Yet another case of instituional Catholic child abuse.

[thundril]

Latest post of the previous page:

Statement from Cardinal O'Brien

3 March 2013

Statement from Cardinal O'Brien

"In recent days certain allegations which have been made against me have
become public. Initially, their anonymous and non-specific nature led me
to contest them.
. . .
However, I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been
times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me
as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.
. . ."

Could it be hoped that he will spend part of his time at Her Majesty's pleasure, . . .

The crime being what, exactly?

[Alan C.]

The crime being what, exactly?

Cardinal O’Brien ‘blackmail threat’ to abuse victim

CARDINAL Keith O’Brien threatened to report a victim of clerical sexual abuse to the police as a “blackmailer”, according to the man who had been abused.

[Tetenterre]

The crime being what, exactly?

Cardinal O’Brien ‘blackmail threat’ to abuse victim

CARDINAL Keith O’Brien threatened to report a victim of clerical sexual abuse to the police as a “blackmailer”, according to the man who had been abused.

What disturbs me most about that is not that I find it utterly abhorrent, but that it no longer surprises me.

[Dave B]

The crime being what, exactly?

Cardinal O’Brien ‘blackmail threat’ to abuse victim

CARDINAL Keith O’Brien threatened to report a victim of clerical sexual abuse to the police as a “blackmailer”, according to the man who had been abused.

Well, seems yet another can is well and truly open - and a good thing too!

[thundril]

OK, so now O'Brien allegedly threatened to falsely accuse someone of committing a crime of blackmail. But he didn't apparently carry out the threat.
Unpleasant behaviour? Sure.
Morally reprehensible? I would say so.
Actually illegal if true? Possibly.
But not yet enough to justify hoping to see the old bastard doing time, IMO.

[Alan C.]

^ Did you follow my link?

Michael X”, who received £42,000 granted by the Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh
in 1990 following his traumatic experiences, said yesterday that when he insisted Father Desmond Lynagh, who had abused him while he was a 14-year-old junior seminarian at Blairs in Aberdeen in the 1970s, should be sent away for counselling and no longer minister to children and young people, the archbishop had threatened him with the police.

Rather than report the abuser to the police O'Brian threatened the abused with the police, there's a crime in there somewhere, is there not?

Why wasn't this pervert jailed? Oh right! he's a vicar.
Voyeur Reverend Richard Lee walks free from court over indecent pictures of girls and woman
It's high time the "justice" system started treating the purveyors of myth the same as it treats the rest of us.

[Dave B]

I am not sure that that sort of threat is a crime, Alan. Offering a punch on the nose may get you into trouble but I would doubt that offering to tell the police about someone who is making an accusation about one probably will not. If the accusation has firm grounding, and it is of the nature of this one, I would actually have thought that taking it to the police might not be a good idea.

If it was a bluff it was a dangerous one! It might not interest the police but it would risk the matter being made public.

Anyway, making groundless accusations is a civil matter, not a criminal one.

[Alan C.]

Dave
I am not sure that that sort of threat is a crime,

I wasn't referring to a threat, I did bold the relevant bit.

Rather than report the (alleged, added) abuser to the police.

If Michael X made an allegation to O'Brian then O'Brian should have informed the police, no?

Why did O'Brian sanction the £42,000 payout to Micheal X?

[Dave B]

My apologies, Alan, I misread.

[Alan H]

Catholic Church in Scotland 'knew of 20 child sex abuse allegations'

By James Cook
Scotland Correspondent, BBC News

The BBC has spoken to an alleged victim of abuse in Scotland

The BBC has seen evidence that bishops in the Catholic Church in Scotland knew of 20 allegations of child sex abuse by priests between 1985 and 1995.

Another alleged victim of abuse says his life has been ruined.

An academic who compiled a report for the Church on how to deal with abuse says not enough was done.

The Catholic Church in Scotland insists its child protection procedures have improved dramatically since the 1990s and allegations of abuse now are rare.

The Roman Catholic Church is no stranger to scandal, but until now Scotland has not been engulfed by allegations of abuse.

That may be changing.

Priest removed
The BBC has also spoken to another alleged victim who is not among the 20 new allegations.

Chris claims he was abused by a priest in the 90s, from the age of nine or 10 until he was into his early teens.

"He would get me to perform sexual acts on him and he would perform sexual acts on me," he said.

"Away from the family home, in the family home, in the church, in their vehicle.

"There's many people out there who have been abused."

Chris' story didn't come to light until last year. Police took him seriously, but the case never came to court.

The Church says it removed the priest involved from his parish as soon as the allegations were made and the police were informed.

It insisted the case had been "handled in complete accordance with the guidelines".

A spokesman added: "The Church sent its file to the Vatican in July last year and now awaits a decision."

But how common were such claims?

In the mid-1990s, an academic was appointed to advise the Church on sexual abuse and how to respond to it.

Alan Draper asked Scotland's eight bishops how much they knew.

The BBC has seen the letters which they sent in reply to Mr Draper, which refer to 20 allegations of child abuse by priests.

Lawyer contacted
Mr Draper says he wanted independent experts to investigate further, but the bishops disagreed.

He said: "I was very concerned about their unwillingness to actually expose individual priests who were leading double lives.

"They were very reluctant to do that, and I felt that was totally inappropriate. It's not what your sexuality is, it's how you're managing your sexuality.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

All allegations are notified to the police”

Catholic Church in Scotland
"Certainly there's strong evidence to say some of the priests were out of control sexually, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual. The file should be made open to an independent group, preferably chaired by a judge."

The Church said Mr Draper was involved "at an early stage in the development of policies and procedures but was replaced when others with greater competence were engaged".

The letters seen by the BBC suggest some priests were reported to police and removed from parishes, while others were not.

Now more alleged victims are coming forward after Cardinal Keith O'Brien admitted sexual misconduct after resigning as Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh following allegations by other priests.

He does not face any criminal allegations, or any claims of child abuse.

Lawyer Cameron Fyfe said: "I'm acting for six clients who allege abuse, two of whom have come forward just in the last few weeks since the Keith O'Brien scandal.

"Some of them go back to the early 1980s, but two of them have been within the last 10 years."

National guidelines
He said two of his clients claimed to have been raped while they were children, with the attacks taking place in the late-1980s and mid-1990s.

Mr Fyfe said that under Scots law, cases should be brought within three years.

But he said that was "totally unrealistic because victims of sexual abuse often lock away the memories of the abuse and can't come to terms with it".

In a statement, the Catholic Church in Scotland said it had applied nationally agreed guidelines on abuse since 1999.

It said: "All allegations are notified to the police. The Church recognises that the statutory authorities are the responsible bodies for investigation.

"All necessary steps are taken to remove anyone in danger from situations of risk."

It added that a "national co-ordinator" for child protection was a key part of its "safeguarding structures."

[Nick]

[quote="Nick]
Could it be hoped that he will spend part of his time at Her Majesty's pleasure, . . .

The crime being what, exactly?[/quote][/quote]
Certainly, we don't know the full detail, and innocence should be presumed, but the implication is that, as it was serious enough for him to resign over the matter, it went beyond breaches in church protocol.

I hope the truth will out.

[animist]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21810980

with Cardinals like this, the new Pope scarcely needs enemies

[Dave B]

In some cases I also think that paedophilia is a psychological condition. But that does not mean that:

a) The police are still the first authority that should be involved even with, as yet unproven, complaints of abuse.
b) Any organisation that does not immediately suspend and report any person complained about should be charged with aiding and abetting. Not even the RCC should be allowed to "sort it out in the family."
c) All "treatment" should be carried out by therapists other than those employed by the organisation to which they belonged.


The big problem is that any person can accuse a teacher, priest, doctor etc. of some kind of sexual abuse simply because they want to make trouble for them. The problem is that the innocent teacher etc. will probably find it almost impossible to clear their name and rebuild their career. Joe Public can't even tell the difference between "paedophile" and "paediatrician" it seems.

[animist]

In some cases I also think that paedophilia is a psychological condition. But that does not mean that:

a) The police are still the first authority that should be involved even with, as yet unproven, complaints of abuse.
b) Any organisation that does not immediately suspend and report any person complained about should be charged with aiding and abetting. Not even the RCC should be allowed to "sort it out in the family."
c) All "treatment" should be carried out by therapists other than those employed by the organisation to which they belonged.


The big problem is that any person can accuse a teacher, priest, doctor etc. of some kind of sexual abuse simply because they want to make trouble for them. The problem is that the innocent teacher etc. will probably find it almost impossible to clear their name and rebuild their career. Joe Public can't even tell the difference between "paedophile" and "paediatrician" it seems.

I assume that you meant to put a "not" in each of a, b and c. The fact that it probably is a psychological condition in some sense does not absolve anyone, priest or otherwise, from acting on their impulses if these are illegal - has this man not heard of moral responsibility and free will?

[Dave B]

Er, not sure why you ask that, animist. What I was trying to say is that regardless of the basic reason for the behaviour reported the same actions need to be taken -

the subject is immediately removed from any situation that might cause further problems, police should be involved initially because they are the agents of investigation and the organisation that employed the subject should have no say in the actions taken at any stage.

If, later, the subject is found to be suffering from treatable psychological problems then the appropriate agency takes charge, within the legal framework, of the matter. If incarceration is required it is perhaps unfortunate that this is usually within the criminal system rather than the health one. Simply sticking a mentally sick person in prison will never cure them.

I will also say that, as was said in a recent short debate on the radio about false rape claims, that any adults involved in proven false, malicious claims should themselves be required to undergo some sort of punitive and/or treatment routine.

[thundril]

If incarceration is required it is perhaps unfortunate that this is usually within the criminal system rather than the health one. Simply sticking a mentally sick person in prison will never cure them.

I will also say that, as was said in a recent short debate on the radio about false rape claims, that any adults involved in proven false, malicious claims should themselves be required to undergo some sort of punitive and/or treatment routine.

I thibk I agree with where you're coming from, Dave, but the power of the state to determine psychiatric treatments is a scarier prospect than their power to incarcerate law-breakers. Democratic states are skilled in using particularly repellent cases to gather support for further erosions of our freedoms. I recall when the acceptability of secret video evidence was first proposed; much of the left-libertarian opposition was muted by the televising of a tape of a known far-right woman persuading her infirm mother to commit suicide.
These days the monsters of choice are the paedophiles, and the Muslims. The state wants your permission to arrest without trial, to torture, to expel opposition voices from the country without due process. The power to commit undesirables to psychiatric treatment is a very powerful weapon in ruthless hands. We should be vigilant.
Who dares stand up for the rights of a suspected terrorist or paedophile? The speed with which most of our media presumed that a priest accused of inappropriate homosexual behaviour must also be a paedophile is disturbing. Even if they later turn out to have been right in their guesswork, it is still wrong to presume people guilty, especially to presume people guilty of a crime they are not even charged with.

[Dave B]

Yeah, I should have intimated that I know that the state can't cope with this problem adequately, thundril. But then, which problems do they manage to cope with adequately, things just do not get thought out do they?

[thundril]

Agreed, Dave. We need to get beyong leaving it to the state to resolve behavioural conflicts, without handing power to vigilantes. It's a difficult one.

[Alan H]

When will it end?

Fresh scandal hits Catholic Church in Scotland as four more alleged victims of sexual abuse by clerics come forward

[Dave B]

It'll end when there are no more living victims and the RCC finally get round to doing something about it. We are still in "history", ask when they will do something about the future.

I don't think it helps when, noticing a side story, people with well known names say things that only give the offenders some sort of excuse:

BILL Roache believes sex abuse victims are paying for their behaviour in previous lives.

The Coronation Street star provoked fury with a string of bizarre claims he made in a TV interview.

He said famous men shouldn’t be judged for getting “caught in the trap” of sleeping with under-age girls.

And, discussing paedophiles, Roache claimed we should be “totally forgiving” whether they’re guilty or not.

Whilst we need to treat some paedophiles as suffering from a mental illness I still hope Roache gets the reaction he deserves.

"Forgiving" is a difficult concept I think. A mentally ill person can be "forgiven" for his or her actions if they have a lack of conscious responsibility for them. But that does not mean they should not be placed in a regime - for the rest of their lives if necessary - that ensures they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.

[Dave B]

There was a discussion on religion on R4 earlier (whilst I was doing my ablutions - must relisten to get the whole thing) led by John Humphreys. Female priesthood and celibacy featured high on the agenda.

In that a priest said something about some problems being societal and not specifically related to religion. it would be interesting to find figures relating to sex crimes per "group". Yes, taking society as a whole there will certainly be the largest figure, it's the largest group. Far more interesting would be the number of offences per number of people in specific groups; priests, teachers, youth leaders etc. Another thing to do when I have the time!