tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post2730535656501016182..comments2024-03-11T09:39:22.914+00:00Comments on Ex Umbris Et Imaginibus: Celibacy In The ClearFather Directorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17910574198138234820noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-9018901713141138392011-05-19T17:27:22.309+01:002011-05-19T17:27:22.309+01:00continued...
While there is no mandatory reporti...continued...<br /><br /><br />While there is no mandatory reporting of complaints for child sexual abuse in Irish<br />law, the Archdiocese committed to mandatory reporting since 1996. I am on record<br />as advocating this approach since 1990.<br />When I was appointed Apostolic Administrator in Ferns I piloted, with the Diocesan<br />Team, the inter-agency meetings whereby the diocese, HSE and Gardai met to share<br />information so as to inform best practice in dealing with child sexual abuse. The<br />Ferns Report commended this pilot scheme and recommended that it be replicated<br />throughout the country. Legislation has yet to be passed to give support to this. It is<br />the practice at present in the Dublin Archdiocese. My actions as Auxiliary Bishop and<br />as Apostolic Administrator could not be described as those of ‘cover-up’.<br /><br />Irish Bishops’ Conference<br /><br />At National level in 1999 I was appointed Chairperson of the Irish Bishops’ Liaison<br />Committee on Child Abuse, which later became known as the Irish Bishops’<br />Committee on Child Protection. Through that Committee, the Irish Bishops’<br />Conference established the National Child Protection Office in 2001. The Committee,<br />under my Chairmanship, commissioned the College of Surgeons to produce a<br />comprehensive research study on clerical sexual abuse. The result ‘Time to Listen’ -<br />is commended in the Murphy Report. “In this Commission’s view this was a very<br />valuable contribution to the debate on child sexual abuse by clergy “(7.47)<br />My work in child protection since 1996 assisted me in my appointment and work as<br />Apostolic Administrator in the Diocese of Ferns from April 2002 – April 2006. My work<br />there is outlined in the Ferns Report where both Mr. George Birmingham, S.C., and<br />Mr. Justice Frank Murphy commended the co-operation they received from the<br />Diocese of Ferns and myself. Comment has been made concerning the late discovery<br />of documents submitted to the Inquiry, Mr. Justice Murphy "accepted that the<br />omission of the documents identified in the course of this further investigation was<br />due to a regrettable error on the part of the diocese and did not constitute the<br />withholding of co-operation on its part".[...]shanehttp://lxoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-51851933227191184222011-05-19T17:26:51.930+01:002011-05-19T17:26:51.930+01:00Bishop Eamon Walsh expressed similar views in his ...Bishop Eamon Walsh expressed similar views in his <i>Letter to the Dublin Priests of 3 Deaneries</i>:<br /><br />http://www.iol.ie/~fuller/BishopEamonnWalshLetterToDublinPriestsOf3Deaneries17December2009.pdf<br /><br />"[...] The following is an outline of my work in the Archdiocese since 1985:<br />Secretary: 1985 - 1990<br />From 1985-1987 I was secretary to Archbishop McNamara. The duties were basically<br />administrative and secretarial, with no involvement in any personnel issues involving<br />child sexual abuse.<br /><br />Following the death of Archbishop McNamara, I became secretary to Bishop Carroll,<br />when he was Administrator during the interregnum, and, subsequently to Archbishop<br />Connell in 1988. As the Report points out, I had no direct role in dealing with child<br />sexual abuse cases. When I was given information, following a meeting of a priest<br />with the Archbishop, it was only in the context of follow-up action e.g.<br />medical/pastoral needs/accommodation. As secretary I was not party to discussions<br />between either of the Archbishops and individual priests, regarding allegations of<br />clerical child sexual abuse. The confidential nature of the relationship between priest<br />and Archbishop precluded that from happening.<br /><br />Auxiliary Bishop: 1990<br />Regarding my role as Auxiliary Bishop, the Report states in 1.56:<br />“There was no clear job description for the auxiliary bishops”. In my appointment I<br />was given pastoral responsibility for the deaneries of Blessington, South Dublin and<br />Tallaght.<br /><br />In the course of my work with you, if I was approached on a matter of a confidential<br />nature, or if I had a concern which had been expressed to me, I brought this to the<br />attention of the Archbishop. Archbishop Connell took a very conscientious line in respecting a person’s reputation, and on any other matter he deemed confidential.<br /><br />Information given in this way was not shared at meetings with others present. The<br />result was that discussions were often held where the full facts of the subject under<br />discussion, were not known to all participants. Sometimes the Archbishop himself<br />would not have full information. It is very regrettable that clear pathways of<br />communication were not effected until after the introduction of the Framework<br />Document in 1996. Poor communication led to long-term disastrous consequences.<br /><br />This resulted in some offending priests being given appointments on the basis of<br />medical assessment, and other professional advice, which indicated that they were fit<br />for ministry and/or fit to remain in existing appointments. All of this was done in<br />good faith but with appalling consequences.<br />The Report covers the years 1976 – 2004. Within that period there have been major<br />advances in the understanding of the nature of paedophilia, and the impact of child<br />sexual abuse. The absence, particularly during the early years, of the range and<br />level of expertise now available meant that bad decisions were made. This does not<br />excuse them, but puts them into the context of a different time.shanehttp://lxoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-3730625756882780592011-05-19T17:20:18.428+01:002011-05-19T17:20:18.428+01:00In his Letter to Members of the Council of Priests...In his <i>Letter to Members of the Council of Priests</i> Bishop O'Mahony rightly criticised Archbishop Martin's lay down and die deference to the media monotone: "You were out of the Diocese for 31 years and had no idea how traumatic it was for those of us who had to deal with allegations without protocols or guidelines or experience in the matter of child sex abuse."<br /><br />He also expressed displeasure at diocesan and media acceptance of a "cover up" and points to a Garda investigation, in 2003, which found no sign of interference with evidence and no attempt to obstruct the course of justice.<br /><br />He also criticised Archbishop Martin for doing nothing to challenge certain conclusions of the Report, such as the Report’s allowing a 'learning curve' for other professsions, but not for clergy and criticises him for doing "nothing to counteract the statement of the Murphy Report, widely circulated in the media that 'the majority of clergy knew and did nothing'".shanehttp://lxoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-89055561015028317162011-05-19T17:08:16.389+01:002011-05-19T17:08:16.389+01:00The Murphy Report into abuse in the Dublin Archdio...The Murphy Report into abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese also made note of the slackening standards in the 60s:<br /><br />“There is a two thousand year history of Biblical, Papal and Holy See statements showing awareness of clerical child sex abuse. Over the centuries, strong denunciation of clerical child sexual abuse came from Popes, Church councils and other Church sources. A list covering the period 153 AD to 2001 is included in an article by the Promoter of Justice in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. These denunciations are particularly strong on „offences against nature? and offences committed with or against juveniles. The 1917 code of canon law decreed deprivation of office and/or benefice, or expulsion from the clerical state for such offences. In the 20th century two separate documents on dealing with child sexual abuse were promulgated by Vatican authorities (see Chapter 4) but little observed in Dublin.<br /><br />[...]The Commission is satisfied that Church law demanded serious penalties for clerics who abused children. In Dublin from the 1970s onwards this was ignored; the highest priority was the protection of the reputation of the institution and the reputation of priests. The moving around of offending clerics with little or no disclosure of their past is illustrative of this.”<br /><br />and:<br /><br />“As is shown in Chapter 4, canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century. In particular, there was little or no experience of operating the penal (that is, the criminal) provisions of that law. The collapse of respect for the canon law in Archdiocesan circles is covered in some detail in Chapter 4.”shanehttp://lxoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-6540025737623865782011-05-19T17:07:16.398+01:002011-05-19T17:07:16.398+01:00Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has himself stated on T...Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has himself stated on TV --- on both RTÉ's Prime Time and BBC Newsnight --- that the serious malhandling of sex abuse allegations in Dublin started in the 1960s.<br /><br />According to the Pope: “The Archbishop of Dublin told me something very interesting about that. He said that ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950s; admittedly, it was not perfect – there is much to criticise about it – but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more.<br /><br />"The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather a Church of love: she must not punish . . . This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people.”<br /><br />Commenting on Archbishop Martin's remarks, Joseph Foyle observed: "It seems that around the 1960s a major policy change emerged. In line with the secular anti-punishment mood of the times, it was decided that the defrocking sanction was inhumane and that, instead, rehabilitation should be attempted to enable offenders to continue to work as priests. The policy change backfired when offenders re-offended. That hurt children and blighted lives gravely, cost Dioceses and Congregations hundreds of millions, evoked ‘cover-up’ allegations that undermined Bishops and the priesthood in general, and ushered in our current era of Catholic laity who are effectively priestless."shanehttp://lxoa.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-496103327369055047.post-80732951456458846682011-05-19T12:35:45.283+01:002011-05-19T12:35:45.283+01:00A comment over at CatholicCulture.org sums up how ...A comment over at CatholicCulture.org sums up how I feel/think about this report.<br /><br />''the statistics show that adolescent boys formed the largest group of abuse victims.''<br /><br />''I have been in the military and elsewhere where I had more "access" to males than females: and yet I was not attracted to them. That's because I'm heterosexual. Only a PhD could conclude that there is no link between homosexual acts and homosexuality.''<br /><br />I don't buy the 'access' line myself. It's one that's trotted out regularly. <br /><br />URL: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=10364Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com