Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are

Bishop John Magee is a name that is likely to be synonymous with Catholic Church cover up of clerical rape in Ireland for some time to come. His handling of abuse in Cloyne put him in the A League – Appalling, Awful, Atrocious. Imagine his surprise when Judge Yvonne Murphy pointed out to him that Accountability might just force its way through major league style.

Magee’s appointment of the indifferent Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan to exercise diocesan authority in Cloyne was indicative of his outlook. O’Callaghan was as unconcerned and ‘uncommitted’ as himself. Moreover, O’Callaghan did not agree with the 1996 Church Framework guidelines ostensibly in place to protect children but which on the advice of the criminal class in the Vatican could be ignored.

To compound matters O’Callaghan actually believed the complaints from the abuse victims but, like Magee, decided that the reputation of the Church was more important so he failed to act. Former school Principal Eugene Riordan, who has long argued for prosecutions in respect of Cloyne, claimed that Callaghan was absolutely cynical in his handling of child abuse cases.

Now when he stands at his door offering mealy mouthed apologies to RTE he should be told where to go. Although in his defence he had the courage to face the cameras unlike the gutless Magee. A man that cannot face the cameras and account for himself even when the chips are down, preferring to force others to act as sandbags rather than take responsibility for his actions, is pretty contemptible.

What drove Magee and O’Callaghan? In their need to protect Mother Church these venerable men decided that the most vulnerable were dispensable. What could a child possibly matter when the interests of Mother Church need protected? As Eugene Riordan argued:

I don’t wish to minimise the trauma of abuse for victims but to my mind, Bishop Magee and Msgr O’Callaghan were 20 times worse than the abusers by covering it up; the abuse is bad but you expect those in management to deal with it, not to hide it.

As we know only too well, however, Mother Church was as concerned about children as the despicable Tracey Connelly, another thug wearing the mantle of mother, who gave birth to Baby P and then helped Steven Barker murder him.

As for culprit number one, Magee has no excuse. None of the usual proffered mitigations apply to him. The Cloyne Report was addressing post 1996 allegations. That was the year when the Catholic Church was supposed to have put in place a framework document which was meant to be innovative and dynamic in terms of child protection practices. Magee cannot claim ignorance of best practice or plead requiring time to acquaint himself with the learning curve. The Framework document was simply ignored by Magee. This Vatican backed mountebank behaved as if abuse of children were minor priestly peccadillos, failing to report accusations of clerics molesting children to the Garda or HSE.

Despite his determination to continue pissing on the civil law and sabotaging justice for Vatican victims the writing was on the wall. It did not spell absolution. In January 2009 the decision was taken by the then Minister for Children Barry Andrews to extend a State inquiry (Murphy) into child abuse by priests to cover Cloyne after a report by the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church was critical of Magee’s handling of a number of complaints about clerical sexual abuse.

Contemptuous that something as temporal as human society could intervene in the higher affairs of the men of god he stalled his resignation for as long as he could. He was backed by Cardinal Brady and two archbishops, Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Michael Neary of Tuam. By 2010 he had become such an embarrassment to his fellow godfathers that Ratzinger, the boss of bosses, felt compelled to take his resignation as bishop of Cloyne. In spite of it all Magee, incredibly, still remains a bishop in the Catholic Church.

Yet this bishop cannot face his flock. One Vatican victim told the Irish Independent it was "beyond belief" that Church authorities had not ordered Magee to come forward to answer questions about his actions. Unfortunately it is not beyond belief at all but well within the range of belief. Maurice Hayes was even more to the point:

In a long career of evading responsibility for the care of children, Bishop John Magee's last shameful dereliction of duty has been his failure to face the public, his priests and in particular the victims and their parents.

Has an Odessa network been set up for here? There is no sign of Magee. Whether he is holed up in the Vatican or holidaying abroad with some teenager of his dreams is not certain but the Church is denying knowledge of his whereabouts. There is absolutely no reason to believe it on this.

Bishop Magee should choose the one honourable course open to him. Step under the spotlight in the public arena and explain the crimes perpetrated by god’s men against society’s children. He will take much flak but will be better thought of.

26 comments:

  1. Nah Anthony,Magee should step under London bridge isnt that where the Dons in the vatican get rid of dead wood!I,d supply the rope!tie the knot.I,m sure Benny the bad and the other girls with the matching hats! would be glad to be rid of that creep Magee.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marty,

    Blackfriars Bridge I think it is. God's Banker Roberto Calvi met his fate there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thats the spot Anthony and if its good enough for bankers then its good enough for wankers like Magee!

    ReplyDelete
  4. an inquisition against the vatican is needed. I suggest the Orange Order be given the 'contract'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Boys,

    you are being tough on the Old Vatican. Men of god are good people, surely you know that, good people. How could they be anything else? Would the pope be really infallible if they were not good people? The one universal church, come on lads, be respectful.

    When the allies were going through Germany at the end of WW2 they kept confronting German civilians on the mass murder of the Jews. The Germans are reported to have dismissed it, saying 'we are good people.'

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anthony maybe they were actually saying "we are gods people" and that is a familiar saying closer to home,Anyway when Benny the bad boys topped yer man under Blackfriars (what an appropriate name) bridge they filled his pockets with money I believe, now what do you think they would put in Magees, I,d suggest condoms.and a copy of Billys weekly liar.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 'Would the pope be really infallible if they were not good people?'

    Things protestants and other anti-Catholics can never get right:

    They confuse Immaculate Conception with Virginal Birth.

    They think Indulgences are permissions to sin.

    They believe Catholics worship statues.

    They confuse infallibillity with impeccabillity.

    At least the anti-Catholic forces are consistently wrong!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Marty,

    how dare you! A priest wearing a condom - never. It is against god's law. Under no circumstances would he be allowed to remain in the priesthood if he wore a condom while raping a child.

    ReplyDelete
  9. john

    all those things you listed remind me of derivatives on the stock market. Implausable shite, but destructive none the less.

    Anti catholic forces??
    Alamo springs to mind...you have fun now!

    Indulgences were supposed to guarantee a place in heaven. The practice paid for the new chapel at the vatican/paedophile command centre.

    Bread and wine into christs body+blood is siply revolting.

    ReplyDelete
  10. overflow from fibber magee thread

    is transubstantiation twinned with transexualisation?

    them priests are amazing.

    A.M.

    'boys' ?

    dont forget the 'girlies' and 'girlieboysies' or you'll be in PC pergatory.

    ReplyDelete
  11. John McGirr,

    "Things protestants and other anti-Catholics can never get right:"

    "They confuse infallibillity with impeccabillity."

    The First Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" --Infallibility at the Catholic Encyclopedia [1913]

    Taxi For McGirr!!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anthony,

    Apparently nobody turned up at the Vaticans new violin lessons for school children scheme.

    I suppose calling it "Kiddie Fiddlers" was a bad idea

    ReplyDelete
  13. Robert

    doesn't that just sum it up. And still they refuse to look in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Robert,

    Violin lessons - great!

    On the First Vatican Council - amazing as it is, people actually hold that spurious rubbish to be true. Pope John 23 ridiculed it saying he was only infallible when he spoke ex cathedra but he would never speak ex-cathedra. What more infallibility could a pope have than Bobby Henderson of the FSM? Reason over rubbish always.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Larry,

    'Indulgences were supposed to guarantee a place in heaven.'

    A plenary inulgence rightly received takes away all temporal punishment. If you died upon obtaining it you would not need any time in Purgatory.

    A partial indulgence removes a prtion of the temporal punishment due and is measured in terms of days or years of what would have been given in penance in the early Church.

    This is still the case, in spite of your using the past tense.

    Robert,

    A very good summary of papal infallibillity.

    Alfie,

    I meant to get back to you on the Seal of Confession. Father Carty summarised it well. But it is possible for a priest to insist someone obtain treatment or any other thing he thinks is necessary.

    As a rule, child abusers are not likely to go to confession, and if they thought a priest would report them, then the chance of going would be zero.

    How many of the Churh's enemies have boasted of destroying her from the Roman Empire, to the barbarian onslaught, the Protestant Revolution, the French Revolutionaries, world Communism and now the Pensive Quill. Dream on! The Catholic Church is here to stay, despite many of its defectors joining the ranks of its enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John

    'As a rule, child abusers are not likely to go to confession, and if they thought a priest would report them, then the chance of going would be zero'.

    what about the child rapists hearing those confessions of the 'blue rinse' brigade?

    Those old dears must be traumatised also.

    ReplyDelete
  17. John,

    "But it is possible for a priest to insist someone obtain treatment or any other thing he thinks is necessary."

    But can he make going to the authorities a condition of the penitent's absolution? Fr. Carty says that penitents cannot be obliged to turn themselves over to the police, so I would think not.

    "As a rule, child abusers are not likely to go to confession, and if they thought a priest would report them, then the chance of going would be zero."

    Perhaps, but we don't really know. As long as a priest cannot even oblige penitents to confess serious crimes to the police, confesson provides an avenue for criminals - including child abusers - to clear their consciences and avoid the legal consequences of their actions at same time.

    I would suggest that, for a penitent who has committed a crime, absolution ought to be conditional on surrendering to the police. Secondly, I think that if a priest strongly suspects that someone is going to be hurt or killed based on what he has heard in confession, then he should be obliged to tell the police.

    What would be so bad about that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Alfie,

    "I would suggest that, for a penitent who has committed a crime, absolution ought to be conditional on surrendering to the police."

    It would be difficult to judge which cases. Say an eighty year old confesses abusing someone seventy years before. Or a man stole a sum of money in is youth and went on to become a respected citizen etc.

    This would seem to go against the right of an individual not to incriminate themselves, as you quoted in Father carty.

    i think a priest should, in the case of a child abuser, make his absolution conditional on the penitent's committment to obtain some form of treatment and to avoid being near children.

    "Secondly, I think that if a priest strongly suspects that someone is going to be hurt or killed based on what he has heard in confession, then he should be obliged to tell the police."

    As the person is in confession to confess his sins and promise to amend it is unlikely anyone would go to confession and have an intention of hurting or killing anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Larry,

    Why would anybody need to confess their ‘sins’ to some priest? He is just as 'sinful' if not more so than the next person. He can pretend to do Catholic magic like turning ordinary water into 'holy' water but at the end of the day anybody else can claim to do such a trick. Magicians at least have a bit of skill. They have no more ability to forgive anything than you or I have. Why do people not just tell their god directly? The middle man trick is the oldest in the book.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. (amended)

    'Why would anybody need to confess their ‘sins’ to some priest? He is just as 'sinful' if not more so than the next person.'

    These crass, stupid comments are laughable?

    Why would anyone go to a doctor, who can get sick too? Why would anyone go to a dentist who might have false teeth?

    Is this the Protestant Quill? Don't see many signs of 'pensiveness'?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Larry,

    ‘Bread and wine into Christ’s body + blood is simply revolting.’

    Part of its vampire culture of the undead.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "‘Bread and wine into Christ’s body + blood is simply revolting.’"

    'Part of its vampire culture of the undead.'

    It seems transubstantiation bothers some more than paedophilia!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Alfie,
    'I think that if a priest strongly suspects that someone is going to be hurt or killed based on what he has heard in confession,then he should be obliged to tell the police ... What would be so bad about that?'

    The reputation of Mother Church I would think. That lies behind much of the systemic cover up. Even where they knew without the confessional seal they still refused to tell the police. They ran an intranational and an international paedophile traffic ring whereby those they knew would offend again were moved on elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  25. 'They ran an intranational and an international paedophile traffic ring whereby those they knew would offend again were moved on elsewhere.'

    Have you contacted the guards with this information or is all meaningless hot air delivered with an alterior motive?

    To use the suffering of victims as a weapon to libel the Catholic Church is an effront to those who have suffered.

    ReplyDelete
  26. John

    why do you persist in denying what the world and its dog knows?

    ReplyDelete