கிருத்துவர்கள் பாலியல் குற்றங்களில் தொடர்ந்து ஈடுபடுவது ஏன்?

கிருத்துவர்கள் பாலியல் குற்றங்களில் தொடர்ந்து ஈடுபடுவது ஏன்?

இந்தியாவில் கிருத்துவர்கள் சிறுவர்-சிறுமிகளை பாலியல் ரீதியில் கொடுமைப் படுத்துவது அதிகமாகிக் கொண்டே வருகிறது.

அனாதை இல்லங்கள் போர்வையில் அவர்களுக்கு அதிகமாக குழந்தைகள் கிடைக்கிறர்கள்!

இங்கு, குழந்தைகள், சிறுவர்-சிறுமிகள் என்றதும் ஏதோ சின்ன-சின்ன குழந்தைகள், சிறுவர்-சிறுமிகள் என்று எண்ணவேண்டாம் 19 வயதுவரை உள்ளவர்கள்தாம் அவ்வாறு அழைக்கப்படுகிறர்கள்.

அதாவது “டீன் ஏஜ்” ஆண்கள், பெண்களை தாராளமாக பாலியல் ரீதியில் பயன்படுத்திக் கொண்டு தப்பித்துக் கொள்ள அவ்வாறு வேடம் போடுகின்றனர்.

வில் ஹியூம், மாத்யூஸ் விவகாரங்களை சென்னயிலேயே பார்த்தோம். ஆனாலும் மக்களுக்கு மறந்துவிடும்!

இப்பொழுது மர்ஃபி அறிக்கை என்று ஒன்று வெளியிடப்பட்டடுள்ளது. அதன்படி, ஒரு கத்தோலிக்க பாதிரி தான் நூற்றுக்கும் மேலாக சிறுவர்களை செக்ஸ் ரீதியாக உறவு வைத்திருந்தேன் என்று ஒப்புக் கொண்டுள்ளார். மற்றொருவரோ தாம் கடந்த 25 வருடங்களில் 15 நாட்களுக்கு ஒருமுறை செய்து வந்தார் என்கிறார்! இந்த இரண்டு பாதிரியார்கள் மிது மட்டும் 70க்கும் மேலான புகஸ்ரீகள் குவிந்ததால் நடவெடுக்கை எடுக்கவேண்டியதாயிற்று போலும்!

Church covered up to avoid scandal and save good name and assets

By Sean McCarthaigh

Friday, November 27, 2009

CATHOLIC Church authorities in the Dublin Archdiocese covered up allegations of child sexual abuse over many years in order to avoid scandal and to protect the good name and assets of the institution, the Murphy Commission has concluded.

In a 720-page report, the Commission said the structure and rules of the Catholic Church had facilitated the failure of senior bishops to pass on details of such allegations to gardaí.

The Commission said it did not accept claims by senior Church leaders in Dublin that they were “on a learning curve” up to the late 1990s about the extent of child sexual abuse by priests. In a damning finding, the Commission said the archdiocese’s preoccupations in dealing with cases of sexual abuse to that point were “the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church and the preservation of assets”.

It added: “All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.”

The Commission pointed out that 78 of 320 complaints it examined were reported between 1960 and 1989, although none were passed on to gardaí during this period.

It accused the four archbishops who oversaw the diocese at that time – John Charles McQuaid, Dermot Ryan, Kevin McNamara and Desmond Connell – for failing properly to investigate complaints. The Commission also criticised Auxiliary Bishops Dermot O’Mahony, James Kavanagh, Donal Murray and Laurence Forristal and one chancellor, Monsignor Gerard Sheehy, for the bad manner in which they had handled complaints. It was more complimentary of Sheehy’s successor, Mgr Alex Stenson, for the manner in which he investigated complaints.

All four archbishops were aware of some complaints and the taking out of insurance by the archdiocese in 1987 was inconsistent with any suggestions that they were on a “learning curve”.

The vast majority of priests who were aware that particular instances of abuse had occurred also “simply chose to turn a blind eye.”

The Commission said the phrase “don’t ask, don’t tell” could be used to describe the attitude of the Dublin Archdiocese to clerical sex abuse. Senior bishops did their best to avoid any application of the law of the state. However, it acknowledged the archdiocese’s handling of claims of child sexual abuse improved in 1996 with the implementation of the Church’s own guidelines which resulted in information being passed on to the Garda.

The Commission said the fact that senior Church authorities in Dublin were all well educated people who had knowledge of both canon and civil law made their claims of ignorance of complaints about child sexual abuse very difficult to accept. They had also failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with child sexual abuse, as only two canonical trials had taken place over a 30-year period, organised by Archbishop Connell.

The Commission said the provisions of canon law governing secrecy were often cited as a reason for not informing the Garda.

It also criticised the Archdiocese for how complainants were often met with “denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases”.

The Commission received information of allegations and suspicions in relation to 172 named priests and 11 unnamed clerics. While a significant number of priests admitted child sexual abuse, some denied it. Complaints from over 320 children against 46 priests, taken as a representative sample, were examined.

One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis during 25 years spent as a priest. Over 70 complaints were recorded against these two priests alone.

In another case, a priest against whom only one complaint had been made admitted abusing at least six other children.

However, there was no evidence of a paedophile ring operating among priests in Dublin, although there were some “worrying connections” between some clergy.

Eleven of the 46 priests have been convicted of criminal charges in the courts. In one case, the Commission concluded that there was clear evidence of a false accusation against a priest.

With the exception of Bishop Laurence Forristal, there was a disturbing failure by some other bishops who gave evidence to accept any responsibility. It criticised the failure of the diocesan authorities to inform other priests when a known abuser was transferred to a new parish. They also failed to convey full details to medical professionals about abusers sent for treatment and therapy.

The Commission said there had also been a number of inappropriate contacts between gardaí and the Archdiocese over the years, while the close relationship between some senior gardaí and bishops was also criticised. It claimed Garda probes into claims of clerical child abuse were sometimes “very comprehensive” and sometimes “cursory”.

The Commission also expressed concern that the legislation governing the role of the Health Service Executive in dealing with child sexual abuse by non-family members is inadequate.

Successive governments between 1970 and 1996 were criticised for “extraordinary delays” in introducing child protection legislation.

This story appeared in the printed version of the Irish Examiner Friday, November 27, 2009

மறுமொழியொன்றை இடுங்கள்

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / மாற்று )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: