The Murphy Report

The post that was quoted here has been removed

if someone has aided or abetted a criminal act or in this case, withheld evidence of a criminal act, regardless of whether they are masquerading under the guise of a minister of religion or not, why should they not face prosecution? It seems to me that they are guilty by association. what do you think? In Scots Law for example, one does not need to steal to be guilty of a theft, there is a charge of reset, simply receiving stolen goods, thus one is guilty through association.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Without question they should be tried before a court of law.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Anyone who was involved in the coverup should be brought before a court of law with no exceptions, simple as that.

Will they? Most definitely not, and that's the scary part of the story.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"John calls to the parish priest to make a complaint about the behaviour of one of his curates. The parish priest sees him coming but does not want to see him because he considers John to be a troublemaker. He sends another of his curates to answer the door. John asks the curate if the parish priest is in. The curate replies that he is not.
[b]This is clearly untrue but in the Church's view it is not a lie because, when the curate told John that the parish priest was not in, he mentally reserved to himself the words "to you"; Ibid."[/b]

This is an example of a broad mental reservation and the Catholic Church has always condemned this as a form of deception and a sin. Since John does not know there is a reservation and cannot infer that there is a reservation, he is deceived by the parish priest. This constitutes a lie and a mortal sin. Only a strict mental reservation is morally acceptable. In a strict mental reservation, the listener can infer that the words are reserved. An example would be when a telemarketer calls you and you say 'I am busy'; your interlocutor understands that this is just a polite way of saying 'I do not want to speak to you'. Since no deception has occurred or was ever intended, the mental reservation is not sinful. Another example is the confessional. If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I understand that the speaker is a priest and that certain words must be reserved.


"In 2003, Mr Madden was invited to meet Cardinal Connell. In the course of an informal chat Cardinal Connell did apologise for the whole handling of the Fr Ivan Payne case. [b]He was however at pains to point out to Mr Madden that he did not lie about the use of diocesan funds in meeting Fr Payne's settlement with Mr Madden. He explained that when he was asked by journalists about the use of diocesan funds for the compensation of complainants of child sexual abuse, he had responded that diocesan funds are not used for such a purpose; that he had not said that diocesan funds were not used for such a purpose. By using the present tense, he had not excluded the possibility that diocesan funds had been used for such purpose in the past. According to Mr Madden, Cardinal Connell considered that there was an enormous difference between the two." Ibid[/b]

This is not even a mental reservation, let alone a strict mental reservation. It is pure equivocation. He is being deliberately ambiguous in using the present tense which suggests that it has always been the case when in fact he means that it is only current. The words are deceptive and since they have been intentionally used that way, it too is a sin.

The 'mental reservation defense' is nothing but an attempt to apportion blame elsewhere. The Cardinal's comments are deliberately deceptive. There is no justification from the side of traditional Catholic moral theology.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]"John calls to the parish priest to make a complaint about the behaviour of one of his curates. The parish priest sees him coming but does not want to see him because he considers John to be a troublemaker. He sends another of his curates to answer the door. John asks the curate if the parish priest is in. The curate replies that he is not.
[b]This is is no justification from the side of traditional Catholic moral theology.

[/b][/b]If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I understand that the speaker is a priest and that certain words must be reserved.

A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Should Bishops who covered up knowledge of child-abuse by Priests, and moved these Priests to other parishes to commit further abuse, face prison sentences?

Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[/b]If someone asks a priest 'Did that man commit murder?' the priest may answer 'No' even if the man did commit murder. Knowing that the priest is bound absolutely by the seal of confession, the person will understand that by 'No' he means 'No, as far as I know with secrets aside.' There is no deception since I understand that the speaker is a pri would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

Perhaps in your world, but in mine, when I ask a priest a question, I know that there is always a mental reservation in regards to the seal of confession. No deception has occurred for me.

Anyway, if a priest said 'I am bound by the seal of confession', I would have my answer. He would have betrayed his secret.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]Should Bishops who covered up knowledge of child-abuse by Priests, and moved these Priests to other parishes to commit further abuse, face prison sentences?

Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice.[/b]

Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice.

Assuming that the Pope did have such knowledge.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
A lie by any other name...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think this is deceptive. A non-deceptive answer would be, "I am bound by the seal of confession". "No" is a lie plain and simple.

Perhaps in your world, but in mine, when I ask a priest a question, I know that there is always a mental reservation in regards to the seal of confess d by the seal of confession', I would have my answer. He would have betrayed his secret.[/b]

The question is whether or not the answer is deceptive and it is. The example states, "If someone asks a priest...". It's not just about what you take as an understanding between you and priests. Besides, just because you and any given priest may have an understanding between you that he is willing to lie doesn't change the fact that he is lying. Just because you call his lie a "mental reservation" doesn't change the fact that he is lying.

Anyway, if a priest said 'I am bound by the seal of confession', I would have my answer. He would have betrayed his secret.

There would be no betrayal. An explanation for his refusal to answer constitutes neither a confirmation or denial. Or is this part of the "understanding" between you and priests?

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]
Not only Bishops, but anyone (including the Pope) with such knowledge that allowed this practice.

Assuming that the Pope did have such knowledge.[/b]

What a strange response.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
The question is whether or not the answer is deceptive and it is. The example states, "If [b]someone asks a priest...". It's not just about what you take as an understanding between you and priests. Besides, just because you and any given priest may have an understanding between you that he is willing to lie doesn't change the fact that he is lying. ...[text shortened]... nfirmation or denial. Or is this part of the "understanding" between you and priests?[/b]

The question is whether or not the answer is deceptive and it is. The example states, "If [b]someone asks a priest...". It's not just about what you take as an understanding between you and priests. Besides, just because you and any given priest may have an understanding between you that he is willing to lie doesn't change the fact that he is lying. Just because you call his lie a "mental reservation" doesn't change the fact that he is lying. [/b]

It's not a lie. There is no deception. There is no intention of deception.

There would be no betrayal. An explanation for his refusal to answer constitutes neither a confirmation or denial. Or is this part of the "understanding" between you and priests?

Yes it does. Silence is communicative as is the refusal to answer a question. If someone asks you 'Did that man commit murder' and you respond 'I am not allowed to say', the implication is that he did. The response could only make sense if there was a secret to hide. This is so obvious that it is tiresome to have to prove.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What a strange response.

I do not believe that the Pope had such knowledge nor do I believe that he shares in any culpability for the scandal.