vrijdag, september 30, 2011
Einde onderzoek
[...]
Kan jij je misschien herinneren dat er bij de deur van elke afdeling een fotorijtje van ieder kind in deze afdeling aan de muur hing,en daar de “zondags” ouders geregeld naar kwamen kijken om zo een kind uit te kunnen zoeken om een dagje mee te nemen?
[...]
Driehonderd meldingen misbruik protestantse kerken
NRC
Lex Boon
Vanuit evangelische en protestantse kerken in Nederland zijn van 2005 tot en met 2010 meer dan driehonderd meldingen gedaan van seksueel misbruik in pastorale relaties. Negen van die klachten zijn gegrond verklaard. Dat meldt het EO-televisieprogramma De Vijfde Dag na onderzoek, aldus persbureau Novum.
Dominee in de PKN Alexander Veerman, die promoveerde op seksueel misbruik in de kerk, stelt dat dit aantal slechts het topje van de ijsberg is en dat seksueel misbruik in de kerk nog altijd wordt toegedekt. “Ik ben bang dat anno 2011 de daders nog altijd sterker staan dan de slachtoffers.”
Secretaris van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland (PKN) Arjan Plaisier kondigde vanavond in het programma aan dat kerkelijk ambtsdragers als dominees en ouderlingen die zich schuldig maken aan seksueel misbruik voortaan harder worden aangepakt. De PKN gaat hen verplichten een publieke schuldbekentenis af te leggen aan het slachtoffer, de kerkgemeente en de kerkenraad.
Plaisier hoopt dat hiermee een einde wordt gemaakt aan de doofpotcultuur die er ook in protestantse kerken zou zijn rond seksueel misbruik. “Geen doofpotpolitiek meer, niet wegmoffelen en overgaan tot de orde van de dag. Want dan ligt er een slachtoffer in de goot. De kerken hebben een grote verantwoordelijkheid hierin”, stelt hij.
De afgelopen tijd kwam vooral de rooms-katholieke kerk onder vuur te liggen wegens seksueel misbruik door medewerkers. Concrete cijfers over seksueel misbruik bij evangelische en protestantse kerken waren tot nog toe onbekend.
donderdag, september 29, 2011
Oecumene in Nederland dankzij het seksueel misbruik en de konijnepootjes van St Joseph
en als die Kerken zich nu eens uitspreken voor het op zijn kop en met z'n gezicht naar de woonstee toe begraven niet van Josef maar van hobbits?
Kunnen we ons zelfs nog een maria in tranen permiteren.
Wordt het toch nog leuk.
En iedereen die hier vervolgens de pest in krijgt dient zich slechts te realiseren dat hij/zij/het met die boze ogen bijdraagt aan de integratie van te laatkomers.
ter herbronning
De Vijfde Dag - 29 september 2011
vandaag om 21:05
In deze uitzending van De Vijfde Dag onder meer een uitgebreide reportage over de doofpotcultuur rond seksueel misbruik in protestantse en evangelische kerkgemeenten, aandacht voor de situatie op de huizenmarkt en het pleidooi van de Onderzoeksraad voor de Veiligheid voor strengere regels rondom wapenvergunningen.
De dominee en de doofpot
Priesters die door het celibaat af moeten zien van relaties, zijn er niet. Ook spelen internaten waar kinderen worden toevertrouwd aan de zorg van katholieke geestelijken geen rol. Maar wat wel overeenkomt met misbruik in de kath
olieke kerk is het stilzwijgen en de ontkenning: De Vijfde Dag onderzocht het seksueel misbruik in protestantse en evangelische kerken. Een schokkend en onthullend verhaal over de dominee en de doofpot...
In De Vijfde Dag vertellen 'Carolien' en 'Lisa' over het seksueel misbruik in kerk, waar zij zelf slachtoffer van werden. Hoe reageerde de gemeente op hun verhaal? Wat voor consequenties had het misbru
ik op de positie van de voorganger? Hoe gaan de kerken om met seksueel misbruik door dominees en andere kerkelijke ambtsdragers?
De grote vraag is: Wordt er recht gedaan aan slachtoffers van misbruik in de kerk? Hilda Pasterkamp, therapeut van slachtoffers van seksueel misbruik, en Alexander Veerman, dominee in de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland en gepromoveerd op het onderwerp seksueel misbruik door dominees en andere kerkelijke leiders, gaan dieper in op de gevolgen van het misbruik voor de slachtoffers.
In de studio reageert Arjan Plaisier, scriba van de Protestantse Kerk in Nederland, op de rol van de kerk bij seksueel misbruik.
Wilt u napraten over dit onderwerp? Neem dan contact op met EO-Nazorg:
Email:
nazorg@eo.nl
Per telefoon: 0900-6474849 (€ 0,15 per minuut). Bereikbaar op werkdagen tussen 10
.00 - 12.00 uur en 14.00 - 16.00 uur.
(Crispina: ter vermijding van misverstanden:
1 - De dankzij het oecumenisch sexueeel misbruik persoonlijk via de RKK-N en rorate ervaren bijzonder waardevolle mogelijkheden van het IKON omroep pastoraat bestaat ook nog steeds !!
2 -Opgepast: Verwijzing naar botanische middelen zonder theologische goedkeuring kan (zeker indien op de kop gebruikt) in Nederland leiden tot ernstige klachtenprocedures wegens overtreding van het verbod op ritueel slachten c.q.kwakzalverij
woensdag, september 28, 2011
Murphy's law; Church’s poor handling of compensation issue
Without entering into the merits of whether the Church in Malta, as an institution, has a legal and/or moral responsibility for the sexual abuse of minors of which two religious priests have been found guilty by the Magistrates Court, the way the issue of possible financial compensation has been handled in the past weeks by Church exponents or authorities is very difficult to comprehend.
It all started with the statement made by Mgr Charles Scicluna, the Vatican’s chief prosecutor in clerical abuse cases, that the victims deserved compensation. “I have encouraged their lawyer, Patrick Valentino, to ask for damages in the civil courts. I think they have every right. But the Church in Malta should be proactive to help them psychologically and, if need be, financially,” Mgr Scicluna told The Sunday Times on August 7, 2011. He also urged the Curia to set up a Victim Solidarity Fund that could go beyond the strict demands of damages granted by law, both civil and canon.
Then, on August 17, it was announced that Archbishop Paul Cremona and Dr Patrick Valentino, a lawyer representing the victims concerned, had held a meeting on compensation. Emerging together from the meeting, Mgr Cremona and Dr Valentino said talks would continue. Indeed, a second meeting took place on September 7. “We agreed not to divulge details of our discussions at this stage because talks are still underway”, stated Mgr Cremona after the meeting. He added that both parties agreed to get together again for a final meeting.
Out of the blue though, on September 22, the Archbishop’s Curia released a statement decided upon during a meeting between the Maltese Bishops’ Conference and the Conference of the Religious Major Superiors, declaring “that they have been given legal advice, in the sense that, in this particular case, the Church, as an institution, does not have any legal responsibility for what was perpetrated by some individuals and that she cannot take upon herself such responsibility.”
A number of questions arise. Was this legal advice available prior to the first meeting between the Archbishop and the victims’ lawyer? If it was not available and the issue had yet to be cleared, how is it that a meeting was organised for the Archbishop with the victims’ lawyer at that moment in time, when it was obvious that the matter of financial compensation was bound to be raised? If the legal advice on non-responsibility was available at the time of the first meeting, why was it not made known publicly right away, to avoid raising expectations, primarily among the victims? How is it that the Church had to end up in such a sad communic
ation and public-relations situation?
It is most welcome news that the Church authorities, without any prejudice and only as part of the Church’s pastoral and spiritual ministry, are taking the necessary steps for the setting up, from their own funds, of a structure that will include psychiatric, psychological and social professionals who will give those concerned all the necessary help in their respective fields. Such assistance to victims of abuse in the face of their painful individual experiences is fundamental.
It is a pity that this positive step, which is of much credit to the Church, has been overwhelmed by the gloomy shadow that has been cast by the poor handling of the financial compensation matter.
The Church in Malta sh
ould have known much better.
dinsdag, september 27, 2011
Malta This is a moral, not legal issue; komt Job Abraham tegen, zegt Job
Times of Malta
Martin Scicluna
27-9- 2011It is unconscionable and unjust of the Maltese Church suddenly to decide that, based on its legal advice, it did not have any responsibility for what was done by some individual priests to children placed in their care and therefore could not “take upon herself such responsibility”. Direct financial compensation to the victims of abuse was therefore being ruled out, although all the earlier indications had been that an out-of-court settlement would indeed be reached. The provision of psychiatric, psychological and social care to the victims is being offered as a sop.
This is a moral issue, not a narrow legal one. The Maltese Church is morally bound to answer for the enormous harm that was done to children placed in its care all those years ago. These were vulnerable children who, lest we forget, were raped and otherwise sexually abused by priests (men of God) some 20 or 30 years ago in a home run by the Church.
It may well be that under the strict letter of Maltese law a court could only impose the payment of damages by an institution if it found that it had direct responsibility for what happened – if, for example, the priests’ superior at the Missionary Society of St Paul’s home knew about the abuse and covered it up. But the fact of the matter is that the Missionary Society of St Paul was a Church-run establishment and, for several years, priests there abused children. These were not isolated cases. If that does not amount to direct responsibility, what does?
How can the Maltese Church argue that “she cannot take upon herself such responsibility” when it is the final arbiter and supervisor of what went on in this home and therefore bears ultimate moral responsibility for what happened? This is a Church that preaches love, compassion and charity, but opts for a hair-splitting, legalistic, money-first approach when it comes to practising what it preaches.
This is the same Church that only six months ago had no compunction about shelling out almost €200,000 for a divorce campaign which it had no legal obligation to fund. There is more than a touch of hypocrisy in the actions of this institution in this case. While every other Catholic diocese in the world – from Austria to Australia, the United States to the United Kingdom, Ireland to Germany and places in between – has literally paid millions of euros or dollars to their victims in out-of-court settlements, the Maltese Church has decided to adopt a hard-nosed, niggardly, hole-in-the-corner approach which simply adds to the trauma of the victims of the clerical abuse. The Universal Church has – understandably and rightly – set a precedent for such out-of-court settlements, but the Maltese Church has chosen to act differently.
If the Maltese Church persists in its declared position, the long-term harm will be incalculable. While it is prepared to cry with the victims in the presence of the Pope and to issue genuinely heart-felt and abject apologies for what has been done to these victims, it seems to lack the moral courage to acknowledge in tangible terms, through payment of adequate financial compensation, its moral responsibility for what occurred. The time it has taken for the victims’ cases to be resolved would in itself be ground for compensation, let alone the mental and physical trauma to which they were subjected. If these acts had occurred in a government-run institution, the victims would have been entitled to financial compensation under the Criminal Compensation Act. How can the Maltese Church argue that it has no moral responsibility for what happens in its own homes? Common justice dictates that the victims have a case for compensation but, in the end, it may have to be the European Court of Human Rights to decide it.
maandag, september 26, 2011
Lack of documents leads to denied claims for residential school survivors
It’s been a lofty task for The Truth and Reconciliation Commission – trying to uncover the truth behind Canada’s residential schools.
Justice Murray Sinclair said they expected one hundred thousand claims to be filed by residential school survivors and now face the frustrating reality that many records and documents have been destroyed.
“Many claims for example, by students who went to residential schools are denied.
Not because they don’t present a credible case that they went to the school, but because the government says, ‘we look at our records and can’t find any record that you were there’.”
Justice Sinclair told reporters Thursday.
He added the Commission is now looking for government and church documents that will help back those claims.
Survivors of residential schools are entitled to payments that recognize the impacts of living in the schools.
The deadline to file for compensation was Monday.
Survivors who had their claims denied may still bring forward other proof that they went to the schools.
Justice Sinclair also said claims may have been denied because people may have attended residential schools that are not on the approved list.
Just this month, two more residential schools were added, bringing the total number to 140.
For nearly 130 years, Aboriginal, Métis and Inuit children were taken from their homes and cultures.
They were placed in church and government-run schools.
Violence and abuse were widespread.
Justice Sinclair said the aim of having survivors share their stories is to establish respectful relationships between the victims and violators to ensure that kind of oppression doesn't happen again.
“Without the statements from survivors from today who are still alive to give them; people of future generations might have a hard time to believe this actually occurred.”
He also said, “It’s the future generations of children, Aboriginal children on one hand and non-Aboriginal children on the other, who are going to be asked to bring this all together.”
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will issue a report on the history of residential schools in Canada at the end of the year.
Abuse was 'human rights failure'
September 26, 2011
PATSY MCGARRY Religious Affairs Correspondent
The abuse of thousands of Irish children, as revealed in the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports was “perhaps the greatest human rights failure in the history of the State,” 
according to Amnesty International Ireland.
Executive director Colm O’Gorman said much of the abuse described in the Ryan Report meets the legal definition of torture under international human rights law.
“Children were tortured. They were brutalised; beaten, starved and abused. There has been little justice for these victims. Those who failed as guardians, civil servants, clergy, gardaí and members of religious orders have avoided accountability," he said.
“The Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports tell us what happened to these children, but not why it happened. We commissioned this report to explore that question because only by doing so can we ensure this never happens again.”
He was speaking at the launch of In Plain Sight: Responding to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne Reports , a report by Dr Carole Holohan and commissioned by Amnesty International.
It was launched at the Royal Hibernian Academy in Dublin this morning by Minister for Children Frances Fitzgerald, who said one of the causes for what had happened to children in Irish schools, clubs, churches and communities was deference.
“At every turn, Irish people kept their mouths shut out of deference to State, system, church and community. When they should have been unified in fury and outrage they were instead silenced, afraid to even whisper a criticism against the powerful,” she said.
A poll accompanying the report found 71 per cent of Irish people surveyed believed “wider Irish society bears some responsibility for what has been revealed in the Ryan, Ferns, Murphy and Cloyne reports”.
It also found 88 per cent believed “individual members of society should have demanded the State act to prevent child abuse” while 85 per cent felt “individual members of Irish society should have done more to protect these children.”
The Red C poll was conducted for Amnesty International between July 25th and 27th last. The Cloyne report was published on July 13th.
Among the report's findings is the absence of clear lines of responsibility and the failure of the law to protect all members of society equally. It noted the low level of convictions among perpetrators of the abuse outlined in the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports.
Ms Fitzgerald said the findings in these reports strikes at our very national identity. "Whatever happens to us, we Irish like to believe we are fundamentally a good people. Kind. Generous. Brave. Open-minded," she said.
Other Red C poll findings were that 58 per cent felt “helpless” at findings of the Ryan report into the abuse of children in residential institutions. It was published in May 2009.
A further 52 per cent felt overwhelmed and didn’t know what to think about findings in that report while 35 per cent found it “too upsetting to engage with.”
Jetzt reden wir
"The polling research by Red C accompanies a major study which explores why institutional abuse was allowed to take place and how it might be prevented in the future."
Since the board was established, almost 18,000 applications for compensation have been received, and almost 15,000 were finalised by July. The scheme was originally estimated to cost €1.1 billion but is likely to reach €1.3 billion. By the end of last year expenditure hit €1.05 billion including €836 million in awards and €158 million in legal and medical costs.
Jetzt reden wir; historical institutional abuse, 3,000 new claims for abuse payments submitted, historical institutional abuse
Irish Times
26-9-2011
Almost 3,000 former residents of reformatory schools and orphanages submitted applications for abuse compensation in the two months before the final September 16th deadline.
The Residential Institutional Redress Board was set up in 2002 to deal with former residents of 139 State-linked industrial and reformatory schools, orphanages and children’s homes who suffered abuse.
In July legislation was enacted to close off the power of the board to deal with further applications after September 16th.
Minister for Education Ruairí Quinn said the closing date announcement “effectively produced nearly 3,000 fresh applications a number of years after the publicity surrounding the board had died down”.
Mr Quinn has rejected calls for the deadline to be extended for “exceptional cases” and pointed out that the board had been in place for more than 8½ years, and the initial closing date was five-and-a-half years ago. He was satisfied sufficient time had been given to potential applicants.
Since the board was established, almost 18,000 applications for compensation have been received, and almost 15,000 were finalised by July. The scheme was originally estimated to cost €1.1 billion but is likely to reach €1.3 billion. By the end of last year expenditure hit €1.05 billion including €836 million in awards and €158 million in legal and medical costs.
Fianna Fáil education spokesman Brendan Smith expressed concern about the deadline because of contact from a number of people involved with survivors of residential abuse. They said the trend was that late applications typically tended to be “from people who were the most vulnerable survivors of the industrial school system. I’m worried there might still be a small cohort of people who are very vulnerable and who, unfortunately, will not have submitted their applications on time”.
Mr Quinn revealed in the Dáil that 2,676 claims were submitted in the last two months, which were being processed. Some had been accepted, others rejected. “In all honesty, a reasonable window of time has been provided,” he said.
Sinn Féin education spokesman Seán Crowe questioned the closing of the scheme on an “arbitrary date”. There were many abuse victims who “are still trying to work out in their own heads whether to seek redress. There needs to be a window in which they can do this”.
But the Minister said that “even if a person was so badly damaged from his or her experience as to be unable to make a proper application there was no shortage of lawyers prepared to do it. It had to be brought to an end”.
He added that after the announcement of the deadline a number of legal firms placed ads in Irish journals in Britain and elsewhere and representatives of Irish groups abroad were informed.
83% angry at State's attitude in past to child abuse, says report
Irish Times
New research on attitudes towards institutional child abuse indicate that the vast majority of Irish people are angry that wider society did not do enough to protect children from abuse.
A study to be published today will show that 84 per cent of people feel society should have done more to prevent abuse in the past.
There is also widespread anger that the State did not do enough to help (83 per cent agree), while significant numbers say they find the subject too overwhelming and do not know what to think.
The polling research by Red C accompanies a major study which explores why institutional abuse was allowed to take place and how it might be prevented in the future.
In Plain Sight by social historian Dr Carole Holohan is based on the four inquiries into clerical sex abuse – the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne reports. It is expected to conclude that failures in law, public policies, government and religious organisations meant that vulnerable children were not protected.
The silence of sections of society who had knowledge or suspicion of ill-treatment of children contributed to abuse continuing over a period of decades.
The study also suggests that some of the factors which allowed abuse to take place in the past are still a feature of society.
They include a lack of accountability in State bodies responsible for child protection and the failure of the justice system to bring to book those who knew what was going on.
Minister for Children and Youth Affairs Frances Fitzgerald is due to launch the report at a conference organised by Amnesty International Ireland in Dublin this morning.
The polling data also gives an insight into attitudes towards vulnerable children in Ireland today.
Half of people believe that wider society is prejudiced against children in the care of the State today.
zondag, september 25, 2011
maar as die oue nie skuldig is nie
nie skuld bely nie
kan die nuwe natuurlik ook nie skuldig wees nie
en nooit voor stok gekry word
as hy die oue herhaal nie
alles begin dus van voor af aan
dié slag anders ingekleur
uit: Antjie Krog, deel 10 Land van genade en verdriet
Down to my last skin.
September 25 2011
An ambitious study of the clerical child-abuse scandals in Ireland by Amnesty International suggests that people are as angry with society as they are the State over the institutional abuse of children.
The study, commissioned by Amnesty International Ireland, finds that while 83 per cent of those polled are angry with the State, marginally more, at 84 per cent, are “angry that wider society didn’t do more”. More than half found the subject of the Ryan Report on institutional child abuse too overwhelming to know what to think, while one-third said they didn’t know what the report said.
The national poll is part of an extensive research study commissioned by Amnesty to establish the reasons why clerical child abuse was allowed to continue unchecked for so long in Ireland.
The silence of so many Irish people emerges as a key factor, according to Amnesty’s executive director Colm O’Gorman, and the poll findings suggest the public acknowledges this.
The 100,000-word document, called ‘In Plain Sight’, will be launched by Children’s Minister Frances Fitzgerald tomorrow. It includes significant new research by social historian Dr Carole Holohan based on the four inquiries into clerical sex abuse — Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloyne. It will also set out how children’s human rights were violated under international law.
But the apparent complicity of wider Irish society in allowing clerical and institutional abuse of children to continue for so long is expected to be one of the study’s more controversial findings.
“The reports [on clerical abuse] reveal really serious failures at every level of Irish society; failures of law, of policy, of politics, of religious organisations,” said Mr O’Gorman. “But they also reveal that these failures were only possible because so many of us either stayed silent or were silenced. The kind of society we are is one of our creation, and if we are to change it for the better we must be prepared to learn from our past failures.”
Amnesty’s study reminds us that many of the factors are still with us — such as a lack of accountability in State bodies responsible for child protection, and the failure of the justice system to bring to book those who knew what was going on.
Pearse Mehigan, a solicitor and contributor to the Amnesty study, says the failure to prosecute abusers, and those who facilitated and covered up the crimes, continues to be “one of the great failings of our justice system”.
Mehigan, who acts for the advocacy group for clerical abuse victims, One in Four, reminds us that a law was passed in 1997 that makes it an offence to “impede the prosecution” of someone accused of an “arrestable offence”. “Failure to report to the statutory authorities and the use of mental reservation to conceal crimes and information should surely result in prosecutions,” he says. Yet no member of the Catholic Church or its hierarchy has been charged with this offence.
“If the criminal justice system fails to prosecute criminality on the grand scale revealed in the various reports into clerical child abuse goes unaddressed, then an environment of impunity will continue to exist,” says Mehigan.
He calls for a review of the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions to establish the “number of complaints, if any, it received over the years concerning members of the clergy and the religious . . .”
Every single one of those files “should be re-opened and examined as to the reasons why individuals were not prosecuted.
“The DPP’s right not to have to give a reason for decisions not to prosecute ought to be overlooked in the interests of human rights accountability to ascertaining whether or not there were political machinations in force behind the decision-making process”.
As for victims of clerical abuse who struggled to be believed, it wasn’t so long ago when Andrew Madden heard parishioners praise the very priest who had sexually abused him as an altar boy. Madden, another contributor to the Amnesty report, was the first victim of clerical sex abuse to go public in 1995.
After his abuser, Fr Ivan Payne, was identified by RTE, parishioners in Sutton — where the priest remained for 14 years after Madden’s initial complaint — were disbelieving. An elderly parishioner in Sutton told the Irish Independent: “I can’t believe he did this, he was the best of priests. He married, christened and buried people and since he left he’s been back to do weddings because he was so well-liked.”
A 16-year-old girl said vague rumours about the priest had been circulating since the previous year: “But I don’t think anyone believed them and I still find it hard to believe now.” What astounded Andrew Madden was the “lack of anger at the Catholic Church from the people in Sutton for sending them a priest who had previously admitted the sexual abuse of a child”.
The four reports on clerical sex abuse, one more shocking than the next, reported on crimes of the past. “The focus cannot be purely on the past, as if these reports have no relevance for Irish society now,” said Mr O’Gorman. “We must consider the degree to which they reveal vital truths about the nature of our society today. The past can only become history once we have addressed it, learnt from it and made the changes necessary to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes and wrongdoing. We haven’t done that yet.”
Amnesty plans to hold a symposium on the findings of ‘In Plain Sight’ in the coming months.
[...]De feiten dateren in hoofdzaak uit de jaren tachtig, maar het was pas eind 1995 dat een jongen aan het praten ging. Zijn ouders dienden een interne klacht tegen Debruyne in bij de beheerraad van het MPI. Maar daar zwaaide broeder-directeur Roger Huyghe de plak van wie pas in 2000 aan het licht zou komen dat ook hij zich aan pedofilie met zijn leerlingen bezondigde.
Huyghe wist dat Debruyne pedofiel was, want soms gingen ze samen op pad. Of Huyghe de beheerraad beïnvloedde, is onduidelijk. Maar zeker is dat de raad van bestuur -- in het pre-Dutroux tijdperk -- niet naar het gerecht stapte, maar Debruyne voor missiewerk naar Rwanda stuurde. Daar werd hij tewerk gesteld in een technische school van zijn congregatie Broeders Van Dale.
Maar onder zware druk van ouders en personeel werd Debruyne eind 1996 naar Torhout teruggeroepen. Na een klacht met burgerlijke partijstelling van ouders startte het gerecht midden maart 1997 met zijn onderzoek.
[...]
22 mei 2003
Het Nieuwsblad
25 september 2011
TORHOUT - Ex-broeder van het MPI Tordale Luc De Bruyne, die in 2005 acht jaar cel kreeg voor pedofilie, komt aanstaande woensdag voorwaardelijk vrij. Hij zal wel een enkelband moeten dragen.
Luc De Bruyne (58) werkte in Tordale in Torhout als orthopedagoog. Hij werd verdacht van seksueel misbruik van minstens 30 mentaal gehandicapte kinderen en jongeren. In eerste aanleg in Brugge kreeg hij tien jaar effectieve celstraf, in beroep werd dit teruggebracht tot acht jaar.
De strafuitvoeringsrechtbank heeft nu beslist hem voorwaardelijk vrij te laten onder elektronisch toezicht. Hij mag geen contact meer hebben met de slachtoffers en zich niet vestigen in Torhout, Brugge of Izegem. De slachtoffers en hun familie zijn schriftelijk op de hoogte gebracht van de beslissing van de rechtbank.
Luc De Bruyne is geen broeder meer. Hij was gehuwd, is intussen gescheiden, en heeft twee kinderen. Hij zal zich vestigen in het Brusselse.
Midden vorig jaar werd ook broeder-directeur van Tordale, Roger Huyghe, vrijgelaten. Hij had tien jaar gekregen in beroep. Ook hij werd veroordeeld voor seksueel misbruik van kinderen en jongeren gedurende 30 jaar. Zowel hij als De Bruyne hebben de betichtingen altijd ontkend.
SchadevergoedingDe slachtoffers krijgen een schadevergoeding van 190.000 euro. Het instituut Tordale moet daar de helft van betalen. De kans is groot dat de veroordeelde in beroep gaat tegen het vonnis.
RKK 14-11-2005
Abuse watchdog director quit before investigation into order
19-9-2011
Claire O’Sullivan
CORI’S representative on the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church (NBSCCC) resigned as a director of the board just days before the watchdog began investigating his own order’s implementation of child protection guidelines.Professor David Smith is also the Missionaries of the Sacred Heart’s child protection delegate and is the priest charged with overseeing best practice in the area.
Last month, the NBSCCC began an investigation into that order’s handling of clerical sex abuse complaints. Several weeks later, the gardaí and HSE announced that they were to investigate allegations of past sexual and physical abuse at the former boarding school, Carrignavar College
which was run by the Sacred Heart Missionaries.
Prof Smith sat on the NBSCCC for two years before resigning on July 21. Last night, an NBSCCC spokesman said no reason was given for his resignation and they could "not confirm or deny" that the resignation was linked to the current investigation and a possible conflict of interest.
Allegations of widespread sexual and physical abuse at Carrignavar first came to light at the end of July when Fianna Fáil senator Mark Daly attacked the order for its failure to properly monitor a former school principal who was on restricted ministry, having been accused of seven counts of child sex abuse.
The priest was regularly flying abroad without supervision or permission.
Yesterday, Mr Daly said: "I would have been in communication with Professor Smith about my concerns for up to a year before I raised the issue in the Seanad.
"I had raised my concerns that the necessary restrictions were not being adhered to. I was pointing out serious current breaches of Church protection guidelines in his own order and, at the same time, he was sitting on the board charged with ensuring best practice across the wider Church."In late July, the Seanad was told that former Carrignavar principal Fr Donnacha Mac Cárthaigh, also a former selector with the Cork minor football team, was regularly travelling out of the country despite being on restricted ministry.
The order had settled two civil cases after former pupils alleged sexual abuse. Prof Smith was unavailable for comment yesterday.
zaterdag, september 24, 2011
If there was legal advice that the Church is not responsible for compensation, why didn’t the lawyers give this advice in the first place?
24-9-2011
Victims ‘led to believe’ Church would settle
‘Why raise expectations?’
Direct financial compensation to the victims of clerical sexual abuse had been on the cards for the Church during meetings with their lawyer but the Archbishop’s stand on the matter changed during the second encounter, the lawyer told The Times yesterday.
Patrick Valentino said that, although Archbishop Paul Cremona was careful not to assume responsibility for the abuse, compensation was only ruled out during the second and penultimate meeting that the two sides held between them.
He said he and the victims had been led to believe the Church would agree to reach an out-of-court settlement on compensation.
Dr Valentino was contacted yesterday, on the eve of today’s press conference intended to give the victims’ official reaction to the Church decision to reject legal responsibility for the abuse.
The announcement by the Church came on Thursday following the third and last meeting. It said its legal advice was that as an institution it did not have any responsibility for what was perpetrated by some individuals and “cannot take upon herself such responsibility”.
The Church, however, said it was setting up a structure to provide psychiatric, psychological and social help to any individuals who proved to be victims of its pastoral functionaries, “as part of her pastoral and spiritual ministry”.
Two priests – Carmelo Pulis and Godwin Scerri – are awaiting their appeal from a five- and six-year jail term imposed on them by a magistrate in August following a court case that dragged on for eight years. They were found guilty of sexually abusing teenage boys at a Church home in the 1980s and 1990s.
The Archbishop’s delegate on catechesis, theologian Fr Rene Camilleri, yesterday questioned why it took the Curia’s lawyers so long to give the Church the advice made public on Thursday.
Contacted by The Times, he said: “If there was legal advice that the Church is not responsible for compensation, why didn’t the lawyers give this advice in the first place? Why did they raise people’s expectations?
“This is why there is disappointment. Was there the need to hold the meetings? These raised people’s expectations, not only for the victims but also for the man in the street,” he said.
In his opinion, however, a court could only impose the payment of damages on an institution if it found that it had direct responsibility for what happened; if, for example, the priests’ superior knew about the abuse and covered it up.
“If there is direct responsibility, I believe the Church should shoulder this responsibility. It is also morally bound to shoulder it.” But he said it was debatable whether the Church, in this case, was morally duty-bound to compensate the victims.
“At the beginning, when the meetings started, my worry was that, if the Church agreed to compensating, it would have opened a door without knowing when this would close. It would have created a precedent.”
The question, he said, was whether the Church as an institution should be held responsible for a mistake made by an individual or should the individual be personally responsible. Fr Camilleri also raised the question of whether the Church had assumed moral responsibility by making an apology and, if it had done so, was it also responsible for paying out the compensation.
He acknowledged that many Catholic dioceses, especially in the US, had opted to reach out-ofcourt settlements with victims almost immediately, some of them before the matter was decided by a court of law.
Asked whether the Church in Malta had missed the golden opportunity to place a lid on the issue, Fr Camilleri replied in the negative. “I do not think so. The issue is so deep and these are not isolated cases which could have been isolated further by an outof- court settlement. The Church has to keep in mind that once it accepted the principle of compensating victims, then victims of any form of abuse will come forward for compensation,” he said.
A Curia spokesman declined to comment on whether the Church in Malta felt it was morally bound to shoulder the responsibility for the acts committed by the two priests. He said the Church had no further comments to make to the statement it issued on Thursday.
The Curia’s lawyer, Domenic Cassar, declined to explain the legal basis of the decision taken by the Church.
[...]Abuse victims call off protest
Malta Independent
24 September 2011
Chiara Bonello
A protest by the victims of sexual abuse by priests due to be held this morning was called off yesterday, on the advice of the victims’ lawyer, Patrick Valentino, victims’ spokesman Lawrence Grech told The Malta Independent.
The protest was to be held after the Curia announced on Thursday that there would be no financial compensation for what the victims had suffered.
The news of the protest came after a Church statement that the Church had been advised legally that as an institution it does not have any legal responsibility for the cases (of abuse) perpetrated by “some individuals”.
The Church also said it would be offering psychiatric, psychological and other help by social professionals. Mr Grech said that initially all the victims intended to participate in the protest, and invite the public to support them.
The email said that the victims were extremely disappointed at the turn that things had taken, and were therefore inviting people to join them in a protest this morning.
However on Dr Valentino’s advice they had decided to cancel the protest at this ‘critical’ time, as it is not the right time for something of the sort, Mr Grech explained.
The protest would have coincided with a news conference to be held this morning, during which the victims’ lawyers will speak to the media about the meetings they have held with the Church representatives and the final decision.
Lou Bondi, who has been the victims’ spokesman, promptly sent an email to the same recipients disassociating himself from the victims’ email announcing the protest, which he said he knew nothing about.
The news conference comes after a number of meetings held between Dr Valentino and the Curia’s lawyers, during which both sides had their say, but had so far failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
The most recent meeting held earlier on this month was described as ‘disappointing’, but Mr Grech had not ruled out the possibility that things may change.
Archbishop Paul Cremona, speaking after the meeting, told the media that the meeting had given both sides the opportunity to clarify their positions. He also said that the next meeting, to be held a week later, would be the final one.
The protest will not be held, but the news conference during which Dr Valentino will speak to the press about the state of things and what happens next will go ahead as planned.
Legal adviser 'disappointed, surprised and disgusted' by Church statement
Times of Malta
24-9-2011
A small number of victims of clerical sex abuse and their friends held a silent protest outside the Curia this morning to protest over a Church statement saying it bore no legal responsibility for the actions of two priests convicted of abuse.
The men formed a line outside the Curia's main door, carrying posters and placards criticising the Church.
The protest was held before a press conference held there later by the legal adviser of the victims, Dr Patrick Valentino.
The Church said on Thursday that it had legal advice that as an institution, it bore no legal responsibility for the abuse cases. It said, however, that it is setting up a structure to provide psychiatric, psychological and social help to any individuals who proved to be victims of its pastoral functionaries, “as part of her pastoral and spiritual ministry”.
The posters were taken down when Dr Valentino arrived for the press conference.
In his press conference Dr Valentino said the victims will proceed with a civil court case against the Church, the MSSP (which ran the Home where the abuses took place) and the abusers personally, requesting monetary compensation.
Dr Valentino said he was 'disappointed, surprised and disgusted' by the Church's statement, for various reasons.
For one thing, he said, the statement still spoke of 'alleged' abuses when there had been convictions. Secondly it focused on legal arguments instead of the moral responsibility which the Church should shoulder since the children were under its care.
The legal arguments being made by the church, he said, stemmed from the fact that several cases were time barred.
Dr Valentino said the victims were scarred for life and their suffering was not time-barred. Some of them could not work or have normal family life and in today's world only financial compensation could bring a turnaround to their lives and balance out the damage they had suffered.
He noted that the Church in its original reaction to the court case had apologised and asked for forgiveness. Now it had said it would also set up a structure of social workers and other professionals to help the victims. In this way, the Church appeared to be acknowledging responsibility, Dr Valentino said, but at the same time it was using legal arguments to say it did not have to give financial compensation.
He pointed out that abroad, in almost identical cases, the Church had awarded financial compensation, mostly in out-of-court settlements.
Dr Valentino said that the victims wanted this chapter to be closed as quickly as possible and he regretted that they would need to go to the courts again.
3x Update (26-9)
Eenmaal
Times of Malta
September 25, 2011,Christian Peregin
‘Disgusted’ clerical abuse victims demand compensation
‘Effects are not time-barred’
A group of clerical child abuse victims could only get a fair shot at life and start afresh if they received financial compensation, their lawyer Patrick Valentino insisted yesterday.
“I know it may look bad, but only a financial sum can really change their lives and start to balance things out after all the suffering they have endured,” he said.
However, he would not state what sum the victims are seeking, saying only that figures were never discussed and the men had agreed to build on any offer made by the Church.
He said the victims were expecting compensation in light of several meetings between the Curia and the men’s lawyer, where “nothing was ruled out”.
Dr Valentino said that since the Church had refused to offer compensation, the victims had no choice but to institute legal proceedings against the Church, the Missionary Society of St Paul and the two priests convicted of abuse.
Addressing a press conference outside the Curia in Floriana yesterday morning, Dr Valentino said the victims were “disappointed, surprised and disgusted” by the stand taken by the Church last week, claiming it hid behind legal arguments and ignored the moral issue at stake.
“These victims were placed in the Church’s care for character formation, but instead they were scarred for life,” he said.
When the Church first reacted to the sentencing of the two priest-abusers Charles Pulis (now sacked from the clerical state) and Fr Godwin Scerri, it acknowledged responsibility and asked the victims and Maltese society for forgiveness.
In a press release issued last month, the Church had also apologised because its investigation had taken several years.
However, last Thursday the Church said that after consulting lawyers it could not accept legal responsibility for the abuse though it was prepared to offer victims help in the form of psychiatrists, social workers and psychologists.
Dr Valentino said it was contradictory for the Church to ask for forgiveness, offer psychological help, but then say it is not legally obliged to pay compensation. The abusers, he said, took a vow of poverty and could therefore not provide compensation themselves.
Dr Valentino was also critical that the Church was once again referring to “alleged” abuse, despite the convictions and defrocking of one of the priests involved.
Dr Valentino said that while the victims wanted closure, the Church’s refusal to offer compensation meant the issue would have to be reopened in court.
The Church, he said, was likely to argue that many of the incidents were time-barred but this argument holds no water for the victims, who were abused as teenagers.
He said some had been certified as unable to work, while others could not enjoy their family life and had never washed their kids for fear that they might abuse them. “These things are not time-barred,” he said.
Dr Valentino said that in several almost identical cases, the Church in other counties reached out-of-court settlements because they acknowledged their moral responsibility towards the victims.
Archbishop Paul Cremona declined to comment on the case yesterday. Approached following a Caritas seminar, his spokesman swiftly intervened and said there was “nothing to add” to the statements issued. Any questions, he said, could be sent by e-mail. Before yesterday’s morning’s news conference, some of the victims appeared in front of the Curia carrying posters criticising the Church. When Dr Valentino arrived for the news conference, he told the victims to remove the posters and asked the press not to publish photos of the protest.
The abuse took place at the St Joseph’s Home in Sta Venera when the 11 victims, now adults, were teenagers.
The two convicted priests, sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment and currently on bail, are appealing against the court decision.
Update
Andermaal
Bondi' explains disagreements with victims of clerical abuse
26-9-2011Times of Malta
Updated - Broadcaster Lou Bondi this afternoon revealed disagreements with the victims of clerical abuse, which culminated when they made comments to the press late last week despite an agreement that comments would only be made by legal adviser Patrick Valentino.
Mr Bondi stepped down from his role as adviser to the victims three days ago and revealed the decision in his blog yesterday.
He denied that he had stepped down because of a planned meeting between the victims and Joseph Muscat.
The victims, he said, had proposed more than a year ago that they should have meetings with Lawrence Gonzi and Joseph Muscat, but he advised against, insisting that this was not a political matter. At the time he warned that should any such meeting be held with any politician, he would step down.
“But the first time I learnt they had met Joseph Muscat was today,” he said. “They acted behind my back, which proves how correct I was to step aside.”
Mr Bondi said that at a meeting last Thursday between the victims, their lawyer and himself, it was decided that since this was a legal issue, comments to the press would only be made by the lawyer, Patrick Valentino.“No sooner had the meeting finished that Lawrence Grech gave comments to the press,” Mr Bondi complained.
Then on Saturday some of the victims turned up before a press conference with posters criticising the Church and the Archbishop. The press conference was meant to have been addressed only by Mr Valentino.
I am truly sorry that it has come to this, Mr Bondi’ said.
In his blog yesterday, Mr Bondi' said he had been helping the victims of sexual abuse at St Joseph Home for eight years.
He said he had sent an email to Dr Valentino and two of the victims, Lawrence Grech and Joseph Magro, telling them he was stepping down.
In his email, Mr Bondi said he had reflected on whether he should continue to be involved, now that the case had been decided in court. He decided to step down because his purpose of seeing justice be done had been achieved.
He said the legal efforts for the victims to be given financial compensation were worthy and he hoped that they would succeed. However, this was not part of what he had worked for with the victims and therefore, he did not see himself as having a role in it.
Mr Bondi said he absolutely disagreed with actions and declarations made against the Church and Archbishop Paul Cremona in recent days. He had made his position clear early on, but his advice was ignored.
He augured that the victims would close this chapter of their lives successfully.
Lawrence Grech, a spokesman for the victims, said when contacted that Mr Bondi had set conditions to suit his agenda instead of helping then unconditionally.
A blessing for the Vatican in (really) deep disguise
John L Allen Jr
Pope Benedict XVI is in Germany at the moment, where last year’s sex abuse scandals brought his own record squarely into focus. That debate has flared up anew with a splashy public appeal by a New York based legal foundation, along with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, to the International Criminal Court to prosecute the pope and other senior Vatican officials.
Granted, most experts say the Vatican probably has a point in calling the idea a “publicity stunt.” Whatever one makes of Benedict XVI, he’s hardly a war criminal in the same league with Slobodan Milosevic or Omar al-Bashir. (As British attorney Neil Addison put it, “the Swiss Guard hasn’t invaded anywhere.”)
The ICC is supposed to step in only when national courts can’t act, which wouldn’t seem to be the case in places like Ireland and the United States. Moreover, a key element of an indictment is usually that a regime not only covered up human rights abuses, but orchestrated them. Even the fiercest critics have never claimed that Benedict XVI, or any other Vatican official, actually directed somebody to abuse a child.
That said, I want to float a counter-intuitive hypothesis: In the unlikely event the ICC were to take the case, it might do the Vatican more good than harm.
Here’s why. Whenever criticism has been lodged of the Vatican and Benedict XVI on the crisis, officials have responded with some version of three core arguments:
- First, oversight of individual priests is not, and never has been, the responsibility of the Vatican. It’s lodged with local bishops and religious superiors. Factually and legally, it’s a mistake to focus on the Vatican, because that’s not how personnel questions work in the church; analytically it’s dangerous, because it suggests the problem can be magically solved by flipping a switch in Rome.
- Second, Benedict XVI is a reformer on the sex abuse issue, not a culprit. He was the Vatican official who pushed for new norms to weed abusers out of the priesthood back in 2001, against significant internal opposition, and who got John Paul to make them even tougher in 2002-2003. He famously warned of “filth in the church” in his 2005 Good Friday meditations. It was Benedict who went after the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, who met victims of sexual abuse and who apologized for the crisis, and on and on.
- Third, the Catholic church has turned a corner over the last decade, adopting tough new policies and investing considerable resources in making them stick. Today, the church wants to be a partner with other social agents in healing the wounds of victims and in promoting abuse prevention and detection. Demonizing the church or the Vatican for past failures thus does not serve the aim of keeping children safe today.
As someone who has followed this story both from Rome and the States, I believe each of these claims is basically true. To be sure, the Vatican can’t wash its hands of the crisis; there was a culture of silence in the church, from the top to the bottom, in which the Vatican was obviously complicit. Vatican officials, including the future Benedict XVI, were late in waking up to the problem’s scope and gravity. Moreover, there is still important unfinished business – oversight and accountability for bishops, for instance. Nonetheless, I think a fair reading of the record would find considerable support for the three points above.
If that’s true, the unavoidable question is why the Vatican has had so little luck convincing anyone of those points. (Don’t believe it? Just book a flight to Ireland, and take the temperature in the street.) While there are plenty of reasons, one is probably that the arguments have never really been examined by a neutral outfit with the patience and the tools to do it right.
In today’s world, most people rely on the court system to be that arbiter of truth and falsehood. The Vatican has faced legal action over the crisis before, most notably in American courts, but those cases have never really reached matters of substance because they’ve been bogged down in skirmishes over jurisdiction, related to the Vatican’s sovereign status under international law.
The Vatican is, of course, perfectly within its rights to assert the protections to which international law entitles it. Defending the independence of the papacy is deeply encoded in the Vatican’s DNA, as a bulwark against powerful states exerting pressure to serve perceived national interests. Even the most cursory reading of history, both distant and recent, suggests that’s hardly an unrealistic concern.
In terms of public opinion, however, reacting to a sex abuse lawsuit by invoking sovereign immunity can’t help but seem like a dodge -- trying to wiggle off the hook on a technicality rather than facing the charges head-on.
Sovereignty wouldn’t be an issue in an ICC case, since the court was erected precisely to prosecute regimes and heads of state which hide behind their immunity. If the Vatican didn’t simply ignore the whole business on the grounds that it’s not a party to the 1998 treaty creating the court, it would be forced to engage the accusations on their merits.
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the ICC would conduct a review without turning it into a media circus driven by politics and public opinion. Let’s also assume the Vatican would respond effectively, enlisting people who understand both international jurisprudence and communications strategy to make its case. (New York-based attorney Joseph Weiler, who successfully defended Italy’s right to display crucifixes in public schools before the European Court of Human Rights, comes to mind.)
All these assumptions, of course, are things one can’t take for granted in the real world. But if they fell into place, the end result might be a secular tribunal persuading reasonable people of a conclusion the Vatican so far has failed to get across: On the sex abuse crisis, the pope is not the problem.
Being hauled before a court intended to prosecute the most ruthless offenders humanity has to offer is nobody’s idea of a good time, and it’s hardly a development the Vatican could be expected to welcome. Yet if the stars were to align just the right way, the experience might prove to be a blessing in, admittedly, very deep disguise.
Benedikt XVI. trifft Missbrauchsopfer
complete artikel FAZ
Malta, may the force be with you!
en dan nu maar hopen dat die St Joseph- mannen op Malta nog even wachten met zich hetzelfde af te vragen als ik doe....!
vrijdag, september 23, 2011
visdag : nature of nurture
[...]
Nature!!!
En 'n bekende stuip van het lachen.
malta No financial compensation from Church, clerical abuse victim: 'Our battle is just beginning'
Victims of clerical sex abuse have voiced their disappointment at a Curia announcement that the Church, as an institution, bore no legal responsibility for the crimes - and hence will not pay financial compensation.
Lawrence Grech, whose public comments first revealed the abuse, said he and the group of victims he represented were “utterly disappointed” with the Curia’s stand, adding that the matter will be taken to a civil court.
“I am disappointed how the Archbishop met us and apologised and said he felt humiliated and then offered us a sorry and psychological help. We don’t want that and we will take the matter to court,” he said.
“Our battle is just beginning. Just like the priests had said they were not responsible for what we were saying they had done, now we have the Church saying it is not responsible for this action. We will leave it up to the court to decide that.”
He said further reactions to the Church’s stance would be announced during a press conference tomorrow morning.
The Church’s decision not to reach an out-of-court settlement followed meetings between Mgr Cremona and the victim’s lawyer, Patrick Valentino.
At the end of the last meeting on September 7, Mgr Cremona had said that both parties were going to meet again a week later for their “final meeting”. This meeting, sources said, was held yesterday in a room within the precincts of the Law Court and the talks, unlike the other two meetings, did not include Mgr Cremona.
The Vatican’s chief prosecutor, Monsignor Charles Scicluna who had encouraged the victims’ lawyer to demand compensation, yesterday had no comment to make on the Church’s statement.
Matthew Xuereb
The Church has rejected legal responsibility for the sexual abuse perpetrated by two of its priests on a group of boys at the St Joseph’s Home, putting paid to the possibility of an out-of-court settlement on financial compensation for the victims.
In an unexpected statement yesterday, the Curia said it had been given legal advice that “...in this particular case, (the Church) as an institution, does not have any legal responsibility for what was perpetrated by some individuals and that she (the Church) cannot take upon herself such responsibility.”
The decision was taken at a meeting between Archbishop Paul Cremona, Gozo Bishop Mario Grech and Auxiliary Bishop Annetto Depasquale and the superiors of the major religious orders in Malta.
The announcement was made yesterday after the Curia met the victims’ lawyers for a “final meeting” on possible compensation.
In its statement, the Curia said it was willing to provide counselling without attaching this offer to the St Joseph case specifically.
“However, the Church authorities, without referring to any specific cases, and without prejudice for their position in the civil cases which may arise in the future, and without renouncing to their rights of defence which they can legally present, are taking the necessary steps for the setting up, out of their own funds, a structure which will include psychiatric, psychological and social professionals who will provide all the necessary help in their respective field. This applies for every individual who, in any way, is proved to be a victim by individual pastoral functionaries. The Church is doing this as part of her pastoral and spiritual ministry.”
The Church’s statement comes only a few weeks after a court declared two priests guilty of abusing young boys in their care in the 1980s and 1990s.
Carmelo Pulis and Fr Godwin Scerri were jailed for six years and five years respectively after being convicted of sexually abusing boys at St Joseph Home in Santa Venera.
The Vatican has dismissed Mr Pulis from the clerical state while a decision on Fr Scerri is expected by October. Both appealed the judgments. A third priest, who also faced charges, died last January.
The case came to light in 2003 after one of the victims, Lawrence Grech, decided to break his silence. The matter was investigated by the Church’s Response Team, which eventually referred the case to the Vatican.
Contacted yesterday, Mr Grech said he and the group of victims he represented were “utterly disappointed” with the Curia’s stand, adding that the matter will be taken to a civil court.
“I am disappointed how the Archbishop met us and apologised and said he felt humiliated and then offered us a sorry and psychological help. We don’t want that and we will take the matter to court,” he said.
“Our battle is just beginning. Just like the priests had said they were not responsible for what we were saying they had done, now we have the Church saying it is not responsible for this action. We will leave it up to the court to decide that.”
He said further reactions to the Church’s stance would be announced during a press conference tomorrow morning.
The Church’s decision not to reach an out-of-court settlement followed meetings between Mgr Cremona and the victim’s lawyer, Patrick Valentino.
At the end of the last meeting on September 7, Mgr Cremona had said that both parties were going to meet again a week later for their “final meeting”. This meeting, sources said, was held yesterday in a room within the precincts of the Law Court and the talks, unlike the other two meetings, did not include Mgr Cremona.
The Vatican’s chief prosecutor, Monsignor Charles Scicluna who had encouraged the victims’ lawyer to demand compensation, yesterday had no comment to make on the Church’s statement.
