Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Bishop Lee

13»

Comments

  • #62
    nkay1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,975 ✭✭✭nkay1985


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    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.

    What does another ministry mean so? I can't say I'm an expert on the inner workings of the Catholic church in Ireland. Either way, it doesn't really matter. He as moved somewhere else and his new colleagues weren't informed. That's the point I'm saying is wrong.


  • #63
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    nkay1985 wrote: »
    What does another ministry mean so? I can't say I'm an expert on the inner workings of the Catholic church in Ireland. Either way, it doesn't really matter. He as moved somewhere else and his new colleagues weren't informed. That's the point I'm saying is wrong.


    He could have been made a convent chaplin, meaning he would not have contact with children, and would in all honesty be unlikely to have contact with children there, he could have been moved to diocesian offices and away from any particular parish. And before anyone say anything about convents and the schools they may be attached to, there is a difference between a convent chaplin and a school chaplin which is usually a priest of the parish in which school is located. It should also be pointed out that not all convents are attached to a school. Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.


  • #64
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    He could have been made a convent chaplin, meaning he would not have contact with children, and would in all honesty be unlikely to have contact with children there, he could have been moved to diocesian offices and away from any particular parish. And before anyone say anything about convents and the schools they may be attached to, there is a difference between a convent chaplin and a school chaplin which is usually a priest of the parish in which school is located. It should also be pointed out that not all convents are attached to a school. Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.

    So moving him so he has no contact with children in the future makes his past crimes OK........... Totally crap .

    Oh and the word cover up comes to mind.


  • #65
    nkay1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,975 ✭✭✭nkay1985


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    He could have been made a convent chaplin, meaning he would not have contact with children, and would in all honesty be unlikely to have contact with children there, he could have been moved to diocesian offices and away from any particular parish. And before anyone say anything about convents and the schools they may be attached to, there is a difference between a convent chaplin and a school chaplin which is usually a priest of the parish in which school is located. It should also be pointed out that not all convents are attached to a school. Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.

    But sure your speculation about what might have happened is only as valid as mine. What is more likely: that they sequestered him away somewhere where he'd have no contact with children or that they didn't take that precaution. I'd have to say the latter if the church's past record gives us any indication.


  • #66
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    So moving him so he has no contact with children in the future makes his past crimes OK........... Totally crap .

    Oh and the word cover up comes to mind.


    Who said it was Ok.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    Who said it was Ok.

    Well your post ,
    comes across as an excuse that if they hide him away as a convent chaplin would/could made up for the priests actions and the inactions of Bishop Lee ,

    What else do you mean by the following .

    Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.


  • #68
    Deise Tom
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,858 ✭✭✭Deise Tom


    ROCKMAN wrote: »
    Well your post ,
    comes across as an excuse that if they hide him away as a convent chaplin would/could made up for the priests actions and the inactions of Bishop Lee ,

    What else do you mean by the following .

    Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.


    There is a hell of a difference between what i said and saying that it was Ok. I did not say it was ok. read what is said, not what you think is said.


  • #69
    ROCKMAN
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,247 ✭✭✭ROCKMAN


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    There is a hell of a difference between what i said and saying that it was Ok. I did not say it was ok. read what is said, not what you think is said.


    I have read the first part of your post wrong ,and I am sorry. ie answer a question from nkay.


    Deise Tom wrote: »
    He could have been made a convent chaplin, meaning he would not have contact with children, and would in all honesty be unlikely to have contact with children there, he could have been moved to diocesian offices and away from any particular parish. And before anyone say anything about convents and the schools they may be attached to, there is a difference between a convent chaplin and a school chaplin which is usually a priest of the parish in which school is located. It should also be pointed out that not all convents are attached to a school. Maybe if this was the case then there is or was no need to bring others in on what was happening.

    But can you not see how the last line reads .


  • #70
    Cunsiderthis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 471 ✭✭Cunsiderthis


    gscully wrote: »
    Legally, no. The church's laws are governed by morals.

    It must have been their "morals", or moral laws, which led them to allow priests all over the world to continue their abuse of children by moving them about in an attempt to mask and conceal their criminality. And in the attempts to mask and conceal their criminality, they enabled it to continue.
    Some morals!


Advertisement