1 October 2018

Cardinal Cormac and Kieran Conry

So a solitary accusation of abuse has been made by one person, a long time later than the alleged event, and made when Cormac is dead and cannot defend himself.

It would be irresponsible to regard such an accusation with anything other than the most immense reserve.

The independant British Commission on the sexual abuse of children will doubtless subject the Catholic Church to the same close scrutiny as it will the BBC and already has the Church of England. And, goodness me, what a hammering it has given my own old diocese of Chichester. I continue to wonder why the Media have so little interest in publicising Anglican sexual abuse compared with their obsessive concentration on the failings of Catholic clerics in this area.

But the abuse of children is not the only sexual activity Catholic clerics ... and all Catholics ... are supposed to avoid. Nor is homosexual activity the only form of sexual deviance. Adultery does, after all, get its own dishonourable mention in the Decalogue, and British and Irish Bishops have a dodgy record here. Casey of Kerry and Galway was followed by Wright of Argyle and the Isles and Conry of Arundel and Brighton.

I regard Adultery as a major form of sexual abuse of the young. This is because of my professional experience of the disastrous effects marital infidelity and break-up can have upon the young.

Questions have never been addressed about who knew what and when concerning Bishop Kieran Conry's life-style.

I hope that the furore about the abuse of children will not continue to obscure the need for honest disclosure about the extent of Murphy O'Connor's knowledge, at the time of Conry's Consecration, of what Conry was getting up to.


Thorfinn said...

The allegation against Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor was made during his lifetime, when he could defend himself. Whether the accusation had merit, or was handled appropriately, and why it has become public now but not then, are a separate set of questions.

John Patrick said...

Solitary accusations of abuse made a long time after they allegedly occurred seem to be all the rage on this side of the pond when the alleged perpetrator is a pro-life Catholic and are of course to be taken seriously even if the alleged victim could not remember the location or date of the abuse and not sure as to the year it occurred and none of those she claimed were present remember the perpetrator being there. But we have to investigate because ya'know #metoo. I guess I'll stop there as I have used up my quota of "allegeds" for today.

cogito said...

The Judge Cavenaugh accuser will destroy the #metoo movement forever. After her performance no woman will be given credibility again

IanW said...

The question is: were the procedures followed in England & Wales and in Rome, as for any other priest; and if not, how was that decision made and by whom.

It may be that the procedures should be revised, but that is another matter.

coradcorloquitur said...

I fear, Cogito, that as long as those on the side of truth and justice continue to be as cowardly as they have so far shown themselves to be, the forces of evil, liberal distortion and calumny, and diabolical feminism will continue to devastate what remains of the formerly Christian world. The Left has no compunction about lying and persisting in their lies with brazen self-assurance. In my opinion, the only possible success President Trump can now have in nominating a Supreme Court judge would be to nominate a woman of impeccable credentials---and even she will be tortured to death by the evil people who promote the globalist, liberal agenda (among them, of course, Pope Francis, who always has something to say to promote the anti-Christian agenda).

Unknown said...

I am always amazed that juries are prepared to convict based on one man or woman's testimony regarding events alleged to have happened 40 years ago. How can it be considered to have been proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' when usually there is no corroborating evidence at all and it is just one person's word against another.

With regard to erring priests and bishops it is common for people to have heard rumours about wrong-doing (in the case of the Bishop of Arundel it appears to have been common knowledge) or even to be concerned about suspicious behaviour but what exactly are they supposed to do about it - in the absence of any proof? Surely it isn't right to lay accusations based on rumour or hearsay. If the case involved a bishop then quite probably his priests would be aware of it but apart from a direct appeal to Rome what should their cause of action be?

Paul said...

"the Media have so little interest in publicising Anglican sexual abuse". Have you forgotten about Bishop Peter Ball?