Bishop Lee

ROCKMAN

merlante wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not like the Bishop condoned the actions of the priest either. A more balanced reporting of the case is here btw: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0325/breaking8.html (think it's been changed since earlier though).

As I see it, his mistakes can be summarised as follows:
1. He reported the case to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993.
2. The "professional advice" he sought was wrong and he was wrong to take it.
3. Rather than remove the priest immediately, he sent him for a psych evaluation (which concluded that he was fit to continue his ministry).
4. Lee went along with the evaluation rather than canning the priest one way or the other.

Mitigating factors seem to be that the complainants were not interested in taking the case further, and the fact that Lee was only in the job 3 months. Remember that to this day, 15 years after he had informed the gardai, nobody has been prosecuted. Also, the man seems to be ashamed of his handling of the situation, even though other bishops handled the abuse far worse and were reluctant to take the blame.

We could find out later that he was the worst bishop in the country, but not on the basis of what has come out so far I think...

Ok leave out the part that a third example in 1996 found the priest in question unfit and he was removed from ministry and is under supervision , Because it does not really help your point .

Also another way of looking at it is ,
That three young people went to bishop Lee for help at the time the crimes where actual happening ,when they where at their lowest , And received no real help or real support , instead the Bishop tried to help the priest [one way of keeping it hush hush] and not his victims ,
Yes two years later he ask them if they wanted to complain .Two fcuking years later . would you like to reopen old wounds then , some people can ,some people take years and some never can ,
But if he had help them back 1993 and given them real support maybe they could have got the inner strength to see it through , maybe..
Also been in the job only three months is no excuse , 3 months or 30 years , children were been hurt ,and his main concern as a so-called community leader should have been them.

Who did the two year delay really help
The Church and the Priest
Job well done Bishop Lee.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

Yeah, but it's not like the Bishop condoned the actions of the priest either. A more balanced reporting of the case is here btw: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0325/breaking8.html (think it's been changed since earlier though).

As I see it, his mistakes can be summarised as follows:
1. He reported the case to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993.
2. The "professional advice" he sought was wrong and he was wrong to take it.
3. Rather than remove the priest immediately, he sent him for a psych evaluation (which concluded that he was fit to continue his ministry).
4. Lee went along with the evaluation rather than canning the priest one way or the other.

Mitigating factors seem to be that the complainants were not interested in taking the case further, and the fact that Lee was only in the job 3 months. Remember that to this day, 15 years after he had informed the gardai, nobody has been prosecuted. Also, the man seems to be ashamed of his handling of the situation, even though other bishops handled the abuse far worse and were reluctant to take the blame.

We could find out later that he was the worst bishop in the country, but not on the basis of what has come out so far I think...

I'm sorry Merlante but I can see no way that a sound-minded individual can even begin to rationalise Lee's actions like you are doing.

He was wrong. End of. Completely and utterly wrong. Whatever excuses he, or anyone else, tries to offer, that's all they are: excuses. How many other children did he put at risk by allowing this priest to be moved to another parish?

And I couldn't care less how sorry he feels. Boo-fcuking hoo for him. He hasn't a leg to stand on here and he, like every other bishop and priest who had any part to play in the abuse and the cover-up, should be fcuked out unceremoniously at the very least.

merlante

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Ok leave out the part that a third example in 1996 found the priest in question unfit and he was removed from ministry and is under supervision , Because it does not really help your point .

Also another way of looking at it is ,
That three young people went to bishop Lee for help at the time the crimes where actual happening ,when they where at their lowest , And received no real help or real support , instead the Bishop tried to help the priest [one way of keeping it hush hush] and not his victims ,
Yes two years later he ask them if they wanted to complain .Two fcuking years later . would you like to reopen old wounds then , some people can ,some people take years and some never can ,
But if he had help them back 1993 and given them real support maybe they could have got the inner strength to see it through , maybe..
Also been in the job only three months is no excuse , 3 months or 30 years , children were been hurt ,and his main concern as a so-called community leader should have been them.

Who did the two year delay really help
The Church and the Priest
Job well done Bishop Lee.

If you read the article, it said:

Dr Lee said three people approached him in December 1993, "a few months" after his ordination as bishop.

They old him they had been sexually abused by the priest. He said he met them in 1993 and 1994. He said they described to him - ‘without the administration of an oath’ instances in which they claimed they were sexually abused as children.

Dr Lee said he "satisfied" himself with regard to the supports then available to the complainants and sought professional advice to see what action he should take.

So he saw that they victims had the support they needed and sought advice to see what action he should take. He did speak to them in 1993 and 1994.

The priest also had to be dealt with one way or another. I really don't think, from what is in this article, that he took the side of the priest. Fair enough if he did, but that's not what comes out from my reading of it.

He *said* he met and victims and ensured that they were sorted. He said he took advice on what to do. He said he had the priest psychologically evaluated. Two years later he went to the gardai personally. The victims could have gone to the gardai before that themselves. Not a perfect response, but for 1993, not a bad one either. At least on the surface of it.

I'm not going to argue this anymore, because people don't want to hear it, and anyway, we probably don't know the full story yet anyway.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

I'm not going to argue this anymore, because people don't want to hear it, and anyway, we probably don't know the full story yet anyway.

No, I'm sorry but you can't get away with the "people don't want to hear it" thing. The reason that people don't want to hear it is that it's crap.

Put yourself in that position. You find out that a priest is abusing children. How do you not straight away report that person to the Gardaí. You become aware of a crime, yet choose not to report it. It doesn't matter whether the families reported it; that is of no concern to you. You, as a law-abiding citizen with your own moral compass have a duty to report this disgusting crime.

It's good that he satisfied himself that the victims were getting the necessary support but secondary to that should be to report the criminal to the relevant authorities, in this case the Gardaí. He didn't do this and it's a massive failing that he didn't. Not only did he not do this, but he allowed this priest to be moved somewhere else knowing the risk he was putting other children at. It's completely inexcusable and it sickens me.

JohnC.

It sickens me to hear people on the radio (usually old biddies) continue to defend them, saying they did nothing wrong. It's amazing to what extent people are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Thankfully, they are in the minority now.

deisemum

Kahless wrote: »

It sickens me to hear people on the radio (usually old biddies) continue to defend them, saying they did nothing wrong. It's amazing to what extent people are willing to bury their heads in the sand. Thankfully, they are in the minority now.

I agree with you, I was absolutely sickened to hear so many people from Galway defend Brady and not only that but some of the old biddies had the brass neck of a jockey to criticise the victims.

ziedth

They are not as bad as those guys in Kerry who hugged that rapist IMO.

These old biddies have been nothing short of brainwashed since children and let's be frank that generation don't question things like ours.

My mother god love her would have been a devout catholic I'm talking lourdes follow church law and the whole nine yards. Even she says that she doesn't look up to the church anymore and is going to take a similar line to me and just be religious in your own way.

Speak Now

Seems to be a pattern of people defending their own bishops but being much more critical when it's someone "up the country" :rolleyes:

merlante

nkay1985 wrote: »

No, I'm sorry but you can't get away with the "people don't want to hear it" thing. The reason that people don't want to hear it is that it's crap.

Put yourself in that position. You find out that a priest is abusing children. How do you not straight away report that person to the Gardaí. You become aware of a crime, yet choose not to report it. It doesn't matter whether the families reported it; that is of no concern to you. You, as a law-abiding citizen with your own moral compass have a duty to report this disgusting crime.

It's good that he satisfied himself that the victims were getting the necessary support but secondary to that should be to report the criminal to the relevant authorities, in this case the Gardaí. He didn't do this and it's a massive failing that he didn't. Not only did he not do this, but he allowed this priest to be moved somewhere else knowing the risk he was putting other children at. It's completely inexcusable and it sickens me.

I don't have to get away with anything, I've given you my honest opinion. I have put myself in the bishop's position, something I don't think anybody is bothered doing, including yourself.

The man had a responsibility to help the victims, deal with the priest, and deal with any legal repercussions. He claims to have spoken to the victims and satisfied himself as to their support. He claims to have dealt with the priest by having him evaluated. He claims he took advice on how to handle the whole thing. The victims evidently didn't want to press charges and he obviously decided that he wouldn't go to the gardai if they wouldn't. As it turns out the man changes his mind 2 years later when things have moved on. Not an ideal response, but he has apologised.

For my money, he did a reasonable job for the standards of 1993 -- particularly compared to his colleagues that actively ignored victims and covered up over a period of decades.

Now that is my opinion, you have said nothing that would cause me to rethink it except calling what I'm saying 'crap'.

You seem to ignore the fact that the victims were happy not to take the matter further and there has never been an investigation. If the victims don't want an investigation it's arguably not the right thing to do for the bishop -- who legally has nothing to do with the priest or the victim -- to report the incident unilaterally anyway.

merlante

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

Seems to be a pattern of people defending their own bishops but being much more critical when it's someone "up the country" :rolleyes:

It's pretty typical of a witch hunt when people are condemned as a group and the specific cases are not looked at. People know more about their local bishops. In any case, there are definitely degrees of badness in this whole thing.

Speak Now

merlante wrote: »

It's pretty typical of a witch hunt when people are condemned as a group and the specific cases are not looked at. People know more about their local bishops. In any case, there are definitely degrees of badness in this whole thing.

People know very little about their own bishops as it's turning out.

There are no "degrees of badness" when it come to turning a blind eye to these predators.

ziedth

I have to say Merlante,

You have fought your corner very well here, IMHO it is irrelevent that the victims did not want to press charges.

Nkay hit the nail on the head the church has claimed in some way for decades to have a moral high ground on the rest of us. Obviously that rightfully has all been washed away!

I agree with your point that it SEEMS. That bishop Lee has acted better then other priests/bishops around the country espically given the time.

But, if a man kills 3 people but various other people kill 10 should we excuse the man who killed 3 just because he wasn't as bad?

Although extreme this is what it comes down to. Although yes he is not as guilty as bishops who made people swear not to give eveidence etc he still covered up the crime.

gscully

merlante wrote: »

You seem to ignore the fact that the victims were happy not to take the matter further and there has never been an investigation. If the victims don't want an investigation it's arguably not the right thing to do for the bishop -- who legally has nothing to do with the priest or the victim -- to report the incident unilaterally anyway.

Legally, no. The church's laws are governed by morals. Bishop Lee and all other bishops had a moral duty to report the crimes, yet they didn't.

merlante

Jerry Seinfeld wrote: »

People know very little about their own bishops as it's turning out.

There are no "degrees of badness" when it come to turning a blind eye to these predators.

Sure there are, the bishop could have not reported it at all, hidden the priest, threatened the victims with huge shame and media exposure. Hell, the bishop could have indulged himself. If you think it couldn't have been worse, you have no imagination.

merlante

ziedth wrote: »

I have to say Merlante,

You have fought your corner very well here, IMHO it is irrelevent that the victims did not want to press charges.

Nkay hit the nail on the head the church has claimed in some way for decades to have a moral high ground on the rest of us. Obviously that rightfully has all been washed away!

I agree with your point that it SEEMS. That bishop Lee has acted better then other priests/bishops around the country espically given the time.

But, if a man kills 3 people but various other people kill 10 should we excuse the man who killed 3 just because he wasn't as bad?

Although extreme this is what it comes down to. Although yes he is not as guilty as bishops who made people swear not to give eveidence etc he still covered up the crime.

But I mean, are we just castigating the man for going to the gardai in 1995 rather than in 1993. Is that all we're doing? The bishop didn't kill, rape or coverup -- that we know of.

I'm not convinced I'd have done much better than he did tbh, from what I can gather. If the victims were satisfied, and I convinced myself that procedures were being followed then I'd probably feel justified in trying not to scandalise the church.

I think I'm just going to leave this one run for a while without following up because we're operating in a vacuum of information, and I'm not really all that bothered about defending bishops anyway.

ROCKMAN

Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

How which part is Bishop Lee legally not responsible for . Actual knowledge a crime had be committed , that his action or inaction was helping the criminals commit the crime or evade detection

merlante

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Knowledge of the crime
To be convicted of an accessory charge, the accused must generally be proved to have had actual knowledge that a crime was going to be, or had been, committed. Furthermore, there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape. A person who unknowingly houses a person who has just committed a crime, for instance, may not be charged with an accessory offense because they did not have knowledge of the crime.

How which part is Bishop Lee legally not responsible for . Actual knowledge a crime had be committed , that his action or inaction was helping the criminals commit the crime or evade detection

"there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape"

Was he trying to do this? The gardai have not charged him as an accessory despite knowing that he didn't report the incidents for 2 years.

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

ROCKMAN

merlante wrote: »

"there must be proof that the accessory knew that his or her action, or inaction, was helping the criminals commit the crime, or evade detection, or escape"

Was he trying to do this? The gardai have not charged him as an accessory despite knowing that he didn't report the incidents for 2 years.

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

Has fcuk all to do with it , as a church leader , the priest's boss , as a community figure head ,man of the cloth and a member of the human race , it was his moral and legal duty to report this crime. and no matter what way you dress it up or dance with words / facts .He is guilty as sin.




Ps Normally with this type of crime ,the person reporting is normally not the victim but a parent ,teacher ,youth worker etc etc

..

Roy Rogers

merlante wrote: »

The basic fact is that the victims could have gone to the gardai themselves. They weren't threatened or forced to take an oath -- that we know of.

You get the same hesitance in all rape cases though -- I've often heard how most rapes are never reported because they're so hard to prove, and the victims often just want to put it behind them.

As for why the guards haven't arrested him as accessory yet -- it's just politics, really. It's not just one individual, it's a high-level representative of organisation that is still, unfortunately, one of the most powerful in the country, and one that's heavily tied into the state itself.

ROCKMAN

ALSO
If these three victims had approached Bishop Lee and reported their football coach of these crimes . Do you think he would have acted the same and waited two years.
I doubt it very much.

nkay1985

merlante wrote: »

For my money, he did a reasonable job for the standards of 1993 -- particularly compared to his colleagues that actively ignored victims and covered up over a period of decades.

You see, this is the sentence that particularly grates on me. I can't comprehend how you think there are different standards for dealing with crime just because it was 17 years ago. Wrong is wrong. This was wrong. This should have been reported to the authorities.

And let's say it was the right thing to not go to the Gardaí with the information because that was requested by the family (diverting from this case here). Fair enough if you make entirely sure that that person never has any interaction with children again, or at the very very least that the people who work with him are aware of his past so that they can keep an eye out. But he didn't even do this. This is far more serious than not going to the Gardaí. He put more children in danger of abuse. I just wonder do some people not realise the gravity of the situation!

seanybiker

I remember making my confirmation and walking up towards him. I was waiting for a slap in the face off him. Why do older brothers bully us like that haha.

deisemum

Just because it happened 17 years ago is no excuse for not doing what he knew was the right thing to do as it's his job to know what's right and what's wrong after all that's what his job is about. Children as young as 7 and 8 know what's right and what's wrong when they're making their first communion.

deisemum

seanybiker wrote: »

I remember making my confirmation and walking up towards him. I was waiting for a slap in the face off him. Why do older brothers bully us like that haha.

I made my confirmation nearly 35 years ago and the bishop gave enough of a slap across the face to the girl in front of me, it left a red mark on her face :eek:

ziedth

Your ****ting me? Why?

seanybiker

deisemum wrote: »

I made my confirmation nearly 35 years ago and the bishop gave enough of a slap across the face to the girl in front of me, it left a red mark on her face :eek:

No way. I thought that was all bull that older people said to me to freak me out when making my confirmation. Madness I tells ya. I was ready to be the first to stand upto him and hit him back ha ha. Should have seen the head on the first person in line to go upto him.

deisemum

seanybiker wrote: »

No way. I thought that was all bull that older people said to me to freak me out when making my confirmation. Madness I tells ya. I was ready to be the first to stand upto him and hit him back ha ha. Should have seen the head on the first person in line to go upto him.

I swear it's true, 4th,5th and 6th class made confirmation together every 3 years and most of us were jaundiced and sick. As soon as the ceremony was over we just went home, too sick for enjoying ourselves.

Deise Tom

merlante wrote: »

The "professional advice" he sought was wrong

Thats the thing that is wrong with this whole story. Bishop Lee sought advise and got wrong advise. Why are people not asking questions of this person or people.

Deise Tom

nkay1985 wrote: »

allowing this priest to be moved to another parish?

A question for you. Where in the statement did it say that the Priest in question was moved to another parish. In the statement published in yesterdays Irish Times it said the priest was moved to another Ministry

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0326/1224267098250.html

An appointment for a priest by a bishop does not always mean that he is sent to a parish. This to some might sound strange but it is true.

Maybe, the priest was moved to another parish, but the statement does not say this. I think we should comment on the facts that are before us, not the ones we actually we think are before us.

seanybiker

deisemum wrote: »

I swear it's true, 4th,5th and 6th class made confirmation together every 3 years and most of us were jaundiced and sick. As soon as the ceremony was over we just went home, too sick for enjoying ourselves.

ha Ha me father said he got a slap aswell. He said it wasnt to bad. Kind of a weird thing to do.