Register to Comment
Page 1 of 81 1231151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 809
Like Tree500Likes
  1. #1
    Andrew49 Andrew49 is offline
    Andrew49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,979
    Twitter
    @

    Australia: ex-Barrister priest told clergy to avoid notes of sexual abuse claims

    One of the Australian Catholic Church's most prominent and senior figures has admitted he advised other clergy it was a good idea not to take notes of interviews with priests accused of sexual abuse so they couldn't be successfully used in legal action. Father Brian Lucas, a frequent media spokesman for the archdiocese of Sydney and general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference said he had dealt with about 35 accused priests around NSW from 1990 to 1995 when he was part of a team whose job was to confront them and persuade them out of the ministry.

    Source

    A priest, known as Father F, was accused of sexually abusing altar boys in Moree and Parramatta in New South Wales. One of the priest's victims, Damien Jurd, later committed suicide. Three senior priests "investigated" the claims, but no evidence was forwarded to police despite the fact Father F made admissions of serious criminal behaviour in a 1992 meeting with the three officials. One of those officials was Father Brian Lucas who's now the general secretary of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference.

    When Lucas was asked directly (a couple of years ago) if Father F admitted to molesting five altar boys in Moree around the age of 10 or 11 he replied:
    My recollection is not as specific as that. There was a very generalised discussion with him. He was certainly very, very cautious not to incriminate himself and very, very careful not to name any names.
    When asked if he wished he'd handled the Father F case differently - that he should have contacted the police:
    LUCAS: Look, in hindsight we always learn. There is no doubt about that.
    Is that a yes?
    Lucas: Well, it is not so much a yes.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #2
    Cruimh Cruimh is offline
    Cruimh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    96,640

    Bloody snakes. Another nail in the Church's coffin.

    He said the church's reputation or the risk of scandal was “irrelevant” to him in a situation where he had to choose between risking criminal liability for misprision of a felony and betraying a victim's wishes. He would choose to respect the victim's wishes, he said.
    Of course the Church sees itself as the victim here .....
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #3
    Andrew49 Andrew49 is offline
    Andrew49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,979
    Twitter
    @

    Ironic or paradox?

    Brady got promoted for his note-taking and this guy went up the pole for not taking notes!
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #4
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    The interesting bit about the process of mental reservation which allows priests to be less than forthcoming with the truth is that it can only be defined within the church as 'mental reservation' if it is to defend the church.

    If it is a priest failing to tell the truth in order to protect himself or another priest it doesn't actually qualify as catholic 'mental reservation' and can only be described as 'lying'.

    I hear that the amount of mental reservation among clergy in Ireland caused some ructions at the centre because of this fine distinction and the apparent inability of a number of Irish bishops and clergy to comprehend the difference.

    It was a technique developed by jesuits and they were very specific about when and how it could be used and 'self preservation' was one of the major no-no's.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #5
    Windowshopper Windowshopper is offline
    Windowshopper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    8,608

    Well another attempt by the RCC to protect it's wealth and reputation have once again ended up doing the opposite.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #6
    Bill Bill is online now

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,890

    you do have to wonder what these degenerates have been up to in countries where they still have influence
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #7
    Andrew49 Andrew49 is offline
    Andrew49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    8,979
    Twitter
    @

    Quote Originally Posted by LamportsEdge View Post
    The interesting bit about the process of mental reservation which allows priests to be less than forthcoming with the truth is that it can only be defined within the church as 'mental reservation' if it is to defend the church.

    If it is a priest failing to tell the truth in order to protect himself or another priest it doesn't actually qualify as catholic 'mental reservation' and can only be described as 'lying'.

    I hear that the amount of mental reservation among clergy in Ireland caused some ructions at the centre because of this fine distinction and the apparent inability of a number of Irish bishops and clergy to comprehend the difference.

    It was a technique developed by jesuits and they were very specific about when and how it could be used and 'self preservation' was one of the major no-no's.
    Here's another snippet of that interview Lucas gave a number of years ago - can't find the link at the moment but it's from one of the Ozzie TV networks - but you can almost hear the wheels whirring in the priest/barrister's head:

    The meeting was in 1992. As I understand it since 1990 it has been illegal to conceal evidence of serious criminal offenses in New South Wales.

    BRIAN LUCAS: That's true. I am well aware of section 316 and …
    So by not reporting what was said to you and two other priests broke the law did you?

    BRIAN LUCAS: No, no there was no concealment at all and you have to remember …
    No, I'm not saying you concealed, you just didn't go to the police and report it.

    BRIAN LUCAS: Because the victims are the ones who have to go to the police and report. It is very difficult for the police to prosecute anybody without a statement from a victim. We had no name of a victim and even as I understand today, unless someone has gone to a police station in the last few days, those victims whatever number there are, themselves have still not gone to the police and I'd urge them, I'd urge them to do that.
    But it is against the law if you conceal the evidence, you don't have to be the victim.

    BRIAN LUCAS: No, but we had no evidence to conceal.
    Well, you had the evidence of Father F who'd said he'd actually done something wrong.

    BRIAN LUCAS: But done something wrong to whom? You can't have a prosecution without the name of a victim.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #8
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    That's the vatican-speak that jesuits are trained in. You'll see that kind of double communication and attempt to pull questioning into rhetorical dead-ends in press releases and statements from bishops and so on.

    That art has been practised in the catholic church around politics and secular law for centuries- one of the reasons why the church is so slow to respond with statements. They take some time to construct a statement which can be 'clarified' later or even disowned.

    If you examine church leader statements and press releases you can see the trap-doors they allow in every statement they make for later use as an escape route.

    The priest in Australia should be charged and put in front of a jury where such word games can be very obvious in person- same as any witness or charged person who seeks to prevaricate their way out of a charge, refusing to answer a direct question, subject changing and deliberate misunderstanding of elements of rhetoric in an attempt to scatter chaff in their evidence.

    Judges and juries see a basic level of this from witness boxes every day and it would be obvious that this chap constitutes an unreliable witness from the get-go.

    The jesuits have made a game out of such wordplay over the centuries and the only antidote is to get them in the dock and let a jury see them attempting to play the game.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #9
    cyberianpan cyberianpan is offline
    cyberianpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,391

    It is ironic that so many senior figures in the RCC lack(ed) a moral compass wrt their own priests... yet they still pontificate on matters of sexual morality.

    Personally I think a period of silence is needed from the whole RCC, even if just a symbolic 6 months that would mean a lot.

    cYp
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #10
    LamportsEdge LamportsEdge is offline
    LamportsEdge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    22,858

    Quote Originally Posted by cyberianpan View Post
    It is ironic that so many senior figures in the RCC lack(ed) a moral compass wrt their own priests... yet they still pontificate on matters of sexual morality.

    Personally I think a period of silence is needed from the whole RCC, even if just a symbolic 6 months that would mean a lot.

    cYp
    They should have done that years ago instead of attempting to play the jesuit on a piecemeal basis with a new excuse every few months for widespread degeneracy in its ranks and the associated attempts to deny it.

    In fact I think the worst possible thing happened- the fanatical ideologues had the papacy and just tried to bluster their way through which is why the church has now in extremis turned to a jesuit pope who are generally more intellectual than fanatical. Too late though.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Page 1 of 81 1231151 ... LastLast
Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment