55 Comments

• barneyjo | Jan 23, 2011, 09:34 AM EST

  Ah but didyou not realise that women have got multi-tasking down pat!! We'll give her a fair hearing I'm sure!! As regards the "Holy Spirit", I have to agree, which makes it even more shameful that those in church authority cant (or wont) see or recognise that fact, whilst the likes of you and I and others can!! Is there hope in that d'you think?

• jacersagain | Jan 22, 2011, 06:51 PM EST

  barneyjo - Thanks for the msg over on Pee Cooper’s page (I'd alaways have more time for Cathy's pages than Patrick's). Yes, I can certainly understand your position, and your “discreet but respectful distance” and I respect that ‘cos I’m not far away from that position meself. I think it is unfathomable to ask “Where is Christ?” in the policies you speak of but I’m bluddy sure His other third, the Holy Spirit, is - and I can’t argue a whit with that wise third part of St. Patrick’s shamrock. >>> Speaking of ‘pages’ or blogs: beejo, have you noted that ICentral’s Megan Finnegan, she who goes to Mass and listens, who is marrying herself to her Tim and who loves a drrrrink in NYC on Paddy’s Day, is about to launch a discussion on religion on her ICentral site? See you there on her pages - that is, of course, conditional on Megan having time to blog discussing religion while prepping for her wedding.

• barneyjo | Jan 22, 2011, 04:37 PM EST

  @jacersagain - you have been kind enough to give my views on these matters a fair hearing, as I hope you would accept that I have accorded you the same courtesy. You will have seen that I have referenced the "Tuscon" letter in another post, in the context of the direction/advice given by a senior member of the vatican hierarchy to a Bishop in Arizona. The letter from Cardinal Oddi, to Bishop Moreno could not be more clear to my mind as to the counsel given and the course of action that the Bishop should take. I accept that there is a significant difference in the timeline in which these letters were sent. However, I am sure I am not alone when I say that I can recognise considerable co-terminocity between the content and themes of the two documents. This adherence and reliance on the use of "Legaleese" apparent in both letters are in large measure, the reason why I feel compelled to keep that "discreet but respectful distance" that I spoke of previously. It is not something I wanted or would have chosen for myself, but I am bound to ask the fundamental question "Where is Christ" in the policies, rationale or actions of senior Catholic Clergy across the world, which have been laid bare before us all!!

• Intercessor | Jan 22, 2011, 08:50 AM EST

  The documentary on this story was aired by "Would you Believe!" It was a great, informative documentary. I encourage you all to find it. Now, any apologies by your bishops, high-ranking, high-hatted Vatican Clericats*, or the even the Pope will come across as really being disingenuous and lame. *I define a "Clericat" as a fossilized Vatican official, who seems to have 9 lives. They are the ones, who are stuck with the old, Vatican delusion, found in Pope Pius IX's, "Syllabus of Errors," that the Vatican is a law to itself and is not legally responsible to ANY world government. According to the Church, it is an "ERROR," complete with the threat of Eternal Damnation, not to believe the rants proclaiming Vatican spiritual-superiority, found in his INFALLIBLE, Papal Encyclical called, "The Syllabus of Errors." If you don't believe me, Google it! Read it for yourself, and then, hopefully join a movement to bring the Vatican Clericats into World Court to answer for orchestrating world-wide, Pedophile Coverups.

• barneyjo | Jan 22, 2011, 07:21 AM EST

  The saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make it drink" comes to mind at this juncture. There are still too many closed minds at this point in time, hence my deduction that the Church body has a further fall to endure. And anyway, Irish History clearly shows that faith can not only survive but also thrive in a situation where the formal presence of a church structure is minimal. I refer to the Penal times in Ireland where there was a minimal (and in some parts of the country no-existant) clerical presence. Yet the faith survived for over one hundred years. I am confident of my own faith and of my own relationship with Christ. I know where the boundaries of responsibility lie related to that faith and I now trust my own awareness of those responsibilities. I am prepared to acknowledge the spiritual authority of clergy to bring the sacraments to myself and my family; however in terms of a moral authority to direct me in how I live my life, it is at that point I reserve the right to judge for myself the correctness of what I think do or say. I believe I can forgive others, and in turn be forgiven by a just and loving God for any wrongs done, or offence caused, be that knowingly, or unknowingly!! (oh and the screenname is just that - Barneyjo!!)

• jacersagain | Jan 21, 2011, 08:06 PM EST

  Well barneyjo ((what a fabulous screen name! – I still don’t know if it’s a Bernard or a Jo (ie Josephine) or both conjoined; no matter.)) I think your last reply is fantastic; it goes with my grain. But I would urge you not to distance yourself from the Church that you & I know well. It is only by being involved that we of the Church can make the necessary changes happen universally. Which is why I support (though not involved in, Mea culpa!) the ideals of the VOF in Ireland.

• barneyjo | Jan 21, 2011, 08:53 AM EST

  Yes the life and work of the church will go on, but........if its nature remains the same as I have now come to understand it to have been, for all the years of my life as a practicing Catholic, then I for one will be maintaining a discreet but respectful distance. I am content that I will not subscribe my loyalty to a "business" structure. I think the change in mindset will come eventually, but I am saddened when I reach the conclusion that there are those within the Church Hierarchy who still "dont get it"; that the church doesnt belong to the upper echelons of the clerical elite, but it is the church of the Faithful; thats you and I and millions like us across the world who for a start, wish to see the Hierarchy practice what they preach; to adhere to the strictures of Canon Law if they feel they must, and stop bending or fracturing (though not breaking) its strictures when it suits or for reasons of expediency. My understanding of the definition of the word "Catholic" is to imply a universality or equality for everyone and everything. I will take a lot of pursuading to be convinced that the church and faith in which I was raised is anywhere near to becoming that model of universality for all who wish to be part of it.

• jacersagain | Jan 20, 2011, 07:00 PM EST

  (... more) Yes, barneyjo, I agree Bishop Smith placed great personal experiences before us on TV, speaking with great honest eyes and exasperation at times. I also listened to the other contributors – the unidentified mother of an abused son; Dr. Bryan Maguire (abused as a child but a fervent Catholic despite his horrible experiences, an excellent Voice of the Faithful in Ireland rep); Dr. Karen Keenan (psychotherapist, intimately involved in child abuse advisory panels and cases, very sensible in her contributions); David Quinn (highly respected Catholic journalist, who does not mislead); Cathy Molloy (theologian) and especially I enjoyed Fr. Aidan McGrath (an Oblate priest and a Canon Lawyer), all alongside Bishop Smith’s enlightening comments. Almost all of them spoke in the context of the ‘Strictly confidential’ letter as presented to them by Mike Peelo. The actions of the Vatican officials beggar belief sometimes to most of us but, in reading the letter, I realised just how tied were the hands of bishops, cardinals and even that of Popes under Canon Law. As canonical lawyer Fr. McGrath said, laws can change. I just wish they would change faster in respect of this issue. No wonder the then Archbishop (later Cardinal) O’Connell reportedly banged his fist on the desk while arguing his case with Cardinal Horos at that meeting in Sligo. I wish the mindset of Vatican officialdom would change faster. Children’s’ lives are at stake in this matter, even today. The life and work of the Church will always go on, as promised by Christ.

• jacersagain | Jan 20, 2011, 06:16 PM EST

  Say barneyjo, don'tcha think it's a bit ridiculous for us to be discussing this topic under two different IC articles? I'd rather stick here with Cathy's article because Patrick's article over the other side is rubbish. Anyways, while we both agree on a common cause in discussions of this nature, we are having differences of opinion between us – a healthy thing I hafta say; it promotes healthy learning discussion. I appreciate your respectful comments very much, and I listen to what you say, thank you. (More...)

• barneyjo | Jan 19, 2011, 09:41 PM EST

  @jacersagain - I watched the program myself, and I paid particular attention to the comments of Bishop Michael Smith in his pieces to camera. I have to say his statements are somewhat at odds with your view and interpretation of the letters significance. The Bishop stated quite clearly that at a meeting of the irish bishops in Sligo which was also attended Cardinal Castrillion Hoyos, Arch-Bishop Connell very forcefully sought to make the Cardinal aware of the very difficult position that the Irish Bishops had been put in by the Vatican. And those comments are coming from a Bishop who was present at that meeting.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2011, 06:50 PM EST

  Well now that I’ve read the ‘Strictly confidential” letter, I understand this 'Would You Believe' TV show a bit better. I now see it for what it is... a blatant misrepresentation by the presenting news reporter, Mike Neelo, of what the letter was about. The person who wrote the letter, Archbishop Storero, wrote it in his capacity as the Ambassador of the Holy See (the State of the Vatican City) to the Irish Republic, to “Your Excellency”, a term used in diplomatic circles world-wide to another of diplomatic, or in this case, of a certain level of religious standing. It does not name of the addressee. In the last paragraph of the letter, Archbishop Storero uses diplomatic language in saying “... I am directed to inform (the bishops of Ireland) ... (that) ... the Code of Canon Law (as of then) must be meticulously followed...” In these simple words, it is clear that he was merely a messenger and that therefore no blame should accrue to him for the letter’s significant message, something, IMO, the TV reporter meticulously misled us viewers to believe. The significant parts of the letter are clear and they have said nothing whatsoever to stop Irish Bishops or priests from reporting abuse, completely contrary to what journalists are leading people to believe. The significant parts deal solely with advice to follow Canon Law, or if they choose not to, to face being in an emabrassing position of losing their case under the Law (as it stood in 1996/97). The advice was primarily made to ensure they did not lose their case on behalf of the abused by taking a wrong turn in their pursuit of justice for the abused. In other words, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about achieving justice... the one proposed by the Irish Bishops at the time didn't exist at that time.

• pacifist | Jan 19, 2011, 05:16 PM EST

  haikued2, Nobody is saying that all priests are paedophiles, but just read Bernadett's comment posted just over your own. The Vatican state as a stae was a convenient barrier to misdirect, but the Roman Catholic Church is the main culprit where the victims have been Roman Catholic. Do you think Bernadett is lying about the priest who knew what his " friend " was doing and wouldn't because of that misplaced loyalty take action? Do you imagine that there weren't other priests whose loyalty was to their criminal friend and not to the abused children? People in every walk of life committ crimes - that includes people in police forces, armies, political parties and every other job or profession. And very often they close ranks and protect their erring colleagues - even sometimes when the offence is a major crime. The Roman Catholic Church - its popes, cardinals, bishops and priests are not above suspicion and some have covered up crimes and protected the criminal. It's a fact of life!

• Bernadett | Jan 19, 2011, 04:58 PM EST

  my sons abuse took place in 82 a well documented case in the murphy report.On the day we found out we went first went to the priest superiour who told us he knew what the priest was doing but he would not be reporting it to his bishop or the police as he felt he would be leting his friend down,so started our long battle with the church and now 27 and a half years my son still has not received any compensation the battle for justice goes on . To hear about what happened in Rome let me tell you they knew about things long before the famous letter.

• haikued2 | Jan 19, 2011, 03:41 PM EST

  While I have expressed my views on this below, I do think that a perspective has to be provided. Much of the reporting would give the impression that all priests were/are pedophiles and all Catholic kids have been victimized. Simply put: NOT TRUE. From what has been researched the percentages are very low. NO JUSTIFICATION for how it has been handled or for the crimes themselves, but once again the media and others are painting with a very broad paint brush. In the US, when an Army Major who had been radicalized and committed an atrocious act of slaughter at Ft Hood, the Media had a hard time dealing with his political/religious motivations and clearly said "all Muslims are not jihadists"...that is what I am saying here: the vast majority of Catholic priests are not pedophiles and do protect their flocks...just keep it in perspective.

• jacersagain | Jan 19, 2011, 03:38 PM EST

  The Vatican has given its response to the TV program. “Concerning a 1997 letter from Archbishop Luciano Storero, Apostolic Nuncio, to Irish bishops (remarks by Fr. Lombardi) In the course of a recent television programme in Ireland, mention was made of a letter written in 1997 by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then apostolic nuncio to Ireland, to members of the country's episcopal conference. That letter has been given biased treatment by some media outlets, who have presented it as proof of an instruction, from the Vatican, to cover up cases of sexual abuse of minors. The letter – written on the basis of indications received from the Congregation for the Clergy – concerns a document produced by an advisory committee of the Irish bishops, highlighting certain problematic aspects therein and indicating the need for a deeper examination which also takes account of similar situations in other countries, and which had to be conducted through dialogue and collaboration with the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned. In the first place, it must be noted that the letter does not in any way suggest that national laws must not be followed. Furthermore, the letter rightly emphasises the importance of always respecting canonical legislation, precisely in order to ensure that guilty parties do not have justified grounds for an appeal and thus producing a result contrary to the one desired. Finally, it must be stated that the letter was written prior to the norms of 2001 which unified responsibility in this field under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a move which has certainly led to clearer guidelines and more effective procedures.”

• haikued2 | Jan 19, 2011, 03:31 PM EST

  I think it was, has been, a majorly ridiculous position for the Church leaders to take. Protecting criminals to protect power is always a stupid thing to do. The Church's leaders should have jumped on this from the start and cooperated with civil authorities anyplace it was happening. That would have been the "Christian" thing to do. Hiding behind a Roman collar is tantamount to hiding behind any badge of authority and committing a crime. How this will play out is anyone's guess, but it hasn't done the Church an iota of good to handle it as it has been handled. Period.

• Tomassotucson | Jan 19, 2011, 10:30 AM EST

  What does the article," Bishops were told in '97 not to report abuse," mean to all the defenders of the hierarchy? The vaticans' organized protection of pedophiles that abused God's children are still in complete control of the Catholic church. Does that make churchgoers feel comfortable? I can't hear you/////

• larslofan | Jan 19, 2011, 10:20 AM EST

  Gee, what else can these criminals do to Irish Youth that they haven't already done? And for some reason, The Irish People still think if they give their time, blood, tears & tithe to a church that believes they're less than human, they'll somehow hopscotch into heaven. Burn these Vatican-sponsored pedos at the stake I say...

• Bernadett | Jan 19, 2011, 07:48 AM EST

  While i can see what was going on in Rome at the time,I still feel the irish Archbishop and bishops should have stood up and done the right thing .There is an old irish saying and that is , Its always the right time to do the right thing. I have one question to your readers? Any one konw if any of the familys of victoms have ever got compensation for what happened to there children???????

• pacifist | Jan 19, 2011, 03:36 AM EST

  jacersagain, I think both of us are saying basically the same thing and are not in disagreement on the fundamental issues.

• lmulligan | Jan 18, 2011, 10:43 PM EST

  jacersagain, re your posts of 4:57 & 5:03 p.m. today, I was able to follow all the instructions except the last - there was no "Would You Believe" to click, & I was not otherwise able to watch the program. Nonetheless, I fail to see why the letter, the program & this story does not bring a more evident (pacifist says it is there but I have not seen it) hue & cry for a mandatory reporting law applicable to clergy. I would make following the letter's directions not to report, which the bishops did, a criminal offense.

• McNamara31 | Jan 18, 2011, 08:32 PM EST

  In 2003, when the abuse cases were breaking in Boston and Long Island, I attended the first VOTF meeting held in Wyndanch, Long Island. When I arrived, and saw the turn out, I was heartened to see these were all the people who had been the backbones of their respective parishes and were there to "save" their church, not tear it down. Later that same week the newly elected Bishop on Long Island, who had previously worked directly with Cardinal Law in Boston was speaking on Telacare, the diocesan station, about VOTF and he went on to say, It's not what they (VOTF) are saying that concerns me, It's what there’re not saying; as if to cast VOTF in some dark light and smear them before they became too powerful. The victim's were not a major consideration then, and as the broadcast says time and time again. They were collateral damage to a church protecting itself and saving face. To parents worldwide this truth was a heartbreaking revelation.

• jacersagain | Jan 18, 2011, 07:37 PM EST

  @ carmanach - whoooh-hooo you can bet your last dollar and shirt that Benedict and many other popes and bishops yet to come after this infringement on their Christianity will be repenting for their arrogant ignorance of how to deal with life hurts to its flock of lambs. We Catholics and Christians will make sure to teach the ignorant ones how to drop their arrogance. Meantime, we thank them for being there for us with their true priesthood and prayers, which God always listens to and rewards.

• carmanach | Jan 18, 2011, 06:33 PM EST

  The original letter that featured in the program has now been posted on various internet sites such as that of the New York Times. Read it and se if you are as shocked as I was. This reveals just what obstacles Rome was prepared to put in the way of bishops who tried to deal effectively with abusive priests. Until the Pope repents of these actions on behalf of the Holy See then his apologies ring hollow and his call on the Catholics of Ireland to repent will not be taken seriously. Bryan Maguire

• barneyjo | Jan 18, 2011, 06:21 PM EST

  Having watched the programme for myself, I still have the same difficulty that I have had for some time with particular regard to Josef Ratzinger, now Benedict II. That is, if as is indicated by the descriptions of the correspondence Cardinal Ratzinger was a part of the problem, how can he now, as Pope Benedict be part of the solution. Accepting as I do that he did move against Maciel Delgado when he felt he could, he still obfuscated in other cases where priests found to be guilty of abuse were reported. The particular case of Laurence Murphy and his abusing deaf children was and is particularly disturbing to me. Maciel, Murphy all died as priests within the bounds of the Church. As is the case with Cardinal Brady in Ireland, the notion of a "wounded healer" is a non-starter as far as I am concerned.

• jacersagain | Jan 18, 2011, 06:17 PM EST

  Pacifist – in reply to you, I’d say over the last 20 years or so, on this serious subject: Probably millions of reporters of every ilk has wanted to interview Vatican Hierarchical figures on its dealing with child abuse issues. (That will give an idea of percentages – I doubt many would want to enquire as to why there has been no declared miracle of Lourdes since 1950 or such other ‘mundane’ subjects.) ..... In contrast, I have to ask: What emerged from interviews and meetings that real child abuse victims have had exclusively with Pope Benedict, or our own Archbishop Diarmuid Martin? Not a whisper so far as I can see... probably a newspaper ‘expose’, book or TV documentary sometime by some of them in the future. Or, more probably, silence - unless some reporter comes up with an exposure of confidentiality by one of them.

• McNamara31 | Jan 18, 2011, 06:05 PM EST

  @pacifist.. I completely agree with your previous remarks about the proposed sainthood of Pope John Paul. It sickens the heart and the soul to thinks that these men could compartmentalize their evil judgments and decisions and then be so arrogant to think one who was so involved worthy of Sainthood. This church can only truly begin to heal when all those tainted by their lack of action to protect innocent children are removed from ministry, Vatican included.

• pacifist | Jan 18, 2011, 05:09 PM EST

  jacersagain, You are right in that the Vatican gets lots of requests for interviews, but what percentage would have a subject for interview as serious as this? But the Vatican - the Roman Catholic Church in reality - hid behind the walls of St. Peter's. What cowardice and hypocrisy!

• jacersagain | Jan 18, 2011, 05:03 PM EST

  (...more) The TV show’s reporter, Mick Peelo, picked up on Benedict’s “unspeakable crimes” words and used them to present his own personal assessment of the emergence of the “strictly confidential” letter which the article above refers to – examining the role of the Vatican, of some American and other countries’ hierarchies but particularly that of Irish Hierarchy in what has happened over the last 15 to 20 yrs or so. In fact, in the program, the Irish Bishops are the ones who emerged as shining lights for the Vatican and other countries’ hierarchies to follow. They urged that abusers be handed over to civil authorities but the “strictly confidential” letter reprimanded the bishops basically saying: “You are bishops first, not policemen” (i.e. men not to be concerned with civil crime affairs but mto be concerned with priestly affairs) and to preserve the priesthood of any man accused of such crimes. I urge people to watch the program on RTE Player (essentially Irish Bishops Vs Vatican Officials) before you contribute on the article. (Go to rte(dot)ie, scroll down a little, look for RTE Player, click on it, on the Calendar on the right click 17 (that’s the date of transmission of the show), look for ‘Would You Believe’, click on that and it will run the full TV program. Allow for the ads at the start!) Then make up your minds.

• jacersagain | Jan 18, 2011, 04:57 PM EST

  I’m afraid this article by Cathy above is being used to debate issues irrelevant to its topic by several recent contributors, including Ipmulligan, bunkerisland, monaghanjack and Tomassotucson. What this article refers to is the exposure of a “strictly confidential” letter from a high-ranking Vatican official to Irish Bishops. It is discussed in a weekly Irish TV program called “Would You Believe” and this particular edition was subtitled “Unspeakable Crimes”. It was Pope Benedict who uttered those words when he said” "I think of the immense suffering caused by the abuse of children, especially within the church and by her ministers... Above all, I express my deep sorrow to the innocent victims of these unspeakable crimes, along with my hope that the power of Christ's grace, his sacrifice of reconciliation, will bring deep healing and peace to their lives”. The speech was broadcast live on television. (More...)

• jacersagain | Jan 18, 2011, 04:43 PM EST

  Say, pacifist (Jan 17, 07.38) in mutual respect I do resonate with you on many of your points but yr your highlighting that no Vatican official and only one Irish Bishop took part in the program, I think is irrelevant – the Vatican gets millions of requests for interviews every year by every kind of reporter from all continents and countries. You have to remember that reporters everywhere look for a scoop and I’m pretty sure most reporters are pretty miffed that they don’t get one out of the Vatican out of those millions of requests, like the TV reporter in the show we watched was - and all he did at the end of the show was throw in that fact, like miffed reporters do. You fail to mention that the show has excellent incisive interviews with very authoritative respected people and the show scores very well on that account.

• olovely | Jan 18, 2011, 04:07 PM EST

  It's desperatley sad to have your worst suspicions about the Church confirmed. Protect the mighty Church and let the weakest suffer. How has this anything to do with kindness, compassion, christianity or love? I'll never have anything to do with this shower again as long as I live and I hope that all people of good conscience do likewise.

• PhlutiePhan | Jan 18, 2011, 02:52 PM EST

  This interpretation is pretty hard to take! I understand the right of the Vatican to control its own clergy. However, they took a "good right" and "turned it to the left". They could have set up a Vatican court to rule on priests with input from the laity. There is no doubt of the sincerity of JPII. However, he was bamboozled because of his naivete. Unfortunately, this policy appears to be still in effect to this day. Unfortunate chain-of-events with an Irish bishop wanting to defrock and being overruled by the Vatican. This "virus" evidently spread to the U.S.

• Tomassotucson | Jan 18, 2011, 01:25 PM EST

  Your right pacifist.Sad but true. In the mean time, whenever I can, I point out tthe crimes committed by the bishops in almost everything I post to be read. For example: Thousands of priests have abused thousands and thousands of God's children Bishops all over the world have secretly moved these known pedophiles from parish to parish. Bishops all over the world have knowingly allowed these abusive criminals to go free, without having to register as sex offenders, thereby placing untold numbers of unsuspecting children at risk. Not to mention the billions of dollars of church funds they have used to protect these criminals from prosecution as well as to protect their own asses. Dominic Tomasso Advocate For Bishops Accountability tomassotucson@cox.net

• pacifist | Jan 18, 2011, 12:53 PM EST

  Ipmulligan, No hue & cry for a mandatory reporting law in Ireland which applies to clergy? Ther has been and there is a great demand for such legislation. And Tomassotucson, The bishops guilty of protecting clerical sexual abusers of children, just like the bankers, builders and politicians who have committed economic treason against Ireland will never be prosecuted. Money and power protects those who have it - and isn't this much the same in the US except that there have been and will be legal cases brought against such people but money and power attracts the top legal teams and those they defend are rarely punished as they should be.

• lpmulligan | Jan 18, 2011, 12:44 PM EST

  Can someone tell me why I see no hue & cry for a mandatory reporting law in Ireland which applies to clergy?

• bunkerisland | Jan 18, 2011, 12:43 PM EST

  Most of us who have been indoctrinated to Catholicism from childhood boarding school experiences but somehow have managed the good fortune to have missed being viewed by the priestly pedophiles long ago threw of the yolk of the vatican and kicked it down the lane.

• Tomassotucson | Jan 18, 2011, 11:38 AM EST

  Let's just consider one fact, How many bishops have been held accountable? None. That should tell you that change is not going to take place if it is left up to the pope. You want change, find a court that has the guts to handle an organization more powerfull than the mafia ever was. The USCCB's organization will never do the right thing because they are in too deep already.

• monaghanjack | Jan 18, 2011, 09:04 AM EST

  My experiences as a Teacher in the Irish Republic would be critical in this "sex-abuse" concealment if I were to reveal all that I know. As a teacher I was privy to many strange events but on several occasions I was "leaned on" by people in authority - not to push any further. Several Catholic children revealed to me (a Protestant) their experiences mainly due to the inaction by their own people. This scandal will not end despite the underhand methods currently being adopted by the Vatican & its servants. The intelligent Catholics will never trust the Vatican again and without these intelligent people what can the Church possibly ever achieve ? This is a disgrace which must be admitted now & sorted but the courage of those involved is lacking.

• pacifist | Jan 17, 2011, 07:38 PM EST

  jacersagain, You are right in stating that abusers worldwide - clerical and lay - Catholic and non-Catholic, are protected by family and friends. But they are also protected by colleagues who often turn a blind-eye, but even worse protect them although they are fully aware of the crimes being committed. It happens in all professions, even within police forces. But the cases with which the documentary are different in this way - the crimes committed were being concealed by a major religious denomination and a state - the Roman Catholic Church at the highest level and the Vatican state likewise. When the sexual abuses within the Dublin Archdiocese were being investigated efforts were made to elicit information from the Vatican but, the Papal Nuncion, effectively the major diplomat representing the Vatican state in Dublin, protested to the Irish government and refused to cooperate with the investigation, thus delaying the progress of the investigation. The Vatican state per se and the Roman Catholic Church used protocol to fend off the invetigation. Cardinal Ratzinger certainly attempted to have an abuser locked up in a monastery, but was that not preventing him from being deaslt with by the legal authorities thus helping the criminal to escape justice? And he did halt to Canonical trials on unjustfiable grounds as well. The fact that Vatican officials refused to participate in the programme and only one Irish bishop speaks volumes to me - does it not resonate with you too?

• barneyjo | Jan 17, 2011, 07:17 PM EST

  And of course not forgetting that next up we have the report into the Diocese of Cloyne and its action (or inaction) in relation to putting effective child protection measures in place - I literally cannot wait to read it!!

• jacersagain | Jan 17, 2011, 07:11 PM EST

  @pacifist – while I’d agree w/ you on people seeing the documentary before making their minds up, I have to disagree with you on yr post today at 04.15pm. You fail to mention that it was the Vatican’s mindset to protect the priesthood of a person accused of abuses (it is a religious organisation first and foremost). This is not unusual – everywhere in the world, abusers, Catholic & non-Catholic, are protected by family & friends. Indeed, tonight’s program mentioned that child abuse is a world-wide problem not confined to the Catholic Church. It is that Church protocol could not see its way to put the abused first instead of the priesthood of its abusers that is so astonishing. I don't for a second put this forward as an excuse but mention it as an example of the religious mindset prevailing. Thank God that is now changed and we as a Church can move forward. @ mbernice at Jan 17, 09.02am, yours is an excellent point. The program tells of attempts by former Cardinal Ratzinger to have one abuser locked up in a monastery for 10 years - but none would accept him.

• jacersagain | Jan 17, 2011, 06:47 PM EST

  @SisterMaureen and ref DanOLoingsigh’s mention of watching the programme on RTE Player, I’ve checked the Player site and it is not yet posted up on it. Try later in the week.

• jacersagain | Jan 17, 2011, 06:44 PM EST

  I too have just watched that programme tonight on Irish TV and I have to say “Mine eyes have been opened”. There was a lot going on that we of the public didn’t know a thing about. The evidence of Vatican blind eye and cover up in the programme is astounding. However, I feel a bit confused... on the one hand there is acknowledgement that Irish Bishops did their best to change the culture of thinking away from protecting a charged priest (they were the first in the world to do this, led by Cardinal Connell) and that yet they are blamed because their hands were tied by Vatican protocol, canon law and certain individual Vatican officials. There is great acknowledgement that the Irish Bishops voices were eventually listened to by Rome and that Pope Benedict has now got rid of the officials who blocked attempts to expose priests. It is clear however that much more needs to be done. At least the process has started and is well underway.

• pacifist | Jan 17, 2011, 06:31 PM EST

  I've just watched the documentary and once again The Roman Catholic Church overall comes out of it with its reputation damaged, although Pope Bendict XVI has instituted changes for the better. Nevertheless his record is also sullied by the manner in which he dealt with notorious clerical child sex abusers - even halting two canonical trials of two of these on spurious grounds and some other extremely dubious decisions. Non Vatican official agreed to be interviewed and only one Irish bishop was available to discuss the questions raised in this investigative presentation. Than in itself is another black mark against the Roman Catholic Church. Nobody should jump to conclusions about this documentary without seeing it but should strenuously endeavour to view it and draw their own conclusions.

• sirpeter | Jan 17, 2011, 04:49 PM EST

  Intercessor...Tell me more about this World Court,you have been promoting? You have been thinking about this for years?. Do you really think you could have a world court? Who would be the Judges? One from every country is it? Just to save you any more years thinking..You do know every religious denomination is guilty of the same crime don't ya?...And all your years of thinking sounds like a good idea to you?..I sent gregoryny to preach your idea outside a Catholic church...Sounds good to me too...But i'll tell you what..Do the same as gregoryny and then tell me from your hospital bed if it's a good or bad idea, your nurse can type the answer...Blink once for Good...Twice for Bad.

• sirpeter | Jan 17, 2011, 04:17 PM EST

  gregoryny..World Court!..You think 1.1 Billion Roman Catholics would go for that? The Vatican is going to say..OK..Put the Pope on trial and the rest of us.You think all the religious hierarchy from every church in the world would go for that? I'll tell you what..You stand outside you're local Catholic church next Sunday, and say that the Vatican needs to be put on trial. The old age pensioners alone would bate lumps out of ya. Have you any idea of the power of the Vatican?

• pacifist | Jan 17, 2011, 04:15 PM EST

  I'm surprised the apologists haven't been commenting and excusing the Vatican and Pope John Paul II for this despicable behaviour. Was the late Pontiff unaware of this policy? The plain, unvarnished truth is that he was fully aware of what was going on within His jurisdictions. And now the Roman Catholic Church is fastracking Pope John II to the status of " sainthood ". Would the apostles Peter, Paul and the others in the Church of God have tolerated the protection of an ordained minister, elder, deacon or member sexually abusing children? An example of how the New Testament Church dealt with people guilty of sexual immorality, not actually the rape of children by ordained minister, is given by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 5, 9,11,13. He wrote: (1) " It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you as is not even named among the Gentiles - that a man has his father's wife! (9) I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with the sexually immoral people of this world . . . . (11) " But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother [ a Church member ], who is sexually immoral . . . . not even to eat with such people (13) " . . . . Therefore " put yourself away from such an evil person " . The policy was not to send a minister, deacon or elder guilty of sexual immorality to serve in another area but to cut off contact with such a person. There was ambiguity in how they dealt with such matters. Not so with the Roman Catholic Church. The policy with that body was to hide and protect the perpetrators, intimidate the victims, protect Church assets and fail to protect other children by moving offending priests to other parishes. Since Pope John Paul II failed to come to the defence of innocent children how could he ever considered as a saint?

• CER1940 | Jan 17, 2011, 01:57 PM EST

  This does not reveal anything that I had not already suspected. The Vatican was involved in abuse coverups. It does help document that the RCC acts much as any criminal organization would. The heirarchy are not holy people. They are thugs.

• gregoryny | Jan 17, 2011, 12:26 PM EST

  The world court Idea is the best idea i have heard in a long time. let them face the courts and deal with their responsibilities.

• DanOLoingsigh | Jan 17, 2011, 12:24 PM EST

  @SisterMaureen – You can log in to the RTE website, and watch on the RTE Player

• sirpeter | Jan 17, 2011, 10:59 AM EST

  I get the feeling something much bigger is afoot..The rich and powerful who run Governments don't give a damn,If kids get abused or killed or anything else that happens to general populations.The aim of the Capitalist is to beat us back to poverty wages.It's easy to see why PURE Capitalism dose not work,because most countries in the world are Capitalist and most of the world is in poverty.With all the faults in the hierarchy of the Churches and they do need a good kick in the ass for the cover ups..I get the feeling that very powerful forces are using pedophile priests to beat down the Vatican,while the very powerful go about their shady business.Call me paranoid,but would Ireland be in the position we are in, If the clergy weren't to pre-occupied saving their own ass.At the end of the day,there is some good in the church....Their is none in pure capitalism,but to enslave us all

• Intercessor | Jan 17, 2011, 10:23 AM EST

  Finally, the exact circumstance, that many of us have suspected for years, is openly revealed! Rome orchestrated the coverups from the very top of the Vatican and mandated coverups by the local bishops and archbishops. Who is surprised! For years, I have promoted the idea of Survivors bringing their collective cases to World Court. If the Vatican is a REAL country, as it claims, she should be responsible enough to face her crimes before the world. Now, may be the time!

• SisterMaureen | Jan 17, 2011, 09:43 AM EST

  I hope someone tapes “Unspeakable Crimes” tonight and posts it on YOU TUBE so we who are not in Ireland have an opportunity to watch it. Is that possible? Or will it be on sale? Perhaps Bryan Maguire, an abuse survivor and spokesperson for the Voice of the Faithful, is able to provide more information on that. In any case, thank you. Sister Maureen Paul Turlish Victims' Advocate maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com

• mbernice | Jan 17, 2011, 09:02 AM EST

  Not to excuse the Vatican, but on this monastery thing but when you defrock a priest, he is free to do what he wants at will. When you send him to a monastery, he can't. I think sending to the monastery would have been better.