Monday, December 7, 2009

Clerical Abuse: Northern Ireland Victims Fight Back

Original article
10/20/09

Abuse victims across Northern Ireland are to launch a landmark legal case against several religious orders, the Belfast Telegraph can reveal.

Decades after suffering horrific abuse at the hands of nuns and priests in church-run industrial schools and orphanages a growing number of victims are now turning to the courts for retribution and closure. They are also planning legal action against the government bodies that were responsible for child welfare at the time, for failing to protect them.

The move comes as the Northern Ireland Executive faces growing pressure to conduct a full assessment of the level of physical and emotional child abuse within institutes run by the religious orders.


So far the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister has failed to give any public commitment to such an investigation despite calls from a number of politicians and members of the public for a Ryan-style inquiry in Northern Ireland.

The SDLP is to lodge a motion next month calling on the Executive “to conduct an assessment of the level of abuse and to provide all appropriate support for those victims that come forward.”

With Northern Ireland omitted from the Ryan Report, victims here are still waiting for an adequate response from either the church or state.

Solicitor Joe Rice, from John J Rice Solicitors, told the Belfast Telegraph that a number of victims have now decided to take action themselves and are seeking advice on launching legal proceedings against the orders responsible and the government bodies charged with child welfare at the time.

Mr Rice said that ever since the publication of the Ryan Report his offices in Armagh, Ards and south Belfast have been inundated with victims seeking justice.

“This is something that is beginning to gather momentum. We have been instructed by clients in Northern Ireland who have been victims of abuse, both in state institutions and in care homes similar to those in the Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (The Ryan Report) in the Republic of Ireland. We have noticed, over the past few months, in our three offices, people coming in with complaints in relation to physical abuse, neglect and sex abuse in various institutes. These complaints of abuse have not been properly investigated by the authorities in Northern Ireland. All the institutions would have been under the inspectorate of the old Stormont government at the time.

“We have started to correlate information in common with some of these cases with a view to issuing proceedings, not only against the institutions but also the government departments that would have been responsible at the time. We have also placed an advert to try and stimulate people to come forward in relation to certain institutions.

“It seems to me that those people subject to abuse in Northern Ireland have not been well served by the authorities and the government agencies set up to protect them. It is one of these things that has not been properly dealt with in Northern Ireland.”

Mr Rice would not say how many victims have come forward or name the institutes involved, but said the complaints are not restricted to institutes in the Belfast area. The SDLP’s Alex Attwood said that his party is determined to push for a full assessment into institutional abuse in Northern Ireland to be carried out as quickly as possible.

“These people were among the most vulnerable in society,” he said.

Mr Attwood added: “It may have taken nine years for the Ryan report but we would like to think there is a different culture now because of the experience of the rest of the island. We would like to think that a new future investigation would be much more concentrated so that people would get results of inquiries quicker. We need to put appropriate mechanisms in place to help these people. It is hard to assess the scale of this which is why we are calling for this assessment.”

DUP MP David Simpson said that while there have been individual cases brought against people accused of abusing children in their care in Northern Ireland there is a real need for a serious investigation into the scale of the problem of child abuse by religious orders, or other care institutions in Northern Ireland.

He added: “The Ryan Report showed the extent of the problem in the Republic of Ireland.

“I believe we need to establish the facts surrounding just what went on in Northern Ireland. Many lives have been ruined by the child abuse inflicted by those who were in a position of trust. We need to establish how many.

“This was a gross betrayal perpetrated by those were to supposed to be caring for children. It was also a shameful failure on the part of the authorities who placed them into care only to abandon them to their fate.”

I lived in fear of the next beating, the next humiliation

Clutching an old black and white photograph, Margaret McGuckin points to a sad looking young girl whose face is turned away from the camera.

“Look how sad she is. That is me. I was three-years-old and as far as I can remember I had just arrived at Nazareth House girls’ home on the Ormeau Road. I think it was 1958. It hurts when I see how sad that little girl is,” said Margaret.


Margaret, her sister and two brothers were placed in the care of the Nazareth Sisters when her parents broke up and her father struggled to raise four young children alone. Margaret was three years old and was kept in the home until the age of 11.

“My time there was just hell. There was just real coldness in there, no love was ever displayed and that is so difficult and confusing for a young child who has just been separated from her family. They wouldn’t even let me speak to my sister which might have helped. Anytime I saw her through the railings in the segregated playground, we were pulled away from each other if we tried to talk or hold hands.

“We were treated like child slaves being made to scrub the floors, windows and walls. It was like something out of a Dickens’ book. We were just little children and we were on our hands and knees scrubbing floors. I can still remember the smell of that orange wax and carbolic soap.

“My whole life there was lived in fear — fear of the next beating, the next humiliation. I was made to feel worthless, that I was a bad person and I kept those beliefs with me my whole life. I remember one day being beaten the whole way to a cupboard by one of the Sisters. When she got me there she kept beating me with a stick and telling me I was evil and a liar and the worst type of person that walked the earth. When I cried she battered me even more, telling me to stop crying. When she left me in the cupboard I cried out for someone to come and take me away so many times, but no one came to rescue me.

“No kindness was ever shown to us and anything that might have brought me some comfort was immediately taken away. I can recall my father buying me a beautiful yellow jumper with a teddy bear on it, but it was taken from me never to be seen again. It may not have seemed important to them, but to me it was a reminder that I once had a family who loved me.”

Margaret, who is now 52, said when she was 11-years-old she was inexplicably told to leave the home, maybe because her father was no longer able to pay money for her keep there.

“I wasn’t prepared for the outside world. I didn’t take to many people because I always felt so worthless and ashamed. When I went to secondary school, I remember standing at a wall in the playground seeing others sniggering at me. It must have been the way I was, I was just looking at a wall. I always felt embarrassed and ashamed, like I was dirty and unclean. That was the scene set for the rest of my life.

“What happened to me in Nazareth House affected my job positions, my friendships and relationships with a wide range of people. I always felt unloved, ugly, rejected, dirty, evil, no good. I have hated myself so much because I was led to believe that I was a monster of some sort. It has only been this year that I am finally turning my life around. For the first time ever, I feel as if I am in control.”

Margaret is now leading a campaign to have the religious orders publicly recognise and apologise for the abuse thousands of children in Northern Ireland suffered while in their care. “What happened in these places was recognised in the Republic, but not here and we want that same recognition,” she added.

“I used to walk around filled with so much anger and sadness, but there is more joy and laughter in me now. I look in the mirror now and I am smiling. I want other victims to feel the same.”

South’s shocking report has no equivalent here

The Ryan report told the nightmare story of violence and sexual abuse suffered by a generation of some of the most vulnerable children in Ireland.

It painted a chilling picture of a severely dysfunctional church and state in Ireland — a church that protected and tolerated its members’ actions, and a state, charged to inspect the children's’ homes and schools, that failed to safeguard the young victims.

It took nine years to compile the 2,600-page report, which proposed 21 ways the Irish government could recognise past wrongs, including building a permanent memorial, providing counselling to victims and improving Ireland's current child protection services.

It provided some level of closure and justice for the thousands who were sent as children to Ireland’s austere network of industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages and hostels from the 1930s until the last church-run facilities shut in the 1990s.

But in Northern Ireland no investigation has ever been launched and the problem here remains locked in the past.

Stories of abuse at homes like St Patrick’s Home in west Belfast, run by the De La Salle Brothers, Termonbacca in Londonderry and Nazareth Lodge children’s home in east Belfast, run by the Sisters of Nazareth, are becoming more and more prevalent.

There is no longer any doubt that vulnerable children were subjected to horrifying violence and abuse while in the care of church and state run homes and schools in Northern Ireland, but a full probe into the level of abuse is necessary.

The issue is not going to go away until there is formal recognition of the extent of the abuse and a public apology from the religious orders and the government institutions that failed vulnerable children for decades. The victims who suffered in silence for so many years



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/clerical-abuse-northern-ireland-victims-fight-back-14536353.html#ixzz0UbS0JdPw

Clergy Abuse is Issue in Many Denominations... Clergy Sex Abuse

Original article
10/20/09

I happened to come across your recent coverage online of Roger Ray, pastor, and his lawsuit against former parishioners (for what they allegedly said about his conduct while acting as their pastor). I have no association with this pastor whatsoever, nor am I making any statement regarding his guilt or innocence of sexual misconduct. However, I would like to express my disappointment in the lack of substantive reporting regarding the issues of clergy sexual abuse.

While the jury is not "in" regarding this particular case, the issues surrounding it are very serious and poorly understood. This is not merely a local piece of church news with a juicy-gossip edge, but a story reflecting a broad issue. ...

That issue is the issue of clergy abuse of adults.

Research indicates that adult women are being sexually exploited by clergy at alarming rates; and patterns have become clear that church and society have a tendency to blame the victims (usually women). I hope for the day that we will realize that, like mental health professionals, clergy have a power differential in relationship to the parishioner. Anything other than a strictly pastoral relationship is a violation of the fiduciary trust that they hold.

Even if romantic or sexual contact took place without physical force, there can be no true consent when such power differentials are present.

Women who report risk being stigmatized and labeled. The church tends to silence the issue or to collude with the clergy. This issue for women is where reporting rape by one's husband was years ago. There are some good works out there, including research just published by Baylor University via a grant from the Ford Foundation, which point to just how prevalent this issue of clergy sexual abuse of adults really is. Education may help the public to understand it is never "an affair." It is an abuse of power when it does occur.

Reporting the issues I have outlined does not mean taking sides in the local issue. I hope your paper will step up to the plate.

Sex Abuse Convict Wants Court Hearings Closed to Public

Original article
10/19/09

A former Roman Catholic priest convicted of sexually abusing children is fighting to keep part of his court proceedings closed to the public.

In July of 2007, Daniel McCormack pleaded guilty to abusing five boys. He was sentenced to five years in prison.

There is currently an effort to have him committed under a state sexual offender law that could keep him in custody when his sentence expires. That would happen if a psychological exam shows another sex crime could occur when he is released.

McCormack's attorneys want those court proceedings kept private.

HAITI: ‘Saviour’ Faces Court on Sexual Abuse Charges

Original article
10/19/09

AMERICAN PASTORAL minister Douglas Perlitz, 39, a volunteer and founder of the Project Pierre Toussaint school in Cap-Haitien, is to again face a court on October 19 to answer charges that he sexually abused nine schoolboys.

Perlitz, from Eagle, Colorado, was recently indicted by a federal grand jury with seven counts of travelling outside of the United States with the intent to engage in sexual conduct with individuals under the age of 18.

Once seen as a ‘saviour’ of Haiti’s poor children, Perlitz also faces three counts of engaging in sexual conduct in foreign places with persons under the age of 18, Caribbeannews360.com reported.

The Associated Press (AP) said the authorities allege that Perlitz used promises of food, shelter, cash, cell phones, electronics, shoes and clothing to persuade children at the school he founded in Haiti, to have sex with him.

AP said authorities claim he withheld benefits and threatened to kick the boys out if they rejected the sexual advances.

Perlitz pleaded not guilty to the charges at a hearing on October 8.

He could get up to 30 years in prison and US$250,000 per indictment count if he is found guilty.

Priest Predicts 'Worst Week' for Church

Original article
Sunday, 18 October 2009

A priest in Co Galway has predicted that next week will be possibly the worst week ever for the Catholic Church in Ireland with the publication of the Dublin report on clerical abuse.

Fr Seán Mac Aodha, parish priest of An Spidéal, told this morning's congregation that although the report will deal solely with the church's handling of allegations in the Dublin Archdiocese, the spotlight will fall on every diocese in Ireland.

Speaking in Irish, he said he feared the Church would lose another generation of followers again as happened when scandals began to hit the church in the 1990s.


'They will lose confidence in the Church, from their bishops to right down to the priests in their own parish,' Fr Mac Aodha said.

He said he was speaking out in an attempt to prepare his congregation for the worst.

He said that people will have to believe everything they hear about the report, however incredible it may be.

Priest on Sex Abuse Charges Get Bail

Original article
10/18/09

An elderly priest has been remanded on bail at Fermanagh Crown Court to appear at Dungannon Magistrates Court in Co Tyrone on November 8th, on charges of sexual abuse of three girls in Co Fermanagh, more than 30 years ago.

Fr Eugene Lewis (75), a former missionary cleric, is charged with molesting the children between 1962 and 1974.

At the time of the alleged offences, the priest was superior of St Augustine’s College in Blacklion, Co Cavan, which is now Loughlin House open prison.

'Plague' of Sex Abuse in Church Alleged

Original article
10/18/09

The Exclusive Brethren Church is being rocked by accusations that it has covered up a "plague" of sexual abuse in its ranks.

Last week a former member of the church, 74-year-old Clive Allen Petrie, was found guilty in Nelson of nine counts of indecently assaulting girls under 12 and one of inducing a girl under 12 to do an indecent act on him. The case involved four girls, three in the 1950s and 60s, and the fourth in the 1980s.

Former church member Neville McCallum, who last week sent a letter to all 1900 Brethren households in New Zealand about alleged crimes and cover-ups within the church, says the Nelson case "is only the tip of the iceberg".

And one of the four women assaulted by Petrie told the Sunday Star-Times there were many other cases of sexual abuse in the church.


The reclusive sect, which has about 7000 members in New Zealand, hit the headlines in the 2005 election when it was revealed that it had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars covertly backing the campaign of the National Party under Don Brash. The Brethren shun contact with the outside world and do not normally vote.

McCallum, of Blenheim, who helped the women in the Petrie case, said he was aware of at least two other cases of sexual abuse and one of physical abuse of a wife by a husband.

In one case, which dated back to the early 1960s, a church member repeatedly raped a young woman after plying her with alcohol.

"The man who dealt to her sexually molested all his children," McCallum said. "One of his children has spoken to me recently and said, 'If you find anybody else who was raped or damaged by my father, I will stand and support them'."

He had spoken to the woman and now expected a complaint to be made to police.

McCallum said he was also aware of a case where a man had abused his daughter up until about three years ago, when his wife had taken the children and left the church. The church had supported the husband and "verbally persecuted her so badly she had to go and ask for police protection".

He was also aware of another woman who had been physically abused by her husband and had left the church.

The general pattern was for church leadership to take the man's side and either do nothing or cover up the offence, McCallum said. This had happened in the Petrie case.

He and two other former members of the church sent a letter to Brethren households saying there was a "plague" of sexual abuse and other crimes.

"We resent the attitude of your leaders both toward us and towards you," the letter says. "Both you and our concerns are jilted. We have shown respect but they have responded with contempt, arrogance and insincerity. Your leaders direct your attention away from the abusive, ungodly and criminal excesses of your privileged priestly hierarchy. We appeal to you to act."


One of the women in the Petrie case told the Star-Times she had been molested repeatedly between the ages of five and eight by Petrie. When she complained to her mother and other Brethren women that she "didn't like what he was doing to her", they replied that he was "just playing, and I was to quieten down".

The church accepted Petrie's word and didn't even bother to ask for her testimony – "being a female, I was nothing. My word didn't count for anything, and that's how it's been all along", the woman said.

She had never told anyone about it until 18 months ago, when she and her sister revealed the fact that he had molested them both. By then she was in her 60s. However, the sisters were unable to discuss what actually happened, and had still not done so.

"We were brought up to believe you don't talk about those things," she said. As a child, she felt guilty and ashamed about what he had done. "I always wondered what I'd done to make him do those things to me."

She met other girls in the church, which she left when she was 16, who had been abused and, since the Petrie case, has also become aware of another case of abuse in the church.

There were many more such cases and the people responsible had to be held to account, she said. "The Catholic Church has had to, the Salvation Army has had to. I mean, who do the Brethren think they are, that they don't have to be accountable?"

The Nelson police officer in charge of the Petrie case, Detective Constable Sally McBride, said she was not aware of any other cases of sexual abuse by the Brethren.

A statement issued by the Brethren in Sydney said the church "considers sexual abuse, whether against a child or an adult, abhorrent. Any attempt to cover up such abuse is equally abhorrent".

The church taught the importance of upholding the law, and respected the judicial process and supported its decisions. "Sympathy is extended to those affected by Mr Petrie's actions," the statement said.

Abuse Report to Highlight Tawdry Saga...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/17/09

ANALYSIS:
The report about to be published into child sex abuse by Dublin priests will shine a light on how some of the country’s most senior churchmen covered up their crimes, writes MARY RAFTERY

ON THIS day, precisely seven years ago, RTÉ television broadcast Cardinal Secrets , the Prime Time investigation which uncovered widespread clerical child abuse and cover-up within the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Dublin. The government’s response was swift. Then minister for justice Michael McDowell announced its intention to establish a commission of investigation. This was to be one of the first of the so-called fast-track tribunals – a lean operation designed to complete its business rapidly.

And yet, here we are, seven years later, still awaiting its report.

However, the fault for the delay does not lie with the commission. As the initial political enthusiasm for inquiry waned, various government departments dragged their heels, and it was over three years before it was finally established in March 2006.

It has been one of the most silent of our tribunals, with all of its hearings conducted in private. It was catapulted into the public eye only once – during the attempt by Cardinal Desmond Connell, former archbishop of Dublin, to prevent its examination of almost 6,000 church documents over which he claimed privilege. He subsequently dropped his challenge in the face of the clear intention of the current archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, to co-operate fully with the commission.

Connell will of course be at the heart of the commission’s report. How he and his chancellor (or diocesan administrator) Msgr Alex Stenson handled complaints of child abuse against their priests will be one of the key findings of the report. We know already that the cover-up was extensive, and that it stretched back over the tenure of at least three of Connell’s predecessors – archbishops Kevin McNamara, Dermot Ryan and John Charles McQuaid.

It is this involvement by the most senior of the country’s prelates that will set the Dublin report apart. The Ryan report on institutional abuse focused primarily on responsibility and cover-up within religious orders, most of which operate as independent entities within the Catholic Church. Indeed, it was clear in the wake of the report during the summer that the hierarchy was keen to distance itself from the religious congregations involved.

Now, however, it is the turn of the bishops themselves to face the consequences of their actions and omissions, and to be held responsible for the grievous wrongs inflicted on hundreds of children through failure to protect them from abuse.

Bishops all over the country are implicated in this saga of tawdry self-protection. Many of the present hierarchy served apprenticeships as auxiliary bishops in Dublin, and so were in a position to be aware of sexual abuse of children by their priests. For instance, the report is likely to examine the role of the Bishop of Limerick, Donal Murray, in the case of convicted paedophile Fr Thomas Naughton. As a Dublin auxiliary bishop, Murray was told in the early 1980s of complaints made against Naughton while serving in Valleymount, Co Wicklow. Naughton denied all allegations and was allowed remain in the parish.

When further complaints were made, Naughton was simply moved on. He was transferred to Donnycarney parish on Dublin’s northside, where he immediately found new child victims. Again complaints were made, and eventually the priest admitted that he had sexually abused one child only. This was Mervyn Rundle, who several years later sued the archdiocese and received a large sum in compensation.

What happened then provides a key insight into how the archdiocese did its business. The chancellor, Stenson, became centrally involved, although he reported back extensively to his superiors – in the case of Naughton, three archbishops: Ryan, McNamara and Connell. Naughton admitted to Stenson that he had abused the 10-year-old Mervyn on six occasions. Stenson decided to send Naughton to a psychiatrist, who submitted a report stating that, based on what Naughton had told him, he did not view the priest as a serious problem.

The reality was that Naughton had lied. He had told the psychiatrist that there had been only one incident of minor sexual abuse with one child. This was never contradicted by the archdiocese, despite the fact that Naughton had admitted to Stenson that he had abused young Mervyn on six occasions, not to mention the complaints from Valleymount that Bishop Donal Murray knew about.

Nonetheless, Naughton was allowed to remain in Donnycarney parish for the next seven months, saying Mass and hearing confessions, despite the fact that he was a self-confessed criminal. Finally, when further victims became known, it was decided at a meeting of the auxiliary bishops to send Naughton to the UK for treatment.

On his return to Dublin some months later, he was permitted to continue parish work and assigned to Ringsend. There he again began abusing children, sexually assaulting at least two young altar boys. It took a further two years before he was removed from parish ministry in 1988. Eventually in 1995, Mervyn Rundle, then aged 20, made a complaint to the Garda. Naughton was convicted in 1998. For well over a decade, several bishops and senior priests had covered up his criminal activity, protecting him and exposing further very young children to incalculable harm.

This, however, is only a single case. The report will deal with an additional 44 priests. It is likely to establish similar patterns of cover-up, together with cases where abusing priests were given glowing references, allowing them to move to other dioceses and countries. It may also be possible to discover how priests used their involvement with national schools to gain access to victims. There are also indications that working class parishes were at greater risk of having a preponderance of child-abusing priests.

Other patterns likely to emerge are that the children targeted for abuse came very often from the most devout of families. And to further compound the scale of the tragedy, these families and individuals who complained were often ostracised and condemned by many within their own parish who chose to disbelieve them.

We may also finally get answers to other questions, some relating to the role of the State. Why, for instance, have there been so few prosecutions brought against abusing priests, and what (if any) information has been provided to the civil authorities through the years? While we know that Connell stated that he supplied the names of 17 known abusers to the Garda in 1995, we do not yet know precisely what action resulted.

And crucially, there remain areas of mystery around the issue of insurance. The archdiocese has admitted that in 1988 it insured itself against claims in respect of child abuse perpetrated by its priests. It is further documented that during this period and throughout the 1990s, the archdiocese was claiming that it knew little about the issue of child sexual abuse.

It did, however, clearly know enough to insure and protect its assets against future claims.

Finally, it should be remembered that almost every aspect of what will be revealed in the Dublin report has been repeated in other dioceses around the country. Most of them have so far escaped similar scrutiny. Perhaps an extension of the inquiry process nationwide should now be the next step.

Victims of Clerical Abuse... Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/16/09

THERE HAS been a general welcome for yesterday’s High Court decision that publication of the report of the commission of investigation into the Dublin archdiocese can go ahead following 22 edits.

Each edit was specified in detail by Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday and includes all of chapter 19, as well as reference to the person who is the subject of that chapter in the report contents and its index. Overall, the report is more than 700 pages in length.

Two people abused by priests of the Dublin archdiocese, Marie Collins and Andrew Madden, also welcomed yesterday’s decision.

“After campaigning so hard and so long to have the inquiry, I am happy for all concerned that it is coming to conclusion,” said Ms Collins, who first made complaints about her abuse 24 years ago.

She expressed disappointment however at “not getting the entire report”, but felt this was “understandable from the point of view of ensuring justice.” She said she hoped what was being left out now would not distract or render incomplete “the pattern of handling of abuse cases” by Dublin diocesan authorities.

Mr Madden, who first went public about his abuse 14 years ago, said he was “happy” at yesterday’s decision. “It is very clear that chapter 19 refers to just one person from a sample of 46 against whom allegations were made and this should not be a problem when it came to inferring the behaviour of the diocese” in handling allegations, he said.

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern also welcomed the High Court decision.

“I have always made it clear that I have been anxious to put the report into the public domain as quickly as possible while, at the same time, not wishing to do anything which would prejudice the chances of any of the people involved in these evil deeds being brought to justice.”

One in Four executive director Maeve Lewis said: “The decision will come as a relief to the people who were sexually abused as children in the diocese of Dublin, many of whom have been waiting for years to learn how it was that so many allegations were mishandled.”

She regretted “the postponement of the publication of one chapter” but accepted this was necessary “to ensure that current criminal proceedings are not prejudiced”.

She noted there had now been statutory inquiries into clerical child sex abuse in Ferns and Dublin, with one ongoing in Cloyne, but she did not believe these dioceses were exceptional.

“We know from our clients experiences that there have been many failures across the country,” she said. “Children have been sexually abused because the church failed to act.”

Dublin Rape Crisis Centre chief executive Ellen O’Malley-Dunlop also welcomed the High Court’s ruling.

Vatican’s New Defense on Child Molestation Charges: Finger-Pointing

Original article
10/16/09

The Jews and Protestants are worse.

That appears to be the Vatican’s newest defense of its ongoing child sex-abuse scandal.

Responding to criticism, Catholic Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican’s representative to United Nations organizations in Geneva, read a statement on September 21 to the U.N. Human Rights Council, noting that reports of sex abuse were common in the Jewish community and that most of the American churches being hit by sex abuse allegations were Protestant.

“As the Catholic Church has been busy cleaning its own house,” Tomasi wrote, “it would be good if other institutions and authorities, where the major part of abuses are reported, could do the same and inform the media about it.”

Tomasi’s statement came in response to an accusation from a representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, Keith Porteous Wood, that the Catholic Church had covered up child abuse and was in breach of several articles under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Jewish leaders were dismayed by the Archbishop’s finger-pointing.

“I was shocked by the statement. I don’t believe in comparing abuse. That’s a dangerous path to travel,” said Rabbi Joseph Potasnik, head of the New York Board of Rabbis, the largest interdenominational rabbinic organization in the world. “They have a problem they need to address; we have a problem we need to examine. Every faith community needs to be accountable to its members.”

In his statement delivered to the Human Rights Council, Tomasi estimated that over the past 50 years, as many as one in 20 Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse. The Archbishop cited articles in the Christian Science Monitor and the Journal of the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College that estimated abuse rates in the Protestant and Jewish communities matching or exceeding that among Catholics. (No reputable studies exist that quantify rates of child sexual abuse by religious leaders in the Jewish community.)

“One person is too many, so a numbers discussion is not the way to approach it,” Potasnik said.

Over the past decade, thousands of Catholic priests around the world have been accused of molesting children and the Church has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to settle sex-abuse lawsuits. The litigation exposed a far-reaching cover-up of child sexual abuse by the Church hierarchy, which included transferring pedophile priests to new parishes and intimidating victims and their families into silence. In the past few years, revelations of sexual abuse within Orthodox Jewish communities have begun to generate similar allegations and lawsuits.

Tomasi’s statement also drew a bizarre distinction between pedophilia and “ephebophilia,” which he defined as a “homosexual attraction to adolescent males.”

“Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80% to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority, which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the age of 11 and 17 years old,” Tomasi stated.

The organization that originally criticized the Church to the U.N. council, the International Humanist and Ethical Union, characterized Tomasi’s reply as “comprehensively missing the point.”

“No doubt there are abusers in all walks of life, but our point was not the abuse itself but the cover-up in which some of the highest officials of the Church were implicated,” the IHEU said.

Attorney Irwin Zalkin said he was unsurprised by the Vatican representative’s remarks. Zalkin has represented hundreds of victims of sexual abuse in lawsuits against the Catholic Church.

“They just don’t get it. There’s still a complete failure to take responsibility,” Zalkin said. For centuries, he said, Catholic leaders have tried to sweep under the carpet the problem of child sexual abuse. “The sin of scandal far outweighs, in their institutional response, any concern for the safety of children. That has been the problem.”

Zalkin said he has also represented sexual abuse victims in lawsuits against Jewish organizations, Protestant churches, the Boy Scouts and other secular groups, but that the overwhelming majority of people who contact him have claims against the Catholic Church.

“Does [child sexual abuse] exist elsewhere? Of course it does,” Zalkin said. “But not really in the numbers we’re seeing in the Catholic Church.”

Zalkin noted that he is receiving a growing number of inquiries from alleged victims of sex abuse in New York’s Orthodox communities.

“There’s a similar circle-the-wagons attitude, a similar response to that of the Catholic Church,” Zalkin said. “It’s unfortunate.”

In the best-case scenario, Potasnik said, other religions will learn from the Catholic Church’s example and become more responsive to and vigilant about child sexual abuse. Like many other Jewish organizations, the New York Board of Rabbis has crafted guidelines for working with children intended to prevent abuse.

Because of the Catholic scandal, Potasnik said, “The clergy are much more sensitive. There’s a greater sense that we cannot afford to close our eyes.”

Report Into Sex Abuse Cases Set...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/16/09

THE REPORT into how allegations of child sex abuse by priests in the Catholic archdiocese of Dublin were dealt with by the State and church authorities is expected to be published by the Government late next week.

The report is likely to be discussed by the Cabinet on Tuesday after the High Court ruled yesterday that most of it can be published.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan excluded from publication, at least until May 5th next, one chapter relating to a particular priest on grounds it could prejudice criminal proceedings against that cleric. He also directed that some 21 references to the same individual in other parts of the report should also not be published for now.

The Commission of Investigation, Dublin Archdiocese, chaired by Ms Justice Yvonne Murphy and assisted by barrister Ita Mangan and solicitor Hugh O’Neill, began its inquiry in March 2006.

It investigated how allegations of child sex abuse against a sample of 46 priests were handled by State and church authorities in the Dublin archdiocese between January 1975 and April 2004, when Cardinal Desmond Connell retired as archbishop.

The commission presented its report to Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern last July. On the advice of Attorney General Paul Gallagher, he sent it to the High Court.

Under the Commission of Investigation Act, 2004, the Minister for Justice must seek direction from the High Court before publishing a commission report which it is believed could prejudice criminal proceedings.

It is believed that at least four of the priests investigated by the Dublin commission face abuse charges, though it is understood that yesterday’s High Court decisions concern just one man. His trial is scheduled for April 2010.

At private hearings on October 1st and 2nd last, Mr Justice Gilligan heard submissions on the report from the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and representatives of those against whom criminal proceedings are pending. He heard further submissions yesterday before delivering his written judgment, publicly, in the afternoon.

His ruling was welcomed by Marie Collins and Andrew Madden, both of whom were abused by priests of the Dublin archdiocese, and by Mr Ahern, as well as One in Four and the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre. The report is over 700 pages long and is expected to name 14 priests/former priests who served in the archdiocese, 10 of whom have been convicted of abuse.

It is understood the commission investigation paid particular attention to the handling of allegations by State and church authorities including 19 bishops, four of them archbishops of Dublin. These are Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop Dermot Ryan, Archbishop Kevin McNamara and Cardinal Desmond Connell.

Thirteen of the remaining 15 bishops were or are auxiliary bishops of Dublin. They include Bishop Joseph Carroll (deceased), Bishop Brendan Comiskey (who resigned as bishop of Ferns in 2002), Bishop Martin Drennan (Galway), Bishop Patrick Dunne (deceased), Bishop Ray Field (a current auxiliary bishop of Dublin), Bishop Laurence Forristal (retired bishop of Ossory).

Also involved are Bishop James Kavanagh (deceased), Bishop Jim Moriarty (Kildare and Leighlin), Bishop Donal Murray (Limerick), Bishop Dermot O’Mahony (retired), Bishop Fiachra Ó Ceallaigh (retired auxiliary bishop of Dublin), Bishop Eamonn Walsh (a current auxiliary bishop of Dublin and apostolic administrator to Ferns diocese from April 2002 to April 2006), and Bishop Desmond Williams (deceased).

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

One Chapter of Abuse Report Withheld...Priest Sex Abuse

Friday, October 16, 2009


ALL but one chapter of a shocking report into sexual abuse by priests in the Dublin Archdiocese is expected to be released next week after the High Court yesterday cleared the way for its publication.


The report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation will examine how senior bishops of the archdiocese handled allegations of abuse made against priests in Dublin between 1975 and 2004.

It will assess how the Catholic Church in Dublin investigated reports of abuse allegations made against a representative sample of 46 priests. The report is expected to comment on how four archbishops and 15 bishops carried out inquiries into such complaints.

The Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, has already warned that the contents of the report, which runs to some 800 pages, will "shock us all".

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan yesterday ruled that Chapter 19 of the report and 21 other references to the subject of that chapter cannot be published until further direction by the same court.

It is understood that Chapter 19 relates to allegations against a former priest who is due to face a criminal prosecution next April.

Yesterday’s ruling followed a hearing conducted in private earlier this month in which lawyers for relevant parties outlined their views on what sections of the report could be published as it contains references to a number of priests who still face criminal trials in relation to allegations of sexually abusing children.

The report was referred to the High Court for consideration by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern following consultation with the Attorney General, Paul Gallagher SC, in July.

Mr Justice Gilligan said the High Court had a role to consider if publication of the report could prejudice any forthcoming criminal proceedings.

The judge said he had to balance in order of priority the paramount importance of an accused’s right to a fair trial with the right of the DPP to prosecute and the public interest in the publication of the report.

Mr Justice Gilligan ruled the issue of publication of Chapter 19 could be considered at another hearing on May 5, 2010.

In a statement last night, the minister said he would make arrangements for the early release of the report.

The commission, which was chaired by Circuit Court judge Yvonne Murphy, was established in March 2006.

It is believed about 400 people are known or suspected to have suffered child sexual abuse by Dublin diocesan priests since 1940. Allegations of sexual abuse are understood to have been made against at least 140 clerics, with suspicion raised against another 32 clerics.

Several priests who will be identified by name in the report, unlike the Ferns Report published in 2005, have already been convicted of sexual offences, while at least four are before the courts.

A victim of clerical sex abuse who campaigned for the establishment of the commission, Marie Collins, welcomed the court’s ruling but expressed disappointment that the report would not be published in full.

Victim support group, One in Four, said the decision to publish the majority of the report would come as a relief to people who were sexually abused as children by priests in Dublin.



Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/ireland/one-chapter-of-abuse-report-withheld-103467.html#ixzz0UQcsM9E4

Most of Report Can be Published...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/16/09

THE HIGH Court ruled that most of the report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation into the handling by the Catholic Church and State authorities of allegations of suspected child sex abuse by clerics in the diocese between 1975 and 2004 may be published at this stage.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan, however, excluded from publication, at least until May 5th next, one chapter related to a particular cleric on the grounds it may prejudice criminal proceedings against the cleric.

He also directed that some 21 references to the same cleric in other parts of the report should also not be published for now.

The judge adjourned to May 5th next year the issue of whether or not there should be publication then of those parts of the report excluded from publication now.

He said his decision allowing publication of the vast bulk of the report was made after considering and balancing the paramount importance of an accused’s right to a fair trial, the right of the community to prosecute and the public interest. Having considered all those factors, he had concluded that chapter 19 and other references in the report to a particular person might prejudice criminal proceedings involving that person and he excluded these from publication until such time as the court directed otherwise.

The judge also noted that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is under a duty to publish “as soon as possible” the report, provided to the Minister by the commission on July 21st last.

The Minister had applied to the court for directions on publication arising from his concern that publication of some extracts from the report might prejudice criminal proceedings.

Mr Justice Gilligan yesterday gave his reserved judgment on the Minister’s application, made under the Commissions Investigation Act 2004.

The application itself was heard in private. Four clerics who are defendants in criminal proceedings “relevant to an act or omission in the report” were notice parties to the hearing and the judge heard submissions on their behalf as well as on behalf of the commission, Minister, DPP and Attorney General.

The 2004 Act provides that, should the High Court consider publication of all or part of such a report would prejudice criminal proceedings, to direct the report or part of it not be published for a specified period.

Yesterday, the judge observed the Act does not envisage that elements of a report capable of prejudicing criminal proceedings which are pending or in progress should never be published or that the court could permanently censor elements of the report.

He said he had considered it appropriate that the application for directions on publication be heard in private, on October 1st and 2nd last, and that his decision be delivered in public.

The judge said he had considered the affidavits and submissions in the case and had balanced the “paramount importance” of an accused to a fair trial, the right of the community through the DPP to prosecute and the public interest in the publication of the report.

He said he had regard to the nature of the offences which the notice parties were facing in criminal proceedings, the present state of those proceedings and any relevant surrounding circumstances.

The judge also had regard to the likely trial date in conjunction with all of the material in any way relevant to each notice party and to the general content of the report.

He had also taken into account that a trial judge can make appropriate rulings, directions and charge to a jury and the “robustness” of the jury system.

Chapter excluded from publication

HAVING GIVEN his decision, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan heard, in private, submissions as to the form of order to be drawn up. He then made that order public. It excludes from publications the entire of chapter 19 and some 21 other references in the report, including entire paragraphs, particular sentences and particular words. He also ordered the notice parties should get their costs, on an agreed basis, against the Minister.

The report was compiled following an investigation by the commission into how clerical child sex abuse allegations involving a sample of 46 priests were handled by Catholic Church and State authorities in Dublin between January 1st, 1975, and April 30th, 2004.

On receipt of the report last July, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern referred it to the Attorney General who, in turn, advised it be referred to the High Court.

Mr Ahern said nothing should be done that would harm the prospects of perpetrators of abuse being brought to justice.


The full text of the High Court ruling on the Dublin Archdiocese report is available at irishtimes.com/indepth

This article appears in the print edition of the Irish Times

Court Orders Partial Release... Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/16/09

The High Court has ruled most of the report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation into the handling by the Catholic Church and State authorities of allegations of suspected child sex abuse by clerics may be published.

However, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan excluded from publication, at least until next May, one chapter of the report related to a particular cleric on grounds it may prejudice criminal proceedings against that cleric.

He also directed that some 21 references to the same cleric in other parts of the report should also not be published for now.

The judge adjourned to May 5th next year the issue of whether or not there should be publication then of those parts of the report excluded from publication now.

He said his decision allowing publication of the vast bulk of the report was made after considering and balancing the paramount importance of an accused person’s right to a fair trial, the right of the community to prosecute and the public interest.

Having considered all those factors, he had concluded Chapter 19 and other references in the report to a particular person might prejudice criminal proceedings involving that person and he excluded these from publication until such time as the court directed otherwise.

The judge also noted the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform Dermot Ahern is under a duty to publish the report “as soon as possible”. The report was provided to the Minister by the Commission on July 21st last.

Mr Ahern had applied to the court for directions on publication arising from his concern that publication of some extracts from the report might prejudice criminal proceedings.

Mr Justice Gilligan today gave his reserved judgment on the Minister’s application, made under the Commissions Investigation Act 2004.

The application itself was heard in private on October 1st and 2nd. Four clerics who are defendants in criminal proceedings “relevant to an act or omission in the report” were notice parties to the hearing and the judge heard submissions on their behalf as well as on behalf of the Commission, the Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General.

The 2004 Act provides, should the High Court consider publication of all or part of such a report would prejudice criminal proceedings, to direct the report or part of it not be published for a specified period of time. The judge observed the act does not envisage that elements of a report capable of prejudicing criminal proceedings which are pending or in progress should never be published or that the court could permanently censor elements of the report.

He said he had considered it appropriate the application for directions on publication be heard in private and that his decision be delivered in public.

The judge said he had considered the affidavits and submissions in the case and had balanced the “paramount importance” of an accused to a fair trial, the right of the community through the DPP to prosecute and the public interest in the publication of the report.

He could not, in his judgment, set out the specific details of each of the ongoing criminal proceedings involving the notice parties by reason, as submitted by the DPP, of the right of the community to prosecute and the accused persons’ right to a fair trial.

He said he had regard to the nature of the offences which the notice parties were facing in criminal proceedings, the present state of those proceedings and any relevant surrounding circumstances.

He also had regard to the likely trial date in conjunction with all of the material in any way relevant to each notice party and to the general content of the report.

He had also taken into account a trial judge can make appropriate rulings, directions and charge to a jury and the “robustness” of the jury system.

Having considered all those factors, he had concluded a specified part of the report - Chapter 19 - and some 21 references in the body of the report to a particular person might prejudice criminal proceedings and these should not be published until the court directed otherwise.

He did not consider any separate direction was required with regard to the various other notice parties.

Having given his decision, the judge heard, in private, submissions as to the form of order to be drawn up. This afternoon, the judge made that order public.


It excludes from publications the entire of chapter 19 and some 21 other references in the report, including entire paragraphs, particular sentences and particular words.

He also ordered the notice parties should get their costs, on an agreed basis, against the Minister.

The report was compiled followed an investigation by the Commission into how clerical child sex abuse allegations involving a sample of 46 priests were handled by Catholic Church and State authorities in Dublin between January 1st, 1975, and April 30th, 2004.

On receipt of the report last July, Mr Ahern referred it to the Attorney General who, in turn, advised it be referred to the High Court. In doing so, he said he was anxious the matters dealt with in the report were “put into the public domain as quickly as possible”.

He also expressed concern nothing should be done that would harm the prospects of perpetrators of abuse being brought to justice.

Abuse Report to be Published... Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/16/09

A DEVASTATING report into the failure of the Catholic Church and State authorities to reign in "predatory" priests and serial clerical sex abusers in the Dublin archdiocese will be published at the end of next week.

All but one chapter of the shocking report into clerical sex abuse in Ireland's largest diocese, which is set to rock the Catholic Church, will be published by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern.

The 700-page report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation dwarfs the 2005 Ferns report which resulted in that diocese being branded "the worst diocese in the world". The commission report will detail the Church's handling of known and suspected abusers and will outline the response to allegations by a succession of bishops.

Hierarchy

They include 19 clerics in the Catholic hierarchy, including Cardinal Desmond Connell who last year dropped a court challenge to stop the commission getting access to 5,586 secret Church files. Seven of the bishops who served in Dublin are dead. Yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan ruled that all but one chapter of the report of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation be published.

Chapter 19 -- and some 21 references to a cleric who is awaiting trial that are peppered throughout the report -- will be temporarily censored in case it prejudices any criminal proceedings relating to the unnamed priest. Last night, victims of clerical sex abuse expressed their disappointment that the hard hitting report -- which exceeds some 700 pages -- cannot be published in full. But they accepted that a partial publication of some of the report's contents could jeopardise future criminal trials.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin warned earlier this year the long-running inquiry had uncovered thousands of cases of abuse by priests.

Up to 450 people have made abuse allegations against former priests since 1940.

Last night, Justice Minister Dermot Ahern -- who had referred the report to the High Court -- welcomed Judge Gilligan's order. The report, with the court-ordered redactions, will be published by the end of next week.

"I have always made it clear that I have been anxious to put the report into the public domain as quickly as possible while at the same time not wishing to do anything which would prejudice the chances of any of the people involved in these evil deeds being brought to justice," he said. Ruling on publication of the report yesterday, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said one chapter relating to a particular cleric was to be excluded from publication at this stage on grounds it may prejudice criminal proceedings against that cleric. He also directed that some 21 references to the same cleric in other parts of the report should also not be published for now.

He adjourned to May 5 next year the issue of whether or not the excluded parts should be published.

He said his decision allowing publication of the vast bulk of the report was made after considering and balancing the paramount importance of an accused's right to a fair trial, the right of the community to prosecute and the public interest. Four clerics who are defendants in criminal proceedings "relevant to an act or omission in the report" were notice parties to the hearing and the judge heard submissions on their behalf as well as on behalf of the commission, the minister, the DPP and the Attorney General.

- Dearbhail McDonald, John Cooney and Shane Hickey

High Court to Rule on Publication of Abuse Report...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/15/09

The High Court will decide later this morning whether the contents of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation report can be published in full.

The report comes on the back of an investigation into how clerical child sex abuse allegations were dealt with by the Catholic Church in Dublin between 1975 and 2004.

Justice Minister Dermot Ahern referred the case to the High Court to seek directions on the matter because some of the individuals face, or may face, criminal proceedings.

The case was heard in camera earlier this month, but it is understood that the ruling will be delivered in public later this morning.


Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/ireland/high-court-to-rule-on-publication-of-abuse-report-14531223.html#ixzz0UVkwZATh

Dublin Abuse Report to be Published

Original article
10/15/09

The High Court has ruled that the report of the Commission of Investigation into sexual abuse allegations in the Dublin archdiocese can be published - but all references to one person must be removed.

The commission investigated how clerical child sex abuse allegations involving a sample of 46 priests were handled by Church and State authorities in Dublin between 1 January 1975 and 30 April 2004.

Some of the cases involve men who are facing court proceedings.

Its report was referred to the High Court by Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern in July.

Under the Commission of Investigation Act, the minister must seek directions from the High Court if it is felt the report could prejudice court proceedings.

Mr Justice Paul Gilligan ruled that the report could be published but that a specified part, Chapter 19, might prejudice court proceedings.

He directed that Chapter 19, or references in the report to the person who is the subject of Chapter 19, could not be published unless otherwise directed by the court.

His judgment lists 22 references to that person which must be removed before the report is published.

Justice Gilligan said this part of the report could be mentioned to the court again on 5 May next year.

Andrew Madden, a survivor of sexual abuse in the Dublin archdiocese, said he was very pleased the report would be published.

He said the commission investigated 46 priests so removing reference to one person would still allow people to examine the trends in the report.

Marie Collins, another survivor, said she was pleased the report would be published.

But she said she was disappointed it would not be published in its entirety.

Ms Collins said the purpose of the report was to show if there was a pattern to the way the archdiocese dealt with abuse and it would be difficult to establish that if certain parts of the report were not published.

Maeve Lewis of One in Four, a support group for victims of abuse, urged the Minister for Justice to publish the report quickly.

She also asked the Minister to give support groups some advance notice as to when he intends to publish.

A spokesperson for the Minister for Justice said he had always made it clear he wanted to publish the report as soon as practicable.

However, he said Mr Ahern would have to consider the High Court's written judgment.

Ruling on Child Sex Abuse Report Ready...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/14/09

THE HIGH Court is to deliver its reserved judgment tomorrow morning on what content of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation report may be published at this time.

The judgment will be delivered in public and follows in camera proceedings on the matter that took place on October 1st and 2nd last.

The report followed an investigation by the commission into how clerical child sex abuse allegations involving a sample of 46 priests were handled by Catholic Church authorities in Dublin between January 1st, 1975, and April 30th, 2004. Some of the cases involve men facing child-abuse charges.

Under section 38 of the the Commission of Investigation Act 2004, the Minister for Justice must seek directions from the High Court if it is felt publication of a commission report might prejudice criminal proceedings, pending or in progress.

On receipt of the report last July, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern referred it to the Attorney General who, in turn, advised that it be referred to the High Court. In doing so the Minister said that he was anxious the matters it dealt with were “put into the public domain as quickly as possible”.

He expressed concern that nothing should be done that would harm the prospects of perpetrators of abuse being brought to justice.

Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin said last week his “personal preference would be for the report to come out quickly and in its integrity because, reading it in its integrity, the question emerges better”.

Church Frustrated Attempts to Locate Paedophile Priest...Priest Sex Abuse

Original article
10/14/09

Gardaí attempting to investigate the abuse of an alter boy by a priest were “given the run around by Church authorities” in their efforts to locate the accused man for questioning.

Detective Sergeant Joseph McLoughlin told Judge Katherine Delahunt at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court that gardaí located the accused on a tip off more than 10 years after first being made aware of the allegations.

The elderly man, who can not be named for legal reasons, pleaded guilty to four counts of indecent assault against the boy, who was aged between 11 and 14 years old, on dates between 1979 and 1983.

Judge Delahunt adjourned sentencing until early next year. The maximum sentence for this offence is two years' imprisonment.

Det Sgt McLoughlin told Mr Pieter Le Vert BL, prosecuting, that the boy was abused by the man in the priest’s home, on trips to the beach and in his car. The abuse consisted of fondling the boy’s genital area. The priest also took photographs of the boy in swimwear and showed him “mild” porn.

The boy also reported the priest giving him £5 on one occasion and taking locks of his hair.

Det Sgt McLoughlin said the boy’s mother asked him some years later if he had been abused and he broke down and told her what had happened to him.

He told Mr Remy Farrell BL, defending, during cross examination, that an complaint was made to the gardaí in 1995 but that the investigation “ran into the sand”.

He said the victim contacted the Garda Commissioner in 2002 to check on the status of the case but efforts to locate the accused man proved fruitless.

Det Sgt McLoughlin agreed with Mr Farrell that gardaí were “getting the run around from Church authorities”.

He said they were initially unable locate the accused man through the Archbishop’s Palace but a “liaison priest” contacted him in 2003 and said the accused wished to speak to gardaí. He said that a few days before the meeting was to take place he received a call to say the accused would not be attending.

He said that was the last that he heard about the accused man’s location and efforts to find him were unsuccessful until gardaí received a tip off and made contact with the man in 2007.

Det Sgt McLoughlin said the accused, who has no previous convictions, told gardaí that he remembered the boy and admitted touching him inappropriately. He said his memory was not great and he expressed remorse.

What did Bishops Know, do, About Abusive Priests?...Priest Sex Abuse

Original Article

It's not the sex, it's the cover-up that always seems to nab politicians. Now, the Catholic Church is caught up in headlines, again, over how bishops dealt with clergy who sexually abused minors.

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court decision forcing the Archdiocese of Bridgeport, Conn., to release more than 12,000 pages from 23 lawsuits against six priests, which will show how their cases were handled by bishops including now-Cardinal Edward Egan.

(Conn.Post.com has a history of the abuse situation in Bridgeport, dating back to 1993 when 13 people told the diocese they had all be abused by the same priest when they were young.

Opening records is always fraught with dangers for management -- one of the three tasks of a bishop along with preaching and teaching.

When the abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002, it was the personnel records forced open by the courts -- revealing known abusers shuffled to unsuspecting parishes -- that finally forced Cardinal Bernard Law to resign as Archbishop of Boston.


Egan left Bridgeport to become Archbishop of New York in 2000, the post from which he retired in April. His successor, Bishop William Lori fought had to keep the cases, particularly settlements with victims that included privacy clauses, private.

Lori told Associated Press:

Our concern is not about the past but rather about the future, about the impact that these decisions will have on litigants who think they are settling things, and find that they really aren't settled. Also on the First Amendment issues, particularly the freedom of the church, and indeed all churches, to determine who should be a priest or a minister or a rabbi.

But critics and victims groups, celebrating the decision, say the bishops still fail to realize that just removing abusive priests, even ramping up comprehensive prevention programs, doesn't address fundamental questions of how this scandal went on so long, so broadly and deeply.

Dan Bartley, president of the lay reform group, Voice of the Faithful, tells Gary Stern, at Blogging Religiously,

Bishop Lori must stop wasting untold hundreds of thousands of parishioners' dollars to prevent these same parishioners, and the public, from finding out how Lori's predecessors, including recently retired Cardinal Edward Egan, dealt with cases of sexual abuse of children.

Writer and blogger Michael Sean Winters told me he compares Lori's efforts to close off the past to Law's successor in Boston, Cardinal Sean O'Malley who "courageously" forced the Church to face up to it. O'Malley, he says

... insisted that when Pope Benedict XVI came to America, whatever else he did, he had to meet with victims of clergy sex abuse. Cardinal O'Malley even had to go to Rome and meet with the Pope because the trip planners did not want the meeting to happen and kept removing it from the agenda.

Says Winters: "Until bishops stop trying to cover up their mistakes in the past, they will not win back the credibility of their flocks. Nor should they."

DO YOU THINK ... the legal principles at stake here, including the rights of any religious group to choose and manage it's clergy, are in danger because of this decision? Have the bishops, with massive financial settlements with victims and extensive child abuse prevention programs installed nationwide, done all they can to admit past problems and look to the future?

NOTE: The rules at Faith & Reason are clear: All views, respectfully presented, are welcome. Say what you think but watch your tone, please.