authorities , do'nt you ?

Not necessarily. and you have been shown before why. Nor do i think everycase of drink driving or no lights on a bicycle or driving without tax on your car or speeding or every transgression of the law by your neighbor should be reported.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

But you have been shown an example from Mc Donalds before where abuse did happen.

I was not aware McDonalds ever abused a child in Ireland, unlike the RC chuch did on thousands of occassions. Do you have a link ?

ISAW wrote: »

So the abuse was not widespread to the church

But it was out of all proportion. According to the SAVI report, abuse by Religous Priests and Religous brothers/teachers accounted for 4% of child abuse. Yet Priests only account for less than 00.1 % of the population, ( currently there are just over 3000 r.c. priests in the country ) so they " punched above their weight" as it were. Do not take my word for it : the Irish government found abuse in the R. C church " endemic". You know all this already, and you have been shown the facts in different reports etc.

ISAW wrote: »

By the way, where is your support for "countless" or "4%" or "endemic"?

that has been explained to you before on numerous occassions.

Keylem

Gigino, you are rehashing the same articles over and over again, and in turn compelling ISAW to repeat the same answers - it's getting boring! Do you have have anything NEW to contribute? :rolleyes: