The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland connived with the authorities in a cover-up spanning decades to shield paedophile priests from prosecution, an official report concluded yesterday. Hundreds of crimes against children were not reported as the four archbishops of the Archdiocese of Dublin remained wedded to the “maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church and the preservation of its assets”.
Instead, the church hierarchy shuffled the sex offenders from parish to parish, allowing them to continue to prey on victims. In some cases paedophile priests were even promoted. The 750-page report by the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse on the Dublin archdiocese ”” the second significant inquiry this year to expose appalling levels of sexual abuse of minors in Ireland under the aegis of the Roman Catholic Church ”” said that it had uncovered a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy throughout the period that it investigated between 1975 and 2004.
It said that the State had helped to create the culture of cover-up and that senior police officers regarded priests as “outside their remit”.
“The State authorities facilitated that cover-up by not fulfilling their responsibilities to ensure that the law was applied equally to all and allowing the Church institutions to be beyond the reach of the normal law enforcement processes,” it concluded.
Hello … the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.
I have to wonder if this follows similar patterns of the sex abuse scandal in the U.S.. Were the majority of these cases actually about pedophilia or were most of the victims adolescent males?
Not that it excuses the behavior of the church hierarchy or government officials but screaming pedophilia when it is not makes it rather difficult to be honest about the cause and solution to the problem. I am also curious as to the overall percentage of priests so accused.
And I have a feeling that most institutions secular or religious would if subject to such an investigation would yield very similar results. I am thinking specifically about schools.
And it has to be remembered that in all these cases the priests and bishops were violating both Canon Law and Catholic Moral teaching. That is why it so important now that the Church speak out against those who do so now. She shut her mouth one time to avoid the appearance of discontent within the ranks and to protect her image. She did so at great cost to the innocent. And at great cost to the mission of the Church which foremost must be the Gospel.
I think we are seeing a great upheavel right now which will not only leave the Church smaller but leave her more concerned with the souls of the faithful then with her standing in the world. This scandal is in my mind a gift from God. For He chastises those He loves.
#2. Paula,
[blockquote]Were the majority of these cases actually about pedophilia or were most of the victims adolescent males?[/blockquote]
1. I’m not sure what you mean by the statement. Can you clarify what you are saying?
2. This is another argument against a “State Church”. It reminds me of Pontius Pilate trying to discern who had jurisdiction over Jesus.
3. There seems to me to be a selective sociopathy with pedophiles. They seem have a conscience but generally little guilt about being a pedophile.
Dcn Dale. In the U.S. most cases did not involve the sexual abuse of prepubescent boys or girls which would be pedophilia. Rather it involved teenage boys. I honestly forget the psychological, medical term for those who are sexually attracted to adolescents, perhaps someone else will help me out.
The distinction is important because the latter has its orgin in a subset of homosexual behavior rather than hetrosexual behavior. Also though it is a minority of homosexuals who commit these acts the overall percentage is disproportiantly (sp) high when compared to heterosexual population.
This reality is one of the reasons that the Vatican decided to ban homosexuals from seminaries.
My heart goes out to the victims and I am glad to see that this is being brought to light.
I think the distinction in terminology is b/n paedophiles and ephebophiles. These distinctions will be of no comfort to the victims, of course. Who cares whether you were a prepubescent or an adolescent when you were abused, the point is you were abused. But it seems paedophiles have a grimly low rate of being ‘cured’ (if at all) whereas ephebophiles fare better with treatment. I have no idea whether any of this is accurate or true or reliable. But I do agree that if the public is going to discuss this in a helpful way there should be an effort on the part of the media to be more careful about terminology.
Paula Loughlin: do not attempt to confuse paedophiles with homosexuals. The two are as distinct as heterosexuals and paedophiles are. Why are you always trying to blame gay people for everything anyway? I suppose unwanted teenage pregnancies and abortions are our fault too in some weird illogical way, are they?
The problem in Ireland was that the Church considered itself beyond the law, and the solution is to make very sure in future that religions are not exempt from the same legal accountability and human rights legislation as anyone else. Unaccountable hierarchies do not police themselves.
Fr. Mark, pay attention to what I wrote. I said although it is a minority of the homosexual population that commits these acts (sexual abuse of adolescent males as opposed to prepubescent children) the percentage when compared to the same percentage in heterosexual populations is disproportianate. That is not me blaming homosexuals it is me blaming a subset of homosexuals. And I don’t just make this stuff up there is statistical evidence to prove it.
Now if you were discussing actual pedophilia then yes the numbers of violators who identify themselves as either homosexual or heterosexual would probably fall more into the heterosexual range. So I do not view pedophilia as a homosexual problem. In fact I tend to view it as outside either homosexual or heterosexual identity because both of these assume attraction to adults of either the same or opposite sex.
And I agree with the rest of your assesment though I am very cautious of human rights legislation as it pertains to the rights of religious believers to express their beliefs regarding homosexual behavior.
And again I emphasis the majority of homosexuals are sexualy attracted to other adults. Why the priesthood attracted so many who were attracted to adolescent males I don’t know. Maybe there was a stop gap in their sexual development trapping them into viewing themselves as adolescents well into adulthood? But I doubt that is the case with most gay men.
Denial is not a big river in Egypt.
RMBurton, Do you mean me? If you do please explain as I am quite at a loss to your meaning.
Paula,
I am referring to the fact that the institution from the top down have denied that there was a problem and that many of the laity have accepted those denials. Just look at the notorious cases that went-on for years in the Archdiocese of Boston, only to end in massive financial settlements that virtually bankrupted them. Denial, as opposed to the Nile. Cases of sexual abuse and violence against native children in institutions run by the Anglican Church of Canada cost them tens of millions of dollars, yet the victims received very little, if even that. Those who were so cruelly robbed of their innocence might well say:
“Remember, remember
That God is the sender
Of every good gift unto man;
But the devil, to spite us,
Sent fellows in mitres
Who rob us of all that they can.”
Not only did they deny the problem they looked right at it and pretended not to see it.
I do not deny the problem but think it is very important we are honest about the causes of the majority of the abuse and the subsequent coverup. The former is certainly narrower and easier to address then the latter.
I say this because it was a minority of priests from a minority of homosexuals attracted to adolescents who committed most of the abuse. They were and remain a distinct exception to both those who are priests and those who are homosexual. So paying closer attention to any man’s suitability to the priesthood is one rather simple means to cut down on the abuse.
However I would argue that any institution not just the Church can develop overtime a fanatical sense of its own importance which justifies it being blind to its faults and using its powers to protect itself from outside or inside criticism. It mistakenly thinks that it must preserve its good image no matter the cost to those who are harmed by its actions. This groupthink is a lot harder to deal with as it so ingrained in the very nature of any closed institution be it a Church or a prison.
But the Church had better, and I believe she is, shed herself of that notion. Our Lord is a Lord of light and bringing these abuses out of the darkness is no doubt an act of His grace.
I’ll not be snookered by a lot of malarkey about how “that was then”, and “this is now”. The fish still stinks from the head-down. Crimes were committed against children, the Church hierarchy knew it and were complicit in the cover-up, period.
RMBruton, So you don’t think the Church and other institutions which at times have children in their care have not improved how they prevent and deal with abuse? I would strongly disagree with that. So yes in many ways this is indeed a case of that was then and this is now.
One question RMBruton, are you using fish as a general example for things that rot from the top down or as a specifically Catholic reference? Being known as a mackeral snapper does tend to make one more aware of fish analogies.
Miss Loughlin,
It is possible that you have never heard the colloquial phrase “the fish stinks from the head-down.” And the word was malarkey; not mackerel. The screening processes for those entering ministry have become more sophisticated; but clearly we are talking about a specific situation wherein systematic abuse took place over at least twenty-five years, involving more than forty-six clergymen and was covered-up by no less than four Archbishops, three of whom are now deceased and the last might well be on his way to seek protection within the Vatican State. No, I absolutely do not think things have improved; they have become more layered in bureaucracy, but children are still being abused. It is a pity that there are no galley-ships for these men to be sent on. Don’t think this is merely a male thing. I venture to say that there have been some abusive women who have been so protected because they were nuns, as well. Perhaps some of their deeds will come to light as a result of this situation. I’ll say no more!
RMBruton (#15),
Concerning your statement, “children are still being abused,” what is your evidence, please?
I would gladly have any abuse come to light. I agree with most of your assesment even that children are still being abused. I don’t think a sin just stops because we suddenly start a process to preven it.
But I disagree that things are not improving. Mainly because of the screening process for anyone who is going to be working with children and because of the stricter rules about seminarians.
It is also improving because of public exposure of these crimes. This has created a demand for transparancy which I do not think we will ever give up. And the massive pay outs in law suits also helps. There is something to be said for making the consequences of inaction so expensive, it forces a more attentive and effective self policing. But mainly it emphasises that clergy are not above either canon or civil or criminal law. And that is a big improvement.
Monksgate,
Mark this date on the calendar and in one year look back and see if I was right. There are few things I would rather be incorrect about, but based on precedent, sadly, I think I am correct. Paula, the only answer I’ll give you is that things did not improve in Ireland. There is still a stained-glass force field to protect these people, which is anything but transparent. Massive pay-outs enriched the attorneys and not nearly so much goes to the victims. The complicity and protection of the hierarchy proved that for so long the clergy are beyond the law. Simply look at the attempt by the one remaining Archbishop to seek asylum in Rome.
Paula and RMBruton,
Given the context of the article and the subsequent discussion, the statement “children are still being abused†means nothing has been done to address the issue (which simply isn’t true) or that the safeguards put in place are ineffective (which is an assertion that needs to be backed up with evidence—and quickly since innocent children are, according to this argument, still at risk).
My suspicion is that the evil perpetrated by the guilty bishops was due not to malice but, as Hannah Arendt has suggested, banality. It isn’t for me to decide whether they sinned. That’s for God to decide. But from what we know, it looks as though they were stupidly banal. They ticked what they considered to be the appropriate boxes (treatment secured for the priests, cured, re-assigned, end of problem); they were un-imaginative; they didn’t ponder and reflect.
It would be very easy to end up on the other side of the same coin by a banal acceptance of the “givens†of this situation as dished up to us by the media (and a media that seems increasingly anti-Christian as well as mouth-frothingly anti-RC). I’m particularly troubled about this b/c though I fully believe in keeping the RCC’s feet to the fire on this issue, I repeat what I’ve said on this blog before: RC priests, bishops, and religious are not the only people committing or colluding in the sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults. In other words, by spreading incendiary and inaccurate accusations against the RCC, as though that’s where THE child sex abuse is happening, who is paying attention to the children being abused by their mothers’ boyfriends, by step-fathers, by etc., etc., etc. Harsh though this may sound, I sometimes have to wonder if some statements and ‘exposés’ are more about Catholic-bashing than about protecting children.
I repeat – and I do so b/c every time I say this, I’m mis-understood – vigilance where RC clergy and religious are concerned must not be relaxed at all! But if we’re interested in justice and protecting the innocent rather than venting anti-Catholic bigotry we need to be accurate and ready to back up claims with solid evidence.
Monksgate,
It wouldn’t matter to me any less if these had been Tibetan Buddhists. I can cite at least four cases which were shoved under the rug by RCs, Anglicans as well as Orthodox; but this is not the venue for that. If you want to stick your head in the sand, have at it. I fear that this will all be pushed to the back page shortly and the abuse of children will continue. Like I said, look back in a year.
RMBruton,
If the cases you refer to have to do w/ activity that has happened after safeguards have been set up, then I hope something is being done about it now rather than waiting a year.
Far from sticking my head in the sand, I’m helping someone who has run into difficulties w/ a particularly thick bishop. Yes, abuses will continue b/c sin won’t simply disappear. So your original statement taken in its simplest interpretation is, unfortunately, true. But I will be truly shocked if abuses continue at the same rate, with the same administrative stupidity, and accompanied by the same lay passivity as in the past.
Oh brother. Here are are again.
RE: “I sometimes have to wonder if some statements and ‘exposés’ are more about Catholic-bashing than about protecting children.”
Yeh that’s it. Pointing out the malevolent cover-ups of the systemic generations-long abuse of children in Dublin by four archbishops in a row is clearly “Catholic-bashing.”
It just never stops, does it. Any time something is pointed out about RC wickedness it’s “Catholic-bashing.”
But when the same people point out the inanities and heresies of Katherine Jefferts Schori, why that’s as it should be of course.
I agree with Monksgate’s last post with one exception. I don’t think it is Catholic bashing to be horrified at this abuse and to express that horror. I do think it is short sighted to believe this is only a Catholic problem. And I don’t doubt that some people’s sole focus on abuse in the Church alone may be partially fueled by anti Catholic prejudice. And I am not speaking of any of the posters here when I say that.
Sarah and Paula,
Unfortunately, you’ve proven me right yet again when I said that every time I make this statement it is misunderstood. I took pains to both state and reiterate – I said the same thing twice, dear sisters, twice! – that this entire mess in the RCC is so grave that we must remain vigilant about putting an end to it. It is so obvious to me that this includes being genuinely horrified by the sex abuse in the RCC and the need for “pointing out†such instances as the cover-ups by the Dublin archbishops that I would have thought stating it would have insulted anyone’s intelligence. Apparently not. So let me re-state the same conviction yet again. The behavior at issue on the part of RC priests, bishops, and religious is heinous, and we must (and here I speak as a layperson) do our part to make sure the wrongdoers are exposed and held accountable. Please read my statement in #21. The bishop in question – the one I’m challenging by every means available – is RC.
It makes perfect sense to focus on sex abuse and cover-ups in the RCC when discussing an article about 4 RC archbishops. We all agree that this focus in this context is not anti-Catholicism. Where the discussion moves into a questionable area is when accusations (“children are still being abusedâ€) are made as assertions of fact w/o evidence. Implied in such statements – even if unintentionally – is that the RCC as a whole is so corrupt and so un-caring or that RC insistence on clerical celibacy is so patently unhealthy that we obviously don’t need to worry ourselves with evidence or sound reasoning.
RMBruton has stated that he or she is in possession of evidence that children are still being abused but that this is not the venue in which to present it. Fair enough. (And I hope a venue is found in which to present that evidence – and quickly.) But because I’m deeply troubled by what, by all accounts, seems to be happening to many children throughout society, whether at the hands of clergy, caregivers, relatives, teachers, etc., I’m not going to sit by quietly when I get the slightest hint that fulminating against the RCC, and doing so without solid evidence, is somehow addressing the issue. It’s not. I’m being very serious when I say that I want to see evidence that the safeguards set up by dioceses and the new laws are not working and that “children are still being abused,†b/c if it’s true I’ll be on the front line to make sure something is done about it.
RE: “And I don’t doubt that some people’s sole focus on abuse in the Church alone may be partially fueled by anti Catholic prejudice.”
It’s possible. But I suspect it is fueled more by ant-Christian prejudice. And the RCs have moved to the forefront of being the spokespeople for the Christian faith in this century.
If the leaders of TEC were actually promoters of the Christian gospel [rather than being a part of the anti-Christians as so many of them are], we’d be being crucified for Bennison et al.
But we haven’t infuriated the anti-Christians as the RCs and their stance has.
Sarah I totally agree. A clue to this can be found in the now frequent argument put out by liberals (secular and religious) that the failing of the Church to respond rightly to the abuse means they have lost the moral authority to speak on abortion or gay marriage. Yet one never hears that the Church must be silent about the War in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I agree, Sarah (#25). Or rather, I should say that simply proclaiming the Christian gospel is enough of a counter-cultural stand to mean one will eventually come under attack. But there might be other factors that exacerbate the focus (read: fixation) by the media (especially) on the RC Church in particular. Even assuming that the historical Anglo-American currents of anti-Catholicism are fading (which I’m not convinced is actually the case, but anyway), there’s quite simply the “weirdness†or “unhealthiness†of a celibate clergy. Current Western culture can’t get its head around this at all. So the relatively small percentage of priests who have been guilty of sex abuse means – to many in our sex-obsessed culture – that pretty much all celibate priests are teetering on the brink of the same kind of behavior or are engaging in it already but simply haven’t been caught. Frankly, if I were a journalist who held this view I too would focus on digging around in the RC Church b/c I’d be sure of finding something eventually. And b/c priests are sinners, one will eventually find something. Then too there is the perception that the RC Church has lots of money. I am told that one of the lawyers who specialized in going after the RCC with sex abuse cases is now turning his attention to the Mormons.
#25. Sarah,
[blockquote]It’s possible. But I suspect it is fueled more by ant-Christian prejudice. And the RCs have moved to the forefront of being the spokespeople for the Christian faith in this century.[/blockquote]
1. The target also seems to be whoever is pushing back. The Mormons incurred the wrath of the GLBT community for their Prop 8 advocacy.
2. A major part of the pedophile problem is the serial nature. One pedophile will molest scores or even hundreds of children. It is like a virulent disease that was left untreated and when discovered was spread by those charged with containing it. What happened to the children was tragic, criminal and an outrage but it has also harmed the witness of the church. We are still being reminded about the involvement of the church in the crusades and the inquisition. Rest assured the attempt to cover this up will insure that it will never go away.