Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE ARCHDIOCESE OF Cashel and Emly was given a largely clean bill of health in the latest review of its child safeguarding measures.
The report from the National Board for Safeguarding Children in the Catholic Church (NBSCCCI) found that the archdiocese had received a “relatively small number” of allegations/suspicions/concerns regarding clerics in its area and that those that were received were generally dealt with quickly.
“Archbishop (Dermot) Clifford promptly removed priests from public ministry, usually within days of the allegations being brought to his attention,” reads the report.
There was a delay in bringing allegations to the gardai in four cases but of three of these, the complainants had not wanted the gardai involved – the fourth concerned a priest who was out of ministry and had no access to children. However, this fourth case took nine years to be reported to gardai.
The tone used towards complainants in responses from the archdiocese also came under some scrutiny. It was “inconsistent”, the Board said:
The reviewers read excellent examples of compassionate caring responses which were clearly appreciated by the complainants. In contrast there were other examples of notes and letters which were sharp in tone and approach towards victims.
The review recommended the appointment of a support person for complainants – and a stronger victim response protocol – to tackle this weakness in the archdiocese’s safeguarding process.
Poignant: the “compassion of victims”
In an interesting and poignant aside, the reviewers note “the compassion of victims towards their abuser was striking in two cases”. However: “The same compassion was not shown by one of the respondent priest, who often continued to deny the allegations.”
Overall, the Board found the cases of abuse reports in the archdiocese of Cashel and Emly to be “well managed” and that the above recommendation regarding support and process should address the inconsistencies noted.
Polish translations praised
The archdiocese received praise for its written policy on keeping children safe. Noted in particular was the fact that the child protection policy was published on posters and translated to Polish to target the “significant Polish community” in the archdiocese. These posters – in both English and Polish – were hung in churches in the archdiocese.
Archbishop Dermot Clifford of Cashel and Emly was found by the review team to be “direct in his communication” and had shown “leadership as well as giving support for all matters relevant to safeguarding children”. The reviewers also found that the team under the Archbishop were dedicated and could be relied upon to “make things happen” both at archdiocesan and local level.
For his part, Archbishop Clifford said that he recognised the great harm and trauma that had been caused by clerical abuse in the archdiocese. Since 1 January 1975, allegations of abuse, including physical abuse claims, have been made against 13 priests from the Cashel and Emly archdiocese.
Clifford said of the victims of abuse:
What happened to them was an outrageous betrayal of the priests’ calling and deserves our complete condemnation. Their suffering continues and we once again offer them not only our prayers but assistance in any way we can.
He said there was “no room for complacency” and that many volunteers, as well as archdiocesan staff, were involved in making sure the work of safeguarding children was ongoing.
A new development in Cashel and Emly since last year was the reconstitution of the safeguarding committee there – they also launched a new policy document this year that is seen as “clear and detailed” and showed that the committee was enthusiastic and serious about their role in safeguarding children.
One point which the Board wants the archdiocese to continue working on is outreach to children currently in the parish, to make sure that they are made aware of their right to be safe from abuse – and who they can speak to should they have some concerns.
In the archdiocese, when children become altar servers, both they and their parents are invited to a meeting to learn of the safeguards in place to prevent abuse.
One area where Cashel and Emly still have work to do is in offering advice and support to victims. The role of a new victim support person, as mentioned above, would be an initial step (this person has since been appointed to the archdiocese).
In summary?
The four key findings for the archdiocese of Cashel and Emly:
Other reports published today:
To those who complain, “Why do we still need Pride?:
Because places like this still exist and could be a death sentence for anyone in the LGBTQIA+ community.
@Honorary Derry Girl: Were there protests about the death sentence for homosexuality in many Muslim majority countries at pride? I’m all for anyone living their lives however they want free of bigots, but the failure of pride to call this out is hypocrital. Maybe they do bring it up and I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen it.
@D74Life: That’s a very good point- I agree that should be done but while we’re at it, we could also include countries right within the EU. Pride is pretty much a large positive demonstration of sexual identity but it should also be a message to the world that we’re all equal without singling out a particular religion or country. Being part of the LGBTQIA+ community can be an executable offence in Christian countries like Uganda as well as Muslim countries like Iran.
@Honorary Derry Girl: Absolutely, and it’s great to see pride highlighting Hungry. They’re not alone in Eastern Europe or Russia of course either. My point was just it’s relatively easy to have a go at European mostly white countries. Doing so about Muslim countries is something that people shy away from for fear of being called racist. Even those these countries literally kill homosexuals. I’m not having a go at pride, it’s a difficult subject. But unless it’s addressed, the accusation of hypocrisy will always be there.
@Honorary Derry Girl: Rubbish. As an old git I have know about gays since I was in high school. They are just like everyone else, free to choose their sexual partner unless it is coercive. I was taught to embrace all humanity in its many forms. Labels are not conducive to understanding.
It says a lot about their sexual insecurities and their fragile beliefs when a cartoon kiss upsets them. There is no place on this planet for unfounded hatred of others that are simply living their lives.
If you have no problem with a man kissing a woman in a Disney movie (especially unconscious women like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty) but have a problem with two girls doing the same thing, you’re a homophobic bigot.
Disney has its many issues but fair play to them for this. Yes they are hypocritical but this is a start. Hopefully they will continue with this
@HarveyLemonade: Compare that with Warners cutting a spoken reference to a same sex relationship in Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore for release in China.
Ban it over a single kiss? Wtf is wrong with these countries.
It’s Cancel Culture. PC gone mad. So woke.
I never see them take issue with a straight kiss in children’s cartoons. Same with radio discussions; never a topic taking issue with straight people.
@Dean: I think your getting confused. This is right wing conservative censorship. Religious fundamentalism.
Can we not just let Children……. BE CHILDREN….FFS
@Dónal Ó Keeffe: But then they might grow up as adults who aren’t available to be bartered off for a fee to their brothers or uncles.
@Dónal Ó Keeffe: Won’t someone please think of the children!
Dónal “Helen Lovejoy” Ó Keeffe
@Dónal Ó Keeffe: and how are they not being children? Are you suggesting there’s something wrong with the movie?
@Dónal Ó Keeffe: what are you talking about???
I wonder what the anti-woke crusaders make of this. Are they still supporting fReE sPeEcH or are they now aligning their views with conservative Islam, presumably under the guise of their usual “let kids be kids” shtick?
Disney need to keep the kiss in it as in this way at least it might be watched out of curiosity. Going by the reviews, it’s the only interesting thing in the film.
Too bad, how sad. No one is forcing theatres in Malaysia to show this film. People are free to watch or not watch if they want.
have your say