Friday, 27 January 2017

CATHOLIC SAFEGUARDING PERSONS

CATHOLIC SAFEGUARDING PERSONS:




THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH has taken its worst ever world wide bashing because of all the children and vulnerable children that have been abused by the clergy.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM is almost just another word for sexual abuse in the minds of many.

Many parents would not allow their children within 10 miles of a priest these days.

Many parents would be horrified at the thought of their son going into a seminary like MAYNOOTH / GAYNOOTH to be got at by a gay cabal.


To try and help them to recover from this ABUSE CRISIS Roman Catholic diocese have been appointing what they call:

DIRECTOR / DESIGNATED SAFEGUARDING PERSON.

One could be forgiven for presuming that these directors / designated persons are primarily there for the safeguarding and protection of CHILDREN and VULNERABLE PERSONS?

A Down and Connor PP told me by telephone today that some of these people are being paid between £50,000 and £90,000 per annum!

Not a bad income by any means - up to £ 1,730 per week.

There are weeks that I live on less than 1/5 of that.

How many Catholic families paying into their local parish have £ 1730 a week to live on?


BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM - OR AS LEAST A QUESTION about these Diocesan Safeguarding Directors.

Who pays their wages?


If it is the BISHOP does not not create a difficulty in the area of INDEPENDENCE?

What about that old wise saying: "HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE".

If the bishop is paying you a handsome salary are you truly independent of him?

Are you not indeed answerable to him?


And what if a bishop was reported to one of these directors as an abuser?

Would the Safeguarding Director not be put in a strange position by having to go to the bishop and say:

"My Lord, I want to thank you for my £ 1730 last Friday but I am here today to say I have received a complaint that you are an abuser.

And even if a bishop was not being accused - what about the auxiliary bishop, the vicar general, a senior PP etc.

Is it right then that a CLERIC should be the LINE MANAGER of a SAFEGUARDING DIRECTOR?

Can you see my point?


OR IS THE DIOCESAN SAFEGUARDING DIRECTOR THERE TO PROTECT THE BISHOP?

What got me wondering about that was two things:

1. THE ARMAGH SAFEGUARDING OFFICER ACCOMPANYING CARDINAL SEAN BRADY TO BE QUESTIONED BY THE ABUSE ENQUIRY NOT SO LONG AGO:


 

2. THE ARMAGH SAFEGUARDING DIRECTOR MAKING A COMPLAINT ABOUT A COMMENT ON THIS BLOG RECENTLY TO THE PSNI ABOUT THE SAFETY OF AMY MARTIN'S PALACE.


I would have thought that there were no children or vulnerable adults in the palace?

Maybe there are?

Maybe SEAN is a vulnerable adult?


SEAN BRADY INVESTIGATING HIMSELF :-)


Maybe AMY is a vulnerable adult?



45 comments:

  1. I have heard directly from two safeguarding officers that the bishop is the boss and when the bishop disagrees with the safeguarding officer it is the bishop's decision as to what happens because he is ultimately their boss.
    Combined these two officers have remit over multiple diocese.

    CR

    ReplyDelete
  2. They're there so the diocese is seen as having improved from the bad old days lol.
    In Plymouth diocese, Christopher Jarvis, who had exactly this role, was convicted of child porn:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8854832/Church-inquiry-after-official-convicted-of-paedophilia.html
    Ironic, and in his case obviously the role was a waste of time. In the other hand, I'm afraid I can't remember the name of the person or diocese, but a female safeguarding officer quite rightly rang the police and lifted the lid on a can of worms, after she discovered the bishop knew a priest had child porn but had done nothing about it. Perhaps someone will recall the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nailed it. Sorry, it wasn't a safeguarding officer at all but Jennifer Haselberger, a canon lawyer at the diocese of St Paul and Minneapolis. A man bought a pruest's disused computer in 2004, found porn on it and alerted the diocese who merely kept copies of the images on discs in the priest's file for eight years. Haselberger quite rightly rang the police and initiated a crisis after finding the discs.

      Delete
  3. Agree with everything you say Pat, however I must on this occasion say that I am offended by this last Picture which to me is demeaning of persons with learning difficulties. Within only a few years of leaving Farnborough Abbey I was working with persons experiencing mental health problems and those living with a learning disability. I have to say that for the most part, the complete openness and honesty displayed by many of these people is in complete contrast to the deceit and subterfuge attributed to Bsp Martin and many others, also, I would suggest that a learning disability is only one area that might rightly be defined for safeguarding purposes as "Vulnerable." Personally, given the deep psychological penetration of religious belief, especially the allure or veneer of holiness with which the church and clergy are still held by those unwilling or unable to face what for them may be the catastrophic reality, to me, suggests that everyone the church encounters should be regarded as potentially vulnerable. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My little sister Sandra (39) was disabled and I celebrated her funeral not long ago.

      I think you have taken me up wrong here Tom.x

      Delete
    2. PPS: The last picture is not a disabled person but the current archbishop of Armagh.

      Delete
    3. Very sorry for your loss, Pat. No, I never meant to suggest any prejudice on your part. I suspect misunderstanding amounts for most minor grievances in this world, if you'd put "Is Amy a vulnerable child?" I probably would have taken the point and moved on..which I'll now do!! lol.. keep up the good work (Sincerely.x)

      Delete
  4. A safeguarding officer/policy should have a job description way of carrying out the job and being accountable that is above dependence on any one individual but can be audited to ensure job is done properly

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They should also answer to statutory bodies - not bishops!

      Delete
    2. Pat, be assured, they DO answer to statutory bodies- not just the bishop. And if the bishop is a problem, they can bring the house down around his ears! It is only but right that the Church pay their wages but it doesn't in this case mean that the bishops call the times. Keep up the good work, Pat.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for that.

      But given the weakness of human nature - and the general lack of courage in people - how many of them would have the courage to "bring the house down"?

      Delete
    4. Anon 10:43's point is factually inaccurate.

      Delete
    5. Yes, a fully trained Safeguarding Officer is completely aware that he/she has a special authority and responsibility to know exactly how to operate when a case of abuse is known or suspected or there are worrying details or a parental or child "disclosure" has reached his/her ears. There is a correct procedure which must be followed by us(I am such an Officer). We have the phone numbers to which we report in an autonomous way. We certainly don't need to ask anyone's permission and other Staff or persons are informed on a " need to know" basis e g if they are also caring for or teaching the child or vulnerable adult. The bishop may well have to be informed about one of his clergy but that most certainly doesn't imply that he can override my trained judgement. Most definitely not, in my case anyway!The needs of the child or vulnerable adult are ALWAYS paramount. That is the guiding principle from which all our training stems.
      Someone mentioned - - very correctly - - that "vulnerable" was a much wider term in Safeguarding than merely referring to those who have perhaps a learning disability. . It includes a wide range of conditions and situations, including physical disabilities,blindness, deafness and those in wheelchairs etc.
      But it is also important to realise that a normal adult may become TEMPORARILY "vulnerable" in society or his/her workplace or hobbies. A normally secure and confident adult may become temporarily vulnerable when he has suffered bereavement or emotional stress or there is serious family or personal illness or worry going on. For purposes of workplace care, a pregnant person is temporarily vulnerable,in some aspects at any rate. An person will be regarded as temporarily vulnerable if she has for example, fractured an arm or is using crutches and needs more than her normal amount of assistance with personal and bathroom care. A lad who is developing a drugs or alcohol problem is now vulnerable. These are just examples.
      With regard to being paid for Safeguarding--most are not paid because the duties are added on to one's existing post which might be teaching or some admin. post. Some organisations depend on a (too!) swiftly trained volunteer and I suspect that's where problems could arise.
      I hope this helps a little to clarify a few points.
      God bless Pat and he who is not against you, is for you.

      Delete
    6. Like the pic of inspecteur brado However there are serious issues to deal with

      Delete
  5. When you place yourself on a high pedestal then you automatically become vulnerable.

    Bishop’s and those in office like to have scape goats, nets to catch them or crawl ways to use as a means of escape like those of the penal days.

    How often we have heard "no comment" "was not aware" "It was in someone elses time" "My hands were tied"

    Again I say the church will be a better place without them, roll on the day of the true servant, the faithful will find a way.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hank I hope your meeting with the big guys went well

      Delete
    2. They couldn't face me usual stuff

      Delete
  6. In some archdiocese / diocese priests are the designated safeguarding persons, in Dublin it's a lay person, over in Tuam it's a Monsignor, hardly best practice!

    ReplyDelete
  7. What a bunch of retards you lot are. Anytime I log into this log your all on commenting. Great keyboard warriors that would shit yourselves if you had a camera and Mic in front of you. Not a mention of God or Christ. Jaysus you lot are depressing as fuck. No wonder your all rejects!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the post at 10.46 above - -

      The correct word, both times above would be "you're" and not "your" .
      Remember, it it's short for "you are" then write "you're". The comma in the middle of the word is there to show that there is a letter left out--in this case, it is of course, the letter "a".

      Delete
    2. It's not a comma(,), it's an apostrophe (')

      Delete
    3. Yes, it is often nowadays also referred to as an apostrophe in the. "you're" usage.
      But the poster @14.34 is correct all the same!
      This is because the term "apostrophe" signifies an ownership situation eg "The man's garden" or "Friday's weather forecast".
      Terms and words loosen up with continual misuse and things evolve.

      Delete
  8. Perhaps we're in good company, wasn't Jesus a reject too, 'to accept rejection and reject acceptance' that is the way of the authentic prophet. When you speak truth why would you be afraid of a camera and a mic, unless you were trying to hide something.
    Wil D West

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will face ANY CAMERA and ANY MIC any day.

      Delete
    2. Pat that was a lovely interview you did with that guy. You posted a blog about it not so long ago. I think hearing your voice made your humanity shine through. I thoroughly enjoyed it

      Delete
    3. I am 100% human and have the scars to prove it :-)

      Delete
  9. Priest - Snr Social Worker27 January 2017 at 10:59

    Good morning Fr Pat, Glad to see that your back on the Blog and that you're safe and well. You're hitting the "nail on the head" this morning with respect to the safeguarding coordinators in the Catholic Dioceses. Ultimate power, abuse and exploitation rests with the Bishop and if the Bishop has no concept of the meaning of a vulnerable adult and the Safeguarding Coordinator professional role is compromised because of his position of subordination or lack of knowledge as to what is deed a vulnerable adult. I have spoken directly to Aidan Gordon about the fact that students in a seminary setting are in fact vulnerable adults as they are totally reliant and dependent for the roof over their head. When I challenged Mons ignore Denis O'Callaghan and Bishop John Magee as to the abuse that I was subjected to in St Patrick 's College, Thurles there was no appreciation whatsoever so to my level of vulnerability. In 1987 I was accused by Dr John Magee of things that I never did and never afforded due process or afforded the opportunity to clear my good name. In 1998, 12 days before I was due to have surgery for a brain tumour I was informed that what took place never happened by no other than Monsignor Denis O" Calaghan. It never happened. What did Ian Elliot encounter in Cloyne? It would appear that the bishop / archbishop is the "setter" and that the safeguarding director is the "lapdog". What is required is that Canon Law needs to be answerable to Civil Legislation and State takes responsibility for the safeguarding and protection of all its citizens in its jurisdiction whether it is a religious institution or not should make no difference. Protection is the name of the game. When I questioned and challenged Monsignor Denis O' Calaghan on the Fr Brendan Smith abuse in 1993 I was told that I would turn out like the "rebel priest in Larne Fr Pat Buckley"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saw a programme on BBC 2 last night The Cult Next Door. Amazing how people can be controlled...

      Delete
  10. What we need now is open support for Pat from the ordinary priests working at parish level.
    Let's hope they won't abandon us sheep the way some of our G Ps are thinking of doing.
    Don't be afraid of the challenges that are staring Out at you, we the people will support you.

    ReplyDelete
  11. In my Diocese the only time I met the safeguarding Officer was when we met for meals in expensive restaurants. She used her time to get the low down from me on fellow clergy. When I offered to pay being the gentleman that I am, she always refused saying she would put it on her expense account. My reply was another large glass of Sauvignon Blanc please. English PP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another English PP told me a similiar story.

      Delete
    2. I am glad to hear that we, from very modest households,are doing out bit to "Feed the poor" when we put our cash on the Sunday morning chapel plate. (Hope the PP enjoyed his dinner--)

      Delete
    3. @16:19, no, @13:42 is not called Legion - he has a name that is extremely well known to all blog readers and here is a clue - latae sententiae :-)

      Delete
  12. We are MANY and we will not stop until YOU are stopped!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon at 1342 - you wouldn't happen to be calle LEGION would you?

      Delete
    2. 15.58 Lol
      I love a glass of wine too, but usually I have to pay 6 .70 euro
      Fortunately I'm the driver mostly so actually can't
      have anything other than water.

      Delete
    3. @13:42. You're probably just one really, one really sad, lonely git hiding behind a computer screen because you can no longer hide in a gay sauna due to this blog. If you live a holy and wholesome life than this blog is no threat.

      Delete
  13. Pat, why do u bother posting negative posts ?
    They don't add anything to the serios discussions on here
    And they certainly aren't humour.

    ReplyDelete
  14. MourneManMichael27 January 2017 at 18:49

    Anon @ 16:29: Perhaps it could be argued that there is indeed something humorous inasmuch as their customary lack of coherence, grammatical errors and misspellings can give rise to much mirth.
    MMM

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hope all went well for you yesterday Big Hank
    Was thinking of you
    You know Michael I used to post on a forum lots and I never liked anyone pulling me up on my grammar
    Even though I did the 11 plus , had a grammar education, I promptly forgot everything once the texting got introduced.
    I speak culchie, write culchie and am in fact a culchie
    I not even sure about my faith anymore either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Grammar whats that but a tool to be used by liars.

      It what comes from the heart that makes us who we are. The buckets that we have for mouths eats unhealthy shite and can spew it in many forms.

      As for faith you can't loose it just misplace it in the earthly realms of man. The Devine does go away

      Delete
  16. What about the hacking carry on +Pat? Any more developments?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Very quiet here today. Where are you Pat? Hope you are ok. Praying for you. Stay safe.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The US bishops put in place very stringent rules about the treatment of priests following any complaint of sexual impropriety (no matter how flimsy) but did not forget to exclude themselves totally from those same rules, treating themselves as being totally above suspicion.

    ReplyDelete