Cloynes Report, Christianity, etc etc

Bob Cratchet

smokingman wrote: »

I think what Bobby means here is that he thinks the Pope should be locked up.
I, for one, would agree with him here.

If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, then yes, absolutely, goal them all, but by the same law, everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, like it or not that’s the law and a principal of justice. Try working without abiding by that principle in any organisation and see how you get on.

Morgans

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

If it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, then yes, absolutely, goal them all, but by the same law, everyone must be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law, like it or not that’s the law and a principal of justice. Try working without abiding by that principle in any organisation and see how you get on.

Which law? Canon or State?

Isnt reasonable doubt used in certain circumstances?

Of course, hoping that the accused doesnt want to discuss harrowing details in public will help guilty get off.

Wouldnt it be nice if morality was the driving factor and not law. "beyond all reasonable doubt"

You dont get justice in court, you get law.

thegreengoblin

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own. All he ever seems to think of is how the Catholic church has been so badly wronged by the media. While I would expect little else from the church's unofficial spin doctor, he seems more pissed off than ever now.





Irish Independent,

Friday July 15th



By David Quinn


HOW many people in Ireland know that the clerical abuse scandals peaked in the 1970s and 1980s? How many know that of the several hundred allegations received by the church in the last two years, almost none relate to incidents that happened in the last 10 years?
How many know that a large section of public opinion grossly overestimates the number of child abusers in the priesthood, as a Royal College of Surgeons survey some years ago ascertained?
How many know that Catholic priests are no more likely to abuse children than comparable groups, which is what 'Newsweek' magazine discovered when it contacted US insurance companies to determine whether they charged a higher risk premium for Catholic priests than for other clergy?
How many know that the Cloyne Report itself acknowledges that the church's child-protection guidelines are better than the State's guidelines? It says that compared with the church's guidelines, the State's are "less precise and more difficult to implement".
It would be safe to bet that only a small proportion of the public could correctly answer the above questions.
The reason for this is that our media have no interest in making the answers known so instead we have a public that believes the phenomenon of child abuse is a particularly and peculiarly Catholic one.
The Irish church has rightly been excoriated over its child-protection failings.
The Vatican is also in the firing line. It is in the firing line because it has never made the Irish church's child-protection policy a part of church, or canon law, thereby making it mandatory, and because it has opposed mandatory reporting of child abuse allegations.
But in these two regards, the State's failures are identical to the Vatican's. The Irish State's child-protection policy, Children First, is only now being given a statutory footing and only now is the State adopting a mandatory reporting policy.
So if the Vatican deserves to be in the firing line, so does the State. But it is not in the firing line to anything like the same extent. Why not?
In fact, the State's failings in the field of child protection are manifold but they have never resulted in anything like the coverage, and therefore in anything like the degree of public outrage, given to the church's failings.
For example, a few years ago the government released a three-volume report dealing with the implementation of Children First.
Of those surveyed for it, only 16pc said the Children First guidelines were working well. Only 27pc said that the guidelines in respect of the handling of abuse allegations received by the State were being properly adhered to.
Most incredibly of all, when asked whether the HSE and the gardai were "acting in accordance with the Children First guidelines", only 13pc said 'Yes'.
This is why child-protection expert Geoffrey Shannon told RTE's 'Morning Ireland' yesterday that the failure to properly implement Children First has been abject, and it is why he accused the HSE of adopting an "a la carte approach" to the guidelines.
Similarly, the new director for child and family services in the country, Gordon Jeyes, said recently that Ireland doesn't have "a proper child-protection system".
But while there has been huge pressure on the church to get its house in order, nothing like the same pressure has been put on the State, even though the State's failure to properly abide by its own guidelines has been abysmal.
Shannon is currently presiding over an investigation into the deaths of 200 children in the last 10 years who were in the care of the State, or who were known to the State's care services.
These deaths, from violence, suicide, drug overdose, from possibly preventable diseases, have received nothing like the publicity the church scandals have received, even though they are still happening.
Shannon's report is due out some time in the autumn. When it comes out, will there be a press conference presided over by government ministers as there was with the Cloyne Report?
Will RTE broadcast the press conference live? Will its programmes feature one inveterate critic of the HSE after another? Will the first 20 minutes of its news at both 6.01 and 9pm deal with the report as was the case on Wednesday when the Cloyne Report was published?
Will there be a 'Prime Time' special? Will RTE commission several emotionally charged, two-part documentaries cataloguing the circumstances in which some of the 200 children died?
Will HSE employees who abjectly failed to protect children have to resign, or at least be named, as has rightly happened in the case of the church? Will the RTE board ask the station why it gives so much coverage to the church's child-protection failings and so little to the State's failings by comparison?
The answer to all these questions is no, because the unpalatable truth is that the only child-protection failures deemed worthy of saturation coverage are the failures of the church.

Morgans

Two wrongs make a right, Lisa.

I missed where he addresses Bishop Magee creating one report for the Vatican and one for the public in this?

When the state is proven to be involved in harbouring paedophiles and putting them in positions with access to other children, I'll admit he has a point.

Nodin

thegreengoblin wrote: »

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own. All he ever seems to think of is how the Catholic church has been so badly wronged by the media. While I would expect little else from the church's unofficial spin doctor, he seems more pissed off than ever now.

..........

...he can feel the pressure. Which is good.

Bottle_of_Smoke

have seen "the state at fault too" argument bandied about already.

Its kind of like the girl who got raped shouldn't have been walking down that alley in the first place line you sometimes hear.

Perhaps she shouldn't, and of course the state shouldn't have trusted the RC hierarcht with children.

Though sorry Davey, just like the rapist's crime is not reduced by the previous actions of another, neither is the churches crime in this instance. I'm sure you would claim you never meant that, but its clear your intentions are to take some heat off the church.

Turtwig

Did I read this right? He's asking a tonne of rhetorical questions? Is he claiming Church is victim of media? Is he actually complaining about current the lack of discussion of report into the failures of state in caring for 200 children? Isn't that report yet to be published? Is he claiming to foresee the future? Is Dave Quinn a psychic?:eek:

patjackman

Good god. Good god. The church is receiving undue attention because a) not as many kids are being abused by priests as there used to be, b) "hardly any" complaints against priests in Cloyne recently related to sexual abuse and c) a priest is as likely to abuse as a banker. Now I am a strong advocate for impartiality and balance and the need for we as a nation to take collective responsibility for the sins of the past. But to use the above arguments as a justification for balance?? Good god...

Dades

thegreengoblin wrote: »

I know there is a separate thread on the current scandals but I think this man's stance deserves a thread of its own.

I'm disinclined to give this man his own thread (albeit a critical one) when others are merged or moved.

(Also, I don't want to see his name on the first page every time I log on.)

tricky D

Malty_T wrote: »

Is he claiming Church is victim of media? Is he actually complaining about current the lack of discussion of report into the failures of state in caring for 200 children?

Heard him on NewsTalk this afternoon claiming pretty much that and trying to sling mud at previous governments. Also did a good job in deflecting the issues with the subject of the seal of confession which is barely relevant (leaving aside the argument as to whether that seal is more important than fucking up peoples' lives from childhood for carnal kicks). The irony is there was a previous interview about reputation mangement and damage limitation wrt News International and there he was popping up soon after using deflection of blame, red herrings, and other media damage limitation techniques and that even Murdoch's cronies haven't stooped to.

Just makes me more angry.

robindch

patjackman wrote: »

c) a priest is as likely to abuse as a banker.

The available evidence suggests that a priest is between 40 and 80 times more likely than a banker, to be a person who is (a) convicted of child-abuse, or (b) somebody against whom credible evidence of child-abuse has been lodged.

I realize that evidence isn't Quinn's strong point, but ignoring an average factor of 60 is stretching it even for him.

robindch

From the Indo:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/papal-visit-in-doubt-as-relations-worsen-2822410.html

The Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

Nodin

...and though wrong, he seems to be right, if you follow me.

Doctor DooM

Pardon my ignorance... is it a crime to withhold potential evidence about abuse in Ireland?

Obstructing the course of justice or something?

Bob Cratchet

robindch wrote: »

From the Indo:

"Originally Posted by The Indo
A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/papal-visit-in-doubt-as-relations-worsen-2822410.html

Therein lies the biggest problem, everyone keeps taking about "the Church" whereas in reality it's a collection of independent Bishops.

axer

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Pardon my ignorance... is it a crime to withhold potential evidence about abuse in Ireland?

Obstructing the course of justice or something?

I don't think there was a specific law being broken so they are legislating for it now. But ffs having to legally force priests to do the right thing is a joke tbh and even at that a number of priests won't break the confessional seal because they will be automatically excommunicated requiring the pope himself to unexcommunicate them.

So basically they are being selfish b@stards putting their own interests before saving a child from from sexual abuse. Surely a morally good person would take the view "if I get excommunicated for saving a child from a destroyed life due to child abuse then so be it".

Bob Cratchet

axer wrote: »

So basically they are being selfish b@stards putting their own interests before saving a child from from sexual abuse. Surely a morally good person would take the view "if I get excommunicated for saving a child from a destroyed life due to child abuse then so be it".

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

Nodin

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

Therein lies the biggest problem, everyone keeps taking about "the Church" whereas in reality it's a collection of independent Bishops.

Should he have breached church doctrine on abortion or gay marriage, I'd think you'd see just how "independent" he was.

Bob Cratchet

Nodin wrote: »

Should he have breached church doctrine on abortion or gay marriage, I'd think you'd see just how "independent" he was.

Not if he covered up abortion and gay marriage.

Delirium

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

not all confessions have to anonymous, my understanding is it's anonymous for joe public but not necessarily between priests and another priest/bishop.


and just thinking on it some more, I'm pretty sure someone can ask for confession and in that case the priest knows who is in the confessional.

Morgans

Isnt the confessional seal issue a huge red herring to deflect attention? Its an interesting what if question that should be made clear for the future BUT the reactions of the bishops/monseignor in the cloyne report were not as a result of confessions.

robindch

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ?

I'm going out on limb here, but I could imagine that one priest might go to another to confess about some abuse he's committed. And the second guy recognizes the other guy's voice.

I'm sure the church will find a way around that law. It always has before.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

I'm sure the church will find a way around that law. It always has before.

Ignoring it tends to work.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Ignoring it tends to work.

Well, more precisely, pretending the law doesn't apply to you seems to do the trick:

The Indo wrote:

A spokesman for Cashel Archbishop Dermot Clifford said: "Bishop Magee is a retired bishop and is accountable only to the Pope."

I'd like to hear Mr Clifford explain exactly why he thinks that Irish Law shouldn't apply to an Irish Citizen for events that took place in Ireland.

axer

Bob Cratchet wrote: »

How exactly does an anonymous confession reveal enough details to protect any child ? It's a politcal stunt by politians instead of convicting the abusers with the proof and evidence they have gathered in the reports.

anonymous? When I was a teen in secondary school we never had annonymous confessions. We would be face to face with the priest and I know that many priests give confessions to other priests in this manner also. So please stop talking $hite.

The point here is that priests still think they should not report a most henous crime because of religious laws that they seem to think override civil law.

MrPudding

axer wrote: »

anonymous? When I was a teen in secondary school we never had annonymous confessions. We would be face to face with the priest and I know that many priests give confessions to other priests in this manner also. So please stop talking $hite.

The point here is that priests still think they should not report a most henous crime because of religious laws that they seem to think override civil law.

Additionally, even when confession was “anonymous” the priests knew most people and anonymity was really a bit of a joke. That said, because of the problems the church is having now, not enough priests for example, I think it is becoming more likely that a confession, in the traditional setting, might actually be anonymous. Priests have to cover multiple parishes now so are less likely to know everyone.

At the end of the day the seal of confession is a makey uppy rule which has no statutory weight. The church may have its own law, but that law is and must be subservient to the law of the land.

As a UK judge said in the case where a relate employee was seeking to have his desire to discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation protected by the law, and I am paraphrasing here, “The law protects a person right to hold a religious belief, it should not protect the contents of that belief.” He went on to say that as a religious belief was a personal thing which may appear irrational to others, it could not form the basis of legal protection.

I like this opinion. It makes sense to me. If we apply it to the seal of confession then it is quite apparent that the seal of confession can and should be broken in cases where a reportable crime is confessed.

Will this stop people confessing? Maybe... But then so what? What if they don’t confess? What is the downside? If they confess and nothing happens or they don’t confess and nothing happens what is the difference?

MrP

Dades

Out of curiosity what's the law regarding lay-people?

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?
Is there a legal (rather than the obvious moral) obligation on me to tell the Gardaí?

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?

I believe there's a legal requirement that citizens report crimes they're aware of, or of threats to commit crimes (remember during the Lisbon debate when a poster said they'd be voting on behalf of every (missing) person in the house he lived in and a kerfuffle was raised?)

My memory suggests that this was brought in about ten years back, particularly with reference to accountants being required to report suspicious accounts, but don't ask me to quote act + year though!

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

Out of curiosity what's the law regarding lay-people?

Say somebody confides in me that they abused a child - am I breaking the law if I don't report it?
Is there a legal (rather than the obvious moral) obligation on me to tell the Gardaí?

I was always under the impression that, at least in the UK, if you knew of a child being abused you had an obligation to report it. Now I am not so sure.

Perhaps it is one of those things that they think is so obviously, I mean really, if you found out about a child being raped would you really only report it if you were legally obligated to...

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

The church may have its own law, but that law is and must be subservient to the law of the land.

Worth bearing in mind McDowell's comment that "With respect to Irish Law, Canon Law has the same weight as a golf club's rules.".

Turtwig

axer wrote: »

anonymous? When I was a teen in secondary school we never had annonymous confessions. We would be face to face with the priest and I know that many priests give confessions to other priests in this manner also.

LOL, such was my paranoia and trust that all my admitted sins amounted to nothing more than not sweeping the floor when told, or washing the dishes, or being vaguely mean to someone with no details given. Then afterwards everyone would ask each other what penance the priest gave them. Ha! I only got one Hail Mary!

Dades

robindch wrote: »

I believe there's a legal requirement that citizens report crimes they're aware of, or of threats to commit crimes (remember during the Lisbon debate when a poster said they'd be voting on behalf of every (missing) person in the house he lived in and a kerfuffle was raised?)

My memory suggests that this was brought in about ten years back, particularly with reference to accountants being required to report suspicious accounts, but don't ask me to quote act + year though!

MrPudding wrote: »

I was always under the impression that, at least in the UK, if you knew of a child being abused you had an obligation to report it. Now I am not so sure.

Perhaps it is one of those things that they think is so obviously, I mean really, if you found out about a child being raped would you really only report it if you were legally obligated to...

MrP

Well it would be interesting to clarify, as if there was no actual provision in law then it would be an odd anomaly that only priests were suddenly obliged to report crimes.

Turtwig

Priests also have to be wary about this at confession.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVcSczfLn48

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

Well it would be interesting to clarify, as if there was no actual provision in law then it would be an odd anomaly that only priests were suddenly obliged to report crimes.

So I have done a little bit of digging… This is relevant to the UK, but I think Ireland is similar, if not the same. I haven’t had time to research the Irish side fully. There is no requirement for an individual to report child abuse. However, some people may have a duty to report because of the type of job they carry out. So, if your job, or even voluntary work you carry out, entails a duty of care towards children then your employer, or club you are involved in, must have a child protection policy. It seems that this also brings with it a legal obligation to report abuse to suspected abuse.

MrP

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

I believe there's a legal requirement that citizens report crimes they're aware of, or of threats to commit crimes (remember during the Lisbon debate when a poster said they'd be voting on behalf of every (missing) person in the house he lived in and a kerfuffle was raised?)

My memory suggests that this was brought in about ten years back, particularly with reference to accountants being required to report suspicious accounts, but don't ask me to quote act + year though!

It would appear that law isn't aimed at this kind of offence

THE Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) declined to prosecute Bishop John Magee because a 1997 law under which gardai wanted him charged was "not broad enough" to deal with the cleric's alleged concealment.
Legal sources say the DPP believed that any prosecution was likely to be challenged and immediately thrown out of court because the 'proofs' -- the evidence required to meet the charge -- could not be met.

It could not be proved that Dr Magee made a financial gain from withholding information from the authorities about a paedophile priest. The evidence he gave to the authorities stood in stark contrast to a version about the priest that he supplied to the Vatican.

(my bold etc)
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/law-too-narrow-for-magee-prosecution-2823989.html

Dades

MrPudding wrote: »

So, if your job, or even voluntary work you carry out, entails a duty of care towards children then your employer, or club you are involved in, must have a child protection policy. It seems that this also brings with it a legal obligation to report abuse to suspected abuse.

Well I'm thinking you could lump priests in with groups who have a duty of care. Might not be so odd to "single" them out then if this is true.

MrPudding

Dades wrote: »

Well I'm thinking you could lump priests in with groups who have a duty of care. Might not be so odd to "single" them out then if this is true.

Exactly what I was thinking. In fact, I am pretty sure I recall one of the apologists on the other side mentioning child protection policies that were brought in. It just seems like they think having the policy is enough, they don’t appear to follow it.

MrP

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Well, more precisely, pretending the law doesn't apply to you seems to do the trick:I'd like to hear Mr Clifford explain exactly why he thinks that Irish Law shouldn't apply to an Irish Citizen for events that took place in Ireland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-jXe0x4YdM

Delirium

Article in the Independent as to why the confessional seal must remain.

The writer makes it sound like if the law goes ahead to require mandatory reporting that priests will announce it to angry mobs. And that the law is the first step on the road to state fascism :rolleyes:

Ghost Buster

koth wrote: »

Article in the Independent as to why the confessional seal must remain.

The writer makes it sound like if the law goes ahead to require mandatory reporting that priests will announce it to angry mobs. And that the law is the first step on the road to state fascism :rolleyes:

Ah Mary Kenny. Just be thankful that she is too old to breed with David Quinn:eek::eek::eek:

strobe

MrPudding wrote: »

I was always under the impression that, at least in the UK, if you knew of a child being abused you had an obligation to report it. Now I am not so sure.

Perhaps it is one of those things that they think is so obviously, I mean really, if you found out about a child being raped would you really only report it if you were legally obligated to...

MrP

I know that when I was on probation (another proud moment for Strobe :rolleyes:) my probation officer said that anything I told her in confidence would stay between us, excluding me telling her I abused someone, was abused by someone or knew of someone being abused, as she was legally required to inform the Gardai in that situation. So for state employees at least there apparently already exists a legal obligation to report.

Galvasean

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ah Mary Kenny. Just be thankful that she is too old to breed with David Quinn:eek::eek::eek:

My first guess was Quinn. Forgot about Kenny. She's not as prolific in terms of pro-Catholicism claptrap, but by golly when she spouts it boy does she spout it!

axer

I hate to say it but wouldn't someone please think of the children! FFS that idiot kenny is arguing that the abuser's right to confess confidentially (with the penance being a few hail marys) is more important than the abused child's right to not be abused.

Penn

koth wrote: »

Article in the Independent as to why the confessional seal must remain.

The writer makes it sound like if the law goes ahead to require mandatory reporting that priests will announce it to angry mobs. And that the law is the first step on the road to state fascism :rolleyes:

What a horrible, horrible article.

Firstly, her STD comparison is scaremongering. She's trying to make it out that if this law is passed, everything you say to any professional can become public. Ridiculous.

Secondly, I would commend and personally shake the hand of any person with paedophile tendencies who wanted to get treatment. I would drive them somewhere they could get help. So long as they had never acted on those tendencies. With Sarah's Law etc, surely you can't be placed on the sex offenders register if you haven't committed a sexual offence? Once again, scaremongering.

Thirdly:

You might be encouraged to go to the law -- but that would be for your own conscience to decide.

If paedophiles abuse a child, certainly they have broken the law and should be charged.

Yet, individuals with a paedophile orientation also need treatment.

The priests who abused children were not encouraged to go to the law. They were hidden by bishops and their own organisation. And it shouldn't be for your own conscience to decide. If you committed these acts, there is something fundamentally wrong with your conscience. Yes, people with a paedophile orientation do need treatment, whether they have acted on that orientation or not. But if they have acted on that orientation and abused a child, they have broken the law and should be charged, regardless of whether or not they admitted it in a 'Secrets Box'.

The article is a bunch of over-dramatic, scaremongering nonsense. She doesn't even seem to be trying to defend the Catholic Church. She's trying to defend people's rights to break the law and have someone to confess to in order to help clear your conscience a bit or take the weight off your shoulders without the fear of being arrested.

eoin5

Is there a risk of some priests becoming heros/martyrs to a large element if they refuse to disclose their info?

Penn

eoin5 wrote: »

Is there a risk of some priests becoming heros/martyrs to a large element if they refuse to disclose their info?

I'd say the opposite to be honest. If they're found to have refused to disclose their info, the important thing about that which would stick in most people's minds is that that info was about someone who confessed to abusing a child, and may have continued to do so after the confession took place. It's the same with the article posted a few posts back, priests aren't going to be forced to reveal everything someone confessed to them, only matters relating to child abuse. I don't think anyone would applaud the priest for refusing to reveal that information. Quite the opposite.

Ghost Buster

Barrington wrote: »

I'd say the opposite to be honest. If they're found to have refused to disclose their info, the important thing about that which would stick in most people's minds is that that info was about someone who confessed to abusing a child, and may have continued to do so after the confession took place. It's the same with the article posted a few posts back, priests aren't going to be forced to reveal everything someone confessed to them, only matters relating to child abuse. I don't think anyone would applaud the priest for refusing to reveal that information. Quite the opposite.

Oh but there will be some. There a lotta hard core Catholic out there.......:eek:
I can point you in the direction of some on Boards

Penn

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Oh but there will be some. There a lotta hard core Catholic out there.......:eek:
I can point you in the direction of some on Boards

Oh yeah, there'll always be some (And Hello if you're reading this), but hero/martyr? There'll still be far more who would see him as a villain than a hero

eoin5

Barrington wrote: »

Oh yeah, there'll always be some (And Hello if you're reading this), but hero/martyr? There'll still be far more who would see him as a villain than a hero

I really hope so, I think some people take the sacrement thing so seriously that they wouldn't even want to hear what the rest of the story is about.

axer

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2011/0719/1224300946807.html

Church's solicitor guarded every angle
A NAME that crops up with conspicuous frequency in the Cloyne report, when it comes to “restraint” on the part of Catholic Church authorities in co-operating with State inquiries into child sex-abuse allegations, is that of solicitor Diarmuid Ó Catháin.

This is the same Ó Catháin who advised Cardinal Desmond Connell when in 2008 he initiated High Court action against his successor as Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. That was an attempt to restrain Archbishop Martin from handing over documents to the Murphy commission which the cardinal deemed confidential to himself personally. Cardinal Connell later dropped the action and the documents were handed over.

This is the same Ó Catháin who attended a controversial meeting in Limerick on March 30th, 2006, as a member of the interdiocesan case management advisory committee of Cloyne and Limerick dioceses. Set up in 2005, this committee advised then bishop of Cloyne John Magee and then bishop of Limerick Donal Murray on handling allegations of clerical child-sex abuse.

At that meeting Ó Catháin and two priests representing Limerick diocese met 37-year-old Peter McCloskey, who alleged that in 1980 and 1981 he was repeatedly raped by a priest in Limerick. Bishop Murray later issued a statement saying he “completely accepts the truth” of McCloskey’s allegations.

Deirdre Fitzpatrick, then of the One in Four group, accompanied McCloskey at the meeting and recalled he was “very distressed and disappointed” afterwards.

She was critical of Ó Catháin for suggesting the diocese could sue McCloskey for costs should he proceed with court action. Three days later, on April 1st, 2006, McCloskey died by suicide.

Ó Catháin was solicitor for Cloyne diocese. Msgr Denis O’Callaghan was child protection delegate there. Both were on the interdiocesan case management advisory committee of Cloyne and Limerick dioceses, set up in 2005. This, the report said, “was not appropriately constituted” as Msgr O’Callaghan and Ó Catháin’s other roles “made it virtually impossible for them to give the sort of independent advice which the bishops needed”.

A member of this committee said the meetings were dominated by Msgr O’Callaghan, Ó Catháin and the priest delegate from Limerick. “It was not permissible to express a contrary opinion,” he told the commission.

The Cloyne priest delegate from 2008 to June 2010, Fr Bill Bermingham, told the commission Ó Catháin “did not agree with the procedures and policies underlying the [Bishops’ 1996 Framework] document”, as the report put it.

Ó Catháin told the commission he had reservations about the mandatory reporting element of the document the bishops had adopted “despite his expressed views to the contrary”. He said he saw no conflict in his being a member of the case management advisory committee while acting as solicitor for the diocese in clerical child sex-abuse cases.

An indication of Ó Catháin’s approach can be gleaned from the case of Fr Drust. An allegation was made in 2002 by “Ula” that she had been sexually abused by the priest between 1967 and 1971. In 2003 gardaí sought a statement from Bishop Magee. Ó Catháin told the commission he explained to a Garda sergeant investigating the case that “if a matter was discussed in confidence with a bishop, the bishop could not disclose the confidence without first getting, obtaining, the consent of the person who had reposed the confidence”. He told the sergeant, as he recalled it for the commission, he believed “it was in the interests of the common good that Magee should not be asked to make a statement”.

When, later, the sergeant met Bishop Magee, he was assured of total co-operation. It was not to be the case. Through a solicitor, Bishop Magee declined to make a statement or to supply a copy of Ula’s handwritten account. His solicitor said the document was “a church document and hence confidential”. Bishop Magee would not make a statement “in consideration for the public good and the maintenance of the confidentiality of the church”.

In the case of Fr Brendan Wrixon, accused of abuse by “Patrick”, Bishop Magee gave two accounts of a meeting he had with the priest on September 22nd, 2005. An accurate account, where the priest admitted guilt, was sent to Rome and a fictional one, where he denied the allegations, was for diocesan records. When asked by the commission why he prepared two accounts, Bishop Magee said he had inquired from Msgr O’Callaghan and Ó Catháin about his correspondence to the Vatican and “was assured it was a privileged relationship and. . . would not be discoverable. . . ” He found out later this was not so. According to the report Ó Catháin told the commission he had “no recollection of Bishop Magee consulting him directly about this issue. . . ”

In the summer of 2008, the case management committee reacted vigorously to draft findings of the church’s child protection watchdog – its National Board for Safeguarding Children – that child protection practices in Cloyne were “inadequate and in some respects dangerous”. On July 9th, 2008, it sent a forcefully-worded letter to the board saying: “If you issue this report in its present form or include its distortions in your forthcoming annual report, we shall have no choice but to seek remedies in either ecclesiastical or secular courts or both.” Among the signatories were Msgr O’Callaghan and Ó Catháin.

The bolded part above just stuck out for me.

This guy has no morals or compassion. I believe he was actually fired in 2009 by the Cloyne dioceses and before that by the limerick dioceses.