George,

"....in addition to bad publicity)."

Which, of course, is the crux of the matter.

The lack of "bad publicity" being integral to the Catholic church's practice of shifting perpetrators to new parishes where they can ply their perversions to other "unsuspecting" victims.

And it's not just about avoiding being sued. This part of the protocol is designed to actually dissuade victims from reporting crimes to the police.

In that case, the offer of compensation acts as a lure to victims to be complicit in hiding these crimes from public view - to protect the reputation of the church and to allow abusive priests to evade the consequences of their actions.

The Towards Healing process encouraged victims to go to the police but also contained provisions to relocate clergy who had been implicated in child sexual abuse to other positions within the Catholic Church.

---

Well as I say I tried the Towards Healing process but AFTER the Prof Parkinson amendments to the protocol and as I say it was simply a kangaroo court where nobody was going to get anything but "LEGAL" abuse to replace the sexual abuse.

You had to sign a paper up front to say you understood the process did not prevent any court action and that (being a Parkinson amendment) smelt of the same stuff he did to the Child Support Acts but to actually BLOCK the right to "your day in court"

I let it all go after that but I was wondering if others made complaints about the legal abuse to the recent Inquiry.

Poirot,

I agree, I indicated in my last paragraph more or less the same thing. I only wanted to point out that the Church acted as any other organisation or institution in self-defence, including avoidance of bad publicity, as much as the circumstances allowed (and in the past the circumstances in this particularly painful case allowed a lot).

The sad - at least from a Catholic point of view - point making the whole affair so outrageous, is that the Church was not just “any other institution or organisation” although the lawyers who advised her e.g. with recommending offers of out of court settlements. saw, or pretended to see. her as such.

In real life the Church saw herself and was seen by many others as a moral authority , even more so by the child victim and (thus?) had a special psychological leverage on the victim or his/her parent to whom she made this offer; a leverage that other organisations even educational institutions do not have. Nevertheless, an out of court settlement is what it is , and today I presume the victim will have his/her own lawyer who cannot be put under such pressure.

I think offering out of court settlement is not criminal. Transferring the unfortunate perpetrator to other venues where he can continue with his malpractice, - if done KNOWING that he was incurable, and mere good intentions and promises cannot work (OK, today everybody knows) - should be a criminal offence. Nor reporting a mere suspicion is a more complicated matter.

Paul,

The only arguments that you have won have been in your imagination.

There are still a raft of questions out there about the lies told by Greens MsP using Parliamentary Privilege to protect their gutlessness that you have refused to answer.

However let us use the term 'dirty perverts' if you will, we will then be on a level playing field

Among the dirty perverts in the Catholic Church there would seem to be a higher proportion of homosexual molesters of boys, would you think that there is any significance in this?

although the lawyers who advised her e.g. with recommending offers of out of court settlements. saw, or pretended to see. her as such.
---

Are you saying there HAVE been out of court settlements for those taking the Towards Healing path?

I don’t know who in which particular case was offering or following what legal advice involving or not a financial “compensation”. I was just reacting to a remark which seemed to refer to out of court settlements in general.