DUBLIN'S CATHOLIC archdiocese was exempted by the Health Service Executive from filling out a section of a questionnaire on child abuse sent to all Catholic dioceses in the Republic in October 2006. Section 5 of the questionnaire sought detailed information on complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse against members of the clergy, and whether these allegations had or had not been brought to the attention of civil authorities.
The bishops responded that Section 5 "presented insurmountable difficulties" in relation to confidentiality and constitutional issues, as appropriate legislation was not in place.
A spokeswoman for the Office of the Minister for Children said "the HSE obtained legal advice and on this basis decided to proceed with the audit with the exception of Section 5".
It has since emerged that at that time the HSE gave a commitment to the bishops to return to them on the Section 5 issue, but did not do so.
In recent years the bishops have called repeatedly for legislation in the Republic to allow them comply fully with the requirement to supply all information to authorities here, as they do in Northern Ireland where necessary legislation is in place.
The Dublin archdiocese was exempted as it was already being investigated by the Dublin archdiocese Commission of Investigation. This has led to fears being expressed in church and State circles that, were the remit of the commission to be extended by the Government to include Cloyne and possibly other Catholic dioceses in the Republic, it might mean that continuing church and State audits on child protection practices in those dioceses could be suspended pending the outcome of the commission investigation, as in Dublin currently.
Meanwhile, pastoral councils introduced in the Dublin archdiocese followed a recommendation by the Council of Priests in the diocese, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has confirmed.
He was reported in this newspaper (Irish Times) on Monday as saying the pastoral councils were set up against the advice of the Council of Priests.
Modifications by him to the council's recommendations and a time frame incurred opposition.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: IT)
Parish Councils are a great idea in Parishes only if they are democratic and have a wide selection of parishioners elected to them.
ReplyDeleteThey are totally useless if they have ONLY members hand picked by the Parish Priest all of whom are friends and close associates and can be relied upon to be 100% YES men and women for absolutely anything the Parish Priest wants to do in his Parish.
This means between Parish Council Meetings the Parish Priest meets with his nearest and dearest confidantes in the Parish and together huddled in the coffee dock or elsewhere sit and outline and decide what 'they' are going to do and when 'they' go in to the meetings the decisions have already been made and nobody disagrees or stands up to anything.
All has already been decided and everyone is persuaded (should they have doubts) that it is the best thing to do by the PP who is a trained psychotherapist and able to manipulate the masses.
Therefore with the guarantee of THE CHOSEN ONES personally hand picked by the Parish Priest everything goes his way.
Those who want to be on the Council and are 'not favoured' as being one of HIS chosen few are not considered. When the first Council was up and running and one of the members got into a legal dispute with the Parish Priest he had the POWER TO DISSOLVE the Parish Council as the only way to get rid of the member because he had no legal basis to demand that she step down. He tried that tack for a full 5 months and abandoned all those meetings from October 2005 to February 2006 because he knew the disputed member, on the instructions of her legal team, was going to attend.
Imagine it - PP like a spoilt child says "I am not getting my way - removing a member - so nobody is having a meeting for 5 months - each meeting was cancelled within the hour of its start when it was confirmed the "unwanted" member would be attending. For this to go on for 5 months would be unheard of in a "normal" Parish with a "normal" Parish Priest but then nothing about this Parish is "Normal" in the true sense of the word.
Is that the sign of a BULLY - you do not get your own way so you cancel the whole thing?
The person dismissed did the Minutes for the meetings for the 18 months the Council was in existence and knows for a fact these Minutes that should have been returned to Archbishop's house were not returned. If they were ever returned I can guarantee without any doubt that the last meeting was heavily doctored and that it would be backed up by all the yes men and women present none of whom (and there were 18 of them there present) would say a word against the Parish Priest regarding his decisions.
Therefore some Parish Councils like the one in our Parish made up of personal contacts and those that can be useful in networking to the Parish Priest should be disbanded by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin but of course he never listens to any complaints of what is going on in this Parish Our Lady Queen of Peace Bray.
One member of the Council from Day 1 is not even a Parishioner in this Parish and she was brought on to the new Council as well as being an original member and her husband is a member of another Parish group although both are officially Parishioners of Holy Redeemer. This in spite of the fact that Church going members from 'within' the Parish were rejected as members and dismissed.
What a sham and a sorry excuse for a Parish.