Accountability
The victims of the Catholic church also see the pope’s eyewash as self-serving and beside the point – and above all as a gross evasion of accountability.
Marie Collins, who was abused in 1960 by a priest when she was a patient at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children…pointed out the statement “doesn’t deal with the past. No one has taken responsibility for what went on in Dublin. There is no accountability.”…Andrew Madden, who was abused by Ivan Payne when he was an altar boy in Dublin’s Cabra parish…[said it was] “self-serving nonsense”…and he for one, as a survivor, hadn’t asked for prayers. “And they say they listen to survivors?” The statement was “an attempt to deflect attention away from accountability”.
That’s certainly how it looks to me. There is something more than a little sickening about the head of an organization responding to a report of that organization’s long-term systematic protection of abusive employees by making a big fuss about his own emotions while completely failing, not to say refusing, to take any real responsibility. It’s as if the pope thinks that all he has to do is make a display of his own appropriate feelings when really his feelings are entirely beside the point; what is wanted is accountability, and the feelings of one guy are no good as a substitute.
Both he and Ms Collins said what was necessary now was for the five sitting bishops named in the Murphy report to resign. “All bishops in place over the period investigated by the commission should step down,” said Ms Collins. “They are collectively responsible for what went on in the diocese. It all happened on their watch. They must take responsibility.”…Andrew Madden dismissed the pope’s intention of writing a pastoral letter to the Irish people with a “big deal!” comment. He too felt the five serving bishops named in the Murphy report must resign. They had been “responsible for covering up for paedophiles,” he said, and should “go, go, go”.
See? Emoting is no good, showy apologizing is no good, talk of prayers and pastoral letters is no good. They have to take responsibility – and, remarkably, they’re not doing it.
One in Four chief executive Maeve Lewis said she was “deeply disappointed” at the pope’s statement. “His reaction is wholly inadequate…We had hoped that the pope might apologise for the culture of secrecy and cover-up by Catholic Church authorities documented by the report and that he might accept responsibility for his role in the creation of that culture,” she said. His response echoed “that of the Irish bishops in attempting to focus blame for the destruction of countless lives on individual sex-offending priests rather than accepting accountability for the role of the Catholic Church authorities in recklessly endangering children,” she said.
It’s not just a few individual bad apples, it’s the institution. It will be a chilly day in hell before the pontiff admits that.
Mervyn Rundle, (who was abused, while serving as an alter-boy,) is vowing to take legal action because of stalling from the Church.
“They’ve riled me up so much that I can safely say I’m taking it further, taking it to the criminal end of things,” I’m pushing the gardai now to get a criminal case, and if I don’t get any satisfaction from that I’m going to the European courts.”
However, from what I have read in the Irish Indy 12/12/09 (Jason O’ Brien) legal sources said it is unlikely he would be able to bring such a case. Sadly, “the legal offence under which clerical abuse victims could bring such a case has been abolished. Instead the ‘misprision of felony investigation’ offence was replaced by a stronger ‘reckless endangerment’ charge introduced in 2006. But that charge could not be levelled retrospectively against authority figures in the Catholic Church.”
Makes you sick!
Oops, should have read ‘Altar’.
Speaking of which, “Altar Boy” is an autobiography by Andrew Madden. He was twelve when he became an altar boy. He wanted to become a priest, but his love of the Roman Catholic Church was destroyed when a priest he knew well, started to sexually abuse him.
Andrew Madden is to be thoroughly commended for the strong stand he took over the years, in fighting for righteousness against his predators.
It can’t come as a surprise that the church is trying to make this all about feelings. ‘Feelings’ are just about the only trick in their bag. Things like the truth always take a back seat to feelings for some people.
What happens when we die? Nobody knows, but it makes some folks feel better to pretend they do.
Why are we here? Nobody even knows if the question makes sense, but it makes some people feel better to pretend they have an answer.
Where did we come from? Hell, for this one we even have a well supported answer, but some people would rather ignore it in favor of an ‘explanation’ that makes them feel better.
So long as the church leaders say they feel bad about the situation they don’t see any need to actually change it. And as for such worldly considerations as responsibility or justice, well, it seems that they just don’t feel any qualms about ignoring such mundane matters (especially since that might negatively effect their balance sheets).
Marie-Thérèse: Any insight into why that change in the law was made?
Grendels Dad: Of course, the church would say that responsibility and justice will come in the next world, and perhaps they genuinely believe that. (I know that doesn’t help the victims, and I certainly don’t think the RC faith is true.)
Feelings, of course, are all there is in the final analysis in any area, no?
Supposedly one of the golden rules of marketing is that it’s a battle of perceptions, not of products.
In the case of actual products or services you can make comparisons of value-for-money and so on. But this doesn’t work for religions. You can only say that religion A is true because it makes me feel good.
Stephen,
“The Criminal Justice Act 2006 introduced a new offence of reckless endangerment of children, following a recommendation to that effect in the report of the Ferns inquiry published in October 2005. This makes it an offence for a person with authority or control over a child or abuser to intentionally or recklessly endanger a child by causing or permitting any child to be placed or left in a situation which creates a substantial risk to the child of being a victim of serious harm or abuse or for failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child from such a risk while knowing that the child is in such a situation.” Dermot Aherne, Minister for Justice
“Section 176 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 introduced the criminal charge of reckless endangerment of children.
It states: A person, having authority or control over a child or abuser, who intentionally or recklessly endangers a child by—(a) causing or permitting any child to be placed or left in a situation which creates a substantial risk to the child of being a victim of serious harm or sexual abuse, or (b) failing to take reasonable steps to protect a child from such a risk while knowing that the child is in such a situation, is guilty of an offence. This is a serious charge. Although it cannot be used retrospectively, it is a potentially powerful provision in tackling those who attempt to hide sexual abuse.” – Barry Andrews. TD,
GD, no, not surprised, just indignant.