Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni.cristiani
Titolo: Per documentare e non dimenticare, riposto le conclusioni del rapporto all'origine del monumento commemorativo.

Sexual abuse
6.18Sexual abuse was endemic in boys' institutions. The situation in girls'
institutions was different. Although girls were subjected to predatory
sexual abuse by male employees or visitors or in outside placements, sexual
abuse was not systemic in girls' schools.
6.19It is impossible to determine the full extent of sexual abuse committed
in boys' schools. The schools investigated revealed a substantial level of
sexual abuse of boys in care that extended over a range from improper
touching and fondling to rape with violence. Perpetrators of abuse were able
to operate undetected for long periods at the core of institutions.
6.20Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of
public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the
Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator.
When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally
reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be
abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Garda�.
The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were
disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points
to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness
of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who
offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the
Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that
knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that
it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This
assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a
criminal offence.
6.21The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious
authorities.
The documents revealed that sexual abusers were often long-term offenders
who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the
Congregations' claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not
understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of
the propensity for abusers to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the
Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should
the abuse be disclosed. The danger to children was not taken into account.
6.22When confronted with evidence of sexual abuse, the response of the
religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location
where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again. Permitting an offender
to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working as a
lay teacher.
Men who were discovered to be sexual abusers were allowed to take
dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order.
There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within
days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions
of sexual abuse. The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
6.23Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent
problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.
Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in
secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the
underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were no protocols or
guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory
behaviour. The management did not listen to or believe children when they
complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for
their care. At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the
harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted
by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.
6.24In the exceptional circumstances where opportunities for disclosing
abuse arose, the number of sexual abusers identified increased
significantly.
For a brief period in the 1940s, boys felt able to speak about sexual abuse
in confidence at a sodality that met in one school. Brothers were identified
by the boys as sexual abusers and were removed as a result. The sodality was
discontinued. In another school, one Brother embarked on a campaign to
uncover sexual activity in the school and identified a number of religious
who were sexual abusers. This indicated that the level of sexual abuse in
boys' institutions was much higher than was revealed by the records or could
be discovered by this investigation. Authoritarian management systems
prevented disclosures by staff and served to perpetuate abuse.
6.25The Congregational authorities did not listen to or believe people who
complained of sexual abuse that occurred in the past, notwithstanding the
extensive evidence that emerged from Garda investigations, criminal
convictions and witness accounts.
Some Congregations remained defensive and disbelieving of much of the
evidence heard by the Investigation Committee in respect of sexual abuse in
institutions, even in cases where men had been convicted in court and
admitted to such behaviour at the hearings.
6.26In general, male religious Congregations were not prepared to accept
their responsibility for the sexual abuse that their members perpetrated.
Congregational loyalty enjoyed priority over other considerations including
safety and protection of children.
6.27Older boys sexually abused younger boys and the system did not offer
protection from bullying of this kind.
There was evidence that boys who were victims of sexual abuse were
physically punished as severely as the perpetrator when the abuse was
reported or discovered. Inevitably, boys learned to suffer in silence rather
than report the abuse and face punishment.
6.28Sexual abuse of girls was generally taken seriously by the Sisters in
charge and lay staff were dismissed when their activities were discovered.
However, nuns' attitudes and mores made it difficult for them to deal with
such cases candidly and openly and victims of sexual assault felt shame and
fear of reporting sexual abuse.
Girls who were abused reported that it happened most often when they were
sent to host families for weekend, work or holiday placements. They did not
feel able to report abusive behaviour to the Sisters in charge of the
schools for fear of disbelief and punishment if they did.
6.29Sexual abuse by members of religious Orders was seldom brought to the
attention of the Department of Education by religious authorities because of
a culture of silence about the issue.
When religious staff abused, the matter tended to be dealt with using
internal disciplinary procedures and Canon Law. The Garda� were not
informed. On the rare occasions when the Department was informed, it
colluded in the silence. There was a lack of transparency in how the matter
of sexual abuse was dealt with between the Congregations, dioceses and the
Department. Men with histories of sexual abuse when they were members of
religious Orders continued their teaching careers as lay teachers in State
schools.
6.30The Department of Education dealt inadequately with complaints about
sexual abuse. These complaints were generally dismissed or ignored. A full
investigation of the extent of the abuse should have been carried out in all
cases.
All such complaints should have been directed to the Gardai for
investigation.
The Department, however, gave the impression that it had a function in
relation to investigating allegations of abuse but actually failed to do so
and delayed the involvement of the proper authority. The Department
neglected to advise parents and complainants appropriately of the
limitations of their role in respe

 
Una domanda: qual'e' la struttura di "governance" di queste istituzioni? 
    Come si collega alle gerarchie ecclesiastiche?
Ciao
L.

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:h4uieg$qo7$1...@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...

http://www.childabusecommission.ie/